NationStates Jolt Archive

taken from another (now locked) thread:

To understand this fallacy, consider an example of it in the realm of politics: Proudhon's famous declaration that "All property is theft."

"Theft" is a concept that logically and genetically depends on the antecedent concept of "rightfully owned property" — and refers to the act of taking that property without the owner's consent. If no property is rightfully owned, that is, if nothing is property, there can be no such concept as "theft." Thus, the statement "All property is theft" has an internal contradiction: to use the concept "theft" while denying the validity of the concept of "property," is to use "theft" as a concept to which one has no logical right — that is, as a stolen concept.

this gets it all wrong. the concept 'theft' does not rely on the set of legal powers and rights that constitute 'property'. the concept of 'property' comes after the concept of 'rightful ownership' and they can be distinct entities altogether. for example, it is commonly held that the land and the products of nature were originally owned in common - that everyone had a rightful claim to use of them. when somebody put up a wall around some bit of land and declared that it and everything on it was his and his alone forever, even when he wasn't there, he quite literally created 'property' by stealing from everyone else by denying them access to and use of a bit of what rightfully belonged to all. or take the case of labor. the products of labor are often held to rightfully belong to those that did the labor. however, the legal system of property quite plainly allows the fruits of the labor of some to become the property of others - indeed, it makes this the normal situation of the world.

if 'rightful ownership' in fact has little or nothing to do with the set of legally sanctioned powers and rights that make up 'property', then property is robbery in the fullest sense of the word. it gives to some what rightfully belongs to all, or to others.

good analysys.

You make an interesting distinction. I think I'll go metaphorically masticate this for a while.

Their's a problem with the concept that all land was free to use by everyone in the begining. Let's say all land is free to use, my family and I go out, find a nice parcel of land and start growing food. We work for many months towards harvest. However, another family comes along and decides that this is a good parcel of land; plow up all of my families crops and move their cattle onto the land. Would that be theft, would me growing crops be theft, or would is just be fine?

Their's a problem with the concept that all land was free to use by everyone in the begining. Let's say all land is free to use, my family and I go out, find a nice parcel of land and start growing food. We work for many months towards harvest. However, another family comes along and decides that this is a good parcel of land; plow up all of my families crops and move their cattle onto the land. Would that be theft, would me growing crops be theft, or would is just be fine?According to Proudhon, as long as you do not deprive others through your use of the land it is OK, but if others are deprived then it is not OK. You can figure things out from there.

You make an interesting distinction.

unfortunately, i can't take full credit for it. that was mostly a very short paraphrase of proudhon's point behind his phrase 'property is robbery'.

really it all comes down to a question of what actually constitutes rightful ownership of or access to some thing. what exactly is rightful ownership or access and how does one acquire it? how far do the rights of property as enshrined in law overlap with the concept of rightful ownership or access?

I could never understand or comprehend the term myself. How the hell can you really own land or property as they call it?

It will be there long after you, your children, your nation are nothing more then dust.

If anything, the land owns you! You are dependent on it. For your very existance...

...and it can most certainly do without you...

I get your point Free Soviets but you have to look at it this way. Your statement only has validity in a world where people will not exploit this as was mentioned earlier in the thread. This was tried in New England during its colonial days and many just leached off of those who worked the land.

Also with the advent of modern weaponry it would be nearly imposssible to stop theives. As it happened in early Africa where all land was common certain robber warlords would rob and kill without hesitation. They imposed ownership in the vacuum of ownership and claimed "divine right." Those robber warlords became governments and the rest is history.

According to Proudhon, as long as you do not deprive others through your use of the land it is OK, but if others are deprived then it is not OK. You can figure things out from there.

But when my family sets up crops aren't we depriving the other family from having their cattle graze there?

Their's a problem with the concept that all land was free to use by everyone in the begining. Let's say all land is free to use, my family and I go out, find a nice parcel of land and start growing food. We work for many months towards harvest. However, another family comes along and decides that this is a good parcel of land; plow up all of my families crops and move their cattle onto the land. Would that be theft, would me growing crops be theft, or would is just be fine?

well, firstly i think it would better be expressed as 'everyone has a right to occupy and use land, as a natural outgrowth of the right to life'. its not a free-for-all, but that. we all have the same rights to the land and must figure out a way to live together with those equal rights.

anyway, your use of the land is all fine and dandy, and their attempt to take it away from you while you are using amounts to theft. but if you tried to claim all of the land, or more land than you could actually use, then they would be perfectly right to reclaim some of it for themselves. and if you tried to claim that this land was your's forever to do whatever you want with, they would be perfectly right to reclaim it when you were no longer using it or to stop you from doing something to it which would harm other people's use of the land. you have a right to use the land, but that is not an absolute right to do whatever you want.

All your base are belong to us?

well, firstly i think it would better be expressed as 'everyone has a right to occupy and use land, as a natural outgrowth of the right to life'. its not a free-for-all, but that. we all have the same rights to the land and must figure out a way to live together with those equal rights.

This is why there are property laws.

anyway, your use of the land is all fine and dandy, and their attempt to take it away from you while you are using amounts to theft. but if you tried to claim all of the land, or more land than you could actually use, then they would be perfectly right to reclaim some of it for themselves. and if you tried to claim that this land was your's forever to do whatever you want with, they would be perfectly right to reclaim it when you were no longer using it or to stop you from doing something to it which would harm other people's use of the land. you have a right to use the land, but that is not an absolute right to do whatever you want.

What if we had gone down the river for the day to see friends, and came back to find our crops plowed, would it still be theft? What if my family claimed the land for use so long as our family existed?

To understand this fallacy, consider an example of it in the realm of politics: Proudhon's famous declaration that "All property is theft."

"Theft" is a concept that logically and genetically depends on the antecedent concept of "rightfully owned property" — and refers to the act of taking that property without the owner's consent. If no property is rightfully owned, that is, if nothing is property, there can be no such concept as "theft." Thus, the statement "All property is theft" has an internal contradiction: to use the concept "theft" while denying the validity of the concept of "property," is to use "theft" as a concept to which one has no logical right — that is, as a stolen concept.

this gets it all wrong.
No, it's quite correct.

the concept 'theft' does not rely on the set of legal powers and rights that constitute 'property'.
Yes, it does. Theft means that you take something that rightfully is owned by someone else without permission and without intent to return. Notice: rightfully owned. PROPERTY.

M-W.com
Main Entry: theft
Pronunciation: 'theft
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English thiefthe, from Old English thIefth; akin to Old English thEof thief
1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property

Dictionary.com (from M-W dictionary of LAW)
Main Entry: theft
Function: noun
Etymology: Old English thiefth
: LARCENY; broadly : a criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent

Looks like you lose, bucko.

the concept of 'property' comes after the concept of 'rightful ownership'
They are coeval.

and they can be distinct entities altogether.
Show it.

for example, it is commonly held that the land and the products of nature were originally owned in common
Meaning that NO ONE OWNED IT. Recall: The Tragedy of the Commons.

- that everyone had a rightful claim to use of them. when somebody put up a wall around some bit of land and declared that it and everything on it was his and his alone forever, even when he wasn't there, he quite literally created 'property' by stealing from everyone else by denying them access to and use of a bit of what rightfully belonged to all.
False. It didn't rightfully belong to anyone. NO ONE OWNED IT. NO ONE HELD TITLE TO IT.

or take the case of labor. the products of labor are often held to rightfully belong to those that did the labor. however, the legal system of property quite plainly allows the fruits of the labor of some to become the property of others - indeed, it makes this the normal situation of the world.
Ah, the rewording of the Marxist tosswad nonsense known as "exploitation" which stems directly from the refuted-to-death labor theory of value. When will you morons give up that piece of shit?

Proudhon was probably speaking metaphorically. He meant that the relationship between a robber and victim was very similar to the relationship between a capitalist and worker.

Proudhon was probably speaking metaphorically. He meant that the relationship between a robber and victim was very similar to the relationship between a capitalist and worker.
...which assumes the refuted-to-death labor theory of value.

Proudhon was probably speaking metaphorically. He meant that the relationship between a robber and victim was very similar to the relationship between a capitalist and worker.
Ah, the eternal "you're being exploited".

Ah, the eternal "you're being exploited".

We are all exploited - and expendable...

We are all exploited - and expendable...
Well that's up for debate: But telling someone that they're being exploited is going to cause hostility towards the idea. When I finally find myself a job I'm not going to appreciate being told by someone who hasn't got a job that I'm being exploited.

See what I mean? If you want to make someone to "realise" they're being oppressed you need to lead them through the thought process not just tell them the end result.

But when my family sets up crops aren't we depriving the other family from having their cattle graze there?Potentially yes, and were you using an excessive ammount of land so that they were unable to find land to graze cattle on, or if you drove off thier cattle to raise your crops, you would be depriving them. However using otheriwse unused land deprives noone of anything.

Geez, this website, and most of the world is overrun with socialists and communists...AKA envious people.

Geez, this website, and most of the world is overrun with socialists and communists...AKA envious people.

Socialists envy the rich in the same sentence that non-rapists envy rapists.

Socialists envy the rich in the same sentence that non-rapists envy rapists.
No, they envy the rich in the same sentence that they envy the rich.

Oh, please continue with your utter stupidity and expound on why logic is authoritarian. That gave me a huge chuckle.

until the pseudo philosophy of the crazy dead german guy is dropped for good? human nature itself is counter to the entire marxist philosophy. socialism leads inherently to lack of productivity and fraud in almost every macreconomical application it is used. An individual with nothing to strive for is an individual with nothing to live for, the pseudo-intellectual approach of the original poster's quote is easy to ratify...who said everyone owned the land? pursuit of property gives an individual a personal stake in the success of society......i have my own theory that marxism itself is criminal in its' nature of cheapening the value of the individual and individual contributions, reducing them to merely a a cog in a imaginative machine, rather than a stand alone entity.....

it is time. contruct some systems of justice to capitalism, that is a winning fight. socialism by and of itself has died and gone away except for a few last bastions, and good riddance...it has never worked. why keep chewing on it? isn;t the main symptom of schizophrenia to keep doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result? lol

until the pseudo philosophy of the crazy dead german guy is dropped for good? human nature itself is counter to the entire marxist philosophy.

we're talking proudhon here. he's french.

who said everyone owned the land?

locke, for one. and jefferson. and pretty much all the other enlightenment thinkers.

No, they envy the rich in the same sentence that they envy the rich.

I am a socialist. I know whether I envy the rich or not. Don't tell me what I believe for me.

Oh, please continue with your utter stupidity and expound on why logic is authoritarian. That gave me a huge chuckle.

If it justifies your authoritarian views, I think it is.

i have my own theory that marxism itself is criminal in its' nature of cheapening the value of the individual and individual contributions, reducing them to merely a a cog in a imaginative machine, rather than a stand alone entity.....

It is capitalism where you are treated as a cog in a machine. You spend all day attaching bolts to a car. That is not freedom.

And who are you to tell us what freedom is?

anyone undser the age of 18 is considered property

It is capitalism where you are treated as a cog in a machine. You spend all day attaching bolts to a car. That is not freedom.
But you don't need to spend all day attaching bolts to a car. You can quit/find a new job/invent a new kind of car and start your own business. It is freedom in that you can spend all day attaching bolts to a car, but you can also leave if you think there's something out there that's more profitable.

Well no one will be stealing from me anytime soon.

But you don't need to spend all day attaching bolts to a car. You can quit/find a new job/invent a new kind of car and start your own business. It is freedom in that you can spend all day attaching bolts to a car, but you can also leave if you think there's something out there that's more profitable.

It's freedom to pass up one master for another? Whether it's a boss, or the bank that loans you the capital to start your own business, you're still owned by the masters of capital.

I ask again, by what right do capitalists and governments divide up land, which should belong to us all equally by birthright, amongst themselves? This is my land because my great(*100)grandfather stole it from someone else? Or because he was granted it by the king who stole it from others.

Land rights (property) are, as Proudhon puts it in the penultimate chapter of the book, impossible. Go back far enough and there's theft - the removal of the use and right to profit from work done from the legitimate user.

And who needs it anyway? I understand the minority that owns it arguing that they have a right to deprive the rest of us of what should be available to us - they have an interest in doing so. But why the hell should the rest of us, who do not own it, accept this? Those of us who would gain more from common ownership, those of us who could create a fairer freer society through common ownership.

Those who say that socialists are greedy or envious are projecting their own envy onto us. For, unless they are themselves the greedy capitalists, they have in their own mind the wish to be so, they are the envious ones. To want to take from the few and distribute widely is clearly not based on envy, it's based on distaste, distaste for a world where the few have it all while others have nothing. To want to become one of the minority while ignoring the rest is envious and inhuman.

Vas.

I've read some Proudhon myself (I was fascinated by the idea of a person who hated communists as much as he hated capitalists), as well as some explainations of what he meant by his statement "Property is Theft." If I understand correctly, Proudhon was, in this case, refering to government-protected absolute title as "property." Proudhon, being an anarchist, naturally considered government-protected anything to be immoral, as an anarchist considers government itself to be immoral. If there is no government around, there is no one to enforce absolute title, ergo "property" in this sense cannot exist.

I would be interested to know what anarcho-capitalists think of this. If there is no government in anarcho-capitalism, who enforces private property? I suspect the answer will be "private courts" or some such de-facto government entity.

At any rate, "Property is theft" is only part of the statement; if I recall correctly, he also said that "Property is freedom." In this case he was defining "property" as possession. He believed that a person can possess land without having the ability to claim absolute title. So long as the land is being used, it is possessed, and denying the usage of land to someone who possesses it is immoral. As soon as the posessor ceases to use the land and moves on, however, it is no longer his (as he cannot claim absolute title) and the next person along can claim it.

From my own reading of "What is Property?" I can verify that Proudhon was no Communist. "What is Property?" contains an essay or two which have nothing nice to say about collectivism. His rejection of Communism was similar to his rejection of private property; he rejected Communism because of its reliance on government coersion just as he rejected private property for its reliance on government coersion/protection.

Wait, so capitalists and workers have a relationship like rapists and victims do?

Great, what a nice way to completely disrespect the actual trauma and evil of rape by comparing it to a system of free economics. Same way you disregard the horror of the reality of REAL slavery and theft when you compare them to capitalism. Capitalism is consentual, rape and theft are not, saying otherwise is just ignorance.

Which would you rather do?

a) Go out and have lunch with someone while discussing the possibility of doing a business deal?

b) Work at an auto factory, do a task, get a reward, make a living.

c) Be brutally raped up the anus.

You apparently think all three are equally evil.

And what's it like if you're *gasp* both a capitalist and a worker? Do you rape yourself? Or in your narrow worldview Letila, is it literally impossible to work hard AND be a capitalist?

In fact don't even bother answering. I'm through with you. You just basically called anyone who isn't a diehard raving anarcho-socio-commie-syndiwhatever a rapist. I hate rapists. Go call someone else a rapist. You just never stop.

property of self for one its my body! I own property its mine if I pay for it and there sure as hell is nothing wrong with that. When I buy something its my property if you will my pc is my property if you will property is much

Good stuff santa barbara! Capitalism! :)

human nature itself is counter to the entire marxist philosophy.
Clarify, and justify. Whatever do you mean by human nature? My understanding of pre agricultural/pastural societies is that indeed communism is generally how things work, and evidently they seem to get along just fine until capitalists turn up and insist they dont have property rights to the land whose use-rights may have been theirs and their ancestors since, well basically since ever. How do you start at a group whose entire biology is geared towards communal social cooperation, and arrive at such a conclusion?

An individual with nothing to strive for is an individual with nothing to live for,
No kidding, why do you think people are sick of being stuck working multiple jobs just to subsist with no hope of ever improving their lot, with nothing acheivable to strive for. By the way your implied notion that people will choose to do nothing rather work says more about your own values than anyone elses. Perhaps in your mind you only work because you only care about money, however to a lot of people, there are things more important than money once you have enough to subsist. That's why all around the world there are people who dont need to work but choose to anyway. You see to many many many people, money isnt everything, much less the only thing.

the main symptom of schizophrenia to keep doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result?
No it is not.

But you don't need to spend all day attaching bolts to a car. You can quit/find a new job/invent a new kind of car and start your own business
Except starting a business manufacturing a new car requires vastly huge amounts of capital, something that most people are locked away from.

Pure socialism and pure capitalism are both destructive when taken to their fundamental extremes. The fact is rampant ideologies are scary regardless what form they take. Capitalism can be a system of resource distribution that works provided it is tempered with socialism and vice-versa. A mixed system is superior to either system.

Geez, this website, and most of the world is overrun with socialists and communists...AKA envious people.

The world is overrun with socialists and communists who insist that my life be stolen by government in order to subsidize the poor.

The world is also overrun with socialists and communists who insist that my life be stolen by government in order to subsidize the rich and their businesses, while granting the rich and their businesses special rights and protections which are denied to me, a sovereign individual.

The right is overrun with its own share of socialists at least as badly as the left. Socialism is certainly not a problem confined to the left exclusively.

No, they envy the rich in the same sentence that they envy the rich.
I am a socialist.
Which means that you envy the rich.


Oh, please continue with your utter stupidity and expound on why logic is authoritarian. That gave me a huge chuckle.
If it justifies your authoritarian views,
I have none.

I think it is.
That's because you're a complete moron who thinks that 1 = 1 is somehow authoritarian. MORON!

It is capitalism where you are treated as a cog in a machine.
No, that's communism. You are suborned to the whole.

Originally posted by Peopleandstuff
My understanding of pre agricultural/pastural societies is that indeed communism is generally how things work, and evidently they seem to get along just fine until capitalists turn up and insist they dont have property rights to the land whose use-rights may have been theirs and their ancestors since, well basically since ever. How do you start at a group whose entire biology is geared towards communal social cooperation, and arrive at such a conclusion?

Hm, it seems to me humanity is so socially cooperative that it exterminated its cousin the neanderthal because it needed the neanderthals land (most of Europe) correct me if i'm wrong. The mastodon was hunted to extinction by the nomadic and communal peoples of North America. As long as there has been socially organized human beings there have been distinctions between these peoples. As Krishnamurti says, "separation is violence." There has never been a cooperative and gentle peaceful time in the entire history of mankind, probably because we are descendants of a scavenging type of primate (dodges bullets from God-fanatics) whose very nature it was to hoard 'property.' Also, here's a very simple point to illustrate why commonly shared property has some problems as opposed to private property- Would you rather use the lavatory facilities in a 'public' park or in your private residence? Most of the time, 'public' property tends to be that which is disrespected the most by the people that use it- vandalism, etc. And it stays that way because how often you you see an individual that is not a city employee cleaning up said vandalism- if 'public' property is for the public, and yet the public does not take care of it... Do you see where i'm trying to go with this? I tend to think of myself as a pseudo capitalist/anarchist, and I'm not trying to say I have any answers at all to this debate, just some food for thought.

I've read some Proudhon myself (I was fascinated by the idea of a person who hated communists as much as he hated capitalists), as well as some explainations of what he meant by his statement "Property is Theft." If I understand correctly, Proudhon was, in this case, refering to government-protected absolute title as "property." Proudhon, being an anarchist, naturally considered government-protected anything to be immoral, as an anarchist considers government itself to be immoral. If there is no government around, there is no one to enforce absolute title, ergo "property" in this sense cannot exist.
Proudhon was simply and utterly wrong.

I would be interested to know what anarcho-capitalists think of this. If there is no government in anarcho-capitalism, who enforces private property? I suspect the answer will be "private courts" or some such de-facto government entity.
Private police/defense agencies, which are not de facto government agencies.

At any rate, "Property is theft" is only part of the statement; if I recall correctly, he also said that "Property is freedom." In this case he was defining "property" as possession. He believed that a person can possess land without having the ability to claim absolute title.
Then you can't have any problem with someone "dispossessing" you. Or just taking the land, since it's not yours anyway. Or your "possessions", since they aren't yours.

So long as the land is being used, it is possessed, and denying the usage of land to someone who possesses it is immoral.
Which makes it....
(wait for it)
PRIVATE PROPERTY!

I ask again, by what right do capitalists and governments divide up land, which should belong to us all equally by birthright,
Prove that it should belong to us all equally by birthright.

Land rights (property) are, as Proudhon puts it in the penultimate chapter of the book, impossible.
Since they are possible, Proudhon is wrong.

Go back far enough and there's theft - the removal of the use and right to profit from work done from the legitimate user.
LTV. RTD.

And who needs it anyway? I understand the minority that owns it arguing that they have a right to deprive the rest of us of what should be available to us - they have an interest in doing so. But why the hell should the rest of us, who do not own it, accept this? Those of us who would gain more from common ownership, those of us who could create a fairer freer society through common ownership.
Common ownership = No one owns it.

Those who say that socialists are greedy or envious are projecting their own envy onto us.
No, we're rightly calling a spade a spade.

For, unless they are themselves the greedy capitalists, they have in their own mind the wish to be so, they are the envious ones. To want to take from the few and distribute widely is clearly not based on envy, it's based on distaste, distaste for a world where the few have it all while others have nothing. To want to become one of the minority while ignoring the rest is envious and inhuman.
Emotive plea. Try something with valid reasoning.

Proudhon was simply and utterly wrong.
...
Private police/defense agencies, which are not de facto government agencies.
...
Then you can't have any problem with someone "dispossessing" you. Or just taking the land, since it's not yours anyway. Or your "possessions", since they aren't yours.
...
Which makes it....
(wait for it)
PRIVATE PROPERTY!

*shrugs*

I wasn't my intention to argue in favor or against Proudhon. I was just explaining what Proudhon seemed to be saying. Whatever conclusion one draws makes no difference to me. :) Actually, there were a lot of things he said that I don't agree with either.

What is property?

[thinks back to Real Property Law lectures in second year uni]

[bursts into tears]

BASTARD!

[sob]

taken from another (now locked) thread:



this gets it all wrong. the concept 'theft' does not rely on the set of legal powers and rights that constitute 'property'. the concept of 'property' comes after the concept of 'rightful ownership' and they can be distinct entities altogether. for example, it is commonly held that the land and the products of nature were originally owned in common - that everyone had a rightful claim to use of them. when somebody put up a wall around some bit of land and declared that it and everything on it was his and his alone forever, even when he wasn't there, he quite literally created 'property' by stealing from everyone else by denying them access to and use of a bit of what rightfully belonged to all. or take the case of labor. the products of labor are often held to rightfully belong to those that did the labor. however, the legal system of property quite plainly allows the fruits of the labor of some to become the property of others - indeed, it makes this the normal situation of the world.

if 'rightful ownership' in fact has little or nothing to do with the set of legally sanctioned powers and rights that make up 'property', then property is robbery in the fullest sense of the word. it gives to some what rightfully belongs to all, or to others.
Good analysis.
http://www.namebase.org/richnote.html

i suppose i'll take a break from ignoring you, provided you keep it civil. after all, you quoted this guy in the first place.

Theft means that you take something that rightfully is owned by someone else without permission and without intent to return. Notice: rightfully owned. PROPERTY.

ah, but you have assumed your conclusion that the bundle of rights and powers denoted by the term property are equivalent to 'rightful ownership or use'. the point is that we dispute that claim. theft merely requires rightful possession or use, not necessarily the bundle of rights that are protected by law in western culture.

if humans have a right to life, that means they have a right to do the things required for life. one of those requirements is that we need access to land to live on and get food from. now if somebody declares all of the land his property and that he has the 'right' to exclude everyone else from his property - defended by his band of guys with sharpened sticks, no less - he is denying people their right to life, and therefore has taken that which was not rightfully his. which is theft. no titles and no previously existing private property rights required.

Ah, the rewording of the Marxist tosswad nonsense known as "exploitation" which stems directly from the refuted-to-death labor theory of value. When will you morons give up that piece of shit?

i take it you disagree with the principle that all people are entitled to the fruits of their labor then too?

if property isn't theft - if it is right to grant people eternal dominion over land, then at some point all land will be legally occupied as private property. if all the land is made into private property and there are some people who do not own any land, then some people will have the ability to charge others for access to it. and these land-owners can charge the others a significant percentage of the fruits of their labor in order to secure access to the necessities of life. which means that in order to secure their right to life, some people (in reality, almost everyone, because a tiny minority winds up with most of the land) must give up a large percentage of the fruits of their labor. by virtue of the system of private property these people are not entitled to the fruits of their labor, but are forced to give them away.

Hm, it seems to me humanity is so socially cooperative that it exterminated its cousin the neanderthal because it needed the neanderthals land (most of Europe) correct me if i'm wrong.

Firstly being communually social does not mean extending your treatment of your own species to all other species, for instance bees are both social and communual (everything is done for the good of the whole), and yet they will and do attack those outside the hive, including their own species, so even if your veiw on the extinction of the neandertals was correct, it would not be relevent. Secondly as to the neandertals, I do not believe that they were exterminated by humans. In fact the two species coexisted in many places for many thousands of years. There are many theories as to why neandertals no longer exist, I am not aware of any creditable theories in which it suggested that they were exterminated by humans.

The mastodon was hunted to extinction by the nomadic and communal peoples of North America. As long as there has been socially organized human beings there have been distinctions between these peoples. As Krishnamurti says, "separation is violence." There has never been a cooperative and gentle peaceful time in the entire history of mankind,
Nonsense. There is much archaelogical evidence of peoples who traded with outside communities and appear not to have engaged in warlike activities.

probably because we are descendants of a scavenging type of primate (dodges bullets from God-fanatics) whose very nature it was to hoard 'property.
Horde property? You do know that the scavenging primate to which you refer did not own motor vehicles, was mobile and had only one means of transporting 'property' from one place to another? A little research will quickly enlighten you as to the limitations of property hording when you are constantly mobile yet have no other means of transportation than your feet - what you cant carry, you leave behind.....

' Also, here's a very simple point to illustrate why commonly shared property has some problems as opposed to private property- Would you rather use the lavatory facilities in a 'public' park or in your private residence? Most of the time, 'public' property tends to be that which is disrespected the most by the people that use it- vandalism, etc. And it stays that way because how often you you see an individual that is not a city employee cleaning up said vandalism- if 'public' property is for the public, and yet the public does not take care of it... Do you see where i'm trying to go with this? I tend to think of myself as a pseudo capitalist/anarchist, and I'm not trying to say I have any answers at all to this debate, just some food for thought

This argument is flawed, because it refers to a situation in which there is seperate personally owned property. This leads to people considering their individual ownership as a superior form of ownership relative to 'public property', as a result thier public ownership is not seen as ownership at all by large sections of societies. Societies that operate on 'use-rights' as opposed to property rights in fact appear to not suffer from vandalism, something which occurs in all capitalist socieities. There is no evidence that the Mbuti for instance ever treated property with any less respect than I treat my own property.

i suppose i'll take a break from ignoring you, provided you keep it civil. after all, you quoted this guy in the first place.



ah, but you have assumed your conclusion that the bundle of rights and powers denoted by the term property are equivalent to 'rightful ownership or use'. the point is that we dispute that claim. theft merely requires rightful possession or use, not necessarily the bundle of rights that are protected by law in western culture.

if humans have a right to life, that means they have a right to do the things required for life. one of those requirements is that we need access to land to live on and get food from. now if somebody declares all of the land his property and that he has the 'right' to exclude everyone else from his property - defended by his band of guys with sharpened sticks, no less - he is denying people their right to life, and therefore has taken that which was not rightfully his. which is theft. no titles and no previously existing private property rights required.



i take it you disagree with the principle that all people are entitled to the fruits of their labor then too?

if property isn't theft - if it is right to grant people eternal dominion over land, then at some point all land will be legally occupied as private property. if all the land is made into private property and there are some people who do not own any land, then some people will have the ability to charge others for access to it. and these land-owners can charge the others a significant percentage of the fruits of their labor in order to secure access to the necessities of life. which means that in order to secure their right to life, some people (in reality, almost everyone, because a tiny minority winds up with most of the land) must give up a large percentage of the fruits of their labor. by virtue of the system of private property these people are not entitled to the fruits of their labor, but are forced to give them away.
Yep.
See this!!
http://www.namebase.org/richnote.html

I suppose i'll take a break from ignoring you, provided you keep it civil.
Coward.


Theft means that you take something that rightfully is owned by someone else without permission and without intent to return. Notice: rightfully owned. PROPERTY.
ah, but you have assumed your conclusion that the bundle of rights and powers denoted by the term property are equivalent to 'rightful ownership or use'.
They are. That's not assuming the conclusion. They. Simply. Are. That. Is. The. Definition.

If I'm assuming the conclusion, then so would be calling an orange a citrus fruit.

the point is that we dispute that claim. theft merely requires rightful possession or use, not necessarily the bundle of rights that are protected by law in western culture.
Theft requires property. Rightful possession or use requires the notion of property. Any idea to the contrary is self-contradictory.

if humans have a right to life, that means they have a right to do the things required for life. one of those requirements is that we need access to land to live on and get food from. now if somebody declares all of the land his property and that he has the 'right' to exclude everyone else from his property - defended by his band of guys with sharpened sticks, no less - he is denying people their right to life,
No, he is not. He is denying them access to some property. They can find food elsewhere. And only tosswad morons think that "someone can claim all the land there is as his property", aka STRAWMAN.

and therefore has taken that which was not rightfully his.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!

Begging the question.

BAAWA
Ah, the rewording of the Marxist tosswad nonsense known as "exploitation" which stems directly from the refuted-to-death labor theory of value. When will you morons give up that piece of shit?
i take it you disagree with the principle that all people are entitled to the fruits of their labor then too?
Ah, but LTV isn't about that. Try again.

if property isn't theft - if it is right to grant people eternal dominion over land, then at some point all land will be legally occupied as private property. if all the land is made into private property and there are some people who do not own any land, then some people will have the ability to charge others for access to it.
So what?

and these land-owners can charge the others a significant percentage of the fruits of their labor in order to secure access to the necessities of life.
Or a small portion. To claim that it will always be a significant portion is fallacious in the extreme.

which means that in order to secure their right to life, some people (in reality, almost everyone, because a tiny minority winds up with most of the land) must give up a large percentage
Prove it.

of the fruits of their labor. by virtue of the system of private property these people are not entitled to the fruits of their labor, but are forced to give them away.
No, they are not. They keep the fruits of their labor. They just trade some away for other things.

Look, dumbshit: a cobbler needs some bread. He trades a pair of shoes for some loaves of bread from the baker. The baker needed the shoes. Each person was RECOMPENSED for their effort viz-a-viz the trade. Same thing with a job, dummy. You get recompensed for your efforts via money. Profit is not exploitation. It is not theft. Nor is property theft.

Why is it that you keep using the refuted to death labor theory of value? Is there some fuckup in your brain that prevents you from understanding that it's DOA?

Coward.
...
Look, dumbshit

well, that didn't last long.

Rightful possession or use requires the notion of property. Any idea to the contrary is self-contradictory.
You are of course wrong. There are and have been societies that have no notion of property but do have a notion as to 'use-rights' (ie rightful use). Calling this happenstance self-contradictory does not change the fact that the happenstance occurs.

Look, dumbshit: a cobbler needs some bread. He trades a pair of shoes for some loaves of bread from the baker. The baker needed the shoes. Each person was RECOMPENSED for their effort viz-a-viz the trade. Same thing with a job, dummy. You get recompensed for your efforts via money. Profit is not exploitation. It is not theft. Nor is property theft.

Why is it that you keep using the refuted to death labor theory of value? Is there some fuckup in your brain that prevents you from understanding that it's DOA?

Not a valid comparison. In your baker/cobbler example...BOTH parties got what they needed.
In the modern labor market...employees often DO NOT GET EVERYTHING THEY NEED!
They are forced to take less than they need, or get nothing at all!

why ELSE do you think so many families are a paycheck away from bankruptcy, and why ELSE do so many families have a difficult time making ends meet?
Because the American worker is EXPLOITED by a rich employer, who takes the lion's share of the worker's labor for his own benefit...giving as LITTLE as possible to the worker who actually performed the work.
If you want to make a valid comparison, then you could do it this way...

The cobbler needed five loaves of bread, to feed his family. However, the baker, being a real scrooge, only gave the cobbler THREE loaves of bread, for the pair of shoes he needed. The cobbler, fearing getting NOTHING AT ALL...took the three loaves of bread, so that he could at least provide SOMETHING, however inadequate to their needs, to his family. It was better than getting nothing at all.
In THAT example, the baker got everything he needed, but the cobbler didn't.

and THAT is closer to the reality faced by the American worker nowadays.

Rightful possession or use requires the notion of property. Any idea to the contrary is self-contradictory.
You are of course wrong. There are and have been societies that have no notion of property but do have a notion as to 'use-rights' (ie rightful use).
If you have rightful use of it, then either you have the property rights to it or someone has delegated them to you. That's how it works.

Calling this happenstance self-contradictory does not change the fact that the happenstance occurs.
When.

well, that didn't last long.
Coward.

Look, dumbshit: a cobbler needs some bread. He trades a pair of shoes for some loaves of bread from the baker. The baker needed the shoes. Each person was RECOMPENSED for their effort viz-a-viz the trade. Same thing with a job, dummy. You get recompensed for your efforts via money. Profit is not exploitation. It is not theft. Nor is property theft.

Why is it that you keep using the refuted to death labor theory of value? Is there some fuckup in your brain that prevents you from understanding that it's DOA?

Not a valid comparison.
It's quite valid.

In your baker/cobbler example...BOTH parties got what they needed.
In the modern labor market...employees often DO NOT GET EVERYTHING THEY NEED!
They can get it in other places. Therefore.....

why ELSE do you think so many families are a paycheck away from bankruptcy
Governmental interference.

and why ELSE do so many families have a difficult time making ends meet?
Because the American worker is EXPLOITED by a rich employer,
Nonsense. That's LTV.

The cobbler needed five loaves of bread, to feed his family. However, the baker, being a real scrooge,
ad hom in the argument. That's good.

only gave the cobbler THREE loaves of bread, for the pair of shoes he needed.
So what? NEED DOES NOT GRANT TITLE TO ANYTHIHNG.

A grocer might need, say, $3.00 for a loaf of bread. You are willing to only pay 75 cents, because you're such a scrooge, right?

Get crucial. Learn how prices are formed.

If you have rightful use of it, then either you have the property rights to it or someone has delegated them to you. That's how it works.
No, that is how it recognision and belief in the concept 'property' works. 'Property' exists when people believe it does. It certainly is a very common belief (and one that I happen to like), but it is not universal among human societies throughout time and space.


When.
To my specific knowledge up to colonisation, and beyond.

I'd like to add my two cents worth to fuel the fire :D

1) I am paid to produce a product which is sold for a profit, therefore I cannot reasonably expect to afford to buy the product I am producing, without falling into a deficit... unless I work more hours than I would otherwise need to, every hour of which produces more products to have a profit made on them, whereas I'm still struggling to buy the products I've already made.
Obviously, I can't live off of, say, remote controls, but everything else I buy is sold for a profit also.
So I MUST work more.

2) I cannot hope of ever buying a car or house straight away, I must obtain something called a loan, which places me in debt for the foreseeable future, just so that I have a roof over my head, and a means of actually getting to work to earn the money in the first place. Obscene interest rates are charged on the money that is loaned to me, requiring me to work more to pay off the interest AND the money I owe the bank (or god forbid, depending your situation, that 'friendly' guy and his 'friends').

3) It's all well and good people saying that they can change job, or further their career, when you live at the top of the global heirarchy. If you weren't so conceited, you'd realise how many people have to suffer in this world in order for you to EAT, in order for you to wear CLOTHES, and most importantly, for you to live the life of luxury that none of you are grateful for. The real victims aren't the pizza boys, the factory workers, hell, it isn't even the prostitutes or homeless, at least they have relative protection, shelters, paved streets, and people willing to help them, pay them, donate to them, or whatever. There are people with NOTHING... no food, no water, no money, no hope, no future, no power to change their lives... and they are lying around waiting to die, just so YOU (and I) can live the lives we lead.

4) I believe that the situation we find ourselves in with regards to property has been a natural consequence of certain peoples behaviour, by taking land by force and making people work or die. Most of you either talk about the 'hunter-gatherer' or modern society, forgetting most of the atrocious history inbetween. Sure, communal ownership and tending of land would be ideal, but we would inevitably encounter the same problems all over again, and people will have the land taken from them by force. I believe, to some extent, that property is ESSENTIAL to the functioning of society, and its protection should be guaranteed by an agent such as the government or law enforcement. How it is divided/worked/traded or otherwise dealt with is bigger issue.

I agree fully with the person who said a combination of both is superior, or more powerful... that general point.

There are many forms of capitalism just as there are forms of socialism... each come in degrees, or function in entirely different ways. There are many more ideologies that need addressed before we sort out the mess we've made.

To finish, money is worth NOTHING. It's value now floats in a limbo called the 'stock market'... the greatest lie, ever since it was based on something as stupid as Gold. At least then you could feel happy holding it in your hands and at least THEN there wasn't so damn much of the irritating stuff. What is so logical about a tomato costing 2000% (roughly, who cares) more in the western world? Try explaining the logic of the value of a tomato without using a circular argument.

why ELSE do you think so many families are a paycheck away from bankruptcy, and why ELSE do so many families have a difficult time making ends meet?
Because the American worker is EXPLOITED by a rich employer, who takes the lion's share of the worker's labor for his own benefit...giving as LITTLE as possible to the worker who actually performed the work.


The above is actually completely true. A large number of the rich do, in fact, exploit the American worker and every other tax paying American citizen, reguardless of employment status. The source and cause of this exploitation, however, is not capitalism. The source and cause of this exploitation is, in reality, socialism.

The system of economics that exists in the United States today is not capitalism, and certainly not free-market capitalism. The economy in the United States is constructed of government-chartered organizations called corporations. The United States Government spends lots of money on corporate subsidies and bailouts, and grants corporations specials rights and privilages which are not granted to real individuals. Via the income tax, the government removes the fruits of the American worker's labor and redistributes said fruits to these corporations in the form of subsidies and bailouts. Redistribution of wealth, a concept that is completely contrary to private property and capitalism, is the reason why those families are going bankrupt. We do not have capitalism in America today. What we have is corporate socialism.

The left believes that the solution to this problem is more socialism. Unfortunately the left does not recognize that socialism is the problem to begin with. The proper solution to this problem comes in two steps: 1) repeal the income tax, and 2) sever financial ties between the government and business by ending all subsidy, bailouts, etc. Ending the income tax will destroy the mechanism by which the government removes the fruits of the worker's labor. Ending all corporate welfare, subsidy, and bailouts will stop the government from giving the fruits of the worker's labor away to the rich.

The solution to right-wing socialism is not left-wing socialism. The solution to right-wing socialism is lassez-faire free-market capitalism.

Demand that the worker be allowed to keep the fruits of his labor. Vote Libertarian (http://www.lp.org). :D

To finish, money is worth NOTHING. It's value now floats in a limbo called the 'stock market'...


Incorrect. Here in the United States, American currency is regulated by The Federal Reserve. That is, the United States Government has a monopoly on American currency. It is the United States Government which ultimately determines what American currency is worth and how much of it is in circulation at any given time.


Try explaining the logic of the value of a tomato without using a circular argument.

It is really quite simple: The tomato is worth whatever I am willing to pay for it. If the seller's price is too high, then I simply refuse to pay, as I have determined that the tomato does not have sufficient value to justify the price. If enough people refuse to pay, then the seller must lower his price or face losing business, and thus profit. Assuming you live in the United States, complaints about inflation and the surges in prices that inflation causes should be directed to the United States Government, whose ineptitude is responsible. Blame not the market for problems it didn't cause :)

Incorrect. Here in the United States, American currency is regulated by The Federal Reserve. That is, the United States Government has a monopoly on American currency. It is the United States Government which ultimately determines what American currency is worth and how much of it is in circulation at any given time.

A similar situation with the Bank of England, which lends the money to any banking businesses on our shores with which they conduct their business. Both your system and ours are nigh-on indentical. Each decides the national interest rate, and banking businesses follow suit, thus affecting all LOANS. This is to encourage/combat inflation, or encourage/combat spending/saving. I think however that you will find another interesting similarity between our Central Banks... neither of them is controlled by our governments, either directly or indirectly... although luckily for you, yours is accountable to your FOIA and Privacy Act. Both our currencies are far from decided by our governments, our currencies are stock just like anything else in the limbo of the market. What beats me is why the Pound is one of, if not 'the', strongest currency in the world, yet if you came and lived here, you wouldn't be better off.

It is really quite simple: The tomato is worth whatever I am willing to pay for it. If the seller's price is too high, then I simply refuse to pay, as I have determined that the tomato does not have sufficient value to justify the price. If enough people refuse to pay, then the seller must lower his price or face losing business, and thus profit. Assuming you live in the United States, complaints about inflation and the surges in prices that inflation causes should be directed to the United States Government, whose ineptitude is responsible. Blame not the market for problems it didn't cause :)

Although this is a circular argument, i.e. using current market economics to justify current market economics... it makes for something to discuss. All you've done is told me the theory behind the free-market, particularly supply and demand. You're not going to stop buying tomatoes, and you infact pay what you're told to pay for it. However, it doesn't fully address my challenge. What is the difference in value, to you, between a tomato in the U.S. or anywhere else? What kind of craziness allows something so simple to be valued so differently across the world? It's grown the same, performs the same function when eaten... requires the same materials and labour... what is it? Please don't say that their labourers are paid less than us which makes their tomatoes cheaper... for what then stops us being paid less and our tomatoes being cheaper?

I think however that you will find another interesting similarity between our Central Banks... neither of them is controlled by our governments, either directly or indirectly... although luckily for you, yours is accountable to your FOIA and Privacy Act. Both our currencies are far from decided by our governments, our currencies are stock just like anything else in the limbo of the market. What beats me is why the Pound is one of, if not 'the', strongest currency in the world, yet if you came and lived here, you wouldn't be better off.


Incorrect again. The Federal Reserve exists by the authority of the United States Congress, and has its monopoly on the money supply by the authority of the United States Congress. The members of the Board of Governors of The Federal Reserve are appointed by the US President and are approved by the US Senate. The Federal Reserve might not "officially" take its operating orders directly from the United States Government, however, it owes its existance to and derives its authority from the US Government and the governors of The Federal Reserve get their jobs from the US Government. Sounds like the place is run by the US Government to me. :)


You're not going to stop buying tomatoes, and you infact pay what you're told to pay for it.


Considering how you are not me, I don't think you can tell me what my buying habits are. :)


What kind of craziness allows something so simple to be valued so differently across the world? It's grown the same, performs the same function when eaten... requires the same materials and labour... what is it?


The tomato is valued differently across the world because it is not grown the same way all around the world, because it does not perform the same function in all places, and because it does not require the same materials and labor in all places.

Differences in ecologies around the planet make it easier to grow tomatos in some places, and harder in others. Prices may be lower in places where tomatos are more easily grown as there will be a greater supply of them. Having a larger supply means that the rationing mechanism (price) need not be so high. Some cultures may utilize or value tomatos differently than others; where tomatoes are very popular, demand will be high and so the price will increase if the supply does not also increase. Finally, in countries where agricultural technology is highly developed, tomatoes will be easier to grow, so the supply can be increased ultimately resulting in lower prices.

That last example is one of the reasons why genetically engineered crops can be a great advantage. Modifying food crops to be more robust in harsh climates or to yield more in the harvest means a greater supply of food. A greater supply means that more people can be fed at a lower price.

It is really quite simple: The tomato is worth whatever I am willing to pay for it. If the seller's price is too high, then I simply refuse to pay, as I have determined that the tomato does not have sufficient value to justify the price. If enough people refuse to pay, then the seller must lower his price or face losing business, and thus profit. Assuming you live in the United States, complaints about inflation and the surges in prices that inflation causes should be directed to the United States Government, whose ineptitude is responsible. Blame not the market for problems it didn't cause :)
You're assuming that enough people will refuse to pay.

[QUOTE]Nonsense. There is much archaelogical evidence of peoples who traded with outside communities and appear not to have engaged in warlike activities
Societies that operate on 'use-rights' as opposed to property rights in fact appear to not suffer from vandalism, something which occurs in all capitalist socieities. There is no evidence that the Mbuti for instance ever treated property with any less respect than I treat my own property.

I see your point, and I recognize its validity, however, I must ask what I feel is a pertinent question- Where are these soceities today? Were they 'fit' enough in the biological sense enough to compete with their competitors? It would be nice if humanity was able to coexist in a peaceful fashion where everyone shared the fruits of their labor, much like it would be nice if there wasn't rape or murder or psychopaths or etc etc the list goes on forever. Unfortunately, we have inherited thousands of years of soceital inertia. To change the direction of the most dominant paradigm would require resources that are currently unavailable to all but the most well off of individuals. Until colonization of other areas becomes a possibility, alternate forms of living will not be possible in realities other than simulations such as nationstates. I would much prefer to see mankind exist in a communal soceity much like that of BF Skinner's Walden 2, however I cannot imagine societies such as this existing on modern Earth under our present conditions. With this in mind, I struggle as a citizen of the US to meet my day to day standard of living, which I am grateful is better than that of most of humanity. Am I by any means satisfied with this condition? Of course not. There is always room for improvement. Unfortunately, I cannot see a valid alternative to living the lifestyle I have inherited. There are many theoretical models and even historical situations that illustrate more appealing methods of survival, but they aren't practical or actualizeable (is that a word) given our current situation. Please prove me wrong.

It's quite valid.


They can get it in other places. Therefore.....


Governmental interference.


Nonsense. That's LTV.


ad hom in the argument. That's good.


So what? NEED DOES NOT GRANT TITLE TO ANYTHIHNG.

A grocer might need, say, $3.00 for a loaf of bread. You are willing to only pay 75 cents, because you're such a scrooge, right?

Get crucial. Learn how prices are formed.

Prices are formed with an eye towards screwing the little guy, and intentionally creating deprivations.

Prices are formed with an eye towards screwing the little guy, and intentionally creating deprivations.

Evidence is good. You should try using it some time.

The above is actually completely true. A large number of the rich do, in fact, exploit the American worker and every other tax paying American citizen, reguardless of employment status. The source and cause of this exploitation, however, is not capitalism. The source and cause of this exploitation is, in reality, socialism.

The system of economics that exists in the United States today is not capitalism, and certainly not free-market capitalism. The economy in the United States is constructed of government-chartered organizations called corporations. The United States Government spends lots of money on corporate subsidies and bailouts, and grants corporations specials rights and privilages which are not granted to real individuals. Via the income tax, the government removes the fruits of the American worker's labor and redistributes said fruits to these corporations in the form of subsidies and bailouts. Redistribution of wealth, a concept that is completely contrary to private property and capitalism, is the reason why those families are going bankrupt. We do not have capitalism in America today. What we have is corporate socialism.

The left believes that the solution to this problem is more socialism. Unfortunately the left does not recognize that socialism is the problem to begin with. The proper solution to this problem comes in two steps: 1) repeal the income tax, and 2) sever financial ties between the government and business by ending all subsidy, bailouts, etc. Ending the income tax will destroy the mechanism by which the government removes the fruits of the worker's labor. Ending all corporate welfare, subsidy, and bailouts will stop the government from giving the fruits of the worker's labor away to the rich.

The solution to right-wing socialism is not left-wing socialism. The solution to right-wing socialism is lassez-faire free-market capitalism.

Demand that the worker be allowed to keep the fruits of his labor. Vote Libertarian (http://www.lp.org). :D

Yeah...Lazzez-faire free-market capitalism worked out great in the 1890's, didn't it? ever read about The Gilded Age? Where people worked in usafe work environments, seven days a week, in twelve-hour shifts?
Yeah, that worked out REAL great!!
That is why Teddy Roosevelt needed to be the Trustbuster...because it was working out so GREAT for the average American citizen.
That's why workers were FINALLY allowed to be free to unionize, to end some of the most ruthless exploitation of them by the corporations...because lazzez-faire worked so well!

Think about this...
do you enjoy your weekend? Like working only five days a week?
Do you like working only eight hours a day, and being paid time and a half for anything over and above that amount?
Do you like having clean, healthful, safe work environments?
Then thank your grandfathers for them! THEY didn't have what we still have most of...thoughbig business is doing it's level best to erode these things we currently have been taking for granted. THEY unionized...they struck...they MADE corporations be more ethical in the treatment of their workers.
And, we are slowly losing the gains our grandfathers fought for us to enjoy.
(sarcasm)Yeah, lazzez-faire capitalism is a great idea!! (sarcasm off)

Evidence is good. You should try using it some time.
My evidence is anecdotal. I ALWAYS end up getting screwed. The rich guy always wins. i always get FUCKED.

Incorrect again. The Federal Reserve exists by the authority of the United States Congress, and has its monopoly on the money supply by the authority of the United States Congress. The members of the Board of Governors of The Federal Reserve are appointed by the US President and are approved by the US Senate. The Federal Reserve might not "officially" take its operating orders directly from the United States Government, however, it owes its existance to and derives its authority from the US Government and the governors of The Federal Reserve get their jobs from the US Government. Sounds like the place is run by the US Government to me. :)
I'm not 'that' hot on the history of the Federal Reserve, but if I'm not mistaken the Board of Governors often serve terms in power that far exceed the terms of your presidents... how come? In England the Bank of England was appointed and given power by the government, sure... but did our government voluntarily do so? Hell no. It needed money and it needed it fast, and along came some rich guys who lent our government £1.2 million, roughly, which was a whole crap load of money in the 17th century. In return? They practically own the country, definately own the currency, and very definately control the interest rates and issuing of notes/bonds and whatever else a bank does. Welcome to being enslaved by bankers... who loan us money they control in the first place.

Considering how you are not me, I don't think you can tell me what my buying habits are. :)
I've noticed this level of sarcasm on the boards... let me clarify... 'you', as in, plural, meaning... 'all of you', as opposed to anyone that is not myself, for that would be 'us' or 'we'. Although, sure, it applies to me as well, but speaking from first person as objectively as possible about something, it's quite hard to remember to include yourself in the equation. So, correction is: "We're not going to stop buying tomatoes, and we infact pay what we're told to pay for it." And yes, it's generalization, before you point that out as well.

The tomato is valued differently across the world because it is not grown the same way all around the world, because it does not perform the same function in all places, and because it does not require the same materials and labor in all places.

Differences in ecologies around the planet make it easier to grow tomatos in some places, and harder in others. Prices may be lower in places where tomatos are more easily grown as there will be a greater supply of them. Having a larger supply means that the rationing mechanism (price) need not be so high. Some cultures may utilize or value tomatos differently than others; where tomatoes are very popular, demand will be high and so the price will increase if the supply does not also increase. Finally, in countries where agricultural technology is highly developed, tomatoes will be easier to grow, so the supply can be increased ultimately resulting in lower prices.

That last example is one of the reasons why genetically engineered crops can be a great advantage. Modifying food crops to be more robust in harsh climates or to yield more in the harvest means a greater supply of food. A greater supply means that more people can be fed at a lower price.
That's a lovely explanation of the 'theory' of market economics, yet again. Still, you fail to answer the question. I live in England. We have some of the most fertile land in the world. We have the best technology and methods of agriculture in the world. We have a readily available and educated workforce. Yet, our tomatoes are some of the most expensive on the planet. Go figure. I've said all of this and I haven't even touched on even more ridiculous market systems, such as the fact that French apples cost less in the UK than British apples. What kind of insanity is this?


I see your point, and I recognize its validity, however, I must ask what I feel is a pertinent question- Where are these soceities today?
Well, most of them were either enslaved or erradicated en masse. There are still a few dotted around the globe on a few islands and in a few jungle and rainforests, but I'm sure we'll get around to destroying their means of survival, i.e. their habitat, or turning them into tourist attractions like so many tribes in Africa and elsewhere.

Were they 'fit' enough in the biological sense enough to compete with their competitors?
Has it ever occured to anyone that the version of evolutionary theory that is pumped into our heads in school is infact to reinforce the 'competitive' ethos of our society. What strikes me is the existence of co-operative species, although there are few, I'm sure it's the beginning of a long and beautiful process. If it wasn't for co-operation, human beings and any other organism on this planet wouldn't exist. We are a prime example of what happens when different cells, and thus organs, co-exist, co-evolve, and co-operate. The value of co-operation is vastly undervalued in society today.

It would be nice if humanity was able to coexist in a peaceful fashion where everyone shared the fruits of their labor, much like it would be nice if there wasn't rape or murder or psychopaths or etc etc the list goes on forever. Unfortunately, we have inherited thousands of years of soceital inertia. To change the direction of the most dominant paradigm would require resources that are currently unavailable to all but the most well off of individuals.
I see what you're saying, but societal inertia doesn't just go in one direction. Many areas of society have changed and will continue to change. Besides, the times of greatest enlightenment for our species are when the inevitable collapse of our civilization happens. Then we move on and learn from our mistakes, hopefully.

Until colonization of other areas becomes a possibility, alternate forms of living will not be possible in realities other than simulations such as nationstates. I would much prefer to see mankind exist in a communal soceity much like that of BF Skinner's Walden 2, however I cannot imagine societies such as this existing on modern Earth under our present conditions. With this in mind, I struggle as a citizen of the US to meet my day to day standard of living, which I am grateful is better than that of most of humanity. Am I by any means satisfied with this condition? Of course not. There is always room for improvement. Unfortunately, I cannot see a valid alternative to living the lifestyle I have inherited. There are many theoretical models and even historical situations that illustrate more appealing methods of survival, but they aren't practical or actualizeable (is that a word) given our current situation. Please prove me wrong.
It has to be noted I'm not out to prove anyone wrong, so I won't attempt to prove you wrong either. I just try and point out some issues that need addressed, and I'll continue pointing them out in various ways until I'm satisfied people understand what I'm trying to say, or until I change my mind. Personally, I don't believe in the viability of an anarchist or communist society, for my own thoughts about the logical outcome of each has lead me to believe that we'll end up in a similar situation we're in now. I'm not saying these are the only socialist ideologies either, or liberal for that matter. I borrow ideas from all over the board depending on whether I see them as being logical, rational, or whatever. I'm actually a supporter of soft-eugenics as a human alternative to 'survival of the fittest'. Where the individual decides, to the best of their knowledge, and any knowledge about themselves that society can provide, whether they should help bring a child into this world. Choice... something that can still be controlled depending on what questions are available to decide answers on.

Not to mention a rabid opponent of Communism/Marxism.

Even though he predated Marxism? I think you're mixing him up with Bakunin.

Vas.

*shrugs*

I wasn't my intention to argue in favor or against Proudhon. I was just explaining what Proudhon seemed to be saying. Whatever conclusion one draws makes no difference to me. :) Actually, there were a lot of things he said that I don't agree with either.

Give up, there's no reasoning with the child. To learn more - http://www.sonic.net/~wooly/ - basically a bunch of sexually inadequate fantasists.

Vas.

Prices are formed with an eye towards screwing the little guy, and intentionally creating deprivations.
Oh really?

Why not have a read of Chapter 16 (http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap16sec1.asp) of Ludwig von Mises' Human Action.

Give up, there's no reasoning with the child. To learn more - http://www.sonic.net/~wooly/ - basically a bunch of sexually inadequate fantasists.
Poor child. You can't defeat me. Poor poor child.

Here, let me give you a hint: the labor theory of value is bullshit. There's no such damned thing as "ultimate value" or the objective value of something. The price the consumer pays in the store is not any sort of objective value for which the worker is being ripped-off because the "capitalist" is making a profit. Value is inherently subjective, and to state that the worker is being "exploited" is to demand that value be objective, when it is not.

Deal with it, you immature tosswad oxymoron.

Yeah...Lazzez-faire free-market capitalism worked out great in the 1890's, didn't it?
It wasn't such. Nice try at a strawman.

[snip strawman]

Try again when you have some evidence.

It wasn't such. Nice try at a strawman.

[snip strawman]

Try again when you have some evidence.

Really? Then you, obviously, read a different American History textbook than I did.
I read about The gilded Age...and in that textbook, it described it as an age of lazzez-faire capitalism.
And outlined the way in which workers were ruthlessly exploited.
And the way in which consumers were being denied choices by the forming "trusts" most notably Rockefeller's Standard Oil Trust.
and how these trusts were making fewer and fewer choices available to both consumers and workers...with the effect of driving up prices...driving down wages...and making it impossible for workers to even HOPE for fair treatment from their employers.
It got so bad that T.R. (one of the few Republicans I DO like) had to become a "trust-buster"
T.R.'s earlier work in this regard led to The Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1914...which happened when T.R. was no longer President.

This is American History as I learned it.

Thus...A to B to C...lazzez-faire capitalism leads to the building up of huge trusts (latterly, multi-national corporations) which leads to reduced choices for workers and consumers...leading to the driving up of prices (less competition) and the driving down of wages (less choice of where to work!)

Lazzez-faire capitalism completely screws the little guy! It sucks royal ass!

, however, I must ask what I feel is a pertinent question- Where are these soceities today?
Actually this question isnt pertinent to the point I was making in it's context. Further the socities I referred to existed over a scale of time vastly longer than capitalist industrialised societies have been in place. Success in terms of survival is measured in longevity, not displacement. Just to clarify my point was to ask, how it was that humans should be regarded as 'incapable' of maintaining socially cooperative behaviours, considering that such behaviour has been the basis of survival for many human societies througout time and space.

Were they 'fit' enough in the biological sense enough to compete with their competitors?
What do you mean fit in the biological sense? The members of such socieities were as fit in the biological sense as any other random group of anatomically modern humans.

It would be nice if humanity was able to coexist in a peaceful fashion where everyone shared the fruits of their labor, much like it would be nice if there wasn't rape or murder or psychopaths or etc etc the list goes on forever.
Yes it would be nice, and who's to say you cant get fairly close to the ideal if that's what you aim for? The tantalising possibility is of course the overt basic premise of capitalism. If the market is left to run it's course, people will be productive and everyone will be better off, because the fruits of labour will be shared through increased availability of exchange goods and increased choice, and increased volume of exchange per capita.

Unfortunately, we have inherited thousands of years of soceital inertia
No we have not. Who is this 'we' you refer to? What do you mean by inertia?

To change the direction of the most dominant paradigm would require resources that are currently unavailable to all but the most well off of individuals.
This is simply not true. Paradigms fall as more quickly than they rise, they can be immovable for long periods of time, then collapse and be displaced virtually instantaneously.

Until colonization of other areas becomes a possibility, alternate forms of living will not be possible in realities other than simulations such as nationstates.
This diagnosis appears backwards to me. If we dont find alternative forms of living, or colonise somewhere else to stuff up, all forms of living might well not be possible.

I struggle as a citizen of the US to meet my day to day standard of living, which I am grateful is better than that of most of humanity. Am I by any means satisfied with this condition? Of course not. There is always room for improvement.
I agree there is room for improvement, although I suggest you have imagined that the kind and scope of improvement that I might favour is somewhat different to my actual preferences. I for one do not advocate communism, nor fundamentalist socialism, nor do I believe that all forms of capitalism should be rejected. My purpose in raising the fact of the existence of other types of reckoning, was to prove that 'property' is not a universal concept, nor is it essential to organising resource distribution. I was not expressing any desire to abandon the concept of property in my own society, (hence the comments about liking 'property').

Unfortunately, I cannot see a valid alternative to living the lifestyle I have inherited.
What do you mean by different lifestyle?

There are many theoretical models and even historical situations that illustrate more appealing methods of survival, but they aren't practical or actualizeable (is that a word) given our current situation.
Again this depends what you mean by lifestyle.
To be honest nothing you have posted is relevent to my point, which is that it is not 'against human nature' to live in cooperative, communual and or socialistic societies. Any implication that this means you have to choose between the two extremes of facist dog-eat-dog fundamental rampant capitalistism, or living in hippy love-fest nanny-state sponsored workers communes, is one that has been superimposed by the reader and is not related to the intent of the author (me).

Really? Then you, obviously, read a different American History textbook than I did.
Yes. I read the one where they didn't lie.

I read about The gilded Age...and in that textbook, it described it as an age of lazzez-faire capitalism.
And that textbook is wrong.

And outlined the way in which workers were ruthlessly exploited.
...which they weren't.

And the way in which consumers were being denied choices by the forming "trusts" most notably Rockefeller's Standard Oil Trust.
You do realize that it wasn't until JP Morgan bought out Rockefeller that Standard Oil gained its maximal market share of 80%, and that by the time of the "antitrust" suit, it was down to a 19% market share.

But you don't want to let a little thing like FACTS get in the way of your rant, do you?


and how these trusts were making fewer and fewer choices available to both consumers and workers
You mean like the government did with its monopolies on police, courts, railroads, etc?

..with the effect of driving up prices...driving down wages...and making it impossible for workers to even HOPE for fair treatment from their employers.
Actually, prices were going down and wages were going up. Again, that little thing called fact just fucks you over.

It got so bad that T.R. (one of the few Republicans I DO like) had to become a "trust-buster"
T.R.'s earlier work in this regard led to The Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1914...which happened when T.R. was no longer President.
Yes, the anti-trust act. Funny that no two lawyers or judges can agree on precisely what "anti-trust" is. It's actually unconstitutional, you know. Since no one knows what "anti-trust" actually is, it's ex post facto, which, as you should know, is forbidden by the US Constitution.

This is American History as I learned it.
You learned it incorrectly.

Thus...A to B to C...lazzez-faire capitalism leads to the building up of huge trusts (latterly, multi-national corporations) which leads to reduced choices for workers and consumers...leading to the driving up of prices (less competition) and the driving down of wages (less choice of where to work!)
History records the opposite.

Want another example?

ALCOA held a natural monopoly on the production of aluminum ingots in the US for a good 4 or 5 DECADES. Now, you might think they charged a lot and paid little. But the fact is that they paid their workers well, and the price per pound of aluminum went from $8 in 1880 to 20 CENTS in 1920.

So much for your "history book".

Originally Posted by Labrador
Really? Then you, obviously, read a different American History textbook than I did.
BAAWA Replies:
Yes. I read the one where they didn't lie.

Labrador Responds - Ah...I see. If the textbook doesn't share YOUR opinion, they "lie." I understand now. Obviously, you have existed at all points in history, you were there, and so you, alone, can give a definitive account of that era. My bad. So, where's your time machine, Mr. Titor?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Labrador
I read about The gilded Age...and in that textbook, it described it as an age of lazzez-faire capitalism.
BAAWA Replies:
And that textbook is wrong.

Labrador Responds - Again...wrong because it does not share YOUR opinion? That's right, I forgot, I'm talking to the famous John Titor here, and of course you would know, since you got that radically cool time machine where you of course, witnessed it all first-hand, and can give a complete, true, and unbiased account of all social and historical eras. I forgot. By the way, how is life back in your own natural era of the year 2036, Mr. Titor?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Labrador
And outlined the way in which workers were ruthlessly exploited.
BAAWA Replies:
...which they weren't.

Labrador Responds - Ok. So I guess you do not consider being forced to work in unsafe, unhealthy, and dangerous work environments, seven days a week, 12 hours a day, for a mere pittance is not exploitation. Exactly how would YOU define it then, Mr. Titor?

Have a nice life. You are not worth my further time. You are so obviously brainwashed that any fact I can present will be dismissed out of hand if it doesn't agree with your opinion. so there's really no point in further debate with you. you are obviously right 100 percent of the time, without fail. so, not only are you Mr. John Titor...but, YOU ARE THE MESSIAH!! THE SECOND COMING!! Must be, since there was only ever one other all-perfect being to walk the Earth, and He did so some 2000 years ago in the Arabian desert. And for speaking truth, and spreading the message of joy, peace, tolerance, love, compassion, acceptance, mercy and fairness...He got nailed to a cross! Guess you learned your lesson the first time you were here, which is why you now preach such hatred, intolerance, greed, and selfishness. Hoping to avoid the result of your first life, eh?

*Labrador disengages the extreme-sarcasm catch*

Really? Then you, obviously, read a different American History textbook than I did.

Yes. I read the one where they didn't lie
- Ah...I see. If the textbook doesn't share YOUR opinion, they "lie."
No. When they call the railroad owners "robber barrons" and point to it as a failing of capitalism, without ever mentioning that many of the railroad owners got tons of government subsidies and were government-granted monopolies, then they do in fact lie.

I'll bet you didn't know either of those things, did you?

I read about The gilded Age...and in that textbook, it described it as an age of lazzez-faire capitalism.

And that textbook is wrong.

Again...wrong because it does not share YOUR opinion?
No. Because it's just flat out wrong.

And outlined the way in which workers were ruthlessly exploited.

...which they weren't.
Ok. So I guess you do not consider being forced to work
Forced to work?

What sort of nonsense is that?

And I'm afraid I have no idea who this John Titor person is. But it doesn't matter since you are a coward and can't stand to learn that what you learned in school is wrong.

You make an interesting distinction. I think I'll go metaphorically masticate this for a while.
Stop masticating, that is all you do now-a-days! You go up in your room, and masticate! Stop :p

Originally Posted by Labrador
Ok. So I guess you do not consider being forced to work (remainder of MY words were CUT OUT by BAAWA in order that he may twist them to suit his agenda)

BAAWA Replied to EDITED TEXT:
Forced to work?

What sort of nonsense is that?

The ORIGINAL Labrador quote (and you can verify this yourself by scrolling back was: "Ok. so I guess you do not consider being forced to work IN UNSAFE, UNHEALTHY, AND DANGEROUS WORK ENVIRONMENTS, SEVEN DAYS A WEEK TWELVE HOURS A DAY...YOU DO NOT CONSIDER THIS "EXPLOITATION." THEN HOW, MAY I ASK, WOULD YOU DEFINE "EXPLOITATION?"

Way to twist someone's words, BAAWA.

I'm not gonna play these fucking games with you. You aren't worth a pitcher of warm spit! If you can't quote me accurately, when debating me, then this debate is over, and you go on Ignore. I'll give you ONE LAST CHANCE, to quote me accurately, and respond to the question that was actually put to you...WITHOUT RE-FRAMING, OR RE-PHRASING MY QUESTION TO FIT YOUR OWN AGENDA!! Either you quote me accurately, and directly answer questions I pose to you AS I POSED THEM....either you give me that courtesy, or we have nothing further to discuss.

I will NOT be misquoted, and taken out of context in this manner!

And I'm afraid I have no idea who this John Titor person is. But it doesn't matter since you are a coward and can't stand to learn that what you learned in school is wrong.

Oh, and John Titor? He was a reputed time traveler from the year 2036...who had supposedly come back to November 2000, in a time machine he'd built. He posted lots of stuff on the Internet, predictions, schmatics of his time machine, etc. My referring to you as "John Titor" was my way of being sarcastic.
Try doing a Google search on John Titor sometime.

I'm not gonna play these fucking games with you. You aren't worth a pitcher of warm spit! If you can't quote me accurately, when debating me, then this debate is over, and you go on Ignore. I'll give you ONE LAST CHANCE, to quote me accurately, and respond to the question that was actually put to you...WITHOUT RE-FRAMING, OR RE-PHRASING MY QUESTION TO FIT YOUR OWN AGENDA!! Either you quote me accurately, and directly answer questions I pose to you AS I POSED THEM....either you give me that courtesy, or we have nothing further to discuss.

I will NOT be misquoted, and taken out of context in this manner!

You're arguing with someone who's purpose, in another thread (to which he was specifically not invited) is:
I think I'll stay and keep putting my dick in the mashed potatoes. . Ignore him, it's easier.

Vas.

I am a socialist. I know whether I envy the rich or not. Don't tell me what I believe for me.
It is capitalism where you are treated as a cog in a machine. You spend all day attaching bolts to a car. That is not freedom.

So if i do that under communism or anarchy I am equal? how does it make any difference? I'm still the same cog. AND DON'T SAY "YOU WOULD HAVE A CHOICE". There would be less of one.

Ok. So I guess you do not consider being forced to work (remainder of MY words were CUT OUT by BAAWA in order that he may twist them to suit his agenda)
No they weren't. You made an egregious error which needed to be rectified before any of the rest of your bullshit was addressed.

You were not misquoted and your words were not taken out of context, little one.

Now go cry about how I was so mean and wanted to correct your error. I won't care, though. You're an immature high schooler who's got the debating skills of a dead lemur.

whine cry whine cry whine whine whine cry cry
That sums it up.

So if i do that under communism or anarchy I am equal? how does it make any difference? I'm still the same cog. AND DON'T SAY "YOU WOULD HAVE A CHOICE". There would be less of one.

Firstly, you would have a say in how the "machine" in which you are a cog would be applied. Secondly, you would work in co-operation with your fellows without a boss telling you what to do. You would be free to do as much or as little of a certain task as you deemed important in consultation with your fellow workers. You would be free to engage in a variety of different tasks from day to day should you so wish. Your time as a cog would be far shorter each day in a reorganised economy. Finally, your labour as a cog would benefit you as you would have a fair share of that which you produce.

Vas.

That sums it up.

OK, last time. You are a troll. You are here to annoy people. You take no notice of what people write, you misquote people and you probably think it's funny. I danced your dance for long enough on the Anarchist Thread, I'm not interested anymore. You are not worthwhile, your membership of the BAAWA "group" illustrates your childishness and obvious sexual inadequacy. I plan to ignore you from this point onwards, post what you like, you'll get no response. Oh, and for the record, I'm 29, so I'm not a child.

Vas.

Firstly, you would have a say in how the "machine" in which you are a cog would be applied. Secondly, you would work in co-operation with your fellows without a boss telling you what to do. You would be free to do as much or as little of a certain task as you deemed important in consultation with your fellow workers. You would be free to engage in a variety of different tasks from day to day should you so wish. Your time as a cog would be far shorter each day in a reorganised economy. Finally, your labour as a cog would benefit you as you would have a fair share of that which you produce.

Vas.

But that is possible now! These ideas have been implemented in forward looking companies since the late 80's None of these ideas are new or revolutionary.

But that is my opinion, Lelita just seems to spout what others have said. very annoying

But that is possible now! These ideas have been implemented in forward looking companies since the late 80's None of these ideas are new or revolutionary.

Of course it's possible now, and it does exist in co-operatives and, as you point out, horizontally organised modern companies, but it's not the rule. It was possible in the past, in the Jura Federation, in the Ukraine, in Catalonia, in Chiapas and these are the examples we use to build the future. But, as we now stand, can you say that these progressive examples are widespread? Are they open to all, or are they meritocratic, based on hierarchy according to intellectual ability? Is the freedom of a 90s software company available to a Walmart worker? How many of these egalitarian software companies survived the dotBomb? How many of those who survived are still egalitarian?

Of course it's possible now, that's why we argue for it.

Vas.

Of course it's possible now, and it does exist in co-operatives and, as you point out, horizontally organised modern companies, but it's not the rule. It was possible in the past, in the Jura Federation, in the Ukraine, in Catalonia, in Chiapas and these are the examples we use to build the future. But, as we now stand, can you say that these progressive examples are widespread? Are they open to all, or are they meritocratic, based on hierarchy according to intellectual ability? Is the freedom of a 90s software company available to a Walmart worker? How many of these egalitarian software companies survived the dotBomb? How many of those who survived are still egalitarian?

Of course it's possible now, that's why we argue for it.

Vas.

And ti is a good model to argue (the company examples). They may not be the norm, but there are more of them day by day. It's evolution. Companies see that employees that have more of a say and have a personal investment in the company, are likely to work harder and be more efficient. So that's the way they go.

And ti is a good model to argue (the company examples). They may not be the norm, but there are more of them day by day. It's evolution. Companies see that employees that have more of a say and have a personal investment in the company, are likely to work harder and be more efficient. So that's the way they go.

That's what anarchists have been saying since the beginning. Honestly, what you're proposing is called anarcho-syndicalism (http://www.anarchosyndicalism.net/as.php).

Vas.

ok....
will have to look into this. Thanks

ok....
will have to look into this. Thanks

Assuming you're American, you might be surprised at the role it's played, through the International Workers of the World (IWW - the Wobblies), in your country's history.

Vas.

Assuming you're American, you might be surprised at the role it's played, through the International Workers of the World (IWW - the Wobblies), in your country's history.

Vas.

not american. british.
after reading this page, I think i go for capitalist syndicalism.
http://www.anarchosyndicalism.net/critics/sapienza.htm
I liked what this guy wrote.

whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine
Child. Grow up.

Anyway, now it's time for today's lesson in "Why the Labor Theory of Value is wrong, and since it is it shows that communism is a load of shit, being based entirely on the LTV"

I ask you to paint my fence for $10. You agree. You then subcontract to someone else (because you got some rush job or something--it's an example) and pay that person $7. That person would and did take the same time to paint the fence as you would.

Question: Was the person who made $7 exploited?
Answer: No!

There is no such thing as "ultimate value" insofar as goods and services go. The LTV assumes that there is; that the amount of labor determines the value. Load of nonsense. Value is derived from subjective estimations. I value the fence being painted at $10, and you agree (even though you actually would have done it for $7, since you then subcontracted for $7). Someone else values it at $7 (as you do), and agrees to do it at that rate.

There, in a nutshell, is a refutation of the LTV, and ipso facto, communism.

Child. Grow up.

Anyway, now it's time for today's lesson in "Why the Labor Theory of Value is wrong, and since it is it shows that communism is a load of shit, being based entirely on the LTV"

I ask you to paint my fence for $10. You agree. You then subcontract to someone else (because you got some rush job or something--it's an example) and pay that person $7. That person would and did take the same time to paint the fence as you would.

Question: Was the person who made $7 exploited?
Answer: No!

There is no such thing as "ultimate value" insofar as goods and services go. The LTV assumes that there is; that the amount of labor determines the value. Load of nonsense. Value is derived from subjective estimations. I value the fence being painted at $10, and you agree (even though you actually would have done it for $7, since you then subcontracted for $7). Someone else values it at $7 (as you do), and agrees to do it at that rate.

There, in a nutshell, is a refutation of the LTV, and ipso facto, communism.You are confusing value with price. The example is more akin to one on relative values of labor, an argument against equating the value of all labor (although you don't go far enough to really be talking about relative value of labor).

***edit, it may be easier for you if you insert Marx's term exchange-value for price if you are a Marxist, thus this is a confusion of exchange-value for labor value. Same concept just different terms.***

Child. Grow up.

Anyway, now it's time for today's lesson in "Why the Labor Theory of Value is wrong, and since it is it shows that communism is a load of shit, being based entirely on the LTV"

I ask you to paint my fence for $10. You agree. You then subcontract to someone else (because you got some rush job or something--it's an example) and pay that person $7. That person would and did take the same time to paint the fence as you would.

Question: Was the person who made $7 exploited?
Answer: No!

There is no such thing as "ultimate value" insofar as goods and services go. The LTV assumes that there is; that the amount of labor determines the value. Load of nonsense. Value is derived from subjective estimations. I value the fence being painted at $10, and you agree (even though you actually would have done it for $7, since you then subcontracted for $7). Someone else values it at $7 (as you do), and agrees to do it at that rate.

There, in a nutshell, is a refutation of the LTV, and ipso facto, communism.
You are confusing value with price.
Price is a type of value. I value the painting being done more than the $10.

The example is more akin to one on relative values of labor, an argument against equating the value of all labor (although you don't go far enough to really be talking about relative value of labor).
Marx equates all labor as the same (homogenous).

BAAWA, could you please leave my thread? i would perfer to keep this civil and productive, instead of the pissing contest that follows you wherever you go.

whine cry whine
Hey--weren't you ignoring me?

Price is a type of value, but the two terms are not interchangable. Price is merely what the agreed exchange is, and under various free market ideologies price is supposed to equal value, but they all require a free market, something Marx holds to be impossible. Merely asserting that Marx was wrong because price would equal value in a free market without proving Marx's unfree market wrong does not disprove Marx (or the labour theory of value which is used by both capitalists and anti-capitalists) Marx equates all labor as the same (homogenous).No he doesn't. He refers to one particular type of labour value as being homogenous, the socially accepted labour value(your Marx may translate differently). Marx spends a considerable ammount of time discussing value and uses a variety of different defintions for value. Exchange value is the value placed upon on something by the market, or price.

Price is a type of value, but the two terms are not interchangable. Price is merely what the agreed exchange is, and under various free market ideologies price is supposed to equal value, but they all require a free market, something Marx holds to be impossible.
And the fact that people can and do exchange freely and set their own values does show Marx to be wrong.

Merely asserting that Marx was wrong because price would equal value in a free market without proving Marx's unfree market wrong does not disprove Marx (or the labour theory of value which is used by both capitalists and anti-capitalists)
An unfree market would have prices set by a committee or government. Examples of this are rent control and wage limits.


Marx equates all labor as the same (homogenous).
No he doesn't. He refers to one particular type of labour value as being homogenous, the socially accepted labour value(your Marx may translate differently).
Which becomes everything of labor.

Marx spends a considerable ammount of time discussing value and uses a variety of different defintions for value. Exchange value is the value placed upon on something by the market, or price.
Which is meaningless, since Marx claims that there can't be a free market.

not american. british.
after reading this page, I think i go for capitalist syndicalism.
http://www.anarchosyndicalism.net/critics/sapienza.htm
I liked what this guy wrote.

Puleez -

How would the anarcho-syndicalists know what to produce and how much? Who, for instance, would make such trifling things as contact lens cases and cable ties? If there is no market demand, how will you know who needs what?

So, we only know that people need contact lens cases because of the market, rather than the number of people with contact lenses who need cases. Completely moronic. Market fundamentalists are as ridiculous as all fundamentalists, money is just a middle man. In a commune without a market, you find out what people want by asking them. In capitalism, you tell people what they want through advertising.

Vas.

So, we only know that people need contact lens cases because of the market, rather than the number of people with contact lenses who need cases.
It's the best way to find out. The market is a DAILY POLL to find out what people need.

But that goes right over your head, doesn't it?

And the fact that people can and do exchange freely and set their own values does show Marx to be wrong.I'd like to find where people exchange freely, it doesn't exist on this earth. Everyone engaged in commererce is in some way hampered in their transactions, be it by direct government regulation or indirect regulation (say income taxes) or through possibility of punishment (if done under the table to avoid regulation and taxation, the "tax" to make up for punishment distorts prices). Under the Marxian schemia the major distortion of the free market comes from the limited ownership of capital, since capital is immense labour multiplier they can prevent competition from those without capital and force the labourers to accept their wages or not work. Since there are so few opportuneties for those with no capital to compete in labouring for themselves (even your painter needs capital; paint brushes, ladders, paint and such), most workers must work at wages in order to survive (well not in the socialist countries, but this is considered by most free marketeers to be a distortion of the free market in labour).An unfree market would have prices set by a committee or government. Examples of this are rent control and wage limits.
well if that's your defintion of an unfree market, fine. But then how does this refute Marxism, where prices are not set by government or committee? By giving such a broad defintion (one free marketeers reject) of free market you include some interesting concepts into what is a free market, I am permitted in a free market to enslave workers for instance, they freely chose to work for me at a mutually agreeable price of my not shooting them. But Marx argues that the difference between my holding a gun to their head and my holding the only means they have of getting enough money to eat is only one of degree.Which becomes everything of labor. Actually no, it is merely an abstract value for determining the fair level of return one should get for one's investment of capital. Which is meaningless, since Marx claims that there can't be a free market.It is not meaningless since it applies to both free and unfree markets, it is a marker for what the value is that the markets place on something. If there is a law saying computer programers will be paid $60,852.37US/annum then that is the exchange value of a computer programmer's labour year. Likewise if there is a law which says Paxil (50mg) tablets will be priced at between $.07US and $1.00US each, and competition and collusion means that all Paxil (50mg) tablets are priced at $.25US@, then twenty-five cents is the exchange value of Paxil. And if a completely free market determines that Renoir's La jeune fille au cygne is worth $5,062,500US than that is the exchange value of Renoir's La jeune fille au cygne.

And the fact that people can and do exchange freely and set their own values does show Marx to be wrong.
I'd like to find where people exchange freely, it doesn't exist on this earth.
Sure it does. You agree to paint my house for a case or two of beer. Free. Exchange.

Everyone engaged in commererce is in some way hampered in their transactions, be it by direct government regulation or indirect regulation (say income taxes) or through possibility of punishment (if done under the table to avoid regulation and taxation, the "tax" to make up for punishment distorts prices).
You're just not thinking expansively enough.

Under the Marxian schemia the major distortion of the free market comes from the limited ownership of capital, since capital is immense labour multiplier they can prevent competition from those without capital and force the labourers to accept their wages or not work.
And if the laborers don't work, the "capitalists" will just have their "capital" sitting idle, won't they?

Hint: it's not one-sided, as you think it is.

Since there are so few opportuneties for those with no capital to compete in labouring for themselves (even your painter needs capital; paint brushes, ladders, paint and such), most workers must work at wages in order to survive (well not in the socialist countries, but this is considered by most free marketeers to be a distortion of the free market in labour).
I fail to see where any problem is.


An unfree market would have prices set by a committee or government. Examples of this are rent control and wage limits.
well if that's your defintion of an unfree market, fine. But then how does this refute Marxism, where prices are not set by government or committee?
Because that leads to no one knowing what's going on. Mises already took care of that. You can read it here (http://www.mises.org/econcalc.asp)

By giving such a broad defintion (one free marketeers reject)
No they don't.

of free market you include some interesting concepts into what is a free market, I am permitted in a free market to enslave workers for instance, they freely chose to work for me at a mutually agreeable price of my not shooting them.
Strawman.

But Marx argues that the difference between my holding a gun to their head and my holding the only means they have of getting enough money to eat is only one of degree.
Say--doesn't the "capitalist" have to have "workers" in order to "make money" so he can "eat"?

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPS! Looks like Karl didn't think of that.


Which becomes everything of labor.
Actually no,
Actually, yes.

it is merely an abstract value for determining the fair level of return one should get for one's investment of capital.
Meaning: it's all the same for labor.

Which is meaningless, since Marx claims that there can't be a free market.
It is not meaningless since it applies to both free and unfree markets,
Waitaminute. If Marx says there can't be a free market, how can it apply to a free market when a free market can't exist! OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPS!

it is a marker for what the value is that the markets place on something. If there is a law saying computer programers will be paid $60,852.37US/annum then that is the exchange value of a computer programmer's labour year.
Of course, that would be in an unfree market.

Likewise if there is a law which says Paxil (50mg) tablets will be priced at between $.07US and $1.00US each, and competition and collusion means that all Paxil (50mg) tablets are priced at $.25US@, then twenty-five cents is the exchange value of Paxil.
It's the price. And frankly, collusions rarely works.

And if a completely free market determines that Renoir's La jeune fille au cygne is worth $5,062,500US than that is the exchange value of Renoir's La jeune fille au cygne.
It is the price.

Hey--weren't you ignoring me?

ignoring, not kill-filing.

keep it civil or get out.

whine whine
I thought you were ignoring me, liar.

Around the first page of this topic there seemed to be a lot of confusion regarding the meaning of "theft" in the phrase "Property is theft". What it actually means is that PROPERTY IS ILLEGITIMATE.

How is property created? By working to change previously-existing property in some way. Eventually, if we trace back the source of any object, we come to natural resources and the work that was used to transform those natural resources into that object.

Now, we can all agree that a person is entitled to "own" his work, but what about natural resources? Natural resources come from land. Thus, property over natural resources comes down to property over land. And if we go back in time to follow the history of ownership of land, we eventually come down to theft. How was private property over land first created? A guy with a big stick pointed to a patch of land, said "this land is mine", and proceeded to beat the crap out of anyone who tried to use "his" land.

So, to put it in capitalist-speak: All property was created through the illegitimate use of force. That is why private property is illegitimate.

And here are two good quotes on the matter:

"The first man who, having fenced off a plot of land, thought of saying, 'This is mine' and found people simple enough to believe him was the real founder of civil society. How many crimes, wars, murders, how many miseries and horrors might the human race had been spared by the one who, upon pulling up the stakes or filling in the ditch, had shouted to his fellow men: 'Beware of listening to this imposter; you are lost if you forget the fruits of the earth belong to all and that the earth belongs to no one."
- Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality, 1755

" LAND, n.
A part of the earth's surface, considered as property. The theory that land is property subject to private ownership and control is the foundation of modern society, and is eminently worthy of the superstructure. Carried to its logical conclusion, it means that some have the right to prevent others from living; for the right to own implies the right exclusively to occupy; and in fact laws of trespass are enacted wherever property in land is recognized. It follows that if the whole area of _terra firma_ is owned by A, B and C, there will be no place for D, E, F and G to be born, or, born as trespassers, to exist."
- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

Assuming you're American, you might be surprised at the role it's played, through the International Workers of the World (IWW - the Wobblies), in your country's history.

Vas.
www.iww.org
We do have a presence in Britain, Daroth, albeit a small one.

And if the laborers don't work, the "capitalists" will just have their "capital" sitting idle, won't they?

Say--doesn't the "capitalist" have to have "workers" in order to "make money" so he can "eat"?
No, the capitalist already has money, with which he can eat. Even if it's only the capital of the business itself, it's still money, whereas the unemployed worker does not. Therefore, by virtue of owning capital, the capitalist doesn't have to have workers in order to make money so he can eat, but he does need to have workers in order to make a profit.

Around the first page of this topic there seemed to be a lot of confusion regarding the meaning of "theft" in the phrase "Property is theft". What it actually means is that PROPERTY IS ILLEGITIMATE.

How is property created? By working to change previously-existing property in some way. Eventually, if we trace back the source of any object, we come to natural resources and the work that was used to transform those natural resources into that object.

Now, we can all agree that a person is entitled to "own" his work, but what about natural resources? Natural resources come from land. Thus, property over natural resources comes down to property over land. And if we go back in time to follow the history of ownership of land, we eventually come down to theft. How was private property over land first created? A guy with a big stick pointed to a patch of land, said "this land is mine", and proceeded to beat the crap out of anyone who tried to use "his" land.

So, to put it in capitalist-speak: All property was created through the illegitimate use of force. That is why private property is illegitimate.

I can buy that and agree with that.

So now, we've created an entire monetary market based on the concept of ownership of land and property established thousands of years before you or I were born. Are you going to undo it all and change every humans' perspective on ownership of property?

The only reason there is the concept of property is due to limitation in resources. If we had unlimited resources, there would be no need for property. People take possession of property to protect themselves and ensure their own survival against others and their environment.

The only way you'll do away with the concept of property is to create a Star Trek replicator and thus do away with the problem of limited resources.

Good luck with that.

No, the capitalist already has money, with which he can eat. Even if it's only the capital of the business itself, it's still money, whereas the unemployed worker does not. Therefore, by virtue of owning capital, the capitalist doesn't have to have workers in order to make money so he can eat, but he does need to have workers in order to make a profit.

This is quite possibly one of the dumbest things I've ever heard of.

What the hell is the point of having money if there is no product to purchase?

Capital is meaningless without some tangible product from which its value is derived. Product that is created by workers who in turn for their labour is paid money with which they in turn can purchase other products. See? Economic system. Marvelous.

I can buy that and agree with that.

So now, we've created an entire monetary market based on the concept of ownership of land and property established thousands of years before you or I were born. Are you going to undo it all and change every humans' perspective on ownership of property?

The only reason there is the concept of property is due to limitation in resources. If we had unlimited resources, there would be no need for property. People take possession of property to protect themselves and ensure their own survival against others and their environment.

The only way you'll do away with the concept of property is to create a Star Trek replicator and thus do away with the problem of limited resources.

Good luck with that.Thanks for the good luck.
It has to go step by step actually. First nationalize the banking industry, then the major industries, then abolish inheritance and the private properties will gradually disppear.

[QUOTE=A Maniacal Autocrat]What the hell is the point of having money if there is no product to purchase?
[\QUOTE]
Who the hell said anything about having no product to purchase? I was referring to the workers in a person's company. If they aren't working, the owner can't make a profit, however the owner still has capital - the company itself.

Thanks for the good luck.
It has to go step by step actually. First nationalize the banking industry, then the major industries, then abolish inheritance and the private properties will gradually disppear.

And welcome to government corruption, blackmail and favourtism! No thanks.
I'd rather have corruption I can avoid than corruption I have to rely on.

You are arguing (again) a pipe dream that inevitably fails because the nature of humanity is against you. You cannot fight this nature, nor can you change it through education - because it is in our ingrained nature to be selfish and to want more. To survive better than the other guy. It's in our very ego.

The only way to change this is to give us no reason to fight for more because there is an unlimited amount of everything. The only reason people are selfish is because there exists limitations. There would be no point to selfishness if resources were unlimited, right? Hence, you can change human nature by changing the reason that nature exists. You otherwise cannot.

[QUOTE=A Maniacal Autocrat]
Who the hell said anything about having no product to purchase? I was referring to the workers in a person's company. If they aren't working, the owner can't make a profit, however the owner still has capital - the company itself.

You realize that capital requires a product to give it meaning. Lacking a product (i.e. what the workers produce) the capital has no basis for existing and dissolves. You may also tend to forget that capital is a limited resource that depending on the situation of the company could rapidly run out without an income.

Yes, the owner of the company will survive longer than the workers would, but not that much longer. It is a symbiotic relationship - each feeding on each other.

You realize that capital requires a product to give it meaning. Lacking a product (i.e. what the workers produce) the capital has no basis for existing and dissolves. You may also tend to forget that capital is a limited resource that depending on the situation of the company could rapidly run out without an income.

Yes, the owner of the company will survive longer than the workers would, but not that much longer. It is a symbiotic relationship - each feeding on each other.
Yes, I do realize that. But as you said, the owner of the company would survive longer than the workers would. Which is why I brought it up.

And if the laborers don't work, the "capitalists" will just have their "capital" sitting idle, won't they?

Say--doesn't the "capitalist" have to have "workers" in order to "make money" so he can "eat"?
No, the capitalist already has money, with which he can eat.
That doesn't hold for all of them. Ever look at a small business? Tell me the owner normally has a lot of money and I'll laugh at you (and I say this from a position where I have to deal with a lot of small businesses and startups.)

Even if it's only the capital of the business itself, it's still money,
It's assets, not liquid or M1.

whereas the unemployed worker does not. Therefore, by virtue of owning capital, the capitalist doesn't have to have workers in order to make money so he can eat, but he does need to have workers in order to make a profit.
What if he works by himself? You know, nothing's going to get done if someone doesn't do it.

That doesn't hold for all of them. Ever look at a small business? Tell me the owner normally has a lot of money and I'll laugh at you (and I say this from a position where I have to deal with a lot of small businesses and startups.)

What if he works by himself? You know, nothing's going to get done if someone doesn't do it.
I didn't say a lot of money. Enough to buy a meal or two is enough to fend off death from starvation for at least a week.

This is true, there are some capitalists that work for themselves. But the reference that I was making specifically referred to capitalists who have workers under them - which you mentioned, incidentally.

Around the first page of this topic there seemed to be a lot of confusion regarding the meaning of "theft" in the phrase "Property is theft". What it actually means is that PROPERTY IS ILLEGITIMATE.
I'd say that "theft" means "theft". If he meant "illegitimate", why didn't he write "illegitimate"?

How is property created? By working to change previously-existing property in some way.
Waitaminute! You can't try to define how property is created in terms of property. That's circular! You're looking for the initial concept of property, right? Well if property is already extant, how can you do that?

Eventually, if we trace back the source of any object, we come to natural resources and the work that was used to transform those natural resources into that object.
ala Locke's "mixing with labor"?

Now, we can all agree that a person is entitled to "own" his work, but what about natural resources?
What about them?

Natural resources come from land. Thus, property over natural resources comes down to property over land. And if we go back in time to follow the history of ownership of land, we eventually come down to theft. How was private property over land first created? A guy with a big stick pointed to a patch of land, said "this land is mine", and proceeded to beat the crap out of anyone who tried to use "his" land.
And how does that make it theft? Resolve your begged question (you've assumed it's theft in the first place when you need to demonstrate that it was theft).

And welcome to government corruption, blackmail and favourtism! No thanks.
I'd rather have corruption I can avoid than corruption I have to rely on.

You are arguing (again) a pipe dream that inevitably fails because the nature of humanity is against you. You cannot fight this nature, nor can you change it through education - because it is in our ingrained nature to be selfish and to want more. To survive better than the other guy. It's in our very ego.

The only way to change this is to give us no reason to fight for more because there is an unlimited amount of everything. The only reason people are selfish is because there exists limitations. There would be no point to selfishness if resources were unlimited, right? Hence, you can change human nature by changing the reason that nature exists. You otherwise cannot.You can't avoid corruption, it will always exist.
Look at the train system in the UK after it has been privatized.
What you are saying is that the world is shit and you like it because you are sitting on top.

You can't avoid corruption, it will always exist.
Look at the train system in the UK after it has been privatized.
What you are saying is that the world is shit and you like it because you are sitting on top.

Pretty much, yep.

I have no quams about that.

I wouldn't necessarily say I'm sitting on top, but I can safely say I'm far better off than many other people and I make no apologizies for it. However, much of what I have was earned.

Since you readily admit that corruption is unavoidable, why would you advocate a form of government where the prevalence of corruption would directly affect every single person directly under the control of that government? At least in a free market society, you can generally avoid and get away from government corruption. In a communist state, the naturally corrupted government controls your very well-being, and not necessarily to promote it.

I'd rather have the power in my own hands to control my own destiny and well-being than give it away to a knowingly corrupted institution.

Pretty much, yep.

I have no quams about that.

I wouldn't necessarily say I'm sitting on top, but I can safely say I'm far better off than many other people and I make no apologizies for it. However, much of what I have was earned.

Since you readily admit that corruption is unavoidable, why would you advocate a form of government where the prevalence of corruption would directly affect every single person directly under the control of that government? At least in a free market society, you can generally avoid and get away from government corruption. In a communist state, the naturally corrupted government controls your very well-being, and not necessarily to promote it.

I'd rather have the power in my own hands to control my own destiny and well-being than give it away to a knowingly corrupted institution.
Which is why I, personally, advocate direct democracy.

Pretty much, yep.

I have no quams about that.

I wouldn't necessarily say I'm sitting on top, but I can safely say I'm far better off than many other people and I make no apologizies for it. However, much of what I have was earned.

Since you readily admit that corruption is unavoidable, why would you advocate a form of government where the prevalence of corruption would directly affect every single person directly under the control of that government? At least in a free market society, you can generally avoid and get away from government corruption. In a communist state, the naturally corrupted government controls your very well-being, and not necessarily to promote it.

I'd rather have the power in my own hands to control my own destiny and well-being than give it away to a knowingly corrupted institution.But you are saying that a system where corruption is the rule is better than a system where curruption can happen.
Democratic communism can be corrupted indeed and become capitalism, but this flaw does not mean capitalism is better than democratic communism.

Anyway, I feel like we are high-jacking the thread.
Maybe it would be better to talk about that on one of the several threads about communism, no?

www.iww.org
We do have a presence in Britain, Daroth, albeit a small one.

Of that fact I am aware, but the absence of their influence on US society in American history books is one of those crimes perpetrated on the young of the US.

Vas.

Anyway, I feel like we are high-jacking the thread.
Maybe it would be better to talk about that on one of the several threads about communism, no?

I wouldn't worry about it, there's at least three threads saying largely the same thing at the moment. But, hey, it's all pointless anyway, but isn't it fun?

Vas.

I think one of the common problems when talking about property vis a vis it's legitimacy is that the term conflates several different meanings into one term, which means that people can be arguing at cross-purposes (intentionally or unintentionally)

This is at the heart of a lot of the problems with Lockean appropriation and the theories that draw on this as a major influence (Robert Nozick for an obvious example)

Nozick especially tends to assume that property always equals absolute property. The right to dispose of the object in whatever manner you wish. This isnt always the case. We accept a number of restrictions on the concept of property.

for example take listed buildings. In the UK, if you own a historic building or one of special architectural importance, then whilst you own it, it is your property, there are certain things you cant do with it... for example, you cant knock it down, or paint it magenta...

There are also restrictions on use of property that most people accept as legit, for example, even though you might own a gun (and the bullets) you can't use it exactly as you want....

Also there are the obvious distinctions between personal possessions and capital/means of production.

If we're getting into rights, then I guess we also have the question of an object falling under property rights or A property right. communal or private ownership perhaps?

As to cross purposes, we've all seen people claim that communism or socialism would prevent you having any personal possessions because of the conflation of personal possessions and private property.

that's rambling and confused - my apologies, I think my main point is that perhaps there is a need to be a little clearer about what we are talking about when we use the word property - its an essentially contested concept perhaps?

that's rambling and confused You're kidding right? Read the thread. Your post is one of the 10 to 20 clear posts. The rest of the thread is just confused and rambling about anything and everything, comparing apples to phones, semantic traps and void rethoric.

As to cross purposes, we've all seen people claim that communism or socialism would prevent you having any personal possessions because of the conflation of personal possessions and private property.

In most cases, that's deliberate. Trolls like BWAHAHA(throwing all his toys out of the pram) deliberately refuse to acknowledge the obvious distinction between possessions and property, thus making the ridiculous claim above. In fact, if you look back, he has said:
"There's no difference, that means you oppose possessions".

Basic trolling, really, along with his flooding of topics with rubbish elsewhere. Unsurprising, really, when you consider this (http://www.sonic.net/~wooly/).

Vas.

All Property is Theft.

I think thats a socialist ideology in that they think that according to the laws of nature it would be wrong for one person to claim a piece of land or property as belonging to them instead of the entire community

All Property is Theft.

I think thats a socialist ideology in that they think that according to the laws of nature it would be wrong for one person to claim a piece of land or property as belonging to them instead of the entire community

Very good. Now read the thread.

Vas.

In most cases, that's deliberate. Trolls like BWAHAHA(throwing all his toys out of the pram) deliberately refuse to acknowledge the obvious distinction between possessions and property,
There is no such distinction.

Now whine for me some more, child. I love watching your tantrums, troll.

Of that fact I am aware, but the absence of their influence on US society in American history books is one of those crimes perpetrated on the young of the US.

Vas.
Agreed. Are you a member? :)

There is no such distinction.

Now whine for me some more, child. I love watching your tantrums, troll.He said it before you so he wins the debate
HA HA HA OWNED !!!!!!11!!11!1 OMG SUXXOO0O0O0ORRR HA HA HA

trollish whining
*yawn*

Go have your diapers changed, little one.

Agreed. Are you a member? :)

Not at the moment, NUJ and ACTS does me for the moment. I have considered it, though, since I realised there was a London branch.

Vas.

What is property? Property is an ephemeral idea that has taken hold in human civilization to such an extent that it has been given a legal status, thereby giving the opportunity for it to be violated, where this "violation" would have previously been considered only a breach of respect.

You're kidding right? Read the thread. Your post is one of the 10 to 20 clear posts. The rest of the thread is just confused and rambling about anything and everything, comparing apples to phones, semantic traps and void rethoric.

Were mine one of the 10 to 20 clear posts?
It's just that I seem to of been ignored.
Refer to pages 4 and 5, I think.

Also, glad this thread is back... it disappeared for a while.

Were mine one of the 10 to 20 clear posts?

No they weren't.

It's just that I seem to of been ignored.

Ridiculous strawman.

Refer to pages 4 and 5, I think.

LTV has been refuted to death, moron.

Vas.

There ya go, what it would be like to have BAAWA respond to your posts!

What is property? Property is an ephemeral idea that has taken hold in human civilization to such an extent that it has been given a legal status, thereby giving the opportunity for it to be violated, where this "violation" would have previously been considered only a breach of respect.

Actually, as I've said elsewhere, for the majority part of the planet, property is the result of colonialism and the failure of anti-colonial revolutions to properly redistribute (leading, for example, to the fucked up mess that is Zimbabwe). Around the world, organisations like the MST in Brazil are challenging property rights and taking back what should be theirs. Property is not an idea that has truly taken hold in Asia, Africa or South America. I'm Irish, I'm from the only European country to have been truly colonised in the same way as Africa and Asia and I know the feeling.

Vas.

And the fact that people can and do exchange freely and set their own values does show Marx to be wrong.
Which people...if you really think there is such a thing as a 'free market' where people are permitted to exchange freely, I suggest you go find a really large bag of crack and try to 'exchange' it in front of a policeman, but only if you really like the idea of going to prison.

An unfree market would have prices set by a committee or government. Examples of this are rent control and wage limits.
No an unfree market is any market that is not free. A free market is one in which people may exchange whatever they please, whenever they please, with whomever they please, at whatever price pleases both parties.

Sure it does. You agree to paint my house for a case or two of beer. Free. Exchange.
Not where I live, the exchange would be required (by law) to be recorded and taxed, I would throughout the painting of the house be subject to various health and safety laws, I would also be required to adhere to any enviromental or building restrictions etc, in fact I really cant be bothered listing all the regulations I would be legally obliged to comply with simply to paint someone's house for a case or two of beer, and instead I will refer you back to the rather simple example of illicit drugs. You see in a 'free market' no product would be illicit, if even one product has exchange restrictions attached, then the market in which this occurs is not free.

And if the laborers don't work, the "capitalists" will just have their "capital" sitting idle, won't they?
The labourers would starve, and as a result those surviving would toddle back to work, because starving to death is highly unpleasant.

Waitaminute. If Marx says there can't be a free market, how can it apply to a free market when a free market can't exist!
Because the theory can exist.

So now, we've created an entire monetary market based on the concept of ownership of land and property established thousands of years before you or I were born. Are you going to undo it all and change every humans' perspective on ownership of property?

The only reason there is the concept of property is due to limitation in resources. If we had unlimited resources, there would be no need for property. People take possession of property to protect themselves and ensure their own survival against others and their environment.
Every human? Are you so certain that all humans live as you do? Of course resources have never been 'unlimited' yet 'property' has not been a concept universal to all humans throughout time and space.

You are arguing (again) a pipe dream that inevitably fails because the nature of humanity is against you. You cannot fight this nature, nor can you change it through education - because it is in our ingrained nature to be selfish and to want more. To survive better than the other guy. It's in our very ego.
I asked about this strange idea earlier in the thread. No one has yet given any sensible reason why such an assumption is accurate considering that the manner in which the majority of humans have lived contradicts the assertion that it is against human nature to act in a socialised cooperative manner.

In most cases, that's deliberate. Trolls like BWAHAHA(throwing all his toys out of the pram) deliberately refuse to acknowledge the obvious distinction between possessions and property,
There is no such distinction.
Of course there is a distinction. If I steal your car, it is a possession that I happen to have, ergo my possession, however it is legally still your property.

And the fact that people can and do exchange freely and set their own values does show Marx to be wrong.
Which people
I want my fence painted. You agree to do it for a case of beer.
Free. Exchange. No. Coercion. Get it?


An unfree market would have prices set by a committee or government. Examples of this are rent control and wage limits.
No an unfree market is any market that is not free.
Thanks for the tautology. I was giving an example, and you cut the context. Thanks for that.


Sure it does. You agree to paint my house for a case or two of beer. Free. Exchange.
Not where I live,
Sucks to be you.


And if the laborers don't work, the "capitalists" will just have their "capital" sitting idle, won't they?
The labourers would starve, and as a result those surviving would toddle back to work, because starving to death is highly unpleasant.
And if no one wants to work for you...you have a problem making money so that you won't starve, either.

See how it works?


Waitaminute. If Marx says there can't be a free market, how can it apply to a free market when a free market can't exist!
Because the theory can exist.
Which is relevant how?

I asked about this strange idea earlier in the thread. No one has yet given any sensible reason why such an assumption is accurate considering that the manner in which the majority of humans have lived contradicts the assertion that it is against human nature to act in a socialised cooperative manner.

In fact, I saw an interview with Richard Dawkins recently in which he complained about how completely people had misunderstood "The Selfish Gene". Basically, the selfish gene - seeking its own survival - actually leads humans to co-operate more than compete. It reduces the chance of being killed quite considerably, as well as improving the conditions of all of the species. Watching it I realised that "The Selfish Gene", rather than the 80s interpretation that it justifies capitalism and selfishness, actually provides extra scientific support to Kropotkin's concept of "Mutual Aid" (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/mutaidcontents.html).

Of course there is a distinction. If I steal your car, it is a possession that I happen to have, ergo my possession, however it is legally still your property.

Well, that's one way of putting it! But, a more politically useful is, the flat I live in is my possession, but, as I'm only renting it, it's someone else's property.

Vas.

In fact, I saw an interview with Richard Dawkins recently in which he complained about how completely people had misunderstood "The Selfish Gene". Basically, the selfish gene - seeking its own survival - actually leads humans to co-operate more than compete. It reduces the chance of being killed quite considerably, as well as improving the conditions of all of the species. Watching it I realised that "The Selfish Gene", rather than the 80s interpretation that it justifies capitalism and selfishness, actually provides extra scientific support to Kropotkin's concept of "Mutual Aid" (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/mutaidcontents.html).

that's because it turns out that kropotkin's argument was largely correct, despite the brush off his work has recieved since then. stephen jay gould wrote an article on it called "kropotkin was no crackpot".

that's because it turns out that kropotkin's argument was largely correct, despite the brush off his work has recieved since then. stephen jay gould wrote an article on it called "kropotkin was no crackpot".

What astounded me about reading "Memoirs of a Revolutionist" is how important he was in so many fields. If he hadn't been an anarchist, he'd probably be listed alongside the scientific greats in the history books. Like my point elsewhere about the IWW and US history, the sectarian censorship of history deprives us all of wisdom.

Personally, I want to make a film of "Memoirs of a Revolutionist", it's a fabulous story if nothing else!

Vas.

What astounded me about reading "Memoirs of a Revolutionist" is how important he was in so many fields. If he hadn't been an anarchist, he'd probably be listed alongside the scientific greats in the history books.

he even has a volcano named after him.

(and i just used terraserver.com to take a look at it. ah the wonders of the internet)

I want my fence painted. You agree to do it for a case of beer.
Free. Exchange. No. Coercion. Get it?
A free market is not a market in which it is in some circumstances possible for people to have a free exchange, but rather a market in which all exchange is free. You want your fence painted. You contract out the job for a case of beer, the person receiving the beer is not 'free' to take the beer and paint the fence, they in fact must in the first place be permitted to 'work' in the location in which your fence exists (for instance have rights to work stemming from their citizenship, or a work permit/visa), they must meet any health and safety regulations, they are required to have a tax (social security) number, they must pay taxes on any profit incurred. The exchange is not 'free' as in unregulated, the meaning of 'free' in the term 'free market'.

Thanks for the tautology. I was giving an example, and you cut the context. Thanks for that
You are most welcome. If you believe that any 'context' that was material to your point has been left out of my post, you can always quote yourself.

Sucks to be you.
Nah, it doesnt.

And if no one wants to work for you...you have a problem making money so that you won't starve, either.

See how it works?
Of course this is incorrect, because most people work even when they dont want to. The fact that no one wants to work for someone does not mean that no one will work for that someone. I suggest most children did not want to work down coalmines for instance, and yet they still did...

Waitaminute. If Marx says there can't be a free market, how can it apply to a free market when a free market can't exist!


Originally Posted by Peopleandstuff
Because the theory can exist.

Which is relevant how?
Because a 'free market' can be conceived, so to can the functioning of a 'free market' and the conception of that functioning can be combined with other theories, ergo someone who does not believe a 'free market' can exist, can theorise as to what might happen were it possible for a free market to exist.

he even has a volcano named after him.

shit, a town too.

bumpage

aww, don't die on me yet little thread

shit, a town too.

I'm tellin' ya, think of the film - the early days as a cadet, the exploration of Northern Russia, the river crash, finding a quick way to China, the underground teaching, prison, the escape, etc, etc. Dramatic tension or what???

Vas.

I'm tellin' ya, think of the film - the early days as a cadet, the exploration of Northern Russia, the river crash, finding a quick way to China, the underground teaching, prison, the escape, etc, etc. Dramatic tension or what???

it would make a really good movie. though i like bakunin's prison escape better.

Property is dictated by what your society or country wants its standing to be. Say as in Australia, did they steal the land from the aboriginees? I would say probably so in such a way that the Americans stole the land from the indians. However when you allow a governement to take hold and place its rule over the land and its people, you negate all rights that you once thought you had, to only the rights that the ruling government allows you to have.

We can argue all day that the governement is then wrong, but are you going to fight them and win? Probably not. You will either abide by thier rule and classifications of definitions or you will not be allowed the freedom to protest that action, with an exception of the country's with freedom of speech where you can question your authority without ramifications that go beyond your control. I know in the US that your private property is one of the three basics of the forefathers reasoning in declaring independance from england, Individual liberty, States rights, and Private property are the few things that carried over from the declaration of independance to the Constitution of the US and continues to rule the land today.

it would make a really good movie. though i like bakunin's prison escape better.
They'd probably just cast Elijah Wood as him with someone like Lindsey Lohen as a love interest.




And set it at Christmas time in New York.

They'd probably just cast Elijah Wood as him with someone like Lindsey Lohen as a love interest.

And set it at Christmas time in New York.

a musical!

kropotkin on ice!

Prove that it should belong to us all equally by birthright.Well, it was obvious enough to America's architects. To many of the United State's Founding Fathers, Native Americans society served as an example of life under Natural Law. As Thomas Jefferson said:

"It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of a natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society." (emphasis added)

-Page 45 Vol. 18 Writings of Thomas Jefferson Lipscomb and Bergh ed., Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, Washington DC, 1905

From this, they reasoned, what society gave it could justly take back. Here is Benjamin Franklin on the topic:

"All property, indeed, except the savage’s temporary cabin, his bow, his match coat, and other little acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his subsistence, seems to me to be the creature of public convention. Hence the public has the right of regulating decents, and all other conveyances of property, and even limiting the quantity and users of it. All the property that is necessary to a man, for the conservation of the individual and the propagation of the species, is his natural right, which none can justly deprive him of: but all property superfluous to such purposes is the property of the public, who, by their laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the welfare of the public shall demand such disposition."

- Page 220 The Norton Critical Edition of Benjamin Franklin’s Autobiography: An Authoritative Text edited by J.A. Leo LeMay and P.M. Zall, New York: W.W. Norton & Co. and Page 139 Vol. IX The Writings of Benjamin Franklin Albert H Smyth ed., 10 vols. New York: MacMillan, 1905-7.

Thomas Paine, the author of the revolutionary pamphlet "Common Sense" and the man who gave the United States of America its name, agreed:

"Land, as before said, is the free gift of the Creator in common to the human race. Personal property is the effect of society; and it is as impossible for an individual to acquire personal property without the aid of society, as it is for him to make land originally. Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. … All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came."

- Page 620 The Life and Major Writings of Thomas Paine: includes Common sense, The American crisis, Rights of man, The Age of Reason and Agrarian Justice Phillip Sheldon Foner ed., Carol Publishing Group, New York, N.Y., 1993, 1974

Ah, the rewording of the Marxist tosswad nonsense known as "exploitation" which stems directly from the refuted-to-death labor theory of value. When will you morons give up that piece of shit?The labor theory of value pre-dates Marx by over a century. It's also common sense. If I'm a cobbler and stitch together a pair of shoes out of scraps of leather, I have by my labor made those scraps of leather more valuable by making them more useful. Shoes are more useful than scraps and it took my labor to turn one into the other. Labor adds value. Duh. Or do you drive a lump of iron ore to work today?

Now if I'm a cobbler, shoe-making is my livelihood and I am entitled to charge a price for the finished product that allows me to live a decent life. By contrast, if I am a capitalist factory owner and having my shoes made by slaves or people paid near starvation wages, then I am stealing their labor.

This is self-vident and the idea has been around for a long time - long before Marx.

"From your Labour and Industry arises all that can be called Riches, & by your Hands it must be defended: Gentry, Clergy, Lawyers and military officers, do all support their Grandeur by your Sweat, and at your Hazzard."

- Mid 18th Cent. pamphlet by "Phileleutheros" of Boston, Page 263 The Urban Crucible; Social Change, Political Consciousness, and the Origins of the American Revolution, Gary B Nash, Harvard U. Press 1979

"And inasmuch as most good things are produced by labor, it follows that all such things of right belong to those whose labor produced them. But it has so happened, in all ages of the world, that some have labored, and others have without labor enjoyed a large portion of the fruits. This is wrong, and should not continue. To secure to each laborer the whole product of his labor, or as nearly as possible, is a worthy object of any good government."

- Abraham Lincoln, The Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol. I page 307

"Labor is entitled to all it creates" - slogan of The Industrial Workers of the World

Property must be tangable, and not human. Their are two types of property.

Private property, is anything that can be (resonably) moved or consumed/does not (resonably) out live the owner, ie: Records, books, food, cars, computers, tools etc.

Real property is usually land or large static buildings built on land.

Real property may be controlled by a private person/organization, but must be leased from the State and is still part of the State. You may "own" a lot of land but that land is still under full controls of the State, and the private person/organization is a custodian and may make laws and regulation on said property as long as they do not violate the laws of the State.

Example, one may destroy a privatly owned book, smash a privatley owned glass, dismantle a privatley owned car, but may not destroy "private land" as the land will "outlive" the temporary owner.

The State has over-riding rights to all land with in it's control, if the State must take use of land under private custody, the State should give highest reasonable market price/compensation to the individual or organization who was granted custody of such real property.

Basically Private property is your stuff.

And yes the Indians(Native Americans) were logical in thinking it was rather silly to own land, as they were nomadic. When the Dutch "bought" Manhattan the Indians figured they were doing the "Brooklyn Bridge" shceme, selling what you dont own. (actually it was, as the Tribe that Manhattan was puchased from was just passing through). Imagine is someone stops you on the street and offers you $10,000 to sell them the planet Mars, ofcourse you will jus' say yes, it's a good deal as both parties are satisfied. But it is a patronizing ethnocentric/"racist". feel good Leftist myth that the people inhabiting the America's in the 1600's were some 20th centuray hippy new agers, they would still assume thier personal private property was thiers and thiers alone.



So to recap, Real Property can only be "owned" by an State/organization who can physically defend it.

And yes the Indians(Native Americans) were logical in thinking it was rather silly to own land, as they were nomadic. When the Dutch "bought" Manhattan the Indians figured they were doing the "Brooklyn Bridge" shceme, selling what you dont own. (actually it was, as the Tribe that Manhattan was puchased from was just passing through). Imagine is someone stops you on the street and offers you $10,000 to sell them the planet Mars, ofcourse you will jus' say yes, it's a good deal as both parties are satisfied. But it is a patronizing ethnocentric/"racist". feel good Leftist myth that the people inhabiting the America's in the 1600's were some 20th centuray hippy new agers, they would still assume thier personal private property was thiers and thiers alone.I'm surprised that the "sold for some beads" myth still has currency. The tribes in the area honored treaties with bead belts: they were neither selling nor even pretending to sell the land the land in question. They were formalizing the sharing of land use rights, which is different from land ownership. Implicit is the agreement to not over-hunt. It's like when two big bears of equal strength meet on the same hunting ground and determine that neither can really drive the other off, so they tolerate each other. The treaty basically meant "We're cool".

As for personal property, both Native Americans and the Founders that I quoted distinguished between land and personal effects.

I'm surprised that the "sold for some beads" myth still has currency. The tribes in the area honored treaties with bead belts: they were neither selling nor even pretending to sell the land the land in question. They were formalizing the sharing of land use rights, which is different from land ownership. Implicit is the agreement to not over-hunt. It's like when two big bears of equal strength meet on the same hunting ground and determine that neither can really drive the other off, so they tolerate each other. The treaty basically meant "We're cool".

As for personal property, both Native Americans and the Founders that I quoted distinguished between land and personal effects.

Actually...if they sold it for 20 some odd dollars and invested it at 20th century returns, it would be worth more than all the land on the island today...and damn, I left the text in the office...

The labor theory of value pre-dates Marx by over a century. It's also common sense. If I'm a cobbler and stitch together a pair of shoes out of scraps of leather, I have by my labor made those scraps of leather more valuable by making them more useful. Shoes are more useful than scraps and it took my labor to turn one into the other. Labor adds value. Duh. Or do you drive a lump of iron ore to work today?



Something is only worth what someone else will pay for it - I don't care how much work you put into it. If value was dictated by labor, there would be no incentive to be efficient.

More economics, less philosophy

:headbang:

As for personal property...Native Americans...distinguished between land and personal effects.

And...and what happened to them?

I assume you are only talking about American Indians that had no permanent structures. Go back and ask the Aztecs rulers if they owned the land or not....

If value was dictated by labor, there would be no incentive to be efficient.If value were dictated by the market, there would be no production in the first place. Tool-making predates the formation of markets which predates mass production, and thus the notion of efficiency in production. Once again, duh.

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

- Abraham Lincoln, "Reply to Workingmen", March 21st, 1864

Sorry for the philosophy, but economics started as a branch of philosophy and the thinkers you dismiss were thinking economically.

And...and what happened to them?....Small pox and conquest. Your point? Mine was that the Founders saw ownership as the gift and creation of society and that society could accordingly justly take its gifts back when necessary. The military superiority of one society over another is irrelevant to this discussion.

I assume you are only talking about American Indians that had no permanent structures. Go back and ask the Aztecs rulers if they owned the land or not....Yes, I was referring to the Native Americans that our Founding Fathers were familiar with and looked to as an example of free society under Natural Law - not the totalitarian Aztecs, obviously.

If value were dictated by the market, there would be no production in the first place.

Value IS dictated by the market. Just because you spent 40 hours making that shoe does not mean I am will to pay you more than 10 bucks for it.



Tool-making predates the formation of markets which predates mass production, and thus the notion of efficiency in production. Once again, duh.

Makets are formed whenever trade takes place. Cro-magnon man makes two axes, and trades one for a bushel of wheat. Ax value = bushel of wheat. One took 3 hours to make, another 10 hours worth of labor. Yet their value is equal. Comprende?


"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

- Abraham Lincoln, "Reply to Workingmen", March 21st, 1864


Hmm...a politician pandering to the working class...what else is new...

Yes, I was referring to the Native Americans that our Founding Fathers were familiar with and looked to as an example of free society under Natural Law - not the totalitarian Aztecs, obviously.

Well, I was trying to make the point that they had no permanent structures, and thus no need to have private property.

Been reading what's been written since I last posted here and I've come up with some stuff (hope its at least semi-original to the topic)

First off, a few of the lefties (use this term as i'm not sure whether the person is communist/anarchist/other) say property is theft. Yet on other threads similar to this one arguments have been used saying we should return to how we were, sharing the land, etc....
But this is why we have property now. Back then cave men (and women for the PC people) used to hunt for their food and pick berries. Then farming came around. Ugg (tribal leader) thought it was a good idea and let a few people try it out. cleared some land and started farming. over time it became recognised that Zug and Chiik were responsible for that land and its maintenance. They had kids. The kids were taught the ways of maintaining the land. When dad and mum passed away, Zug junior was seen as the inheritor of the land or at least the maintenance of the land as he knew what to do.

crap crap crap crap

just realised no-one has posted here in 4 days. crap!

oh well hopefully someone will answer

Been reading what's been written since I last posted here and I've come up with some stuff (hope its at least semi-original to the topic)

First off, a few of the lefties (use this term as i'm not sure whether the person is communist/anarchist/other) say property is theft. Yet on other threads similar to this one arguments have been used saying we should return to how we were, sharing the land, etc....
But this is why we have property now. Back then cave men (and women for the PC people) used to hunt for their food and pick berries. Then farming came around. Ugg (tribal leader) thought it was a good idea and let a few people try it out. cleared some land and started farming. over time it became recognised that Zug and Chiik were responsible for that land and its maintenance. They had kids. The kids were taught the ways of maintaining the land. When dad and mum passed away, Zug junior was seen as the inheritor of the land or at least the maintenance of the land as he knew what to do.

Then came Bog. He had a horse and a big stick. So did his friends. They clobbered Zug, raped his wife, killed his brother and Bog said "I am King Bog and I own all that I survey. You shall pay me taxes."

Property, for the twenty-five MILLIONTH time, is that which you own, but DO NOT USE, preferring to charge others for its use. This is the political definition of property, as opposed to possessions (that which you use). The right to own that which you use isn't generally challenged (though communists think it's better to share and co-operate), the right to charge other people for what they use is.

Vas.

Then came Bog. He had a horse and a big stick. So did his friends. They clobbered Zug, raped his wife, killed his brother and Bog said "I am King Bog and I own all that I survey. You shall pay me taxes."

Property, for the twenty-five MILLIONTH time, is that which you own, but DO NOT USE, preferring to charge others for its use.
And for the twenty-five millionth time, you are wrong.

I own my car. It is my property. It is also my possession. I could let someone use it and charge them for it, in which case it is still my possession (I have the title to it).

Once you understand that, you'll give up your Proudhonian stolen-concept nonsense. But I doubt you have the intellect to grasp it.

First off, a few of the lefties (use this term as i'm not sure whether the person is communist/anarchist/other) say property is theft. Yet on other threads similar to this one arguments have been used saying we should return to how we were, sharing the land, etc....Not quite. The point to pointing out that property is not a sacred Natural Right is to not to advocate returning to a primitive existence, but to argue that an intolerable inequality has emerged and that people have a right to reorganize society in order to correct it. I quote Thomas Paine from his pamphlet "Agrarian Justice":

"To understand what the state of society ought to be, it is necessary to have some idea of the natural and primitive state of man; such as it is at this day among the Indians of North America. There is not, in that state, any of those spectacles of human misery which poverty and want present to our eyes in all the towns and streets in Europe.

The life of an Indian is a continual holiday, compared with the poor of Europe; and, on the other hand it appears to be abject when compared to the rich. Civilization, therefore, or that which is so-called, has operated two ways: to make one part of society more affluent, and the other more wretched, than would have been the lot of either in a natural state.

It is always possible to go from the natural to the civilized state, but it is never possible to go from the civilized to the natural state. The reason is that man in a natural state, subsisting by hunting, requires ten times the quantity of land to range over to procure himself sustenance, than would support him in a civilized state, where the earth is cultivated.

When, therefore, a country becomes populous by the additional aids of cultivation, art and science, there is a necessity of preserving things in that state; because without it there cannot be sustenance for more, perhaps, than a tenth part of its inhabitants. The thing, therefore, now to be done is to remedy the evils and preserve the benefits that have arisen to society by passing from the natural to that which is called the civilized state.

In taking the matter upon this ground, the first principle of civilization ought to have been, and ought still to be, that the condition of every person born into the world, after a state of civilization commences, ought not to be worse than if he had been born before that period."

- Page 609 The Life and Major Writings of Thomas Paine: includes Common sense, The American crisis, Rights of man, The Age of Reason and Agrarian Justice Phillip Sheldon Foner ed., Carol Publishing Group, New York, N.Y., 1993, 1974

And for the twenty-five millionth time, you are wrong.

I own my car. It is my property. It is also my possession. I could let someone use it and charge them for it, in which case it is still my possession (I have the title to it).

Once you understand that, you'll give up your Proudhonian stolen-concept nonsense. But I doubt you have the intellect to grasp it.No. It seems that all the willful intellectual ignorance is on your part. Dischordiac is correct. First, Dischordiac's description of how property violently came about is the accurate one. We know this is true because, like evolution, we have the evidence and still see it happening today. Second, as Dischordiac plainly stated, “This is the political definition of property”. You have title to your car only because society says so. Without society backing it up, that title would be a meaningless scrap of paper. To re-quote Jefferson:

"It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of a natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society." (emphasis added)

-Page 45 Vol. 18 Writings of Thomas Jefferson Lipscomb and Bergh ed., Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, Washington DC, 1905

And for the twenty-five millionth time, you are wrong.

I own my car. It is my property. It is also my possession. I could let someone use it and charge them for it, in which case it is still my possession (I have the title to it).

Once you understand that, you'll give up your Proudhonian stolen-concept nonsense. But I doubt you have the intellect to grasp it.
No. It seems that all the willful intellectual ignorance is on your part.
We shall see, he says with a distinct smirk.

Dischordiac is correct. First, Dischordiac's description of how property violently came about is the accurate one.
No, he's describing how thieving governments came about. Property, while sometimes has been "gained" violently, isn't inherent with violence.

We know this is true because, like evolution, we have the evidence and still see it happening today. Second, as Dischordiac plainly stated, “This is the political definition of property”. You have title to your car only because society says so.
Society doesn't say anything, Mr. Reifier. I have title to my car because individuals understand that property is something good.

Without society backing it up, that title would be a meaningless scrap of paper. To re-quote Jefferson:
Let's quote Jan Narveson:
To see the connection of liberty and property, consider this: to say that Jones should be at general liberty to do as he likes, as the Principle of Liberty has it, is to say that Jones is to decide what is to happen to Jones: Jones's life is to be run by Jones, not someone else, insofar as that can occur without Jones violating the like liberty of anyone else. To say that is precisely to say that Jones belongs to Jones. A general right to liberty, therefore, is equivalent to an assertion of self-ownership.

The thesis of self-ownership is a powerful one to most thinking people. It is not difficult to see why. What, after all, is a person but a center of decision-making, thought, reflection, and experience? To be in control of one's life is to be someone, and not to be in control of it is, virtually, to be depersonalized. Very deep in the idea of being a person at all is being the entity that controls, decides, chooses, acts. Indeed, it is not clear that it makes any sense to call something a person which is unable to do those things. Libertarianism seizes on this capacity to do, to act, to control, and proposes to put it at centre stage by equipping everybody with the right to be who he is, not subject to other people's direction.

The problem with leaving it at that is that a lot of the things we would like to do affect other people. If Jones is at complete liberty to do anything he wants to do, then that would include, for instance, his acting on a desire to kill this person or enslave that one. But that is incompatible with the general liberty which the libertarian is proclaiming. In order to make the idea of 'maximal liberty for all' meaningful, we need to have a reasonably clear idea of where one person leaves off and the next begins. Only thus can we accuse one person of using force 'against' another.

To elaborate on this for a moment: suppose Jones hits Smith on the nose. Now, is Smith to complain because Jones has used his, Smith's, nose? Or if we propose to prevent Jones from doing this, would Jones have a complaint because his freedom of action, in this case to use his arms and fists, is being restricted? Intuitively, the answer is obvious: we want to say that the nose that is a part of Smith is Smith's nose, not Jones's.

Why do we want to say this? We can give a pretty good answer. Where Smith goes, there too goes Smith's nose. Smith's nose is a natural part of Smith. Now, Jones's arm is a natural part of Jones, to be sure. But if Jones uses that arm in this particular manner, he uses it to invade what is a part of another person - something he doesn't have to do. Jones can keep his arm to himself, as we say. Or he can go and beat against a punching bag; he doesn't have to punch Jones. So when we restrict Jones's freedom to punch Smith, we defend Smith's freedom; the restrictions we put on Jones are inherent in the idea of general liberty, whereas if instead we were to allow Jones to do this for the reason he states, we would be denying that there is a general right to liberty.

There is really no alternative to this result. Freedom to use force against others is freedom to deny others' freedom. If we are serious about liberty being general, we must regard Jones as the aggressor in our scenario, and Smith as the wrongly used victim who would be entitled to compensation. That of course assumes that Smith has not himself done something to someone (either Jones or someone else) for which Smith may properly be required to undergo punishment or have compensation exacted. Hence our formula.
We have talked only of bodily parts, so far, but we can also talk of 'mental parts': part of me is my ideas, my dreams, my experiences. But of course when we talk of property, we mostly have in mind items external to our bodies and minds. The question is, when if ever we are to declare that some item of that sort is such that one individual, say Annie, is its owner - that she and only she properly gets to say what happens to it?

There is, I think, only one coherent answer to this question, if a general right to liberty is our program. The background is the obvious fact that people use the world: they pick things up, transform them in various ways, bend them to their purposes, and those are all actions, which take place in time. Sometimes their purposes involve not 'bending' those things, too: we may want to admire a piece of nature for what it is and try to leave it unaltered as far as possible. But that too is a purpose that we can try to realize, and we can do so by coming to be owners of that piece of nature.

Now, the principle of general liberty is that each is to be as free as possible: to be able to do whatever he likes, subject only to the restriction that in so doing, he not render others unfree to do as they like. How are we to apply that idea to actions involving bits of the world outside ourselves? The importance of this is easy to see when we reflect that, after all, virtually everything we do involves utilizing bits of the world outside ourselves. Some might want to say, even, that the very idea of 'ourselves' includes many relations to objects outside our bodies. But while we may sympathize with this point of metaphysics, or this poetic fancy - whichever we wish to call it - we must confine ourselves to common sense when we are trying to formulate good rules for people in society. People have all sorts of fancies and metaphysical ideas, but common sense is common - it is what anybody can 'get a handle on.'

Indeed, the expression 'get a handle on' is indicative of the point to be made here. What we do to the world is to get a handle on it - sometimes, in fact, by fashioning handles for parts of it and attaching them to that part. People have ideas about things, and they try to put them into effect. In so doing, they fashion their lives in certain ways rather than other ways. Living and doing involves, in very large part, utilizing things beyond the confines of our skins. The question is, when does the action of one person, in utilizing a given thing, collide with the liberty of others regarding the use of these external things?
Libertarianism is virtually defined by its answer to that question. We say that if Jones is already using x, and did not, in coming to use it, forcibly take it from someone else, and Smith then comes along and proceeds to use x for some other purpose, incompatible with the one Jones is pursuing, then it is Smith who has 'invaded' Jones, violated his liberty, and not vice versa. Why say this?

We live in time: action is temporal, and consists in initiating some sort of change in something from one moment to the next. It has a beginning and, so to speak, an 'end', that is, the fulfilment of some purpose for which it is undertaken. The beginning of the action is the person's contact with some portion of the world. What determines the legitimacy of that action is that no one else is already in touch with that bit of the world. In being there first, Jones interferes with no commenced actions of anyone else, and so deprives no one else of anything that other person has. He may 'deprive' someone else of something that other person would like to have, but if it is only the other person's imagination or fancy that connects him to it, then Jones' claim, in actually being there and using the thing, takes precedence. A social world in which people are able to use things regardless of anyone else's prior relations to it - just on the basis of desires and dreams - is a mad world; indeed, given the great variety of our fancies, it is an impossible one.
Action is historical, and history is particular. This person, this thing: the one related to the other, and doing so prior to any other person's intentional actions regarding it. That is the fundamental fact that the institution of property rights fully and generally recognizes. First use is of the essence.
http://www.againstpolitics.com/jan_narveson/narveson_property_rights.html
Jan Narveson is a professor of philosophy at the University of Waterloo in Canada.

No, he's describing how thieving governments came about.And as John Locke pointed out, you cannot have property without first having government. Their origins are interconnected. It always floors me how you guys always ignore your own intellectual foundations. Like fundamentalists read the Bible, you cherry pick political philosophers like Locke. Like a salad bar, you take what you like and leave the rest. You like the property part, but you don't like the government part. Unfortunately for you, they are connected and the government part came first.

Property, while sometimes has been "gained" violently, isn't inherent with violence. Someone only has property because society says so. In the interests of keeping the peace, society has created mechanisms for conferring and transferring property non-violently. However, if we are talking about the origin of the notion of property, petty warlordism obviously pre-dated more civilized society. There is a great quote from St. Jerome that goes, "Not all rich men are thieves - some are the grandsons of thieves". Yet, do those grandsons deserve to be any wealthier than everyone else by virtue of an accident of birth?

Society doesn't say anything, Mr. Reifier. I have title to my car because individuals understand that property is something good.First, if "society doesn't say anything”, then why bother having a written title in the first place? If everyone understands that this is your car, why do you need a piece of paper that says so? Isn't that just a tad redundant?

Second, just who the fuck is Mr., Reifer?

Third, "individuals understand that property is something good" because they are socialized to do so. Little kids don't understand the concept of "other people's things" until they have been taught about it repeatedly.

To see the connection of liberty and property, consider this: to say that Jones should be at general liberty to do as he likes, as the Principle of Liberty has it, is to say that Jones is to decide what is to happen to Jones: Jones's life is to be run by Jones, not someone else, insofar as that can occur without Jones violating the like liberty of anyone else. To say that is precisely to say that Jones belongs to Jones. A general right to liberty, therefore, is equivalent to an assertion of self-ownership.What this man is poorly trying to prove is that property has to exist for freedom to exist, which is plainly not necessarily so. If nobody owns anything, then Jones is still free because nobody owns him. Your quote is a rather shabby attempt to graft the notion of ownership onto freedom. Animals are free, but they don’t actually own anything. Birds build nests and then abandon them. The border of a bear’s hunting ground is defined by how well he can intimidate other bears. Etc. These animals are free but they don’t hold title to anything.

No, he's describing how thieving governments came about.
And as John Locke pointed out, you cannot have property without first having government.
I'm about to point you to something that shows that you can. Watch, read, and learn.

Enforcement of Private Property Rights in Primitive Societies: Law without Government by
Bruce L. Benson (PDF) (http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/9_1/9_1_1.pdf), Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 9 Num. 1
Private Creation and Enforcement of Law--A Historical Case (http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Iceland/Iceland.html) by David D. Friedman

Their origins are interconnected. It always floors me how you guys always ignore your own intellectual foundations.
*laughs*

Maybe because not everything that Locke wrote was correct. But you wouldn't think of something so obvious, would you?

Like fundamentalists read the Bible, you cherry pick political philosophers like Locke. Like a salad bar, you take what you like and leave the rest. You like the property part, but you don't like the government part. Unfortunately for you, they are connected and the government part came first.
So why have there been property rights w/o government? Care to answer me that?


Property, while sometimes has been "gained" violently, isn't inherent with violence.
Someone only has property because society says so.
Society doesn't say anything, Mr. Reifier.

In the interests of keeping the peace, society has created mechanisms for conferring and transferring property non-violently. However, if we are talking about the origin of the notion of property, petty warlordism obviously pre-dated more civilized society.
So what?

There is a great quote from St. Jerome that goes, "Not all rich men are thieves - some are the grandsons of thieves". Yet, do those grandsons deserve to be any wealthier than everyone else by virtue of an accident of birth?
Yes. Do you deserve to have two good arms by virtue of your birth?


Society doesn't say anything, Mr. Reifier. I have title to my car because individuals understand that property is something good.
First, if "society doesn't say anything”, then why bother having a written title in the first place?
To demonstrate property ownership in case of theft? But you wouldn't think of something so obvious, would you?

Second, just who the fuck is Mr., Reifer?
Reifier. As in "one who reifies". As in a type of logical fallacy.

Third, "individuals understand that property is something good" because they are socialized to do so. Little kids don't understand the concept of "other people's things" until they have been taught about it repeatedly.
So what?

To see the connection of liberty and property, consider this: to say that Jones should be at general liberty to do as he likes, as the Principle of Liberty has it, is to say that Jones is to decide what is to happen to Jones: Jones's life is to be run by Jones, not someone else, insofar as that can occur without Jones violating the like liberty of anyone else. To say that is precisely to say that Jones belongs to Jones. A general right to liberty, therefore, is equivalent to an assertion of self-ownership.
What this man is poorly trying to prove is that property has to exist for freedom to exist, which is plainly not necessarily so.
Poorly? I love how it "poorly" does because the whole quote hurts your case pretty badly.

At any rate, I also love your complete dropping of the rest of the context. Quite amusing and cowardly.

If nobody owns anything, then Jones is still free because nobody owns him.
So what? Narveson isn't talking specifically about that. He's going from self-ownership to owning of items apart from the self. But you snipped that context in a rather cowardly manner. Don't do that again.

Try again. This time--keep the context.

Third, "individuals understand that property is something good" because they are socialized to do so. Little kids don't understand the concept of "other people's things" until they have been taught about it repeatedly.

Nor do they understand the concept of physics...

I'm about to point you to something that shows that you can. Watch, read, and learn.This ought to be good ...

Maybe because not everything that Locke wrote was correct. But you wouldn't think of something so obvious, would you?Not when so many libertarians typically canonize him as an authority whose word should silence all discussion. While a great thinker you admire can certainly make many minor mistakes, you probably don't want to cite him to back you up when you disagree with his most basic premises. It's like invoking Darwin while denying natural selection.

So why have there been property rights w/o government? Care to answer me that? I'll need to look over those articles. I trust they will be as hilariously entertaining as the other resources you had provided.

Yes. Do you deserve to have two good arms by virtue of your birth?Everyone certainly ought to. If it is a natural defect, then a civilized society should provide me with some help. On the other hand, if I have a birth defect attributable to some toxic waste my parents were exposed to, then some corporation is going to pay - and should.

To demonstrate property ownership in case of theft? But you wouldn't think of something so obvious, would you??And then what? Then you go to the police, who are society's appointed law enforcers. Without enforcement, laws are meaningless and property is the gift of society's laws. You were the one who made a big deal out of having title to his car while arguing that society doesn’t confer property. That’s not even cyclic reasoning – it’s short circuited cyclic reasoning. The former proves nothing whereas the latter dis-proves itself.

Reifier. As in "one who reifies". As in a type of logical fallacy.Ah, it's a joke. And even funnier from someone who can't even master the logical fallacy of cyclic reasoning.

At any rate, I also love your complete dropping of the rest of the context. Quite amusing and cowardly.Earth to BAAWA: it's a thread - people can scroll back and re-read the full quote if they need to.

So what? Narveson isn't talking specifically about that. He's going from self-ownership to owning of items apart from the self. This gets back to the cyclic reasoning thing. Narveson assumes freedom is a form of ownership and reasons from that premise ... that freedom is a form of ownership. It's not terribly impressive except to the already converted. This may be why people think you guys are a cult.

But you snipped that context in a rather cowardly manner. Don't do that again. Or you will do what?

This gets back to the cyclic reasoning thing. Narveson assumes freedom is a form of ownership and reasons from that premise ... that freedom is a form of ownership.

fun isn't it? what i like is the absurdities that taking such a premise leads them to have to defend.

"Labor is entitled to all it creates" - slogan of The Industrial Workers of the World
Sorry, I have to post this again (and it will also serve to bump the thread.)
www.iww.org
As far as IWW slogans go, I also like "Direct action gets the goods" and "An injury to one is an injury to all."

Indeed. RPP loves those slogans.

Give up, there's no reasoning with the child. To learn more - http://www.sonic.net/~wooly/ - basically a bunch of sexually inadequate fantasists.

Vas.
Aha! And suddenly it's all clear.

Sorry, I have to post this again (and it will also serve to bump the thread.)
www.iww.org
As far as IWW slogans go, I also like "Direct action gets the goods" and "An injury to one is an injury to all."Welcome Fellow Worker!

I'm about to point you to something that shows that you can. Watch, read, and learn.
This ought to be good ...
And it was.


Maybe because not everything that Locke wrote was correct. But you wouldn't think of something so obvious, would you?
Not when so many libertarians typically canonize him as an authority whose word should silence all discussion.
Well I'm not one of them. So you should kill your fucking strawman right the fuck now.


So why have there been property rights w/o government? Care to answer me that?
I'll need to look over those articles. I trust they will be as hilariously entertaining as the other resources you had provided.
Translation: Oh shit. BAAWA has posted items that will kill my claims and I want to act like it won't affect me.


Yes. Do you deserve to have two good arms by virtue of your birth?Everyone certainly ought to. If it is a natural defect, then a civilized society should provide me with some help.
No it shouldn't.

On the other hand, if I have a birth defect attributable to some toxic waste my parents were exposed to, then some corporation is going to pay - and should.
And this had what to do with what?


To demonstrate property ownership in case of theft? But you wouldn't think of something so obvious, would you?
And then what? Then you go to the police, who are society's appointed law enforcers. Without enforcement, laws are meaningless and property is the gift of society's laws. You were the one who made a big deal out of having title to his car while arguing that society doesn’t confer property.
Yep.

That’s not even cyclic reasoning – it’s short circuited cyclic reasoning.
Prove it.


Reifier. As in "one who reifies". As in a type of logical fallacy.
Ah, it's a joke. And even funnier from someone who can't even master the logical fallacy of cyclic reasoning.
Prove it.

At any rate, I also love your complete dropping of the rest of the context. Quite amusing and cowardly.
Earth to BAAWA: it's a thread - people can scroll back and re-read the full quote if they need to.
Earth to CoOpera, it's standard netiquette to not drop context like that.


So what? Narveson isn't talking specifically about that. He's going from self-ownership to owning of items apart from the self.
This gets back to the cyclic reasoning thing.
Only if you can prove it.

Narveson assumes freedom is a form of ownership
No, he doesn't. Try again.


But you snipped that context in a rather cowardly manner. Don't do that again.
Or you will do what?
No longer grace you with my responses. I don't deal with cowards.

Kid, how old are you?