You mean, private property should be distinct from personal possession?
Absolutely, there is a huge difference. The former requires a whole state institution, the latter doesn't.
OK, please tell me why a piece of land that feeds you should be different from the shirt you are wearing?
The shirt I'm wearing doesn't require a state institution in order to give me exlusive rights to it.
Me wearing a shirt doesn't exclude a piece of nature from others.
Actually it does. It requires a judicial system to guard you from thieves.
On the other hand, it's much more convenient and hygienic for one to NOT wear other peoples shirts or one might catch a disease. It also makes you care for the shirt because if you tear it, you'll have to wear a torn shirt (assuming you don't live in a fantasy world of endless supply of shirts). That's the main purpose of property - to make you care, to bond you with something and be responsible.
One could argue that you wearing a shirt leaves someone else shirtless it since two humans cannot wear one shirt at the same time.
How about air? When you breathe you diminish air for others, i.e. exclude them in a way.
I don't need a document to show that it's mine.
It doesn't diminish air, because air just exists, but yeah, you can't own air.
Are you seriously saying there is no difference between personal possession and capitalist property?
Well, if you own a land in a village, you don't need a document too since everybody knows it's your farm. The document is for outsiders to know you that land belongs to you, you care for it and you can collect the benefits (or negatives like destroyed crop and time) that it brings to you.
Duh, one can say the same about land - if you want your own land, find some (buy or find uninhabited territory).
I guess it all boils down to whether there is land available or not. I hope I'm not alive when people start arguing about air claims!
To me there is two main kinds of property - private and non private (all other property - family, community, county, state, etc.). I've never understood that Marxist play of words (private - personal property)
There is a huge difference, and I explained it, basically, if you need a paper to show it's ours, it's private property, if its something that you just use for your own personal life or your families then it's personal property.
Dude, you need the papers to prove it's yours, nothing more. Because the police and judges can't know who owns what since there is a myriad stuff on this planet.
For example, somebody stole your car and drive it in you village, everybody will instantly know that it;s your car.
But if the guy is from 500 miles away, you will need the papers to prove it's your car, not his (the thieve). There is a description for it - colour, model, number of the body, engine, etc). That's documents for you.
Ownership is a social institution.
You don't need property unles there are other people that could have a claim on things.
A cooperative makes you your own boss, literally, there is a huge difference.
It's just a strange euphemism for egalitarianism that is often used by simple minded LWNJs.What does "sociail justice" mean to you?
Again, a democracy is not a type of government .... it's an organizing principle ...
Don't these two contradict each other? How could charity be obligatory?
No, demanding from others what they have not earned for themselves has nothing to do with capitalism
You left out "legally sanctioned theft!"
However, this is not about wealth redistribution. Social justice is pretty much about that.
Hopefully social equality is a given. I don't find it feasible or desirable to make wealth perfectly distributed, but the 1% owning so much while others starve is too obscene.
The difference (in the case of the Danish agro cooperatives, anyway) is largely symbolic: you follow the rules of the corporation, you are subordinate to the elected CEO and his management team (the most capable Peder Tuborgh, in the case of Arla), and your income structure is similar to that of a "normal" corporate employee working on commission. Except you don't have the stock options, with their serious potential of making you rich (if you joined early enough).
james madsion federalist 10--"The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter.
It isn't symbolic at all, the management is beholdant to the employees, not stockholders, that changes the incentive structure significantly.
That is simply not the case. There are the farmers, the numerous co-owners of the enterprise - by virtue of holding integral parts of this enterprise as their legal private property. And then there are the employees, hired workers, whose position is not any different from the position of employees in any other capitalist corporation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?