Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6789503" data-attributes="member: 6681948">I can agree with this, but only with the caveat that I do not believe we are close in the matter of private property specifically.  That’s probably a big part of why it leapt out at me.In my view, humans tend towards Law rather than Chaos.  We build structured societies, organize into groups, large and small, and tend towards the Rule of Law.  I cannot think of a human society which does not have a concept of private/personal property.  Some variance exists (American Indian culture, for example, found the concept of owning land to be incomprehensible), but I cannot think of a one which lacks any concept of private property (an Indian’s bow, knife, etc. were his own,  not community property).Robin Hood is not.  Ali Baba is not.Situations where “private property” is evil (hoarding, “the 1%”, slumlords) abound.  Examples which use the Law to frustrate the general benefit to the less fortunate abound.  The ability to be altruistic – to give of one’s own property – presupposes one has a right to that property (Law) in the first place.I see nothing to suggest private property is an inherently Chaotic virtue, rather than conforming with a Lawful bent of how ownership is determined.Examples of legal systems which permit what we would call theft?Now we get into who we steal from.  “Honour among thieves” becomes a concept here, in that these criminal organizations respect their own internal laws, and not those of the broader society within which they operate.  Again, that human tendency to Law and organization.Here we are again with the counterbalance of one’s Good/Evil axis interacting with Law/Chaos.  Your conclusion can just as easily be stated that “it is possible for a Lawful Good person to go against his beliefs and steal something, but only because he believes in something else more strongly - for example preserving life.“  Do you envision the stereotypical Paladin, the archetype of Law and Good, generally condoning, even carrying out, theft?  I do not.  He would have to be placed in a situation where the negative consequences of NOT stealing would outweigh the compromise of his Lawful principals.Emphasis added.  How was this “their property” if the poor lacked property rights – that is, if private property were not itself a Lawful concept?  In your example, Robin Hood is made lawful only by the fact that those making “the laws” he violates have done so outside the precepts of Law.  Those very laws are unlawful in your example.In the absence of a respect for private property, why would a person need to convince himself he is not truly stealing?  You are going to great lengths to justify a Lawful person violating property rights, which suggests that private property is typically a Lawful concept.  It’s much like the Good person being persuaded that, of necessity, harm must be done to some person or persons to prevent greater harm to others (for example, violence in defense of the innocent).Even under pure marxist communism, one is expected to “give according to his ability” (which presupposes the choice NOT to give) and “take according to his need” (which seems to indicate what is taken becomes his private property).  Capitalism, under your interpretation, is a strictly Chaotic concept.  I find that difficult to agree with.I again come back to the belief humans tend to Lawful behaviour, and organized, structured societies require more Lawful attributes than do Chaotic “societies”.  Which modern societies embrace Lawful structure but lack a respect for private property, considering everything to be public, available for the use of society as a whole?Here again, we will have to disagree.  Valuing what is best for others, not just what is best for oneself, is an inherently Good concept, in my view.  It is neither Lawful nor Chaotic.  It does illustrate the difficulty in summarizing any ethos in a short phrase.  The spirit of the Golden Rule is not, at least in my view, “well, I like lima beans, therefore I should force-feed them to anyone who dislikes lima beans”.  It is “I would not want to have something I dislike forced upon me without good reason, and I should apply that same standard in my treatment of others”.  Contrary to the suggestion that “he is treating you the way that he would want to be treated but you might not like it very much” being an appropriate interpretation of the rule. Again, I find this more relevant to good/evil than law/chaos, in that it considers the welfare of others a constraint on the actions of the individual.  Where do you find “My right to swing my fist ends where my neighbour’s nose begins”?  I suggest that a “pure” Lawful person will accept what the law says regarding the extent to which he has the right to swing his fist, while the “pure” Chaotic person will consider the right to swing one’s fist should not appropriately be restricted – you get to choose where to put your nose, so keep it out of where I am swinging my fist if you don’t like the results.A Good person will agree that his rights (whether governed by laws or by the “rule” of absolute personal freedom) are appropriately constrained by the rights of others, and accept that his actions are not appropriate where they harm, or carry a significant risk of harm, to others.   The Evil person, as you note, hits first as a preemptive strike (I had also thought of the “Do unto others before they do unto you” model as a good example of an Evil mentality).</blockquote>

Verification