Single Issue Voter?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by tandeetaylor
I'm sorry that I copped out about where rights come from. The truth is I don't how to explain where rights are derived from. I'm not very skilled in that type of discourse at this point in my life. Hopefully someday I will be.

Fair enough. "I don't know how to explain my opinions" is fine by me, "you are stupid and/or immoral for not having the same opinions as me" is not.

...I know what the dictionary defines selfish as. But I think it's wrong. Surely it was written by men, and they are not infallible. We give language its meaning, by its usage. If this was not the case, the dictionary would never have to be revised.

I view the dictionary as an objective standard for language, meaning that people cannot arbitrarily redefine words -- once that starts, language becomes meaningless ("What definition of 'is' are you using" situations). That doesn't mean that people can't redefine words, it's just that they need to provide a good justification for doing so.

And I have never been malicious. Maliciousness implies intent, and surely I know best my intents. I am simply blunt. I'd rather be blunt than non-commital or dishonest. No, I didn't have to say the things that I said to be honest, but I don't shrink from hurting people's feelings. You said what you said for the express purpose of hurting my feelings. I have never done any such thing.

You didn't need to start throwing insults, yet you did anyway -- that, to me, implies malicious intent, because what other possible reason could you have for throwing around unnecessary insults? Hence I called you immoral (for being malicious), a sociopath (for being insulting), a child (since children aren't necessarily immoral, they often just have highly undeveloped moral systems) and a fool (e.g. for implying that you know my personal employment situation so well that you could pass judgment on my work ethic, when in fact you'd completely missed the fact that I'm self-employed at the moment). If it hurts your feelings to be called these things, then I'm sorry, but if you wish to avoid having your feelings hurt in the future then please avoid behaving like you have in this thread (e.g. stop throwing around insults that add nothing to the discourse).

[loinburger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Well, without having read Godel's writings on the subject, I'm gonna have to disagree.
...
What we call "logic" simply seems to be our articulation for a natural condition, in the same way that the word "rights" is also an articulation of a natural condition.

I found a summary of Godel's work:

Godel is best known for his proof of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems. In 1931 he published these results in Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme. He proved fundamental results about axiomatic systems showing in any axiomatic mathematical system there are propositions that cannot be proved or disproved within the axioms of the system. In particular the consistency of the axioms cannot be proved.

This ended a hundred years of attempts to establish axioms to put the whole of mathematics on an axiomatic basis. One major attempt had been by Bertrand Russell with Principia Mathematica (1910-13). Another was Hilbert's formalism which was dealt a severe blow by Gödel's results. The theorem did not destroy the fundamental idea of formalism, but it did demonstrate that any system would have to be more comprehensive than that envisaged by Hilbert's.

Gödel's results were a landmark in 20th-century mathematics, showing that mathematics is not a finished object, as had been believed. It also implies that a computer can never be programmed to answer all mathematical questions.

From another source:

Gödel's incompleteness theorems are two celebrated theorems in mathematical logic proven by Kurt Gödel in 1930. Somewhat simplified, the first theorem states that in any axiomatic system sufficiently strong to allow one to do basic arithmetic, one can construct a statement that

- EITHER -

can be neither proven nor disproven within that system

- OR -

can be both proven and disproven within that system.

In the first case, we call the axiomatic system incomplete, in the second case we call it inconsistent. A short version of the first incompletenes theorem is therefore: "Any sufficiently strong consistent axiomatic system is incomplete."

Gödel's second incompleteness theorem, which is proved by formalizing part of the proof of the first within the system itself, states that a sufficiently strong consistent system cannot prove its own consistency.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by DanS
Laz: Did you look for part time jobs? Did you try piecing together a couple of these?

"Banks are not noted for extending credit facilities to people living on unemployment benefit"

Nowadays they are available to students, however. We have to recast your experience to present time, which is a little difficult.

"Keep the helpful suggestions coming..."

I think we can do without this attitude. You opened your situation to criticism when you told it. I'm just fleshing it out by exploring options that I have found helpful for myself in similar circumstances, except without recourse to unemployment.

"Attitude", Dan? Sorry, but I reserve the right to a quiet chuckle in the face of the absurd. In using my own example to demonstrate the fact that it's possible to be honestly unemployed and needing state support I've been called, respectively, a thief, a sham, guilty of theft (that was from David who'll happily suggest I'm guilty of theft but won't actually call me a thief in case it makes him look nasty) and now I've got yourself suggesting "Well it must have been your fault in some way, of course". In itself that's not too bad, but do you realise how divorced from grim reality you sound at times?

Can I pose a question, Dan? Are you Marie Antoinette?

"No bread? Economy's ****ed? Hey! Eat cake then!"

"No income? Economy's ****ed? Hey! Use a credit card then!"

At least it's a novel one. Usually I get told "Ask your parents for money" by posters still sporting their umbilical cords with pride. Usually their parents aren't unemployed or on Invalidity Benefit either.

OK- I'm being cruel there, and I'm sorry. However I genuinely hooted with laughter when you suggested punishing the plastic.

How many times am I going to have to keep returning to the figures, Dan? [BOLD]15-20% of the workforce with no jobs in an extended recession. [/BOLD] As I said, I don't think a lot of those calling for the abolition of welfare have any concept of what it's like to be unemployed in such a recession and, believe me, you're reinforcing that view. Hello Dan? No jobs! Even part time ones! Do you honestly think that avenue hadn't occurred to me?

I got a job. It just took a few months. Many were out of work for years, but I'm well-qualified and very determined. However a few months is long enough to starve in.

Perhaps if you found yourself in such a condition you might try avoiding claiming the dole, and maxing up all your credit facilities instead. In my time working in debt recovery I encountered people who did similar things. Do you know what I did to them, Dan? I withdrew their credit facilities, placed them on credit blacklists and instigated county court proceedings against them .

Because, Dan, continuing to borrow money on credit cards when your circumstances have radically changed from the circumstances under which you obtained the credit, and you have no means of repaying that credit, can leave you committing fraud. What's more, unlike the accusations of theft that have been levelled at me in this thread, this type of theft carries the weight of the law behind it.

The real problem is that I think we have people who tend to assume that one claiming unemployment benefit must be in some way culpable- that they are displaying weakness or anti-social traits. I feel they think of them as "them"- as some sort of unpleasant lumpen mass. Is this form of prejudice the socially-acceptable replacement for hating the darkies or the queers? At times I feel it is. On this very forum Che's struggling right now, and I hope they can display rather more sympathy with him than gets shown here.

I hope you never find yourself in such circumstances. If it happens, I hope to God you've got the sense to claim the assistance you are entitled to. Don't expect any degree of respect from me if you don't, because I'll just think you're being daft.

[DanS]

.

[DanS]

"I've been called...

Not by me.

"Perhaps if you found yourself in such a condition you might try avoiding claiming the dole, and maxing up all your credit facilities instead."

I had little recourse to the dole. And yes, I had credit facilities.

"I'm being cruel there"

Not cruel at all. Who were you describing?

"Are you Marie Antoinette?"

That's unfair, and I think it reflects on your outlook. There doesn't appear to be room in your experience for other, equally valid realities that people here might provide.

I don't know what I can add so I'm bowing out of this abortion of a discussion. As far as I'm concerned, it's The Grapes of Wrath versus Atlas Shrugged. What a waste of bandwidth.

[David Floyd]

They don't need a government with all of the bells and whistles, but I said previously that language supercedes government.

With you so far, language can be there without government.

However, they do require a fairly stable social order. Two people aren't going to communicate with one another if their intent is to kill one another, or if their social interactions are minimal to non-existent --

If a person sees another person, his first instinct would not be to kill the other person.
And I don't believe for a second that social interactions were ever "minimal to nonexistent".

communication would form quite easily under a clan structure, but two strangers would probably never find it necessary to come up with such complex terms as "right" and "wrong" or "property" or "rights." Lug just needs to wave his spear around in order for Grog to leave him in peace.

No, they wouldn't need words such as "property rights", but they would surely have a concept of "mine" and "yours".

You were saying that men only banded together for protection prior to the advent of agrictulture, and I was saying that this isn't true -- they've always banded together under the premise that 10 people together could take out a wooly mammoth, while 10 people separately would be mammoth fodder.

OK, I'll grant you that. This seems to be an ancillary point that I was trying to agree to from the beginning, though, I just went about agreeing the wrong way

Why would a distinction such as "My rock" and "Not my rock" matter if somebody were the only person in the world?

If that was the case, then why would it matter if there was a right to walk through the forest?
The fact is, there was never a time with only one human on earth, so that part of the debate is pretty academic, at best, and totally silly, most realistically.

Within a society, though, he may never have the opportunity to put his talent to good use if he cannot even get a basic education -- in a state of nature he would have been quite skilled and successful, while in society he might wind up digging ditches on a starvation wage.

Why should he receive an education in a state of nature if he can't receive one in a society? That doesn't seem to make any sense.

Property is not a "natural" advantage. It isn't something that is inherent to somebody's person, unlike strength or intelligence.

Property itself is not an inherent right - something I was trying to point out to you in a different section - but the right to be able to own property is an inherent right. When I say the "right to property", that's what I mean.

I'd thought that a state of nature would assume that there would be no adverse effects of society to contend with (like water pollution).

You're saying there's no such thing as natural water pollution? If a herd of deer all use the river as their toilet, and you drink the water downstream, not understanding things like germs, that can't be good for you. There is also natural bacteria, etc.

This is only an option of they have the capital available to start their own factory. Without the necessary capital they don't have the opportunity to compete. Even if they have the necessary capital (through a loan, perhaps), they had better hope that they have much more capital available than the owner of the first factory, because otherwise the first owner will just cut his prices (and take a loss) until the new factory is run out of business. Hopefully the new factory owner only lost his own savings during the whole affair, because if he got that capital through a loan then he's saddled with debt for the rest of his life.

If enough people are upset by the "unfair" actions of the first factory owner, then doesn't it stand to reason that both his workers and his customers will go to the second factory owner to work/make purchases, because the second factory owner is operating in a way they probably deem as fair?

Sure, people may be too LAZY to change, but that's an indictment of people, not the system.

While my point is that rights are language and society dependent, and so a change in language/society will effect a change in rights.

I thought we'd already been through this. Language gives one the ability to articulate and define rights, but the rights are still there. If someone is forcing you to work in their fields, and you don't want to, but you'll be killed if you don't do it, then you probably have some idea that something's wrong, even if you can't articulate exactly what.

And rights predate society - one of the reasons people form society is to protect their rights. Probably the initial reason the form society is to protect the right to life, but they also form them to protect their property rights and their liberty.

You probably can find "mine" in any given language (though the languages of more primitive communal cultures may not incorporate a concept of personal possession, but I'm no anthropologist), but that doesn't mean that the concept would exist independently of language. Wolf-boys (children abandoned before they learn any concept of language who manage to survive in the wild) don't show any apparent recognition that something can "belong" to somebody else.

Maybe, but we're talking about the concept of "mine", not the concept of "yours". Granted, they both have to do with property, but if someone has a sense that something belongs to them, they have a sense of property rights.

Grog understands the concept of "survival," but he doesn't need to understand the concept of a "right to life" in order to fight back when threatened. Animals have a concept of survival as well (since they try to survive), but that doesn't necessarily mean that animals have a concept of a "right to life."

The vital difference is that animals aren't human. There are a great number of things that set humans apart from animals. I'm not a zoologist or a doctor or anything of the sort, so don't expect a technical definition, but I think we can both agree in principle on that concept, right?

No. I'm saying that somebody's right to property is a function of how much property they possess, and that two people would only have an equal right to property if they had substantively equivalent amounts of property. I've previously said that equality of property ownership (communism) is unfair.

I don't think quantities of property have anything to do with it. Bill Gates does not have any more property rights than I do - the concept of property rights is not quantitative. He simply owns more stuff.

My point has been that if somebody has a responsibility (above and beyond the basic responsibility to respect the rights of others) to society that is related to the benefit they derive from society. The guy on the starvation diet isn't deriving much benefit from society, so his responsibilities toward society are minimal. The merchant prince is greatly benefitted by society, and so his responsibilities toward society are significant.

But the merchant prince, or his ancestors, did something in order to become affluent. People didn't jus take up a collection and give the money to him, he earned it. I fail to see why that gives him any greater responsibilities other than respecting the rights of others. It doesn't really seem to logically follow that having more stuff equates to a responsibility to give some of your stuff away.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
And I don't believe for a second that social interactions were ever "minimal to nonexistent".

But then why do "natural" rights matter, if social interactions have always been present?

No, they wouldn't need words such as "property rights", but they would surely have a concept of "mine" and "yours".

They wouldn't have this concept if it didn't matter. In a communal clan structure, it wouldn't make sense to have a concept of personal property if there were no such thing as personal property.

If that was the case, then why would it matter if there was a right to walk through the forest?
The fact is, there was never a time with only one human on earth, so that part of the debate is pretty academic, at best, and totally silly, most realistically.

The point is that in a state of nature (a state without any society whatsoever) there would be no concept of rights, so using an argument for "natural" rights makes no sense. It doesn't make natural rights any more valid to say that a state of nature never existed.

Why should he receive an education in a state of nature if he can't receive one in a society? That doesn't seem to make any sense.

Somebody wouldn't necessarily need a Ph.D to survive in a state of nature, they'd only need natural attributes like intelligence, strength, etc. In society these natural attributes are still relevant, but so are "unnatural" attributes like level of education and level of wealth.

Property itself is not an inherent right - something I was trying to point out to you in a different section - but the right to be able to own property is an inherent right. When I say the "right to property", that's what I mean.

I still don't see how the ability to own property is an inherent right, when property itself is not "natural" (or independent of society). In a completely communal society, for example, there would be no "right" to own property because there would be no private property -- only in a society that has created and utilized a concept of "private property" or "ownership" could this right exist.

You're saying there's no such thing as natural water pollution? If a herd of deer all use the river as their toilet, and you drink the water downstream, not understanding things like germs, that can't be good for you. There is also natural bacteria, etc.

Filtration of natural pollutants has not existed since time immemorial, so it makes no sense to claim that somebody cannot live without water treatment facilities -- if that were the case, then the human race would have died out thousands of years ago.

If enough people are upset by the "unfair" actions of the first factory owner, then doesn't it stand to reason that both his workers and his customers will go to the second factory owner to work/make purchases, because the second factory owner is operating in a way they probably deem as fair?

Sure, people may be too LAZY to change, but that's an indictment of people, not the system.

Why should the customers care about the unfair labor practices of the first factory owner? They're getting a good deal from his price war with the second factor owner.

Also, a worker strike will only work if the workers are still able to eat. If the only employment in the town are the first factory owner (who pays starvation wages, but at least they're wages) and the second factory owner (who isn't making enough profit to pay his workers, since he's being undercut by the first factory owner), then how can you reasonably expect the workers in the town to not work for the first factory owner? "Working to stay alive" is hardly the same thing as "laziness."

I thought we'd already been through this. Language gives one the ability to articulate and define rights, but the rights are still there. If someone is forcing you to work in their fields, and you don't want to, but you'll be killed if you don't do it, then you probably have some idea that something's wrong, even if you can't articulate exactly what.

Your example relies on social interaction. Without social interaction somebody can't have their rights tread upon, because without social interaction there is no concept of individual rights. If you could provide an example of how somebody's rights can be violated without social interaction then you'll have me pretty much sold on this natural rights business. Otherwise, I fail to see how somebody could have rights without social interaction.

And rights predate society - one of the reasons people form society is to protect their rights. Probably the initial reason the form society is to protect the right to life, but they also form them to protect their property rights and their liberty.

If you're using "society" to mean "government," then I agee. If you're using "society" to mean "social interaction," then I disagree, because the concept of rights relies on reason (which in turn relies on social interaction).

Maybe, but we're talking about the concept of "mine", not the concept of "yours". Granted, they both have to do with property, but if someone has a sense that something belongs to them, they have a sense of property rights.

Someone can have a sense that they want something without having a sense of "property." A dog doesn't have to understand property rights in order to snap at somebody trying to take "its" food.

The vital difference is that animals aren't human. There are a great number of things that set humans apart from animals. I'm not a zoologist or a doctor or anything of the sort, so don't expect a technical definition, but I think we can both agree in principle on that concept, right?

Yes, animals aren't human, but it is primarily the human's use of complex forms of communication that sets the human apart. Take that away, and the human is functionally no different from an animal, at least until the language gap has been rectified.

I don't think quantities of property have anything to do with it. Bill Gates does not have any more property rights than I do - the concept of property rights is not quantitative. He simply owns more stuff.

If property rights aren't defined by social interaction, and if they aren't natural (since a single human wouldn't have a concept of property), then what defines property rights?

But the merchant prince, or his ancestors, did something in order to become affluent. People didn't jus take up a collection and give the money to him, he earned it. I fail to see why that gives him any greater responsibilities other than respecting the rights of others. It doesn't really seem to logically follow that having more stuff equates to a responsibility to give some of your stuff away.

He worked hard in order to become affluent, which is why communism is unfair (it isn't fair that he should reap no additional rewards for his work). However, he owes his affluence in part to society, since without a stable (and at least to some extent prosperous) society he would never have had the opportunity to translate his hard work into affluence, hence as somebody becomes more affluent their "debt" (or responsibility, whatever) to society becomes greater.

Look at it this way (hopefully this analogy will work): Spiritual enlightenment (or salvation, or whatever particular flavor you ascribe to) can only be attained through hard work (meditation, prayer, introspection, right living, etc.), but first one must have the opportunity to become enlightened. Somebody who has never been exposed to the teachings of the Buddha, or Jesus, or Mohammed, etc. will not have the same opportunity to attain enlightenment as somebody who has been exposed to such teachings. Those who have attained greater levels of enlightenment owe a great deal to their hard work, but they also owe a great deal to the opportunities that they first utilized, and they have a subsequent responsibility to attempt to provide the same opportunities to others (by whatever means they deem most appropriate). The closer one comes to spiritual excellence, the more they owe to both their hard work and to the initial opportunities that they utilized. If they hoard the reapings of their hard work then they are blatantly ignoring the fact that they alone did not do the sowing.

Edit: To complete the analogy, I ought to add that the person seeking spiritual excellence is slowed on his path by teaching others -- he spends time teaching that would otherwise have been spent bettering himself through meditation/prayer/study/whatever.

[David Floyd]

Fear not - I'm not abandoning this thread...I just don't have time to post anything this morning. Hopefully later today...

I think we've driven off everyone else though

[loinburger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Fear not - I'm not abandoning this thread...I just don't have time to post anything this morning. Hopefully later today...

No problem, we're getting to the point where I'll occasionally have to mull over my responses for a day or two anyway.

I think we've driven off everyone else though

Fear not, I predict that somebody will eventually keep us company by posting something like "Single issue voting is bad..."

[JohnT]

Single issue voting is bad, mkay?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DanS
I don't know what I can add so I'm bowing out of this abortion of a discussion. As far as I'm concerned, it's The Grapes of Wrath versus Atlas Shrugged. What a waste of bandwidth.

It took you this long to figure it out? Why do you think I've stayed far away from this discussion.

[David Floyd]

But then why do "natural" rights matter, if social interactions have always been present?

Well, social interactions don't (necessarily) make a society. A group of people can work together to take down a mammoth, divvy up the meat ten ways, and then each retire to their own cave to eat it. Maybe they'll work together again later, or maybe five of them will be dead next week.

They wouldn't have this concept if it didn't matter. In a communal clan structure, it wouldn't make sense to have a concept of personal property if there were no such thing as personal property.

But surely you must concede that even in a communal clan structure, there is at least the concept of "myself". If you can accept that much, then I would propose that the concept of "myself" leads to the concept of "my life", which implies "not yours". Starting with something as relatively simple and non-controversial as that, I think the articulation of property rights logically follows.

The point is that in a state of nature (a state without any society whatsoever) there would be no concept of rights, so using an argument for "natural" rights makes no sense.

Right, but the argument is that they exist, whether or not they happen to be relevant or articulated or thought about at that particular moment. In a state of nature, it's just as wrong for Grog to kill Lug as it is for Bill to kill Jim in a "society".

Somebody wouldn't necessarily need a Ph.D to survive in a state of nature, they'd only need natural attributes like intelligence, strength, etc. In society these natural attributes are still relevant, but so are "unnatural" attributes like level of education and level of wealth.

Right, but in a state of nature, all of your exceptional strength and/or intelligence aren't going to matter because a)there is always someone stronger or smarter than you, and b)two or three people are collectively much stronger, which makes up for any intelligence gap. Sure, you might get one of them with your clever trap, but you still have two more people gunning (spearing? ) for you.

I still don't see how the ability to own property is an inherent right, when property itself is not "natural" (or independent of society). In a completely communal society, for example, there would be no "right" to own property because there would be no private property -- only in a society that has created and utilized a concept of "private property" or "ownership" could this right exist.

Answered above.

Filtration of natural pollutants has not existed since time immemorial, so it makes no sense to claim that somebody cannot live without water treatment facilities -- if that were the case, then the human race would have died out thousands of years ago.

Well, I would say that our life expectancy has a lot to do with water filtration. Drinking pollutant water is bad for you, no matter how used to it you are. At some point, you WILL get sick from it, and you WILL die, either because of the water directly, or because you are too weak from sickness to protect yourself.

Why should the customers care about the unfair labor practices of the first factory owner? They're getting a good deal from his price war with the second factor owner.

Certainly, and this means it is in their interest to keep this price war going.

Also, a worker strike will only work if the workers are still able to eat.

Who's talking about striking? My point was that the second factory owner can easily recruit workers from the discontented employees of the first factory.

If the only employment in the town are the first factory owner (who pays starvation wages, but at least they're wages) and the second factory owner (who isn't making enough profit to pay his workers, since he's being undercut by the first factory owner),

But there's the minor problem that the workers of the first factory are now employed at the second factory, assuming the second factory owner did his job right. This means that the first factory owner has to find and train replacement workers - and how is he going to keep production up during this time?

Without social interaction somebody can't have their rights tread upon, because without social interaction there is no concept of individual rights.

I'll readily grant that - a solitary man in the forest can't have his rights tread upon by another man, because there aren't any, and hence no need to even articulate or think about rights.

But that doesn't on its own mean that the rights don't exist. Lack of knowledge or concept of something does not mean that something doesn't exist - for instance, early man would have had no concept of the existence of Venus, but Venus was still there, waiting to be discovered.

because the concept of rights relies on reason (which in turn relies on social interaction).

No, the articulation of rights relies upon social interaction, but even this can be qualified somewhat, as a solitary man is going to have a problem with a bear killing him.

Someone can have a sense that they want something without having a sense of "property." A dog doesn't have to understand property rights in order to snap at somebody trying to take "its" food.

First of all, using animals is not really valid because of the fact that most of their actions are based solely upon instinct.

Secondly, we're really making the same argument here. I said that one does not have to understand or even think about property rights in order to have a sense of, for lack of a better word, "possessiveness". You said that someone can have a sense of what they want without having a sense of property rights.

We're arguing the same point, it seems.

Yes, animals aren't human, but it is primarily the human's use of complex forms of communication that sets the human apart. Take that away, and the human is functionally no different from an animal, at least until the language gap has been rectified.

That's not really true. Animals are much more heavily reliant upon instinct than humans are, while humans are much more reliant upon learned behavior.

If property rights aren't defined by social interaction, and if they aren't natural (since a single human wouldn't have a concept of property), then what defines property rights?

Property rights ARE defined by social interaction, in the sense that social interaction is required for one to come up with an articulation of property rights. If this is what you mean, then I agree. The same pretty much holds true for life and liberty.

But those rights still exist, even if no one knows what they are, understands them, or can talk about them. As I've said above, murder is still wrong.

However, he owes his affluence in part to society, since without a stable (and at least to some extent prosperous) society he would never have had the opportunity to translate his hard work into affluence, hence as somebody becomes more affluent their "debt" (or responsibility, whatever) to society becomes greater.

I still don't see how. True, being in a stable society enabled them to become wealthy. But, being in a society does not necessarily entitle one to the same benefits everyone else has. Society does pretty much guarantee one benefit you would not have outside of society - a much greater likelihood of staying alive. Thus, in some way, everyone is already deriving some benefit from society. Just because someone is able to work within society to derive a greater benefit doesn't mean others have any claim to those benefits.

Look at it this way (hopefully this analogy will work): Spiritual enlightenment (or salvation, or whatever particular flavor you ascribe to) can only be attained through hard work (meditation, prayer, introspection, right living, etc.), but first one must have the opportunity to become enlightened. Somebody who has never been exposed to the teachings of the Buddha, or Jesus, or Mohammed, etc. will not have the same opportunity to attain enlightenment as somebody who has been exposed to such teachings. Those who have attained greater levels of enlightenment owe a great deal to their hard work, but they also owe a great deal to the opportunities that they first utilized, and they have a subsequent responsibility to attempt to provide the same opportunities to others (by whatever means they deem most appropriate). The closer one comes to spiritual excellence, the more they owe to both their hard work and to the initial opportunities that they utilized. If they hoard the reapings of their hard work then they are blatantly ignoring the fact that they alone did not do the sowing.

I'm not really sure I see the relevance of this religious analogy. There are many religious arguments, from a Christianity perspective, that I could make that would make some of the points within the analogy false and irrelevant. This isn't a religious debate, though, so I'm not going to go down that route.

Instead, I'm going to point out that religion and society are not the same thing. One does not derive any particular or immediate benefit from belonging to a certain religion, whereas one derives a particular and immediate benefit from belonging to a society - life. Religion in no way guarantees or even increases the likelihood of one staying alive. Sure, some people may SAY that rubbing Buddhas stomach or praying 8 times a day to the Feces God will help you live longer, but I give that as much credence as there is evidence for it - little to none.

Further, in a religion, helping others achieve enlightenment is most likely a mandatory factor in that religion. Christians (and I would imagine Muslims and Jews) are commanded to share their faith with others. This has nothing to do with the "unsaved" helping the "saved" with their salvation (as you claim the poor have something to do with the wealth of the rich, which I'm not going to substantially deny), but simply with the religion imposing a duty to convert others.

See what I'm getting at? I could point out other differences, but this'll do for now.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Well, social interactions don't (necessarily) make a society. A group of people can work together to take down a mammoth, divvy up the meat ten ways, and then each retire to their own cave to eat it. Maybe they'll work together again later, or maybe five of them will be dead next week.

Groups of primitive hunter-gatherers did not spontaneously form and disperse, though. Anthropological evidence all points towards primitive clan structures -- f'rinstance, evidence of prehistoric campfires suggests that they are all far larger than would be called for to satisfy only individual necessity.

Besides, while social interactions don't necessarily make a government, they certainly rule out a state of nature.

But surely you must concede that even in a communal clan structure, there is at least the concept of "myself". If you can accept that much, then I would propose that the concept of "myself" leads to the concept of "my life", which implies "not yours". Starting with something as relatively simple and non-controversial as that, I think the articulation of property rights logically follows.

Obviously "me" and "you" would be natural and necessary concepts, but why would "my life" and "your life" be necessary and natural concepts? Unless there is a concept of slavery in the society (which would require a concept of property), "ownership of self" would be a completely unnecessary and unnatural concept. "Self" would be the only relevant concept.

Right, but the argument is that they exist, whether or not they happen to be relevant or articulated or thought about at that particular moment. In a state of nature, it's just as wrong for Grog to kill Lug as it is for Bill to kill Jim in a "society".

But property does not exist without social interaction, so how can property rights possibly be considered natural? Even if life and liberty were natural concepts, the concept of property would still be completely reliant on social interaction. It's not just that property rights cannot be articulated without social interaction, it's that property does not exist without social interaction.

Right, but in a state of nature, all of your exceptional strength and/or intelligence aren't going to matter because a)there is always someone stronger or smarter than you, and b)two or three people are collectively much stronger, which makes up for any intelligence gap. Sure, you might get one of them with your clever trap, but you still have two more people gunning (spearing? ) for you.

It is not logically possible for a) to be true, nor would a) necessarily be relevant even if it were true -- without social interaction the likelihood of coming into contact with a rival is decreased, since those who are stronger/smarter would presumably be doing well enough on their own that they wouldn't have to risk a potentially mortal conflict with me in order to survive, meaning that only those who are weaker/stupider than me are likely to infringe on my territory. In a state of nature, desire to survive would be a desirable trait while desire to dominate would not be -- a desire to dominate would eventually lead to one's destruction.

b) presupposes that I am not actually in a state of nature. If there is a society (in the form of two or more people trying to take me down), then I'm not in a state of nature at all.

Well, I would say that our life expectancy has a lot to do with water filtration. Drinking pollutant water is bad for you, no matter how used to it you are. At some point, you WILL get sick from it, and you WILL die, either because of the water directly, or because you are too weak from sickness to protect yourself.

Somebody who is smart enough will know where to find cleaner water sources and will also know enough to boil his water in advance. Somebody who is strong enough will have an advantage over his rivals when it comes to battling water-borne diseases. Somebody living in society does not have these advantages, though, since industrial pollutants often cannot be simply removed/reduced through boiling and are far more insidious than mere germs, so unless they can afford to have the industrial pollutants filtered from their water they're actually worse off in a state of society than in a state of nature.

Certainly, and this means it is in their interest to keep this price war going.

I have never heard of consumers buying more expensive products for the sole purposes of helping to maintain a price war. Such behavior would be inexplicable on an individual level.

Who's talking about striking? My point was that the second factory owner can easily recruit workers from the discontented employees of the first factory.

This assumes that there is not a surplus of workers (perhaps a fair assumption if the unemployed workers have all starved to death, but otherwise an unfair assumption since the lack of any kind of service industry in the town makes it so that the factories are the sole source of employment), that the first factory owner does not have a surplus of products with which to undercut his rival (which he may have sought to acquire when he realized that a rival factory was being built), and that the new factory owner does not simply enter into an agreement with the first factory owner to fix prices at a steep level and wages at a starvation level. And this entire situation assumes that the new factory owner was able to obtain the necessary capital in the first place (which wouldn't be possible on starvation wages).

But there's the minor problem that the workers of the first factory are now employed at the second factory, assuming the second factory owner did his job right. This means that the first factory owner has to find and train replacement workers - and how is he going to keep production up during this time?

See above.

I'll readily grant that - a solitary man in the forest can't have his rights tread upon by another man, because there aren't any, and hence no need to even articulate or think about rights.

But that doesn't on its own mean that the rights don't exist. Lack of knowledge or concept of something does not mean that something doesn't exist - for instance, early man would have had no concept of the existence of Venus, but Venus was still there, waiting to be discovered.

Venus is a tangible object that exists independently of human social interaction. Language is not.

No, the articulation of rights relies upon social interaction, but even this can be qualified somewhat, as a solitary man is going to have a problem with a bear killing him.

Survival is a natural concept, rights are not. A man is not going to be morally indignant at a bear's attempt to kill him -- the bear does not understand rights or morals, and isn't capable of malice.

Amoebas try to survive rather than die, but this isn't because they understand that they have a right to life and seek to protect this right, rather it's because they have an instinct to survive -- amoebas who don't have this instinct won't survive to reproduce, so their non-survival genes won't be passed on.

First of all, using animals is not really valid because of the fact that most of their actions are based solely upon instinct.

Secondly, we're really making the same argument here. I said that one does not have to understand or even think about property rights in order to have a sense of, for lack of a better word, "possessiveness". You said that someone can have a sense of what they want without having a sense of property rights.

We're arguing the same point, it seems.

A dog doesn't have a concept of property, it only has a concept that it desires food. Similarly, a man who has lived without any form of social interaction will try to prevent others from eating "his" food, not because he has a concept that the food belongs to him, but rather because he simply desires the food.

If you're saying that desires are expressions of rights, then I disagree. The man who grew up independently of social interaction will certainly desire "my" food when he grows hungry, and will likely try to take "my" food away from me by force (so long as he calculates that the risks are worth the rewards). This isn't because he's disrespecting my right to property or because he's malicious, because he has no concept of property and harming me with malicious intent would not improve his chances of survival -- he only knows that he desires food, and that he must go through me in order to acquire it. Certainly he doesn't have a right to take "my" food, but he doesn't know that... Desires may coincidentally conform to rights (my desire to protect "my" food corresponds, in polite society, to me protecting my "property rights"), but they may not (the caveman's desire to take "my" food would correspond to theft in polite society, but the caveman doesn't understand property and thus doesn't understand theft -- he only understands survival).

That's not really true. Animals are much more heavily reliant upon instinct than humans are, while humans are much more reliant upon learned behavior.

Some animals display a capability to learn and a reliance on learning (apes in particular), but no other animal displays a human's language abilities (though dolphins and whales are suspect). Any animal that is capable of learning will by necessity come to rely on this capability, or will lose this capability -- it's inefficient to have a complex brain using up so much energy if you're not going to make good use of the structure.

Property rights ARE defined by social interaction, in the sense that social interaction is required for one to come up with an articulation of property rights. If this is what you mean, then I agree. The same pretty much holds true for life and liberty.

But those rights still exist, even if no one knows what they are, understands them, or can talk about them. As I've said above, murder is still wrong.

In what way do these rights exist? Life certainly exists without social interaction (single-celled lifeforms aren't known to be socialites), liberty could be argued to exist without social interaction (though slavery isn't exactly "natural" so I don't see how something's liberty can be taken away without social interaction to define slavery or "ownership of another person"), but I don't see how property is at all natural. An animal will fight to defend a source of food or water, but it will also fight to drive another animal away from a food or water source, so if property is "natural" in the sense that an animal will kill to defend its food then it is also unnatural in the sense that an animal will also kill to take food from another animal.

"Murder" is an unnatural term. It means "unlawful killing," and laws aren't natural -- they're a product of social interaction. Murder doesn't exist in a state of nature, because nothing is unlawful in a state of nature.

I still don't see how. True, being in a stable society enabled them to become wealthy. But, being in a society does not necessarily entitle one to the same benefits everyone else has. Society does pretty much guarantee one benefit you would not have outside of society - a much greater likelihood of staying alive. Thus, in some way, everyone is already deriving some benefit from society. Just because someone is able to work within society to derive a greater benefit doesn't mean others have any claim to those benefits.

If society only provided the benefit of providing mutual protection, then everybody would be deriving the same benefits from society and they'd have the same responsibilities as well. However, society provides additional benefits (by allowing trade, invention, etc.) that can only be utilized by some, not all, of those within the society. So basically, a society in which benefits (opportunities) do not confer responsibilies is an unequal (unfair) implicit contract. If Bill and Bob put the same amount of work/investment into a mutual business venture, but Bill earns $100 from the venture while Bob earns $10, then I wouldn't want to be the one who had to explain to Bob that the contract was "fair," that he wasn't entitled to the same profit as Bill. Or, if Bill and Bob are playing a game in which they are equally competent, but Bill is awarded fifty points before the start of the game (games are played to 100 points), then the outcome of the game should surprise nobody (though doubtless somebody will attribute Bob's loss to laziness), and again I wouldn't want to be the one who had to explain to Bob that he wasn't entitled to the same handicap as Bill.

I'm not really sure I see the relevance of this religious analogy.

I was trying to come up with an analogous situation in which derivation of additional benefits confers addiitonal responsibility.

[David Floyd]

Besides, while social interactions don't necessarily make a government, they certainly rule out a state of nature.

I still don't know why you are maintaining that a state of nature and social interactions are mutually exclusive. That's really not the case. No "state of nature" philosopher - such as Hobbes - of whom I am aware makes that argument. Hobbes, as an example, DOES argue that life in a state of nature is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" and that this comes about as a result of people ****ing each other (my summation, of course ). Social interactions, then, can certainly exist in a state of nature.

Obviously "me" and "you" would be natural and necessary concepts, but why would "my life" and "your life" be necessary and natural concepts? Unless there is a concept of slavery in the society (which would require a concept of property), "ownership of self" would be a completely unnecessary and unnatural concept.

The concepts of "my life" and "your life" are simply extensions of concepts of "me" and "you". Once you object to someone killing you, you are essentially saying that "my life" cannot be taken away by "you".

And that seems to be a very natural concept.

Even if life and liberty were natural concepts, the concept of property would still be completely reliant on social interaction. It's not just that property rights cannot be articulated without social interaction, it's that property does not exist without social interaction.

You are still assuming that a state of nature excludes social interaction. That is a wrong assumption.

In a state of nature, desire to survive would be a desirable trait while desire to dominate would not be -- a desire to dominate would eventually lead to one's destruction.

A desire to survive would of course be important. Eventually, though, people would realize that they could survive "better" - or at least more enjoyably - if they lived in that nice cave much higher up that doesn't flood when it rains, or if they lived right next to the oasis.

Unfortunately, you occupy that prime real estate, and you're not going to want to move either. Hence, there is a conflict. If the person who wants to take it away is stronger, more clever, or has a bigger club, he can be reasonably confident of winning - after all, all he has to do is sneak up and bash you on the head in your sleep. He can even do this if he is weaker than you are.

b) presupposes that I am not actually in a state of nature. If there is a society (in the form of two or more people trying to take me down), then I'm not in a state of nature at all.

First of all, YOU can exist in a state of nature, even if OTHERS exist in a society. That isn't practical today, certainly, but it definitely was thousands of years ago.

Secondly, you are STILL assuming that social interaction or even cooperation creates a society. This is just not necessarily true.

Somebody who is smart enough will know where to find cleaner water sources and will also know enough to boil his water in advance. Somebody who is strong enough will have an advantage over his rivals when it comes to battling water-borne diseases. Somebody living in society does not have these advantages, though, since industrial pollutants often cannot be simply removed/reduced through boiling and are far more insidious than mere germs, so unless they can afford to have the industrial pollutants filtered from their water they're actually worse off in a state of society than in a state of nature.

Uhoh, now you're arguing two different things at once. Or at least, applying two different time periods to the same argument.

If the water is relatively unpolluted except by natural pollutants, then any existing society is not likely to be industrialized.
If a society is industrialized, the water supply is quite likely to be polluted.

In order to make a consistent example, you would have to use one of the following situations:

1)Pre-industrial. In this case, if you choose to live outside of society, the water is admittedly fairly clean in many instances. However, it is still a VERY GOOD IDEA for you to boil or otherwise purify your water. Unfortunately, this isn't really practical for you to do on your own, as you are going to find it difficult to create a pot and then build a fire every time you need some water. This is assuming you even know to boil water, which you very well might not.
People living in a society in this period are much better off. The odds are great that SOMEBODY knows to boil or purify the water, and it is much easier to keep a fire going, to find a way to keep a purified water supply, make pots for boiling water, etc. There is a huge advantage here in living in society.

2)Industrial society. In this case, if you choose to live in a state of nature (provided this is possible) you are probably ****ed in terms of water. As you have pointed out, industrial pollutants are much harder to avoid and get rid of.
On the other hand, living in a society offers many advantages - that is, modern water purification methods which are not going to be available to one in a state of nature.

Thus, when you stay consistent with your argument, it becomes clear that a society is superior to a state of nature.

I have never heard of consumers buying more expensive products for the sole purposes of helping to maintain a price war. Such behavior would be inexplicable on an individual level.

You have, presumably, heard of consumers engaging in boycotts of certain products or companies or countries, right? This certainly can drive up prices.
And consumers have willingly participated in wars that have driven up prices of certain resources.
They do so because they feel it is somehow either in their interest to do so, or they are willing to voluntarily sacrifice their interests for the good of others.

Either way, stated unequivocally that they will not do this in our example really doesn't make a lot of sense.

Venus is a tangible object that exists independently of human social interaction. Language is not.

Gravity, though, is an intangible object that exists independently of social interaction. Certain human needs and desires are intangible and exist without social interaction.

A man is not going to be morally indignant at a bear's attempt to kill him -- the bear does not understand rights or morals, and isn't capable of malice.

No, but a man is still not going to let the bear kill him, because he wants to stay alive. The bear may not be violating his rights in the same way that another man would.

But I grant you that rights cannot be violated without social interaction, and in general, rights cannot be really articulated without social interaction, either. Social interaction doesn't take away a state of nature, though.

A dog doesn't have a concept of property, it only has a concept that it desires food. Similarly, a man who has lived without any form of social interaction will try to prevent others from eating "his" food, not because he has a concept that the food belongs to him, but rather because he simply desires the food.

The difference, though, is instinct. The dog instinctively protects "his" food, while the man protects his food because it is his food, and he wants/needs it.

If you're saying that desires are expressions of rights, then I disagree.

No, I'm saying that general desires can point to rights. The desire to stay alive can point to the right to life. The desire to walk in the forest can point to the right to liberty. The desire to get and retain that really nice flower can point to the right to property. That isn't to say that all desires point to rights, only that those desires that exist naturally can point to rights.

Some animals display a capability to learn and a reliance on learning (apes in particular), but no other animal displays a human's language abilities (though dolphins and whales are suspect).

Generally speaking, animals do not rely on learned behavior. Yes, there are a few exceptions, but this does not change the basic point. And certainly, man is capable of much, much more advanced forms of learned behavior. An ape might be able to invent and use a type of hammer, but an ape certainly cannot invent a power saw.

In what way do these rights exist? Life certainly exists without social interaction (single-celled lifeforms aren't known to be socialites), liberty could be argued to exist without social interaction (though slavery isn't exactly "natural" so I don't see how something's liberty can be taken away without social interaction to define slavery or "ownership of another person"), but I don't see how property is at all natural.

You still are not recognizing that a state of nature and social interaction are NOT mutually exclusive.

An animal will fight to defend a source of food or water, but it will also fight to drive another animal away from a food or water source, so if property is "natural" in the sense that an animal will kill to defend its food then it is also unnatural in the sense that an animal will also kill to take food from another animal.

Animals are not humans, and we cannot reasonably compare their actions to those of humans, and apply the same concepts and conclusions.

"Murder" is an unnatural term. It means "unlawful killing," and laws aren't natural -- they're a product of social interaction. Murder doesn't exist in a state of nature, because nothing is unlawful in a state of nature.

We've (or at least someone and I) have been through this debate before - I would define murder as an unjustified killing. To me, murder is more of a moral concept than a legal one.

If society only provided the benefit of providing mutual protection, then everybody would be deriving the same benefits from society and they'd have the same responsibilities as well. However, society provides additional benefits (by allowing trade, invention, etc.) that can only be utilized by some, not all, of those within the society.

That's not true at all. Let's go back to the water example. Someone in society decides that the water they are drinking is dirty, so they get together with their buddies and invent a water purification device. The device quickly catches on, and eventually most of the water within the society is much cleaner as a result of this. The person who invents this device might sell it, or the production rights to it, and make a fortune, thus deriving a great benefit from it. The people who buy the device from the inventor are able to improve upon it, maybe make it cheaper, any number of things, so THEY ALSO make a fortune on it.

This doesn't mean that no one else is deriving a benefit from purified water - of course they are. They may be paying for the purified water, but they probably are not paying very much for it (ask yourself how much you would pay for water at the average restaurant - zilch), and in any case, they are still far better off than they would have been without the clean water.

If Bill and Bob put the same amount of work/investment into a mutual business venture, but Bill earns $100 from the venture while Bob earns $10, then I wouldn't want to be the one who had to explain to Bob that the contract was "fair," that he wasn't entitled to the same profit as Bill.

But say that Bill was the one who invented the water purification device, and Bob is just the average guy on the street. Obviously Bill put the work into inventing the device - what did Bob do? Nothing, I'd wager. Yet he is still deriving a benefit greater than his initial input, as is Bill, the inventor. Bob is certainly not losing out as a result of the water purification device, is he?

Or, if Bill and Bob are playing a game in which they are equally competent, but Bill is awarded fifty points before the start of the game (games are played to 100 points), then the outcome of the game should surprise nobody (though doubtless somebody will attribute Bob's loss to laziness), and again I wouldn't want to be the one who had to explain to Bob that he wasn't entitled to the same handicap as Bill.

Well, sticking to our example, quite obviously the two were not equally competent. One saw a need for a water purification device and invented one, while the other either didn't see the need or saw the need but didn't invent the device. Either way, he is less competent in this situation than the inventor.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I still don't know why you are maintaining that a state of nature and social interactions are mutually exclusive. That's really not the case. No "state of nature" philosopher - such as Hobbes - of whom I am aware makes that argument. Hobbes, as an example, DOES argue that life in a state of nature is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" and that this comes about as a result of people ****ing each other (my summation, of course ). Social interactions, then, can certainly exist in a state of nature.

What definition are you using for a "state of nature" then? To me, a state of nature is one in which there are no laws or contracts, implicit or explicit. As soon as terms such as "justice" or "rights" or "fairness" or "morality" are developed, though, a state of nature ceases to exist -- mutual use of such terms entails implicit (if not explicit) contractual *** legal obligations. Generally speaking, any complex form of communication entails implicit/explicit contractual obligations. If one counts "getting killed by a rival" as social interaction then one can certainly have social interaction in a state of nature, but I'm been using the term social interaction to represent complex social interactions (such as hunting parties, common language, etc.) as found in social animals, as opposed to common actions found in any type of animal.

The concepts of "my life" and "your life" are simply extensions of concepts of "me" and "you". Once you object to someone killing you, you are essentially saying that "my life" cannot be taken away by "you".

And that seems to be a very natural concept.

When you object through complex communication ("You are morally obligated to respect my right") then you're no longer in a state of nature -- you're appealing to moral and/or legal law for justification. However, in a true state of nature you would "object" to somebody attempting to take your life by defending yourself and/or running away -- you wouldn't appeal to justice (since neither you nor your adversary has a concept of justice), you'd simply do what would increase your survivability just like any other animal. In the latter state, a concept of "my life" and "your life" is extraneous -- the only concepts you need are those of "self" and "survival."

You are still assuming that a state of nature excludes social interaction. That is a wrong assumption.

How would somebody come up with a concept of "property" without a concept of "law" or "justice"?

A desire to survive would of course be important. Eventually, though, people would realize that they could survive "better" - or at least more enjoyably - if they lived in that nice cave much higher up that doesn't flood when it rains, or if they lived right next to the oasis.

Unfortunately, you occupy that prime real estate, and you're not going to want to move either. Hence, there is a conflict. If the person who wants to take it away is stronger, more clever, or has a bigger club, he can be reasonably confident of winning - after all, all he has to do is sneak up and bash you on the head in your sleep. He can even do this if he is weaker than you are.

Somebody wouldn't engage in a potentially lethal task for a marginal gain. If I'm occupying the third-best cave, f'rinstance, then while everybody kills each other over control of the first and possibly second-best caves, I'm carrying on with my life and surviving. The risk of controlling the best real estate probably wouldn't be worth the benefits that it conferred above and beyond those of the second-best or third-best locations.

First of all, YOU can exist in a state of nature, even if OTHERS exist in a society. That isn't practical today, certainly, but it definitely was thousands of years ago.

If concepts of law and reciprocation (or any other concepts that entail implicit contractual obligations) exist, then I'm no longer in a state of nature.

Secondly, you are STILL assuming that social interaction or even cooperation creates a society. This is just not necessarily true.

A society doesn't need a king, mayor, or even village idiot. All it needs are contractual obligations, and you can't have cooperation without implicit (and likely explicit) contractual obligations.

Uhoh, now you're arguing two different things at once. Or at least, applying two different time periods to the same argument.

In the pre-industrial time period there really wasn't such a thing as water filtration. Essentially "water filtration" consisted of "not drinking water that you just bathed your cow in" or "not drinking water that you just shat in." So the "you're better off with water filtration argument" doesn't make any sense when applied to the pre-industrial era.

In the industrial era water treatment is a very good idea indeed due to industrial pollutants, but my point was that essentially somebody might be better off had society never existed (and thus had industry never arisen) if they're being made to drink heavily tainted water because they can't afford to pay for filtration. Their life expectancy (as it relates to the level of water pollution) could increase were they to live in a pre-industrial state of nature. Has society conferred the general benefit of water filtration (as you'd originally argued)? Not really, because society has also necessitated the use of water filtration, except now somebody has to pay in order to drink relatively clean water whereas in a pre-industrial state of nature they would not.

Gravity, though, is an intangible object that exists independently of social interaction. Certain human needs and desires are intangible and exist without social interaction.

Gravity is tangible in that we can feel its effects independently of human interaction, and it continues to function regardless of human existence.

The needs to eat and mate exist independently of human interaction. The need to own property does not, since "ownership" and "property" are nonexistent without human interaction.

No, but a man is still not going to let the bear kill him, because he wants to stay alive. The bear may not be violating his rights in the same way that another man would.

But I grant you that rights cannot be violated without social interaction, and in general, rights cannot be really articulated without social interaction, either. Social interaction doesn't take away a state of nature, though.

Implicit contracts take away a state of nature. A man would not be morally outraged at a bear's trying to kill him because he hasn't entered into any implicit contracts with the bear (it would make no sense to do so, since the bear isn't capable of complex forms of communication). The same would hold true were a man to attempt to kill another man in a state of nature. However, when two men reciprocally use the term "morality" (for example) then they enter an implicit contract based on the term's meaning -- "moral" behavior is "good" or "desirable" while "immoral" behavior is "bad" or "undesirable." Thenceforth, if one tries to kill the other, then the intended victim will feel moral outrage due to the fact that the implicit contract has been violated. However, this is no longer a state of nature by virtue of the fact that an implicit contract has been entered into.

The difference, though, is instinct. The dog instinctively protects "his" food, while the man protects his food because it is his food, and he wants/needs it.

How are the man's actions and intentions any different than the dog's? Why would the man come up with a concept of "his" property if he'd grown up independently of any social interaction? He'd defend "his" food for the same reason that the dog would -- not out of a sense of ownership, but out of a sense of desire for survival.

No, I'm saying that general desires can point to rights. The desire to stay alive can point to the right to life. The desire to walk in the forest can point to the right to liberty. The desire to get and retain that really nice flower can point to the right to property. That isn't to say that all desires point to rights, only that those desires that exist naturally can point to rights.

Define "naturally" as you're using it in that sentence.

You still are not recognizing that a state of nature and social interaction are NOT mutually exclusive.

They are when the social interactions involve implicit contracts, e.g. through complex language or simply through cooperation.

Animals are not humans, and we cannot reasonably compare their actions to those of humans, and apply the same concepts and conclusions.

We can reasonably compare them when the humans do not engage in any form of complex social interaction. Humans are primarily set apart from animals by the humans' greater abilities to socialize. If a human doesn't (or can't) socialize then he'll be more intelligent than an animal, but will be substantively no different.

That's not true at all. Let's go back to the water example. Someone in society decides that the water they are drinking is dirty, so they get together with their buddies and invent a water purification device. The device quickly catches on, and eventually most of the water within the society is much cleaner as a result of this. The person who invents this device might sell it, or the production rights to it, and make a fortune, thus deriving a great benefit from it. The people who buy the device from the inventor are able to improve upon it, maybe make it cheaper, any number of things, so THEY ALSO make a fortune on it.

Someone else in society decides that the water they are drinking is dirty, so they get together with their buddies and invent a water purification system. Unfortunately, they're all living on starvation wages because work is scarce and they never were able to afford educations, and the bank won't lend them the venture capital needed to test and produce their invention, or even to patent it. They try unsuccessfully for three years to raise the funds, until a large business starts selling water filters that are substantively equivalent to the filters that the guy and his buddies were trying to patent. The guy and his buddies then realize that there's no way in hell that they're ever going to sell their invention now. The guy and his buddies in my example thus weren't able to derive the same benefits from society as the guy and his buddies in your example, since without any kind of education or capital they found themselves spinning their wheels.

Well, sticking to our example, quite obviously the two were not equally competent. One saw a need for a water purification device and invented one, while the other either didn't see the need or saw the need but didn't invent the device. Either way, he is less competent in this situation than the inventor.

Using my example, the guy and his buddies who were on starvation wages were actually more technically competent than their rivals, since they invented their system several years ahead of their competition. However, if "having money" is considered "competence," then I agree that they were horribly incompetent (and probably lazy to boot!) in that they had no venture capital. Their competition started out fifty points ahead of the game since they had capital available to them, and to nobody's surprise their competition won.