Marxism and the workers

[gotlucky]

That anything can actually “yours” rather than just seen as yours by society.

Good thing I never claimed that I believed in “pure” private property then.

Someone can’t “own” something, he can only be recognized to own it by the law. That’s my point.

You either own something or you don’t.

Again, it’s hard to debate in the lion’s den, partly because each lion has a different means of obtaining his goal. If you accept that property is a social construct, and not inherent to nature, then there is nothing to debate. I just often run into propertarians who believe property is legitimized before society makes it so, merely by the claim to it.

So why make assumptions about my beliefs if I don’t seem to be this typical “propertarian”?

As I say in the other thread, I am basically using to express “why should anyone respect the claim.” I may sometimes use it to say that the claim is already legitmized; as in nobles who claimed conquered land as their own, which was later legitimized, etc.

I will address this later because you have contradicted yourself on this. I will address this in the response to your other post.

I’m not familiar with the subject, and so I am not, nor can I, deny what you say here. You may well, and probably are, correct. I wouldn’t know.

Ok.

1. You just countered my baseless assertion with one of your own.

Not really. If we go by the definition you provided: “Legitimized (through court or custom) possession and control”, then yes, anyone who wants to have property can have it. Even the homeless have clothing. Many of them even have other possessions that they keep close to them. So, exactly who do you know who wants property but is not able to have it?

2. I am not defining it differently than “everyone else.” I define it differently than nearly everyone on this site. In fact, my definition, which I have shown in the past, fits more in line with the mainstream definition of property than the definition used around here. But this is semantical.

Actually the definition you have provided is pretty similar to what people use around here. Baseless accusation to say otherwise. Semantics are important. If we don’t know what we are saying, how can we converse?

3. Why does the “fact” that anyone can own property legitimize property? (IOW, ok so anyone can have property. Why should I respect property rights?)

My statement was not in response to this question. It was a response to your fallacious claim that customary law will protect property owners instead people who don’t own property (I have yet to meet one). My point was that anyone who wants property can have it.

If you’re talking about the Pilgrims, I implore you to do further research on that. You will quickly find that they were 1) not communists and 2) their collapse was due to nature far more than to their living arrangements.

1. Not just talking about Pilgrims, and I don’t feel like searching the Mises Dailies.

2. This is factually incorrect, as addressed in the article.

As a specific form of possession and control that exists legally. Yes. Yes.

Okay. Now prove it. At best, neither of us can prove it one way or the other. So there is no point in continuing this part of the discussion. Either claim is baseless.

In fact, for most hunter gatherer societies the idea of “first dibs” would have been absurd and insulting.

I don’t care to research modern hunter gatherers right now. Someone has to eat first. It’s highly unlikely that each and every time an animal is hunted that they will all eat at the exact same time. Even without research I find this to be illogical. Also, you cannot prove one way or the other about prehistoric human societies. So, it’s a baseless claim if it was referring to them.

When little Timmy takes little Johnny’s toys, does Johnny have the right to bring legal claim against Timmy? Should Timmy, if necessary, go to jail (or some such punishment) for his actions?

What little kids do is go to their parents or the other in charge and tell on each other. The parents then sort it out. That or the kid hits the other. Often one kid even gets a time-out! No need to involve courts.

What I am denying is that this claim is sufficient to call what they possess and control “property.” As I said, if “they claimed it as theirs” was enough for it to be property, then when a theif takes your stuff, it becomes his property. Again, your definition of property (if you want to use it that’s fine, your prerogative) is far too confusing imo, and as such, I will not adopt it. Ie, I will not budge (yet) from my definition.

So what? People claim things as their own, rightly or wrongly. This is not my definition of private property. However, if I remember correctly, Rothbard would refer to the thief’s possession and control as “unjust property”. So I don’t see why it must necessarily be the case that what the thief acquires is not his property - it’s just not his legitimate property. I don’t think I would call the unjust property the thief’s property, but whatever. That’s Rothbard, and that’s how he defines it. This is why semantics are important.

The ability to claim ownership is inhernet, not ownership itself. I have not claimed anything as “mine” in over 5 years. I may say “I’m using it now” or something to that effect.

I’ll address this later in the post.

I don’t own anything.

Ditto.

Or I would say “I’m using that, but I would be happy to share.”

You would die if you actually did this. Notice how I said each and every time? You would starve to death if you praticed what you preached. I mean, if you are okay with that, then fine. To each his own.

I’m well aware you were not alive 10k years ago, so of course you wouldn’t have seen it.

Neither were you, so you cannot prove this either.

I thought it did.

Care to elaborate?

So, as was said many times, any fulfillment of human need or want is an afterthought to the ability to profit.

I get that. I’m just trying to figure out where you are going with this. Perhaps it was just an observation you wished to share? There’s nothing wrong with that, I just can’t figure out if there is anything else to it.

And I immediately said this line of diversion is just that; a diversion. That whether any animals had a heirarchy was irrelevant to the discussion. Human nature arguments offer nothing to the table. Can we just put it to rest now?

I don’t think human nature arguments are necessarily irrelevant. They certainly don’t solve the is-ought problem, but they can be entirely relevant.

My question was in response to the statement that “property can be abandoned” which was in response to “all property is illigitimate by this metric.” My problem with your statement was that it answered nothing. It just added another way in which property can trade hands. I asked to be shown evidence that this was what had actually happened.

This is not what happened. As I just stated, my response was to a statement you made: “Ok. Now show me one small tract of habitable land that can be traced from its original homesteaders to its current owner through abandonement or trade, without any kind of violent appropriation. You can’t.” It was not a response to “all property is illegitimate by this metric”. Scroll back and read the conversation. This is what happened. In fact, my actual response to you was "If something has been abandoned, there is no need to trace it to the original homesteader. " But we’ve already gone through all this. How does my response answer nothing?

Do I have to specfiically quote every sentence of yours? Can I not answer multiple points with one statement?

You don’t have to specifically quote each and every sentence of mine. But when you misrepresent my argument becauseyou have not quoted what I said in full, then I take issue with it.

Am I responding with “bla bla bla” or is this just a made up personal attack, a common trait amongst trolls?

That was actually an exact quote of you. The entire quote was “Yes so show me a small tract of habitable land… non-murder death… bla bla bla…” So are you just making stuff up about me now? Claiming that I make stuff up about you? As you said, this is a common trait amongst trolls…

Socio-economic classes are made up of people. Government is not a person.

Governments are made up of people. Socio-economic classes are not persons.

I don’t know how to explain it any further…

Really? You never even tried to explain it the first or second times. It was just “For the glory of etc etc etc”. What am I supposed to take away from such a statement?

It depends on the reason. I have other computers, and can easily gain access to more if I didn’t. If someone really needed this computer more than me, I would happily provide.

Why does it matter what the reason is? You don’t own it. You said so yourself. If you really believed this, you would soon be without computers. Out of curiosity, if your home was broken into and burgled, would you report the “crime” to the police?

Because if he claims that property, ok. No big deal, it’s not property yet. It’s only when somoene else comes into the picture, a dispute arises, and the courts (or some such entity) decides who’s claim was legitimate that it becomes “property.” Property is a legal concept, and the claim to possession and control is not enough to establish something as property. Therefore, “property” requires violence or the threat thereof.

This still does not disprove my point. The second person can be the initiator of violence. It does not necessarily have to be the original appropriater. And I don’t dispute that law, and therefore property, require violence or the threat thereof.

See above. The cliam to property is not enough to establish a thing AS property.

See above.

Why not?

Economic power as you define it and violent power are not similar. By your definition, violent power is a subcategory of economic power. Last I checked, neither of my hands were subcategories of the other.

Another irrelevant and made up personal attack?

No. It’s relevant. I believe that what you wish to accomplish is thievery. You’ve already admitted to Autolykos that you want some power. Personal attack? Sure. Made up personal attack? Absolutely not.

So aggression is not violent?

Aggression is the initiation of violence or the initiation of the threat of violence. It’s actually one of the dictionary definitions of the term. Not just an NAP libertarian definition.

This is what I was saying earlier. You guys expect me to be familiar with your terms, yet many of you describe things differently, and even contradictory. I can honestly say this is the first time I have ever heard someone claim that an act of aggression is not an act of violence.

Now I get to make accusations against you! Are you seriously telling me that you’ve never heard someone say “Johnny is so aggressive when he debates”? Or “Johnny talks so aggressively”? Really?

Do you have any idea how ***ing confusing that it?

Perhaps you are now understanding why I ask you for so many definitions? I try to avoid the confusion entirely by asking exactly what you mean by the words you use.

Yet your original claim was that all dispute resolutions establish property.

ME: Not really, dispute resolution arises from the peaceful resolution of disputes, whether it has to do with property or not.

YOU: False. Property is a legal status. Legal status arises from dispute resolution. Thus, property arises from dispute resolution

Now, seeing as I was saying that property is a specific form of dispute resolution and you said “false,” are you now backing out and claiming that you were, in fact, not claiming that all dispute resoution establishes property? I clearly said “whether it has to do with property or not” and you clearly said “false.”

Or am I misconstruing your argument here?

You are misconstruing my argument here. This was the actual exchange:

Me: Property arises from the peaceful resolution of disputes.

You: Not really, dispute resolution arises from the peaceful resolution of disputes, whether it has to do with property or not.

Me: False. Property is a legal status. Legal status arises from dispute resolution. Thus, property arises from dispute resolution.

You: All iron is a chemical status. All chemical statuses arise in stars. Thus, all chemicals arise from stars.

Perhaps you can see it now? You twice tried to refute my claim that property arises from dispute resolution. Now you are claiming that it was you all along that was claiming property arises from dispute resolution. Well, that is NOT what happened in our little exchange. So, either you twice misread what I wrote and twice accidentally tried to prove that property does not arise from dispute resolution, or you are trolling me here. You can keep trying to falsely accuse me all you want, but I will take the time (sadly) to go through and reread our exchanges and repost what happened.

Notice I said “not really.” That is not equivalent to “false” “incorrect” or “you’re wrong.” Not really tends to mean there is something missing, as in close, but not real.

Perhaps you should read what you write more carefully.

The definition of “really” according to wiktionary is “Actually; in fact; in reality.” “Not really” would then mean “Not in fact, or not actually, or not in reality”. So, I guess it’s time to add the word “really” to our list of words and phrases you use differently from everyone else.

I have read, and enjoy Clayton’s posts (smartest poster here, imho). Perhaps you could relay me to what specifically you want me to see?

I mentioned earlier in this thread his posts What Law Is and A Praxeological Account of Law.

The original claim to possession and control. Seeing as that “property” is a specific legalized form of possession and control, and legality requires violence or the threat thereof, the cliam to “property” is a violent act. (And I cannot be accused of anything here, this has been my consistent position the entire time. Like I said, conversations between us will be very difficult as we fundamentally define things differently)

The second person can start the violence.

Please keep in mind I harbor no hate or bad feelings for you because we have a debate. Even if I get “loud” or demanding in my speech, it doesn’t mean I harbor any ill will. I actually enjoy it, until it turns to unfounded personal attacks, as with certain posters which I no longer have discussions. Even then I don’t take it personally, rather I just remove myself from the situation.

Ditto.

EDIT: I’ll respond to your other post to me another time. It’s a lot of work to post in this thread.