RIGHTS:
I contend that all rights for humans derive from the natural law. The natural law elucidates what is best for humans, and what is not good for humans. I.E. murdering is contrary to natural law, because if it were a law all humans should murder each other, they would not exist.
I contend that all rights derive from the original axiom of property in one's person, which brings me to the next point...
PROPERTY:
I contend that all humans are necessarily property owners; at the very least, every human has a property in his person.
I contend that property is inherent in the nature of man.
THE STATE:
I contend that the state is illegal, according to natural law, regardless of man-made law. This is because aggressive violence is illegal, but the state is the institution of aggressive violence (as opposed to defensive violence).
I contend that the state is the opposite of a property-defender. A stealing, violently aggressive "defender" is a contradiction.
I contend that the state is far different from private defense. Private defense is legal, whereas aggressive violence (the state) is illegal.
I contend that the state (the illegal institution of aggressively enforced compulsory monopoly) is the enemy of mankind, whereas private property, and the right to defend it against aggressive violence is the essence of civilization.
Is it a caricature of Ethics of Liberty?
1- What are rights?
2-Natural Law(s)
A right, seems to have 3 possible origins: (1) natural conditions, (2) social agreement or (3) force. (If you know a fourth tell me). When something is natural such as liberty (inexistence of shackles) the right to such comes from (1), when something isn't natural (material property) it can't come from (1). When people agree (with or without a government) about something as rights to all, this right comes from (2). When one or a nation imposes to another one or another nation a condition and grant himself rights over such nation, this rights comes from (3), e.g. conquests, slavery, etc.
Natural Law (to me) may mean 3 things:
1-Physical, Chemical, Biological laws.
2-Primitive society's standarts.
3-Law of the jungle (the strongest rule)
You obviously don't mean 1 and 3 when you defined natural law as "The natural law elucidates what is best for humans, and what is not good for humans", but on your definition you used the words *good* and *bad*, well those are relative ideas, not all things are purely good or purely bad. Here in Brazil we have an expression "faca de dois gumes" (double-edged knife) that would mean: something that both helps and dammages the user.
Actually most things are "double-edged knife", some as murdering are only bad, but collective property and private property have both good and bad aspects. From evolutionism, we find that a economical competition inside the human race is as bad for humanity as a fight amongs the ants of the same colony is for the ant species. We also conclude that a collective human society would be more fit than a individualist one, once the human is two weak to live alone in the jungles.
Thus, the natural law for human beings is a group (from both mine and your definitions), not an individual once an individual would be two weak. "Unity generates strenght". As I had mentioned before, liberty is the inexistence of shackles, natural. In nature, there are no shackles, we have liberty. But once we have a group we have a problem: Full and absolute liberty would mean I can do anything, even murder, that is where we have the NATURAL LIMITATION OF LIBERTY. "My liberty ends where yours begins", this is also a natural law from both mine and your definitions.
We also have life, all living beings have life, and every animal has to kill other living beings to survive, thus life requires death. human beings as a specie would be far more fit (from evolutionism) defending the lifes of all humans before the life of other creatures. This is the origin of the right to life, a natural condition. So, the right to life would be a natural right for both mine and yours perspectives.
Notice that property is NOT needed to define the rights to life and liberty, I used only natural conditions to explain where do they come from. Property is an idea that seems to have only appeared after human beings stoped living in a purely collective and natural societ (when they shared things there was no idea such a private property). I belive then that the orgins of rigths may be COMPARED to the "original axiom of property in one's person", but that this one isn't the best way to explain rights.
Ok, now to property:
One idea must be introduced here, it is the possession idea. Possession would be what you need to live (limited) while property would be illimited, their nature is the same, they refers to external things that we humans agree are in control of some humans. While some natural conditions (very cold winter) estimulate the idea of possession, the idea of property is estimulated by itself, a feedback. Private property estimulates private property (greed).
So in Alasca, the natives had to have their clothes and houses in order to survive, while they had no necessity of private property. they would help each other in times of need and share the wealth in times of wealth. So basically, possession are natural, while property is artificial.
Property over something would be the right to control something that is not necessarly nedded for the owner, while possession would be the right to control something that is needed for the owner. Property would come from either social agreement or force, and possessions would be natural.
when you use the "original axiom of *property* in one's person" this *property* would be a possession, not a property.
Finally (I guess it is big enougth already) state.
The state IS NOT natural, naturaly there is no such institution with legitimate use of force and violence, once those are not needed in a natural society(unless on huntings, etc). Basically when Max Weber defines the state as:
"The institution with monopoly over legitimate uses of force and violence"
By legitimate he DOES NOT mean natural law, because the "natural state" would be equal to no state. The state comes from either social agreement or force. When a nation is born, it comes from social agreement, when the European conquered the rest of the world, they created (sometimes replacing old states) states via force.
The state hasn't always existed, neither has private property, yet the only way to assure the unnatural right of property is creating an unnatural institution with monopoly over the *legitimate* uses of force and violence. Where *legitimate* means according to what the society agrees it is legitimate as private property. This is why state exists to defend private property:
Immagine a state that doesn't taxes its people (it has so many oil companies (rockefeller's land) , it doesn't need to tax the people) , this way he wouldn't be "stealing" following your deffinitions. Yet he would be defending private property of its people. Basically this is the function of the state, to assure private property. This is why John Locke said:
"The great and chief end of men uniting into commonwealths and putting themselves under governmernment is the preservation of their property."
And why Adam Smith said:
"The necessity of civil government grows with the acqisition of valuable property. Till there be property there can be no government. The very end of which is to secure the wealth and defend the rich from the poor."
This is big enoght already, so I will stop here.
scineram: Is it a caricature of Ethics of Liberty?
I suppose this forum has its uses for a Rothbard-Bot.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
@MarxistStudent:
I agree with you that property isn't an "axiom"; it needs to be justified. But, I disagree with your conclusions. The distinction between possession and property isn't a matter of need. Possession is a material fact, while property is a moral one (the right to take action with an object). Even if you are claiming that only possession is valid, what you are in effect doing is declaring that only things that you possess are your property.
As far as justifying property goes, I would say that it emerges from the fact that external goods are needed for projects that are part of a person's flourishing. Many facts about property (for example, what constitutes homesteading and abandonment) are the result of social consensus, ranging from a simple agreement on property rules between 2 shipwreckees on an uninhabited island to decisions in a common law court. But, I think that property beyond mere possession in and of itself is a good and necessary thing.
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Nitroadict: scineram: Is it a caricature of Ethics of Liberty? I suppose this forum has its uses for a Rothbard-Bot.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
I see people are taking my advice to heart.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Juan: Nitroadict: scineram: Is it a caricature of Ethics of Liberty? I suppose this forum has its uses for a Rothbard-Bot. ...
Okay so I forgot the emoticons and the rainbows & unicorns. I can't make a (bad) joke here now? :\
Nitroadict: I can't make a (bad) joke here now? :\
Don't worry about it, the crowd over at OiNK, What, Waffles, Libble etc. would be in tears by now.
thank you for the answer, I really appreciate it.
well, comrade, that is the importance of the definitions, if we define proporty as moral and possession as material fact, than your conclusions are valid, but using the ideas of necessity, mines are.
I find it intressing to define property and possessions that way, because of their different origins, possession would be natural while property would be result of social agreement or force. The origins of each one of those rights (natural conditions, social agreement or force) are for me very important to define rights, wich should be (in my opinion) understood before we define our ideological ideas.
I think (private) property has some good and some bad aspects, but for sure it isn't natural. Either way the best a society can be with property, I think a even better one can be reached without it...
either way, thanks for the answer.
I didn't just start this thread to ramble off my arbitrary beliefs. Me and MarxistStudent were involved in a debate of sorts on youtube, and we decided this would be an agreeable venue to carry a more lengthy discussion. That is the original intention of this thread, though obviously since it is a public forum, everyone is naturally free to join in.
What are rights?
Rights are natural rights. Natural rights are those which, according to the nature of man, "he must be invested with in order to fulfill the ends to which his nature calls him." When we speak of someone having a right, we mean that it is impermissible to use aggression to prevent him from exercising that right. Thus you have the natural right, for example, not to be murdered, because if we were murdered, we would be prevented by aggressive violence from fulfilling the ends to which our nature calls us -- in this case, living.
What is Property?
Strictly speaking, property are things under control. Property is private. Since only individuals exist, only individuals control property. We should distinguish between just and unjust property: Just property is that which is controlled in accordance with natural law. Unjust property is that which is controlled as a result of aggression. So for example, I naturally have a just property in my person, while you would have an unjust property (though not a property right) in my person if you exercised aggression to control me.
**Therefore property rights come into play. Because of man's nature, he has certain rights. The right to property is one of them. The original property right is that in one's person. All natural rights are naturally property rights, derived from the axiom of right to & property in one's person.**
What is the State?
"The State may therefore be defined as that organization which possesses either or both (in actual fact, almost always both) of the following characteristics: (a) it acquires its revenue by physical coercion (taxation); and (b) it achieves a compulsory monopoly of force and of ultimate decision-making power over a given territorial area. Both of these essential activities of the State necessarily constitute criminal aggression and depredation of the just rights of private property of its subjects (including self-ownership). For the first constitutes and establishes theft on a grand scale; while the second prohibits the free competition of defense and decision-making agencies within a given territorial area -- prohibiting the voluntary purchase and sale of defense and judicial services." -- Murray Rothbard
I like that you quoted John Locke, because he was on the right path toward natural law and private property. He understood that private property is the root of civilization. However, he didn't point out the contradiction of the aggressor state as "defender": It is an obvious fallacy to call the state a "defender-of-rights" or a "defender-of-property," since as we have seen, it must violate, and necessarily violates both.
MarxistStudent: I think (private) property has some good and some bad aspects, but for sure it isn't natural. Either way the best a society can be with property, I think a even better one can be reached without it...
Why isn't private property natural?
Well, I would really like to ask you: About what of my firsth comment do you agree?
Either way, to your last post:
"according to the nature of man, "he must be invested with in order to fulfill the ends to which his nature calls him." " - nature calls us to no property rights.
"Since only individuals exist, only individuals control property" it only makes sense for one to own property if he/she lives with other individuals, alone a human owns no property. Without social agreement or force (over other people) property doesn't exists. Natural societies have no property as a proff of this. Besides, individual human beings alone is VERY unnatural.
Well, I disagree with your axiom, I can explain life and liberty rights without the idea of property, and once what you call "property in one's person" is basically the person's rights to life and liberty, explainable by (1) natural conditions I presented on firsth, I guess this axiom isn't absolute (therefore not being an axiom).
"I like that you quoted John Locke (...)" Funny I agree with Locke preciselly where you disagree and you agree with Locke preciselly where I disagree...
Do you remember the "double-edged knife" I had mentioned? Well the state is the ONLY thing that can defend private property (a security company IS a state) while (following your definitions of rights (of wich I disagree)) steals violating property.
Well, once property is a social agrement (ins't a natural right because in nature (and natural societies) there is no property), and the state is as well, then their are both equal in an hierarchy of rights, and one can't make the other one illegal and illegitimate.
"free competition of defense and decision-making agencies within a given territorial area" "the voluntary purchase and sale of defense and judicial services" - Do you think that such would be good? I mean if you have to pay for the defence of your property, then if you are poor your property won't be respected (people will steal from you), and until your property isn't respected it is hard to pay for the defence of your property.
Besides, when you hire such company you are:
a) paying for their defense service (very similar to taxes) (without hiring a company your property won't be respected)
b)Granting it monopoly over legitimate uses of force and violence in a given area (your property)
It gets ratter clear to me that Murray Rothbard defends a "private state" and deslikes a public one. He defends the unnatural right of property by defending companies would have legitimate uses of force and violence.
Besides, if we had such sistem and one person managed to achieve monopoly over ALL security companies in the world (a natural tendency of capitalism), what would stop such person from starting a war seeking the conquest of the globe? Nothing, once there is nothing stronger than him, that represents the people.
MarxistStudent: "according to the nature of man, "he must be invested with in order to fulfill the ends to which his nature calls him." " - nature calls us to no property rights.
I am born naked.
MarxistStudent: Do you remember the "double-edged knife" I had mentioned? Well the state is the ONLY thing that can defend private property (a security company IS a state) while (following your definitions of rights (of wich I disagree)) steals violating property.
A state has a monopoly, so, you are referring to a security company that has a monopoly acting via coercion. The very definitive act of coercion implies aggression, not defense, thus the state violates liberty and other natural rights necessarily.
MarxistStudent: Besides, if we had such sistem and one person managed to achieve monopoly over ALL security companies in the world (a natural tendency of capitalism)...
Besides, if we had such sistem and one person managed to achieve monopoly over ALL security companies in the world (a natural tendency of capitalism)...
Why is that a natural tendency of capitalism?
wilderness: Why isn't private property natural?
Well, the most natural societies, the most primive ones have no property and the other natural rights are explainable without property:
Life: all living beings have life, and every animal has to kill other living beings to survive, thus life requires death. human beings as a specie would be far more fit (from evolutionism) defending the lifes of all humans before the life of other creatures. This is the origin of the right to life, a natural condition. So, the right to life would be a natural right for both mine and yours perspectives.
Liberty: liberty is the inexistence of shackles, natural. In nature, there are no shackles, we have liberty. But once we have a group we have a problem: Full and absolute liberty would mean I can do anything, even murder, that is where we have the NATURAL LIMITATION OF LIBERTY. "My liberty ends where yours begins", this is also a natural law from both mine and your definitions.
Once rights may come from either (1) natural conditions, (2) social agreement or (3) force. It is clear that our rights to life and liberty are natural while the property one isn't natural.
One right is natural when it comes from natural conditions, if it is a result of either social agreement or force, the right is not natural. Property rights appeared as social agreements and in many times in history where imposed via force.
wilderness: MarxistStudent: "according to the nature of man, "he must be invested with in order to fulfill the ends to which his nature calls him." " - nature calls us to no property rights. I am born naked.
ten thousands years ago people aslo were and had no property rights.
wilderness: MarxistStudent: Do you remember the "double-edged knife" I had mentioned? Well the state is the ONLY thing that can defend private property (a security company IS a state) while (following your definitions of rights (of wich I disagree)) steals violating property. A state has a monopoly, so, you are referring to a security company that has a monopoly acting via coercion. The very definitive act of coercion implies aggression, not defense, thus the state violates liberty and other natural rights necessarily.
The state is as unatural as the private property is was born to defend.
wilderness: MarxistStudent: Besides, if we had such sistem and one person managed to achieve monopoly over ALL security companies in the world (a natural tendency of capitalism)... Why is that a natural tendency of capitalism?
Capitalist proved it. Wasn't for state intervention rockefeller company would still hold monopoly over oil. Cartels, combinations, dumpings, holdings, etc also comprove this.
MarxistStudent: wilderness: Why isn't private property natural? Well, the most natural societies, the most primive ones have no property and the other natural rights are explainable without property:
This isn't a primitive society.
MarxistStudent: Liberty: liberty is the inexistence of shackles, natural. In nature, there are no shackles, we have liberty. But once we have a group we have a problem: Full and absolute liberty would mean I can do anything, even murder, that is where we have the NATURAL LIMITATION OF LIBERTY. "My liberty ends where yours begins", this is also a natural law from both mine and your definitions.
Traditionally liberty is defined as: freedom from physical coercion.
MarxistStudent: Once rights may come from either (1) natural conditions, (2) social agreement or (3) force. It is clear that our rights to life and liberty are natural while the property one isn't natural.
It is a natural condition that I am born naked.
wilderness:This isn't a primitive society.
This societies (south america indians, for instance) were far more primitive and natural than any society that had property rights.
wilderness:Traditionally liberty is defined as: freedom from physical coercion.
Isn't physical coercion a shackle? Besides there are many liberties: ideological one, political one, economical one;
wilderness:It is a natural condition that I am born naked.
But property rights aren't a consequence of this. Your dog is also born naked.
MarxistStudent: wilderness:This isn't a primitive society. This societies (south america indians, for instance) were far more primitive and natural than any society that had property rights.
I said this, as in the United States, society isn't primitive.
MarxistStudent: wilderness:Traditionally liberty is defined as: freedom from physical coercion. Isn't physical coercion a shackle? Besides there are many liberties: ideological one, political one, economical one;
If a person isn't being physically coerced, then that person is able to flourish in a number of ways.
MarxistStudent: wilderness:It is a natural condition that I am born naked. But property rights aren't a consequence of this. Your dog is also born naked.
And naturally, as a human, I am distinct in my endeavors from a dog. It is natural that humans have culture.
MarxistStudent: Capitalist proved it. Wasn't for state intervention rockefeller company would still hold monopoly over oil. Cartels, combinations, dumpings, holdings, etc also comprove this.
Rockefeller had a monopoly how? Do you have a link to point out this history?
The only way a company would have a monopoly in a free market would be that company is violating liberty, but I would still like to see a link to further delve into this assertion of yours.
MarxistStudent:Capitalist proved it. Wasn't for state intervention rockefeller company would still hold monopoly over oil. Cartels, combinations, dumpings, holdings, etc also comprove this.
Oh, that's just too hilarious. I love your econ stand-up routine. Please, tell some more jokes.
wilderness: I said this, as in the United States, society isn't primitive.
My point is: natural societies have no property. And the most natural ones, the most primitive ones (such as South america indians) had no property.
wilderness: If a person isn't being physically coerced, then that person is able to flourish in a number of ways.
Yet it doesn't assures neither ideological liberty, economical liberty, political liberty, etc. If one has monopoly over the means of the communication, he stablishes a dictatorship of an ideology, without needing physical coercion.
wilderness: And naturally, as a human, I am distinct in my endeavors from a dog. It is natural that humans have culture.
For sure, but that doesn't create the right of property, this right comes from a social agreement. It is not natural.
wilderness:Rockefeller had a monopoly how? Do you have a link to point out this history?
He was the USA king of oil, during the crisis of 1929 he was richer than the USA government. If he didn't have a monopoly he was but a few steps from it. That is why his company was divided into pieces. Note: Exxon was but a piece of rockeffeler's co.
wilderness: The only way a company would have a monopoly in a free market would be that company is violating liberty, but I would still like to see a link to further delve into this assertion of yours.
Perhaps, but he was quitte close from a monopoly either way, there was also a "king of the railroads" in the USA. the most free a market is, the largest shall be the tendency towards monopoly. This is why there are laws (against free-market) forbiding monopoly.
MarxistStudent: wilderness: I said this, as in the United States, society isn't primitive. My point is: natural societies have no property. And the most natural ones, the most primitive ones (such as South america indians) had no property.
yes and this isn't a South American indian culture - it isn't primitive. I can make distinctions between cultures. Are you trying to state something else?
MarxistStudent: wilderness: If a person isn't being physically coerced, then that person is able to flourish in a number of ways. Yet it doesn't assures neither ideological liberty, economical liberty, political liberty, etc. If one has monopoly over the means of the communication, he stablishes a dictatorship of an ideology, without needing physical coercion.
How does this "one" sustain a monopoly without physical coercion?
MarxistStudent: wilderness: And naturally, as a human, I am distinct in my endeavors from a dog. It is natural that humans have culture. For sure, but that doesn't create the right of property, this right comes from a social agreement. It is not natural.
Obviously this aspect of the discussion has come back to square one. Maybe we can come back to this after the other points have been deliberated upon, if that's ok with you, unless you would like to bring something else up pertaining to this feel free. I'll try to avoid repeating ourselves for your sake and mine...
Knight_of_BAAWA: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh, that's just too hilarious. I love your econ stand-up routine. Please, tell some more jokes.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Sorry dude, that is the truth, capitalism moves towards and HUGE acumulation of capital:
In 1871, the 20% richest were 7 times as rich as the 20% poorest. Today they are 87 times richer or more.
The richest 1% control 80% of the wealth.
MarxistStudent: Perhaps, but he was quitte close from a monopoly either way, there was also a "king of the railroads" in the USA. the most free a market is, the largest shall be the tendency towards monopoly. This is why there are laws (against free-market) forbiding monopoly.
No. The only way Rockefeller or this railroad king would have a monopoly would be they are violating liberty. Anybody can start a business and if their business is providing something that can best bring the product to the worker that's not a monopoly. That's called good business. Another company is free to try to provide a better product and market such a product better, but as long as the business is providing what's meeting the market demand the worker/consumer having choice will choose what's best.
MarxistStudent:Sorry dude, that is the truth
Here's an interesting fact for you: not only did Rockefeller drop the price of a can of oil during this time to a cool 5 cents, but his market share decreased from a high of 86 or so % down to around 40-something% by the time he was hit with antitrust. Of course: those are just things called FACTS. Perhaps you've not taken the time to acquaint yourself with them. I suggest you do. Now.
wilderness: yes and this isn't a South American indian culture - it isn't primitive. I can make distinctions between cultures. Are you trying to state something else?
If you agree property rights aren't natural, then no.
wilderness: How does this "one" sustain a monopoly without physical coercion?
He can buy all means of comunication, if you agree that property can only be assured by physical coercion done by a state, then we are done and property would be the source of the lack of liberty. Elseway he could have private property achieved by dumpings, trusts, and holdings, etc.
wilderness: Obviously this aspect of the discussion has come back to square one. Maybe we can come back to this after the other points have been deliberated upon, if that's ok with you, unless you would like to bring something else up pertaining to this feel free. I'll try to avoid repeating ourselves for your sake and mine...
Property hasn't always existed, yet people were always born naked. Property rights are not natural, they appeared somewhere in history. Each people developed their idea of private propoerty in time, and made it a right by a social agreement.
It is natural we find the things we live with natural, form Hamlet, Sheakspeare: "I could live consealed inside a nutshell, and count myself king on infinite space"
wilderness:No. The only way Rockefeller or this railroad king would have a monopoly would be they are violating liberty. Anybody can start a business and if their business is providing something that can best bring the product to the worker that's not a monopoly. That's called good business. Another company is free to try to provide a better product and market such a product better, but as long as the business is providing what's meeting the market demand the worker/consumer having choice will choose what's best.
Monopoly comes from mono = one and poly = property, he was the largest one he could afford a illegitimate competition by a dumping and crash ANY possible new business in the area.
Don't foll yourself beliving such promisses of the market, in that time the GREAT majority of the population lived in terribly poor conditions, as the workers fought against the market and gainned laws (that regulates the market, being therefore against free-market) such as minimum wage, payed vcations, retirement, etc.
MarxistStudent:He can buy all means of comunication
MarxistStudent:Property hasn't always existed
MarxistStudent:Sorry dude, that is the truth, capitalism moves towards and HUGE acumulation of capital: In 1871, the 20% richest were 7 times as rich as the 20% poorest. Today they are 87 times richer or more. The richest 1% control 80% of the wealth.
hashem:I contend that all rights for humans derive from the natural law.
What is "the natural law"? Is it that rain always falls down? That every organism is doomed to die? That we are always nourished by bread? That the day is always twenty-four hours? In addition, what are the true principles by which we men can deduce "the natural law", or can we only induce it through experience?
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
Knight_of_BAAWA:Here's an interesting fact for you: not only did Rockefeller drop the price of a can of oil during this time to a cool 5 cents, but his market share decreased from a high of 86 or so % down to around 40-something% by the time he was hit with antitrust. Of course: those are just things called FACTS. Perhaps you've not taken the time to acquaint yourself with them. I suggest you do. Now
An antitrust is used to avoid the market tendency towards monopoly, it regulates the market, once capitalism claims to be a free-market system, this antitrust that hit rockefeller was a strike against capitalism.
MarxistStudent:Don't foll yourself beliving such promisses of the market, in that time the GREAT majority of the population lived in terribly poor conditions, as the workers fought against the market and gainned laws (that regulates the market, being therefore against free-market) such as minimum wage, payed vcations, retirement, etc.
Seriously: education pays off. But if you wish to make yourself look like a fool--by all means.
MarxistStudent:An antitrust is used to avoid the market tendency towards monopoly
Yeah, it's called "not regurgitating refuted to death tosswad leftist garbage". You might want to look into it.
Juan:Well, we suffered more than a hundred years of progressive policies designed by the social democrats and people are now more poor than before ?! Go figure... So we don't have a capitalists society. You are talking about mixed economies where businesses have privileges granted by the state. For instance ... bailouts. But I'm sure that in practical terms all the people killed by the commies would prefer to be alive and poor in a mixed market than dead in russia.
1st I don't defend what happened in Russia;
2nd This is not the place to discuss this;
3rd People are not poorer than before, it is the capital that is more accumulated.
MarxistStudent: Sorry dude, that is the truth, capitalism moves towards and HUGE acumulation of capital: In 1871, the 20% richest were 7 times as rich as the 20% poorest. Today they are 87 times richer or more. The richest 1% control 80% of the wealth.
How about speaking in absolute terms with units rather than ratios so that we know how the poor in 1871 are doing compared with the contemporary poor?
MarxistStudent:3rd People are not poorer than before, it is the capital that is more accumulated.
Perhaps there is a causation between how the poor are doing, and the accumuation of capital - ever heard of economies of scale?
MarxistStudent:alone a human owns no property.
Property is not defined by the amount of people in a given area. It is defined by control of things. Alone, each human has the property in his person.
MarxistStudent:Besides, individual human beings alone is VERY unnatural.
Can you explain your concept of "natural?"
MarxistStudent:"property in one's person" is basically the person's rights to life and liberty
Life is not a right. Rather, the right to exercise your faculties free from aggression so as to experience life, that is a right. Property is not defined as a right, it is defined as control of things. The right to property is a right, it is not property in and of itself.
MarxistStudent:Well, once property is a social agrement (ins't a natural right because in nature (and natural societies) there is no property)
Property is not a social agreement. I don't need people around me to confirm that I exist. So long as I exist, I have property in my person.
MarxistStudent:if you have to pay for the defence of your property
I don't have to pay to defend myself or my property, or even to persuade my aggressors. I have the right to defend myself (derived from the right to the property in my person), therefore I have the right to delegate that power to anyone who will voluntarily agree. Defense agencies have no inherent right to defend people, and people have no inherent obligation to hire them.
MarxistStudent:what would stop such person from starting a war seeking the conquest of the globe? Nothing, once there is nothing stronger than him, that represents the people.
The market. In other words, the sum total of voluntary exchanges. Why would billions of prosperous, free humans allow a tyrant to wreck humanity? People represent themselves, they need no tyrant to ruin their lives.