The Distribution of Wealth [W:446]

[Federalist]

Your kidney is a part of you ... if you want to call that ownership thats fine, but you don't need an institution constructed by society to do that ... When I say property I'm talking about the institution of property.

Its not arbitrary, perhaps all rights are social constructs as such, however the right to personal autonomy is of an extremely different nature than the right to property, the latter requires socially constructed institutions and is exclusionary and creates a form of authority.

I don't see the difference. They are all rights that are founded upon a system of ethics. The right to personal autonomy is no more innate than the right to one's kidney. Your time and choice of activities are yours ONLY because society has made a social construct that give you exclusive right to your choice of actions. Without that social construct, it would be ethical for anyone to force you to do whatever they want.

To point out that the right to property is a social construct based upon a system of ethics is certainly true, but every other right we have is also a social construct based upon a system of ethics.

 

[RGacky3]

One follows the other so it can't be one or the other. He knows this though so that is why he is being very careful by saying the right comes from the existence of himself.

You're arguing that your right to hold exclusive pieces of the earth is necessary to have the right to do what you want with yourself ... Or to simply be autonomus as a person ... One does NOT follow from the other at all.

Unless your of the opinion that people are property.

I don't see the difference. They are all rights that are founded upon a system of ethics. The right to personal autonomy is no more innate than the right to one's kidney. Your time and choice of activities are yours ONLY because society has make a social construct or institution that give you exclusive right to your choice of actions. Without that social construct, anyone could force you to do whatever they want and it would not be unethical.

They are the same, because your kidney is part of you.

If your arguing for moral reletavism thats fine, but even under that, the difference is what I said, that property is inherently dependant on an INSTITUTION, and does not exist in the state of nature, also it is necessarily exclusionary and it necessarily entails giving some people authorirty or the prospect of authority over others, its not universally appliable.

Like I said, if you are a mayor you have a right to dictate what happens in a city, thats exactly the way property is, as opposed to free speach and personal autonomy that are of a different nature.

 

[Henrin]

No its not ... Tons of societies had no concept of private property yet still had concepts of personal autonomy ... your assertion that self autonomy is based on property rights is rediculous ... Its not ... Your assuming people are property ... Which they are not.

Then in essence they allowed people to practice ownership of themselves and simply not ownership of other things outside of them. You seem to forget I don't need the word property for ownership to exist. Still, it hardly matters because I know they did own other things just fine.

Sure ... Point being?

That you do??

 

[Henrin]

You're arguing that your right to hold exclusive pieces of the earth is necessary to have the right to do what you want with yourself ... Or to simply be autonomus as a person ... One does NOT follow from the other at all.

No, I'm saying they both exist. One isn't needed for the other to exist because in essence they are different property rights.

Unless your of the opinion that people are property.

Rights can't not violate other rights to exist so that comparison is stupid.

 

[RGacky3]

Then in essence they allowed people to practice ownership of themselves and simply not ownership of other things outside of them. You seem to forget I don't need the word property for ownership to exist. Still, it hardly matters because I know they did own other things just fine.

Ownership of yourself is a logical contradiction, since ownership is a relationship you have with objects outside yourself.

Also I was talking about property.

 

[Henrin]

Ownership of yourself is a logical contradiction, since ownership is a relationship you have with objects outside yourself.

Nope. You have ownership over your own body and that is why you have the right to control it.

Also I was talking about property.

I'm aware.

 

[RGacky3]

No, I'm saying they both exist. One isn't needed for the other to exist because in essence they are different property rights.

No ... one is property rights, the other is the right of self determination ...

Rights can't not violate other rights to exist so that comparison is stupid.

Which is why the concept of yourself as your own property is nonsensicle.

Nope. You have ownership over your own body and that is why you have the right to control it.

Your right to control your own body is the right of self-determination ... Its not property ... because self property is an illogical concept, its self referencing.

 

[Henrin]

No ... one is property rights, the other is the right of self determination ...

Actually since we have now shifted to the phase self determination which actually has nothing to do with this you are again wrong on another fronts. Both can be described as self determination.

Which is why the concept of yourself as your own property is nonsensicle.

The concept of yourself explains nothing and so far you haven't put any thought behind explaining it. In essence however the concept comes from property, but keep using terms you don't understand. Its getting entertaining at this point.

Your right to control your own body is the right of self-determination ... Its not property ... because self property is an illogical concept, its self referencing.

I believe you said this already, so refer to where I responded to it.

Btw, I have to leave now, and I may or may not respond in the future.

 

[RGacky3]

Actually since we have now shifted to the phase self determination which actually has nothing to do with this you are again wrong on another fronts. Both can be described as self determination.

Personal autonomy and self determination ... I'm using those as the same thing.

Point is neither have anything to do with property.

The concept of yourself explains nothing and so far you haven't put any thought behind explaining it. In essence however the concept comes from property, but keep using terms you don't understand. Its getting entertaining at this point.

The concept of self existed before property ... and it exists without property.

I believe you said this already, so refer to where I responded to it.

Btw, I have to leave now, and I may or may not respond in the future.

You didn't actually respond to it ...

 

[Neomalthusian]

We regard life, liberty and property as natural rights because they are the things people will naturally tend to fight or die to defend. They will not allow themselves to be murdered (deprivation of life), they will do their best not be forced to do things against their consent (deprivation of liberty, and they will not sit idly as others steal what belongs to them (deprivation of property).

To deny life is to rob one of his future, to deny liberty is to rob one of his present, and to deny property is to deny one of the part of his past that he devoted to acquiring it.

Even if all societal structure disappeared, people would still fight for these things because they are regarded as rights. Even non-human animals do this. They defend what is "theirs." Property is property regardless of what societal structure is in place to help protect it. People will protect it on their own, if they have to. It does not get more natural than that.


I think what RGacky is really demonstrating (whether he realizes it or not) is that he (and Socialist-types) reject and oppose natural rights, and really a natural life altogether. They want to move toward a different paradigm which rejects former principles and establishes brand new ones. Unfortunately, he is trying to redefine realities of a normal, natural human life because his paradigm thinks of people as parts of a machine who are thus controlled by whatever governs the machine.

 

[Henrin]

Personal autonomy and self determination ... I'm using those as the same thing.

I know.

Point is neither have anything to do with property.

When people pursue property they are usually doing it for self determination purposes be it food, shelter or land. Of course, you can also pursue property for the gains of other people as well.

The concept of self existed before property ... and it exists without property.

Actually they came into being at around the same time. The understanding of them might of not happened at the same time though. However, I doubt that.

 

[Federalist]

I think what RGacky is really demonstrating (whether he realizes it or not) is that he (and Socialist-types) reject and oppose natural rights, and really a natural life altogether. They want to move toward a different paradigm which rejects former principles and establishes brand new ones. Unfortunately, he is trying to redefine realities of a normal, natural human life because his paradigm thinks of people as parts of a machine who are thus controlled by whatever governs the machine.

I agree. The best explanation I've heard so far of Natural Law is that it is the mode of interpersonal ethics that stem from, and is consistent with, our very nature as human beings.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

If one is especially interested in a good or service being of high quality and low price, one should be sure to keep government the hell away from it. On the other hand, if one wants to wait on long lines for crappy bread, he should put government in charge of producing bread.

This is a comment awash in foolishness and ignorance, made the worse because it is simply gratuitous. One might as well claim that the manufactures of Pennsylvania are all substandard.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

He is a socialist. He has to not accept property outside of the state.

Here's another one...

 

[Cardinal Fang]

And in the end, the thread devolves into some little girls' game of doll house where the rocking chair can't go in the bedroom because rocking chairs belong in the living room. Then again, two little gitls might come to fight over such a thing, so maybe the game would be more manly in some eyes than it appears to be in some others.

 

[RGacky3]

We regard life, liberty and property as natural rights because they are the things people will naturally tend to fight or die to defend. They will not allow themselves to be murdered (deprivation of life), they will do their best not be forced to do things against their consent (deprivation of liberty, and they will not sit idly as others steal what belongs to them (deprivation of property).

Kings will also fight and die to defend their kingship ... does'nt make kingship a natural right.

To deny life is to rob one of his future, to deny liberty is to rob one of his present, and to deny property is to deny one of the part of his past that he devoted to acquiring it.

No, to deny property is to deny creating an institution dedicated to giving someone exlusive rights to a piece of the earth.

Even if all societal structure disappeared, people would still fight for these things because they are regarded as rights. Even non-human animals do this. They defend what is "theirs." Property is property regardless of what societal structure is in place to help protect it. People will protect it on their own, if they have to. It does not get more natural than that.

Empirically not true ... most ancient societies without strong state structures didn't have property rights (beyond just basic personal possessions).

I think what RGacky is really demonstrating (whether he realizes it or not) is that he (and Socialist-types) reject and oppose natural rights, and really a natural life altogether. They want to move toward a different paradigm which rejects former principles and establishes brand new ones. Unfortunately, he is trying to redefine realities of a normal, natural human life because his paradigm thinks of people as parts of a machine who are thus controlled by whatever governs the machine.

Strawman ... I'm not redefining anything, I'm not rejecting and opposing natural rights, I'm rejecting that property is one of them, the same way authority or governership is not a natural right, neither is property.

I'm the one that things of people as self determined free beings with agency, your the one that see's them as property.

When people pursue property they are usually doing it for self determination purposes be it food, shelter or land. Of course, you can also pursue property for the gains of other people as well.

You don't need property laws to accumulate food, shelter or even land property =/= resources, property means exclusive and absolute rights to, and authority over a piece of the earth.

Actually they came into being at around the same time. The understanding of them might of not happened at the same time though. However, I doubt that.

Thats just empirically not true, read up on history and anthropology.

 

[Frogfussle]

What is all this stuff about "natural rights" The only rights we have are the ones society allows us to have unless "natural rights" refer to the ones given to us by our invisible friend in the sky. When we introduce religion into philosophical discussions it is the end of coherent debate and the introduction of circular reasoning.

 

[Federalist]

This is a comment awash in foolishness and ignorance, made the worse because it is simply gratuitous.

This comment is awash in foolishness and ignorance.

 

[Federalist]

What is all this stuff about "natural rights"

They are rules of behavior that arise from our nature as human beings.

 

[hikari]

Well, I can take your property from you, so how is that a right and not a privilege? Of course we like lots of things, attention, for example, even my cat likes that it is natural, but we sure don't have a natural right to attention despite the near universal quest for it in living things.

Attention is a privilege, property is a privilege, and like attention giving too much of this privilege to a person has detrimental effects on society.

 

[Federalist]

Well, I can take your property from you, so how is that a right and not a privilege?

It is wrong for me to steal from you; therefore you have a right to your property.
It is wrong for me to kill you; therefore you have a right to your life.

Of course, I can kill you, but that doesn't mean you don't have a right to your life. It simply means that I have violated your right.

 

[Andalublue]

Kings will also fight and die to defend their kingship ... does'nt make kingship a natural right.

Good point. The idea of natural rights cannot be considered as a fundamental basis of inalienable rights because, as Hobbes pointed out, to cling to this idea would lead to a war of all against all in which only de facto power determines rights. Human society needs to apply a concept of social contract in which all agree to a form of co-existence. The entirety of political debate centres on the form of that social contract. There are several societies that have agreed that the right to property is something that does not attach to individuals, but to families, or communities. It is a collective right. Many strands of libertarianism, or anarchism, reject the individual right to property as this infringes on the rights of others to share in the utility of the land or the goods it produces.

I'm with you 100% in this argument.

 

[Andalublue]

It is wrong for me to steal from you; therefore you have a right to your property.

But not necessarily an exclusive right to it.

It is wrong for me to kill you; therefore you have a right to your life.

Yes.

Of course, I can kill you, but that doesn't mean you don't have a right to your life. It simply means that I have violated your right.

Also true, but herein lies the difference between property and life. It can be argued, and I do, that denying someone of exclusive rights to land does not violate any natural law.

 

[Federalist]

But not necessarily an exclusive right to it.

So you're saying that someone could steal your car for a portion of the day and that would be ok?

Also true, but herein lies the difference between property and life. It can be argued, and I do, that denying someone of exclusive rights to land does not violate any natural law.

What is the argument?

 

[hikari]

It is wrong for me to steal from you; therefore you have a right to your property.
It is wrong for me to kill you; therefore you have a right to your life.

Of course, I can kill you, but that doesn't mean you don't have a right to your life. It simply means that I have violated your right.

Society decides all the time to kill people, I don't see how they have the right to life either, since due process is the only real separator between someone going postal and the electric chair. Moreover, animals and humans have always killed one another to protect thier own life, so when there is only food for 4 and there are 6 and 2 are killed to save the 4 who's "rights" mean more the people who have it violated by death or the people preserving it by killing?

There are no such thing as natural rights, because no one grants them, not god nor nature. The only "rights" are those things society says it won't do without some sort of "due process", and that concept basically boils down to things we want society to provide, such as protection, property, etc. When I say people have the right to marry, or the right to bread I mean these are things society ought to grant as rights because "nature" doesn't even attempt to provide them for you.

Natural rights are just an abstract naive concept, that have no bearing in reality in my view.