This is BS and anyone should know it. Half of these I have explicitly defined, and the other half should have been taken from context. For the good of the conversation, I will proceed to explictly define all of them, right now.
pure private property
Private property I define as the legal title to be monopoly executor over an item.
“Pure” private property I define as the ability for anyone to actually own anything, rather than be seen as the owner by the community.
This is actually far closer to the mainstream definition of private property than how it is defined on this site.
legitimate
Legitimate, as in respected by people or custom. The decisions of the courts are legitimate within their society. Me respecting your claim to property makes your property legitimate (at least between the two of us).
I use this word often in debate and have not had a problem with it until today so…
property
Legitimized (through court or custom) possession and control.
inherent
Having the capacity for a behavior that has been seen in other members of the same species (at least this is how I’ve used it every time in our discussion)
wealth
Afre you serious?! I defined this when you asked it of me, something which you had already responded to before you made this post. Again:
their possessions are not wealth, but the enforced unequal access to those things (property) is wealth.
This is probably the only one I am using that is that far from the mainstream defintiion. But the mainstream defintiion of wealth sucks
deny
I see. You actually are just trolling now… I’m going to respond to the rest of this post anyway for the audence’s sake.
troll
People more interested in “winning debates” and “looking cool” than actually establishing any truth. I was never asked to define this, nor accused anyone of it, so I don’t see what this has to do with me in the first place.
violence
The use of physical force or the threat thereof.
economic power
I defined this as well. Namely: 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.
just
Again, I was never asked to provide a definition of this. And unlike “legitimacy” I thought this one apparent; “what is found to contain justice, or be 'good.”
Oh, how “magnanimous” of you! I guess I should bow before your feet, hmm? No, instead I’m going to deconstruct your response.
Here we go. Would you like to explain how people who don’t “own” “property” have no power at all? Since you seem to me to be implicitly agreeing with my definition of “power” (which is the same as your definition of “true human freedom”, i.e. “the ability to functionally pursue one’s desires”), then this means you’ll need to explain how people who don’t “own” “property” have no ability to functionally pursue their desires whatsoever. Otherwise, if you don’t mean that, and you were using words loosely, then this is again a dishonest position you’re working from.
Congratulations, you’re now equivocating over the meaning of “power”. Either “power” still means “the ability to functionally pursue one’s desires”, in which case you would accept a position of power, or it means something else, in which case you don’t want a kernel of power for yourself, as you wouldn’t accept a position of power. Do you see (or are willing to admit publicly ) the contradiction there? I really hope you do (or are), but I’m not holding my breath.
Well your position in this regard is just a bunch of handwavery about “the community”. What in the world are we supposed to take that to mean? So no, until further notice, I don’t see how your position really takes into account divergent interests.
Regardless, my point was about your definition of “power”. Using that definition, if you want as much power for people as possible, then that means you want people to have as much ability to functionally pursue their desires as possible. If this desire of yours were fulfilled, it would presumably lead to lots and lots of conflict, given that people would be able and willing to do whatever they want.
It’s clearAauto has something personal against me. I should not have responded to him, when I said I wouldn’t… as it only further fed his deep-seated hatred for me. I feel like I should respond to his latest attacks, because I truly am not trying to be dishonest in any way… but really I don’t care. If I do respond, I’m just going to get him more po’d, more out to get me, and this is the interent. I have no need to subject myself to that.
Please, moderators, note that I will never respond to Auto again. If I am discussing in a thread, any post he directs at me is a derailment. It will not be responded to, in any way.
That is a case of me having more violent power than you, not a case of neither of us having violent power.
Promises of payment are not very compelling, unlike knives in the face. I think you get the gist of what I’m saying. Soldiers killed peasants not because that was necessary to get paid; they did it because they wanted to kill peasants. Getting paid was just a bonus. The real class definition in class warfare is not wealth. It’s something that boggles my mind and maybe yours.
That is a case of me having more violent power than you, not a case of neither of us having violent power.
Sure, why not. But in that case your example is just you using violent power to overcome my economic power.
Promises of payment are not very compelling, unlike knives in the face. I think you get the gist of what I’m saying.
I do, and not only is it wrong, but I can only conclude you have grown up pretty posh to even say something like that. My mother and I once got into a fight because I posted something about legalizing weed on my fb and she might “lose her job” that she doesn’t really like in the first place. “Promise of payment” is one of the major reasons people, who have to pay their bills, accept wage labor in the first place.
Soldiers killed peasants not because that was necessary to get paid; they did it because they wanted to kill peasants. Getting paid was just a bonus.
No. People don’t go to war to fulfill some masochistic fantasy. People go to war to secure land, resource, and markets. I mean, if you’re talking about actual soldiers… sure, they’re pretty masochistic. The people who start the wars tho, do it for economic reasons. Even the Crusades, the so-called “holy war” was really just an response to the growing power of Arab Muslims, and the loss of economic dominance by Christian Byzantine.
Good thing I never claimed that I believed in “pure” private property then.
You either own something or you don’t.
So why make assumptions about my beliefs if I don’t seem to be this typical “propertarian”?
I will address this later because you have contradicted yourself on this. I will address this in the response to your other post.
Ok.
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?
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?
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.
Not just talking about Pilgrims, and I don’t feel like searching the Mises Dailies.
This is factually incorrect, as addressed in the article.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I’ll address this later in the post.
Ditto.
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.
Neither were you, so you cannot prove this either.
Care to elaborate?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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…
Governments are made up of people. Socio-economic classes are not persons.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
What is BS? I said that you defined some of them. I made a list of words that you are using differently than the rest of us. Context can be difficult because you do not use them all consistently.
I would just like to point out that you have defined “private property” differently in the thread, hence the confusion. You had said to z1235:
Part of the confusion is that “private property” does not have to have a “monopoly executor”. Most of the time (well, I think there is, but I could be wrong) there is a single person with the final say, but defining it with “monopoly executor” would leave out any jointly owned property. If I understand you correctly, you prefer jointly owned to monopoly executor. I’m just pointing out that you have not been consistent and do define “property” differently than us and most people.
To be honest, I’m still not really sure what you mean by “pure private property”, as for it to be considered “property”, it has to be in a social context. Maybe that’s your point, but I’m not sure.
Okay. See, you don’t always use it this way. I will show you 2 of the other ways you have used it (that I am aware of):
So, this means that you have used “legitimate” to mean 3 different things (that I am aware of).
See above section about “pure private property”.
You said: “I really wouldn’t use it often, because it’s a tricky situation for individualists. Eating meat is supposedly inherent to humans, yet I have friends that don’t do it… so really how far does inherent get us?”
This would seem to imply that you did not use the word “inherent” consistently. Later you did accept the definition you have just provided, but it was not the only way you used the word.
The reason I listed the word “wealth” was because you do use it differently than the mainstream definitions. I did not list it because you did not define it.
Well, actually you do use the word “deny” differently than everyone else. I explained how the phrase “not really” means “not in fact” or “not in actuallity” in a previous post. You are saying that when you use this phrase that you are not “denying” something. But that would not be how people typically use the word “deny”.
This is not trolling. You really do use many words differently.
This list does not exist because of a lack of provided definitions. It exists because you are seeming to be using these words differently than most everyone else. The typical definition of “troll” taken from wikipedia is:
So even the definition you have just provided is against the common, mainstream definition. That is fine, but I just want to be clear that this is a word you do not use like most people.
Okay. I understand what you mean by it, but it is not the mainstream definition of “Behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.”
Okay. Just so you know, the part I bolded is the clearest part of your definition. However, the preceding part of your definition allows for violent power to be included in the definition, which is fine if you want it to be that way. I don’t believe that it is the mainstream understanding of “economic power”. It’s certainly not the understood definition here.
I don’t remember asking you to provide a definition. I’m just pointing out when you admitted that you did seem to have a different definition than me. And I do have a different understanding of “justice” than you. Some of my thoughts on justice.
Again, I would just like to point out that the purpose of this list was to show the amount of words - words that have been important to our debate - that you have used differently, not only than me, but I believe also differently from the common use of the words. That you provided your definitions in a response (in one place!) is a bonus.
Hey it’s the weekend and these posts take a rather long time. I’ll be responding soon.
I do probably stand guilty of the charge of generalizing the views of some abstract propertarian on you. That’s my mistake, and is something I should not be doing. It’s just, a sort-of tendency amongst people in general. Do you know how often I have to defend from the “all leftists want full government control of everything” charge? lol
Again, I shouldn’t do it, even if it sometimes allows me to be accurate about a person with no previous inquiry. I apologize, and if you think me doing it in the future, just let me know.
Just to give you one more thing to respond to (unless you’d prefer to just respond to this instead of previous posts):
From our conversation, I think that some of your points stem from a certain misunderstanding of humans. I’ll list some of the points you have made as I understand them:
There should not be “private property” - that is, you do not believe it is just that any single person should have the final say on any given piece of property.
That for there to be “private property”, the original “owner” must necessarily have been the first person to initiate violence.
All property should be “jointly owned property” - and more specifically, it should be considered “owned” by the people who use it.
Might makes right, and you want this might to be in the hands of the working class.
I am going to respond to these points. I do not believe they are straw men, as they are just paraphrases of things you have said. Let me know if you believe these are not accurate and in what way they should be tweaked.
First, I would like to talk about the “might makes right” approach to law. I do not agree with that approach. That is the approach that forms the basis of statutory law, and in some very important ways I do not feel it really is “law” (it sort of is and it sort of isn’t - I’ll explain in a bit). I would like to quote Clayton from his post What Law Is on the definition of law:
Different systems of law can form, but they do not necessarily have to be a “might makes right” system. Clayton has explained the origin of law in his post A Praxeological Account of Law, and he has shown (I believe correctly) that the origin of law was not a “might makes right” approach. He used the example of two men having a dispute, and these two men are of roughly equivalent size and weight. It is dangerous for them to fight because one of them might lose. This is why they try to settle the dispute verbally. The reason they try to settle verbally is because neither one has the might to definitely win. Obviously statutory law has become the dominant form of law in the modern world, but it was not always the case. Many societies have had at some point (or still do have) common law, which is still a might makes right approach, but it is not centralized law; and customary law, which does not need to be a might makes right approach at all, though it does depend upon the society. There have been other systems, but I don’t feel the need to talk about them.
Earlier, I stated that statutory law is sort of law and sort of not law. Obviously, it is law in the sense that it fulflls the definition of law; it does provide alternatives to settling disputes with further violence. I also had said earlier in the thread that it is either superfluous or unjust, and it probably makes more sense to say it that way instead. Let us use the example of slavery in the United States. Not only was it considered lawful to own slaves, but it was considered lawful to kidnap escaped slaves and return them to their “owners”. I’m not sure much else really needs to be said about this other than the fact that while this was lawful, it was incredibly unjust. However there were laws in the US at the time that were just (e.g. laws against theft). But these laws would be superfluous, because they exist in customary law societies.
In short, I do not support a system of “might makes right”, as the laws are either superfluous or unjust.
Second, I would like to address the point that for there to be “private property”, the original owner must have necessarily been the one to initiate violence or the threat thereof. Again, I would like to quote a passage from A Praxeological Account of Law:
I have bolded the second paragraph because it explains very well what I mean when I say “the concept of ownership is inherent to humans”. Animals establish what they see as their own, and humans do the same thing. Just because someone has claimed something as their own does not mean they have initiated or threatened violence against anyone else. If I pick an apple off of a tree and then start to eat it, I have not threatened anybody else. However, if someone else were to come along and take that apple from me, they have used violence. Now, one objection might be that I could pick the apple and put it aside, and then someone else comes along and takes it. There was then no violence or threat of violence by the second individual, so there! But by what right does the second individual have to take that apple? Why does the second person have a better claim to that apple than the first person? How is it right that if I take the time to gather food for storage and find shelter for myself that I must now remain constantly vigilant, else the food I have gathered is up for grabs by anybody who can get away with it? Furthermore, if I pick the apple off of a tree, and then I drop it so that I may climb down safely, is it not mine any more? It is up for grabs until I can pick it up again?
This is why libertarians support the rule of first use. But this does not mean that the original appropriators of property are necessarily threatening or using violence against anyone. They are just realizing the golden rule. “Respect what is mine, and I’ll respect what is yours.” Now, it may seem that I am trying to be a slippery fish here on the original appropriation of property. The thing is, my views have changed a lot over the last few years, and they have continued to change. I used to be a conservative, then a Rothbardian, but I have not been a Rothbardian for a while now. Clayton has mentioned in other threads that he considers the NAP to be incomplete but largely suitable for the vast majority of human interaction. Maybe he is right and maybe he isn’t. My view has been informed by the golden rule for a very long time, and I believe the NAP is about as close to that as anything can be. But the golden rule is a solid rule as far as I’m concerned when it comes to society. The idea of a social contract is only partially valid. The common and original definition of the social contract is that by being a part of society, you agree to surrender your freedoms to the state or the majority. This, in my opinion, is nonsense. The only concept of a social contract that I could ever believe to be valid would be the idea that by being a part of society, you agree to the golden rule.
Quite simply, what you are suggesting is against the golden rule. “People should not have private property” is completely against the golden rule. If I take the time to find food or make shelter, that is mine. I will respect the food that you have found and the shelter you have made, and you will respect mine. If people really could not respect the things that other people own, there would not be any societies today. We would be living in poverty, if we were even living at all.
To summarize: It is not necessarily so that for there to be private property that the original appropriator must have used violence or threatened violence. Also, I support the NAP because it is a legal realization of the golden rule. I support the golden rule because I do. There is no way to reason out logically something like that. You either take it as a premise or you don’t.
Third, to address your idea about abolishing private property: As I said, it has to do with the golden rule. You can either respect my stuff or you don’t. Good luck trying to form a society around the idea that you don’t need to respect other people’s things. There’s not much else to say about it. I don’t believe it can happen, period. It’s not just even a question of whether it is moral or just.
Fourth, I have nothing against jointly owned property, but there is no way that property can be owned by everyone. It just boils down to the golden rule.
Finally, I said in the beginning that many of your points come from a misunderstanding of humans. As was pointed out earlier, many animals mark their territory and food. Humans do the same thing. Naturally, not all humans respect the claims of other humans. Some just take what they want from others and try to prevent others from gaining access to what they have taken. But you are asking us to pretend that a society could form without respecting the claims of individuals. I can see why you dismiss any argument about human nature. For a society without private property to exist, there would have to be a fundamental shift in human nature - that people would not claim things for themselves, or that people would be okay with others taking the things that they have claimed as their own. This will not happen. It is utopian to believe otherwise.
Just to give you one more thing to respond to (unless you’d prefer to just respond to this instead of previous posts):
I think that will work just fine. Perhaps I do use words rather loosely at times, and should look into cleaning that up. I will keep it in mind. I still think I tend to use words as they are used societally, as the only place I get into page long obfuscations on definitions is this site, and nowhere else. Language is social afterall, and only understood contextually.
From our conversation, I think that some of your points stem from a certain misunderstanding of humans. I’ll list some of the points you have made as I understand them:
Idk if they are misunderstanding about humans but ok
There should not be “private property” - that is, you do not believe it is just that any single person should have the final say on any given piece of propertty
I was going to say “not really..”
Here’s what I believe. No “single” person CAN have the final say on any given piece of property, it must by its very nature be social (a point we don’t disagree on; property is (a specific form of) dispute resolution.) I’m not really getting into whether it is just at this point. The immorality of property is not in what it is (possession and control, which is necessary), but it in how it is claimed.
That for there to be “private property”, the original “owner” must necessarily have been the first person to initiate violence
Or the threat thereof; which is violence in my book.
All property should be “jointly owned property” - and more specifically, it should be considered “owned” by the people who use it
“Should” is a tricky situation. I do think the outcome of working class aquisition of power will be in the creation of a new type of possession and control, not analogues to private property. I do think more just and equitable outcomes (yes, “just” is a subjective term) will arise from property being “jointly controlled” by more people, especially those who regularly use it. I’m not sure I believe that anything “should” happen, other than what does happen tho… but that’s a whole different philosophical debate (ethical relativism v absolutism).
I don’t think property should be owned at all; that is to say, I don’t think there should be proper “property.”
Might makes right, and you want this might to be in the hands of the working class.
Might doesn’t make right. That would be ludicrous, and saying that NAZI Germany was right simply because they had the most might at the time. C’mon, nobody should believe that make actually makes things right
What I believe is that might makes what will happen, how things will be organized, and that this might “should” be in the hands of the working class (more importantly, it probably will be through internal inconsistency of the capitalist mode of production), thereby dissolving that class and all class antagonism with it
I am going to respond to these points. I do not believe they are straw men, as they are just paraphrases of things you have said
Let me know if you believe these are not accurate and in what way they should be tweaked.en
See above.
First, I would like to talk about the “might makes right” approach to law. I do not agree with that approach
As seen above, nor do I. Nevertheless, that it is almost always how it works out.
That is the approach that forms the basis of statutory law, and in some very important ways I do not feel it really is “law” (it sort of is and it sort of isn’t - I’ll explain in a bit). I would like to quote Clayton from his post What Law Is on the definition of law:
Different systems of law can form, but they do not necessarily have to be a “might makes right” system. Clayton has explained the origin of law in his post A Praxeological Account of Law, and he has shown (I believe correctly) that the origin of law was not a “might makes right” approach.
I would not be able to respond to this without knowing the historical account of how property actually arose. This is unfalsiable post-diction, and therefore pseudo-science.
He used the example of two men having a dispute, and these two men are of roughly equivalent size and weight. It is dangerous for them to fight because one of them might lose. This is why they try to settle the dispute verbally. The reason they try to settle verbally is because neither one has the might to definitely win. Obviously statutory law has become the dominant form of law in the modern world, but it was not always the case. Many societies have had at some point (or still do have) common law, which is still a might makes right approach, but it is not centralized law; and customary law, which does not need to be a might makes right approach at all, though it does depend upon the society. There have been other systems, but I don’t feel the need to talk about them.
I mean, I would prefer customary law to an extent as well (obviously, if you are buying, selling, or owning slaves, I see no problem in bringing violence upon you). It would seem that customary law is actually necessary for their to be cohesive law, and that statutory law is mostly just a function of states trying to legitmize themselves.
Earlier, I stated that statutory law is sort of law and sort of not law. Obviously, it is law in the sense that it fulflls the definition of law; it does provide alternatives to settling disputes with further violence. I also had said earlier in the thread that it is either superfluous or unjust, and it probably makes more sense to say it that way instead. Let us use the example of slavery in the United States. Not only was it considered lawful to own slaves, but it was considered lawful to kidnap escaped slaves and return them to their “owners”. I’m not sure much else really needs to be said about this other than the fact that while this was lawful, it was incredibly unjust. However there were laws in the US at the time that were just (e.g. laws against theft). But these laws would be superfluous, because they exist in customary law societies.
In short, I do not support a system of “might makes right”, as the laws are either superfluous or unjust.
Again, I largely agree with you on the efficacy of customary law, and the coerciveness of statutory law. My questions would be; “just” according to whom? And do you think customary law could or would allow for the acquisition of people as property, ie slavery?
Second, I would like to address the point that for there to be “private property”, the original owner must have necessarily been the one to initiate violence or the threat thereof. Again, I would like to quote a passage from A Praxeological Account of Law:
I have bolded the second paragraph because it explains very well what I mean when I say “the concept of ownership is inherent to humans”. Animals establish what they see as their own, and humans do the same thing.
Again, as does the theif; namely to what you consider “your stuff.” So I say, again, that the claim to possession and control alone is not good enough to be considered property, else the theif’s claim is a claim to property. You’re saying the concept of “possession and control” is inherent to humans, which is true, and then conflating possession and control to “property,” which is a very specific form of possession and control.
Just because someone has claimed something as their own does not mean they have initiated or threatened violence against anyone else.
It does not, I agree.
If I pick an apple off of a tree and then start to eat it, I have not threatened anybody else. However, if someone else were to come along and take that apple from me, they have used violence.
Yet in property, it may have been “their” apple, and so, within a property system, you have used violence, by trespassing and theivery. But, without the respect for property claims, this is ludicrous, is it not?
Therefore, it is easy to see that one can claim possession and control non-violently, ie, you picking the apple. It is when someone claims “mine” that the threat of violence is necessary. You can only claim it as “mine” with the claim that you will defend it from being taken. The choices are:
You claim it as your own, and bring the threat of violence to protect it from being taken.
They claim it as theirs, with the threat of violence to protect it.
Nobody claims it as anyting other than nature’s bounty, you eat the apple, and the guy finds another one.
… I guess we could add in 4; one of you just abandons all hope for peace and brings physical violence on the other…
Now, one objection might be that I could pick the apple and put it aside, and then someone else comes along and takes it. There was then no violence or threat of violence by the second individual, so there! But by what right does the second individual have to take that apple?
What “right” did you have to take it?
Why does the second person have a better claim to that apple than the first person?
Good question. Why does the first person have a better claim than the second?
How is it right that if I take the time to gather food for storage and find shelter for myself that I must now remain constantly vigilant, else the food I have gathered is up for grabs by anybody who can get away with it?
Why is it right for you to take more apples than you need, forcing others to go without or take “yours” from you?
Furthermore, if I pick the apple off of a tree, and then I drop it so that I may climb down safely, is it not mine any more? It is up for grabs until I can pick it up again?
Why was it “yours” just for picking it? If it is “yours” just for picking it, wherein does wage labor not expropriate the value of the laborer’s productivity?
This is why libertarians support the rule of first use.
This was my original contention tho; there is no piece of (meaningful) property anywhere on earth that can be actually applied to the first use rule. For the libertarian society to be as justifiable as claimed we would have to strike down the legality of all current property claims and leave the entire world up for homesteading. That’s why it is often responded, when I bring this up, that “the claimants and their descendants are long dead and so we don’t have to worry about that.” Fine, fair enough… but it sure does seem like a post-hoc rationalization for the status quo.
But this does not mean that the original appropriators of property are necessarily threatening or using violence against anyone. They are just realizing the golden rule. “Respect what is mine, and I’ll respect what is yours.”
“Respect what is mine” or… what? That’s been my point the entire time.
Now, it may seem that I am trying to be a slippery fish here on the original appropriation of property. The thing is, my views have changed a lot over the last few years, and they have continued to change. I used to be a conservative, then a Rothbardian, but I have not been a Rothbardian for a while now. Clayton has mentioned in other threads that he considers the NAP to be incomplete but largely suitable for the vast majority of human interaction. Maybe he is right and maybe he isn’t. My view has been informed by the golden rule for a very long time, and I believe the NAP is about as close to that as anything can be. But the golden rule is a solid rule as far as I’m concerned when it comes to society. The idea of a social contract is only partially valid. The common and original definition of the social contract is that by being a part of society, you agree to surrender your freedoms to the state or the majority. This, in my opinion, is nonsense. The only concept of a social contract that I could ever believe to be valid would be the idea that by being a part of society, you agree to the golden rule.
Quite simply, what you are suggesting is against the golden rule. “People should not have private property” is completely against the golden rule. If I take the time to find food or make shelter, that is mine. I will respect the food that you have found and the shelter you have made, and you will respect mine. If people really could not respect the things that other people own, there would not be any societies today. We would be living in poverty, if we were even living at all.
Fair enough, but you’re talking about something wildly different than modern society. If we could go back in time to pre-neolithic days, perhaps I would agree with you.. tho probably not. What you are dealing with today is the violent appropration of all land, across the world, and its aftermath. There is no “food and shelter you and I have made.” There is only the aftermath of “things our ancestors were coerced and/or compelled to make at the behest of feudal property claimants.” It would be like me going to Bristolville, Ohio and killing everyone in the town, claiming it all as my property and telling you to “respect what is mine and I’ll respect what is yours.” It’s absurd.
To summarize: It is not necessarily so that for there to be private property that the original appropriator must have used violence or threatened violence. Also, I support the NAP because it is a legal realization of the golden rule. I support the golden rule because I do. There is no way to reason out logically something like that. You either take it as a premise or you don’t.
I completely agree with the bolded.
Third, to address your idea about abolishing private property: As I said, it has to do with the golden rule. You can either respect my stuff or you don’t.
I will respect your claim to your toothbrush, not your factory.
Good luck trying to form a society around the idea that you don’t need to respect other people’s things.
Good thing I’m not trying to build a society around that idea (or really “ideas” at all. I’m trying to establish society around the respect for people). It all really depends on “what” things are “yours” and “how” you use them, for socialists to determine valid claims.
There’s not much else to say about it. I don’t believe it can happen, period. It’s not just even a question of whether it is moral or just.
I’d rather prefer to not get into a “can it happen” debate because 1) I’m not arguing for a free-for-all society, but one based on need, not profit, and 2) I don’t think ancap can happen (because the ruling class would fight it nearly as hard as they fight socialism. Sure, they love to use libertarians to get the government out of the way when they need to. But when it comes to actually being libertarian, they see you guys as a threat).
Fourth, I have nothing against jointly owned property, but there is no way that property can be owned by everyone. It just boils down to the golden rule
I agree; there is no way for property to be owned by everyone. There is a way for possession and control to ultimately lay with the people democratically.
Finally, I said in the beginning that many of your points come from a misunderstanding of humans.
I’m not sure you made a good case for your contention tho.
As was pointed out earlier, many animals mark their territory and food. Humans do the same thing. Naturally, not all humans respect the claims of other humans. Some just take what they want from others and try to prevent others from gaining access to what they have taken.
See above.
But you are asking us to pretend that a society could form without respecting the claims of individuals.
I am claiming no such thing.
I can see why you dismiss any argument about human nature. For a society without private property to exist, there would have to be a fundamental shift in human nature - that people would not claim things for themselves, or that people would be okay with others taking the things that they have claimed as their own.
For a libertarian society to exist there must be a “fundamental shift” in “human nature.” People would have to stop claiming other people’s things as their own and using military means to back up those claims. I don’t really see this happening, it is not in the interests of the ruling class (and really only in the interests of the small business owner and small land owner), so it won’t come about through reform. It is not in the interests of the antagonist class either (the working class), so it wouldn’t come about through revolution. If something is not in the interests of the ruling class, a class with the economic means to bring society to their will, or the antagonistic class… I don’t see any means of how to bring it about.
For a society without private property to exist there would have to be nothing more than a legal means to make possession and control democratically accountable. Once all possession and control is democratically accountable, there is no longer “property” in the traditional sense of the word. I see no reason why democratically accountable claims to possession and control does not fit in with your “Golden Rule” other than the whole “mine” part (it’s more "I will respect you, if you will respect me).
It is incorrect to state that no single person can have the final say on any given piece of property. The vast majority of interactions are entirely voluntary and property exchanges hands without conflict. Sometimes, there are disputes, but many of these are resolved with someone making the final say. One such example: two children are fighting over a toy. One of the parents makes a decision as to who gets control and ends the dispute. The parent here has the final say.
Regardless, an even more specific way of stating what I mean: You believe that it is not just that any single person should have the legal final say on any given piece of property.
I agree with this.
To be honest, I don’t entirely disagree with this, but I think you are missing something here - what we have today is not capitalism in the sense of free markets but crony capitalism. A lot of the largest corporations in the world exist or are as large as they are because of their symbiosis with the state. Without the protections that the government gives them, I suspect that there would be more corporations but smaller. There would still be Walmarts, but the auto industry and the music industry and the computer industry (especially software) would probably have many more competitors and the giants of these industries would probably be smaller. I can’t prove it except to say that they have retained their size and wealth through aggressive government intervention.
I know that this is not what you are trying to say, but it is my belief that in a free market system, the working class would have more power and the elite class would have less (again, because the elite class retains its power through the state, so without it, they lose most of their power).
This is quite the dismissal. Calling it names really doesn’t do much to support your belief. Look, Clayton put forth a deductive argument to prove his case. If you want to dismiss his case, then I suggest you show where his premises are false or incomplete, or you show how his argument is invalid. If you believe you can contribute something to show how he might be wrong, I suggest you post your thoughts on it in those threads and not in this one.
I agree with this.
What I mean is that statutory law either reflects what customary would be or it goes against it. Obviously, customary law does not prevent there being unjust laws, but customary law cannot be superfluous in the way that statutory law can be, as customary law is just a reflection of the community instead of the strongest of the community.
I am not conflating the two ideas. The point I am trying to make is that people, like animals, make claims to possession and control, and you are saying that they should not do that. My point is that this goes against human nature. Every human claims to be the rightful owner of something, and you are saying that you want a society without this. I understand that you claim that you are someone who does not claim to be a rightful owner to anything, but I don’t believe you. If I were to take your computer, your clothes, and your home, you would be upset at this. You can claim you wouldn’t, but I just wouldn’t believe you. There really is nothing you can say to convince me otherwise. If I were to take the food you were going to eat each and every time you were going to eat it, you would eventually claim, “This is mine! Don’t touch it!” Else you would starve to death. I mean, if you chose the route of starving to death, then yes, I would believe you. But then where would that get you? Dead.
This is incorrect. If you cannot prove who the property belongs to, then we don’t know who it belongs to. The current owners are the rightful owners. The only exception is if you can prove that the current owners stole the property from someone else, but you can’t specify who. But if the victims are long dead, and no one knows who they are, then the current owners are the rightful owners (unless of course we know that those particular owners did steal it). It’s not that we don’t have to worry about it, it’s that we cannot prove who the rightful owners are. So the property was homesteaded by the current owners. This is consistent in a libertarian framework, even if you don’t like the framework for your own moral reasons.
To be honest, I’m not sure what you are trying to say.
Why?
This is false. There is nothing in libertarianism that requires a fundamental shift in human nature. The NAP is not a moral framework but a legal one. The vast majority of human interaction is voluntary. All we want is for the system of law to be consistent with the NAP instead of the statutory double standard that currently exists. Unless someone is a minarchist, and they have the capacity to doublethink their way into the double standard.
I did not respond to every part of your post, and I hope that this part here will be sufficient. I think the main idea we disagree on is “just property”. I believe in it (and the first use rule as a good indicator) and you don’t. I consider that the NAP encompasses both individuals and their justly owned property, and you believe that there should not be violence or the threat of violence initiated only against people (though it seems you still have some contradictory views on this, for instance the toothbrush versus the factory). I think that’s all this really boils down to, and neither of us can change the other’s mind on the concept of justly owned property.
It is incorrect to state that no single person can have the final say on any given piece of property. The vast majority of interactions are entirely voluntary and property exchanges hands without conflict. Sometimes, there are disputes, but many of these are resolved with someone making the final say. One such example: two children are fighting over a toy. One of the parents makes a decision as to who gets control and ends the dispute. The parent here has the final say.
Regardless, an even more specific way of stating what I mean: You believe that it is not just that any single person should have the legal final say on any given piece of property.
That sounds about right. When I said “no person CAN have the final say” I was talking about how I can’t use my gun that I own to kill you. Property must be regulated socially. The decision between the two children and the parent is still a social decision; the other child could have dismissed the parent’s ruling.
To be honest, I don’t entirely disagree with this, but I think you are missing something here - what we have today is not capitalism in the sense of free markets but crony capitalism. A lot of the largest corporations in the world exist or are as large as they are because of their symbiosis with the state. Without the protections that the government gives them, I suspect that there would be more corporations but smaller. There would still be Walmarts, but the auto industry and the music industry and the computer industry (especially software) would probably have many more competitors and the giants of these industries would probably be smaller. I can’t prove it except to say that they have retained their size and wealth through aggressive government interventionion
I don’t actually disagree with this that much. But I also think without those protections the for-profit system would have collapsed utterly decades ago (admittedly it may have rebuilt itself shortly after). There’s a reason they turn to the state, it’s the only way to keep growing and remain profitable; meaning its the only way to fulfill the demands of investors… they also turn to the state to stave off the inevitable collapse caused by overproduction.
I know that this is not what you are trying to say, but it is my belief that in a free market system, the working class would have more power and the elite class would have less (again, because the elite class retains its power through the state, so without it, they lose most of their power).
I mean, I agree with that. I guess I just don’t see the quasi-statist PDA’s as all that different from the state. I don’t think companies without statist worker protection would waste much time in bringing violence upon striking workers (again, not to say workers don’t get violent as well).
This is quite the dismissal. Calling it names really doesn’t do much to support your belief. Look, Clayton put forth a deductive argument to prove his case. If you want to dismiss his case, then I suggest you show where his premises are false or incomplete, or you show how his argument is invalid. If you believe you can contribute something to show how he might be wrong, I suggest you post your thoughts on it in those threads and not in this one.
I don’t deny his syllogism is well thought out and valid. Yet, as I tried to say, if his premises don’t correspond to reality, his conclusion, no matter how valid, is irrelevant.
All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Socrates is mortal.
But what if Socrates is a woman, and not all men are mortal? That’s my point. I don’t know the historical account of how property arose, so I can’t “prove” his premises false. That doesn’t mean they are true tho. I didn’t “just call it names.” I described psuedo-science and called it that.
What I mean is that statutory law either reflects what customary would be or it goes against it. Obviously, customary law does not prevent there being unjust laws, but customary law cannot be superfluous in the way that statutory law can be, as customary law is just a reflection of the community instead of the strongest of the community.
Fair enough.
I am not conflating the two ideas. The point I am trying to make is that people, like animals, make claims to possession and control, and you are saying that they should not do that
I am not saying that. I am saying that people shouldn’t make claim to a specific legal title to possession and control; that “property” (if we must call it that) should be democratic.
My point is that this goes against human nature.
It doesn’t (if there is such a thing as “human nature.”)
Every human claims to be the rightful owner of something, and you are saying that you want a society without this.
I want a society where the rightful controllers of things are decided communally (democratically).
I understand that you claim that you are someone who does not claim to be a rightful owner to anything, but I don’t believe you.
You don’t have to. We can hang out sometime tho.
If I were to take your computer, your clothes, and your home, you would be upset at this
It depends on who is taking it and for what reason. If you took it to make war with someone, or just to feed your want for more stuff, I would get upset about it. If you took it because you actually needed it, I would have no problem.
You can claim you wouldn’t, but I just wouldn’t believe you.
That’s fine. It’s not as if I can prove it over the internet… it’s also not as if people don’t make outrageous and wild claims daily on the internet
There really is nothing you can say to convince me otherwise. If I were to take the food you were going to eat each and every time you were going to eat it, you would eventually claim, “This is mine! Don’t touch it!” Else you would starve to death. I mean, if you chose the route of starving to death, then yes, I would believe you. But then where would that get you? Dead.of
It’s a good thing, once again, that I am not promoting a society of wanton taking of things by whoever wants it. I am promoting a society where decisions regarding goods, resources, and services are decided rationally and democratically.
This is incorrect. If you cannot prove who the property belongs to, then we don’t know who it belongs to. The current owners are the rightful owners.
The US Government made a deal with the Nex Perce for their land. Although they didn’t really make it with the Nex Perce, but instead chose one of the tribesman to be its leader, against their own custom of non-binding decision making, and made him sign the title away. This territory basically comprises most of the Northwest US. After a long war and exile between the US and the Nez Perce, most of them are dead. We know who the rightful “owners” of this property should be.
The only exception is if you can prove that the current owners stole the property from someone else, but you can’t specify who. But if the victims are long dead, and no one knows who they are, then the current owners are the rightful owners (unless of course we know that those particular owners did steal it). It’s not that we don’t have to worry about it, it’s that we cannot prove who the rightful owners are. So the property was homesteaded by the current owners. This is consistent in a libertarian framework, even if you don’t like the framework for your own moral reasons.
I don’t, because again I could go to Bristol, Ohio and kill everyone, claim the land as my own, and demand you “respect my claim” because you cannot “prove” who the rightful owners should be (assuming I did this in secret, and killed off al the people who knew them as well). This is even more difficult in the case above where there were not previously established land claims, that land was held communally… which is basically the state of the entire world if you go back far enough.
I mean if your framework lets this caveat in, there’s nothing I can say other than that I disagree.
Why?
Because you need your toothbrush more than anyone else.
This is false. There is nothing in libertarianism that requires a fundamental shift in human nature. The NAP is not a moral framework but a legal one. The vast majority of human interaction is voluntary. All we want is for the system of law to be consistent with the NAP instead of the statutory double standard that currently exists. Unless someone is a minarchist, and they have the capacity to doublethink their way into the double standard.
Yes, but I can just aggress against you and set up a state anyway… and this is certainly what usually happens (for example “anarchist” [lulz] Iceland, or the Ukraine Free Territory, or the Paris Commune. How long do you think this Zapatista movement will last before some statist comes in with guns and crushes the whole thing?
That’s why imo, “anarchism” implies far more than non-statism and the NAP. It’s really more about the lack of leaders; an-archy.
I did not respond to every part of your post, and I hope that this part here will be sufficient. I think the main idea we disagree on is “just property”. I believe in it (and the first use rule as a good indicator) and you don’t. I consider that the NAP encompasses both individuals and their justly owned property, and you believe that there should not be violence or the threat of violence initiated only against people (though it seems you still have some contradictory views on this, for instance the toothbrush versus the factory). I think that’s all this really boils down to, and neither of us can change the other’s mind on the concept of justly owned property.ed
Well, this is obviously false. There are many companies that do grow and remain profitable without resorting to the violent monopoly of the state. And this overproduction is caused by the state, not the free market.
I’m sorry, what? You can’t really be saying that you are against private security? You might want to rephrase this to make it clearer.
Which premises don’t correspond to reality?
Again, which premises are false? You have previously granted that private property arises from dispute resolution. He lays a solid case for how dispute resolution began. That’s what his essay is about, dispute resolution. So, if you believe that there is something false or incomplete about his premises, it should be pretty easy to point to where. Quite simply, you could provide another way dispute resolution could have began, and thus an alternate origin of property.
But yes, I would say calling it pseudo-science and postdiction as name calling. There is nothing unscientific about deductive reasoning, and it is certainly not postdiction.
This is what I’m saying is against human nature. Everyone forms attachments to certain things. Maybe not everything, but certain things. Even the homeless get attached to their belongings, and they protect what they claim is theirs, even when the state won’t. What you are saying is that people should not make claims to be the rightful owner of certain things, and I’m saying that you are asking everyone to deny human nature.
Sure there is human nature. One obvious aspect of it is human action. Or that everyone acts in their own self-interest. Not what others think their self-interest ought to be, but what they themselves think it should be.
Of course, not only do I disagree with this morally, but this is of course subject to the calculation problem. Any society based on this would end in abject poverty, and I would want no part of it.
This is ultimately a utilitarian argument, and there is no way to compare utils between different people. This is an arbitrary system.
Well, I consider it about as close to the action axiom as one could get. Obviously, to deny the action axiom is to do a performative contradiction. It’s not quite the same here, hence the “about as close to the action axiom as one could get.” Ultimately, if you really believed in no just private property, people could take from you until you starve to death. So, while there is no perfomative contradiction, you would be dead. And what good does that do you?
Utilitarianism is ultimately arbitrary. You cannot prove that it is or is not wanton taking of things by such a standard. Of course, since I am not a supporter of utilitarianism, I can make such a claim
If you can prove who they are, then you know who the rightful owners are. If you cannot, then you do not actually know. This has to do with both the burden of proof and the standard of proof. If you can’t prove it, then you don’t actually know it. You just take it on faith. In this particular scenario, you would not only have to find the exact descendants, but also the specific areas of land that they claimed to have owned. You may be able to prove who the rightful owners are, but I seriously doubt you can prove what they rightfully own. You need both.
Do you understand what the burden of proof is and what the standards of proof are? If you kill everyone off in secret, how is anyone going to know that it was you who did this? There is no caveat. If no one can prove it, then no one can know. If no one can know, then how are they supposed to be aware of the problem? This is not a failure of libertarianism but a failure of imperfect knowledge.
Do I? How do you know? Why doesn’t someone else need it more than me?
Who knows? But the same can be said of any society, statist or otherwise. There is always the possibility of an outside invader coming in a taking over. This does not prove that libertarianism requires a fundamental shift in human nature, which it does not.
Anarchism is about a lack of rulers, not a lack of leaders. Anti-statism and the NAP are congruent with anarchy.
I’m not playing to the lurkers. If there are any lurkers who are at all interested in this subject, I believe they might find those two articles interesting and worth while to read.
Neither did I. We just have very different concepts of justice,morality, and just property. There is no logic that can really change those beliefs for either of us. It’s something you either believe in or don’t. The best we can do here is to learn how to clarify our beliefs.
Fwiw, the price of most factors of production are set by the costs of production. Check out this post where I compare post-Keynesian fixprice theory and Böhm-Bawerk’s cost of production theory of prices. Basically, according to Böhm-Bawerk the prices of manufactured products, under the conditions that the means of production can go towards the production of various good, will be determined by the costs of production. This isn’t the same as the classical theory of value, but an application of an advanced theory of the imputation of value. Explained,
His intentions were to solve why many prices are set below the marginal utility the buyer ascribes to the good; i.e. why the marginal utility of the buyer may not be directly relevant to the price of these goods (although, the value of the means of production is derived from the value ascribed to the final good — this is an application of Menger’s law of imputation). Rather than a straight cost plus mark-up theory, Böhm-Bawerk posits that it is the marginal utility of the means of production that govern the prices of the output good (as long as these means of production have substitute products, since the value of the former is derived from the least valuable substitute).
This is the example Böhm-Bawerk gives (more-or-less): imagine group of means of production G2, which can produce final products A, B, and C (with marginal utilities of 100, 110, and 120, respectively). The loss of the marginal group G2 is equal to the marginal utility of producing the additional unit of A, or the lowest alternative form of output. This is because the manufacturer, upon the loss of G2, can transfer the loss in the form of one less unit of A, and therefore maintain intact the production of marginal units B, and C. In less roundabout terms, this means that the value of G2 is imputed from the value of A. Since the costs of G2 are based on the value of A, not of the more highly valued B or C, this leads to output prices for B and C that have a feasible minimum well below what their cost would have been had their value been imputed from B or C (i.e. the idea that increased competition will tend to reduce prices towards their costs of production).
Well, this is obviously false. There are many companies that do grow and remain profitable without resorting to the violent monopoly of the state. And this overproduction is caused by the state, not the free market.
Companies fail all the time, that’s overproduction. ABCT doesn’t really say it’s necessarily “central” banks which f the money supply, just that central banks, unlike regular banks, make it harder for the economy to recover. I don’t know of any serious theorists who suggest recession is not inherent to the system.
Yes, there are many companies that grow w/o the state. Are there enough to maintain market demand?
I’m sorry, what? You can’t really be saying that you are against private security? You might want to rephrase this to make it clearer.
I’ve not really seen too many good things come from mercenaries, historically, if that’s what you’re asking. I mean, socialist community action (policing) could be considered “private security” if its non statist, so I wouldnt be able to say Im against private security, in that sense.
Which premises don’t correspond to reality?
Again, I don’t have the knowledge to say if any of them do. I’m not sure he sourced it himself tho, so I’m not sure he knows which of his premises correspond to actual reality (not theoretical reality).
Again, which premises are false? You have previously granted that private property arises from dispute resolution. He lays a solid case for how dispute resolution began. That’s what his essay is about, dispute resolution. So, if you believe that there is something false or incomplete about his premises, it should be pretty easy to point to where. Quite simply, you could provide another way dispute resolution could have began, and thus an alternate origin of property.
I am in the process of researching the early rise of property and states. I’ll get back to you when I find the data.
But yes, I would say calling it pseudo-science and postdiction as name calling. There is nothing unscientific about deductive reasoning, and it is certainly not postdiction.
There is something pseudo-science about deducing from unverified premises tho. I didn’t mean to name call. Let’s just say I have no reason to believe it, unless you can source the empirical accuracy of your claims.
This is what I’m saying is against human nature. Everyone forms attachments to certain things. Maybe not everything, but certain things. Even the homeless get attached to their belongings, and they protect what they claim is theirs, even when the state won’t. What you are saying is that people should not make claims to be the rightful owner of certain things, and I’m saying that you are asking everyone to deny human nature.
Yes, everyone claims they have a right to their things. And everyone claims there is some thing you’re not allowed to use your things for, or some things you don’t have a right to claim. Claiming property is every bit a part of human nature as regulating property, because humans (and therefore property) are evolutionarily a social creature.
Human “nature” is not a fixed thing. Not many serious scholars even use the term in this day and age. (Not to mention that for most of our history, hundreds of thousands of years, there was no formal concept of property, other than communal property).
Sure there is human nature. One obvious aspect of it is human action. Or that everyone acts in their own self-interest. Not what others think their self-interest ought to be, but what they themselves think it should be.
Well that’s a patently untrue claim. Unless you want to claim when my mother used to make me clean the house I obviously thought cleaning the house was good for me, because I ended up doing it (or maybe that I thot not being in trouble was good for me).
Of course, not only do I disagree with this morally, but this is of course subject to the calculation problem. Any society based on this would end in abject poverty, and I would want no part of it.
Ya, well, the calculation “problem” is a straw man, so…
This is ultimately a utilitarian argument, and there is no way to compare utils between different people. This is an arbitrary system.
All systems are arbitrary systems.
Well, I consider it about as close to the action axiom as one could get. Obviously, to deny the action axiom is to do a performative contradiction. It’s not quite the same here, hence the “about as close to the action axiom as one could get.” Ultimately, if you really believed in no just private property, people could take from you until you starve to death. So, while there is no perfomative contradiction, you would be dead. And what good does that do you.
How many times can I explain that you’re straw manning me? I don’t believe in willy nilly taking of things. I believe in democratically deciding to fulfill needs and demand.
Utilitarianism is ultimately arbitrary. You cannot prove that it is or is not wanton taking of things by such a standard. Of course, since I am not a supporter of utilitarianism, I can make such a claim
Society must by necessity be utilitarian. No matter how much it matches up to ethics and morals, if it’s not working for people they will not accept it.
If you can prove who they are, then you know who the rightful owners are. If you cannot, then you do not actually know. This has to do with both the burden of proof and the standard of proof. If you can’t prove it, then you don’t actually know it. You just take it on faith. In this particular scenario, you would not only have to find the exact descendants, but also the specific areas of land that they claimed to have owned. You may be able to prove who the rightful owners are, but I seriously doubt you can prove what they rightfully own. You need both.
That’s the point, they didn’t claim specific areas of land as individuals. They had a “home territory” and a “winter territory.” We should just overlook this because there too small of a minority to make a big fuss?
Do you understand what the burden of proof is and what the standards of proof are? If you kill everyone off in secret, how is anyone going to know that it was you who did this? There is no caveat. If no one can prove it, then no one can know. If no one can know, then how are they supposed to be aware of the problem? This is not a failure of libertarianism but a failure of imperfect knowledge.
It’s just to illucidate that the profit system utlimately doesn’t care how you got your capital, just that you have it.
Do I? How do you know? Why doesn’t someone else need it more than me?
Germs.
Who knows? But the same can be said of any society, statist or otherwise. There is always the possibility of an outside invader coming in a taking over. This does not prove that libertarianism requires a fundamental shift in human nature, which it does not.
What it suggests is that there can not be national anarchism. Anarchism must result from a worldwide universal shift in relations to power. (Not that you think there could have been, sry)
Neither did I. We just have very different concepts of justice,morality, and just property. There is no logic that can really change those beliefs for either of us. It’s something you either believe in or don’t. The best we can do here is to learn how to clarify our beliefs.
It seemed like you were referring to a nationwide economic overproduction, and not the profit and loss motive.
Maintain market demand for what? Even with the state sucking the life out of the economy, there is still market demand.
Quite simply, someone has to police. There has to be a market in law and the services that enforce it. People do have disputes. There must be a way for those disputes to be resolved. Police are just one aspect of the market in law, and they are a necessary aspect of it. Libertarians just call the police in an ancap society PDA’s to establish a difference between ancap police and statist police.
You are dodging here. Please provide which premises you have even the slightest doubt about whether they correspond to reality or not.
Okay, but do you believe there is an alternative to dispute resolution (i.e. law) for private property to arise?
Look, deductive logic is not pseudoscience. Math is not pseudoscience. Whether or not logic and math are sciences is up for debate, but they do not meet the criteria for pseudoscience. You can doubt things all you want. But seeing as you have stated that his argument is valid, you need to point to which premises you have doubts about. I don’t want a generic “oh it’s all his premises”. Just name even one.
I hope that you can now see the folly of trying to create a system based on denying everyone a claim to something that they own.
There is no need for most serious scholars to bring up human nature, because for most things it is irrelevant. But if “serious” economic scholars want to deny the action axiom, then they really aren’t that “serious”.
Speaking of unverifiable claims, that’s a good one. So why can you make these claims, but heaven forbid Clayton make claims?
How long have you been on these forums and you have no idea what acting in one’s own self-interest means? When you act, you are demonstrating your preference for that choice above all other possibilites. You had a choice when your mother made you clean the house. You could have refused. You chose to clean the house because it was in your self-interest to do so. You may not have liked cleaning the house, but this in no way contradicts what I said.
Not really, so…
No kidding. But this in no way addresses the manner in which utilitarianism is arbitrary. There is no way to know who “needs” what more. It is arbitrary to say who “needs” what more than someone else. Nice dodge.
Ah yes, democracy, the tyranny of the majority. Please explain how democratically deciding something is not willy nilly.
What do you mean by “working for people”? Obviously, many slaves did in fact accept their being a slave, as most did not try to escape. Was slavery “working” for them? And exactly is society by necessity utilitarian? How did Nazi Germany maximize happiness for people over the US?
There is no need to overlook this point. People claim winter and summer houses now. But if the descenants don’t have specific areas of land that they can point to now and say, “That was definitely our ancestors,” then you cannot prove that they are the rightful owners. Libertarianism only requires that they prove who the rightful owners are and what they are the rightful owners of.
But this is not what you were talking about. You were saying that specifically in a free market system, that one could go murdering secretly and not be punished. But that is the case with any system. If you can’t prove who did the murdering, then you don’t know who did the murdering. You have illucidated nothing.
So what? What about the man that doesn’t care about germs but does care about brushing his teeth? Who are you to decide that “germs” trumph his wants and needs?
Well that isn’t true. You can have a rulerless society without the entire world being rulerless.