Knight_of_BAAWA:And how probable is that?
Nowadays the majority of the means of communication are owned by a small group. Even tought absolute monopoly is hard in such area, should it happen you'd have a ideological opression, without physical coersion.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Yes, it has. People may not have had the concept, but it has always existed. Property rights are natural; they are what we bring to the table when dealing with other humans. We each have property in ourselves. Yes, I've heard all the childish outbursts against that idea, but I don't care about that epic intellectual fail.
Nay, some indians had no private property and the other natural rights are expalinable without property.
MarxistStudent: 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: 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?
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.
You haven't been able to show how property rights are not natural. So far, in this above context, you've only discussed a primitive culture in South America that may or may not have property rights. I've asked for a link, but so far, no go.
MarxistStudent: 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: How does this "one" sustain a monopoly without physical coercion?
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.
Who's this "He" that can "buy all means of communication"? Are you saying here that a particular "he" can buy all the raw resources that are means of communication?
What do you mean "we are done" provided in the above context?
How is property "the lack of liberty"?
What does it mean that private property is achieved by "dumpings, trusts, and holdings"? A monopoly is only sustained by physical coercion, which is a government, so therefore this isn't about private property.
MarxistStudent: 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.
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...
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.
First off, "property hasn't always existed" is an unfounded assertion. Secondly, you stated property rights are not natural cause "they appeared somewhere in history" is vague. I appeared somewhere in history and so did this earth. Thirdly, private property is private and thus of the individual. Somebody may come along and not recognize that I'm fictionally using this basket and they can take it from me, but for a basket to be taken from me it would have to have been mine to assert it was taken from me.
MarxistStudent: 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"
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"
ok and?
hashem:I contend that all rights for humans derive from the natural law.
Why? One could just as easily argue the opposite; rights do not derive from natural law.
hashem:The natural law elucidates what is best for humans, and what is not good for humans.
What is good for some humans is not necessarily good for others. Isn't what is best a matter of subjective value scales? And when you say natural law, are you referring to physical laws such as the conservation of momentum, or legal norms such as self-ownership and the homesteading principle?
hashem:I.E. murdering is contrary to natural law, because if it were a law all humans should murder each other, they would not exist.
hashem:I contend that all rights derive from the original axiom of property in one's person, which brings me to the next point...
Why this axiom? Is it self-evident? Is it negatively demonstrated? Is it transcendental? What's the epistemological justification? Why not the a priori of argumentation?
hashem: 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.
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.
In what sense? Is this a legal norm, such as a right? Or is this just a praxeological fact, namely all humans have physical control over some economic goods?
hashem: 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.
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.
All this is true provided that your premises are. But your argument seriously needs some work. Btw, what do you think of Hoppe's argumentation ethic? Also, you might want to point out what characteristics of the state make is necessarily an aggressive institution: the exclusion of competitors from entry into services provided by the state and taxation.
The data about capital acumulation I found on "Reports from the Commune de Paris", real nice serie at youtube.
MarxistStudent, my reply was the last post on page 2. Check it out.
MarxistStudent: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.
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."
MarxistStudent:Nowadays the majority of the means of communication are owned by a small group.
MarxistStudent:Nay, some indians had no private property and the other natural rights are expalinable without property.
hashem: 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.
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.
Such "property" means right to life and freedom, explainable without the idea of property.
hashem:Can you explain your concept of "natural?"
A condition is natural when, without any human forces or social forces, that condition persists.
hashem: 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.
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.
I guess people should have to life without wich we can't "exercise your faculties free from aggression", I guess you mean the right to "live you life", basically only possible with liberty another natural right.
hashem: 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.
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.
What you mean by property in your person is life and liberty, you seem to like so mcuh the idea of property that you externalize it to all other rights, but once primitive (natural) societies didn't have property rights, and modern ones have, this right was instituted somewhere, in a certain day.
hashem: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.
I am quite sure this is a simplification. You can defend yourself from one person, what about a goup of them? In this case to assure property you'd need an institution with legitimate uses of force and violence.
hashem: 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.
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.
Of course they don't, the world never needed a tyran so that he would exist. Tyrans are tyrans BECAUSE they impose thei will. But this maket you propose could lead to such tyrany.
Stephen Forde:Why? One could just as easily argue the opposite
It's a long story. Read anything by Murray Rothbard, or visit the banished topic "Proving Natural Law." It was the biggest topic ever to exist on the Mises.org forums, I posted everything I know about natural law there throughout probably around a hundred posts.
Stephen Forde:What is good for some humans is not necessarily good for others
That is always the first objection. What about what is bad for others? If there are things that are always bad for all humans -- meaning that they prevent humans from fulfilling the ends to which nature calls them, i.e. living -- then there are things that are good for all humans -- meaning that they promote fulfillment of the ends to which nature calls man, i.e. living.
Stephen Forde:But why should there be a law against murder?
Nature works in mysterious ways. The natural law against murder promotes fulfillment of man's natural tendencies, i.e. living.
hashem: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.
And the mugger from Brooklyn has a right to take your wallet. According to the nature of the mugger "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 the mugger has a natural right, for example, to steal your wallet, because if he couldn't, he would be prevented by aggressive violence from fulfilling the ends toward which nature calls him -- in this case, spending your money.
See how your arguments are flexible? Why should anyone accept them?
hashem:**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.**
Dude, you need to explain what it is specifically in man's nature, that gives him rights. And what you mean specifically by 'natural.' Your definitions and arguments are quite vague.
hashem: Stephen Forde:What is good for some humans is not necessarily good for others That is always the first objection. What about what is bad for others? If there are things that are always bad for all humans -- meaning that they prevent humans from fulfilling the ends to which nature calls them, i.e. living -- then there are things that are good for all humans -- meaning that they promote fulfillment of the ends to which nature calls man, i.e. living. (emphasis mine)
That is always the first objection. What about what is bad for others? If there are things that are always bad for all humans -- meaning that they prevent humans from fulfilling the ends to which nature calls them, i.e. living -- then there are things that are good for all humans -- meaning that they promote fulfillment of the ends to which nature calls man, i.e. living. (emphasis mine)
"Nature" is not an acting entity that bestows ends upon man; instead, man is free to choose his own ends through his own subjective valuations.
By the way, could you please enlighten me as to these questions that I have:
laminustacitus: 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?
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
MarxistStudent:I guess you mean the right to "live you life", basically only possible with liberty another natural right.
If I have the right to liberty, then I have the right to property. If someone presumes to take my possessions, then he has violated my right to liberty. Thus, the "right to liberty" is really just a bunch of property rights.
MarxistStudent:A condition is natural when, without any human forces or social forces, that condition persists.
Then humans, along with everything they could possibly do, are unnatural, because these rely on human forces, i.e. acting to perpetuate one's life, socializing, etc.
MarxistStudent:(natural) societies didn't have property rights, and modern ones have, this right was instituted somewhere
True. And it's about time. The right to be free from aggression has always existed as well, and it's about time that was instituted.
MarxistStudent:In this case to assure property you'd need an institution with legitimate uses of force and violence.
Or I'd need neighbors. Or I'd need a weapon. Or I'd need powerful persuasion skills. And if I decided to call upon legitimate defensive help, that would necessarily exclude the state as an option, since the state is defined as wielding illegitimate, aggressive force.
MarxistStudent:But this maket you propose could lead to such tyrany.
Well then, I guess we would have a state again. This tyrant would be the most efficient and effective tyrant the market has ever voluntarily chosen.
MarxistStudent: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.
Absolutely false.
Native Americans had remarkably varied and complex systems of property and rights associated. In the northeast United States the Mahican Indians families passed down the rights to use very well-defined tracts of garden land along the rivers through familial lines. Even European settlers recognized these well established rights. In the southeast "creek towns" were quite common, where families would own and pass down their own plot of land. Indians of the Northwest had complex fishing and hunting rights whereby permission from the owners (generally, a family) of the land or water (yes, they even owned water) had to be granted to use the resources to fish or hunt. And on and on...Now to be fair you did mention South America specifically, however your point is still flawed since North American Indians were more primitive than those of South America, yet even they still had property.
Stephen Forde:According to the nature of the mugger "he must be invested with in order to fulfill the ends to which his nature calls him.
That fails the universality test. The mugger does not represent all humans. Not all humans, in all times, and in all places, under all circumstances, require my wallet to meet the ends to which nature calls them.
Stephen Forde:Dude, you need to explain what it is specifically in man's nature, that gives him rights. And what you mean specifically by 'natural.' Your definitions and arguments are quite vague.
I thought you were in the thread Proving Natural Law... "The critical and unique facts about man and the ways in which he must live to survive -- his consciousness, his free will and free choice, his faculty of reason, his necessity for learning the natural laws of the external world and of himself, his self-ownership, his need to "produce" by transforming nature-given matter into consumable forms -- all these are wrapped up in what man's nature is..."
If my arguments appear vague, it's because you need to read more.
wilderness:You haven't been able to show how property rights are not natural. So far, in this above context, you've only discussed a primitive culture in South America that may or may not have property rights. I've asked for a link, but so far, no go.
I am sorry I'm having a lot of work here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_in_Brazil, I don't know if it will contain enoght information, but you may also look for the "gentilis people"(povos gentilicos, in portuguese) in ancient grece, living without property .
wilderness:Who's this "He" that can "buy all means of communication"? Are you saying here that a particular "he" can buy all the raw resources that are means of communication?
A bourgois can buy them, but raw resources are means of communication? For me they are TV, Radio, etc
wilderness: What do you mean "we are done" provided in the above context?
If you agree that property rights may only be assured by an institution with monopoly over the legitimate uses of force and violence, then ideological freedom is treathened by property, "we are done" would mean you'd accept liberty is treathened by property.
wilderness: What does it mean that private property is achieved by "dumpings, trusts, and holdings"? A monopoly is only sustained by physical coercion, which is a government, so therefore this isn't about private property.
Capitalists everiwhere used such to defeat other captalist, to have a greater share of the maket, marching towards monopoly. A monopoly may exist without physical coercion: Lets say I am owner of the only factory in a very small town, then I have monopoly over the industrila sector of that small town.
wilderness:First off, "property hasn't always existed" is an unfounded assertion. Secondly, you stated property rights are not natural cause "they appeared somewhere in history" is vague. I appeared somewhere in history and so did this earth. Thirdly, private property is private and thus of the individual. Somebody may come along and not recognize that I'm fictionally using this basket and they can take it from me, but for a basket to be taken from me it would have to have been mine to assert it was taken from me.
1st - It is founded on the fact that many primitive societies had no property rights;
2nd- Once they didn't always existed, they appeared somewhere in history. Each culture at its time instituted the property rights.
3rd- Property only makes sense because people live in groups, should they live isolated as individual, property rights wouldn't exist. Explanation: what would it be good for to have property you can't trade with people? For nothing. thus if there is no condition to trade stuff (requires people to live in groups), we wont have property.
wilderness: MarxistStudent: 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" ok and?
hehehe, It is your literature, not mine, but I'll explain. This means it is natural for us (who lived in a society based on property rights) to think that property rights are natural, just as it was natural for those who lived in a slavery-based system to think that slavery is natural.
hashem:It's a long story. Read anything by Murray Rothbard, or visit the banished topic "Proving Natural Law." It was the biggest topic ever to exist on the Mises.org forums, I posted everything I know about natural law there throughout probably around a hundred posts.
I've probably read more pages of Rothbard's work than you have. I read through the entire "Proving Natural Law" thread. The arguements are just as vague in that thread as in this one. I understood Rothbard's argument for a private property ethic. I just don't understand yours, because it's full of gaping holes. In fact Rothbard's argument was a little weak. Hoppe's is much better.
hashem: Stephen Forde:What is good for some humans is not necessarily good for others That is always the first objection. What about what is bad for others? If there are things that are always bad for all humans -- meaning that they prevent humans from fulfilling the ends to which nature calls them, i.e. living -- then there are things that are good for all humans -- meaning that they promote fulfillment of the ends to which nature calls man, i.e. living.
So if a starving person steals your food to live (and you still have enough left over to live), it's justified according to natural law? Am I getting it right? Because it's not bad, for them. They're still alive. Or what about lifeboat situations? Triage? One life is equal to any other?
I wonder when you're going to get to his argumentum a contrario. It was pretty much the crux of his argument for private property.
hashem: Stephen Forde:But why should there be a law against murder? Nature works in mysterious ways. The natural law against murder promotes fulfillment of man's natural tendencies, i.e. living.
For some people, but not for others. Some are just naturally murderers, and naturally make their living that way.
laminustacitus:What is "the natural law"?
I posted and reposted and triple posted what natural law is in the topic Proving Natural Law, you were there, getting destroyed. I remember well, clearly you do not.
Stephen Forde:I understood Rothbard's argument for a private property ethic. I just don't understand yours, because it's full of gaping holes.
Well my argument is Rothbard's. If it's full of gaping holes, it's because I am not a master of it like Rothbard was, I'm still learning. If you understand his argument so well, then cease asking me questions that you pretend to know the answers to.
Stephen Forde:So if a starving person steals your food to live (and you still have enough left over to live), it's justified according to natural law?
No. Requiring aggression at a given time and place and circumstance fails the universality test. I thought you said you knew Rothbard's argument...?
Stephen Forde:For some people, but not for others.
A natural law applies to all people, at all times, in all places, regardless of circumstance. That is why it's a law. It is necessarily universal and true. The law is not "do not murder," or "do not murder sometimes." The law is "murder is bad for humans."
hashem:If I have the right to liberty, then I have the right to property. If someone presumes to take my possessions, then he has violated my right to liberty. Thus, the "right to liberty" is really just a bunch of property rights.
property is a ratter material idea, while liberty is an abstract one. Liberty as inexistence of shackles is NOT a property right, a person can be perfectelly free in a society without a single property right.
hashem: Then humans, along with everything they could possibly do, are unnatural, because these rely on human forces, i.e. acting to perpetuate one's life, socializing, etc.
And indeed, humans are the most unnatural living being on earth, it is completely different (war, property, luxury, boats, airplanes, computers). The human being is more and more unnatural every passing day, but the "state of nature", the natural men in a natural human group would be the only possible form of natural human beings, with natural rights.
hashem: MarxistStudent:(natural) societies didn't have property rights, and modern ones have, this right was instituted somewhere True. And it's about time. The right to be free from aggression has always existed as well, and it's about time that was instituted.
You AGREED!!! Then property is an instituted right THEREFORE it isn't natural becuase in order to such right exist people had to create it. I made it, agreeing with this the axiom of property as a natural right also falls.
hashem: Or I'd need neighbors. Or I'd need a weapon. Or I'd need powerful persuasion skills. And if I decided to call upon legitimate defensive help, that would necessarily exclude the state as an option, since the state is defined as wielding illegitimate, aggressive force.
Comrade, don't try to change the definitions, they existed before either of us we were born. The state is the institution that has monopoly over the legitimate uses of force and violence. MAX WEBER
You are being evasive, let's say you are on your own, the thieves don't tell you when tell steal things from you, they surprise you, point a gun at your face. How can you assure your property will be retuned to you without an "institution that has monopoly over the legitimate uses of force and violence" or a state?
hashem: Well then, I guess we would have a state again. This tyrant would be the most efficient and effective tyrant the market has ever voluntarily chosen.
Funny, but you see, in order to prevent such a tyrany to rise, what would you do?
hashem: Stephen Forde:According to the nature of the mugger "he must be invested with in order to fulfill the ends to which his nature calls him. That fails the universality test. The mugger does not represent all humans. Not all humans, in all times, and in all places, under all circumstances, require my wallet to meet the ends to which nature calls them.
What's the justification of the universalizeability principle? Your probable response: it's natural to man's nature, and so on.
But how exactly? I don't think Rothbard provided any firm proof of this principle in The Ethics of Liberty.
hashem: Stephen Forde:Dude, you need to explain what it is specifically in man's nature, that gives him rights. And what you mean specifically by 'natural.' Your definitions and arguments are quite vague. I thought you were in the thread Proving Natural Law... "The critical and unique facts about man and the ways in which he must live to survive -- his consciousness, his free will and free choice, his faculty of reason, his necessity for learning the natural laws of the external world and of himself, his self-ownership, his need to "produce" by transforming nature-given matter into consumable forms -- all these are wrapped up in what man's nature is..."
How do legal norms follow from these natural facts?
hashem:If my arguments appear vague, it's because you need to read more.
A novice giving advice to an intermediate.
MarxistStudent:Then property is an instituted right
Not quite! Perhaps property rights were only recently instituted, but they have always existed, as all natural rights must and have.
MarxistStudent:a person can be perfectelly free in a society without a single property right.
Everyone has the same rights, at all times, in all places, regardless of circumstance. Whether their rights are suppressed is a different question. To be "perfectly free" while having your property rights suppressed is contradictory.
MarxistStudent:And indeed, humans are the most unnatural living being on earth
I disagree. Everything produced by nature is, by definition, natural.
MarxistStudent:The state is the institution that has monopoly over the legitimate uses of force and violence.
No. The state is the institution that has a monopoly over ILLEGITIMATE use of aggression. Murray Rothbard, Hans Hoppe, Lew Rockwell, et al. Stealing and aggression are illegitimate no matter how many humans are tricked into accepting it.
MarxistStudent:Funny, but you see, in order to prevent such a tyrany to rise, what would you do?
Allow the market to function.
Angurse: Absolutely false. Native Americans had remarkably varied and complex systems of property and rights associated. In the northeast United States the Mahican Indians families passed down the rights to use very well-defined tracts of garden land along the rivers through familial lines. Even European settlers recognized these well established rights. In the southeast "creek towns" were quite common, where families would own and pass down their own plot of land. Indians of the Northwest had complex fishing and hunting rights whereby permission from the owners (generally, a family) of the land or water (yes, they even owned water) had to be granted to use the resources to fish or hunt. And on and on...Now to be fair you did mention South America specifically, however your point is still flawed since North American Indians were more primitive than those of South America, yet even they still had property.
Some tribes, the more primitive ones had no property, and comrade, don't try to teach my country's history. I know that the native societies in my country didn't have property rights, they were collective societies with collective property.
VS
Has clothes dances naked
Survived cold winters lives an endless summer
you say this one has property? Ok what about this one?
I guess you imagined the inca maya or asteca:
Don't try to teach me my country's history. I know some of the native here lived without private property and lived better in their villages many live in cities:
MarxistStudent: I am sorry I'm having a lot of work here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_in_Brazil, I don't know if it will contain enoght information, but you may also look for the "gentilis people"(povos gentilicos, in portuguese) in ancient grece, living without property .
I'm trying to slow my responses due to you undoubtedly are having a flood of posts to respond to.
I looked at the first. It said nothing about property either way. The latter only came up as a term describing people who are not Hebrew.
MarxistStudent: A bourgois can buy them, but raw resources are means of communication? For me they are TV, Radio, etc
One person can buy all TV's, radio's, etc...?
MarxistStudent: If you agree that property rights may only be assured by an institution with monopoly over the legitimate uses of force and violence,
If you agree that property rights may only be assured by an institution with monopoly over the legitimate uses of force and violence,
How does a monopoly institution assure property rights for each individual but at the same time in your proposition a "monopoly" necessitates that no individual, except for the monopoly entity, would have property? This proposition you assert is illogical. Maybe you can state it another way?
MarxistStudent: then ideological freedom is treathened by property, "we are done" would mean you'd accept liberty is treathened by property.
then ideological freedom is treathened by property, "we are done" would mean you'd accept liberty is treathened by property.
A gun threatens anybody's liberty if a person initiates this gun with threat or action upon another, the gun being a property, but to generalize property violates liberty is to state my pencil writing on a piece of paper in my house is violating your liberty - clearly that's false.
MarxistStudent: Capitalists everiwhere used such to defeat other captalist, to have a greater share of the maket, marching towards monopoly.
Capitalists everiwhere used such to defeat other captalist, to have a greater share of the maket, marching towards monopoly.
Capitalists everywhere physically coerce? I don't see that - "everywhere" - clearly false. And somebody physically coercing is not a capitalist for a capitalist is a person that participates in a voluntary transaction.
MarxistStudent: A monopoly may exist without physical coercion: Lets say I am owner of the only factory in a very small town, then I have monopoly over the industrila sector of that small town.
A monopoly may exist without physical coercion: Lets say I am owner of the only factory in a very small town, then I have monopoly over the industrila sector of that small town.
No. That's not a monopoly cause somebody could build another factory. A monopoly is only enforced by physical coercion.
MarxistStudent: 1st - It is founded on the fact that many primitive societies had no property rights;
I have yet to see that evidence.
MarxistStudent: 2nd- Once they didn't always existed, they appeared somewhere in history. Each culture at its time instituted the property rights.
MarxistStudent: 3rd- Property only makes sense because people live in groups, should they live isolated as individual, property rights wouldn't exist. Explanation: what would it be good for to have property you can't trade with people? For nothing. thus if there is no condition to trade stuff (requires people to live in groups), we wont have property.
No. Property is an extension of my will such as a material object for I am born naked into this world and need culture to survive. Culture is not only intellectual, but material such as a clay pot or a stick I pick up to stake tomatoes.
MarxistStudent: previous: 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" current: hehehe, It is your literature, not mine, but I'll explain. This means it is natural for us (who lived in a society based on property rights) to think that property rights are natural, just as it was natural for those who lived in a slavery-based system to think that slavery is natural.
previous: 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"
current: hehehe, It is your literature, not mine, but I'll explain. This means it is natural for us (who lived in a society based on property rights) to think that property rights are natural, just as it was natural for those who lived in a slavery-based system to think that slavery is natural.
That's your abstraction of this particular poetry, but not my abstraction.
Stephen Forde:What's the justification of the universalizeability principle?
"[F]or in order to be able to claim a rule to be a "law" (just), it is necessary that such a rule be universally -- equally -- valid for everyone."
"Thus, one is left with the initial principles of self-ownership and first-use-first-own, i.e., original appropriation, homesteading. They pass the universalization test -- they hold for everyone equally -- and they can at the same time assure the survival of mankind."
Stephen Forde:A novice giving advice to an intermediate.
The Ethics of Liberty isn't the only thing written by Rothbard. I honestly doubt you have read as much Rothbard as me, and yet I don't claim to present his arguments even reasonably well.
hashem: Stephen Forde:I understood Rothbard's argument for a private property ethic. I just don't understand yours, because it's full of gaping holes. Well my argument is Rothbard's. If it's full of gaping holes, it's because I am not a master of it like Rothbard was, I'm still learning. If you understand his argument so well, then cease asking me questions that you pretend to know the answers to.
I consider it good to expose arguments to ruthless criticism. I also consider it good to be asked for clarification on weaker points. This helps provide feedback on how good your presentation is. I don't see why you have to take it personally.
None of my professors had mercy when they viewed a poor quality presentation or when they graded poor quality documentation. And there's good reason for it. I don't see why your presentation of a scholars arguments shouldn't face some criticism either. This is, in essence, an open, academic discussion.
Rather than be something you should detest, criticism should be something you embrace so you can go back and make a stronger presentation.
hashem:No. Requiring aggression at a given time and place and circumstance fails the universality test. I thought you said you knew Rothbard's argument...?
The univeralizeability principle is crucial to Rothbard's argument, and yet, this is the first time you've mentioned it on these forums. Maybe I know of it, but I doubt others who agree with you (wilderness, Anarchist Cain, ect) have even heard of it, let alone your opponents. So it is probably something that should be mentioned if you are trying to prove the private property ethic, Rothbard-style. And I still don't think you can justify the principle.
hashem: MarxistStudent:Then property is an instituted right Not quite! Perhaps property rights were only recently instituted, but they have always existed, as all natural rights must and have.
Comarade, you had agreed, but I will forgive you this time. No they haven't always existed, this isn't a natural right. If property was natural, the most primitive societies would have private property, and yet some haven't.
hashem: Everyone has the same rights, at all times, in all places, regardless of circumstance. Whether their rights are suppressed is a different question. To be "perfectly free" while having your property rights suppressed is contradictory.
I'd have to disagree, if you agree rights may come from natural conditions, social agreement or force, some of them change from place to place. If you don't and think only "natural rights" are rights, I'd still have to disagree once I don't consider property rights natural, because as I had explained, natural societies have no private property and the other natural rights (life and liberty) do not requires property.
hashem:Allow the market to function.
But it is the very market that creates such circunstance, this'd mean to allow the tyran to stablish his power. That would lead us to a state (we already had one before: the security companies) that is why under ANY circunstances, the market cannot exist without a state.
It is quite late I'll be back tomorow to refute over and over againg you property rights as natural ones. Its quitte hard to debate in a foreign language against many native speakers, and it has tired me enougth today.
Stephen Forde: The univeralizeability principle is crucial to Rothbard's argument, and yet, this is the first time you've mentioned it on these forums. Maybe I know of it, but I doubt others who agree with you (wilderness, Anarchist Cain, ect) have even heard of it, let alone your opponents. So it is probably something that should be mentioned if you are trying to prove the private property ethic, Rothbard-style. And I still don't think you can justify the principle.
Stephen you border on arrogance look at my signature that I've had for days now. And how you think you can think for "Anarchist Cain, etc..." - please.
hashem: Stephen Forde:What's the justification of the universalizeability principle? "[F]or in order to be able to claim a rule to be a "law" (just), it is necessary that such a rule be universally -- equally -- valid for everyone."
Why?
wilderness: Stephen Forde: The univeralizeability principle is crucial to Rothbard's argument, and yet, this is the first time you've mentioned it on these forums. Maybe I know of it, but I doubt others who agree with you (wilderness, Anarchist Cain, ect) have even heard of it, let alone your opponents. So it is probably something that should be mentioned if you are trying to prove the private property ethic, Rothbard-style. And I still don't think you can justify the principle. Stephen you border on arrogance look at my signature that I've had for days now. And how you think you can think for "Anarchist Cain, etc..." - please.
So what is the principle? And why is it crucial to rothbard's justification of the private property ethic?
Stephen Forde: So what is the principle? And why is it crucial to rothbard's justification of the private property ethic?
I'm not playing your question game. You floated yourself up as somebody that seems to know more than others, so, you figure it out.
this will be the last post I will answer before going to sleep.
wilderness: I looked at the first. It said nothing about property either way. The latter only came up as a term describing people who are not Hebrew.
I am sorry, I will find a link revealing this and show it tomorow about the "povos gentilicos" (in portuguese) they were people that lived in a society with no property in ancient greece, I'll find more dada abot them as well.
wilderness:One person can buy all TV's, radio's, etc...?
it is not the TV it is the TV channel, not the Radio, but the frequency, got it? this is what I meant by means of communucation, sorry english is not my native language.
wilderness: How does a monopoly institution assure property rights for each individual but at the same time in your proposition a "monopoly" necessitates that no individual, except for the monopoly entity, would have property? This proposition you assert is illogical. Maybe you can state it another way?
If you hire a company to defend your property, this company has monopoly of the legitimate uses of force and violence inside your property, this is a STATE, following Max Weber definitions. A monopoly doesn't necessitates that no individual have property, today the police has a monoploly over such legitimate uses of force and violence, and yet you have your property, I have mine and I guess none of is a member of the police.
wilderness:No. Property is an extension of my will such as a material object for I am born naked into this world and need culture to survive. Culture is not only intellectual, but material such as a clay pot or a stick I pick up to stake tomatoes.
You don't need property, our decendents evolved millions of years without private property, only in ths last 10000 years it has existed (and not in all societies, some would remain without it up to 1500 and beyond) .
wilderness: That's your abstraction of this particular poetry, but not my abstraction.
Despite the fact that Plato's cave and Rousseau phyilosofy can (and) reach the same conclusions, I'd like to know what is your abstraction.
Well, that is it. See you tomorow when I'll refude 20 more times that property right is not a natural right.
wilderness: Stephen Forde: So what is the principle? And why is it crucial to rothbard's justification of the private property ethic? I'm not playing your question game. You floated yourself up as somebody that seems to know more than others, so, you figure it out.
So, I'm arrogant for making a claim that you think is wrong but refuse to prove wrong. I would hope that I would know more if I study more and read more.
hashem: MarxistStudent:And indeed, humans are the most unnatural living being on earth I disagree. Everything produced by nature is, by definition, natural.
I think you are both using 'natural' in a different context. In fact, I think what you guys mean be natural at different times is the source of alot of confusion in your debate.
MarxistStudent:Well, that is it. See you tomorow when I'll refude 20 more times that property right is not a natural right.
You are joking right?
wilderness: MarxistStudent: 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. First off, "property hasn't always existed" is an unfounded assertion.
First off, "property hasn't always existed" is an unfounded assertion.
I think he's right. Property hasn't always existed. Property (economic goods) are something produced by humans and humans have not always been in existence. So property hasn't always been in existence.
wilderness:Secondly, you stated property rights are not natural cause "they appeared somewhere in history" is vague. I appeared somewhere in history and so did this earth.
I think he is taking 'natural' to mean not man-made. A natural habitat would, for example, be a forest or a cave. A man-made habitat are definite artifacts such as tents or houses. He means that property rights are a convention that was invented by humans, similar to something like language or technology. I think that there is a misunderstanding by both sides of the debate by what the other means by 'natural.'
wilderness:Thirdly, private property is private and thus of the individual. Somebody may come along and not recognize that I'm fictionally using this basket and they can take it from me, but for a basket to be taken from me it would have to have been mine to assert it was taken from me.
For private property to be respected, it must be a socially recognized institution, not just an individually recognized one.
Yeah, it's called "not regurgitating refuted to death tosswad leftist garbage". You might want to look into it.
<3
The delusion plaguing some people never ceases to amaze me.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Juan:Stephen Forde - I thought you believed that natural rights was a valid concept ?
Depends on the version.
MarxistStudent: Blah blah blah...
Blah blah blah...
MarxistStudent: Angurse: Absolutely false. Native Americans had remarkably varied and complex systems of property and rights associated. In the northeast United States the Mahican Indians families passed down the rights to use very well-defined tracts of garden land along the rivers through familial lines. Even European settlers recognized these well established rights. In the southeast "creek towns" were quite common, where families would own and pass down their own plot of land. Indians of the Northwest had complex fishing and hunting rights whereby permission from the owners (generally, a family) of the land or water (yes, they even owned water) had to be granted to use the resources to fish or hunt. And on and on...Now to be fair you did mention South America specifically, however your point is still flawed since North American Indians were more primitive than those of South America, yet even they still had property. Some tribes, the more primitive ones had no property, and comrade, don't try to teach my country's history. I know that the native societies in my country didn't have property rights, they were collective societies with collective property. VS Has clothes dances naked Survived cold winters lives an endless summer you say this one has property? Ok what about this one? I guess you imagined the inca maya or asteca: Don't try to teach me my country's history. I know some of the native here lived without private property and lived better in their villages many live in cities:
Wow this should be sent to are all threads serious? sticky!
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat