Human Rights

[Imari]

If you think I'm jumping around by talking about the damage incurred by infringing someone's property rights, I apologize. I'm only using it to help explain the concept of claiming unowned property.

It'll be interesting to see why you'd need the concept of infringement to explain the concept of owning property. You need to own it first in order to have infringement occur.

All of the above confers ownership assuming that you had to actually lift or move both the red and green block when you placed one on the other. If you left the red block right where you found it and just put a green block on it, you own the green block and not the red block - because you transformed the green block and not the red block.

You've switched colours, but OK. I suspected that would be your answer. I'd also be fine with the idea that simply picking something up and moving it isn't transformative of the object and therefore doesn't constitute an ownership claim at all.

The difference between that and number 1 is that by bonding them with a weak adhesive you made a new object (however tenuous that object is) and the new object belongs to you.

OK. So by your philosophy any tenuous connection renders something a single object.

I think this goes further than you wish it to. Everything on Earth is being affected in some small way by , at the very least, the entire rest of the galaxy as it's all subject to gravity from each other and the core. If it's all interconnected, it's all a single object. If everything is a single object, there can be no divided ownership of one part or another.

That's a consistent theory of ownership, but a trivial one. It has no practical value (which is the entire point of a philosophy of ownership).

I think you may want to consider a different way of defining the limits of an object than any tenuous connection.

If you're walking through the woods and find a red block (as they occur naturally in nature, not as composed by man), and you pick it up, you have now inseparably mixed labor with the block.

Interesting. Moving an object makes an object that is a combination of the old plus motion. I don't agree, but let's see where this idea goes.

The Earth is constantly in rotation on it's axis. And rotating around the sun. And the solar system is rotating around the galaxy. So everything is constantly in motion, from some point of view as there's no absolute reference from which to judge.

So if motion makes a different object which is the original object combined with the added motion, anything you might make through adding motion to it is immediately further modified by all the complex motions that are natural to the original object. A pen floating through space is constantly changing to new objects at every instant as it moves.

Yes, someone could point a gun at you and tell you to put it back, but all they would be doing is destroying what you had made, which was a block which had been transported to a new point in space via your labor.

This idea that one can destroy labour is false. Your labour occured and always has occured. There is a difference between a block that has been picked up and put down and one that has never been moved at all.

The analogy to this with the clay pot is that someone could smash your clay pot into little bits and perform various processes on it to separate the molecules in it and recombine them back into the mixture that they were originally found.

No, they can't. Firstly, the chemistry doesn't exist to do that. But let's assume that it does. Then you have to round up any chemicals that may have been expelled during the manufacture process and somehow reconstitute them. I suspect that you'll pretty quickly run into problems with quantum knowability in order to do so for any object of non-trivial size.

You could break it down and combine it with other similar molecules to form chemically identical raw materials, but they would not be the same raw materials. This block of carbon is not the same as that block of carbon, despite them being chemically identical.

But let's say that we have god-like powers and can violate what appear to be fundamental laws of physics and literally gather up all the specific atoms and molecules in the process and place them back how they were before the object was made. You had to put a massive amount of work into doing that. You end up in the same state as above, where an object that has been moved and returned to the same place is distinct from an object that has never been moved at all. A set of raw materials that have been made into an object and returned to their original state is not the same as raw materials that have never been used at all.

History does not go away. You cannot destroy labour, you can only add more labour to change the state of something again.

The ability to destroy what someone has created has nothing to do with it.

I'm trying to get you to realise that the ability to destroy labour does not exist. It's impossible. Tell me how you destroy me writing this post.

What matters is that they have created something, and we have no way of going back in time and preventing that - removing their labor from the resources they combined it with.

Correct. So why are you talking yourself in circles? You say this, but you've referenced destroying labour several times in the last couple of posts.

Ask yourself this: can you destroy labour?

Not the point I was trying to make. If you go build something on land that I spent a lot of time developing plans for, you've destroyed (devalued completely) my product. It doesn't even matter whether it was worth anything to anyone else, it was worth something to me, and now it's not.

So? Devaluing something is not the same as destroying it. You're enough of a logician to know that. Be it an object or an idea, it still exists.

Same thing with the clay pot, if you destroy it (render it worthless, render it valueless, render it purposeless, whatever) it doesn't matter whether the pot was worth anything to anyone else, it was worth something to me. You've destroyed my labor.

Just stop it, please. At best I've destroyed an object into which you've put labour. I haven't destroyed your labour. We have established systems for dealing with theft and destruction of property, and as I've said before they're beyond the scope of this discussion. They only come into play if you have ownership of something.

If you go bake a bunch of apple pies, my labor might be worth less in the marketplace, but you haven't forcibly destroyed what I made.

By your logic I have. Your pie is worthless. But I haven't destroyed it, you still have a pie. Just as you still have a design for a house.

Which is it?

The design is for something to be built in this case, and let's pretend for a moment that it is specific to the particular plot of land. There's a hill, let's say, and I've put 20 homes along the hill so that they don't interfere with one another and placed a road such that drainage will function properly etc. etc.... a design that would be essentially garbage for any other plot of land. That design is labor, and it is inseparably mixed with that parcel of land. It is no different than any other type of labor with that resource.

It's labour, yes. It's not inseparably mixed with that parcel of land. Just because the value is limited or zero without ownership of that particular piece of land means nothing. Value comes after ownership.

You're not entitled to ownership of object A because you already own object B and it would make object B more valuable if you owned both.

Let's back up... why can you own anything? Why can I own the clay pot?

Because it's a useful concept for resolving disputes over physical and intellectual objects in a fair and consistent manner. Why else would we have ownership?

You don't go far enough to see it here:

There's no reason to take self-ownership as an axiom.

*facepalm*

That's why it's an axiom.

Come on, man! You're smarter than this. I know you know how this stuff works! If you want to have a conversation, don't jerk me around.

You can't just assume that you own your body.

See above. I called it an axiom. Quit being a jerk.

The reason you can own something is because you have worked to produce it and taking it from you is the forcible deprivation of the results of that labor. So whatever constitutes an initiation of force is what I'm constantly looking for in these examples.

Yes, but I think you interpret the results of the labour with a great deal of inconsistency.

Getting back to the intellectual property example, if the land is not owned by anyone, and you labor to produce plans for it, if someone else takes that land, they're destroying your plans, the results of your labor.

No, they are not. Whether or not the land exists, the plans continue to exist. I can make plans for an imaginary piece of land on an imaginary planet, and I can own those just fine.

If you say that's calling dibs, I'm fine with that. We're talking about resources that just exist... nobody owns them.

The point is that again it devolves into a trivial system. If all you have to do is think "I own that", then that's a useless system. If it cannot be objectively determined who owns something by people following the same logical rules, then that's not a functional philosophy of ownership.

Everything can be forcibly separated. The point is whether you have destroyed someone's creation by separating it. That is what I mean by inseparable... inseparable without the initiation of force.

I think you may need to define force here as well, as I'm hesitant to assume that it means to you what it means to me.

You created it at a particular location, presumably upright in a piece of land. Moving it does destroy that particular combination of matter.

That particular combination of matter was destroyed long ago, as the sun, the moon, and all the stars have moved a lot. The way you define an object, there's no way for any object to exist for more than an instant.


But let's use a more traditional idea of an object to analyse this. Here is probably the best expression of your idea that adding labour to something destroys it. You're adding the labour of moving something to an established object. You claim that moving it destroys it.

Any labour that would cause ownership is by definition transformative, and therefore also destructive.

That's kinda my point. Laboring with natural resources produces something and the fact that it did is immutable. If you destroy it now, you're forcefully destroying that labor. If you could keep your destruction limited to the original unowned natural resources without affecting what I created with my labor (such as the crane example) then you're not initiating force against me.

Please stop. Please?

Labour cannot be destroyed. It is intangible.
Objects can be destroyed. They are tangible.
Ideas cannot be destroyed. They are intangible.

That's how destroying works. If your idea of destruction works differently, you'll have to define that for me too.

I don't find it any different.

But you do. You're making different rules to go with land. You have this idea that you're entitled to it if it enhances the value of something that you've created, which you don't have with "traditional" objects.

As I asked and you chose not to reply to, does designing a table grant me ownership of unowned raw materials to create that table?

If I simply say "Mars is mine", I have not created something that must be destroyed for someone else to have Mars.

Sure you have. You've created the idea that you own Mars, and if someone else were to take ownership then that would negate your ownership.

See how silly it gets?

But if I say mars is mine and draw a sketch that involves developing every portion of mars, then I have a claim to it.

Does it have to be a physical sketch or can you have just designed it in your head?

But let's say someone else showed up on mars and built a house. I take them to court based on my sketch (which I spent 2 hours on). The court looks at my sketch (which was dated) and realizes that I actually had a legitimate claim to the spot where the house was built. The court then instead of ordering the people who built the house to tear it down and give me my land back (which would be far more valuable than my sketch) orders the house-builders to pay me off for my lost value. They estimate the value of the sketch at $40.

Woah, woah, woah. Why are they compensating you for the sketch?

The people stole your land which you (according to your philosophy) have a legitimate claim to. Why are you not being compensated for the value of the land? Why are you compensated for whichever of the two has the lesser value?

Here's another way it could go. The court looks at my sketch (which was dated) and realizes that I actually had a legitimate claim to the spot where the house was built. However, since i made no effort to inform others of that right, the court decides, based on a purely pragmatic convention to facilitate the market, that I should be paid $0. There is no way the other people could have known that I had any claim to the property. This is fairly analogous to trademark in the US.

But this isn't part of your philosophy, nor is it consistent with it. This is simply an example of how governments sometimes ignore moral codes for various reasons. It has nothing to do with your philosophy.

==========

I'd suggest that for a non-trivial and logically consistent philosophy of ownership you need to address a few things:
1. Define the limits of what constitutes an object in a fashion that subdivides the universe in a more granular fashion than "it's all one big thing".
2. Address the claim that objects are constantly destroyed and recreated with any infinitesimal movement.
3. Address that labour is intangible and cannot be destroyed.
4. Address that the history of objects is what makes them unique.
5. Address that value is not a pre-requisite to ownership.
6. Address the distinction between devaluation and destruction.
7. Define "force" in the sense of "forcefully separating objects".
8. Address the claim that ownership of an idea entitles you to the objects to create the physical embodiment of that idea.

 

[nobuffalo]

When it comes to unowned resources, your property rights extend to that with which you have tied to your labor. So putting a fence around something, for example, can stake a claim.

If you want a subsurface claim, you need to mix your labor with the subsurface as far as you want the claim. If someone comes in sideways underneath of you without disturbing your property, that's their prerogative.

But wouldn't that only stake a claim on the land your fence is on and not necessarily around? And how do you define labor? I have tons of questions but I guess I should just ask if you could point me to some literature on the subject.

Yes, it would be a problem if someone tunneled under your fence and popped up in the middle of the fenced-in area. That's a risk you could take, or you could plant some stuff (or alter things) inside the fenced-in area and then that's not a problem.

This is where @Danoff lost me about 4 years ago on the whole property rights thing. I didn't carry on the discussion because I don't tend to get too involved in these things on the forum but also because I had an idea of where it was going. Now that it's being expanded on it's coming off as unrealistic or illogical as I thought it might be. This isn't the first time I've seen him use the concept of devaluing labor but the whole tying intellectual labor to land is a whole new one and if I'm to be honest comes off quite silly. I have a number of questions but for now I'll just sit back and see where the discussion goes.

 

[Danoff]

Why isn't labour force?

ie: the initiation of force against another entity capable of understanding at least some of the logical consequences of that initiation.

It's easier to say force.

It'll be interesting to see why you'd need the concept of infringement to explain the concept of owning property. You need to own it first in order to have infringement occur.

I didn't say I did. I said I thought it would help you understand. If you don't find it helpful, that's fine, just says so.

OK. So by your philosophy any tenuous connection renders something a single object.

I think this goes further than you wish it to. Everything on Earth is being affected in some small way by , at the very least, the entire rest of the galaxy as it's all subject to gravity from each other and the core. If it's all interconnected, it's all a single object. If everything is a single object, there can be no divided ownership of one part or another.

That's a consistent theory of ownership, but a trivial one. It has no practical value (which is the entire point of a philosophy of ownership).

I think you may want to consider a different way of defining the limits of an object than any tenuous connection.
...
The Earth is constantly in rotation on it's axis. And rotating around the sun. And the solar system is rotating around the galaxy. So everything is constantly in motion, from some point of view as there's no absolute reference from which to judge.

So if motion makes a different object which is the original object combined with the added motion, anything you might make through adding motion to it is immediately further modified by all the complex motions that are natural to the original object. A pen floating through space is constantly changing to new objects at every instant as it moves.

Ok, honest question here. Are you actually trying to understand me or are you just trying to attack? Because this looks like it's willfully ignoring an obvious distinction - which is that an entity capable of observing the rights of others (at least some of the logical consequences of action) is what created the combination of matter.

If a rain cloud creates it, then the rain cloud could own it if it were able to behave in a way which is consistent with rights... but it is not.

This idea that one can destroy labour is false. Your labour occured and always has occured.

Just stop it, please. At best I've destroyed an object into which you've put labour. I haven't destroyed your labour. We have established systems for dealing with theft and destruction of property, and as I've said before they're beyond the scope of this discussion. They only come into play if you have ownership of something.

Ask yourself this: can you destroy labour?

I'm trying to get you to realise that the ability to destroy labour does not exist. It's impossible. Tell me how you destroy me writing this post.

Correct. So why are you talking yourself in circles? You say this, but you've referenced destroying labour several times in the last couple of posts.

Please stop. Please?

Labour cannot be destroyed. It is intangible.
Objects can be destroyed. They are tangible.
Ideas cannot be destroyed. They are intangible.

3. Address that labour is intangible and cannot be destroyed.

Destroying the product of that labor. Destroying the fruits of that labor. Destroying my utility, value, enjoyment, possession, etc. of that labor. Again, I'm wondering if you're actually trying to understand me or just looking for ways to disagree. I think I made it clear enough before that I did not believe in time travel and the ability to go back and prevent someone from laboring. Words are tools to convey thoughts. If you think the thought I'm trying to convey is impossible based on your interpretation of the words, look for an alternative understanding from the words.

No, they can't. Firstly, the chemistry doesn't exist to do that. But let's assume that it does. Then you have to round up any chemicals that may have been expelled during the manufacture process and somehow reconstitute them. I suspect that you'll pretty quickly run into problems with quantum knowability in order to do so for any object of non-trivial size.

You could break it down and combine it with other similar molecules to form chemically identical raw materials, but they would not be the same raw materials. This block of carbon is not the same as that block of carbon, despite them being chemically identical.

But let's say that we have god-like powers and can violate what appear to be fundamental laws of physics and literally gather up all the specific atoms and molecules in the process and place them back how they were before the object was made.

This is selective rigor. You don't apply a quantum-physics level of perfection to your own flag pole example, you're only bringing it up here because you think it's useful to you in this example (it isn't). I'm not interested so much in what we currently have the technology to do as I am interested in the abstract concepts. The sophistication of the manufacturing process of the clay pot determines how difficult it is to reduce back to raw materials. Certainly some processes would be far easier to accomplish this than others.

You had to put a massive amount of work into doing that. You end up in the same state as above, where an object that has been moved and returned to the same place is distinct from an object that has never been moved at all. A set of raw materials that have been made into an object and returned to their original state is not the same as raw materials that have never been used at all.

History does not go away. You cannot destroy labour, you can only add more labour to change the state of something again.

You're making my own argument for me, which I'll take as progress. It is my point that reducing something back to raw materials is different from those raw materials never having been reconfigured in the interim.

So? Devaluing something is not the same as destroying it. You're enough of a logician to know that. Be it an object or an idea, it still exists.

Why does any biological creature make anything?

By your logic I have. Your pie is worthless. But I haven't destroyed it, you still have a pie. Just as you still have a design for a house.

The resulting pie is not "the pie along with the rest of the universe as it was when I made the pie". What you have created is a pie. With the plans, you have combined intellectual labor with raw materials (the land). The intellectual labor does not stand on its own. It is not its own thing, it depends upon the land. It is fundamentally no different than working the land physically - or the clay pot. The pot is not its own thing, it depends on the earth within it. You have combined three things by making the pot, intellectual labor, physical labor, and earth. The fact that it is easier to forcibly separate the resulting combination in one instance versus another is not meaningful.

You're not entitled to ownership of object A because you already own object B and it would make object B more valuable if you owned both.

I agree.

Because it's a useful concept for resolving disputes over physical and intellectual objects in a fair and consistent manner. Why else would we have ownership?

Because not recognizing ownership is the initiation of force against another person... and before you start looking for ways to attack here... no I do not mean that a thought or lack of a thought is the initiation of force. See if you can understand my meaning.

*facepalm*

That's why it's an axiom.

Come on, man! You're smarter than this. I know you know how this stuff works! If you want to have a conversation, don't jerk me around.

See above. I called it an axiom. Quit being a jerk.

I'm not willing to take it as an assumption... and don't call me a jerk.

If all you have to do is think "I own that", then that's a useless system. If it cannot be objectively determined who owns something by people following the same logical rules, then that's not a functional philosophy of ownership.

Are we still talking about unowned resources here? And are we talking about practical implementation or philosophical fundamentals?

I think you may need to define force here as well, as I'm hesitant to assume that it means to you what it means to me.

I think you're just looking for ways to argue. I'm losing trust in my conversation partner.

That particular combination of matter was destroyed long ago, as the sun, the moon, and all the stars have moved a lot. The way you define an object, there's no way for any object to exist for more than an instant.

Irrelevant. I addressed this above.

But you do.

No.

You're making different rules to go with land.

No.

You have this idea that you're entitled to it if it enhances the value of something that you've created, which you don't have with "traditional" objects.

No.

As I asked and you chose not to reply to, does designing a table grant me ownership of unowned raw materials to create that table?

If your design is specific to specific unowned materials, yes. I thought you'd be able to figure out my answer and so it didn't need a reply.

Sure you have. You've created the idea that you own Mars, and if someone else were to take ownership then that would negate your ownership.

The idea that you own mars is not inseparable from Mars. You'd need to have an idea for how to use mars, how to reconfigure mars, something that is actually denied when mars itself is not available.

Does it have to be a physical sketch or can you have just designed it in your head?

In your head is fine (philosophically speaking).

Woah, woah, woah. Why are they compensating you for the sketch?

Stolen property.

The people stole your land which you (according to your philosophy) have a legitimate claim to. Why are you not being compensated for the value of the land?

What is the value of that land?

Why are you compensated for whichever of the two has the lesser value?

I thought you didn't want to talk about damages? I'm willing to, but you've hated that discussion thus far.

But this isn't part of your philosophy, nor is it consistent with it. This is simply an example of how governments sometimes ignore moral codes for various reasons. It has nothing to do with your philosophy.

I'm recognizing implementation.

I'd suggest that for a non-trivial and logically consistent philosophy of ownership you need to address a few things:
1. Define the limits of what constitutes an object in a fashion that subdivides the universe in a more granular fashion than "it's all one big thing".

Human beings (entity capable of observing the rights of others (at least some of the logical consequences of action)) recombining particular matter, and that which can actually be shown to have an effect. If you claim to have been the victim of force, you'd need to actually be able to demonstrate it.

2. Address the claim that objects are constantly destroyed and recreated with any infinitesimal movement.

See above.

4. Address that the history of objects is what makes them unique.

It's not.

5. Address that value is not a pre-requisite to ownership.

It is. (oh! bombshell!)

If something has no value (to anyone), and I take it from you, what has been done to you? You might say force was used against you, but... where is the effect? You could be compensated with nothing and receive the value back.

6. Address the distinction between devaluation and destruction.

I'm not sure there's any distinction I want to draw. Do you? Rendering something valueless (to anyone) is destruction.

7. Define "force" in the sense of "forcefully separating objects".

Why?

8. Address the claim that ownership of an idea entitles you to the objects to create the physical embodiment of that idea.

Only if they're inseparably mixed.


Ok, I really need to address this. You seem to be an unwilling partner in this discussion. I have no interest in discourse with someone who genuinely does not want to understand. I really do enjoy talking about this stuff, but I don't enjoy talking with someone who actively works against the discussion. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy for you to be critical. But I know that you're capable of understanding what I'm saying. Some of the arguments above make it look like you're simply unwilling to, and that doesn't interest me. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[nobuffalo]

I wonder what happens when nature destroys, relocates, or makes inaccessible land that is under ownership. A volcano covers your land with lava, or perhaps high flowing waters erode and displace your claimed land. Is this "new land" created by the lava up for grabs? Did your land just move a couple miles down the river landing on someone else's land? Is it still yours and can someone claim the land in the newly eroded area?

 

[Danoff]

I wonder what happens when nature destroys, relocates, or makes inaccessible land that is under ownership. A volcano covers your land with lava, or perhaps high flowing waters erode and displace your claimed land. Is this "new land" created by the lava up for grabs? Did your land just move a couple miles down the river landing on someone else's land? Is it still yours and can someone claim the land in the newly eroded area?

Try to rephrase it for yourself in a way that makes it less confusing.

What happens when lava eats part of your car. Is it still your car? Yes. Is the lava yours? Yes.

What if your car floats down the river and ends up on someone's car. Is it still your car? Yes. Is their car yours? No. Are you responsible for the damage caused by your car floating down the river? Yes.

Ok, now let's take it to absurdity the other direction. You breathe out a molecule of carbon dioxide which your body labored to produce and you claim is your property. The carbon dioxide floats down the way and ends up in your neighbor's lungs. They want to sue you for polluting their property, but cannot show damages, so you owe them nothing. You want to sue them for stealing your carbon dioxide, but cannot show damages, so they owe you nothing.

 

[TenEightyOne]

ie: the initiation of force against another entity capable of understanding at least some of the logical consequences of that initiation.

It's easier to say force.

So it requires another person (a practical interpretation of 'entity' in this context, I think) who understands a system in which that force is applied?

 

[Danoff]

So it requires another person (a practical interpretation of 'entity' in this context, I think) who understands a system in which that force is applied?

A rock is perfectly willing to fall off of a cliff and crush you. It will have no qualms about exerting a force against you if the opportunity places it in a position to do so... in fact, it makes no choices about the matter at all. Same goes for gravity. So if you crush the rock, you're playing (at least) the rock's game.

When I say force in regard to humans interacting with one other, it's usually shorthand for the initiation of force against another entity capable of understanding at least some of the logical consequences of that initiation. A human without a brain is not what I'm talking about, that might as well be a rock.

 

[Danoff]

Do some research and tell me about the evil parts in marx's theories

Here you go: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

That is straight up evil. It advocates the initiation of force against the innocent.

 

[Lizard]

Here you go: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

That is straight up evil. It advocates the initiation of force against the innocent.

I have never been more confused by an interpretation of a writing in my life good sir.

 

[PocketZeven]

Here you go: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

That is straight up evil. It advocates the initiation of force against the innocent.

Even when i translate I dont see any evil part in that text. This discussion is more relevant to american politics though then human rights?!?!

 

[Danoff]

I have never been more confused by an interpretation of a writing in my life good sir.

Even when i translate I dont see any evil part in that text. This discussion is more relevant to american politics though then human rights?!?!

Property rights are a natural consequence of human rights. Your property belongs to you. Advocating that it should be provided to someone according to their need is advocating force, unless for some bizarre reason you think everyone will just magically agree to give up their property voluntarily (they won't). That makes it evil.

 

[PocketZeven]

Property rights are a natural consequence of human rights. Your property belongs to you. Advocating that it should be provided to someone according to their need is advocating force, unless for some bizarre reason you think everyone will just magically agree to give up their property voluntarily (they won't). That makes it evil.

I still cant read anything about property in the quote. Class struggle does not neccesarily mean violence. But Marx did disapprove of private property and you can argue about it all you want. But that inherently is not evil. In his ideal society everything is shared so that property is not neccesary. Like a monk in a monestary one doesnt have earthly possessions.

His ideas were an utopia like perhaps heaven were everyting is shared. But like heaven it doesnt exist and there are to many greedy people to make it work in reality. There are exceptions like small communities and tribes, but it is impossible on a larger scale.

 

[Danoff]

I still cant read anything about property in the quote. Class struggle does not neccesarily mean violence. But Marx did disapprove of private property and you can argue about it all you want. But that inherently is not evil. In his ideal society everything is shared so that property is not neccesary. Like a monk in a monestary one doesnt have earthly possessions.

His ideas were an utopia like perhaps heaven were everyting is shared. But like heaven it doesnt exist and there are to many greedy people to make it work in reality. There are exceptions like small communities and tribes, but it is impossible on a larger scale.

Yes, it is evil to completely disregard human rights (and that's a subjective statement according to my own understanding of good and evil). And make no mistake, you have to disregard human rights (pretty much altogether) to ignore property. Marx tries to get around that by trampling human rights in another respect - entitling people to property produced from the labor of others (slavery).

It's pretty laughable, but yes, the solution to trampling people's property rights is institutionalized slavery. Great... also super evil.

 

[PocketZeven]

Yes, it is evil to completely disregard human rights (and that's a subjective statement according to my own understanding of good and evil). And make no mistake, you have to disregard human rights (pretty much altogether) to ignore property. Marx tries to get around that by trampling human rights in another respect - entitling people to property produced from the labor of others (slavery).

It's pretty laughable, but yes, the solution to trampling people's property rights is institutionalized slavery. Great... also super evil.

You are not putting it in context, but im glad you are adding the fact it is subjective. A monk has no property, does that mean the monastary is evil? See it as a failed theory that people can live in a utopia and each have a chore to contribute to everyone and everyone shares all. It is almost impossible but certainly not inherently evil.

 

[Danoff]

A monk has no property, does that mean the monastary is evil?

If the monk chooses not to have property, it's not evil. If the monk is FORCED not to have property, it is. If the monk chooses to be a monk, and that choice includes giving up property, that is not force.

 

[Famine]

there are to many greedy people to make it work in reality

Why is it greed to wish to sell your labour for what you value it and retain the products rather than give them to people who do not want to labour?


The key here is understanding what "from" and "to" mean, who or what exactly defines "ability" and "needs", and what mechanisms they employ to ensure that it happens.

 

[Joey D]

There are exceptions like small communities and tribes, but it is impossible on a larger scale.

Marxism can't work in tribes. In an anthropological sense, tribes have social classes to some degree. Going one step up to Chiefdoms, it's very much a system built on social class.

You could argue that hunter-gathers could be a Marxist group, but I don't think there's ever been real research on that. Pretty much every source on the subject comes from Marxist anthropologists who look at it with rose colored glasses. But even then, there's some sort of ownership in hunter-gather bands. Even if personal ownership is rather sparse, people still "own" things like horses. They also own things like tools and weapons they created from materials found in nature.

Probably the last true Marxist society was thousands of years ago with primitive humans who were still very much in their infancy of being a species. But since we really can't study that, it's hard to say.

 

[PocketZeven]

Why is it greed to wish to sell your labour for what you value it and retain the products rather than give them to people who do not want to labour?


The key here is understanding what "from" and "to" mean, who or what exactly defines "ability" and "needs", and what mechanisms they employ to ensure that it happens.

That is the enherent fault in marxism and capitalism. There is a fine line between sell labour/ greed / exploitation. People are lazy, greedy and some are just evil. Any utopian concept of capitalism, , marxism, socialism, communism etc. will fail without oversight or regulations. The essence of marx's theory that capitalism will eventually fail. But on that note, so will pure marxism.

Marxism can't work in tribes. In an anthropological sense, tribes have social classes to some degree. Going one step up to Chiefdoms, it's very much a system built on social class.

You could argue that hunter-gathers could be a Marxist group, but I don't think there's ever been real research on that. Pretty much every source on the subject comes from Marxist anthropologists who look at it with rose colored glasses. But even then, there's some sort of ownership in hunter-gather bands. Even if personal ownership is rather sparse, people still "own" things like horses. They also own things like tools and weapons they created from materials found in nature.

Probably the last true Marxist society was thousands of years ago with primitive humans who were still very much in their infancy of being a species. But since we really can't study that, it's hard to say.

That "ownership" is coupled to the specific roles they were given. But in some examples these horses were property of the tribes. Like someone in the millitary is given a vehicle or weapon. People who did not follow the rules were banished or punished severely. The "ownership" of these tools would pass to another to take over.

I am not a marxist at all, I am just arguing that marxism in itself is not evil. It just doesnt take in acount for "flawed" people. I think the best way to use the best ideas of each system. I think scandinavian "nordic model" is an example of that. It has its flaws, but it is something to strive for. It just seems that in the US a lot of people they think socialism=communism=marxism=Totaliarism. Which just isnt accurate.

 

[Danoff]

That is the enherent fault in marxism and capitalism. There is a fine line between sell labour/ greed / exploitation. People are lazy, greedy and some are just evil. Any utopian concept of capitalism, , marxism, socialism, communism etc. will fail without oversight or regulations.

I think you're confusing capitalism with anarcho-capitalism. Capitalism doesn't attempt to protect people from force. It's just a description of the natural organization of trade between people in the absence of force. When you say something like "any utopian concept of capitalism... will fail without oversight or regulations", it sounds to me as though you said "any utopian concept of free trade will fail when the trade is not free". That's not really "failing" so much as it is simply not existing. Capitalism doesn't exist in the presence of force. And it's not a "utopian" concept, it's just a description of the behavior of people under certain conditions (absence of force).

That "ownership" is coupled to the specific roles they were given. But in some examples these horses were property of the tribes. Like someone in the millitary is given a vehicle or weapon. People who did not follow the rules were banished or punished severely. The "ownership" of these tools would pass to another to take over.

Someone in the military does not own the vehicle or weapon. And that's not just because it's the property of the government. That's because they didn't labor to obtain it. If someone finds a horse in the wild, tames it, trains it, and the tribe claims it as their own - that's the initiation of force against an innocent person (and it is evil).

Bottom line, property ownership has to be allowed.

 

[PocketZeven]

I think you're confusing capitalism with anarcho-capitalism. Capitalism doesn't attempt to protect people from force. It's just a description of the natural organization of trade between people in the absence of force. When you say something like "any utopian concept of capitalism... will fail without oversight or regulations", it sounds to me as though you said "any utopian concept of free trade will fail when the trade is not free". That's not really "failing" so much as it is simply not existing. Capitalism doesn't exist in the presence of force. And it's not a "utopian" concept, it's just a description of the behavior of people under certain conditions (absence of force).





Someone in the military does not own the vehicle or weapon. And that's not just because it's the property of the government. That's because they didn't labor to obtain it. If someone finds a horse in the wild, tames it, trains it, and the tribe claims it as their own - that's the initiation of force against an innocent person (and it is evil).

Bottom line, property ownership has to be allowed.

You are describing my point free trade will lead to exploitation. The usa is a prime example, if not for the republicans the USA would still have slavery and be the richest nation of all time. Exactly like why communism is a failed concept. China eventually adopted its own form of capitalism.

I notice you always go back to the concept of labour to obtain ownership of property. It is perhaps too difficult to grasp labor without reward for you. Yet it exists even in modern time. Taking care of your kids, parents, helping family friends there is no reward in the form of ownership or something of value (sentimental doesnt count). And that is not evil. Buying a pet I do not consider evil. Someone claims ownership over an innocent animal with force.

I agree property should be allowed, but I am arguing to my point that some form of marxism with capitalism like democratic socialism is not evil (or partly evil). Have you ever explored the "nordic model"?

 

[Danoff]

You are describing my point free trade will lead to exploitation.

No, exploitation will be attempted by humanity. That's it! No need to talk about free trade or any other system. Some people will try to exploit any system.

I notice you always go back to the concept of labour to obtain ownership of property. It is perhaps too difficult to grasp labor without reward for you.

I think I gave an example of the monk where that would happen.

Yet it exists even in modern time. Taking care of your kids, parents, helping family friends there is no reward in the form of ownership or something of value (sentimental doesnt count). And that is not evil.

Voluntary vs. Force

Buying a pet I do not consider evil. Someone claims ownership over an innocent animal with force.

The animal is incapable of observing the rights of others.

I agree property should be allowed, but I am arguing to my point that some form of marxism with capitalism like democratic socialism is not evil (or partly evil).

Denying property rights is evil. It is the initiation of force against innocent people.

Have you ever explored the "nordic model"?

You mean socialism?

 

[UKMikey]

By choosing to live in a society which supports the redistribution of wealth and income does that still mean that such redistribution is forced and therefore evil?

 

[Johnnypenso]

By choosing to live in a society which supports the redistribution of wealth and income does that still mean that such redistribution is forced and therefore evil?

Usually it's just makes you poor and hungry.

 

[Dotini]

Usually it's just makes you poor and hungry.

Although sometimes it forces you to yield up your beard, Koran and freedom.
https://news.sky.com/story/china-de...lim-uighurs-held-in-internment-camps-11471917

 

[Danoff]

By choosing to live in a society which supports the redistribution of wealth and income does that still mean that such redistribution is forced and therefore evil?

Yes - your society needs to be internally consistent with human rights. You can't rely on others nations to somehow give you legitimacy.

 

[UKMikey]

Yes - your society needs to be internally consistent with human rights. You can't rely on others nations to somehow give you legitimacy.

Okay - are there any western democracies which currently don't evilly enforce some kind of wealth/income distribution?

 

[Famine]

People are lazy, greedy and some are just evil.

That rather begs two questions. The first would be "Which are you then?". Your response will likely answer the second question without it even needing to be asked.

Not that you will, because you ignored the original question:

Why is it greed to wish to sell your labour for what you value it and retain the products rather than give them to people who do not want to labour?

And that aside, you ignore why my post answers your questions about @Danoff's response to the Marx quote. When you understand what "from" and "to" mean, who or what exactly defines "ability" and "needs", and what mechanisms they employ to ensure that it happens, you'll understand why that particular quote is a lot more sinister than the usual interpretation of "it's nice to share and help other people out".

But then that'd be all about the foundations again...

 

[Lizard]

I really shouldn't say this as quite frankly, I never like internet arguments, I prefer to speak but anyway.


Marx was calling for a revolution, what part of revolution says it's going to be really nice to those who he is suggesting we overthrow?

It is like saying the Americans were really cruel to the British when they took up arms for independence.

Plus don't put all of Marxism in with Marx. Remember that he said 'I for one can say that I am not a Marxist.' (May have paraphrased that as I can't remember the quote exact.)

 

[Danoff]

Okay - are there any western democracies which currently don't evilly enforce some kind of wealth/income distribution?

Every nation on the Earth violates human rights in some respect. Some more than others.

 

[Mr Tree]

@Danoff and/or @Famine if anything forced means it's evil and everything you are obliged to do is ultimatly forced then how do you justify taxes and if you don't how do you propose to govern a society?

I'm still trying to see where this goes when I start at the fundament of the argument and where you guys will lead it. I wonder because where it leads is also important to know what your position is and wheter in the end I agree or disagree and if I still disagree what would be my counterarguments.