For 200,000 years theft was not considered immoral or treated as a crime? I’m gonna need some evidence for this.
Cuz I think you’re a smart guy.
The existence of social controls against theft does not make something property, let alone private property. The existence of a specific legal title to possession and control makes something property.
Yes it does. The people who enforce this rule, and/or the people on whose behalf they enforce it, claim the right to exclude thieves from the use of the resource.
Again, I ask for evidence for your claim that human beings lived without prohibitions on theft for 200k years.
Laotzu, I want your computer (mine is slow and crappy).
All we can do is butt heads here. You’ve found a convenient semantical ploy to dismiss any claims about the legitimacy of property. If I am against wanton theft, obviously I support full 100% capitalist private property rights… right?
That’s a pretty tiny gun. You sure you want to go down this road?
Do you have a bigger one?
No. That’s you butting your head against the walls of the corner in which you inevitably and repeatedly paint yourself.
No. That’s not a ploy – it’s logic. How exactly do you steal something that is not owned and who do you steal it from? How do you steal a non-property?
What % private property rights do you support, which ones exactly, and why those at the exclusion of the rest?
Well thanks.
To be honest, though, I haven’t really been looking for any mutual understanding with Laotzu in this thread, because I don’t think any can be had. His position is essentially this: “Private property (in the means of production) is a social institution only because those who consider it legitimate have superior force over those who don’t, but someday this won’t be the case and private property (in the means of production) will then cease to exist as a social institution”. There’s no argument there. It’s just a statement of belief.
His whole shtick seems to be simply about appearing, or trying to appear, more powerful than those he “debates” with. He apparently sees “debating” as nothing more than fighting (literally) with words. Hence he seems to have no problem with deliberately misinterpreting the arguments that others make. Since he’s apparently a big fan of martial arts, this doesn’t surprise me, as martial arts considers misdirection against one’s opponent to be a very good (if not essential) tactic. But in terms of logical discourse, this is a fundamentally dishonest position.
So that’s why I call him out on his BS. I want it to be known publicly, and for the record, that - at least as far as I can tell - he’s a fraud when it comes to debate.
Just wondering, did you answer my reply at any point in this insanely long conversation?
Are you sure you want to find out?
No. That’s not a ploy – it’s logic. How exactly do you steal something that is not owned and who do you steal it from? How do you steal a non-property?
Because legitimate possession and control is not private property. I mean if you want to call it property, fine. It’s just semantics at that point. Everyone believes there should be some kind of legitimate possession and control. I don’t support, in any way, the monopoly status, sole executor, of “private property,” ie capitalist property.
What % private property rights do you support, which ones exactly, and why those at the exclusion of the rest?
I think “property” ie “legitimized possession and control” (if we’re going to define it that way) should remain firmly in the hands of the community at large, mostly resting with the people actually engaged in productivity. I don’t support capitalist property for the same reasons I don’t support monarchy and bureacratic dictatorship. I don’t trust the benevolence of dictators, find the system to be highly unstable, and anti-thetical to true human freedom (ie, ability to functionally pursue one’s desires). I find democracy to be better at maintaining society and providing an atmosphere for progress, even Republican democracy, than any kind of tyranny.
I am trying to be honest, regardless of what any oponents may say about me. I have never once deliberately tried to misconstrue an argument or lie in any way. If I have been dishonest, and you can prove it, I apologize.
See what I mean, AuctionGuy?
“The ability to functionally pursue one’s desires” is also known by a different name. I’d love to know what makes you think that this is “true” human freedom. Regardless, it fits perfectly in line with my conclusion that what you seek is power. Finally, note that your definition of “true human freedom” in no way takes into account intersubjectivity - i.e. the notion that people’s desires can come into conflict with one another.
I shouldn’t respond to this because it is simply another personal attack (all he has to offer, I wonder sometimes). But there is a kernel of a critique of my position in there.
Yes, I want all people to have power, not just the ones who own property. I unequivocally agree with Aristotle (or Plato? can’t remember) in his critique of democracy, and is actually why I support it, when he said, “democracy is when the indegent, and not the men of property, run society.” I don’t deny I want a kernel of this power for myself. What I can say, in all honesty, is that I would not accept a position of power. I’m well aware of the dangers of “vanguardism” and is basically why I am not a Marxist, and especially not a Leninist.
And my position explicitly takes into account divergent interests. It’s the exact reason why I don’t want one person to have economic power over another simply through some bogus monopoly title to “property.”
What do you mean by “pure private property”? The law is social by its very nature. The status of private property may be social, yet it exists nonetheless. Someone either owns something or he doesn’t. The law either recognizes that he owns something or he doesn’t. You’re gonna have to do better than this.
You haven’t answered my question. In what way are you using the word “legitimate”?
Why is it not a great example? The standard of living of the Somali people has been improving ever since the collapse of their national government. In other words, their lives are improving under their system of customary law. But, if you don’t want to debate on it, then you can just accept my statement that people’s lives would improve under customary law.
Baseless assertion. Everyone who wants property can have it. Even the homeless in America have property. Unless, of course, you are defining property differently from everyone else again.
There have been some Mises Daily articles on various communal societies, some of which had existed in America. They either ditched the idea or starved to death.
Again, how are you defining “property”? Are you claiming that the tools humans made were not property? That people did not own those tools? That humans did not have rules in regards to who gets first dibs on the deer they hunted?
What, pray tell, are you accusing toddler’s of “stealing”? And of course, don’t forget that victims of crimes can always forgive others for their crimes. If you want to say that little Timmy stole mommy’s shoe, why do you think his mother doesn’t prosecute little Timmy? I really wanna here the answer to this one…
So are you telling me what I really meant? Really? You aren’t going to budge from this position of knowing what I really meant? Talk about arrogance. I’ll say it again, because I have no problem repeating what I actually meant: People are born with the ability to claim ownership over things. Of course, an infant can’t really do much in the way of actually enforcing it. But at some point, people start saying “THIS IS MINE, NOT YOURS!” Now, if you want to say that people don’t do this, well you are living in fantasy land.
This does not contradict my point. In fact, it’s an example of my point. People make claims to own things. Whether or not those claims are legitimate is a separate issue.
Well, then, perhaps eating meat isn’t inherent? Maybe it’s just the ability to eat meat that is inherent.
Looks like you’re getting it after all.
The explanation that it offers is that it is absurd to try and wish a society without private property, because the idea of owning things is inherent to people. People will always claim to own something. Even if you tried to tell me that you don’t own anything, you would be lying. If I took your food every time you were about to eat it, at some point you would exclaim “STOP THAT’S MINE! I NEED TO EAT! IT’S MY FOOD!” Otherwise, you would die. In which case, you could perhaps make the claim that it is not inherent to all people after all. But I have yet to see this happen, and the fortunate side effect of that would be that the fools who claim that the concept of ownership is not inherent to humans would no longer be with us.
Whew.
Well, this still depends upon your definition of property. And again, I have yet to see any society survive that did not have private property.
So, why would you knowingly use a term differently than everyone else and make it known? You know that us anarcho-capitalists use either the standard definition of things or the Austrian definition of things. Why would you purposely use a different definition when you know we won’t know how you are using it?
This does not contradict my point.
Okay, so what?
I brought up nests. You brought up hornets. Pretty simple stuff.
Really? Let me quote you:
And:
How are you defining the word “deny”?
Progress!
That specific response of mine was to a question you posed to me. Your question was, “Are you considering murder a type of abandonement?” So what’s the problem here? This whole line of dialogue started when you stated,“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.” So, again, what are the problems with my responses?
No, I’m not the one who is responding to others with “bla bla bla.” So why don’t you point out where I am trolling you, because as far as I can tell, I have been actually responding to your points, which is a courtesy that you are not always extending to me.
I’m still waiting for that definition of the word “legitimate”.
Governments are either the ruling class, a tool of the ruling class, or both.
Again, I ask that you actually explain your point.
So you would have no problem if someone were to come and take this computer from you?
I thought we were talking about the original appropriation of private property. All this shows is that violence is a necessary aspect to law, which I already understand. Again, you have not disproved my point.
So are you saying that my way of wording it is more precise? That dispute resolution is for the good of the people involved in the dispute?
Making clear statements is better than making vague statements in debate. Unless, of course, you make vague statements so as to deflect your opponent’s arguments.
Again, the initial claim did not have to be made by force. The second person could be the one iniating the force. Is this really that difficult to understand?
Are you going to answer my question? How are you using the phrase “economic power”?
Context isn’t much good without a definition. Please provide one.
Your analogy was bad because it was not an accurate analogy. Does that help?
No. I’m wishing you luck on your foolish quest for thievery and power.
There you go again, cherrypicking quotes. We actually have discussed this exact problem before, so I will actually just repost my previous response:
Notice how you failed to quote the relevant stuff the first time? And you do it again after I called you out on it before. Can you just talk about my argument as a whole instead of just cherrypicking parts of it?
Yes. You would have acquired it without violence. However, you would have acquired it through aggression, which is something that I am against. See how I stick to my definitions? I am purposely precise so that we can actually discuss the matters at hand.
It would be helpful if you would actually tell me how I am misrepresenting my argument. That way I can improve upon my explanations.
I thought that the premises of my argument were obvious, but apparently not to you, so I will make it so:
All property is a legal status. All legal statuses arise from dispute resolution. Thus, all property arises from dispute resolution.
Your response: All iron is a chemical status. All chemical statuses arise in stars. Thus, all chemicals arise from stars.
The problem with your counterexample is that it contains a false premise. Not all chemical statuses arise in stars, whereas all legal statuses do arise from disputes. Yes, even in statutory law, the law arises from disputes. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you had mean to say that all iron arises from stars, though you did not say that in your counterexample.
Good thing I never claimed otherwise. Actually, it is you who did actually claim otherwise. After all, I had originally stated “Property arises from the peaceful resolution of disputes.” You responded to that with “Not really, dispute resolution arises from the peaceful resolution of disputes, whether it has to do with property or not.” So, if you actually agreed with me, why did you say I was wrong? Perhaps you should read what I write more carefully, something that I have suggested a few times already.
I should have phrased it as non-violent dispute resolution. I have in other threads, but sometimes I mistakenly say peaceful.
See above.
I suggest you read Clayton’s wonderful posts on the subject.
As I said above, I should have really said non-violent instead of peaceful.
See above.
Again, the original claim does not need to be violent.
It was a foolish statement to make, because I have actually known perhaps a handful of people who have stolen something from someone. Regardless, the vast majority of people I know have acquired their property through peaceful and voluntary means.
I address this earlier in this post.
For the record, here is a list of terms that Laotzu uses differently from everyone else:
These are just from his conversation with me. Some of these he has yet to even define. He knows he uses these differently from most people and especially from people on this forum, yet he doesn’t define many of these terms, nor does he seek a different way to explain many of them. How, exactly, is any kind of logical debate supposed to take place when one person will not even define the terms he is using?
What do you mean by “pure private property”?
That anything can actually “yours” rather than just seen as yours by society.
The law is social by its very nature. The status of private property may be social, yet it exists nonetheless. Someone either owns something or he doesn’t. The law either recognizes that he owns something or he doesn’t. You’re gonna have to do better than this.
Someone can’t “own” something, he can only be recognized to own it by the law. That’s my point.
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.
You haven’t answered my question. In what way are you using the word “legitimate”?
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.
Why is it not a great example? The standard of living of the Somali people has been improving ever since the collapse of their national government. In other words, their lives are improving under their system of customary law. But, if you don’t want to debate on it, then you can just accept my statement that people’s lives would improve under customary law.
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.
Baseless assertion. Everyone who wants property can have it. Even the homeless in America have property. Unless, of course, you are defining property differently from everyone else again.
-
You just countered my baseless assertion with one of your own.
-
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.
-
Why does the “fact” that anyone can own property legitimize property? (IOW, ok so anyone can have property. Why should I respect property rights?)
There have been some Mises Daily articles on various communal societies, some of which had existed in America. They either ditched the idea or starved to death.
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.
Again, how are you defining “property”? Are you claiming that the tools humans made were not property? That people did not own those tools?
As a specific form of possession and control that exists legally. Yes. Yes.
That humans did not have rules in regards to who gets first dibs on the deer they hunted?
In fact, for most hunter gatherer societies the idea of “first dibs” would have been absurd and insulting.
What, pray tell, are you accusing toddler’s of “stealing”? And of course, don’t forget that victims of crimes can always forgive others for their crimes. If you want to say that little Timmy stole mommy’s shoe, why do you think his mother doesn’t prosecute little Timmy? I really wanna here the answer to this one…
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?
So are you telling me what I really meant? Really? You aren’t going to budge from this position of knowing what I really meant? Talk about arrogancean
Did I tell you what you really meant? I didn’t mean to.
I’ll say it again, because I have no problem repeating what I actually meant: People are born with the ability to claim ownership over things. Of course, an infant can’t really do much in the way of actually enforcing it. But at some point, people start saying “THIS IS MINE, NOT YOURS!” Now, if you want to say that people don’t do this, well you are living in fantasy land.
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.
This does not contradict my point. In fact, it’s an example of my point. People make claims to own things. Whether or not those claims are legitimate is a separate issue.
See above. It IS a seperate issue. And that issue is what seperates possession and control from the claim to possession and control, and also differentiates it from “property.”
Well, then, perhaps eating meat isn’t inherent? Maybe it’s just the ability to eat meat that is inherent.
Fair enough. That holds true for all “human nature” claims. It’s not inherent, but the ability to do so that is inherent.
The explanation that it offers is that it is absurd to try and wish a society without private property, because the idea of owning things is inherent to people.
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.
People will always claim to own something. Even if you tried to tell me that you don’t own anything, you would be lying.
I don’t own anything.
If I took your food every time you were about to eat it, at some point you would exclaim “STOP THAT’S MINE! I NEED TO EAT! IT’S MY FOOD!”
Or I would say “I’m using that, but I would be happy to share.”
Well, this still depends upon your definition of property. And again, I have yet to see any society survive that did not have private property.
I’m well aware you were not alive 10k years ago, so of course you wouldn’t have seen it.
So, why would you knowingly use a term differently than everyone else and make it known? You know that us anarcho-capitalists use either the standard definition of things or the Austrian definition of things. Why would you purposely use a different definition when you know we won’t know how you are using it?
Sometimes I get too familiar with Marxist circles, standing in the echo chamber if you will. They would have understood me.
This does not contradict my point.
I thought it did.
Okay, so what?
So, as was said many times, any fulfillment of human need or want is an afterthought to the ability to profit.
I brought up nests. You brought up hornets. Pretty simple stuff.
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?
How are you defining the word "deny
By saying “that’s wrong” or something to that effect. “I’m not sure that’s true” is not a denial.
Progress!
That specific response of mine was to a question you posed to me. Your question was, “Are you considering murder a type of abandonement?” So what’s the problem here? This whole line of dialogue started when you stated,“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.” So, again, what are the problems with my response
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.
No, I’m not the one who is responding to others with “bla bla bla.” So why don’t you point out where I am trolling you, because as far as I can tell, I have been actually responding to your points, which is a courtesy that you are not always extending to me.
Do I have to specfiically quote every sentence of yours? Can I not answer multiple points with one statement?
Am I responding with “bla bla bla” or is this just a made up personal attack, a common trait amongst trolls?
I’m still waiting for that definition of the word “legitimate”.
Provided. You can stop diverting the question now.
Governments are either the ruling class, a tool of the ruling class, or both.
Socio-economic classes are made up of people. Government is not a person.
Again, I ask that you actually explain your point.
I don’t know how to explain it any further…
So you would have no problem if someone were to come and take this computer from you?
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.
I thought we were talking about the original appropriation of private property. All this shows is that violence is a necessary aspect to law, which I already understand. Again, you have not disproved my point.
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.
So are you saying that my way of wording it is more precise? That dispute resolution is for the good of the people involved in the dispute?
Sure. Sounds good. This applies to people directly involved in the dispute, and often the people indirectly involved.
Again, the initial claim did not have to be made by force. The second person could be the one iniating the force. Is this really that difficult to understand
See above. The cliam to property is not enough to establish a thing AS property.
Are you going to answer my question? How are you using the phrase “economic power”?
I thought I did answer it…
Theives use economic power. They may use their gun they own, or some other tool. They may scam you. They may claim property over a mine in the area. All human acts are economic acts… well, maybe if no tools at all are used they don’t. But how often does nobody use a tool
ie, the use of goods, services, and resources to leverage against another person.
Context isn’t much good without a definition. Please provide one.
See above
Your analogy was bad because it was not an accurate analogy. Does that help?
Why not?
No. I’m wishing you luck on your foolish quest for thievery and power.
Another irrelevant and made up personal attack?
Notice how you failed to quote the relevant stuff the first time? And you do it again after I called you out on it before. Can you just talk about my argument as a whole instead of just cherrypicking parts of it?
I responded with “why” I took your quote of context. I was not trying to do it again. I was showing why I did it in the first place. And then I apologized for doing it.
Christ…
Yes. You would have acquired it without violence. However, you would have acquired it through aggression, which is something that I am against. See how I stick to my definitions? I am purposely precise so that we can actually discuss the matters at hand.
So aggression is not violent?
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.
Do you have any idea how ***ing confusing that it?
It would be helpful if you would actually tell me how I am misrepresenting my argument. That way I can improve upon my explanation
If I remember correctly it had to do with your definition of property and how inadequate I find it to be.
I thought that the premises of my argument were obvious, but apparently not to you, so I will make it so:
All property is a legal status. All legal statuses arise from dispute resolution. Thus, all property arises from dispute resolution.
Your response: All iron is a chemical status. All chemical statuses arise in stars. Thus, all chemicals arise from stars.
The problem with your counterexample is that it contains a false premise. Not all chemical statuses arise in stars, whereas all legal statuses do arise from disputes. Yes, even in statutory law, the law arises from disputes. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you had mean to say that all iron arises from stars, though you did not say that in your counterexample.
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?
Good thing I never claimed otherwise. Actually, it is you who did actually claim otherwise. After all, I had originally stated “Property arises from the peaceful resolution of disputes.” You responded to that with “Not really, dispute resolution arises from the peaceful resolution of disputes, whether it has to do with property or not.” So, if you actually agreed with me, why did you say I was wrong? Perhaps you should read what I write more carefully, something that I have suggested a few times already.
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.
I should have phrased it as non-violent dispute resolution. I have in other threads, but sometimes I mistakenly say peaceful.
Fair enough. We all make mistakes. Now maybe you see where I am coming from?
I suggest you read Clayton’s wonderful posts on the subject.
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?
Again, the original claim does not need to be violent.
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)
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.