[quote=“Epicurus” Ibn Kalhoun"]
Yes, this is true. But where in the world can I go, set up a tent, and start farming the land? I am at the behest of the power structure (the rich, the politicians, the special interests, and in a small way the poor themselves) as all the land is owned by someone at this present moment; either private or public.
[/quote]
What is your theory of property rights that leads you to oppose them?
How about “Please hire me and pay me a living wage, or I’ll die”?
That still entails he thinks high enough of himself to value living his life. I don’t think asking for a better situation can ever be described as low-self esteem, which would be just taking what you get and not thinking you have the power to change it.
What is your theory of property rights that leads you to oppose them?
Spare me your rhetoric please. I don’t see how you jumped from “all property is owned by someone at this present moment (either public or private)” to “property is evil.” Intellectual dishonesty serves noone the better, friend.
I’m confused. I don’t think property is evil. I’m asking what your theory of property rights is, and what conclusions you draw from that.
Backtracking now? I never made any statement as to my views on property rights. I disagreed with you on the nature of property as it exists now, and that all property is currently owned. This makes the idea that the worker can choose not to work for what he views to be an exploiter, not as clear cut as was asserted.
So you’re basically irritated that a lot of libertarians want to pretend that property rights are automatically compatible with voluntarism, but you can come up with simple examples where its not.
I would claim that voluntarism is actually in conflict with itself, since self ownership relies on exclusion of others. So do we abandon the voluntarist label? What do you think?
Fyi i’m not trying to fight with you… I’m trying to learn.
Asking for someone else to make your situation better requires immensely low self-esteem, IMO.
So you’re basically irritated that a lot of libertarians want to pretend that property rights are automatically compatible with voluntarism, but you can come up with simple examples where its not.
Kinda, but not exactly. I think property rights are completely compatible with voluntarism. Just that as property exists now that it is not so clear cut.
I would claim that voluntarism is actually in conflict with itself, since self ownership relies on exclusion of others
Do you mean voluntarism or altruism? Or, I should say, what do you mean by voluntarism (im thinking of a system where noone is cooerced. In that context I don’t see how self-ownership is incompatible at all.)?
Asking for someone else to make your situation better requires immensely low self-esteem, IMO.
Sure, if you want them to do it with no action on your part. But asking someone else to help you make your situation better still entails that you hold yourself in high regards.
Ownership and control are not the same thing. And I think you’re overrreacting to Sieben who is being genuinely curious. If you struggle to articulate your position, that’s fine, but it is far from outrageous (or dishonest) to have people question a position on these forums.
Ownership and control are not the same thing. And I think you’re overrreacting to Sieben who is being genuinely curious. If you struggle to articulate your position, that’s fine, but it is far from outrageous (or dishonest) to have people question a position on these forums.
It is dishonest to make a connection between somoene saying “all property is curretly owned” and thinking he said “property is evil.” Perhaps I misunderstood Sieben. And if so, my apologies.
But, he didn’t question any belief of mine, he simply took my statement completely out of context, seemingly purposefully to me, and created a false-dichotomy from it.
Is there a theory of property that would result in entirely voluntary exchanges?
Voluntarism = where you have real free choices in who you interact with. So leftists typically argue that property is (or can be) involuntary because what if someone is starving, the relationship with the owner of grain is involuntary. The starving man has to make the trade somehow.
I’m going to argue further that voluntarism as I described is even incompatible with self ownership, since men can be surgeons as well as farmers. Self ownership would imply that surgeons have a right to charge whatever they want for their services. The leftist resolution of attacking surgeons to perform operations it not any more voluntary. I think voluntarism is a chimera.
@ Original Poster
There are a plethora of logical fallacies embedded in this line of thought. Let us consider just a few of them.
It should immediately seem strange to say that it is impossible to consume everything that is produced. Man has unlimited demand, and thus can never be “too wealthy” or have “too much stuff.” Clearly this is not an issue of consumption but rather an issue of “wage imbalance.” That is, net pay to workers must necessarily be lower than net price off goods produced or else the producer will be loosing money.
The most immediate problem with this logic is that it ignores the fact that the producer himself is a consumer of other producers goods. Thus profits (here defined as the difference between ‘net wages paid’ and ‘net price of all goods produced’), will go into the consumption of other goods. In an economy that produces only one good, AND had fixed prices, the excess bread (for example) would either be consumed by the producer or spoil.
However prices are not necessarily fixed. lets take your example:
The first question to ask yourself is why is the bread $2 a loaf. Prices are not set at the arbitrary whim of the producer. What would actually happen in this scenario is that either the bread would only actually cost $1 per loaf, or the producer would cut production, or the producer would go broke. He cant just say to consumers, “You WILL buy all my bread at $2 a loaf!” If he had the power to do that, he wouldn’t need to make bread in the first place, he could just force people to play him $2 for nothing.
Another problem with line of thinking is that over production (or not consuming all that is produced) isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Under-consumption is what allows for capital accumulation and economic growth. If we never overproduced, we would still be living in the stone age.
Yet another problem with this logic is that it assumes that no-one else can produce goods besides individuals already producing them. If wage earners are forced to borrow to meet their desired consumption levels, then they could simply become producers. Most wage earners are better off as wage earner b/c they lack the capital or knowledge to become entrepreneurs. As soon as they are NOT better off as wage earners, they will start doing something else.
I’m going to argue further that voluntarism as I described is even incompatible with self ownership, since men can be surgeons as well as farmers. Self ownership would imply that surgeons have a right to charge whatever they want for their services. The leftist resolution of attacking surgeons to perform operations it not any more voluntary. I think voluntarism is a chimera.
So what form of tyranny would you support? If it is impossible to come to completely voluntary interaction, who should be the despot that oversees all of this?
If self-ownership implies surgeons have the right to charge what they want, it also gives the people the right to non-violently try to drive down his prices, whether through competition, boycott, protest, or some other method.
(Or he could just go the original Hypocratic Oath, which forbade him for charging for services.. but that is another story lol)
I’m an anarchist. I’m simply trying to figure out what kinds of properties it has by talking to you. I mistook your indignance for profundity. My mistake.
You mean, begging? Threatening (“Help me out here! Can’t you see I’ll die if you don’t? Or I’ll bust your head!”). Or asking nicely?
I’m an anarchist. I’m simply trying to figure out what kinds of properties it has by talking to you. I mistook your indignance for profundity. My mistake
Then we are in the same boat here. I would in no way consider myself the final arbiter on property rights, or the tenous lines that define them. I have been sympathetic to anarchy since a very young age, I wrote a story with a main character named Sacco Vendzetti. I believe fully in self-ownership first,and voluntary exchange as a product of that, but I in no way support giving in to unbridled greed and malice.
My views on property rights are that it is a tenous line. I hold that all men have the right to self-ownership (and that this is inherent in nature, as long as I can make choices, I own myself). BUt beyond that the lines are tenous at best. Does anyone really have the right to claim parts of the earth as theirs? We give them this right, but there is nothing inherent in nature that says it can’t be just taken from them.
I am just here to learn. And it is in my view that we come to the best conclusions when people of varying stances are allowed to come to engage in mutual exchange.
You mean, begging? Threatening (“Help me out here! Can’t you see I’ll die if you don’t? Or I’ll bust your head!”). Or asking nicely?
I feel like you are trying to find something inherently negative in someone asking for help.
Is there something wrong with someone saying “I will die if you don’t help me?” Think of the man hanging with one arm off a cliff… he will die if someone doesn’t help him. Is he being cooercive if he states that? That is in no way a threat. And begging may be ethically looked down upon, but it doesnt force you to help, so nothing naturally coercive about that either.
You seem to want to equate “help me” with “help me or I’ll (have somoene) beat you up.” I think this is a mistake.
As always that was a powerful post provided by Esuric. The thread could have ended there. He answered everything in excellent clarity.
‘Yes, this is true. But where in the world can I go, set up a tent, and start farming the land? I am at the behest of the power structure (the rich, the politicians, the special interests, and in a small way the poor themselves) as all the land is owned by someone at this present moment; either private or public.’
The only problem I perceive is one with the government of such a country with things such as immigration laws. Let us theorize that you wish to find some land in Brazil. Now answer this question: All other things being equal, who would you receive more ‘flak’ from in trying to homestead land for subsistence farming, the government of Brazil or the numerous ‘capitalists’ of the country?
Now answer this question: All other things being equal, who would you receive more ‘flak’ from in trying to homestead land for subsistence farming, the government of Brazil or the numerous ‘capitalists’ of the country?
The government of course… acting at the behest of the corporate/capital/party interests. Make no mistake, I am against corporatism as much as communism.