Political theory

[EmpiricalTruth]

Property can be theft if viewed in a political concept but not when you have worked for 25 years to pay the mortgage.

thats self refuting. property cannot be theft. if you are pro property the existence of property is not theft. if you are anti property then theft doesnt exist.

this is something marx talked about when discussing prodhon (spelling)

 

[EmpiricalTruth]

This is not at all necessary. Everyone has a different 'ultimate goal', and happines, need not be among them.

everyones ultimate goal is to achieve happiness. every goal you have comes from the desire to have happiness. i bet you cant even think of a goal that an individual has that isnt stemmed from individual happiness.

 

[EmpiricalTruth]

So mixing your labor with something doesn't define your property?

Instead it takes a group of 4 people to tell you that what you did is not yours?

There may be concerns over natural resource appropriation, but not the right to the fruit of you labor.

Why do you think that the sweat off your brow isn't yours?

no, mixing labor with something is just that. mixing labor. it doesnt mean you own it. its a non sequitur to assume just because you mix labor with something that it is yours. its a leap in logic that has not been demonstrated.

if i take a stick from the forest and sharpen it to become a spear, its now a spear.
but theres nothing that truly says i own it. just that ive made it that way.

 

[Voluntary]

Thats my point. it is a concept. But its infinitely faulty. The only real basis of property ownership is that the government gives property rights. Property is an extension of the state because without the state one cannot rationalize how property exists. John Locke tried, he failed hard.

Locke believed that you own the sweat off your brow.

Property is an extension of your facilities. So, if you own yourself, then you own the product of your labor.

For example, a man walks into the woods. He makes an axe, builds a house, and tills the land, then he is creating something that is not yours.

We can argue on days on how to tax him and who "owns the land", but he created something that is his.

 

[angrybeaver]

thats self refuting. property cannot be theft. if you are pro property the existence of property is not theft. if you are anti property then theft doesnt exist.

this is something marx talked about when discussing prodhon (spelling)

You have lost me there.I thought that Marx said that all property was theft ..or was it all property ownership was theft...anyway,it aint!

 

[Voluntary]

if i take a stick from the forest and sharpen it to become a spear, its now a spear.
but theres nothing that truly says i own it. just that ive made it that way.

Actually there is. I watched you sharpen the stick. It is yours.

In fact, you only have a couple of options if I try to take your stick.

1. Defend it
2. Give it to me

 

[EmpiricalTruth]

You have lost me there.I thought that Marx said that all property was theft ..or was it all property ownership was theft...anyway,it aint!

if property ownership is theft then it implies someone owns it.

 

[Goobieman]

Thats my point. it is a concept.

You stated:

Government is the entity that defines what property is and enforces it.

If you agree that property is a concept and not a legal construct, then you must disagree with the above statement.
That is, you are contradicting yourself.

But its infinitely faulty.

Show this to be true.

The only real basis of property ownership is that the government gives property rights.

False. Rights can and do exist without any such grant from a government.
Property rights fall within these, as do many others.

Property is an extension of the state because without the state one cannot rationalize how property exists.

On the contrary -- as you agreed, propety is a concept, not a legal construct, and as such, there no necessary relationship betwen property and government.

 

[EmpiricalTruth]

Actually there is. I watched you sharpen the stick. It is yours.

In fact, you only have a couple of options if I try to take your stick.

1. Defend it
2. Give it to me

thats a leap in logic that has not been demonstrated. in other words, its a fallacy.
you watched me sharpen it. the stick is now sharp. there is no demonstratable logic that can justify ownership without irrational assumptions.

 

[Goobieman]

everyones ultimate goal is to achieve happiness.

You're simply restating your premise.
Doing so does nothing to counter the argument against said premise.

every goal you have comes from the desire to have happiness.

Show this to be true.

 

[AgentM]

False. Rights can and do exist without any such grant from a government. Property rights fall within these, as do many others.

A "right" only exists if more than one person makes an agreement that something is a "right" and agrees to honour it.

 

[angrybeaver]

if property ownership is theft then it implies someone owns it.

I always knew that Marx was stupid:mrgreen:
Harpo was ok though!

 

[Voluntary]

thats a leap in logic that has not been demonstrated. in other words, its a fallacy.
you watched me sharpen it. the stick is now sharp. there is no demonstratable logic that can justify ownership without irrational assumptions.

There is nothing irrational about it. Either hand over your stick or defend it.

What exactly am I assuming?

 

[EmpiricalTruth]

You stated:


If you agree that property is a concept and not a legal construct, then you must disagree with the above statement.
That is, you are contradicting yourself.


Show this to be true.


False. Rights can and do exist without any such grant from a government.
Property rights fall within these, as do many others.


On the contrary -- as you agreed, propety is a concept, not a legal construct, and as such, there no necessary relationship betwen property and government.

we had a semantical misunderstanding. property is a concept that is faulty. our government defines property on faulty philosophy, thus it can only be something that the state grants.


i have shown it to be true several times in many threads including this one. its even on this page, take a look.

rights do not exist. if they do, prove it. you must use pure demonstratable logic without any assumptions. any axioms must be demonstrated as well.

 

[Voluntary]

A "right" only exists if more than one person makes an agreement that something is a "right" and agrees to honour it.

Liberty can only be built off of certain conditions that are "rights".

 

[Goobieman]

A "right" only exists if more than one person makes an agreement that something is a "right" and agrees to honour it.

This is true only if you stupulate that the opinion to the contrary must be honored, and cannot be contested by force.

This is not in any way stipulated.

And as such, I have the right to x. You can disagree, and so long as all you do is disargee, nothing changes - I retain that right. If you disagree and then try to do something about it, I'll then shoot you in defense of that right.

Ultimately, rights are actions the individual can defend; in that, there's no need for government.

 

[EmpiricalTruth]

There is nothing irrational about it. Either hand over your stick or defend it.

What exactly am I assuming?

you assume that ownership exists and that taking something out of the state of nature actually shows anything other than usage and creation. the idea of ownership only comes in through assumption.

when i made the stick i simply made it. the stick is now a sharp stick. i use the stick, ive made the stick.this is observable and easily demonstratable. however, without assuming things you cant show ownership. the entire basis of ownership is entirely centered on assumptions and leaps of logic.

 

[EmpiricalTruth]

This is true only if you stupulate that the opinion to the contrary must be honored, and cannot be contested by force.

This is not in any way stipulated.

And as such, I have the right to x. You can disagree, and so long as all you do is disargee, nothing changes - I retain that right. If you disagree and then try to do something about it, I'll then shoot you in defense of that right.

Ultimately, rights are actions the individual can defend; in that, there's no need for government.

seems more like an opinion.

 

[Voluntary]

you assume that ownership exists and that taking something out of the state of nature actually shows anything other than usage and creation. the idea of ownership only comes in through assumption.

How do you take something "out of the state nature"?

when i made the stick i simply made it. the stick is now a sharp stick. i use the stick, ive made the stick.this is observable and easily demonstratable. however, without assuming things you cant show ownership. the entire basis of ownership is entirely centered on assumptions and leaps of logic.

So, you made the stick in Africa, but someone in Japan owns it without your consent?

Even if you don't believe in individual ownership as a priori true (i.e. self evident) and that it is "just an assumption", is it a valid and noble assumption?

 

[Goobieman]

we had a semantical misunderstanding. property is a concept that is faulty.

You REALLY need to edit your quotes better. It helps if you retain the quiote that you are responding to directly above your quote.

Now then...Show how "property is a concept" is faulty.

our government defines property on faulty philosophy, thus it can only be something that the state grants.

Deomsnstrate this necessary relatioship.

i have shown it to be true several times in many threads including this one. its even on this page, take a look.

Not good enough. Show it to be true or admit you cannot.

 

[AgentM]

Ultimately, rights are actions the individual can defend; in that, there's no need for government.

You're right there is technically no need for a government. Two neighbours can make an agreement about each others rights. However, for rights to be widespread there must be some form of collective agreement. Government is the best way to gain and enforce this agreement.

 

[Goobieman]

seems more like an opinion.

Your fauilure to provide a counter indicates that you have none.

 

[Goobieman]

You're right there is technically no need for a government. Two neighbours can make an agreement about each others rights.

Thank you.

However, for rights to be widespread there must be some form of collective agreement. Government is the best way to gain and enforce this agreement.

This is the entire reason we have government -- to seciure our rights.
However, the government so created does not grant those rights, it protects them from infringement by others -- your right to property is not created by laws against theft, it is protcted by them.

 

[Voluntary]

This is the entire reason we have government -- to seciure our rights.

However, the government so created does not grant those rights, it protects them from infringement by others -- your right to property is not created by laws against theft, it is protcted by them.

That is what the Constitution is for.

For example, the First Amendment doesn't grant us the freedom of speech, but protects the government from infringing upon it.

The only time it infringes upon freedom of speech is when it violates someone's life (i.e. yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater). Or when it jeopardized someone's liberty, such as defamation laws. Defamation can curb someone's liberty, but that is why we believe in innocence until proven guilty.

 

[angrybeaver]

thats self refuting. property cannot be theft. if you are pro property the existence of property is not theft. if you are anti property then theft doesnt exist.

this is something marx talked about when discussing prodhon (spelling)

communism recognises communal ownership of porperty but not individual ownership.