I understand you believe it to be a fallacy, just as others believe that it is a fallacy to think that property is NOT a natural right. When one starts with different premises, one will reach different conclusions.
Yes, I understand that you don't believe that property is a natural right. Obviously, that is your belief and there's nothing I can do to change your fundamental premises that lead you to this conclusion. So I have come to realize that there's really no point in continuing to argue the point.
However, while your beliefs don't impact my life, the law does. So my primary concern is what sorts of legislation you propose and support based upon your belief that people have no natural right to property.
Again, you are certainly free to hold whatever opinions your wish regarding property rights. You have laid out your argument and I have done likewise. Neither of us has convinced the other. Therefore, my only concern now is what action you intend to undertake that will effect me and my property.
Which is why I made a bunch of arguments to say it is NOT a natural right.
I'm pretty sure that I stated earlier that I agreed with the Lockean homesteading principle and that it is wrong for anyone to take the property of another. I am in the camp of those that regard private ownership of property as a natural right.The conclusions I come to could be different dispite not believing property is a natural right, if I was convinced that capitalism was the best way to organize society then I'd switch over ... has nothing to do with property being a natural right, I've just never been convinced of that.
I don't think you've argued that property rights are a natural right ... only that they are traditional.
Federalist said:Yes, you have. And others have made a bunch of arguments that it IS a natural right. Both sides obviously think their argument is correct, most likely because they are basing their arguments upon different sets of premises.
Federalist said:I'm pretty sure that I stated earlier that I agreed with the Lockean homesteading principle and that it is wrong for anyone to take the property of another. I am in the camp of those that regard private ownership of property as a natural right.
Federalist said:However, our own personal opinions are less important than any proposed change to legislation as it pertains to property. You appear to be advocating for a different legal system in which property and capitalist production are eliminated. I am less interested in our respective philosophical beliefs than I am in the ramifications of your policy proposals.
On what do you base this belief? Very very positive? Sounds like your emotions are talking. Or, you must mean there is strong evidence out there that a nations economy (not just a single corporation) would receive very very positive performance improvements as a result of these co-determination laws? I applaud you for being very specific (Finally?), on what change you champion. Assuming you're not looking to just get a foot in the door and slipper-slope it over to your other goals.but I think in these times strong Co-Determination laws, which change the corporate structure would be very very positive,
But the thing is, workers are NOT free to organize that way, since they have to work within the corporate structure, which is a state institution.
They have to work within a corporate structure IF they CHOOSE to work for a corporation. No one is FORCING them to do that. Plenty of people start their own business, work for co-ops, non-profits, etc. More than twenty million people work for government at some level.
Ahlevah said:They have to work within a corporate structure IF they CHOOSE to work for a corporation. No one is FORCING them to do that. Plenty of people start their own business, work for co-ops, non-profits, etc. More than twenty million people work for government at some level.
More fantasy-land economics. Yes there are people who do not work for corporations... so what? The subject was corporations and people who work in them which most people do because well that is the way the capitalist system is structured. What is your suggestion here? That anyone working in a corporation can suddenly up and leave it?
Its so funny how any and every right-wing argument so far has had to rely on total fantasy to support their claims. I mean can't you folks make any actual solid reality-based arguments? This is starting to get tiresome.
Well, no one is holding a gun up to their head and saying "work for a corporation," but the way the institutions of capitalism are set up, most people have to work for a corporation since they don't have access to capital (which is in the hands of capitalists) to start their own buisiness, nor do they have the option of working for non-profits and so on.
This is the real world.
I don't see what is not reality based about leaving a place of employment and finding another place of employment. People do in fact do this all the time. They work for a place, find another place to work, and leave the other job. Some even start their own place of business with sometimes very little capital upfront. This happens everyday and there is no fantasy involved. Sorry, but you are not forced to work for your current employer and saying you are is just hyberbole.
You can actually start your own business with very little capital. Do you need ideas or better yet information perhaps?
If you leave one employer for another in a capitalist economy, what are the chances you will just leave one corporation for another?
Could everyone all at once leave their employers and start companies with this "very little"(entirely dependent on the business model) capital?
In the current economic situation have you met very many people easily switching jobs? Was this so much more the case even when the economy was better off... only slightly.
How about you look around at the way the real world works and how real people act rather then spouting off total fantasy?
With a loan, maybe ... But yeah ... I suppose the reason people don't start their own buisines is because they are just to dumb to do so, or because they love having a boss :roll:, these arguments always baffle me, its never systemic, its always individual fallacy, no matter what the trends or statistics are.
With a loan, maybe ... But yeah ... I suppose the reason people don't start their own buisines is because they are just to dumb to do so, or because they love having a boss :roll:, these arguments always baffle me, its never systemic, its always individual fallacy, no matter what the trends or statistics are.
Access to Capital also has a lot to do with it, also just the markets, i.e. is there a market for something ... But even that being the case, it doesn't change the fact that having workers have a say over their own workplace and compensation and fruits of their labor is unjustified just because they have the legal possibility (even though not material) to start their own company.
Systemic issues DO matter, which is why its easier to start up a small buisiness in social democratic countries where you have a saftey net, public financial systems, as solid middle class and so on.
Everyone potentially has access to capital. All you need is to have built a great credit report, have some equity in your home
The subject was corporations and people who work in them which most people do because well that is the way the capitalist system is structured. What is your suggestion here? That anyone working in a corporation can suddenly up and leave it?
Alright, I give up. Whatever you folks wanna believe. Maybe someone else can argue the point better than I. I just don't have the patience.The subject was that people somehow have to or are forced to work for a corporation. That's the fantasy. But, yeah, if you're that unhappy with your job you should quit. Depending on circumstances, perhaps not immediately, but I'd be planning an exit.
Alright, I give up. Whatever you folks wanna believe. Maybe someone else can argue the point better than I. I just don't have the patience.
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?