Marxism and the workers

Reply

Autolykos replied on Thu, May 3 2012 2:01 PM

rated by 0 users

Laotzu del Zinn:

I think "property" ie "legitimized possession and control" (if we're going to define it that way) should remain firmly in the hands of the community at large, mostly resting with the people actually engaged in productivity.  I don't support capitalist property for the same reasons I don't support monarchy and bureacratic dictatorship.  I don't trust the benevolence of dictators, find the system to be highly unstable, and anti-thetical to true [sic] human freedom (ie, ability to functionally pursue one's desires).  I find democracy to be better at maintaining society and providing an atmosphere for progress, even Republican democracy, than any kind of tyranny.

"The ability to functionally pursue one's desires" is also known by a different name. I'd love to know what makes you think that this is "true" human freedom. Regardless, it fits perfectly in line with my conclusion that what you seek is power. Finally, note that your definition of "true human freedom" in no way takes into account intersubjectivity - i.e. the notion that people's desires can come into conflict with one another.

Reply

Laotzu del Zinn replied on Thu, May 3 2012 3:05 PM

rated by 0 users

Autolykos:

Laotzu del Zinn:

I think "property" ie "legitimized possession and control" (if we're going to define it that way) should remain firmly in the hands of the community at large, mostly resting with the people actually engaged in productivity.  I don't support capitalist property for the same reasons I don't support monarchy and bureacratic dictatorship.  I don't trust the benevolence of dictators, find the system to be highly unstable, and anti-thetical to true [sic] human freedom (ie, ability to functionally pursue one's desires).  I find democracy to be better at maintaining society and providing an atmosphere for progress, even Republican democracy, than any kind of tyranny.

"The ability to functionally pursue one's desires" is also known by a different name. I'd love to know what makes you think that this is "true" human freedom. Regardless, it fits perfectly in line with my conclusion that what you seek is power. Finally, note that your definition of "true human freedom" in no way takes into account intersubjectivity - i.e. the notion that people's desires can come into conflict with one another.

 

I shouldn't respond to this because it is simply another personal attack (all he has to offer, I wonder sometimes).  But there is a kernel of a critique of my position in there. 

Yes, I want all people to have power, not just the ones who own property.  I unequivocally agree with Aristotle (or Plato? can't remember) in his critique of democracy, and is actually why I support it, when he said, "democracy is when the indegent, and not the men of property, run society."  I don't deny I want a kernel of this power for myself.  What I can say, in all honesty, is that I would not accept a position of power.  I'm well aware of the dangers of "vanguardism" and is basically why I am not a Marxist, and especially not a Leninist.  

And my position explicitly takes into account divergent interests.  It's the exact reason why I don't want one person to have economic power over another simply through some bogus monopoly title to "property."

Reply

gotlucky replied on Thu, May 3 2012 4:22 PM

rated by 0 users

And yet the decision upon "legitimacy" of any of its laws will reside within a social context.  Social, as in collective.  So, regardless of anyone's claim to property, or even if it feels natural to them, ultimately it is society who's claim is legitimate.  Therefore, pure "private" property is not only an absurdity, but an impossiblity! 

What do you mean by "pure private property"?  The law is social by its very nature.  The status of private property may be social, yet it exists nonetheless.  Someone either owns something or he doesn't.  The law either recognizes that he owns something or he doesn't.  You're gonna have to do better than this.

Obviously I don't see what the courts decide as legitimate as always just.  They do uphold the right to so-called "private" property.

You haven't answered my question.  In what way are you using the word "legitimate"?

I'm not so sure Somalia is such a great example to be using, but ok... I don't want to debate that here.  

Why is it not a great example?  The standard of living of the Somali people has been improving ever since the collapse of their national government.  In other words, their lives are improving under their system of customary law.  But, if you don't want to debate on it, then you can just accept my statement that people's lives would improve under customary law.

Either way, obviously the "customary" law of a society under a property system will protect the property owners against the indigent.

Baseless assertion.  Everyone who wants property can have it.  Even the homeless in America have property.  Unless, of course, you are defining property differently from everyone else again.

Have you ever seen a society abandon it?

There have been some Mises Daily articles on various communal societies, some of which had existed in America.  They either ditched the idea or starved to death.

Besides, humanity lived without the existence of property for 200k years, and with it for maybe 8k years if you're being generous.  

Again, how are you defining "property"?  Are you claiming that the tools humans made were not property?  That people did not own those tools?  That humans did not have rules in regards to who gets first dibs on the deer they hunted?

What makes a theifs claim to property different than a toddler's?  Why don't we prosecute toddler's for stealing?

What, pray tell, are you accusing toddler's of "stealing"?  And of course, don't forget that victims of crimes can always forgive others for their crimes.  If you want to say that little Timmy stole mommy's shoe, why do you think his mother doesn't prosecute little Timmy?  I really wanna here the answer to this one...

They claim possession over things.  I mean we're really just arguing semantics here but "ownership" is a specific legal title to something, not the claim to it.  I'm not going to budge from that position, so it's pointless to try and argue around it.  It is far too confusing to consider ownership simply as "possession and control" as then the theif is the owner.

So are you telling me what I really meant?  Really?  You aren't going to budge from this position of knowing what I really meant?  Talk about arrogance.  I'll say it again, because I have no problem repeating what I actually meant: People are born with the ability to claim ownership over things.  Of course, an infant can't really do much in the way of actually enforcing it.  But at some point, people start saying "THIS IS MINE, NOT YOURS!"  Now, if you want to say that people don't do this, well you are living in fantasy land.

Yes and theifs feel like your things belong to them, yet they are not the owner.

This does not contradict my point.  In fact, it's an example of my point.  People make claims to own things.  Whether or not those claims are legitimate is a separate issue.

I really wouldn't use it often, because it's a tricky situation for individualists.  Eating meat is supposedly inherent to humans, yet I have friends that don't do it... so really how far does inherent get us?

Well, then, perhaps eating meat isn't inherent?  Maybe it's just the ability to eat meat that is inherent.

You are about to mention how you don't rape and murder so is it inhernent to you?  Maybe, maybe not.  But we both certainly have the capacity for it, and it has been used by other members of our species.  

Looks like you're getting it after all.

In short; I don't like the word "inherent" because it offers no further explanation, nor explains anything on its own.  It's almost like saying "god did it."  

The explanation that it offers is that it is absurd to try and wish a society without private property, because the idea of owning things is inherent to people.  People will always claim to own something.  Even if you tried to tell me that you don't own anything, you would be lying.  If I took your food every time you were about to eat it, at some point you would exclaim "STOP THAT'S MINE! I NEED TO EAT! IT'S MY FOOD!"  Otherwise, you would die.  In which case, you could perhaps make the claim that it is not inherent to all people after all.  But I have yet to see this happen, and the fortunate side effect of that would be that the fools who claim that the concept of ownership is not inherent to humans would no longer be with us.

No 

Whew.

Except for that, you know, 200k+ years of society without private property that by all accounts had shorter working hours for common labor, which means more leisure hours, and saw the development of art, music (probably), ritual, and spirit (or thought for thought's sake; religion, science, philosophy, etc.  I know spirit is a poor word for it, as it connotates some the religious definition of "spirit," and if you have a better one let me know.)

Well, this still depends upon your definition of property.  And again, I have yet to see any society survive that did not have private property.

We're defining things so differently it would take me an hour to respond to this... in short, their possessions are not wealth, but the enforced unequal access to those things (property) is wealth.

So, why would you knowingly use a term differently than everyone else and make it known?  You know that us anarcho-capitalists use either the standard definition of things or the Austrian definition of things.  Why would you purposely use a different definition when you know we won't know how you are using it?

How did government get created in the first place?  Do you think it was by the poorer members of society, or the richer ones?

This does not contradict my point.

Poor choice of words on my part, I guess.  What I am saying is they are not weighing the costs and benefits to the people involved.  What they are weighing is the costs and benefits to the ability to profit.  If you don't run your business to make a profit, and the highest profits you can, it will fail.  This is business 101, I would think.

Okay, so what?

You first brought up nesting animals.  Just because I was the first to say "hornet" doesn't mean I brought it up.

I brought up nests.  You brought up hornets.  Pretty simple stuff.

But fair enough.  It is a heirarchy.  I never denied as such.  

Really?  Let me quote you:

Laotzu del Zinn:

I'm not sure they do.

And:

Laotzu del Zinn:

I'm not sure, in the case of bees, that it constitutes a heirarchy...no, I'm not sure bees have a heirarchy.  Wolfs maybe, some primates... not bees.

How are you defining the word "deny"?

I even pointed out that human nature arguments are lulzy arguments, and as such didn't really care if hornets had a heirarchy... or if humans do for that matter.

So I'm glad we could put this little diversion to rest.  You win.  Wasps have a heirarchy.

Progress!

Yes, so if murdered people cannot be said to have legitimately "abandoned" their property, why does "they can trade or abandon it" refute my claim that, under the posters metric, all property in the world is illigitimate?  It could only refute that claim if you could find me one habitable tract of land that has not been gained through non-trade and non-abandonement.

That specific response of mine was to a question you posed to me.  Your question was, "Are you considering murder a type of abandonement?"  So what's the problem here?  This whole line of dialogue started when you stated,"Now show me one small tract of habitable land that can be traced from its original homesteaders to its current owner through abandonement or trade, without any kind of violent appropriation."  So, again, what are the problems with my responses?

So is it, in fact, you who is trolling me?  And why don't I take the time to call you out on it?

No, I'm not the one who is responding to others with "bla bla bla."  So why don't you point out where I am trolling you, because as far as I can tell, I have been actually responding to your points, which is a courtesy that you are not always extending to me.

If you don't see it, there's not much I can do.  The fact that social norms can clean up after property doesn't address why it is in fact legitimate to claim property in the first place. I can't spell it out any more than that.

I'm still waiting for that definition of the word "legitimate".

Yes, I was being sarcastic.  Governments are a tool of the ruling class, not the ruling class itself.  To claim the latter would imply that ideas can create reality.

Governments are either the ruling class, a tool of the ruling class, or both.

"For the glory of our lord we are taking the land of Bargaschlein!" is a social norm, which regulates property disputes.

Again, I ask that you actually explain your point.

I am writing it on a compute of which I maintain possession and control of.  I don't have to claim it as "my" computer.  I know you thought that was "axiomatic" or whatever, but sorry, it's not.

So you would have no problem if someone were to come and take this computer from you?

You can only claim "property" (as opposed to possession and control) legally, and legality necessarily implies violence or the threat thereof.

I thought we were talking about the original appropriation of private property.  All this shows is that violence is a necessary aspect to law, which I already understand.  Again, you have not disproved my point.

In fact I think I did say that when I repeatedly said that property is a social affair, as is legality, and dispute resolution, etc etc etc.  Ya, I feel quite safe in saying that it should have been clear that I involve social affairs as affairs of the community.

So are you saying that my way of wording it is more precise?  That dispute resolution is for the good of the people involved in the dispute?

Perhaps. It's not as if that changes anything.

Making clear statements is better than making vague statements in debate.  Unless, of course, you make vague statements so as to deflect your opponent's arguments.

 

1) All property on Earth (all landed property anyway, which was the original claim upon which all other property was built) was, at some point, acquired by force... not "some."

2) Property is a legal status, legality requires violence or the threat thereof.  Property requires violence or the threat thereof.

Again, the initial claim did not have to be made by force.  The second person could be the one iniating the force.  Is this really that difficult to understand?

Is economics only about money?  Or is it about all goods, services, and resources?

Are you going to answer my question?  How are you using the phrase "economic power"?

I am not using it that way.  I am using it in the context of the interplay of goods, services, and resources between humans.

Context isn't much good without a definition.  Please provide one.

Sure, why not.  I don't, but no big deal. 

Your analogy was bad because it was not an accurate analogy.  Does that help?

Thank you... I guess?  Are you saying that minorities with guns cannot conquer majorities without?

No.  I'm wishing you luck on your foolish quest for thievery and power.

"This is how animals behave..." as if humans don't, which could only leave me to believe you find it fundamental to being an "animal." 
Regardless, as said above, "human nature" arguments are lulzy at best.

There you go again, cherrypicking quotes.  We actually have discussed this exact problem before, so I will actually just repost my previous response:

gotlucky:

 

Regardless, you failed to quote the following sentence, which was, "But even animals do some posturing to avoid conflict sometimes."  So, you are responding to a straw man.  I did not make the claim that animals must always settle with actual violent conflict, as I ammended my statement with the sentence right after it (which you failed to quote).  What you should take away from this is that, so far as we know, no animal other than the human uses argumentation to resolve disputes, which, suprise suprise, I stated at the end of the paragraph that you also refused to quote.

Perhaps you could save us all some time and try to accurately portray my arguments.

Notice how you failed to quote the relevant stuff the first time?  And you do it again after I called you out on it before.  Can you just talk about my argument as a whole instead of just cherrypicking parts of it?

This, on its face, sounds like a fair enough definition.  But here is why it is not; if I stick a gun in your face and tell you to give me your money (and you do give it up), are you going to claim I acquired your money non-violently?

Yes.  You would have acquired it without violence.  However, you would have acquired it through aggression, which is something that I am against.  See how I stick to my definitions?  I am purposely precise so that we can actually discuss the matters at hand.

I was saying you misrepresented your own..

It would be helpful if you would actually tell me how I am misrepresenting my argument.  That way I can improve upon my explanations.

Do you really need a definition of the combination of two obvious words?  Iron is the state of being the chemical iron.

I thought that the premises of my argument were obvious, but apparently not to you, so I will make it so:

All property is a legal status.  All legal statuses arise from dispute resolution.  Thus, all property arises from dispute resolution.

Your response:  All iron is a chemical status.  All chemical statuses arise in stars.  Thus, all chemicals arise from stars.

The problem with your counterexample is that it contains a false premise.  Not all chemical statuses arise in stars, whereas all legal statuses do arise from disputes.  Yes, even in statutory law, the law arises from disputes.  I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you had mean to say that all iron arises from stars, though you did not say that in your counterexample.

I'm disputing that property is the only type of dispute resolution.  I am positing that property is a specific type of resolution to a dispute.

Good thing I never claimed otherwise.  Actually, it is you who did actually claim otherwise.  After all, I had originally stated "Property arises from the peaceful resolution of disputes."  You responded to that with "Not really, dispute resolution arises from the peaceful resolution of disputes, whether it has to do with property or not."  So, if you actually agreed with me, why did you say I was wrong?  Perhaps you should read what I write more carefully, something that I have suggested a few times already.

Yes, and that resolution could be "I have a gun, what I say is law" which is not a "peaceful" dispute resolution.

I should have phrased it as non-violent dispute resolution.  I have in other threads, but sometimes I mistakenly say peaceful.

Then I was mistaken.  I thought when you said "property arises through peaceful dispute resolution" you meant that property arises from peaceful dispute resolution.

I'm sorry, what you actually said was; " Property arises from the peaceful resolution of disputes."

See above.

Explain how any law can not be based on "if you disagree we will bring punishment upon you (because we have the might to do so)."

I suggest you read Clayton's wonderful posts on the subject.

Take out the first part where I beat you up, and just take your things. 

As I said above, I should have really said non-violent instead of peaceful.

Again, my apologies.  I have explained my behavior.  That does not justify it, but puts it in context.  Regardless if you take out the part where I beat you up, and instead I just take your stuff and threaten to beat you up if you tell anyone, then according to your metric, I have acquired your property peacefully.

See above.

Because the original claim to property was violent, and the opening of new markets (where further progress is made) is usually by governments at the barrel of a gun; ie, the Chinese and American governments conspiring to bring about "free trade

Again, the original claim does not need to be violent.

(But what you've said here is you've never known a theif or anyone stolen from.  Really?  You expect me to believe that?  You must have grown up pretty posh if this is the case.)  I originally typed that.  But then I put it in parenthesese for a reason.  You guys say stuff like this, then I respond as I have.  Then invariably I get accused of some type of trolling for responding to other people's absurd and irrelevant posts.  Again, it's not easy to be a fish in a shark tank.  So you can respond to the bracketed statement, or not.  It's not really important to the topic at hand, I don't think.

It was a foolish statement to make, because I have actually known perhaps a handful of people who have stolen something from someone.  Regardless, the vast majority of people I know have acquired their property through peaceful and voluntary means.

I have the capacity for doing so, and it is a behavior observed in other members of my species.  I would say it is inherent to being human.  But again, you're right, most of the problems we are going to have in debate are going to be on how we fundamentally define many things completely different.

I address this earlier in this post.

Reply

gotlucky replied on Thu, May 3 2012 4:32 PM

rated by 0 users

For the record, here is a list of terms that Laotzu uses differently from everyone else:

Reply

Laotzu del Zinn replied on Thu, May 3 2012 6:54 PM

rated by 0 users

What do you mean by "pure private property"?

That anything can actually "yours" rather than just seen as yours by society.

 The law is social by its very nature.  The status of private property may be social, yet it exists nonetheless.  Someone either owns something or he doesn't.  The law either recognizes that he owns something or he doesn't.  You're gonna have to do better than this.

Someone can't "own" something, he can only be recognized to own it by the law.  That's my point.  

Again, it's hard to debate in the lion's den, partly because each lion has a different means of obtaining his goal.  If you accept that property is a social construct, and not inherent to nature, then there is nothing to debate.  I just often run into propertarians who believe property is legitimized before society makes it so, merely by the claim to it.

You haven't answered my question.  In what way are you using the word "legitimate"?

As I say in the other thread, I am basically using to express "why should anyone respect the claim."  I may sometimes use it to say that the claim is already legitmized; as in nobles who claimed conquered land as their own, which was later legitimized, etc.  

Why is it not a great example?  The standard of living of the Somali people has been improving ever since the collapse of their national government.  In other words, their lives are improving under their system of customary law.  But, if you don't want to debate on it, then you can just accept my statement that people's lives would improve under customary law.

I'm not familiar with the subject, and so I am not, nor can I, deny what you say here.  You may well, and probably are, correct.  I wouldn't know.

Baseless assertion.  Everyone who wants property can have it.  Even the homeless in America have property.  Unless, of course, you are defining property differently from everyone else again.

1) You just countered my baseless assertion with one of your own.

2) I am not defining it differently than "everyone else."  I define it differently than nearly everyone on this site.  In fact, my definition, which I have shown in the past, fits more in line with the mainstream definition of property than the definition used around here.  But this is semantical.

3) Why does the "fact" that anyone can own property legitimize property?  (IOW, ok so anyone can have property.  Why should I respect property rights?)

There have been some Mises Daily articles on various communal societies, some of which had existed in America.  They either ditched the idea or starved to death.

If you're talking about the Pilgrims, I implore you to do further research on that.  You will quickly find that they were 1) not communists and 2) their collapse was due to nature far more than to their living arrangements.

Again, how are you defining "property"?  Are you claiming that the tools humans made were not property?  That people did not own those tools?

As a specific form of possession and control that exists legally.  Yes.  Yes.

That humans did not have rules in regards to who gets first dibs on the deer they hunted?

In fact, for most hunter gatherer societies the idea of "first dibs" would have been absurd and insulting.

What, pray tell, are you accusing toddler's of "stealing"?  And of course, don't forget that victims of crimes can always forgive others for their crimes.  If you want to say that little Timmy stole mommy's shoe, why do you think his mother doesn't prosecute little Timmy?  I really wanna here the answer to this one...

When little Timmy takes little Johnny's toys, does Johnny have the right to bring legal claim against Timmy?  Should Timmy, if necessary, go to jail (or some such punishment) for his actions?

So are you telling me what I really meant?  Really?  You aren't going to budge from this position of knowing what I really meant?  Talk about arrogancean

Did I tell you what you really meant?  I didn't mean to.

 I'll say it again, because I have no problem repeating what I actually meant: People are born with the ability to claim ownership over things.  Of course, an infant can't really do much in the way of actually enforcing it.  But at some point, people start saying "THIS IS MINE, NOT YOURS!"  Now, if you want to say that people don't do this, well you are living in fantasy land.

What I am denying is that this claim is sufficient to call what they possess and control "property."  As I said, if "they claimed it as theirs" was enough for it to be property, then when a theif takes your stuff, it becomes his property.  Again, your definition of property (if you want to use it that's fine, your prerogative) is far too confusing imo, and as such, I will not adopt it.  Ie, I will not budge (yet) from my definition.

This does not contradict my point.  In fact, it's an example of my point.  People make claims to own things.  Whether or not those claims are legitimate is a separate issue.

See above.  It IS a seperate issue.  And that issue is what seperates possession and control from the claim to possession and control, and also differentiates it from "property."

Well, then, perhaps eating meat isn't inherent?  Maybe it's just the ability to eat meat that is inherent.

Fair enough.  That holds true for all "human nature" claims.  It's not inherent, but the ability to do so that is inherent.

The explanation that it offers is that it is absurd to try and wish a society without private property, because the idea of owning things is inherent to people.

The ability to claim ownership is inhernet, not ownership itself.  I have not claimed anything as "mine" in over 5 years.  I may say "I'm using it now" or something to that effect.  

 People will always claim to own something.  Even if you tried to tell me that you don't own anything, you would be lying.

I don't own anything.

 If I took your food every time you were about to eat it, at some point you would exclaim "STOP THAT'S MINE! I NEED TO EAT! IT'S MY FOOD!"

Or I would say "I'm using that, but I would be happy to share."

Well, this still depends upon your definition of property.  And again, I have yet to see any society survive that did not have private property.

I'm well aware you were not alive 10k years ago, so of course you wouldn't have seen it.

So, why would you knowingly use a term differently than everyone else and make it known?  You know that us anarcho-capitalists use either the standard definition of things or the Austrian definition of things.  Why would you purposely use a different definition when you know we won't know how you are using it?

Sometimes I get too familiar with Marxist circles, standing in the echo chamber if you will.  They would have understood me.

This does not contradict my point.

I thought it did.

Okay, so what? 

So, as was said many times, any fulfillment of human need or want is an afterthought to the ability to profit.

I brought up nests.  You brought up hornets.  Pretty simple stuff.

And I immediately said this line of diversion is just that; a diversion.  That whether any animals had a heirarchy was irrelevant to the discussion.  Human nature arguments offer nothing to the table.  Can we just put it to rest now?

How are you defining the word "deny

By saying "that's wrong" or something to that effect.  "I'm not sure that's true" is not a denial.

Progress!

That specific response of mine was to a question you posed to me.  Your question was, "Are you considering murder a type of abandonement?"  So what's the problem here?  This whole line of dialogue started when you stated,"Now show me one small tract of habitable land that can be traced from its original homesteaders to its current owner through abandonement or trade, without any kind of violent appropriation."  So, again, what are the problems with my response

My question was in response to the statement that "property can be abandoned" which was in response to "all property is illigitimate by this metric."  My problem with your statement was that it answered nothing.  It just added another way in which property can trade hands.  I asked to be shown evidence that this was what had actually happened.

No, I'm not the one who is responding to others with "bla bla bla."  So why don't you point out where I am trolling you, because as far as I can tell, I have been actually responding to your points, which is a courtesy that you are not always extending to me.

Do I have to specfiically quote every sentence of yours?  Can I not answer multiple points with one statement?

Am I responding with "bla bla bla" or is this just a made up personal attack, a common trait amongst trolls?

I'm still waiting for that definition of the word "legitimate".

Provided.  You can stop diverting the question now.

Governments are either the ruling class, a tool of the ruling class, or both.

Socio-economic classes are made up of people.  Government is not a person.

Again, I ask that you actually explain your point.

I don't know how to explain it any further...

So you would have no problem if someone were to come and take this computer from you?

It depends on the reason.  I have other computers, and can easily gain access to more if I didn't.  If someone really needed this computer more than me, I would happily provide.

I thought we were talking about the original appropriation of private property.  All this shows is that violence is a necessary aspect to law, which I already understand.  Again, you have not disproved my point.

Because if he claims that property, ok.  No big deal, it's not property yet.  It's only when somoene else comes into the picture, a dispute arises, and the courts (or some such entity) decides who's claim was legitimate that it becomes "property."  Property is a legal concept, and the claim to possession and control is not enough to establish something as property.  Therefore, "property" requires violence or the threat thereof.

So are you saying that my way of wording it is more precise?  That dispute resolution is for the good of the people involved in the dispute?

Sure.  Sounds good.  This applies to people directly involved in the dispute, and often the people indirectly involved.

Again, the initial claim did not have to be made by force.  The second person could be the one iniating the force.  Is this really that difficult to understand

See above. The cliam to property is not enough to establish a thing AS property.

Are you going to answer my question?  How are you using the phrase "economic power"?

I thought I did answer it...

Theives use economic power.  They may use their gun they own, or some other tool.  They may scam you.  They may claim property over a mine in the area.  All human acts are economic acts... well, maybe if no tools at all are used they don't.  But how often does nobody use a tool

ie, the use of goods, services, and resources to leverage against another person.

Context isn't much good without a definition.  Please provide one.

See above

Your analogy was bad because it was not an accurate analogy.  Does that help?

Why not?

No.  I'm wishing you luck on your foolish quest for thievery and power.

Another irrelevant and made up personal attack?

Notice how you failed to quote the relevant stuff the first time?  And you do it again after I called you out on it before.  Can you just talk about my argument as a whole instead of just cherrypicking parts of it?

I responded with "why" I took your quote of context.  I was not trying to do it again.  I was showing why I did it in the first place.  And then I apologized for doing it.

Christ...

Yes.  You would have acquired it without violence.  However, you would have acquired it through aggression, which is something that I am against.  See how I stick to my definitions?  I am purposely precise so that we can actually discuss the matters at hand.

So aggression is not violent?  

This is what I was saying earlier.  You guys expect me to be familiar with your terms, yet many of you describe things differently, and even contradictory.  I can honestly say this is the first time I have ever heard someone claim that an act of aggression is not an act of violence.

Do you have any idea how ***ing confusing that it?

It would be helpful if you would actually tell me how I am misrepresenting my argument.  That way I can improve upon my explanation

If I remember correctly it had to do with your definition of property and how inadequate I find it to be.

I thought that the premises of my argument were obvious, but apparently not to you, so I will make it so:

All property is a legal status.  All legal statuses arise from dispute resolution.  Thus, all property arises from dispute resolution.

Your response:  All iron is a chemical status.  All chemical statuses arise in stars.  Thus, all chemicals arise from stars.

The problem with your counterexample is that it contains a false premise.  Not all chemical statuses arise in stars, whereas all legal statuses do arise from disputes.  Yes, even in statutory law, the law arises from disputes.  I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you had mean to say that all iron arises from stars, though you did not say that in your counterexample.

Yet your original claim was that all dispute resolutions establish property.

ME: Not really, dispute resolution arises from the peaceful resolution of disputes, whether it has to do with property or not.

YOU: False.  Property is a legal status.  Legal status arises from dispute resolution.  Thus, property arises from dispute resolution

Now, seeing as I was saying that property is a specific form of dispute resolution and you said "false," are you now backing out and claiming that you were, in fact, not claiming that all dispute resoution establishes property? I clearly said "whether it has to do with property or not" and you clearly said "false."  

Or am I misconstruing your argument here?  

Good thing I never claimed otherwise.  Actually, it is you who did actually claim otherwise.  After all, I had originally stated "Property arises from the peaceful resolution of disputes."  You responded to that with "Not really, dispute resolution arises from the peaceful resolution of disputes, whether it has to do with property or not."  So, if you actually agreed with me, why did you say I was wrong?  Perhaps you should read what I write more carefully, something that I have suggested a few times already.

Notice I said "not really."  That is not equivalent to "false" "incorrect" or "you're wrong."  Not really tends to mean there is something missing, as in close, but not real.  

Perhaps you should read what you write more carefully.

I should have phrased it as non-violent dispute resolution.  I have in other threads, but sometimes I mistakenly say peaceful.

Fair enough.  We all make mistakes.  Now maybe you see where I am coming from?

I suggest you read Clayton's wonderful posts on the subject.

I have read, and enjoy Clayton's posts (smartest poster here, imho).  Perhaps you could relay me to what specifically you want me to see?

Again, the original claim does not need to be violent.

The original claim to possession and control.  Seeing as that "property" is a specific legalized form of possession and control, and legality requires violence or the threat thereof, the cliam to "property" is a violent act.  (And I cannot be accused of anything here, this has been my consistent position the entire time.  Like I said, conversations between us will be very difficult as we fundamentally define things differently)

Please keep in mind I harbor no hate or bad feelings for you because we have a debate.  Even if I get "loud" or demanding in my speech, it doesn't mean I harbor any ill will.  I actually enjoy it, until it turns to unfounded personal attacks, as with certain posters which I no longer have discussions.  Even then I don't take it personally, rather I just remove myself from the situation.

Reply

Laotzu del Zinn replied on Thu, May 3 2012 7:10 PM

rated by 0 users

This is BS and anyone should know it.  Half of these I have explicitly defined, and the other half should have been taken from context.  For the good of the conversation, I will proceed to explictly define all of them, right now.

pure private property

 

legitimate

 

property

 

inherent

 

wealth

their possessions are not wealth, but the enforced unequal access to those things (property) is wealth.

This is probably the only one I am using that is that far from the mainstream defintiion.  But the mainstream defintiion of wealth sucks 

deny

troll

violence

 

economic power

ie, the use of goods, services, and resources to leverage against another person.

just

 

Reply

Autolykos replied on Fri, May 4 2012 7:22 AM

rated by 0 users

Laotzu del Zinn:

troll

People more interested in "winning debates" and "looking cool" than actually establishing any truth.  I was never asked to define this, nor accused anyone of it, so I don't see what this has to do with me in the first place.

Wait, what?

First there's this:

Laotzu del Zinn:

I chose to omit because it's meaningless trolling, and what I found to be the least important part of your post. [Emphasis added.]

Then there's this:

Laotzu del Zinn:

I'm actually quite sure [Autolykos will] accuse me of some dishonesty and intimidation for referring to him in the third person, rather than responding directly to him.  I just hope he doesn't troll me in PM again... and I in a small way regret not forwording that conversatin to a mod.  But I'm not really one to get someone in trouble over dumb drama. [Emphasis added.]

And this (same post):

Laotzu del Zinn:

Unless Auto can stop trolling me, this will be my last response to him, ever. [Emphasis added.]

Then this:

Laotzu del Zinn:

Yes, so if murdered people cannot be said to have legitimately "abandoned" their property, why does "they can trade or abandon it" refute my claim that, under the posters metric, all property in the world is illigitimate?  It could only refute that claim if you could find me one habitable tract of land that has not been gained through non-trade and non-abandonement.  So is it, in fact, you who is trolling me?  And why don't I take the time to call you out on it? [Emphasis added.]

So, in light of the above, are you still going to say that you've never accused anyone of trolling?

Reply

Autolykos replied on Fri, May 4 2012 7:24 AM

rated by 0 users

Oh look, here's another gem:

Laotzu del Zinn:

This is BS and anyone should know it.  Half of these I have explicitly defined, and the other half should have been taken from context.  For the good of the conversation, I will proceed to explictly define all of them, right now. [Emphasis added.]

So it's okay for you to expect others to take things from context, but not the other way around. Gotcha.

Reply

Autolykos replied on Fri, May 4 2012 7:39 AM

rated by 0 users

Laotzu del Zinn:

I shouldn't respond to this because it is simply another personal attack (all he has to offer, I wonder sometimes).  But there is a kernel of a critique of my position in there.

Oh, how "magnanimous" of you! I guess I should bow before your feet, hmm? No, instead I'm going to deconstruct your response.

Laotzu del Zinn:

Yes, I want all people to have power, not just the ones who own property.

Here we go. Would you like to explain how people who don't "own" "property" have no power at all? Since you seem to me to be implicitly agreeing with my definition of "power" (which is the same as your definition of "true human freedom", i.e. "the ability to functionally pursue one's desires"), then this means you'll need to explain how people who don't "own" "property" have no ability to functionally pursue their desires whatsoever. Otherwise, if you don't mean that, and you were using words loosely, then this is again a dishonest position you're working from.

Laotzu del Zinn:

I unequivocally agree with Aristotle (or Plato? can't remember) in his critique of democracy, and is actually why I support it, when he said, "democracy is when the indegent, and not the men of property, run society."  I don't deny I want a kernel of this power for myself.  What I can say, in all honesty, is that I would not accept a position of power.  I'm well aware of the dangers of "vanguardism" and is basically why I am not a Marxist, and especially not a Leninist.

Congratulations, you're now equivocating over the meaning of "power". Either "power" still means "the ability to functionally pursue one's desires", in which case you would accept a position of power, or it means something else, in which case you don't want a kernel of power for yourself, as you wouldn't accept a position of power. Do you see (or are willing to admit publicly ) the contradiction there? I really hope you do (or are), but I'm not holding my breath.

Laotzu del Zinn:

And my position explicitly takes into account divergent interests.  It's the exact reason why I don't want one person to have economic power over another simply through some bogus monopoly title to "property."

Well your position in this regard is just a bunch of handwavery about "the community". What in the world are we supposed to take that to mean? So no, until further notice, I don't see how your position really takes into account divergent interests.

Regardless, my point was about your definition of "power". Using that definition, if you want as much power for people as possible, then that means you want people to have as much ability to functionally pursue their desires as possible. If this desire of yours were fulfilled, it would presumably lead to lots and lots of conflict, given that people would be able and willing to do whatever they want.

Reply

Laotzu del Zinn replied on Fri, May 4 2012 9:03 AM

rated by 0 users

It's clearAauto has something personal against me.  I should not have responded to him, when I said I wouldn't... as it only further fed his deep-seated hatred for me.  I feel like I should respond to his latest attacks, because I truly am not trying to be dishonest in any way... but really I don't care.  If I do respond, I'm just going to get him more po'd, more out to get me, and this is the interent.  I have no need to subject myself to that.

Please, moderators, note that I will never respond to Auto again.  If I am discussing in a thread, any post he directs at me is a derailment.  It will not be responded to, in any way.

Reply

Autolykos replied on Fri, May 4 2012 9:07 AM

rated by 0 users

Like I said before, I will still respond to you if I so choose.

Reply

Caley McKibbin replied on Fri, May 4 2012 9:34 AM

rated by 0 users

If I stick a knife in your face you could just as easily take the knife from me and proceed to stabbing.  There is no violent power.

That is a case of me having more violent power than you, not a case of neither of us having violent power.

or there is economic and violent power, as power is just a means of expressing how people get other people to do things for them against their will.

Promises of payment are not very compelling, unlike knives in the face.  I think you get the gist of what I'm saying.  Soldiers killed peasants not because that was necessary to get paid; they did it because they wanted to kill peasants.  Getting paid was just a bonus.  The real class definition in class warfare is not wealth.  It's something that boggles my mind and maybe yours.

Reply

Laotzu del Zinn replied on Fri, May 4 2012 2:19 PM

rated by 0 users

That is a case of me having more violent power than you, not a case of neither of us having violent power.

Sure, why not.  But in that case your example is just you using violent power to overcome my economic power.

Promises of payment are not very compelling, unlike knives in the face.  I think you get the gist of what I'm saying. 

I do, and not only is it wrong, but I can only conclude you have grown up pretty posh to even say something like that.  My mother and I once got into a fight because I posted something about legalizing weed on my fb and she might "lose her job" that she doesn't really like in the first place.  "Promise of payment" is one of the major reasons people, who have to pay their bills, accept wage labor in the first place.

Soldiers killed peasants not because that was necessary to get paid; they did it because they wanted to kill peasants.  Getting paid was just a bonus. 

No.  People don't go to war to fulfill some masochistic fantasy.  People go to war to secure land, resource, and markets.  I mean, if you're talking about actual soldiers... sure, they're pretty masochistic.  The people who start the wars tho, do it for economic reasons.  Even the Crusades, the so-called "holy war" was really just an response to the growing power of Arab Muslims, and the loss of economic dominance by Christian Byzantine.

Reply

gotlucky replied on Fri, May 4 2012 3:36 PM

rated by 0 users

That anything can actually "yours" rather than just seen as yours by society.

Good thing I never claimed that I believed in "pure" private property then.

Someone can't "own" something, he can only be recognized to own it by the law.  That's my point.  

You either own something or you don't.

Again, it's hard to debate in the lion's den, partly because each lion has a different means of obtaining his goal.  If you accept that property is a social construct, and not inherent to nature, then there is nothing to debate.  I just often run into propertarians who believe property is legitimized before society makes it so, merely by the claim to it.

So why make assumptions about my beliefs if I don't seem to be this typical "propertarian"?

As I say in the other thread, I am basically using to express "why should anyone respect the claim."  I may sometimes use it to say that the claim is already legitmized; as in nobles who claimed conquered land as their own, which was later legitimized, etc.  

I will address this later because you have contradicted yourself on this.  I will address this in the response to your other post.

I'm not familiar with the subject, and so I am not, nor can I, deny what you say here.  You may well, and probably are, correct.  I wouldn't know.

Ok.

1) You just countered my baseless assertion with one of your own.

Not really.  If we go by the definition you provided: "Legitimized (through court or custom) possession and control", then yes, anyone who wants to have property can have it.  Even the homeless have clothing.  Many of them even have other possessions that they keep close to them.  So, exactly who do you know who wants property but is not able to have it?

2) I am not defining it differently than "everyone else."  I define it differently than nearly everyone on this site.  In fact, my definition, which I have shown in the past, fits more in line with the mainstream definition of property than the definition used around here.  But this is semantical.

Actually the definition you have provided is pretty similar to what people use around here.  Baseless accusation to say otherwise.  Semantics are important.  If we don't know what we are saying, how can we converse?

3) Why does the "fact" that anyone can own property legitimize property?  (IOW, ok so anyone can have property.  Why should I respect property rights?)

My statement was not in response to this question.  It was a response to your fallacious claim that customary law will protect property owners instead people who don't own property (I have yet to meet one).  My point was that anyone who wants property can have it.

If you're talking about the Pilgrims, I implore you to do further research on that.  You will quickly find that they were 1) not communists and 2) their collapse was due to nature far more than to their living arrangements.

1) Not just talking about Pilgrims, and I don't feel like searching the Mises Dailies.

2) This is factually incorrect, as addressed in the article.

As a specific form of possession and control that exists legally.  Yes.  Yes.

Okay.  Now prove it.  At best, neither of us can prove it one way or the other.  So there is no point in continuing this part of the discussion.  Either claim is baseless.

In fact, for most hunter gatherer societies the idea of "first dibs" would have been absurd and insulting.

I don't care to research modern hunter gatherers right now.  Someone has to eat first.  It's highly unlikely that each and every time an animal is hunted that they will all eat at the exact same time.  Even without research I find this to be illogical.  Also, you cannot prove one way or the other about prehistoric human societies.  So, it's a baseless claim if it was referring to them.

When little Timmy takes little Johnny's toys, does Johnny have the right to bring legal claim against Timmy?  Should Timmy, if necessary, go to jail (or some such punishment) for his actions?

What little kids do is go to their parents or the other in charge and tell on each other.  The parents then sort it out.  That or the kid hits the other.  Often one kid even gets a time-out!  No need to involve courts.

What I am denying is that this claim is sufficient to call what they possess and control "property."  As I said, if "they claimed it as theirs" was enough for it to be property, then when a theif takes your stuff, it becomes his property.  Again, your definition of property (if you want to use it that's fine, your prerogative) is far too confusing imo, and as such, I will not adopt it.  Ie, I will not budge (yet) from my definition.

So what?  People claim things as their own, rightly or wrongly.  This is not my definition of private property.  However, if I remember correctly, Rothbard would refer to the thief's possession and control as "unjust property".  So I don't see why it must necessarily be the case that what the thief acquires is not his property - it's just not his legitimate property.  I don't think I would call the unjust property the thief's property, but whatever.  That's Rothbard, and that's how he defines it.  This is why semantics are important. 

The ability to claim ownership is inhernet, not ownership itself.  I have not claimed anything as "mine" in over 5 years.  I may say "I'm using it now" or something to that effect.  

I'll address this later in the post.

I don't own anything.

Ditto.

Or I would say "I'm using that, but I would be happy to share."

You would die if you actually did this.  Notice how I said each and every time?  You would starve to death if you praticed what you preached.  I mean, if you are okay with that, then fine.  To each his own.

I'm well aware you were not alive 10k years ago, so of course you wouldn't have seen it.

Neither were you, so you cannot prove this either.

I thought it did.

Care to elaborate?

So, as was said many times, any fulfillment of human need or want is an afterthought to the ability to profit.

I get that.  I'm just trying to figure out where you are going with this.  Perhaps it was just an observation you wished to share?  There's nothing wrong with that, I just can't figure out if there is anything else to it.

And I immediately said this line of diversion is just that; a diversion.  That whether any animals had a heirarchy was irrelevant to the discussion.  Human nature arguments offer nothing to the table.  Can we just put it to rest now?

I don't think human nature arguments are necessarily irrelevant.  They certainly don't solve the is-ought problem, but they can be entirely relevant.

My question was in response to the statement that "property can be abandoned" which was in response to "all property is illigitimate by this metric."  My problem with your statement was that it answered nothing.  It just added another way in which property can trade hands.  I asked to be shown evidence that this was what had actually happened.

This is not what happened.  As I just stated, my response was to a statement you made: "Ok.  Now show me one small tract of habitable land that can be traced from its original homesteaders to its current owner through abandonement or trade, without any kind of violent appropriation.  You can't."  It was not a response to "all property is illegitimate by this metric".  Scroll back and read the conversation.  This is what happened.  In fact, my actual response to you was "If something has been abandoned, there is no need to trace it to the original homesteader. "  But we've already gone through all this.  How does my response answer nothing?

Do I have to specfiically quote every sentence of yours?  Can I not answer multiple points with one statement?

You don't have to specifically quote each and every sentence of mine.  But when you misrepresent my argument becauseyou have not quoted what I said in full, then I take issue with it.

Am I responding with "bla bla bla" or is this just a made up personal attack, a common trait amongst trolls?

That was actually an exact quote of you.  The entire quote was "Yes so show me a small tract of habitable land... non-murder death... bla bla bla..."  So are you just making stuff up about me now?  Claiming that I make stuff up about you?  As you said, this is a common trait amongst trolls....

Socio-economic classes are made up of people.  Government is not a person.

Governments are made up of people.  Socio-economic classes are not persons.

I don't know how to explain it any further...

Really?  You never even tried to explain it the first or second times.  It was just "For the glory of etc etc etc".  What am I supposed to take away from such a statement?

It depends on the reason.  I have other computers, and can easily gain access to more if I didn't.  If someone really needed this computer more than me, I would happily provide.

Why does it matter what the reason is?  You don't own it.  You said so yourself.  If you really believed this, you would soon be without computers.  Out of curiosity, if your home was broken into and burgled, would you report the "crime" to the police?

Because if he claims that property, ok.  No big deal, it's not property yet.  It's only when somoene else comes into the picture, a dispute arises, and the courts (or some such entity) decides who's claim was legitimate that it becomes "property."  Property is a legal concept, and the claim to possession and control is not enough to establish something as property.  Therefore, "property" requires violence or the threat thereof.

This still does not disprove my point.  The second person can be the initiator of violence.  It does not necessarily have to be the original appropriater.  And I don't dispute that law, and therefore property, require violence or the threat thereof.

See above. The cliam to property is not enough to establish a thing AS property.

See above.

Why not?

Economic power as you define it and violent power are not similar.  By your definition, violent power is a subcategory of economic power.  Last I checked, neither of my hands were subcategories of the other.

Another irrelevant and made up personal attack?

No.  It's relevant.  I believe that what you wish to accomplish is thievery.  You've already admitted to Autolykos that you want some power.  Personal attack?  Sure.  Made up personal attack?  Absolutely not.

So aggression is not violent?  

Aggression is the initiation of violence or the initiation of the threat of violence.  It's actually one of the dictionary definitions of the term.  Not just an NAP libertarian definition.

This is what I was saying earlier.  You guys expect me to be familiar with your terms, yet many of you describe things differently, and even contradictory.  I can honestly say this is the first time I have ever heard someone claim that an act of aggression is not an act of violence.

Now I get to make accusations against you!  Are you seriously telling me that you've never heard someone say "Johnny is so aggressive when he debates"?  Or "Johnny talks so aggressively"?  Really?

Do you have any idea how ***ing confusing that it?

Perhaps you are now understanding why I ask you for so many definitions?  I try to avoid the confusion entirely by asking exactly what you mean by the words you use.

 

Yet your original claim was that all dispute resolutions establish property.

ME: Not really, dispute resolution arises from the peaceful resolution of disputes, whether it has to do with property or not.

YOU: False.  Property is a legal status.  Legal status arises from dispute resolution.  Thus, property arises from dispute resolution

Now, seeing as I was saying that property is a specific form of dispute resolution and you said "false," are you now backing out and claiming that you were, in fact, not claiming that all dispute resoution establishes property? I clearly said "whether it has to do with property or not" and you clearly said "false."  

Or am I misconstruing your argument here?  

 

You are misconstruing my argument here.  This was the actual exchange:

Me: Property arises from the peaceful resolution of disputes.  

You: Not really, dispute resolution arises from the peaceful resolution of disputes, whether it has to do with property or not.

Me: False.  Property is a legal status.  Legal status arises from dispute resolution.  Thus, property arises from dispute resolution.

You: All iron is a chemical status.  All chemical statuses arise in stars.  Thus, all chemicals arise from stars.

Perhaps you can see it now?  You twice tried to refute my claim that property arises from dispute resolution.  Now you are claiming that it was you all along that was claiming property arises from dispute resolution.  Well, that is NOT what happened in our little exchange.  So, either you twice misread what I wrote and twice accidentally tried to prove that property does not arise from dispute resolution, or you are trolling me here.  You can keep trying to falsely accuse me all you want, but I will take the time (sadly) to go through and reread our exchanges and repost what happened.

Notice I said "not really."  That is not equivalent to "false" "incorrect" or "you're wrong."  Not really tends to mean there is something missing, as in close, but not real.  

Perhaps you should read what you write more carefully.

The definition of "really" according to wiktionary is "Actually; in fact; in reality."  "Not really" would then mean "Not in fact, or not actually, or not in reality".  So, I guess it's time to add the word "really" to our list of words and phrases you use differently from everyone else.

I have read, and enjoy Clayton's posts (smartest poster here, imho).  Perhaps you could relay me to what specifically you want me to see?

I mentioned earlier in this thread his posts What Law Is and A Praxeological Account of Law.

The original claim to possession and control.  Seeing as that "property" is a specific legalized form of possession and control, and legality requires violence or the threat thereof, the cliam to "property" is a violent act.  (And I cannot be accused of anything here, this has been my consistent position the entire time.  Like I said, conversations between us will be very difficult as we fundamentally define things differently)

The second person can start the violence.

Please keep in mind I harbor no hate or bad feelings for you because we have a debate.  Even if I get "loud" or demanding in my speech, it doesn't mean I harbor any ill will.  I actually enjoy it, until it turns to unfounded personal attacks, as with certain posters which I no longer have discussions.  Even then I don't take it personally, rather I just remove myself from the situation.

Ditto.

EDIT: I'll respond to your other post to me another time.  It's a lot of work to post in this thread.

Reply

gotlucky replied on Sat, May 5 2012 12:58 PM

rated by 0 users

This is BS and anyone should know it.  Half of these I have explicitly defined, and the other half should have been taken from context.  For the good of the conversation, I will proceed to explictly define all of them, right now.

What is BS?  I said that you defined some of them.  I made a list of words that you are using differently than the rest of us.  Context can be difficult because you do not use them all consistently.

 

Private property I define as the legal title to be monopoly executor over an item.

"Pure" private property I define as the ability for anyone to actually own anything, rather than be seen as the owner by the community.

 

This is actually far closer to the mainstream definition of private property than how it is defined on this site.

 

 

Because legitimate possession and control is not private property.  I mean if you want to call it property, fine.  It's just semantics at that point.  Everyone believes there should be some kind of legitimate possession and control.  I don't support, in any way, the monopoly status, sole executor, of "private property," ie capitalist property.

Legitimate, as in respected by people or custom.  The decisions of the courts are legitimate within their society.  Me respecting your claim to property makes your property legitimate (at least between the two of us).

I use this word often in debate and have not had a problem with it until today so....

As I say in the other thread, I am basically using to express "why should anyone respect the claim."  I may sometimes use it to say that the claim is already legitmized; as in nobles who claimed conquered land as their own, which was later legitimized, etc.