MarxistStudent: 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.
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.
Please read A History of the Indians of the United States by Angie Debo and Property Rights and Indian Economies by Terry L. Anderson, I can provide more but then again why bother as you just know.
MarxistStudent:Has clothes
Yeah, that is property - perhaps you do know!
MarxistStudent: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:
I apolgize for trying to teach you, big mistake on my part to try and use facts.
Hey, what are your people holding in their hands?
MarxistStudent: 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.
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?
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?
Capitalist proved it. Wasn't for state intervention rockefeller company would still hold monopoly over oil. Cartels, combinations, dumpings, holdings, etc also comprove this.
I am not going to argue against anything else you have said, but this is a load of rubbish. Neither of "our" (some of the members here are arguing along the lines I would) arguments relies on this point, just as libertarianism is not necessarily capitalist, but it is such an ugly error that I feel bound to counter it.
Monopolies and cartels are not just historically only found due to government intervention, but also that rational definitions of "market", "firm", and "monopoly" make it logically impossible for there to be monopoly without the government intervening to make it so.
Firstly, I would like you to think, in this modern hybrid capitalist-socialist (when I say socialist, I mean "government controlled" rather than anything to do with the ideals of equality) world, of the main monopolies. Money? Government held. Defence? Government held. Rail? Government held. Road-building? Government held. Education? Government held. Health? Government held (at least in my country). Utilities? Government designed (i.e. they choose the firm with the monopoly and these firms "compete" for this monopoly). Now let's consider some markets where the government "only" regulates and taxes: telecoms, automobile manufacture, oil drilling, refining and transportation and food production all lack monopolies (except in countries where the government have taken control).
Rockefeller's standard oil never held a monopoly over oil. Standard Oil at its peak held only 85% of the "oil market" (products are completely homogenous, so there is no such thing as a "oil market", but for the purpose of explanation/discussion, we will assume the existence of one) and his products were consistently far cheaper than his competitors' products. If he wielded "monopoly power" then why didn't he use it for his own aggrandisement? After all, he wasn't exactly averse to the accumulation of wealth. If Rockefeller could have, he would surely have increased his prices -- but no, he consistently decreased prices and gained greater "market share" due to his higher-quality oil. The wages in his firm were also better than his competitors'. [For great detail on the case of Rockefeller, and why it wasn't even slightly a monopoly, read the excellent book Why Capitalism saved America]
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
Stephen Forde: 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. 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: 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.
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.
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.
lol... Stephen don't waste my time.
Stephen Forde: 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.
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.
No shit sherlock.
Stephen Forde: 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.'
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.'
really... did you figure that out all by yourself...
Stephen Forde: 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.
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.
To be respected somebody else has to recognize it, wow and here I would have thought respect occurs in a vacuum. arrogance... have you figured it out yet.
MarxistStudent: 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: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.
Monopoly only occurs by physical coercion. Anybody can open up a new TV or radio channel in a free market cause a free market is voluntary exchange.
MarxistStudent: 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.
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?
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.
No. If you hire a company, then that means they have only come to help defend you when a voluntary trade occurred through the said hiring.
MarxistStudent: 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.
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.
The police may have a monopoly, but that's only because the monopoly is physically coerced and thus sustained by the backing of the government.
MarxistStudent: 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: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) .
Look at what I wrote as property. That's the definition. You are making invalid, unevidenced assertions.
MarxistStudent: 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.
wilderness: That's your abstraction of this particular poetry, but not my abstraction.
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.
What's Plato and Rousseau have to do with Shakespeare's poem? Other than your entertaining reasoning.
Stephen Forde: 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.
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.
Stephen Forde: So, I'm arrogant...
So, I'm arrogant...
yes
hashem: 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...
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...
Natural Rights are a social construct. Contracts come from mutual agreement. Laws are derived from common practice. And murder is wrong, because it is against our morals. An (political or social) laws are necessarily man made, how they came into being or are justified is a different matter. The state is basically a corporation. There is no reason to believe that a "private defense contractor" would be behaving better then the modern state or feudal lords would do.
Torsten: Natural Rights are a social construct. Contracts come from mutual agreement. Laws are derived from common practice. And murder is wrong, because it is against our morals. An (political or social) laws are necessarily man made, how they came into being or are justified is a different matter. The state is basically a corporation. There is no reason to believe that a "private defense contractor" would be behaving better then the modern state or feudal lords would do.
You need not project your unwillingness to intellectually apprehend your potential individual demonstration of self-defense and other natural rights upon others.
I say potential cause I don't know if you fail to individually demonstrate such natural rights due to you freely choose to commit criminal activity or not. If you freely choose not to commit a crime, then the case would be you are individually demonstrating natural rights but are unwilling to intellectually apprehend your own action.
Stephen Forde:So what is the principle? And why is it crucial to rothbard's justification of the private property ethic?
...You act as if Rothbard was a Kantian. Rothbard's justification for private property was an Aristotelian/Thomist exercise. It is thus [ and I'm paraphrasing ]:
If no one owned property in the world then we would all be dead since property implies the ability of usage.Therefore property is a necessary institution for human survive.
What are the types of property:
A owns A [ Self-Ownership ]
A owns B [ Slavery and serfdom ]
A owns everyone but him/herself and vice versa [ Communalism/Communism ]
To claim that A can own B is illogical because A and B are both human and therefore have the same objective nature [ perhaps not the same subjective goals, but if I were to not feed A & B then they would die, if I were to bluntly strike A & B they would both die etc. ] Therefore it is a contradiction to establish the basis of rights by stating an individual can transgress the rights of B while still retaining their own rights.
To claim that everyone can own everyone but themselves is utopian. A farmer in Iowa has no say in the production matters of a factory in New Delhi nor can that farmer maintain such a practical connection. Therefore what is likely to arise is a cadre of 'elites' claiming to be a representative of the proletariat or workers, and they gain the ability to ration out supplies and choose the labor of the workers. We are now back to A owns B in the sense that the cadre own the labor power of the workers.
Therefore from this logical deduction we can establish that self-ownership is the only real, beneifical, practical approach to the question of property. We now go into Locke homesteading theory and mixing labor with the soil.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Torsten:Natural Rights are a social construct.
Natural rights exist prior to any contractual agreement. Because I have not signed a contract for you not to kill me does not give you the right to exercise such an action.
Angurse:I apolgize for trying to teach you, big mistake on my part to try and use facts.
Evidence that indians in my country had no private property:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3513473
You will find other searching : <"no private property" indians brazil> in google.
"my part to try and use facts" ? Comrade, what you used is a lie, INDIANS IN MY COUNTRY (Brazil, South America) HAD NO PRIVATE PROPERTY AND WERE MORE PRIMITIVE THAN USA ONES, the most primitive, the most primitive a society is, the most natural it is ! THEREFORE PROPERTY IS NOT NATURAL !
MarxistStudent: Angurse:I apolgize for trying to teach you, big mistake on my part to try and use facts. Evidence that indians in my country had no private property: http://www.jstor.org/pss/3513473
That doesn't provide access to evidence. It's only a link to a book.
MarxistStudent:You will find other searching : <"no private property" indians brazil> in google.
I did that search and nothing came up that discusses private property one way or another.
MarxistStudent: "my part to try and use facts" ? Comrade, what you used is a lie, INDIANS IN MY COUNTRY (Brazil, South America) HAD NO PRIVATE PROPERTY AND WERE MORE PRIMITIVE THAN USA ONES,...
"my part to try and use facts" ? Comrade, what you used is a lie, INDIANS IN MY COUNTRY (Brazil, South America) HAD NO PRIVATE PROPERTY AND WERE MORE PRIMITIVE THAN USA ONES,...
You can yell the sky is green all day, but that doesn't prove anything.
MarxistStudent: the most primitive, the most primitive a society is, the most natural it is ! THEREFORE PROPERTY IS NOT NATURAL !
the most primitive, the most primitive a society is, the most natural it is ! THEREFORE PROPERTY IS NOT NATURAL !
1) This isn't a primitive society, the U.S.
2) You said humans were not natural previously and now you are trying to say they are natural if they are primitive.
3) You have not shown any evidence that Homo sapiens don't have property.
4) All humans have culture, thus, have property. Humans are born naked into this world and HAVE to have culture to survive. Even a chimpanzee taking leaves off a stick to project into a termite mound to fish for termites has applied will upon a stick that has now become a tool and thus property for even a chimpanzee. No Homo sapien is more primitive than a chimpanzee.
hashem: 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.
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.
No, Hasmem. You never gave a basic answer to that question once, that is why I ask it. Nor am I interested in being referred to a dead, and hectic thread, so mind just answering the question?
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
MarxistStudent: Angurse:I apolgize for trying to teach you, big mistake on my part to try and use facts. Evidence that indians in my country had no private property: http://www.jstor.org/pss/3513473 You will find other searching : <"no private property" indians brazil> in google. "my part to try and use facts" ? Comrade, what you used is a lie, INDIANS IN MY COUNTRY (Brazil, South America) HAD NO PRIVATE PROPERTY AND WERE MORE PRIMITIVE THAN USA ONES, the most primitive, the most primitive a society is, the most natural it is ! THEREFORE PROPERTY IS NOT NATURAL !
I thought this was some funny logic
Yes, following anarcho-communist ideas would lead to death/primitive existence. I don't think I agree with the idea that tribal societies really had no sense of private property, rather they agreed to live communally. If they truly didn't believe in private property, including self ownership, wouldn't they just refuse to defend themselves and their villages from invaders whatsoever? I would be interested in some evidence of that ever happening. Sure there are tons of instances in colonial America and Africa of tribes "giving up easily", but that isn't enough.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
About the gentilis people, I guess they had another name, I will ask my history teacher more details about them this weak, when I'll see him.
Ok, from the evidence I presented you, my country indians (nearly ALL tribes) had originally (naturaly) no private property. That society is one of the MOST primitive in the world, one of the MOST natural, THEREFORE the one that will best represent the natural rights. Bsed on the FACT that they were NATURAL and had NO PROPERTY, then property is not natural, it was either created by social agreement or created by force.
wilderness:Monopoly only occurs by physical coercion. Anybody can open up a new TV or radio channel in a free market cause a free market is voluntary exchange.
What do you understand by monopoly? Monopoly over something is what happen when all private property over this thing, lies in the same hands. So rockefeller made it accumulating nearly all private property over the oil industry without "physical coercion", in a almost perfectely free market. The laws that regulated teh market later would make such tendency towards monopoly harder. The only part of the monopoly that requires physical coercion is property itself, but once you defend it, you will probably denny it.
wilderness: No. If you hire a company, then that means they have only come to help defend you when a voluntary trade occurred through the said hiring.
Either way, take a look at the state deffinition (Max Weber) "the state is the institution that has monopoly over the *legitimate* uses of force and violence" where *legitimate* is following the social law, not the natural one. In a natural society there is no state because there is no property. The state exists to defend property as I had said back at the beggining.
If you hire a company, you grant it monopoly over the legitimate uses of force and violence over a certain area, your property. If it is legitimate according to the social laws of your system, that company will be your PRIVATE state, far worse than a public one. Property is not a natural law, a natural right, it is an artificial right, to assure this artificial right the state appears.
wilderness: The police may have a monopoly, but that's only because the monopoly is physically coerced and thus sustained by the backing of the government.
The origin of property and state can either be social agreement OR force (physical coercion), when property is made by physical coercion, so is the state, if property is made by social agreement, so is the state. Neither of them is a natural right, but not all states (including the police) are made by physical coercion. Monopoly isn't necessairlly a result of physical coercion.
wilderness:Look at what I wrote as property. That's the definition. You are making invalid, unevidenced assertions.
As I showed on the evidence, natural societies have NO property, property isn't therefore an extension of one's will, unless you admit this extension's existence requires the previous establishment of property (in this case the existence of property would require the previous existence of property, but once at the begining the was no property, this property right was created, is artifical as its feedback). Property is not natural, so natural things CAN"T be property, and your will is a natural thing, its extensions are not property. Property refers to material rights over things you can exchange for material rights over other things. Can you exchange your will? As Proudhon conclude "property IS theft", and indeed, property requires physical coercion to be maintained and physical coercion to be destroyed.
wilderness: MarxistStudent: 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. What's Plato and Rousseau have to do with Shakespeare's poem? Other than your entertaining reasoning.
Plato's cave has the same idea of Shakespeare world inside a nutshell, from wich I developed that idea about property, such idea also is defended by Rousseau:
"the true founder of the civil society was the firsth that, grabbing a piece of land, made it saing "this is mine", and found people fool enougth to belive him. How many crimes, wars, muders, mizeries and horrors wouldn't have prevented humanity the one that, taking back the land, said "Don't listen to this lier; you'll be doomed should your forget that the fruits belong to all, and land belongs to none!" Jean Jacques Rousseau
I agree with Rousseau, property IS NOT natural as my EVIDENCE on the indians of my country proves. Either way, I'd like to know what is my abstraction on Shakespeare timeless poerty?
E. R. Olovetto: Yes, following anarcho-communist ideas would lead to death/primitive existence. I don't think I agree with the idea that tribal societies really had no sense of private property, rather they agreed to live communally. If they truly didn't believe in private property, including self ownership, wouldn't they just refuse to defend themselves and their villages from invaders whatsoever? I would be interested in some evidence of that ever happening. Sure there are tons of instances in colonial America and Africa of tribes "giving up easily", but that isn't enough.
I am not an anarcho-communist, my ideas don't lead to a primitive existence, I merely study primitive societies to understand natural rights. Self ownership is not based on property rights, it is based on life and liberty rights (natural ones), they didn't "ageed" to live communaly, this IS the natural way human beings live, as a collective group. So, once people have a tendency to defend their natural rights of life and liberty, it is easier to find a indian massacre in history than to find them "giving up easily".
Felipe: 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?
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?
Yes I was, but I am tring to convince people here that property is not natural, if you want to take a look at some evidence, here is one about my country some 500 years ago.
I forgot the link:
here you go.
@ AC
I guess I was to hasty. This...
Anarchist Cain:To claim that A can own B is illogical because A and B are both human and therefore have the same objective nature [ perhaps not the same subjective goals, but if I were to not feed A & B then they would die, if I were to bluntly strike A & B they would both die etc. ] Therefore it is a contradiction to establish the basis of rights by stating an individual can transgress the rights of B while still retaining their own rights.
is pretty good. I take it back. Sorry about that.
MarxistStudent: What do you understand by monopoly? Monopoly over something is what happen when all private property over this thing, lies in the same hands. So rockefeller made it accumulating nearly all private property over the oil industry without "physical coercion", in a almost perfectely free market. The laws that regulated teh market later would make such tendency towards monopoly harder. The only part of the monopoly that requires physical coercion is property itself, but once you defend it, you will probably denny it.
First off, you ignored the facts of Rockefeller. His business market sharing went down from ca. 86% to 48% in the free market before the government unnecessarily intervened.
Secondly, monopoly is only sustained by physical coercion. That's the understanding.
MarxistStudent: wilderness: No. If you hire a company, then that means they have only come to help defend you when a voluntary trade occurred through the said hiring. Either way, take a look at the state deffinition (Max Weber) "the state is the institution that has monopoly over the *legitimate* uses of force and violence" where *legitimate* is following the social law, not the natural one.
Either way, take a look at the state deffinition (Max Weber) "the state is the institution that has monopoly over the *legitimate* uses of force and violence" where *legitimate* is following the social law, not the natural one.
Max Weber is flat wrong. That definition asserts nothing about justice. It only asserts the state has a monopoly with no questions asked even if the state is unjust - which the only State there is, is an unjust State due to it is a monopoly enforced by physical coercion. The State is an involuntary institution. It is unjust and physically coercive by it's very establishment/premise.
MarxistStudent: In a natural society there is no state because there is no property. The state exists to defend property as I had said back at the beggining.
In a natural society there is no state because there is no property. The state exists to defend property as I had said back at the beggining.
There is still natural property. You have not been able to provide evidence that humans live without culture cause you can't because humans have to have culture in order to survive.
MarxistStudent: If you hire a company, you grant it monopoly over the legitimate uses of force and violence over a certain area, your property. If it is legitimate according to the social laws of your system, that company will be your PRIVATE state, far worse than a public one.
If you hire a company, you grant it monopoly over the legitimate uses of force and violence over a certain area, your property. If it is legitimate according to the social laws of your system, that company will be your PRIVATE state, far worse than a public one.
No. Self-defense even by a voluntary transaction with others to help is not the State. The State is an involuntary institution. A private defense agency is a voluntary institution.
MarxistStudent: As I showed on the evidence, natural societies have NO property,...
As I showed on the evidence, natural societies have NO property,...
You showed no evidence. I'm still waiting for you to show how Homo sapiens live without culture. You can't. Cause it's impossible.
MarxistStudent: Either way, I'd like to know what is my abstraction on Shakespeare timeless poerty?
Either way, I'd like to know what is my abstraction on Shakespeare timeless poerty?
Dictionary:
abstraction: the process of considering something independently of its associations, attributes, or concrete accompaniments
All humans abstract reality. This wasn't an argument. I merely made a statement.
wilderness: arrogance... have you figured it out yet.
Ad hominems have no place in an intelligent, academic discussion.
Stephen Forde: wilderness: arrogance... have you figured it out yet. Ad hominems have no place in an intelligent, academic discussion.
It's not an ad homineum. You made an arrogant statement about Anarchist Cain and I and whoever the "etc..." is. Suck it up and move on. At least you had the decency to apologize to Anarchist Cain. Next time start a discussion if you want to know what others know instead of making such an inconsiderate statement.
wilderness: Stephen Forde: wilderness: arrogance... have you figured it out yet. Ad hominems have no place in an intelligent, academic discussion. It's not an ad homineum. You made an arrogant statement about Anarchist Cain and I and whoever the "etc..." is. Suck it up and move on. At least you had the decency to apologize to Anarchist Cain. Next time start a discussion if you want to know what others know instead of making such an inconsiderate statement.
I was only overly presumptuous as far as AC was concerned. You don't know your subject(s), as is evidenced by the way you resort to ad hominems, dodge questions, and tell your opponent to study it on their own b/c you don't have the time to explain it to them all the time in this and other threads whenever you're stuck. I don't think you've realized yet that many of the ppl you argue with on these forums have read far more than you and are more knowledgeable of the subjects that you defend. And if they feign ignorance and use the Socratic method to draw out the fine points of the argument, I don't think that warrants your condescension.
I'll take your advice into consideration.
Yelling doesn't help your case. When quoting "Mundus Novus" one should consider the point of view of the author. Vespucci most assuredly defined "private property" differently than wilderness is.
faber est suae quisque fortunae
Stephen Forde: 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?
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."
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?
Universality is in the nature of laws and rules. They are always absolute and definite.
Nor do misuses of Ad hominem. But if you don't see its misuse, please demonstrate the logical fallacy.
Stephen Forde:You don't know your subject(s), as is evidenced by the way you resort to ad hominems, dodge questions, and tell your opponent to study it on their own b/c you don't have the time to explain it to them all the time in this and other threads whenever you're stuck. I don't think you've realized yet that many of the ppl you argue with on these forums have read far more than you and are more knowledgeable of the subjects that you defend. And if they feign ignorance and use the Socratic method to draw out the fine points of the argument, I don't think that warrants your condescension.
This, in fact, is an ad hominem.
MarxistStudent: Evidence that indians in my country had no private property: http://www.jstor.org/pss/3513473 You will find other searching : <"no private property" indians brazil> in google. "my part to try and use facts" ? Comrade, what you used is a lie, INDIANS IN MY COUNTRY (Brazil, South America) HAD NO PRIVATE PROPERTY AND WERE MORE PRIMITIVE THAN USA ONES, the most primitive, the most primitive a society is, the most natural it is ! THEREFORE PROPERTY IS NOT NATURAL !
Ha. Thats not evidence at all. "Mundus Novus" was a sensationalist forgery that outright lied, just read the link.
No. Natural rights are natural. Whether "social constructs" prefer to trample them is a different matter.
Torsten:Laws are derived from common practice.
Wrong. Laws exist, and are absolute and immutable, whether or not people recognize them, or have names for them.
Torsten:And murder is wrong, because it is against our morals.
Backwards. Murder is against our morals because it is wrong. It is wrong because it is against the laws set forth for human nature, i.e. "murder is bad for humans."
Torsten:There is no reason to believe that a "private defense contractor" would be behaving better then the modern state or feudal lords would do.
The first reason is that the private defense contractor does not have to steal his income. Another reason is that he does not use illegal aggressive force to eliminate competing firms.
wilderness: That doesn't provide access to evidence. It's only a link to a book.
A book in wich is writen that (in Brazil) the indians had "no king or ruller (no state), no incest taboo, no monogamy, no temples and laws, no commerce, no clothing and NO PRIVATE PROPERTY." if this is not an evidence, I wonder what can be an evidence, a time machine? Honestly, this is an evidence that people lived without private property.
wilderness:You can yell the sky is green all day, but that doesn't prove anything.
So can you, but I am the one with a proff, I have documents (mostly in portuguese, but some in english) that comproves the indians had NO private property. He was the one yelling the "sky is green", I know my country's history better than you, I live this history, we see this history.
wilderness: 1) This isn't a primitive society, the U.S. 2) You said humans were not natural previously and now you are trying to say they are natural if they are primitive. 3) You have not shown any evidence that Homo sapiens don't have property. 4) All humans have culture, thus, have property. Humans are born naked into this world and HAVE to have culture to survive. Even a chimpanzee taking leaves off a stick to project into a termite mound to fish for termites has applied will upon a stick that has now become a tool and thus property for even a chimpanzee. No Homo sapien is more primitive than a chimpanzee.
1 - Indeed, the USA isn't primitve, isn't natural, their rights are also not natural. I only use natural societies to demonstrate that property IS NOT natural.
2- Humans as we see today are not natural, we lost our naturality, the time and place we have it the most was in natural societies.
3- Homo sapiens sapiens in nature (from evolutionism) has as a major goal his species survival. The best way to do that is in a communal society, in wich there is no private property, all share the food and water they manage to gather (such as in primitive societies like the ones we had in Brazil about 500 years ago. "The man is born good, society corrupts him" - Jean Jacques Rousseau
4- Culture is not property, in those societies I had mentioned the tools belonged to all, not to an individual, you claimed property only exists in an individual, well this way property didn't exist there. In nature, chipanzee don't have contact with humans the way they do nowadays (when humans study them) it is natural to any animal to emulate the mean that surrounds him, a dog isn't natural at our houses. Naturaly chipanzees use the natural possibilities to survive, but that is not property. Property (private property) only exists within humans unnatural societies, and may be imitated by some domestic animals, but property IS UNNATURAL.
JackCuyler:Yelling doesn't help your case. When quoting "Mundus Novus" one should consider the point of view of the author. Vespucci most assuredly defined "private property" differently than wilderness is.
Vespucci didn't even write it. Someone mixed in major fibs with Vespuccis own accounts and tried to pass it off as authentic.
Angurse:Ha. Thats not evidence at all. "Mundus Novus" was a sensationalist forgery that outright lied, just read the link.
Comrade, if I had any (brazilian) History book from school in english, I could show you many official reports confirming the indians here had no private property. If "Mundus Novus" was sensationalist, it has NOT lied about the indians in Brasil having no private property. FOR GOD sake, why do you think you know my country history better than me? I could give a full report on it from 1500 to 2009, but you seem to be so sure you are absolutely right, ending up blinding yourself to FACTS.
Many tribes remain without private property until nowadays. I don't pretent to know your country's history better than you, so I ask you to act reciprocally.
Nah, if you wish collective suicide, it is good. For the above, not really. :)
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
MarxistStudent:If "Mundus Novus" was sensationalist, it has NOT lied about the indians in Brasil having no private property.
The article you linked as proof begs to differ.
MarxistStudent:FOR GOD sake, why do you think you know my country history better than me? I could give a full report on it from 1500 to 2009, but you seem to be so sure you are absolutely right, ending up blinding yourself to FACTS.
Comrade, why do you think just being a member of a nation magically makes you more knowledgable about it. Please give the report then, the last link you gave only hurt your theory.
MarxistStudent:Many tribes remain without private property until nowadays. I don't pretent to know your country's history better than you, so I ask you to act reciprocally.
Evidence please. I understand that much of Brazil was nomadic, but being nomadic isn't the same as not having property. So please, provide some actual evidence instead of just saying you know it.
MarxistStudent: 3- Homo sapiens sapiens in nature (from evolutionism) has as a major goal his species survival. The best way to do that is in a communal society, in wich there is no private property, all share the food and water they manage to gather (such as in primitive societies like the ones we had in Brazil about 500 years ago. "The man is born good, society corrupts him" - Jean Jacques Rousseau
Do you not see the problem extrapolating from primitive tribes to a modern, necessarily impersonal economy? This history is really irrelevant unless you want to go back to living in the same primitive conditions. (I'm not getting into the debate about natural law, just the relevance of this empirical question for the anti-private property view)
its not even true about primitive tribes. Rousseau was just an eloquent idiot.
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
Angurse:Evidence please. I understand that much of Brazil was nomadic, but being nomadic isn't the same as not having property. So please, provide some actual evidence instead of just saying you know it.
"Entre os indígenas não há classes sociais como a do homem branco. Todos têm os mesmo direitos e recebem o mesmo tratamento. A terra, por exemplo, pertence a todos e quando um índio caça, costuma dividir com os habitantes de sua tribo." form a history book, in english it means: "Amongs the indians there are no social class as there are in "white man's" society. All have the same rights and recieve the same treatment. Earth belongs to all, and when an indian hunts, he divides with the other indians of his tribe what he has achieved"
Once the idea of property reffers to fruit of our labour, and they share such, they have no private property. Besides, as Rousseau demonstrates (on his Discourse on the Origin of Inequality) the firsth kind of property right is property over land, that also don't exist there
Now, I don't know what do you want as an evidence, but I can't give you a time machine, for god sake!
@MarxistStudent,
Time out. Property is things. To have property means to control things. You keep saying that certain people "didn't have property" or "didn't have private property" or "didn't have property/private property rights."
But everyone has property, and it can be no other way. Anything they have and control is their property, by definition. Whether it is just or not is a different question. The point is that at the very least, everyone has the property in their person. Each person is himself.
Rousseau was a major philosopher, writer, and composer, if he is an eloquent idiot, you are an even greater one and, by far a more arogant one.
MarxistStudent:A book in wich is writen that (in Brazil) the indians had "no king or ruller (no state), no incest taboo, no monogamy, no temples and laws, no commerce, no clothing and NO PRIVATE PROPERTY." if this is not an evidence, I wonder what can be an evidence, a time machine? Honestly, this is an evidence that people lived without private property.
The is quoting a pamphlet. The pamphlet is fiction. It was made up to tell incredible tales of far away places to Europeans who would never go there.
MarxistStudent: wilderness:You can yell the sky is green all day, but that doesn't prove anything. So can you, but I am the one with a proff, I have documents (mostly in portuguese, but some in english) that comproves the indians had NO private property. He was the one yelling the "sky is green", I know my country's history better than you, I live this history, we see this history.
It is a rather silly claim to know a country's history better than another simply because you live there. Current events in your town, perhaps, but the history of the country?
MarxistStudent:Humans as we see today are not natural, we lost our naturality, the time and place we have it the most was in natural societies.
Primitive does not equal natural.
I can spot your non sequitor