Self-Ownership?

I don't see any aggression there...How has the factory owner initiated force against the workers? If he had stolen the factory from the workers, yes, I would support that they could take it back. But, simply, that's not the case.

He is the beneficiary of a long chain of abuses and aggression, dating back to sometime around when the first tribe put up the first fence.  The situation is similiar to a Pawn Shop owner who must return stolen goods to their rightful owner free of charge that were traded to him by a 3rd party (the theif).

Aggression, in brief, includes assault, theft, and slavery. I do not see how the factory owner in your scenario has committed any such act, necessarily. Where there is an initiation of force, counter-force can be use in proportional measure. So, like I said, I only support the usage of force in proportional retaliation to one of the three categories of aggression

I'm going to give you a scenario.  I would consider the property holder in this scenario to be the aggressor.  But for the sake of argument let us call the tresspasser the aggressor:

John, a wandering minstrel, happens upon a pond.  He has had no parents that he can remember, and has only known the wilderness and his guitar.  He sits down at the pond to enjoy its majesty. 

Frank comes running out with a gun, flashing a piece of paper that says "Title" on it, screaming "MINE GTFO" and threatens to shoot John. 

Now, in our society John is the aggressor.  But it was Frank who initated force.  (Again, I find it absurd to consider John the aggressor.  But for the sake of argument, whatever.)

Have I initiated Force against the labourers in some way? I could just as arbitrarily state, "if my labourers do not work to their full potential or treat me like shit, creating a strong negative comminity, I will call in my goons to seize their house and all their property." Would that be justified?

To you it might.  Of course it wouldn't to me.

How have I aggressed upon anyone by paying others to build me a factory?

You are the beneficiary of a long chain of abuses and aggression dating back to sometime around when the first tribe put up the first fence.  The situation is similar to when a Pawn Shop owner must return stolen goods to their rightful owner free of charge.

Disciple, thank you for getting my joke about being a ninja, and realizing it was just a joke.  Thanks for not flaming me for it

 

The situation is similiar to a Pawn Shop owner who must return stolen goods to their rightful owner free of charge that were traded to him by a 3rd party (the theif).

Where has the theft occured? I just paid some guys to build a factory. I would wholly concur with your sentiments, if I had stolen their money and enslaved them to build the aforementioned factory. But, in this case, I paid some guys out of my own wallet to build a factory for me. That's Free Market Capitalism.

I'm going to give you a scenario.

OK, I think I was not specific or detailed enough last time in my answer to you. I have some more points to make:

1. If this is unowned land, yes, you are indubitably correct. Frank has aggressed upon John, who is entirely innocent.
2. If Frank owns the land, having mixed his labour with it, then John has trespassed upon his property. To make this more clear, consider a farmer and his field of crops, upon whose field (near a pond) John has trampled and trespassed. By contrast, if Frank is merely laying claim to unowned resources, which he has not mixed his labour with, then the land is still unowned. In that case, return to point 1.
3. Even if Frank owns the land, he has acted out of proportion to John's crime of trespass*. A true Libertarian does not believe that it is acceptable to shoot a little boy who has stolen bubble gum from your store. Like I said, one must use Force in roughly equal measure to the original crime. The store owner can take his bubble gum back, but he cannot murder the little boy. If he murders the little boy, he becomes a bigger criminal himself. The situation is the same here. If Frank tries to shoot John, threatening to kill him for merely trespassing on his land, I would be entirely against that. The proportional usage of counter-force, which is entirely acceptable, would be for Frank to evict John from his property. John can justifiably defend himself, even though he is the trespasser here, since Frank has aggressed upon him by not using roughly proportional force. Obviously, the mainstream position here is antithetical to my Rothbardian view, so I suggest not conflating the two.
4. ^For future reference, some Libertarians disagree with the above. They are crazy and are known by us Rothbardians as maximalists.
5. Just to cover all my bases, if John happened to be the property owner here (to flip the positions), Frank would have committed crimes twofold: trespassing, and an overt threat to murder. John can justifiably whip out his gun and use proportional force to Frank's crime.
6. Covering even more bases. xD If a third party owns this property, both of these two are acting as trespassers against the third party. Trespasser Frank, of course, is acting even more wrongly against trespasser John, whom he has threatened with murder.

*John's ignorance can only add to the fact that Frank's response was out of proportion.

To you it might. Of course it wouldn't to me.

No, no. To me that would be immoral, just as seizing the factory from the innocent owner would be immoral. My point was simply that I could flip this scenario on the workers, using a similar justification as you, and arrive at similar conclusions: that the seizure of worker property is justified. Which of course it is not.

Disciple, thank you for getting my joke about being a ninja, and realizing it was just a joke. Thanks for not flaming me for it

No problem, and sorry if we got off on the wrong foot. I have never discussed with a communist before, and this was an entirely new situation to me, so I may have been a little feisty. xD But I hope you can forgive me for that; I'd like to have reasonable discussions with you, and, on a personal level, you seem like a pretty cool guy.

Where has the theft occured? I just paid some guys to build a factory. I would wholly concur with your sentiments, if I had stolen their money and enslaved them to build the aforementioned factory. But, in this case, I paid some guys out of my own wallet to build a factory for me. That's Free Market Capitalism.

The pawn shop owner didn't necessarily do anything wrong either.  But he still is an illegitimate holder of property justly traded to him, and must return it.

Would you concur with my statement if the government came in, cleared the people off the land, and then sold the land to the factory owner?  Again, in this situation, the owner did nothing inherently wrong.  He just trade with the person that did.

OK, I think I was not specific or detailed enough last time in my answer to you. I have some more points to make:

All valid points.  It kind of goes along with my points too.  The difference between defense and aggression is arbitrary and open to interpretation.

No, no. To me that would be immoral, just as seizing the factory from the innocent owner would be immoral. My point was simply that I could flip this scenario on the workers, using a similar justification as you, and arrive at similar conclusions: that the seizure of worker property is justified. Which of course it is not.

To some people it is not justified.  To others it is.  I'm really quite the moral relativist.  I hold MY morals to be absolute, for me.  But it would be, in my opinion, to posit them to be actually absolute.

No problem, and sorry if we got off on the wrong foot. I have never discussed with a communist before, and this was an entirely new situation to me, so I may have been a little feisty. xD But I hope you can forgive me for that; I'd like to have reasonable discussions with you, and, on a personal level, you seem like a pretty cool guy.

Thank you.  And I apologize for calling you a fundamentalist.  It's just, you know... sometimes people have their positions and absolutely refuse to even consider anything else.  We're all subject to it sometimes, even myself.  So again, my apologies

I look forward to fruitfull future discussions as well.

Would you concur with my statement if the government came in, cleared the people off the land, and then sold the land to the factory owner? Again, in this situation, the owner did nothing inherently wrong. He just trade with the person that did.

100%. Did you see my final post in our last discussion? Yes, the people stolen from could A) use vigilante justice to seize their stolen property, or B) use the court system to take back their stolen property. In this particular case, I will stipulate that I believe they should ideally first ask the factory owner. With either option A or B, however, they must be able to prove that they were actually stolen from. Otherwise, the person who they have taken their allegedly stolen property from can counter-sue, of course.

The difference between defense and aggression is arbitrary and open to interpretation.

Now that I would heartily disagree with. Aggression is where I decide to point a gun at your face; defensive and retaliative force is when you act as a Ninja to prevent me from killing you, by using proportional force. (In this case you could use any force up to killing me).

I apologize for calling you a fundamentalist. It's just, you know... sometimes people have their positions and absolutely refuse to even consider anything else.

Thanks, I think both of us should aviod doing that. Haha, why would we want to stress ourselves out like that?

 

"I apologize for calling you a fundamentalist. It's just, you know... sometimes people have their positions and absolutely refuse to even consider anything else."

"Thanks, I think both of us should aviod doing that.  Haha, why would we want to stress ourselves out like that?"

 

Wow. That worked out WAYYY better than I thought it was going to....

100%. Did you see my final post in our last discussion? Yes, the people stolen from could A) use vigilante justice to seize their stolen property, or B) use the court system to take back their stolen property. In this particular case, I will stipulate that I believe they should ideally first ask the factory owner. With either option A or B, however, they must be able to prove that they were actually stolen from. Otherwise, the person who they have taken their allegedly stolen property from can counter-sue, of course.

Ya.  Any other response here from me, other than "I disagree" would be a topic for another debate.  I find the nature of property itself and the historical role of property combined make a pretty strong case for the abolishment (at least in the normative sense, if not the legal sense) of private property.  As the vast majority of people who've been harmed by the property system are dead (not to say tons and tons of people right now don't suffer under it as well.  It's just that property goes back a long time), they cannot "prove their claim." 

Modern property society, ie capitalism, is vastly more progressive than the previous ones; feudal and slave systems.  But, it is my stance that we can do better.

Basically what I am saying is; society itself is the legitimate owner.  So, within reason, I really have no problem with certain expropriations from current property holders (but only by the workers themselves!  If the state does it, I basically categorically oppose it).

Now that I would heartily disagree with. Aggression is where I decide to point a gun at your face; defensive and retaliative force is when you act as a Ninja to prevent me from killing you, by using proportional force. (In this case you could use any force up to killing me).

  We're in complete agreement.  On a related note: do you find the use of violence abhorrent to humanity, or sometimes neccessary (this includes both aggressive and defensive violence)?  I would think, from your posts, the latter (and I would agree if that's the case.  It's a "sad but true" scenario, imo).  I'm just asking out of curiosity.

(On a side note: I'm not your typical commy.  So don't expect the rest of us to be like me .  I actually learned a lot here about voluntaryism.  But I totally agree with the basic tenants of socialism, and the socialist community at large [barring a few scattered Marxist-Leninist and Maoist authoritarians] accepts my views.  So I have no problems calling myself a socilaist, even tho it's just a meaningless label I only started using because a lot of people see the word itself as some kind of boogeyman catch-all for the ills of society.)

Thanks, I think both of us should aviod doing that. Haha, why would we want to stress ourselves out like that?

They cannot "prove their claim."

Right, you are entirely correct, that is why one should not go around saying that the workers should seize property. Generally, except in the cases where stolen property can be proven on an individual basis, the current owner should retain possession. The current owner is certainly far more rightly in possession of the stolen good than the State, after all! As Rothbard said:

Suppose, for example, that A steals B's horse. Then C comes along and takes the horse from A. Can C be called a thief? Certainly not, for we cannot call a man a criminal for stealing goods from a thief. On the contrary, C is performing a virtuous act of confiscation, for he is depriving thief A of the fruits of his crime of aggression, and he is at least returning the horse to the innocent "private" sector and out of the "criminal" sector. C has done a noble act and should be applauded. Of course, it would be still better if he returned the horse to B, the original victim. But even if he does not, the horse is far more justly in C's hands than it is in the hands of A, the thief and criminal.

So, if Worker A seized factory X, and could not prove that factory X had originally been stolen from him, his action would be aggression. This is certainly sensible. Also, I do not think we should be worried about restoring property to dead folks. Such property can just stay in the hands of the current owner. (Unless the current "owner" is the State, in which case it should be privatized!)

Modern property society, ie capitalism, is vastly more progressive than the previous ones; feudal and slave systems.

Capitalism just means "the private ownership of the means of production." What I advocate is Free Market Capitalism, i.e., private ownership of the means of production, without a State. (Note that Capitalism requires the qualifier "free market"; it's an important distinction). Modern corporatism is entirely a different beast. =)

Basically what I am saying is; society itself is the legitimate owner.

Let me rephrase this. Would you agree with the statement, "Interactions between various specific individuals are the legitimate owner of property?"

We're in complete agreement.

Cool, good to know we're not just talking past each other. =)

On a related note: do you find the use of violence abhorrent to humanity, or sometimes neccessary (this includes both aggressive and defensive violence)?

I find aggression abhorrent to humanity, certainly. Now, retaliative violence, I would have to say no. It's not just a necessity, but I laud it as justice. If A murders B, A damn well can face the death penalty at the hands of B's family,* or (more ideally imo) be enslaved to work for private companies by the victim!

So, yeah, I am a big fan of justice.

*Note that I consider the death penalty as the anti-mercy solution, and prefer other solutions, since death cannot be revoked. But I do still think that a murder victim could do so.

That is why one should not go around saying that the workers should seize property.

Oh, let me add to what I said, that the exception to this guiding principle is confiscation from the State. =) For example, the employees at a State school should seize and privatize the school.

RothbardsDisciple:

Oh, let me add to what I said, that the exception to this guiding principle is confiscation from the State. =) For example, the employees at a State school should seize and privatize the school.

Does that not give the presumpion of innocence (more like immunity from guilt or culpability) to the State?  What if the State is a completely abusive and exploitive ass?  Or is that not possible?

Also, is the principle of "workers seizing and taking ownership of the factory" fully scalable?  What if there is one employer/owner, with just one employee?

 

Laotzu del Zinn:

Disciple, thank you for getting my joke about being a ninja, and realizing it was just a joke.  Thanks for not flaming me for it

I call BS on this. You're full of it, as far as I'm concerned. But I'm going to continue to hound you until you finally decide to grow up.

I said that I would address the rest of this post, so now I'm doing that.

Laotzu del Zinn:

[Sinc]e you won't bother even beginning to explain what you actually mean by the word "society", let alone provide a systemic exposition of your reasoning in this regard

Except I did, numerous times.  It's none of my business why you refuse to accept that I even said it.

... Not in this thread (until this post). Come on. You know better than this.

Laotzu del Zinn:

I regarded it - among other things - as an attempt at intimidation or "getting under my skin

Well I don't know why.  I was sincere, and I still am.  But if you don't want my help, all you have to do is say "I don't want/need your help."  There's no reason to start incessantly flaming me because of it.

I think there is. If you want to call it "flaming", be my guest. I don't care. My point with it is to show everyone else what it sure looks to me like you're doing. I still don't think I'm that far off the mark, if I'm off it at all. Again, I'll say that, as far as I'm concerned, if you really cared about my well-being, you wouldn't have polluted the thread with such concern, as it's entirely off-topic. Instead, you would've PMed me about it. The fact that you still haven't done so, despite your alleged concern, I think is very telling.

Laotzu del Zinn:

"All societies are different..." means absolutely nothing to me, since I have no idea what you mean by "society". If you're man enough to actually provide your definition for that word, then we can actually get started for once

1) This is flaming.  I am surprised it is allowed on these forums.  It certainly does not create productive conversation, that's for sure.

Really? And you refusing to provide your definition of "society", and more generally to clarify and explain your reasoning on your positions, does create productive conversation? Are you kidding me? I was simply calling you out on your nonsense. I think it's cowardly to speak in ambiguous platitudes and bare assertions, and then simply respond to requests for clarification with "It's self-evident, bro." Guess what? I still think it's cowardly. Apparently it did - thankfully! - strike a nerve with you, because you've now provided a definition of "society".

Laotzu del Zinn:

2) You can think whatever you want of me; judgement says more about the judger than the judgee.

Prove it. I'm not going to take this bare assertion on faith, just because the "almighty" "Laotzu del Zinn" said it.

Laotzu del Zinn:

3) I have provided definitions for society: Groups of people that share common goals, etc and which individual actions of its members effect each other, in both seen and unseen ways.

Not in this thread (until now), you haven't. And excuse me if I don't instantly recall every other thread in this forum that you've posted in.

Now then, it seems that that definition is inherently contradictory, as everyone's actions affect everyone else, in both seen and unseen ways. So it seems there can only be one "society", namely the entire human race.

Laotzu del Zinn:

If you want a better definition, I am basically using this one [sic - you posted two!]:

• The aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.
• The community of people living in a particular region and/or having shared customs, laws, and organizations

The dictionary definition; which I try to use as often as possible, as it is supposed to make conversation easier (and does with most people).  I have layed this definition out multiple times in this thread, and if I am not mistaken in another conversation we had a year or two ago.  It is your problem, not mine, that you refuse to accept this fact.

You certainly have not laid this definition out multiple times in this thread. I challenge you to show me where you think you did that.

Now then, I don't find those definitions satisfying. Why is that? Because they boil down to what I see as a synonym: "community". I prefer the first part of the definition you posted earlier, namely "groups of people that share common goals, etc." - although I'd really like you to explain to me just what exactly you think can fall under the "etc."

Moving along, we can see that this definition of "society" obviously allows for societies that aren't tied to political boundaries. So any appeal to the notion of "living in a society, therefore being subject to its laws" falls flat on its face. Otherwise, you're admitting to de facto conflating "society" with "government".

As it stands, I don't see much clarification here. Rather, I see you continuing to make mealy-mouthed assertions in the hopes of ending the discussion, i.e. shutting me up. Giving me your definition for "society" was just throwing me a bone. I asked you to clarify many more things.

Laotzu del Zinn:

can only read this as an attempt to bully me into using your definitions - your implicit definitions! - which only reveals your own narrow-mindedness in refusing to entertain other people's possibly different semantics. I'd be perfectly happy to entertain yours if you'd simply lay them out for me. But no, you won't even do that at this point, now will you? Thus it seems obvious to me that I've struck quite a nerve

It wasn't.  And you haven't.  Tho it is funny that you are trying to "strike a nerve" with me, and at the same time accusing ME of being a troll....

You don't think it's okay for people to retaliate against trolling? Either way, I don't care.

Laotzu del Zinn:

No, I think you're already angered

If me getting angry will make you feel better, I will gladly do that.  Tho I should warn you that it will not make you feel any better in the long run.

So now you know me better than I know myself? Glad to see a psychic here among us! 

Yes, I think you're angry. Otherwise you wouldn't have escalated your attempts to get me to back off.

Malachai,

Malachai:

So would I be correct in saying that you define anything that is empirically discovered to be part of the physical world?

Yes, I would say that is accurate.

Malachai:

is there, then, a non-physical world that you have not experienced and contrasting this with?

I was working off of John James' distinction,

John James:

I would have to assume one exists in the physical world, one doesn't.

I don't necessarily hold the same to be true, I was taking the stance as granted for the sake of argument.

Malachai:

Or is the word "physical" unnecessary, since the physical world now includes whatever ghosts one might meet?

Jackson LaRose @ John James:

"Exist", and "exist in the physical world" mean the same thing to me, since I've never experienced anything beyond the physical world!

Malachai:

If you do not believe that the physical world is anything, then why speak of it at all?

To clarify my position, I'm not sure whether the physical world is anything.  "Brain in a vat" style.  Why?  I dunno, intrest in the opinions of others, boredom, etc.

Reality may be something, it may be nothing, I have no way of telling.  My world is limited by my perception, which may or may not be conveying an accurate portrayal of the "ding a sich", that is "reality at large".

 

My world is limited by my perception, which may or may not be conveying an accurate portrayal of the "ding a sich", that is "reality at large".

how would you define a "reality at large" that is totally divorced from sensory perception?

To clarify my position, I'm not sure whether the physical world is anything.

can you explain what you mean by "anything"?

• Basically what I am saying is; society itself is the legitimate owner.  So, within reason, I really have no problem with certain expropriations from current property holders (but only by the workers themselves!  If the state does it, I basically categorically oppose it).

I believe this is being discussed with various other posters, but have you defined anywhere how "society" can own something?  If everyone has a right to everything, wouldn't each and every person need to be consulted before performing any kind of work that involves land or capital?  It seems like an untenable position for anything beyond the smallest of tribes.

How can "society" own anything, outside of what has been established via contract?

Malachai:

how would you define a "reality at large" that is totally divorced from sensory perception?

I don't think I can.  I am limited by my perceptive ability.  To imagine anything outside of my perception would be pure conjecture.

Anything... I guess having any sort of constituents of any kind, in a "real", or "true" sense, some immovable kernel of fact upon which I can deduct other "truths".

In that case, may I ask why such a thing is relevant to any topic of consideration? What utility is found by positing an unknowable, irrelevant universe at all? Could not one simple analyze sensation, perception, and conception as themselves without reference to another universe of unperceived, unsensed, noncognitive entities?

Anything... I guess having any sort of constituents of any kind, in a "real", or "true" sense, some immovable kernel of fact upon which I can deduct other "truths".

it seems like you are rejecting the identity axiom here.

Right, you are entirely correct, that is why one should not go around saying that the workers should seize property. Generally, except in the cases where stolen property can be proven on an individual basis, the current owner should retain possession. The current owner is certainly far more rightly in possession of the stolen good than the State, after all! As Rothbard said:

I think Rothbard's quote is just justifying criminal activity, which is fine, since the law is often wrong.  But I don't see A or C as the legitimate holder.  The only legitimate use of the property is the returning it to its original owner, or if that proves impossible, giving it to the poor.

So, if Worker A seized factory X, and could not prove that factory X had originally been stolen from him, his action would be aggression. This is certainly sensible. Also, I do not think we should be worried about restoring property to dead folks. Such property can just stay in the hands of the current owner. (Unless the current "owner" is the State, in which case it should be privatized!)

Actually it would more like workers A-W seizing it from X and Y while being hunted by their police force Z

But either way, I largely agree with you.  I think we will be far better served evolving to Socialism rather than imposing it.  I just find that there are certain circumstances where the siezing of a MoP is justified; especially in cases where the firm recieves large state support and subsidy, is harmful to communities and environments, and degrading to workers.  "Ends justify the means" I know... sad but true. 

Let me rephrase this. Would you agree with the statement, "Interactions between various specific individuals are the legitimate owner of property?"

No.  Consider your example earlier.  Neither A nor C are legitimate in their holdings.  Also consider the theif and the pawn shop owner.

Honestly I don't consider any one individual to be a legitimate holder.  But for the sake of argument, the above is true.

Cool, good to know we're not just talking past each other. =)

Despite what some "people" will tell you, I'm no dogmatist.  I give much credit to this site, actually, for teaching me about voluntaryism.  I'm not a strict v-ist, I think that would be naive.  But nonetheless, it is a generally good principle to live by and create societies around.

I find aggression abhorrent to humanity, certainly. Now, retaliative violence, I would have to say no. It's not just a necessity, but I laud it as justice. If A murders B, A damn well can face the death penalty at the hands of B's family,* or (more ideally imo) be enslaved to work for private companies by the victim!

Whoa buddy!   We don't need to take it that far

But, other than the strength of the punishment, I agree with you there.  I'm not really a big fan of punishment in the first place, as opposed to "re-education" (if we take all the negative boogeyman connotations away from it).

I believe this is being discussed with various other posters, but have you defined anywhere how "society" can own something?  If everyone has a right to everything, wouldn't each and every person need to be consulted before performing any kind of work that involves land or capital?  It seems like an untenable position for anything beyond the smallest of tribes.

How can "society" own anything, outside of what has been established via contract?

Well.. they can't.  That would render the term "ownership" obsolete.  But a community can possess and control things. 

It's about setting up worker co-ops, and having strong oversight of the productive effort, making hiring more voluntary, combatting prejudices, and promoting a culture of solidarity.

You don't have to have consultation with everyone beforehand.  What you need is a democratic workplace, where the monopolist property holder cannot impose his will upon everyone else (simply because he has a title of ownership) without their representation. 

 

Malachai,

Anything may not be relevant.  There may not be any utility in positing that.

One could certainly percieve, but analysis becomes impossible without some reference, even if that reference is past perception.  One cannot live completely "in the moment", and also engage in analysis.  As far as "reference to another universe", I'm not sure where your getting this concept from, but it seems possible to analyze without necessitating another universe.

I'm not familiar with the identity axiom.  I did a quick Google search, but only found mathematical stuff.  Was that what you were referring to?

The identity axiom is part of aristotelian logic. It states that A=A, or in other terms a thing is itself, and not some different thing. Acceptance of the three laws of logic is necessary for rational discourse, and unwitting attempts to violate such cold be seen as trolling. I think that might be what you were doing earlier.

at this point you should decide if you are a monist or a nihilist for the purposes of discussion. You have already confessed to waffling on this issue, and you just admitted that you have no purpose in challenging the fundamental assumptions inherent in rational discourse. I am willing to entertain whatever set of assumptions you choose, however you need to assume something. If you continue to believe that A might not = A then I cannot help you.

Malachi:

The identity axiom is part of aristotelian logic. It states that A=A, or in other terms a thing is itself, and not some different thing. Acceptance of the three laws of logic is necessary for rational discourse, and unwitting attempts to violate such cold be seen as trolling. I think that might be what you were doing earlier.

at this point you should decide if you are a monist or a nihilist for the purposes of discussion. You have already confessed to waffling on this issue, and you just admitted that you have no purpose in challenging the fundamental assumptions inherent in rational discourse. I am willing to entertain whatever set of assumptions you choose, however you need to assume something. If you continue to believe that A might not = A then I cannot help you.

ta daa.

 

Hey friend Laotzu, I have a couple more thoughts for us to mull over. =)

I think Rothbard's quote is just justifying criminal activity, which is fine, since the law is often wrong.

Hold on though. The man is not a criminal until an original claim is presented to him. For it is not a crime, in itself, to confiscate from a thief. As you have already agreed, often the original owner cannot be identified. In cases where the original owner cannot be identified, the confiscator possesses the property with perfect moral justification. Nevertheless, where the original owner identifies himself, the confiscator should be first asked to give back the property. If he fails to follow this request, then he becomes a thief himself. At this point, the original owner is justified to use force to reclaim his property. In essence, then, your statement that their property is illegitimate only applies to those confiscators who have denied giving the original owner his property back. The others, who merely hold property originally belonging to an (unkown or dead?) person, are not criminals. They have not committed what Rothbard would term "implicit theft."

But I don't see A or C as the legitimate holder.

^As above, I certainly think C is the legitimate holder until B can identify that it is his stolen property.

The only legitimate use of the property is the returning it to its original owner, or if that proves impossible, giving it to the poor.

Both of those are certainly virtuous goals. I entirely agree with you. The best option is giving the property back to the original owner, if he presents himself. If he does not, I agree, charity would indeed be a noble ideal. However, this is certainly not a legally enforceable ideal. And, in some cases, charity would not even be desirable to enforce. Consider the example of State workers who have hypothetically seized a public school. In this scenario, it makes absolutely no sense to give the confiscated property to the poor. I think the workers should retain control of the school, eventually transforming it into a private, for-profit school. As a second best alternative, they could transform it into a charity school, where they shall teach the poor. That's great.

Actually it would more like workers A-W seizing it from X and Y while being hunted by their police force Z.

So if the workers are not the original owners of the factory, I presume you would agree with me?

Especially in cases where the firm recieves large state support and subsidy, is harmful to communities and environments, and degrading to workers.

Haha, what if there is a State subsidized a community of labourers, and they are harmful to communities and environments? What if their employers have an overwhelmingly positive factory, and the employees act like dicks, degrading their employers and making them have a terrible time? Would seizure of worker-community property be justified by the employers in such a scenario, to you?

"Ends justify the means" I know... sad but true.

Ends do indeed justify the means, for what else could? I agree 100%. Although it is not a sad truth, but merely a truth. xD Moreover, aggressive means are immoral in themselves. Consider this: A murders B. To A, the death of B (or some other lunatic end) justified his mean. However, the mean in itself was immoral, unjust. So while ends justify the means, they do not justify immorality.

No. Consider your example earlier.

See, when I replaced "society" with its definition upon which you have agreed ("Interactions between various specific individuals"), you automatically grasped my point. It is absurd to say that the interactions between indivudals can own property.

Despite what some "people" will tell you, I'm no dogmatist.

I can tell you are not. =) People here have said that about me too. If you take any position different than the community at large (even if, as in my case, it is merely the more extreme version of their position), you will become somewhat rejected. I do not really think either of us care too much about the perception of those folks, though. Or at least I hope not.

We don't need to take it that far.

Ha, I hope you saw my annotation that I do not believe the death penalty is ideal for one-time murderers. Like I said, I think enslaving them to be working members of society is the most productive option. (And keep in mind I would be against the State doing this, haha). Now, I also think re-education is a perfectly reasonable alternate choice. Do I think it is a bit light? Yes. But I would not deny that it is a viable option. As long as whatever punishment is chosen is proportional or less than the original crime, I find it entirely a worthy option.

Hold on though. The man is not a criminal until an original claim is presented to him. For it is not a crime, in itself, to confiscate from a thief. As you have already agreed, often the original owner cannot be identified. In cases where the original owner cannot be identified, the confiscator possesses the property with perfect moral justification. Nevertheless, where the original owner identifies himself, the confiscator should be first asked to give back the property. If he fails to follow this request, then he becomes a thief himself. At this point, the original owner is justified to use force to reclaim his property. In essence, then, your statement that their property is illegitimate only applies to those confiscators who have denied giving the original owner his property back. The others, who merely hold property originally belonging to an (unkown or dead?) person, are not criminals. They have not committed what Rothbard would term "implicit theft."

Perhaps criminal was the wrong word to say.  What I was trying to get across was the idea that this incentivises thieves to get better; to not get caught, or to steal things in such a way as the original owner doesn't know they are gone or how to recover the items.  I understand this is generally a good way to conduct your affairs.  But I would argue against its implementation into the judicial structure. 

What I'm saying is that, sure he can possess the property and consume it to his desire.  But I would not call it "perfect moral justification" rather than "unfortunate de facto justification" or something like that.  Yes it's not "implicit theft."  But it is explicit.

These kinds of problems are what lead me to say: "I would rather vote under  1 man 1 vote principle than voting with your dollars; as voting with your dollars inherently places some people in a stronger position than others; ie property should be communal rather than private."

Both of those are certainly virtuous goals. I entirely agree with you. The best option is giving the property back to the original owner, if he presents himself. If he does not, I agree, charity would indeed be a noble ideal. However, this is certainly not a legally enforceable ideal

No of course not.  You would be forced to give it to the causes the bureaucrats deem fit, rather than what you yourself do.

Consider the example of State workers who have hypothetically seized a public school. In this scenario, it makes absolutely no sense to give the confiscated property to the poor. I think the workers should retain control of the school, eventually transforming it into a private, for-profit school. As a second best alternative, they could transform it into a charity school, where they shall teach the poor. That's great.

 I'm a little bit of wealth relativist; so sometimes I tend to use "workers" and "the poor" interchangeably.  I don't really believe in the "middle class" per se.  It's those with too much power; and the rest of us.  (Im kind-of in agreement with OWS; it's the bankers, big business, and politicians v the 99%)

So anyway, ya.  You wouldn't sieze a school or factory and just give it to the homeless lol.  You give it to the workers who, tend towards having a much stronger connection to the local community, will be more likely to take care of it (the local community). 

So if the workers are not the original owners of the factory, I presume you would agree with me?

For the most part, yes.  As I said, generally siezing factories is not necessary, and can be regressive.  But their are certain circumstances where, when/if it happens, I would support it.  It all depends on whom the workers are, and what the business is.

I certainly don't want the workers siezing Bob's Chicken Shak lol.  I mean, they could... but there are far bigger fish to fry lol.

Haha, what if there is a State subsidized a community of labourers, and they are harmful to communities and environments?

That's where community/consumer action committees step in and put the hammer down!

No lol.  THat's a good question.  What if we have democratic workplaces and they still act like jerks?  Well... at least it was the many, and not one guy forcing everyone else to go along with him (which I think will make it far less likely.  Democratic governments have their problems, believe me I know.  But they are far more effective than the alternatives; totalitarian dictatorships, or feudal social structures and warlords).

What if their employers have an overwhelmingly positive factory, and the employees act like dicks, degrading their employers and making them have a terrible time? Would seizure of worker-community property be justified by the employers in such a scenario, to you?

I've worked.  I'm not sure you have (I don't mean that offensively, I just don't know you lol).  But have you ever seen that? lol  Generally if the workers are lazy dicks; its because the managers are lazy dicks. 

The 1 straw man that often comes up in debates between socialists and capitalists is the thinking that coordination (management) and entreprenurialship are not labor.  The guy who came up with the original idea (like that show Shark Tank.  Those guys ruthlessly take over the entrepreneurs idea and co-opt it for themselves), and management is ruled over just as strongly as the common worker by ownership.   People like to blame CEO's for the problems of a company (and that's fine about certain individual CEOs and their actons; like Ken Lay or someone); but they are really just trying to satisfy the demand of the banks and investors. 

Ends do indeed justify the means, for what else could? I agree 100%. Although it is not a sad truth, but merely a truth. xD

Moreover, aggressive means are immoral in themselves. Consider this: A murders B. To A, the death of B (or some other lunatic end) justified his mean. However, the mean in itself was immoral, unjust. So while ends justify the means, they do not justify immorality.

Sort-of like a Kantian "means become ends in themseleves.  Moral actions taken for immoral reasons are still immoral..?"  I agree with that.  Laotzu put it as "do good, to the good and the bad, for the sake of good, and therein you will find goodness."

See, when I replaced "society" with its definition upon which you have agreed ("Interactions between various specific individuals"), you automatically grasped my point. It is absurd to say that the interactions between indivudals can own property.

Good point.  If I'm understanding what you are saying, my response would be; that's why socialism renders the concept of "ownership" obsolete.  There would stil be possession and control, but you wouldn't really be able to say who the "owner" is.

Am I understanding you correctly?  I don't want to be accused of sophistry       

I do not really think either of us care too much about the perception of those folks, though. Or at least I hope not

Heh.  Generally people, myself included, do not want to be judged negatively by the community.  But no.  If you do judge me negatively, I"m not going to spend too much time worrying about it.  Take note, change if necessary, and move on; is my motto.

Ha, I hope you saw my annotation that I do not believe the death penalty is ideal for one-time murderers. Like I said, I think enslaving them to be working members of society is the most productive option. (And keep in mind I would be against the State doing this, haha). Now, I also think re-education is a perfectly reasonable alternate choice. Do I think it is a bit light? Yes. But I would not deny that it is a viable option. As long as whatever punishment is chosen is proportional or less than the original crime, I find it entirely a worthy option.

I have this hypothesis I am working on.  Basically what it seems to me is that society works through a process of intersubjective actions creating an objective ethical code, usually expressed through the law.  People have made past choices, based on their own subjective ethics, which have influenced me.  I will take those influences, mix them with my personal (subjective) convictions, and act upon them.  This will further influence people who are aware of it, who will take their own actions, influencing more people.  Through this we come up with a common set of norms on which to live by.  This would explain why tribal culture is so lawless yet not chaotic; and why we have laws.

Just throwing it around, I don't have it formally worked out... and I could be completely wrong llol.  Just, what you said made me think of it

These kinds of problems are what lead me to say: "I would rather vote under  1 man 1 vote principle than voting with your dollars; as voting with your dollars inherently places some people in a stronger position than others; ie property should be communal rather than private."

Voting inherently places some people in a stronger position than others. Market exchange without coercion is the egalitarian choice, because all persons are equally free to make deals with anyone else who is willing. Under your system, each person's freedom to pursue wealth is subject to the veto of other people, placng them in a stronger position than himself. Democratic process inherently creates "war against all" in society.

Voting inherently places some people in a stronger position than others.

Who?  The people on the winning side of the vote?  That's true under market exchange too; consumer demand is only met for those consumers that hvae purchasing power.  Need is not effective economic demand: effective economic demand requires both need and corresponding purchasing power. ~Henry Hazlitt

Market exchange without coercion is the egalitarian choice, because all persons are equally free to make deals with anyone else who is willing.

... except for those who have nothing to offer.  And the less you have to offer, the less power you have over the deal.  You gotta have dollars to vote with your dollars.

Under your system, each person's freedom to pursue wealth is subject to the veto of other people, placng them in a stronger position than himself

How are they not subject to veto under yours?

Democratic process inherently creates "war against all" in society

Who?  The people on the winning side of the vote?

for starters, the voting class has all the political power and the non-voting class has none. Unless you reject all arbitrary restrictions on voting rights and permit anyone who is physically able to cast a ballot to do so. No geographic restrictions either, because you basically draw a box around the people whose opinions you care about and disenfranchise anyone outside of your box. Arbitrary boundaries like that are no more justifiable than my property boundaries, inside of which I am the sole voter. And you cannot pretend that anyone outside of your municipality is unaffected by externalities.

additionally, if you were planning on instituting a direct democracy, where every issue is voted on and single-issue attorneys were elected from the group, you still place the group at the mercy of the people who write the ballots and the people who count the votes. And if you are familiar with the history of revolution than you know that any lever of power, no matter how minor and seemingly nonthreatening, can be twisted for personal benefit. In fact these roles that seem safe and nonauthoritative are sometimes the most dangerous because of their camouflage. Look at how the medical industry is destroying this country.

and, yes, the majority enslaves the minority in a democratic system. And the more things the democratic government does, the more majority and minority sets of people there are in the country, because people have broadly divergent and multivarious opinions. Any act by the government, and any lack of action, will be displeasing to some, because the government is responsible to every constituent. This creates conflict of interest, because while we both might prefer free public education (I dont btw) we are bound to have different opinions on what is to be taught, and for how long, and by whom. Yet we both must pay for the schooling. So if we compromise, like rational adults, and you get marching band and I get football, well that doesnt settle things either. Because lets say football costs $250,000 a year and marching band costs $700,000. Is that fair? Shouldnt I get to decide where an additional $450,000 is spent, so we oth have equal representation? You can say "no" all you want, your individual opinion on this is irrelevant. The point is that its obvious that conflict of interest is inevitable, because you cannot serve everyone who is entitled to faithful representation.

That's true under market exchange too; consumer demand is only met for those consumers that hvae purchasing power.  Need is not effective economic demand: effective economic demand requires both need and corresponding purchasing power. ~Henry Hazlitt

am I supposed to assume there is someting wrong with this? You want me to accept the communist axiom: to each according to his "need." well I say that if he wants something, then he "needs" to get some purchasing power. Not trying to pick on you, you do not seem to understand the point of an exchange, because you said elsewhere "of course [he] is entitled to the fruits of [his] labor." when two individuals conduct a voluntary exchange, they both agree to take the item(s) that they want and give up the item(s) that they do not want. They both had something to offer and they both left in better shape than they arrived in. Without something of value (which provides purchasing power) exchange is impossible. Do you mean to suggest that the producer is the slave of the consumer and is not entitled to recompense? I apologize for the multiple posts but of course ipad and mises.org forums dont always see bit to bit

Laotzu del Zinn:

... except for those who have nothing to offer.  And the less you have to offer, the less power you have over the deal.  You gotta have dollars to vote with your dollars.

first of all, I reject the assumption that there are people out there with nothing to offer. Secondly, as I said above, thats what voluntary exchange is all about. You have to find a volunteer. Otherwise, its, you know, slavery, robbery, theft, or murder by degree. The people you are trying to empower to "get stuff" are freeloaders. as long as you incentivize freeloading, you will have and ever-increasing number of freeloaders.

furthermore, an idea like "more power" doesnt really apply to a situation like a voluntary transaction where both parties have the ultimate veto power to cancel the transaction.

How are they not subject to veto under yours?

because peter and paul have no say over your and my business dealings. They cannot vote to prohibit us from transacting, or vote to appropriate our property. They can only look on disapprovingly, exercise their right to free expression, and refuse to support us in our quest for more wealth. Under your system they can outright legally prohibit us from attaining wealth and seize the fruits of our labor (if you have ever worked sales, you know that conducting transactions is labor too).

Democratic process inherently creates "war against all" in society

This was a poor time to attempt picture meme mockery. You dont appear to have done much reading or much observation of democracy if that idea caught you off guard. People tend to vote for people who they believe will act in their best interest. This is ideological and practical. So candidates have an incentive to offer benefits to specific groups and an incentive to socialize the cost. This means plans that rob everyone in subtle and insidious ways, and redistribute the wealth to specific groups of people. Just like any other unearned revenue, it creates dependence and an entitlement mentality, and now you have another special interest group. It's implicit in your posts. The reason people need these things is because they dont have anything. So they vote themselves wealth, the politicians reappropriate it from another group with less political clout, and then the beneficiaries consume the wealth. They dont build anything permanent with it, they buy consumer goods so the profits still end up in the hands of the production class (after the state takes healthy portions at every stage) and then the poor, who are addicted to handouts and have been taught to expect them by your programs, cry for more. Now they have kids, because when they should have been building for the future they were eating and copulating on unearned income.

My laptop has this problem where it randomly disconnects from wifi.  Sometimes I don't notice it and hit send from offline, and I lose everything.  Suffice it to say, I will re-respond sometime in the near future lol

If a short synopsis will suffice:

The alternative is to hand everything over to the wealthy for decisions.  Large swaths of people will have nil to offer but their labor.  Even if a small percentage of them will be industrious and/or lucky enough to pull themselves out of that over time... even if both parties benefit in some way (one a little, one a hell of a lot); this does not, imo, justify the inherent inequality of oppurtunity imposed on society by the private property system; the very cause of that large disparity in benefit.

Democratic decision making sometimes protects the majority over the minority; free speech, the right to a "fair" trial, worker protection laws, etc.  Sometimes it doesn't; ending slavery and segregation, private property protections, etc.  Either of these can be good or bad depending on the circumstance. 

If 99% of a given community supports a decision; is it more likely they or the opposition is are despicable people?

first of all, I reject the assumption that there are people out there with nothing to offer.

It was said for the sake of argument.  Would you reject the statement that the less you have to offer the more leverage the person you are dealing with has? 

furthermore, an idea like "more power" doesnt really apply to a situation like a voluntary transaction where both parties have the ultimate veto power to cancel the transaction

1) Yes they do

But if you think the ability to either accept someone else's terms, or die is a "choice" ... I really have nothing to say.  I can't respond to that.  It's how you see it, and I don't.

because peter and paul have no say over your and my business dealings. They cannot vote to prohibit us from transacting, or vote to appropriate our property. They can only look on disapprovingly, exercise their right to free expression, and refuse to support us in our quest for more wealth. Under your system they can outright legally prohibit us from attaining wealth and seize the fruits of our labor (if you have ever worked sales, you know that conducting transactions is labor too).

Yes, i have, and it is.

Let us suppose you are a slave trader and and Peter/Paul are abolitionists, then re-examine your analogy.  You may counter that slavery is anti-free market.  But how do you propose to stop people from voluntarily selling themselves into slavery, and at one time people were considered a valid form of property.

This was a poor time to attempt picture meme mockery

I wasn't mocking you buddy   If anything I was mocking myself for not understaning you.  It is unfortunate when our attempts at humor fail.

People tend to buy from people who they believe will act in their best interest. This is ideological and practical. So businesses have an incentive to offer benefits to specific groups and an incentive to socialize the cost. This means plans that rob everyone in subtle and insidious ways, and redistribute the wealth to specific groups of people. Just like any other unearned revenue, it creates dependence and an entitlement mentality, and now you have another special interest group, one who may very well have nothing to lose which makes it prone to violence. The reason people need these things is because they dont have anything. So they expropriate themselves wealth, the politicians reappropriate it from them for the benefit of those with more political clout, and then the beneficiaries consume the wealth. The profits still end up in the hands of the production class (after the state takes healthy portions at every stage) and then the poor, who are desparetely crying for handouts. Now they have kids, because when they should have been building for the future they were eating and trying to eek out a meager living.

Better?

 

Malachai,

Oh, the whole A=A thing.  Why do I have to assume something?  Until I started getting questions addressed to me, I was trying to get to the bottom of the poster's positions.  That doesn't require much beyond an open mind and some critical thinking.

Is an agnostic viewpoint irrational?

Even if we both agree to assume that A=A, isn't it possible that A is actually B,C, or D, we just have percieved it incorrectly?  Intersubjective consensus does not a truth make.

Malachai:

If you continue to believe that A might not = A then I cannot help you.

LOL, I'm WAY beyond help.  I will say though, that if you continue to believe that A always, eternally equals A, then you are artificially limiting yourself.

JJ, What an insightful post.  Thank you for that.  You do a great impersonation of David Brent (Ricky Gervais) around 0:40,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwfaHRSe8KQ

P.S. how do you embed video into a post?

Oh, the whole A=A thing.  Why do I have to assume something?

because the laws of thought require it. I would not have as much of a case in the nihilist position was consistent. However, you already assume that "A=A" in the vast majority of your questions, elsewise you would not be able to use symbols like "agnostic" and "yourself." the fact of the matter, is that to engage in discussion, you have already accepted the three laws of logic, however in order to turn the discussion towards nihilism you then reject the identity axiom.

to illustrate further, imagine that none of the words in my post means what you think they mean, and you have been misunderstanding me this entire time. Welcome to the world of "A =/= A" where rational discourse is impossible.

Until I started getting questions addressed to me, I was trying to get to the bottom of the poster's positions.  That doesn't require much beyond an open mind and some critical thinking.

Incorrect. Socratic questioning (of the type you were conducting) requires assumptions. I can post some quotes from your previous posts illustrating how you have assumed tings like the laws of logic if you like.

Even if we both agree to assume that A=A, isn't it possible that A is actually B,C, or D, we just have percieved it incorrectly?  Intersubjective consensus does not a truth make.

Intersubjective consensus is required to discuss the subject and apprehend truth, otherwise we talk past each other. Also, note that "A=A" does not prevent "A=B" or anything else. In fact, if "A=B" then "A=B" is an application of the identity axiom. The identity axiom is so fundamental to human thought, I am not surprised you have trouble grasping it. It is as though I am point towards the earth beneath a building, and you keep thinking I am pointing towards "nothing because the house is built upon a foundation."

Suppose "A=C+D". Once you perform the process of discovering the sum "C+D" you can now use the identity axiom to replace "A" with "C+D." when you reject the identity axiom, you are saying that "A =/= A" well then "C+D =/= A" either, because then "A=A"!

basically, it is back to what you said earlier where there is no kernel of truth from which other truths can be derived. Which naturally tends towards private solipsism. It also tends to produce public sophistry, but I am not sure why.

which, if "A does not = A" you are wasting your time if you want to get to the bottom of anyone's positions. Why? Because "their philosophical beliefs =/= their philosophical beliefs." the truth is undiscoverable, and none of us exist. You're actually discussing philosophy with a chimera.

LOL, I'm WAY beyond help.

I disagree. No one is beyond help.

if you continue to believe that A always, eternally equals A, then you are artificially limiting yourself.

I do believe that the human mind requires the identity axiom, so if you were to show me an example of "A does not = A" it would be incomprehensible. But I also believe that you do not understand the identity axiom because you appear to have introduced the concept of change over time. If change over time is a characteristic of "A" then change over time is a characteristic of "A" and the identity axiom is true. If change over time is a necessary characteristic of "A" and you show me an occurrence of "A" that does not include this characteristic, you have not shown me an occurrence of "A". Otherwise our definition of "A" is altered, and the identity axiom is still true.

Is an agnostic viewpoint irrational?

not necessarily, however effective cross-examination is impossible without some assumptions.

Schrodinger's Cat: The cat is both alive and not alive, dead and not dead.  A != A,  A = ~A.

Now, it is true that we have much trouble comprehending Schrodinger's Cat.  But all evidence suggest it is what happened.  If the evidence doesn't suit the logic, it's the logics problem.

 

Now, like with most cases of quantum discoveries, the macro wolrd tends to act in a normal structured way.  And we can use the laws of logic for discussion.  But they are not physical laws, and it looks as if there are places where they are utterly inapplicable.

It was said for the sake of argument.  Would you reject the statement that the less you have to offer the more leverage the person you are dealing with has?

that depends on how you define leverage. Ultimate veto power over a transaction is a lot of leverage, and it is equal on both sides.

But if you think the ability to either accept someone else's terms, or die is a "choice" ... I really have nothing to say.  I can't respond to that.  It's how you see it, and I don't.

first of all, if I point a gun at you and give you a choice between accepting my terms and death, you have the opportunity to make a meaningful choice. Whatever mental gymnastics you are able to use to define "choice" to exclude this distasteful scenario should be laid out for all to see. "its just the way I see it" is a cop-out.

Furthermore, your use of the term "death" is unclear and nondescriptive, implying that accepting "someone elses terms" would achieve eternal life. Can you please provide a more clearly defined scenario so we can see exactly what choices you are displeased with?

Let us suppose you are a slave trader and and Peter/Paul are abolitionists, then re-examine your analogy.  You may counter that slavery is anti-free market.  But how do you propose to stop people from voluntarily selling themselves into slavery, and at one time people were considered a valid form of property.

peter and paul have no business interfering with my business beyond their efforts to make sure that the contracts between myself and the slaves adhere to all libertarian requirements, meaning in this case the contract must contain an escape clause among other things. Peter/Paul would have talk to the slaves in question, and if the slaves thought it was a good arrangement, and so did I, would you support the Peter/Paul army in their efforts to liberate my employees from their jobs? How would this be different from, say, discovering that Peter's wife liked being spanked and so charging Peter with domestic abuse?

again I apologize for the multiple posts. I may decide to go back to formatting my posts in a seperate word processor because of this crap.

I wasn't mocking you buddy

well then I apologize for the assumption of hostility.

People tend to buy from people who they believe will act in their best interest. This is ideological and practical. So businesses have an incentive to offer benefits to specific groups and an incentive to socialize the cost.

people have an incentive to buy from people who provide the products they want. They have a secondary incentive to support people who act in ways that benefit them and have similar ideology. But because they are conducting an exchange, they must prioritize their purchases. This incentive is absent in democratic elections because one vote that goes away whether you use it or not is not scarce in the same way that valued commodities are scarce. Additionally, socialization of costs requires force, fraud, or consent among the entire group who bears the costs. This is why in a free society, businesses cannot socialize costs among the population at large.

This means plans that rob everyone in subtle and insidious ways, and redistribute the wealth to specific groups of people.

given the above dismissal of involuntary socialization in a free society, how do you justify this statement?

The reason people need these things is because they dont have anything.

that is the result of your programs that reward need and punish production. Please explain to me how a class of people who dont have anything would come to arise if no one trained them to believe that they didnt need to produce anything.

So they expropriate themselves wealth, the politicians reappropriate it from them for the benefit of those with more political clout, and then the beneficiaries consume the wealth. The profits still end up in the hands of the production class (after the state takes healthy portions at every stage) and then the poor, who are desparetely crying for handouts. Now they have kids, because when they should have been building for the future they were eating and trying to eek out a meager living.

I agree with all of this, which is why I question your desire for such a system.

Schrodinger's Cat: The cat is both alive and not alive, dead and not dead.  A != A,  A = ~A. Now, it is true that we have much trouble comprehending Schrodinger's Cat.  But all evidence suggest it is what happened.  If the evidence doesn't suit the logic, it's the logics problem.

when did this happen and what evidence do you have?

Now, like with most cases of quantum discoveries, the macro wolrd tends to act in a normal structured way.  And we can use the laws of logic for discussion.  But they are not physical laws, and it looks as if there are places where they are utterly inapplicable.

are you now claiming that some of those places are philosophy, political economy, and human behavior?

Malachi,

Firstly, let me appologize for repeatedly mistyping your handle.  I just realized it wasn't "Malachai".

Second, I would generally agree with your last two posts.  My willingness to accept and then later reject suppositions probably does seem like a deception, or a specious argument.  I also now understand why people could construe this a "troll-like" behavior, because it is essentially what trolls do.  I will say that the goal is different though.  Whereas trolls just want to get people frothing, that is merely a side effect of my methodology of understanding.  I use these forums as a sounding board in order to better understand my ideas, and work through my own confusions and questions.

As for the "dihonesty" involved in this method, I will defer to ol' Max,

"All things are nothing to me" - Stirner

When you are master of the "spooks" in your brain, when you realize how ultimately absurd your pet theories are, then you are free to pick them up or put them down at will.

Also, much of the time I'm working off of the assertions of others as they arise in the discussion.  "Going along" if you will, to see where their deductions lead.  I don't think that necessarily means I am "buying into" them.

 

The alternative is to hand everything over to the wealthy for decisions.

This doesnt seem "real" to me, at what point in a free society do I "hand everything over" to anybody?

Large swaths of people will have nil to offer but their labor.

Large swaths of people have little besides their labor RIGHT NOW. how does incentivizing need and disincentivizing production solve this?

 Even if a small percentage of them will be industrious and/or lucky enough to pull themselves out of that over time...

Why do you assume that it would be small percentage? With all those people directing their efforts towards production of goods, there ought to be plenty of goods. Of course if you rob other people so you can compensate them for their idleness, then only a small percentage of people would be self-motivated enough to break free from the system. Then they would become part of "the wealthy" and subject to your disincentives. So why would they do this when they can remain where they are and get stuff for free?

even if both parties benefit in some way (one a little, one a hell of a lot); this does not, imo, justify the inherent inequality of oppurtunity imposed on society by the private property system; the very cause of that large disparity in benefit.

you propose to exchange the opportunity to build your wealth through peaceful, voluntary action for the opportunity to sit around on subsidized idleness until someone else builds a decent pile of wealth, and then seize that wealth by force. How is your opportunity morally superior to mine?