-
We could. Without the milkshake, you would be vulturefood by the time they arrived, though.
-
Here is a formal version of the argument. Proof: Capitalism permits slavery. Premises: A. Under capitalism, the first person to use an object gains ownership of it (source: Aristippus). B. Under capitalism in this example, farmers and miners work for an employer to produce a product ("the product") of vegetables or mined materials. C. Farmers
-
We're stuck in the desert, with a milkshake. We both lunge toward it, and I grab and sip it first. I claim ownership of the milkshake under the Right Of First Grab And/Or Use. This means that I will survive to be rescued by the A-Team while you will dehydrate and get eaten by vultures. Explain to me, under the framework of capitalist natural law
-
[quote] Yet, suddendly, we say he came to own the product too? how so?? the product was made from the capitalists material base, and the labourer had been invited to spend his labour time *interacting* with it and transforming it. The labourer has been paid as per prior agreement, to claim also the capitalists property would surely be a crime.[/quote
-
That is the necessary conclusion that must be drawn from mainstream libertarianism. Either the product of one's labor, or an object one uses first, is one's property. Property is an extension of oneself, and alienating control of an extension of oneself is a form of slavery. Libertarianism thus approves of slavery of miners and farmers who gain
-
[quote]Nope, I'm assuming the property norm of first use = ownership. If you're not then I don't care to talk with you any longer, slave master.[/quote] Under your doctrine, the ownership of the atmosphere resides in the first individual to use it (the first human). However, this contradicts Locke. Under the first use doctrine, farmers and
-
[quote]But that troll is the extension of his self, and the employer is alienating the extension of his labor's self when he denies that I forcibly circumcise his extended member's self in front of his parents selves, denying my right to extend my self's scissors into de-extending his extension of his self[/quote] The employer cannot alienate
-
[quote]Stop trying to enslave people.[/quote] Legitimately alienating control of one's bodily person is impossible. One is continually investing time in oneself, and no other person is capable of investing time to maintain another's self. Personal slavery is never legitimate. [quote]Haha no he didn't request it to be embodied in the object
-
[quote]Yeah he did.[/quote] In that instance, an object becomes an extension of another's self insofar as the original owner requested that another individual's labor become embodied in the object, transforming the object into an extension of the other individual's self. The original owner would retain self-ownership of their own person
-
[quote]That transaction is not consensual if the worker does something with the product without the owner's consent, in the same way that carving a troll in someone's arm isn't consensual if the troll carver does it without the owner of the arm's consent. Thus your point is ridiculous and my original analogy exact.[/quote] The "product