What is property?

Minarchist:

As a general point, I would also say that the NAP is not the basis of libertarian ethics. The concept of property is the basis of libertarian ethics, and is presupposed by the NAP. It makes no sense to talk about aggression prior to a concept of property.

In your mind, perhaps. But you didnt invent libertarian ethics so this assertion has no value for the purposes of any discussion.

Minarchist,

I'm not sure that this conversation is going to go anywhere else. You are defining aggression separately from how it is defined in terms of the NAP. It is not an appeal to authority to quote Rothbard or Block. If someone says they support the NAP, I assume they mean the NAP as defined by Rothbard or Block. After all, that's what I am referring to. But if you want to define the NAP differently, I don't see why you would want to call it the NAP unless you wish to hijack the phrase. It's one thing if a lot of people were doing it, but in this case, it is really only you.

If a slave owner beats his slave, he has initiated violence against the person that is the slave. If you want to define aggression as something else, like aggression is violating property rights, then so be it. But this is neither one of the dictionary definitions of aggression, nor is it the definition of aggression found in the NAP as stated by Rothbard or Block.

Self-defense is not aggression because it is not the initiation of violence. Beating your slave is not self-defense. In order to beat your slave, unless he has attacked you (which is fine by me, as you are holding him as a slave), then you must "begin, start, introduce" "force" against your slave. This is aggression as defined by the NAP.

Regarding horses, well, last time I checked, the NAP was only about men aggressing against men, not men aggressing against horses. Just so you know, there are actually people out there who think it is wrong to "aggress" against horses. But when we talk about libertarianism and the NAP, we are talking about men.

As a general point, I would also say that the NAP is not the basis of libertarian ethics. The concept of property is the basis of libertarian ethics, and is presupposed by the NAP. It makes no sense to talk about aggression prior to a concept of property.

Well, this is actually false. Now, I suppose you could have some libertarians who view it this way, but most libertarians have been influenced by Rothbard at one point or another, even if they do not agree with him 100% (I know I don't, though I am astounded at how much I do agree with him whenever I reread him). So, let's look at what Rothbard said:

The fundamental axiom of libertarian theory is that no one may threaten or commit violence ("aggress") against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a non-aggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory. [Emphasis added]

I have tried to demonstrate this previously, how the NAP and libertarian ethics comes from the golden rule, which, when you look at the chart on the wikipedia page on the NAP, you can see that others have reached this conclusion too (like, say, Rothbard). I have shown how property and estoppel and homesteading and proportion come from the NAP. Whether or not you accept this is up to you. After all, if you don't accept the golden rule as your starting point, then you might have other reasons for supporting the NAP. But the problem is that you are supporting some version of the NAP that is a virtual unknown. Your version essentially boils down to, "Thou shalt not violate property."

Okay, that's fine if that's what you want to use as the NAP, just as it's fine that you want to define "minarchist" as something other than someone who supports a really small state. And it's fine if you want to define aggression as something other than the initiation of force or the threat thereof. But these are all nonstandard uses, both in the general population and the libertarian population. And, for example, unlike the gay population, you don't have numbers on your side. They hijacked the word gay and changed it's meaning. The nonstandard use became the standard use. But you are essentially on your own on these particular definitions.

For your sake, and for clarity's sake, I highly suggest finding different terms and phrases for some of your beliefs. Otherwise, you will forevermore have to define your nonstandard terms. Even if I have to define aggression to someone, I won't have to always do it, as the libertarian definition of aggression is actually one of the few dictionary definitions for the word. I won't always have to do it.

And it's also why Rothbard initially wanted to call himself "anti-state" instead of "anarchist". Because of people's perceptions and understanding of the definition of the words. But he had numbers on his side. He was able to use the word anachist eventually because enough libertarians wanted to use the etymological meaning of the word.

But you don't have numbers on your side. Maybe you will someday, but until then, I highly recommend coining new terms or phrases. It's just too confusing.

So, I think I'm going to bow out now. There really isn't much else for me to say. I suggest you read more Rothbard instead of Block. Or read some Kinsella. Or maybe brush up on what the ancient rabbis (or the modern orthodox rabbis) said. While religion is flawed, and I'm sure there have been some very great Christian priests or ministers, I can say that certain historical rabbis such as Hillel or Maimonides were very wise and virtuous men, and while I firmly believe all religion to be flawed, these 2 men (and certain other rabbis) more than make up for any flaws in the religion.

@gotlucky

Why don't you define what you mean by "initiation of force."

 

Why dont you define what you mean by "property" since you apparently think it existed before people existed to own it?

Why dont you define what you mean by "property"

From my post on page 3.

What is property?

Property is any thing (in the broadest sense of the term: res) which is owned.

What does it mean to own a thing?

To own a thing is to have the exclusive right to use that thing, and in any way, and at any time, that one pleases.

And you continued:

you apparently think it existed before people existed to own it

Where did I suggest that property existed before people existed?

In your mind, perhaps. But you didnt invent libertarian ethics so this assertion has no value for the purposes of any discussion.

I'll say again:

It makes no sense to talk about aggression prior to a concept of property.

Saying "thou shalt not aggress" without knowing what aggression is, is like saying "thou shalt not do bad things" without knowing what bad things are. A simple test. Start from the "thou shalt not aggress" and try to deduce property. It can't be done. Whereas, starting from a definition of property, one can deduce the NAP.

As a general point, I would also say that the NAP is not the basis of libertarian ethics. The concept of property is the basis of libertarian ethics, and is presupposed by the NAP. It makes no sense to talk about aggression prior to a concept of property.

did I say before? I meant logically antecedent. Your concept of property necessarily implies human rights. I'm asking you how you can conceive of ownership as a foundation without presupposing fundamental human rights.

did I say before?

Yes

you apparently think it existed before people existed to own it

And you continue:

I meant logically antecedent.

Ok.

Your concept of property necessarily implies human rights.

What are "human rights"?

 

 

Aggression is the initiation of violence. Dont initiate violence, violence may only be used to prevent imminent aggression, or halt it while its in progress.

property doesnt need to be derived from the nap, its axiomatic. Humans are born understanding that people own things. Scientists already proved this.

""What are "human rights"?"""

you tell me, you brought it up.

Aggression is the initiation of violence. Dont initiate violence, violence may only be used to prevent imminent aggression, or halt it while its in progress.

So aggression is any violence used for any purpose other than to prevent or halt aggression?

That is a circular definition. You need to define what aggression is.

property doesnt need to be derived from the nap, its axiomatic. Humans are orn understanding that people own things. Scientists already proved this.

Exactly, the concept of property is logically antecedent to the NAP.

""What are "human rights"?"""

you tell me, you brought it up.

Um, no, you brought it up, right here:

Your concept of property necessarily implies human rights. I'm asking you how you can conceive of ownership as a foundation without presupposing fundamental human rights.

I have no idea what you mean by "human rights." Most often, talk about "human rights" is talk about something like the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights. Am I to understand that this is what you're talking about? If not, then please explain what you mean, otherwise how can I possibly answer your question?

 

Its not circular, theres a thing called "first," maybe you've heard of it? Its aggression if you initiate it, I'm pretty sure thats been said before.

""Exactly, the concept of property is logically antecedent to the NAP.""

Pathways in the brain are logically antecendent to thought, but if you believe that those pathways lead to that idea you need to do more than say so. property is a separate axiom, thats why there are "libertarians" who reject it, just like there is a "Minarchist" who rejects NAP and substitutes it with his own principle derived from property axioms.

Yah, that was after you said this:

Minarchist:

Why dont you define what you mean by "property"

From my post on page 3.

What is property?

Property is any thing (in the broadest sense of the term: res) which is owned.

What does it mean to own a thing?

To own a thing is to have the exclusive right to use that thing, and in any way, and at any time, that one pleases.

Ownership necessitates an owner, who apparently enjoys rights. Tell me about these rights.

Its not circular, theres a thing called "first," maybe you've heard of it? Its aggression if you initiate it, I'm pretty sure thats been said before.

But first to do what? What kind of action is involved in aggression?

Violence against the body, sure.

But isn't there another kind of action (like what we call stealing, for example) that can be aggression?

So is it aggression to drive cars?

No, it is aggression to drive someone else's car without their permission.

O look, our explanation of aggression had to presume the concept of property!

Ownership necessitates an owner, who apparently enjoys rights. Tell me about these rights.

What do you want to know?

Pathways in the brain are logically antecendent to thought

Ok...?

but if you believe that those pathways lead to that idea you need to do more than say so

Again, huh?

property is a separate axiom

Seperate from what? From the NAP? No, it is not. The NAP makes no sense without the concept of property. Suppose there is a world where everyone knows the NAP, but no one has any concept of property. The NAP is meaningless to them. Great, don't aggress - but what's aggression? They don't know, because the definition of aggression rests on a concept of property.

just like there is a "Minarchist" who rejects NAP and substitutes it with his own principle derived from property axioms

I reject the NAP? How so?

But first to do what? What kind of action is involved in aggression? Violence against the body, sure.

and youre done. Call this NAP-prime. Now, its axiomatic that humans have property, continued human existence requires the use of property, hence depriving someone of his just property is potentially depriving him of his life. If you steal his food and he starves to death over the winter, he died because of your thievery. But if he simply didnt store enough food, and tried to mooch off of someone else, then his death would be his own fault. So you see that the part of aggression that refers to property requires a theory of property, its not something that is simply assumed. Theories of jus property are derived from axioms. One of them is the inalienability of the self. The "owner" that is implied in any concept of property, even those that address the corpus. When social fictions like states and corporations own property, they have to invent a person. The physical corpus isnt the owner. When the us government owns something, the pentagonal building in washington isnt the owner. Its an invented person. With respect to humans, the person is inalienable. You may not aggress against people. Once we found out that depriving someone of his property could be aggression, we started calling it that. Youre begging the question, and that dog dont hunt.

But isn't there another kind of action (like what we call stealing, for example) that can be aggression?

Yes, it can be for reasons explained above.

So is it aggression to drive cars? No, it is aggression to drive someone else's car without their permission.

thats not really aggression qua aggression unless it materially impacts them, like prevents them from driving their car. Its just misappropration of goods, theft. To even have this discussion requires a theory of property, which presupposes people and their right to remain unaggressed upon, concepts of permissions, to include temporality, so we have contracts here, meaning contract theory is involved, which you apparently want to assume to benefit you in your first premise. But we are already talking about the nature of property, you cant beg the question, its not happening. Moving on

O look, our explanation of aggression had to presume the concept of property!

no, just yours, because you have the oddest fixation on arguing a system of ethics that appears to be based on the premise that you can legally own human beings. I'm pretty sure youre not any sort of libertarian.

Minarchist:

Ownership necessitates an owner, who apparently enjoys rights. Tell me about these rights.

What do you want to know?

Can you enumerate them, or are they unquantifiable?

Minarchist:

Pathways in the brain are logically antecendent to thought

Ok...?

but if you believe that those pathways lead to that idea you need to do more than say so

Again, huh?

How does the concept of property lead you to (what you consider to be) NAP? You need to explain that, instead of just saying that it does. The fact that people's brains are wired to think of {property} and {propertyholder} when things are coded into those contexts does not make your argument for you. The philosophical implications of that biological fact are that humans need a coherent, cogent, workable theory of property in order to use those biocircuits effectively. This is an epistemological starting point, not the slam dunk you thought it to be.

property is a separate axiom

Seperate from what? From the NAP? No, it is not. The NAP makes no sense without the concept of property. Suppose there is a world where everyone knows the NAP, but no one has any concept of property. The NAP is meaningless to them. Great, don't aggress - but what's aggression? They don't know, because the definition of aggression rests on a concept of property.

just like there is a "Minarchist" who rejects NAP and substitutes it with his own principle derived from property axioms

I reject the NAP? How so?

I think you just trolled yourself

How does the concept of property lead you to (what you consider to be) NAP? You need to explain that, instead of just saying that it does.

Let us take the following definition of property:

"To own a thing is to have the exclusive right to use that thing."

We can rewrite this in a simpler form:

"One has the right to exclusive use of the things he owns."

And from this, the NAP is simply the inverse:

"One who does not own a thing, does not have a right to use that thing."

And if one wants to phrase this as a commandment:

"thou shalt not use a thing which thou dost not own."

Aggression is "to use a thing which you do not own."

Or, in other words, to violate property rights.

And there you have a derivation of the NAP from the concept of property.

But doing the inverse is impossible, one cannot derive the concept of property from the NAP, because one cannot even meaningfully state the NAP without already assuming the concept of property.

The fact that people's brains are wired to think of {property} and {propertyholder} when things are coded into those contexts does not make your argument for you. The philosophical implications of that biological fact are that humans need a coherent, cogent, workable theory of property in order to use those biocircuits effectively. This is an epistemological starting point, not the slam dunk you thought it to be.

I have no idea what you're talking about. All that I'm saying is that, if you want to idenfity the basic principles from which libertarian ethics can be derived, the property ethic is one of them, and the NAP is not. The NAP is not one of the basic principles, it is something derived from one of the basic principles. The basic principles concern (1) what property is, and (2) how people come to acquire property (and this divides into three principles: that of voluntary exchange, that of torts, and that of homesteading). Given those principles, the rest of libertarian ethics can be derived.

property is a separate axiom

Seperate from what? From the NAP? No, it is not. The NAP makes no sense without the concept of property. Suppose there is a world where everyone knows the NAP, but no one has any concept of property. The NAP is meaningless to them. Great, don't aggress - but what's aggression? They don't know, because the definition of aggression rests on a concept of property.

just like there is a "Minarchist" who rejects NAP and substitutes it with his own principle derived from property axioms

I reject the NAP? How so?

I said the NAP presupposes the concept of property. Why would that mean I reject the NAP? Non sequitur.

 

Can you enumerate them, or are they unquantifiable?

Enumerate? I mentioned a single right: the right to exclusively use a thing.

So, ok, I'll enumerate "them"

1

...all finished.

Aggression is "to use a thing which you do not own." Or, in other words, to violate property rights.

so how does property come to exist as property? You obviously reject homesteading, since its included in your definition of aggression.

But doing the inverse is impossible, one cannot derive the concept of property from the NAP

sure you can, I demonstrated that in this thread, which you conveniently ignored, just like you ignore conventional definitions of NAP when you assert that "I said the NAP presupposes the concept of property" because the non-aggression principle that everyone else agrees upon simply does not. If you want to create your own system of ethics (as you apparently have done) please develop your own labels. K thx.

I have no idea what you're talking about. All that I'm saying is that, if you want to idenfity the basic principles from which libertarian ethics can be derived, the property ethic is one of them, and the NAP is not.

what kind of argument is this when you basically say "I dont understand what we are talking about so I will repeat myself?" NAP is a premise, not a conclusion. You reject NAP and derive something different from property axiom, then call that principle NAP and claim to speak for all of libertarianism. Thats fallacious.

The NAP is not one of the basic principles, it is something derived from one of the basic principles. The basic principles concern (1) what property is, and (2) how people come to acquire property (and this divides into three principles: that of voluntary exchange, that of torts, and that of homesteading). Given those principles, the rest of libertarian ethics can be derived.

ok, explain how you expect to homestead something without using something that you do not own.

Minarchist:

Can you enumerate them, or are they unquantifiable?

Enumerate? I mentioned a single right: the right to exclusively use a thing.

So, ok, I'll enumerate "them"

1

...all finished.

So where does this right come from? Is it's property of existence subjective or objective?

Malachi:

But first to do what? What kind of action is involved in aggression? Violence against the body, sure.

and youre done. Call this NAP-prime. Now, its axiomatic that humans have property, continued human existence requires the use of property, hence depriving someone of his just property is potentially depriving him of his life. If you steal his food and he starves to death over the winter, he died because of your thievery. But if he simply didnt store enough food, and tried to mooch off of someone else, then his death would be his own fault. So you see that the part of aggression that refers to property requires a theory of property, its not something that is simply assumed. Theories of jus property are derived from axioms. One of them is the inalienability of the self. The "owner" that is implied in any concept of property, even those that address the corpus. When social fictions like states and corporations own property, they have to invent a person. The physical corpus isnt the owner. When the us government owns something, the pentagonal building in washington isnt the owner. Its an invented person. With respect to humans, the person is inalienable. You may not aggress against people. Once we found out that depriving someone of his property could be aggression, we started calling it that. Youre begging the question, and that dog dont hunt.

But isn't there another kind of action (like what we call stealing, for example) that can be aggression?

Yes, it can be for reasons explained above.

So is it aggression to drive cars? No, it is aggression to drive someone else's car without their permission.

thats not really aggression qua aggression unless it materially impacts them, like prevents them from driving their car. Its just misappropration of goods, theft. To even have this discussion requires a theory of property, which presupposes people and their right to remain unaggressed upon, concepts of permissions, to include temporality, so we have contracts here, meaning contract theory is involved, which you apparently want to assume to benefit you in your first premise. But we are already talking about the nature of property, you cant beg the question, its not happening. Moving on

O look, our explanation of aggression had to presume the concept of property!

no, just yours, because you have the oddest fixation on arguing a system of ethics that appears to be based on the premise that you can legally own human beings. I'm pretty sure youre not any sort of libertarian.

Apparently you didnt see this post so I am quoting it.

So where does this right come from? Is it's property of existence subjective or objective?

A right is an idea, its existence is subjective. What's your point?

@Malachi

To even have this discussion requires a theory of property, which presupposes people and their right to remain unaggressed upon, concepts of permissions, to include temporality, so we have contracts here, meaning contract theory is involved, which you apparently want to assume to benefit you in your first premise...

In the physical sciences, you are seeking objective truth. Hence you must let the data lead you to whatever conclusion they will. It would be improper to choose your conclusion beforehand and then cherry-pick data to support that conclusion. It sounds like you're accusing me of something like this.

But it is completely different in ethics, where there is no objective truth. You cannot follow the data wherever they lead, because they lead nowhere. The mere facts of reality can never yield any ethical claim however trivial (the is-ought problem). In making an ethical argument, you always begin with your own ethical claims. Your task is then to work backwards toward principles, which you construct such that your ethical views logically follow. This is what I've done.

you have the oddest fixation on arguing a system of ethics that appears to be based on the premise that you can legally own human beings.I'm pretty sure youre not any sort of libertarian.

Gasp! Malachi doesn't think I'm a libertarian!? What ever shall I do?!  (rolls eyes)

...I guess Walter Block isn't a libertarian either.

http://mises.org/journals/jls/17_2/17_2_3.pdf

But it is completely different in ethics, where there is no objective truth.

you appear to have missed the point of ethical study. The main reason I am replying is because your replies are so absurd I dont want you to think you can pretend to ignore the fact that the ethical system you constructed doesnt allow for homesteading.

the ethical system you constructed doesnt allow for homesteading

How's that?

Malachi:

Aggression is "to use a thing which you do not own." Or, in other words, to violate property rights.

so how does property come to exist as property? You obviously reject homesteading, since its included in your definition of aggression.

But doing the inverse is impossible, one cannot derive the concept of property from the NAP

sure you can, I demonstrated that in this thread, which you conveniently ignored, just like you ignore conventional definitions of NAP when you assert that "I said the NAP presupposes the concept of property" because the non-aggression principle that everyone else agrees upon simply does not. If you want to create your own system of ethics (as you apparently have done) please develop your own labels. K thx.

I have no idea what you're talking about. All that I'm saying is that, if you want to idenfity the basic principles from which libertarian ethics can be derived, the property ethic is one of them, and the NAP is not.

what kind of argument is this when you basically say "I dont understand what we are talking about so I will repeat myself?" NAP is a premise, not a conclusion. You reject NAP and derive something different from property axiom, then call that principle NAP and claim to speak for all of libertarianism. Thats fallacious.

The NAP is not one of the basic principles, it is something derived from one of the basic principles. The basic principles concern (1) what property is, and (2) how people come to acquire property (and this divides into three principles: that of voluntary exchange, that of torts, and that of homesteading). Given those principles, the rest of libertarian ethics can be derived.

ok, explain how you expect to homestead something without using something that you do not own.

Aggression is "to use a thing which you do not own."

....the implication being that someone else owns it.

Minarchist:

How does the concept of property lead you to (what you consider to be) NAP? You need to explain that, instead of just saying that it does.

Let us take the following definition of property:

"To own a thing is to have the exclusive right to use that thing."

We can rewrite this in a simpler form:

"One has the right to exclusive use of the things he owns."

And from this, the NAP is simply the inverse:

"One who does not own a thing, does not have a right to use that thing."

And if one wants to phrase this as a commandment:

"thou shalt not use a thing which thou dost not own."

Aggression is "to use a thing which you do not own."

Or, in other words, to violate property rights.

And there you have a derivation of the NAP from the concept of property.

Where did you imply that someone else owns the property? You clearly stated that "one who does not own a thing does not have a right to use that thing." you felt no need to refer to another owner. You even restated this principle 4 times without referring to another person. Are we now to conclude that you do not feel that this exposition of your version of property rights and your principle (that you choose to call NAP) is not authoritative as it pertains to your philosophy?

you felt no need to refer to another owner.

Correct, because I assumed it would be understood.

At the bottom of this thread is a complete summary of my views on property rights. As you can see, the final principle is all about homesteading.

Now, if you want to interpret "to use a thing which you do not own" contrary to what it was intended to mean, and then attack that strawman, go right ahead, but I have nothing further to say on the matter.

Its understood that you appear to have realized your error eventually.

Property is the exclusion of everybody but the owner from use, enforced by (state) violence.

Under a property regime like capitalism full liberty is impossible. There is still the oppression by property. Consequently, a true libertarian must seek to abolish property. Just go one liberty further!

 

---

how is it more freedom not to own property?  

Why does property need to be enforced by the state? 

how do i oppress you by owning my skivvy shorts?

grant.w.underwood:

how is it more freedom not to own property?

It is more freedom not to be excluded from use of things by property owners.

grant.w.underwood:

Why does property need to be enforced by the state?

The state has the monopoly of violence. The state enforces the property laws. If one does not respect the law, the state punishes. That's what I mean by enforcing property by violence. Property is a relation of violent exclusion. The majority suffers under the violence. The few are free to exploit the majority. I agree, this is freedom, but it is freedom only for the lucky few who happen to be the oppressors.

grant.w.underwood:

how do i oppress you by owning my skivvy shorts?

I meant property of the means of production.

it is also more freedom to include or exclude anyone you want on possessions you acquired through your own personal labor.

"The state has thhe monopoly of violence" - umm they dont.  

"state enforces the property laws"- they dont have to.

"it is freedom only for the lucky few" - lucky few who own property?  Who doesnt own property?  I pretty sure 100% of the population isnt the 'lucky few'.

"i meant property of the means of production" - what if i invent a way to produce laptops out of my skivvy shorts? So now that i invented a new way to produce goods i became oppressive?

 

Fact -  If you care to test your theory that the state has a monopoly on the use of violence.  I live in Denton, Tx and I'm a former Marine. You can come attempt to take my personal property, and i will prove to you 1. The state doesnt have a monopoly on the use of violence. 2. the state wont enforce anything because i dont need the state to defend my property.  3.  your attempt to take my personal property is the initiation of the use of violence (which goes back to number 1)

Do you have self ownership of your person/being/soul?

"it is also more freedom to include or exclude anyone you want on possessions you acquired through your own personal labor."

It is certainly not freedom for those excluded. And to exclude other people from the usage of goods is only necessary under capitalism. Capitalism creates scarcity.

""The state has thhe monopoly of violence" - umm they dont.  "

Of course, the state has the monopoly on violence. If you break a law, you can feel this violence.

""it is freedom only for the lucky few" - lucky few who own property?  Who doesnt own property?  I pretty sure 100% of the population isnt the 'lucky few'."

Only the capitalists own property. They are the parasites of society who can afford not to work. They exploit the rest by blackmailing them. The property regime is just a more efficient form of slavery.

Fact -  If you care to test your theory that the state has a monopoly on the use of violence.  I live in Denton, Tx and I'm a former Marine. You can come attempt to take my personal property, and i will prove to you 1. The state doesnt have a monopoly on the use of violence. 2. the state wont enforce anything because i dont need the state to defend my property.  3.  your attempt to take my personal property is the initiation of the use of violence (which goes back to number 1)

So that is your vision of a libertarian society: A crowd of gun freaks shooting whoever they please. You do a good job in exposing anarcho-capitalism as the fraud it really is.

Finally some insights by Engels on the violent nature of property:

The proletarian is helpless; left to himself, he cannot live a single day. The bourgeoisie has gained a monopoly of all means of existence in the broadest sense of the word. What the proletarian needs, he can obtain only from this bourgeoisie, which is protected in its monopoly by the power of the state. The proletarian is, therefore, in law and in fact, the slave of the bourgeoisie, which can decree his life or death. It offers him the means of living, but only for an "equivalent", for his work. It even lets him have the appearance of acting from a free choice, of making a contract with free, unconstrained consent, as a responsible agent who has attained his majority.

Fine freedom, where the proletarian has no other choice than that of either accepting the conditions which the bourgeoisie offers him, or of starving, of freezing to death, of sleeping naked among the beasts of the forests! A fine "equivalent" valued at pleasure by the bourgeoisie! And if one proletarian is such a fool as to starve rather than agree to the "equitable" propositions of the bourgeoisie, his "natural superiors", another is easily found in his place; there are proletarians enough in the world, and not all so insane as to prefer dying to living.

(...)

The only difference as compared with the old, outspoken slavery is this, that the worker of today seems to he free because he is not sold once for all, but piecemeal by the day, the week, the year, and because no one owner sells him to another, but he is forced to sell himself in this way instead, being the slave of no particular person, but of the whole property- holding class. For him the matter is unchanged at bottom, and if this semblance of liberty necessarily gives him some real freedom on the one hand, it entails on the other the disadvantage that no one guarantees him a subsistence, he is in danger of being repudiated at any moment by his master, the bourgeoisie, and left to die of starvation, if the bourgeoisie ceases to have an interest in his employment, his existence. The bourgeoisie, on the other hand, is far better off under the present arrangement than uncover the old slave system; it can dismiss its employees at discretion without sacrificing invested capital, and gets its work done much more cheaply than is possible with slave labour, as Adam Smith comfortingly pointed out.

(Frederick Engels: The Condition of the Working Class in England)

LibertarianMarxist:

Property is the exclusion of everybody but the owner from use, enforced by (state) violence.

So you're saying that's your definition of "property"? I just want to be clear on this.

LibertarianMarxist:

Under a property regime like capitalism full liberty is impossible. There is still the oppression by property. Consequently, a true libertarian must seek to abolish property. Just go one liberty further!

If I'm eating food that you could've eaten, would you say I'm oppressing you?