Certainly. Which is why it becomes necessary to defend with force, which is exactly what's happening on the Ark.

None of that is property though. "Property" is an idea, a state of mind or ownership. The things you just described are resources. For instance, food is simply food - anyone can eat it. It's when you add in ownership that it becomes one's property.

How often do you eat food which you do not own? Property is attained through application of labor to natural resources, at least in original acquisition. it can thereafter be traded, gifted, bought or sold.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/property

Nowhere in there do i see it defined as a "state of mind."

You are speaking about modern man-made conventions and procedures. Traded? Bought? Sold? these are all created by man - you can't even buy or sell anything without currency - which is also man-made. Ownership does not apply to the natural world. If you gather food in the wild or hunt an animal, do you own that food? No, you do not. Did you have to ask permission to hunt or gather it? No, you did not.

Handing a dictionary to someone doesn't really prove anything when they are arguing that something is just a word.

But anyway, The Right to Life vs Right to Property argument is fairly common in debate, philosophy, and ethics classes; and while there is no "Correct" answer, Right to Life almost always wins. At least in argument form.

In the real world, you often see people pass away simply because they cannot afford medicine or food. But the point is, is it moral to refuse assistance to someone if it means that they will die? You have the right to say "this is my food, you cant have any", but does the right or ability to do something mean its moral? no.

Yes, if you want to make it more specific and say that two people will die on one persons rations, you can say that sharing would be futile. At its most basic form though, right to life would trump right to property in most peoples minds.

The idea of property is not modern or exclusive to man by any means. If you believe that I'd have like to see you try to take a rib bone from a sabre-toothed tiger's jaws.

Trade occurs quite frequently without currency - this is known as direct barter.

Ownership is the right to exclusivity of something. If I gather food in the wild, yes, I most certainly own it, assuming it did not belong to someone else first. I have procured it myself, and it is in my possession. No one has a higher claim to it than I, and I can dictate the terms of its use. That is ownership. If I grow a crop of corn, I own it. If I see wild berries and pick them, they are mine. If I hunt an animal and carry it back to my hut, it belongs to me. Pretty simple.

Except that isn't what he said. He defined it as a state of mind. Handing someone a dictionary > letting them invent definitions to further their argument.

Right to life may "win," whatever that means, but I'm sure that's due to the fact that, yes, most people would share what they had before letting someone die. However, your right to life does not supersede my right to property, at least not objectively. It may to you, if you're the one who's life is in question, but if I catch you robbing my house because you need money for food, I'm not just going to be like "Oh, go ahead. You're right to life is superior to my right to property." No. I'm likely going to force you to leave at gunpoint.

Morals are individual and totally subjective. You are not allowed to say what is moral for me, and vice versa. Some people think it's immoral to do drugs. Some people thinks it's immoral to have six outside of marriage, etc etc.

3 words for you:
Hunter Gatherer societies - nobody owned anything. Everything was shared amongst everyone.

Also look up "resource based economy."


How so? You gathered it from the wild, which no one owns. You may have done the work to acquire it, but how does that make you the "owner" of it, when it didn't belong to you in the first place? If anything, you just stole them from the planet.


Claiming something is "mine" does not suddenly mean you own it. Growing corn, picking berries, hunting animals, all take place in the natural world, and you can't claim ownership to something that isn't yours to begin with. Just like today, when people say they own land. Do you? Really? You don't "own" anything - all you have is a bunch of legal documents stating that no one can can use or do anything on that land without your permission - You cannot "own" nature.


I know this, which is why I said "you can't even buy or sell anything without currency." - notice trading in not mentioned.

No, not necessarily. A hunter -gatherer society is defined by their means of procurement of sustenance, not property norms or resource distribution.



A resourced based economy is an intentionally organized economy. It's essentially the same as communism. So I ask, what is your point? Because it is possible to live in a society where resources are the sovereignty of the entire society, does not mean that that is the norm or that it is necessarily preferential.





If there is no such thing as property according to you, then it is impossible to steal anything, as theft requires ownership first. You're not being very consistent here.

And yes, I can certainly own things, even if they are procured from nature. I don't even need any paperwork to back this up. I own the knick-knacks on my shelves, I own my computer, I own my clothes, etc. If you don't believe in ownership, then maybe I should just come to your house and clean it out, because none of it belongs to you anyway, right? I mean, you shouldn't even be able to stop be from entering your house to begin with, because you don't own it. It would be the same as trying to keep someone out of a public park.

If I put my labor into something, say again, a crop of corn, then I own it because it would not exist were it not for me. I can deny access to it without it being an act of aggression. Again, ownership occurs when labor is applied to natural resources. From there the chain of ownership changes with trade.

Essentially, if you control your ability to labor, and have exclusive right to utilize it, then it follows that you own the products of your labor.

Reading some Aristotle, Plato, Bastiat, Rothbard, Molyneux, Mises, Locke, or Rand might help you to understand the concept of ownership with which you seem to be struggling.




The point is that you can exchange ownership through a means other than currency. You seemed to be implying that the exchange of currency was necessary to transfer ownership.

The moment a forum debate devolves into an argument about semantics, its generally a good time to shake hands and walk away, as neither of you are going to back down at this point.

Prolly the best course of action. At this point it has little to do with Brink.

I did notice they called each other brothers in some of the videos... I thought it was a little weird but kinda cool in a way. I don't really consider them a 'Cult' though, just a group of close-knit people.

Yeah, in the gameplay video one of the lights or mediums I assume [based on voice] said like 'They have taken the command post brothers' 'Command post taken brothers'

I agree that the argument is fruitless at this point, but I still think it's a relevant one to the theme of the game. I also think that this is the type of thought and discussion it was designed to provoke.

above statement: I agree that we should both stop. You are still wrong and I am right.

Yesterday this page was like 2 pages, now it's 5, the shieeet

*Kiddfrom101, yeah, I sorta agree to your point

I often say that assumptions rule the world,
and it may or may not be a good thing.
Its all perspective.

This discussion was supposed to be about the OP's original question.
It would be nice to not stray so far from the topic at hand.

The problem with the English language in my opinion is that definitions can get mixed up.
Another problem is that many words have many definitions. How one person perceives the word "cult"
may greatly differ from another's. AND, the word "cult" can be used in many different ways.

Examples:
–noun
1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
3. the object of such devotion.
4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5. Sociology . a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
7. the members of such a religion or sect.
8. any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.

–adjective
9. of or pertaining to a cult.
0. of, for, or attracting a small group of devotees: a cult movie.


So really, I suppose "cultish" would be more accurate. But then again, personal perceive·nce...