What does everyone here think of Marxism? Doesn't Karl Marx make a good point about capitalists and the workers?
I.e. the capitalist does nothing but sit around and give the workers only a portion of the value that they produce?
The price of factors of production are determined via supply and demand. Thinking that workers receive a share of their factorites profits is like thinking that the iron that goes into the car receives a share of the cars selling price.
For more, check out Böhm-Bawerk's Marginal pairs: http://mises.org/daily/5903/
After learning what they are, see them applied to labor economics: http://mises.org/daily/5934/The-Irrelevance-of-Worker-Need-and-Employer-Greed-in-Determining-Wages
Finally, some stuff I just found that might be of interest as well:
http://mises.org/daily/1680
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOzotWrHheU
By "value" I mean how much money a certain item will bring. An example would be if I was hired by Willy Wonka to make chocolate, I create the "value" (the chocolate) through my labor, yet he only gives me a portion of the money that results from him selling the chocolate on the market.
That's a common misconception of the origin of value. Your labor did not create the value; the buyers' desire did. That is, your labor created chocolate. The buyers' desire for chocolate made that chocolate valuable. In your example, then, Mr. Wonka paid you an amount based on his desire to own the chocolate you produced and your unwillingness to produce the chocolate without compensation. He purchased the output of your labor with a fee agreed upon by both of you. After the transaction, why is it any of your business what he does with it, either eating it himself, or selling it to someone else?
faber est suae quisque fortunae
Mmmm Mmmm Mmmm, I like quotes! I really really like quotes when people are talking past each other!
How long must a property go abandoned before it can justly be homestead? 5 years? 5 minutes?
There is no one right answer to that question. It depends upon the property in question and the social norms.
You say it makes a difference that the infant is unaware of his friend's claim to that toy.
I made no such claim.
But if I come upon a piece of land that is someone else's property, are the courts going to care if I say, "but I didn't know it was owned?"
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Though it is always possible that the plaintiff could forgive you.
Property is definitionally a social affair (it's really anti-social, but nevertheless it is a thing recognized between two or more people, not a thing in itself. If it were a thing in itself, the theif would have just as much right to your property as you.)
The legal status of property is necessarily a social affair, however, as I previously stated, the concept of ownership (that is, the idea of owning property) is inherent to humans. The example provided was that infants believe what they see to be theirs. It doesn't mean that it is theirs, just that they believe it to be so.
It doesn't necessarily follow. Alas, it is often how it works out.
The Powers That Be do have quite the control over society. But their power comes from government - that is, they use the government to take our wealth and resources in order to use it against us. This is instead of using their own wealth and resources to use against us.
When they invested in that failed business they did so because they thought they could make a profit; any positive needs or wants fulfilled by this system is an afterthought. If a certain need is not profitable, it will not get investment (charity maybe, not investment). The point is that the fulfilling of needs under the profit system is not a cost/benefit analysis, but a "how much can I siphon for myself" analysis.
It is a cost/benefit analysis. Do the benefits outweigh the costs? Then yes, I will lend to this business. Nice try.
I'm not sure, in the case of bees, that it constitutes a heirarchy. They can't overthrow the queen. She doesn't give them any orders. There's no legal enforcement of her will... no, I'm not sure bees have a heirarchy. Wolfs maybe, some primates... not bees.
Whether a queen bee can be overthrown or not is immaterial to the matter of whether or not there is a hierarchy.
You brought up the bees, friend, not I.
False. You brought up the hornets, friend, not I. Feel free to scroll up and look for yourself. Nice dodge, by the way.
Are you considering murder a type of abandonement?
Murder is not an abandonment. Death is, however. I assume you are trying to go somewhere with this? If you are, the cultural norms of most, if not all, societies forbid murdering as a method to claim someone else's possessions as your own. Humanity would not have lasted this long if this were normal behavior.
Yes, no surprise. When someone is trying to justify the ruling class they are willing to let go their ideals in certain circumstance... I'm not surprised.
Could you point to where I was trying to justify the ruling class? As far as I can tell, I'm against the government, and therefore, the "ruling" class.
We could say that property must be traded or abandoned for its claimant to have legitimate title. But that is impossible to do, so we're willing to let go that ideal as long as the descendants are long gone or too marginalized to fight.
The cultural norms are how people know whether or not something is abandoned. If someone believes that they did not actually abandon their property, they are free to take it up in court.
Further illucidation of how property works out when you step out of the realm of hypothesis, and into actual fact.
Please, do share your opinion instead of dodging.
The claim to property starts with a violent call; this is mine and I will hit you with a stick if you disagree.
False. Clayton explains this rather well in his two threads What Law Is and A Praxeological Account of Law. I will explain briefly here: There is dispute resolution because the parties involved wish to avoid violent conflict. Neither party believes he will necessarily win, so they decide to argue and resolve peacefully. The person who has claimed the property does not have to make "a violent call". It may very well be the second person who does so. But, even so, the claim to property need not be violent.
Then after that comes peaceful dispute resolution, for the good of the community.
The peaceful dispute resolution does come next, but it is not for the good of the community. It is for the good of the people involved in the dispute.
So you're right, the "justification" for property is social dispute resolution, but the original claim was a violent appropriation.
I am right, but the original claim was not necessarily a violent appropriation.
My right hand isn't the same as my left hand.
What a bad analogy. Maybe next time you should actually try. Thieves, rapists, and murderers do not rely on economic coercion but violent coercion (disclaimer, the case could be made that some rapists do use status as a means to rape, but even so, the vast majority of rapes are done by violence).
All of them? No, that's silly.
Did I say all of them? Could you point to where I said that? In response to your point about humans behaving a certain way, I said "No. This is how animals behave." No where did I say that all animals must behave this way. The point is that the vast majority of humans do not behave the way you are claiming.
What about bonobos?
From the wiki on bonobos:
Observations in the wild indicate that the males among the related common chimpanzee communities are extraordinarily hostile to males from outside the community. Parties of males 'patrol' for the unfortunate neighbouring males that might be travelling alone, and attack those single males, often killing them...The popular image of the bonobo as a peaceful ape does not always apply to captive populations. Accounts exist of bonobos confined in zoos mutilating one another and engaging in bullying...
It does mention that bonobos do often resolve conflicts with sex, however, the article that wikipedia got that information from mentions that bonobos will fight over territory with other bonobos.
Regardless, you failed to quote the following sentence, which was, "But even animals do some posturing to avoid conflict sometimes." So, you are responding to a straw man. I did not make the claim that animals must always settle with actual violent conflict, as I ammended my statement with the sentence right after it (which you failed to quote). What you should take away from this is that, so far as we know, no animal other than the human uses argumentation to resolve disputes, which, suprise suprise, I stated at the end of the paragraph that you also refused to quote.
Perhaps you could save us all some time and try to accurately portray my arguments.
Not really, dispute resolution arises from the peaceful resolution of disputes, whether it has to do with property or not.
False. Property is a legal status. Legal status arises from dispute resolution. Thus, property arises from dispute resolution.
You do know when lord invaded and conquered lands, they considered it their property, and the courts agreed with them.
And I consider statutory law to either be superfluous or unjust. It is just a might makes right approach to law, which is something that I disagree with.
Property may sometimes arise from peaceful resolution, but not always.
No. It must always arise from peaceful resolution. It is peaceful resolution if there is no violence. If there is violence, then there was no resolution. The only exception to this is the formal duel as a method of resolution. But, seeing as it is agreed upon, it does not fall within the category of violent resolution in the sense that it is voluntary, though technically violent.
Most of the time it's just guys with weapons taking what they want. If they succeed, their claim becomes just.
We must have different definitions of just. But no, I do not know anybody who acquires "property" through violence other than thieves and the government.
No, I'm suggesting we abandon the monopoly status over possession and control granted by private property.
Seeing as it is ingrained into not only humans but also many animals, good luck with that.
Laotzu del Zinn:I never signed any contract making me a part of the legal property system.
What you're doing here is called shifting the goalposts. In other words, you're being intellectually dishonest (once again).
Laotzu del Zinn:Yet you're willing to make this exception for property itself.
See above.
Laotzu del Zinn:It's more akin to you waking up living next to a factory and realizing if you want to eat and live with dignity [sic], and since you don't have any arable property of your own, you must prostrate yourself [sic] before the glorious factory owner [sic] and beg for a job [sic].
If all you're going to do here is offer a red herring (another mark of intellectual dishonesty), rather than actually critique the fictional scenario I presented as an analogy, then I accept your implicit concession.
Laotzu del Zinn:If he owns the factory and all the property within 5 miles, is he not perfectly within his rights?
I thought it was clear that he doesn't own all the property within 5 miles of his factory. Are you changing the scenario I presented to suit your whims, or are you putting proverbial words into my mouth?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Luck, I was midway thru a response when I forgot clicking on a link here doesn't auto open a new tab. My apologies. I'll respond in the next few hours.
Auto, you're going to accuse me of all kinds of baseless things for saying this, and that's ok. These things you accuse me of are not real, you've never been able to prove it, even in plausiblity if not a "red handed" sense. I've conclusively proved your accusation wrong, almost each time (if I remember there was once I was mistakenly committing the fallacy) You just say a fallacy, call me a liar, and act like that's a response. For example:
The United States government considers itself a type of owner of all territory under its jurisdiction. It retains its right to eminent domain and to be final arbiter of all disputes. Whatever de jure status they call property within this country, I'm sure you agree (no?), is de facto rent. It enforces this property claim at the tip of nuclear warhead.
The goal post remains fixed in place.
Notice that it is your fictional scenario, of which I had to critique... which would only mean tha it was, in fact, your fish. You can keep it, it stinks.
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
Oh my, are you saying that the courts, ie society at large and therefore *gasp* the "collective decides who's claim to property is legitimate?
The toddler's norm is to consider all property her own.
Then my apologies.
The legal status of property is necessarily a social affair, however, as I previously stated, the concept of ownership (that is, the idea of owning property) is inherent to humans. The example provided was that infants believe what they see to be theirs. It doesn't mean that it is theirs, just that they believe it to be
Yes, and I'll say again, what you're really talking about is possession and control. It doesn't become property without a specific legally enforced title to monopoly executor status.,
Even were this not so, the idea of murder, rape, and slavery are inherent to humans. Human nature is no argument for anything, really.
I didn't know ideas could create reality. I was under the assumption that it happens in reverse; reality creates ideas.
In reality, they use their property to create wealth (an economic advantage, to put it simply), and use that to create a government in their interests, which becomes a resource extractor. It's not as if government came, then humans. Humans created government.
Perhaps if you're running a non or not-for profit, this is a good way to do business. If you try this with a for profit company you'll quickly find yourself in the tank. For profits are exactly for that, profits; the interest gained from stock.
So she doesn't have power over them, issue any commands, recieve no reverence. There is no social or legal enforcement of her will over theirs. Yet this is a heirarchy?
Different bees fulfill different roles. It's strecthing it to claim it a heirarchy. This is pointless tho because their are heirarchies in certain animals, like wolves and certain primates.
I did that and look what I found:
Most, if not all, animals behave this way too (e.g. nests, dams, territory in general).
"Animals" + "nests" != hornets?
Murder is not an abandonment. Death is, however.
Yes so show me a small tract of habitable land... non-murder death... bla bla bla...
I assume you are trying to go somewhere with this? If you are, the cultural norms of most, if not all, societies forbid murdering as a method to claim someone else's possessions as your own. Humanity would not have lasted this long if this were normal behavior
The fact that cultural norms clean up after property disputes (and forbade murder before property btw) does nothing to prove the legitimacy of property in the first place.
Yes governments are the ruling class, not a tool of it Got any more jokes?
Yes, "cultural norms" like "for the glory of our Lord, Baron von Vendersitch!"
I don't like property. Must I make it any more clear?
A makes a claim to property. B threatens to take it from A using this stick, C. A threatens to hit B first with that stick D. E comes in and hits B with the stick, for being a jerk. It's now A's property.
Ergo sticks, beating; keep your hands off my stuff or I will hit you with a stick (or, of course, get a guy in a black robe to get a guy in a blue uniform to hit you with a stick).
The peaceful dispute resolution does come next, but it is not for the good of the community. It is for the good of the people involved in the disputes
Two people (especially two with family and friend's) are not a community? Blimey...
Except it was, unless we're not considering the serious threat of violence an act of violence.
Theives use economic power. They may use their gun they own, or some other tool. They may scam you. They may claim property over a mine in the area. All human acts are economic acts... well, maybe if no tools at all are used they don't. But how often does nobody use a tool?
No, economic power is not violent power, and I would never have claimed as such. They are, however, often intertwined and used to achieve the same ends.
(Bolded) You made some kind of claim that this was non-human behavior, what else was I supposed to think? Perhaps you should be more clear in the future.
(Underlined) You don't need the vast majority of them too. Just enough to overpower the enemy.
Observations in the wild indicate that the males among the related common chimpanzee communities are extraordinarily hostile to males from outside the community. Parties of males 'patrol' for the unfortunate neighbouring males that might be travelling alone, and attack those single males, often killing them...The popular image of the bonobo as a peaceful ape does not always apply to captive populations. Accounts exist of bonobos confined in zoos mutilating one another and engaging in bullying.
I stand corrected. My apologies. The fact remains, not all animals behave this way. It is not some thing that only animals do, and humans don't, and if a human does it he's "acting like an animal." It's nature, and humans are a part of that.
Regardless, you failed to quote the following sentence, which was, "But even animals do some posturing to avoid conflict sometimes." So, you are responding to a straw man. I did not make the claim that animals must always settle with actual violent conflict, as I ammended my statement with the sentence right after it (which you failed to quote).
Posturing is the threat of violence, which is an act of violence. If it's not an act of violence how is it not a form of "argumentation to settle disputes?" Is it because their is no language? Big surprise, humans are the only animal with language! lol
What you should take away from this is that, so far as we know, no animal other than the human uses argumentation to resolve disputes, which, suprise suprise, I stated at the end of the paragraph that you also refused to quote.
I didn't quote the first because I, admittedly misunderstood you. Threats are violence in my book. I didn't quote the second because I felt that my response adequately answered what I quoted and all before since my last quotation.
Perhaps you could save us all some time and try to accurately portray my argumentsaps
Perhaps if you could do the same...
Iron is a chemical status. Chemical status arise in stars. Thus, chemicals arise from stars. Duh. This is the same thing as saying "stars create star stuff. Chemical status is a specific type of star stuff."
Replace with "private property" and I feel the same way (I mean, I agree about this too tho). Property law is basically a might makes right approach. As will socialism be for that matter, don't get me wrong. It's not "might makes right" that I disagree with, as I recognize it as fundamental to social cohesion. What interests me is who's might is making what rights.
What? So if I beat you up, take your things, and tell you if you tell anyone I'll beat you up worse... and you don't tell anyone... than this was a peaceful resolution? That's absurd.
We must have different definitions of just
Fair enough, I forgive you for misunderstanding as it was I which was unclear. It is not just. It will be seen as just by the power structure tho.
But no, I do not know anybody who acquires "property" through violence other than thieves and the government.
So what you're saying is you don't know anybody who acquires property violently... except for people who acquire property violently...
Laotzu del Zinn:Auto, you're going to accuse me of all kinds of baseless things for saying this, and that's ok.
So apparently you do know what's going on inside my head.
Laotzu del Zinn:These things you accuse me of are not real [sic], you've never been able to prove it [sic], even in plausiblity if not a "red handed" sense [sic].
I call BS on this. You're just trying to get me to back down. That's not going to happen, understand?
Laotzu del Zinn:I've conclusively proved your accusation wrong [sic], almost each time (if I remember there was once I was mistakenly [sic] committing the fallacy)
Then it shouldn't be too hard for you to point out, or otherwise explain, exactly how you've "conclusively proven" my accusations wrong. So go on, then. What are you afraid of?
Laotzu del Zinn:You just say a fallacy, call me a liar, and act like that's a response.
I think it is a repsonse. Understand? If you disagree, well, that's your problem, not mine. Understand?
Laotzu del Zinn:The United States government considers itself a type of owner of all territory under its jurisdiction. It retains its right to eminent domain and to be final arbiter of all disputes. Whatever de jure status they call property within this country, I'm sure you agree (no?), is de facto rent. It enforces this property claim at the tip of nuclear warhead. The goal post remains fixed in place.
No, it doesn't. You were shifting the goalpost in trying to change the context of our discussion. I noted that the US Constitution isn't a voluntary agreement on my part, while agreeing to work for someone would be. Then you shifted from the context of voluntary agreements to the context of coercion. This isn't rocket surgery.
If you'd like, I'd be happy to start a thread where I challenge you, personally and directly, to a debate over whether property is coercive - i.e. whether someone owning or even possessing something is itself inherently coercive against those who don't own/possess it.
Laotzu del Zinn:Notice that it is your fictional scenario, of which I had to critique [sic]... which would only mean tha it was, in fact, your fish. You can keep it, it stinks.
Obviously, I don't think you critiqued my fictional scenario. Rather, I think you presented a different fictional scenario as a distraction. If you want to convince me that I'm wrong, then I'm all ears. The above doesn't do that though.
Otherwise, go ahead and keep playing this "I know you are, but what am I?" game in a vain effort to defend your nonsense from criticism. You'll just keep on failing.
Laotzu del Zinn:Perhaps I put words in your mouth, for the simple reason that you didn't make it clear. You just said "it's like I woke up living next to a factory." Maybe in your head you assumed you owned that house, and not the factory owner. I don't see how I was supposed to know that. Perhaps I'm really psychic and thats why you keep accusing me of lying. Do I know what is going on in that skull? *que spooky music*
Perhaps I'm really psychic and thats why you keep accusing me of lying. Do I know what is going on in that skull? *que spooky music*
I call BS on this, too. Acting obtuse like this is not going to save face whatsoever, least of all with me.
Then the merchant and capitalist class gained the economic power to threaten the pre-capitalist (feudal if you will) class dynamic, and became the ruling class.
There's no such thing as economic power. If you have bags of riches and offer some to me in exchange for punching someone, I can as easily punch you instead and take those bags of riches anyway. It's the worker's fellow goon workers that rule over him.
Is there an ignore function for this site? I've never really checked. I'm not going to go through pages of Auto accusing me of trying to "intimidate" him, and throwing all kinds of baseless accusations and irrelevant hypothetical scenarios. It's annoying to no end.
It's not like I'm the only one here who has accused him of it either...
Like this, what does this even mean? I said in a passing joke that I'm not psychic, but earlier I had pointed out that I'm familiar with his behavior. Is this response a joke, or is he really accusing me of being psychic?
And this? Was I trying to get him to "back down?" Am I really trying to intimidate him? Well.. I guess if I'm telling a liar to stop lying, ya I guess that is me trying to intimidate someone.
Notice that after I said this, I proceeded to (at least try to) prove his accusation wrong. So I did do it, yet he accuses me of not doing it because I'm "scared." Stop trying to intimidate me Auto... stooge.
I mean I guess a false accusation is a response...
No, it doesn't. You were shifting the goalpost in trying to change the context of our discussion. I noted that the US Constitution isn't a voluntary agreement on my part, while agreeing to work for someone would be.
Notice that he never noted this. Maybe in his head he did, but not in his post. He said "I didn't sign the Constitution as a contract" (or words to that effect) and I responded that "I never signed any contract making me a part of the legalized property system."
Then you shifted from the context of voluntary agreements to the context of coercion. This isn't rocket surgery.
Notice I did no such thing... but... talking about coercion in the context of voluntarism is "shifting the posts?" That would be like talking about food in the subject of obesity is shifting the post.
I would be happy to do that... with anyone other than him (in fact, Isn't that what we're doing in this thread right now. The coerciveness of a property system is sort of fundamental to Marx's view on the worker/owner relationship). If I debate it with Auto, it's just going to be 5 pages of me defending myself from charges of dishonesty. The worse part being that 1) fallaciousness is not dishonesty 2) he can never conclusively prove his accusation, only state and restate it endlessly.
I'm actually quite sure he'll accuse me of some dishonesty and intimidation for referring to him in the third person, rather than responding directly to him. I just hope he doesn't troll me in PM again... and I in a small way regret not forwording that conversatin to a mod. But I'm not really one to get someone in trouble over dumb drama.
I had to present a different scenario, obviously, because his was a straw man and irrelevant to my post... to put it succinctly, just the "distraction" he is accusing of me.
Caley McKibbin: Then the merchant and capitalist class gained the economic power to threaten the pre-capitalist (feudal if you will) class dynamic, and became the ruling class. There's no such thing as economic power. If you have bags of riches and offer some to me in exchange for punching someone, I can as easily punch you instead and take those bags of riches anyway. It's the worker's fellow goon workers that rule over him.
If I stick a knife in your face you could just as easily take the knife from me and proceed to stabbing. There is no violent power.
... or there is economic and violent power, as power is just a means of expressing how people get other people to do things for them against their will. This can come about through social coercion; like bullying and peer pressure. It could be economic power; like wealth gaps and extortion. Or it could be violent power; like sticking a knife in someone's face.
What do you mean by "society at large"? Do I think that if we had customary law in America, that there would be top down rules? No. I think that it would be from the ground up. In other words, social norms would stem from smaller communities, and if these norms were found to be particularly effective, then they may spread across an area as large as America.
What do you mean by "legitimate"? Do you mean "lawful" or "just"? If you take it to mean "lawful", then obviously whatever the courts decide is legitimate. But if you mean "just", then no, this would not necessarily be the case.
Obviously, I believe that whatever I think about property is the right answer. But I also think that if there were customary law in America, that the result would be far closer to my ideas about property than yours. Look at the Somali Xeer. That's a customary law system that has lasted for centuries, and the Somalis believe in private property.
Not only do I not see any logical reason to abandon private property, I don't see any evidence of any society that has abandoned it lasting - or shall I say, those societies that have abandoned private property do not see a rise in the standard of living.
So what? We're talking about social norms, or at least I was. I don't really care much for what an infant or a toddler considers normal for himself.
No, and I'll say it again, what I'm really talking about is that people are born with the idea of owning things - that is, they claim certain things belong to them. Property as a social status requires more than one person, but the idea of something belonging to someone is inherent to people.
Exactly how are you using inherent? The vast majority of people don't run around raping and murdering, while the vast majority of people do make claims to ownership of property. I don't see how murder and rape is inherent to me. I certainly have never murdered and raped anyone, have you? Furthermore, societies that truly reject private property aren't long for this world. And until they are gone, they are doomed to a low standard of living.
I didn't know that ideas could create reality either. As far as I know, actions do.
Firstly, their property is wealth. Secondly, yes they do use their property to create more wealth. Thirdly, yes, government did originate with people, obviously. But that doesn't change the fact that the Powers That Be use government to take wealth from others so that they don't have to use their own wealth.
I'm not sure you know what a cost/benefit analysis is. It is just a different term for weighing the pros and cons of something. The people running banks and businesses do cost/benefit analyses of their actions. What are the costs of investing in such and such a business...okay, now what are the benefits...okay, do we think the benefits outweigh the costs...okay, then let's invest.
So she doesn't have power over them, issue any commands, recieve no reverence. There is no social or legal enforcement of her will over theirs. Yet this is a heirarchy? Different bees fulfill different roles. It's strecthing it to claim it a heirarchy. This is pointless tho because their are heirarchies in certain animals, like wolves and certain primates.
How exactly are you defining hierarchy? From the wiki on wasps:
Not all social wasps have castes that are physically different in size and structure. In many polistine paper wasps and stenogastrines, for example, the castes of females are determined behaviorally, through dominance interactions, rather than having caste predetermined. All female wasps are potentially capable of becoming a colony's queen and this process is often determined by which female successfully lays eggs first and begins construction of the nest. Evidence suggests that females compete amongst each other by eating the eggs of other rival females. The queen may, in some cases, simply be the female that can eat the largest volume of eggs while ensuring that her own eggs survive (often achieved by laying the most). This process theoretically determines the strongest and most reproductively capable female and selects her as the queen. Once the first eggs have hatched, the subordinate females stop laying eggs and instead forage for the new queen and feed the young; that is, the competition largely ends, with the losers becoming workers, though if the dominant female dies, a new hierarchy may be established with a former "worker" acting as the replacement queen. Polistine nests are considerably smaller than many other social wasp nests, typically housing only around 250 wasps, compared to the several thousand common with yellowjackets, and stenogastrines have the smallest colonies of all, rarely with more than a dozen wasps in a mature colony.
I quoted from the wasp section since you originally brought up hornets, which is a wasp. I don't see how it's a stretch to call this a hierarchy. Sure, it's not a hierarchy on the same order as human societies, but then, neither are wolf hierarchies.
I did that and look what I found:..."Animals" + "nests" != hornets?
I only mentioned nests. Specifically, I had birds in mind when I wrote that word. You are the one who first brought up hornets.
Are you trolling me again? The act of murder is not abandonment. The murderer has not abandoned anything. The person who dies could be said to have "abandoned" his property, but that's certainly a funny way of putting it.
Again, how are you using the word "legitimate"? If you are using it to mean "lawful", then the fact that the law recognizes private property would be enough to say that it is legitimate. If you are using it to mean "just", then I fail to see how this addresses the point I made.
To be honest, I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not. Sorry.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
On whose computer are you writing these posts? Whose clothes do you wear? Whose phone do you use? Whose house do you live in?
A makes a claim to property. B threatens to take it from A using this stick, C. A threatens to hit B first with that stick D. E comes in and hits B with the stick, for being a jerk. It's now A's property. Ergo sticks, beating; keep your hands off my stuff or I will hit you with a stick (or, of course, get a guy in a black robe to get a guy in a blue uniform to hit you with a stick).
There's no need to label the sticks. It makes these more confusing. Anyway, all you have shown here is that there are some times where violence can be made in the initial claim to property. But I already stated that it is not necessary. In other words, that you have found a case violence has been used does not disprove my point at all. Do you understand the word "necessary"?
One could make the case that two people do in fact constitute a community, but it is certainly not the common way of using the term. Regardless, that is not how you were using it. If you had truly meant to say that dispute resolution is for the good of the people involved in the dispute, you would have said that, unless you like being vague, which actually seems to be the case with you. But then why be vague? Why not just say that dispute resolution is for the good of the people involved in the dispute? Hm.....
Regardless of how you were using the term, stating "It is for the good of the people involved in the disputes" is far more precise than what you said.
I am not disputing that some property was acquired by force. I am merely stating that it is not a necessary condition of property. Something which you have yet to disprove.
Exactly how are you using the word "economic power "? I've been under the impression that we were using it to refer to power that had to do with money. If you are using it to mean "making choices", well then, yes, all power has to do with choices, as there could not be action without choice. But then what's the point of calling it "economic" when you could just refer to the action axiom.
I'm glad you see why your analogy was bad.
The sentences following that statement were directly related to it, and they were sentences that you refused to quote. Perhaps you should read more carefully in the future.
Good luck with that.
It's true, not each and every animal behaves this way. Good thing I didn't make that claim.
How are you defining violence? I've been using the word as it is typically used, that is, "Behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something." That is taken from a google search "define violence".
Threats are not violence, not unless they include physical force. Posturing does not include physical force, and therefore does not constitute violence. That is why it is referred to as a "threat of violence" and not as "violence".
Well I guess you are just using a different definition of violence. I'll need to know your definition if we pursue this point.
Could you show me where I have misrepresented your argument? With the exception of some of your apologies, I have quoted each and every one of your sentences, whereas you have not shown me the same curtesy, though you have apologized for it.
I did a search on "chemical status". I could find no definition of it. You'll have to define what you mean by chemical "status". I have the feeling that you are equivocating here. Regardless, what part of my argument do take issue with? You have been saying that property is a legal status. Are you disputing that law arises from dispute resolution? Like I said, you could just go read Clayton's wonderful threads on that subject.
In addition, there is a flaw with your second statement. Chemicals may arise in many ways, but what are the other ways in which laws can arise? By definition, law has to do with dispute resolution. What is the other way in which a law can arise? If you think that by "dispute resolution", that I mean "mutually agreeable and completely voluntary resolution", then you are very much mistaken. I mean exactly what it states. Dispute resolution means the dispute has been resolved.
Customary law is not about "might makes right". That's what statutory law is.
The sentence preceding the one that you bolded clearly states "It is peaceful resolution if there is no violence." So, in your scenario, you include violence. In what way does this counter my argument? Perhaps you should read what I write more carefully, instead of just cherrypicking and trying to make me wrong.
I meant that I do not personally know any person who has acquired property through violence. In fact, everyone that I know has acquired property through peaceful and voluntary means. I fail to see how you can make a statement of "most of the time" people acquire property through violence when it seems to be quite the opposite.
Rape is ingrained into not only humans, but also many animals. We seem to do ok with that. (In netspeak they would say "human nature argument lulz")
This seems to be the "inherent" problem again. Do you run around raping people? Do you use this as a way to rationalize your actions?
Of course, if you don't actually run around raping people, then I would question the truthfulness of that statement.
Laotzu del Zinn:Is there an ignore function for this site? I've never really checked. I'm not going to go through pages of Auto accusing me of trying to "intimidate" him, and throwing all kinds of baseless accusations [sic] and irrelevant hypothetical scenarios [sic].
What are you afraid of?
Laotzu del Zinn:It's annoying to no end.
Cry me a river. I'm certainly not going to behave differently because you find it to be "annoying to no end".
Laotzu del Zinn:Like this, what does this even mean? I said in a passing joke that I'm not psychic, but earlier I had pointed out that I'm familiar with his behavior. Is this response a joke, or is he really accusing me of being psychic?
You made a prediction about my future behavior, did you not? You said, "Auto, you're going to accuse me of all kinds of baseless things for saying this, and that's ok [emphasis added]." Notice the use of future progressive tense there. I don't think this is rocket surgery. My point is that it's contradictory for you to claim that you don't know what's going on inside my head at one point, but to earlier make a prediction about what I'm doing to do in the future, which does require knowing what's going on inside my head.
Laotzu del Zinn:And this? Was I trying to get him to "back down?" Am I really trying to intimidate him? Well.. I guess if I'm telling a liar to stop lying, ya I guess that is me trying to intimidate someone.
Perhaps you'd like to put your money where your mouth is and point out just exactly where you think I'm lying.
Laotzu del Zinn:Then it shouldn't be too hard for you to point out, or otherwise explain, exactly how you've "conclusively proven" my accusations wrong. So go on, then. What are you afraid of? Notice that after I said this, I proceeded to (at least try to) prove his accusation wrong. So I did do it, yet he accuses me of not doing it because I'm "scared." Stop trying to intimidate me Auto... stooge.
After you said what? You quoted me there, not yourself. Besides, even accepting arguendo that you did try to prove my accusation wrong in this thread, that doesn't say anything about whether you've "conclusively proven" my accusation wrong "almost each time". In any case, by "accusation" I assume you mean my pointing out that you shifted the goalpost? So where did you prove it wrong? Oh and just so you know, trying to prove it wrong and actually proving it wrong are two different things.
Laotzu del Zinn:I mean I guess a false accusation is a response...
Then you should have no problem demonstrating how it's necessarily a false accusation. So go on, then. Or are you simply trying to win over the alleged lurking audience by repeating your bare assertions?
Laotzu del Zinn:Notice that he never noted this. Maybe in his head he did, but not in his post. He said "I didn't sign the Constitution as a contract" (or words to that effect) and I responded that "I never signed any contract making me a part of the legalized property system."
I did note it - both implicitly and explicitly. But the implication is rather obvious, isn't it? You claimed that the US Constitution is a voluntary agreement, akin to an employment agreement. Didn't you? And I responded by saying that I never signed (i.e. expressly agreed with) the US Constitution. Didn't I?
Laotzu del Zinn:Notice I did no such thing... but... talking about coercion in the context of voluntarism is "shifting the posts?" That would be like talking about food in the subject of obesity is shifting the post.
Simply asserting that you did no such thing does not convince me in the slightest. Again, either you're concerned with convincing your opponent (me) of the alleged validity of your statements, or you're trying to reach the lurking audience (i.e. you have an ulterior motive, which is dishonest).
To recap, I claimed (implicitly at first, but later explicitly) that employment agreements are voluntary - the employer pays the worker for services rendered, which the employee agrees to perform for the money received. No one imposed a pre-existing obligation on either to make this arrangement. You countered with the claim that, by my reasoning, the US Constitution is a voluntary agreement. I countered by saying that I never signed the US Constitution, i.e. it's not a voluntary arrangement on my part. It stands as a pre-existing obligation imposed upon me. It certainly seems to me like that refutes your counter-claim. You then proceeded to say that you never agreed to be "a part of the legal property system". Since I already refuted your first claim, this looked (and still looks) to me like comparing apples to oranges, hence my claim that you were trying to shift the goalpost.
There's another angle to this, though, one that I've overlooked until now. Either capitalist private property can be said to exist, or it can't. You stated that the US considers itself to be the true owner of all land within its claimed jurisdiction. By that reasoning, then, capitalist private property doesn't exist and subsequently your opposition to it is moot.
Laotzu del Zinn:I would be happy to do that... with anyone other than him (in fact, Isn't that what we're doing in this thread right now. The coerciveness of a property system is sort of fundamental to Marx's view on the worker/owner relationship). If I debate it with Auto, it's just going to be 5 pages of me defending myself from charges of dishonesty. The worse part being that 1) fallaciousness is not dishonesty 2) he can never conclusively prove his accusation, only state and restate it endlessly.
Short of going inside your head, no, I can't prove that you're being dishonest. But it seems highly likely to me. See, it's one thing to mistakenly commit a logical fallacy. It's another to employ the same fallacy over and over again, as if you've learned nothing. You don't seem to be that stupid though. So I conclude that you're not trying to debate logically, which means to me that you're not acting with intellectual honesty here.
Laotzu del Zinn:I'm actually quite sure he'll accuse me of some dishonesty and intimidation for referring to him in the third person, rather than responding directly to him.
Well I'm sure that referring to me in the third person like you are is just another rhetorical tactic. No, I can't prove that, either, but I'm sure of it nevertheless.
Laotzu del Zinn:I just hope he doesn't troll me [sic] in PM again... and I in a small way regret not forwording that conversatin to a mod. But I'm not really one to get someone in trouble over dumb drama [sic].
Just like this is also another rhetorical tactic - upping the ante, as it were. What other reason would you have for bringing up a private conversation in public like this, hmm?
If you don't want me to "troll" you in PM again, I think there's a simple way to prevent it. You can remove me from your list of friends and set your profile settings to only accept conversations from people on your list of friends. I'm not sure if I could still post in our existing "conversation", but I'm confident that will prevent me from starting any new conversations with you. The thing is, I could still post comments on your profile page. But you could delete those.
Finally, feel free to forward that "conversation" to a mod. Your implicit threat doesn't bother me in the slightest.
Laotzu del Zinn:I had to present a different scenario, obviously, because his was a straw man and irrelevant to my post... to put it succinctly, just the "distraction" he is accusing of me.
Ah yes, the good old "I know you are, but what am I?" game. I know it well.
My scenario was not a straw man. It in fact captured the very notion of presumably illegitimate claims on other people's property that you talked about in this post (where you concluded, erroneously however, that "[t]he goal post remains fixed in place"). And indeed, if it was such a straw man, why didn't you point that out to begin with. Why only bring it up now? This again heavily suggests to me that you have an ulterior (i.e. dishonest) motive.
Laotzu del Zinn:This would be easier if he could take a joke...
I don't think this is any place for jokes - assuming you really were just joking and not again trying to save face by now claiming that you were just joking.
Laotzu del Zinn:Unless Auto can stop trolling me [sic], this will be my last response to him, ever.
If indeed you do stop responding to me, then I'll take that as a permanent abandonment of all of your arguments and therefore as a permanent concession to everything I've said and will say. But just because you might stop responding to me, that doesn't mean in any way that I'll stop responding to you.
And yet the decision upon "legitimacy" of any of its laws will reside within a social context. Social, as in collective. So, regardless of anyone's claim to property, or even if it feels natural to them, ultimately it is society who's claim is legitimate. Therefore, pure "private" property is not only an absurdity, but an impossiblity!
Obviously I don't see what the courts decide as legitimate as always just. They do uphold the right to so-called "private" property.
I'm not so sure Somalia is such a great example to be using, but ok... I don't want to debate that here.
Either way, obviously the "customary" law of a society under a property system will protect the property owners against the indigent.
Have you ever seen a society abandon it?
Besides, humanity lived without the existence of property for 200k years, and with it for maybe 8k years if you're being generous.
What makes a theifs claim to property different than a toddler's? Why don't we prosecute toddler's for stealing?
No, and I'll say it again, what I'm really talking about is that people are born with the idea of owning things - that is, they claim certain things belong to them.
They claim possession over things. I mean we're really just arguing semantics here but "ownership" is a specific legal title to something, not the claim to it. I'm not going to budge from that position, so it's pointless to try and argue around it. It is far too confusing to consider ownership simply as "possession and control" as then the theif is the owner.
Property as a social status requires more than one person, but the idea of something belonging to someone is inherent to people
Yes and theifs feel like your things belong to them, yet they are not the owner.
Exactly how are you using inherent? The vast majority of people don't run around raping and murdering, while the vast majority of people do make claims to ownership of property
I really wouldn't use it often, because it's a tricky situation for individualists. Eating meat is supposedly inherent to humans, yet I have friends that don't do it... so really how far does inherent get us? You are about to mention how you don't rape and murder so is it inhernent to you? Maybe, maybe not. But we both certainly have the capacity for it, and it has been used by other members of our species.
In short; I don't like the word "inherent" because it offers no further explanation, nor explains anything on its own. It's almost like saying "god did it."
I don't see how murder and rape is inherent to me. I certainly have never murdered and raped anyone, have you?
No
Furthermore, societies that truly reject private property aren't long for this world. And until they are gone, they are doomed to a low standard of living.
Except for that, you know, 200k+ years of society without private property that by all accounts had shorter working hours for common labor, which means more leisure hours, and saw the development of art, music (probably), ritual, and spirit (or thought for thought's sake; religion, science, philosophy, etc. I know spirit is a poor word for it, as it connotates some the religious definition of "spirit," and if you have a better one let me know.)
Firstly, their property is wealth.
We're defining things so differently it would take me an hour to respond to this... in short, their possessions are not wealth, but the enforced unequal access to those things (property) is wealth.
Secondly, yes they do use their property to create more wealth. Thirdly, yes, government did originate with people, obviously. But that doesn't change the fact that the Powers That Be use government to take wealth from others so that they don't have to use their own wealth.
How did government get created in the first place? Do you think it was by the poorer members of society, or the richer ones?
Poor choice of words on my part, I guess. What I am saying is they are not weighing the costs and benefits to the people involved. What they are weighing is the costs and benefits to the ability to profit. If you don't run your business to make a profit, and the highest profits you can, it will fail. This is business 101, I would think.
I quoted from the wasp section since you originally brought up hornets, which is a wasp.
You first brought up nesting animals. Just because I was the first to say "hornet" doesn't mean I brought it up. But fair enough. It is a heirarchy. I never denied as such. I even pointed out that human nature arguments are lulzy arguments, and as such didn't really care if hornets had a heirarchy... or if humans do for that matter. So I'm glad we could put this little diversion to rest. You win. Wasps have a heirarchy.
Yes, so if murdered people cannot be said to have legitimately "abandoned" their property, why does "they can trade or abandon it" refute my claim that, under the posters metric, all property in the world is illigitimate? It could only refute that claim if you could find me one habitable tract of land that has not been gained through non-trade and non-abandonement. So is it, in fact, you who is trolling me? And why don't I take the time to call you out on it?
If you don't see it, there's not much I can do. The fact that social norms can clean up after property doesn't address why it is in fact legitimate to claim property in the first place. I can't spell it out any more than that.
Yes, I was being sarcastic. Governments are a tool of the ruling class, not the ruling class itself. To claim the latter would imply that ideas can create reality.
"For the glory of our lord we are taking the land of Bargaschlein!" is a social norm, which regulates property disputes.
I am writing it on a compute of which I maintain possession and control of. I don't have to claim it as "my" computer. I know you thought that was "axiomatic" or whatever, but sorry, it's not.
You can only claim "property" (as opposed to possession and control) legally, and legality necessarily implies violence or the threat thereof.
In fact I think I did say that when I repeatedly said that property is a social affair, as is legality, and dispute resolution, etc etc etc. Ya, I feel quite safe in saying that it should have been clear that I involve social affairs as affairs of the community.
Perhaps. It's not as if that changes anything.
1) All property on Earth (all landed property anyway, which was the original claim upon which all other property was built) was, at some point, acquired by force... not "some."
2) Property is a legal status, legality requires violence or the threat thereof. Property requires violence or the threat thereof.
Exactly how are you using the word "economic power "? I've been under the impression that we were using it to refer to power that had to do with money
Is economics only about money? Or is it about all goods, services, and resources?
If you are using it to mean "making choices",
I am not using it that way. I am using it in the context of the interplay of goods, services, and resources between humans.
Sure, why not. I don't, but no big deal.
Thank you... I guess? Are you saying that minorities with guns cannot conquer majorities without?
"This is how animals behave..." as if humans don't, which could only leave me to believe you find it fundamental to being an "animal." Regardless, as said above, "human nature" arguments are lulzy at best.
Threats are not violence, not unless they include physical force. Posturing does not include physical force, and therefore does not constitute violence. That is why it is referred to as a "threat of violence" and not as "violence.
This, on its face, sounds like a fair enough definition. But here is why it is not; if I stick a gun in your face and tell you to give me your money (and you do give it up), are you going to claim I acquired your money non-violently?
Could you show me where I have misrepresented your argument?
I was saying you misrepresented your own..
I did a search on "chemical status". I could find no definition of it.
Do you really need a definition of the combination of two obvious words? Iron is the state of being the chemical iron.
You'll have to define what you mean by chemical "status".
The state of being a chemical.
I have the feeling that you are equivocating here. Regardless, what part of my argument do take issue with? You have been saying that property is a legal status. Are you disputing that law arises from dispute resolution? Like I said, you could just go read Clayton's wonderful threads on that subject.
I'm disputing that property is the only type of dispute resolution. I am positing that property is a specific type of resolution to a dispute.
In addition, there is a flaw with your second statement. Chemicals may arise in many ways, but what are the other ways in which laws can arise? By definition, law has to do with dispute resolution.
Yes, and that resolution could be "I have a gun, what I say is law" which is not a "peaceful" dispute resolution.
What is the other way in which a law can arise?
See above
If you think that by "dispute resolution", that I mean "mutually agreeable and completely voluntary resolution", then you are very much mistaken.
Then I was mistaken. I thought when you said "property arises through peaceful dispute resolution" you meant that property arises from peaceful dispute resolution.
I'm sorry, what you actually said was; " Property arises from the peaceful resolution of disputes."
Explain how any law can not be based on "if you disagree we will bring punishment upon you (because we have the might to do so)."
The sentence preceding the one that you bolded clearly states "It is peaceful resolution if there is no violence." So, in your scenario, you include violence.
Take out the first part where I beat you up, and just take your things.
I must take the time out to admit that it gets quite confusing debating around here... which is why I often take breaks from doing it... as we just fundamentally define things differently. Sometimes I get out of line with my thinking, because again its not easy to be a fish in a shark tank. And when that happens, I apologize. We all make mistakes.
In what way does this counter my argument? Perhaps you should read what I write more carefully, instead of just cherrypicking and trying to make me wrong
Again, my apologies. I have explained my behavior. That does not justify it, but puts it in context. Regardless if you take out the part where I beat you up, and instead I just take your stuff and threaten to beat you up if you tell anyone, then according to your metric, I have acquired your property peacefully.
Because the original claim to property was violent, and the opening of new markets (where further progress is made) is usually by governments at the barrel of a gun; ie, the Chinese and American governments conspiring to bring about "free trade
(But what you've said here is you've never known a theif or anyone stolen from. Really? You expect me to believe that? You must have grown up pretty posh if this is the case.) I originally typed that. But then I put it in parenthesese for a reason. You guys say stuff like this, then I respond as I have. Then invariably I get accused of some type of trolling for responding to other people's absurd and irrelevant posts. Again, it's not easy to be a fish in a shark tank. So you can respond to the bracketed statement, or not. It's not really important to the topic at hand, I don't think.
This seems to be the "inherent" problem again. Do you run around raping people? Do you use this as a way to rationalize your actions? Of course, if you don't actually run around raping people, then I would question the truthfulness of that statement.
I can see the direction you're going in Autolykos but I think its a bit obvious that approach is a bit too abrasive and doesn't really aid in any type of understanding with Laotzu if that's what you're looking for. If that's not the end goal then my mistake.
auctionguy10:I can see the direction you're going in Autolykos but I think its a bit obvious that approach is a bit too abrasive and doesn't really aid in any type of understanding with Laotzu if that's what you're looking for. If that's not the end goal then my mistake.
I find it hilarious that you'll jump on me but not him. Why is that? Please, by all means, do explain yourself.
Thanks for all the replies and interesting discussions (and please keep it going if you want)!