Please read A History of the Indians of the United States by Angie Debo and Property Rights and Indian Economies by Terry L. Anderson, I can provide more but then again why bother as you just know.
Yeah, that is property - perhaps you do know!
I apolgize for trying to teach you, big mistake on my part to try and use facts.
Hey, what are your people holding in their hands?
I am not going to argue against anything else you have said, but this is a load of rubbish. Neither of “our” (some of the members here are arguing along the lines I would) arguments relies on this point, just as libertarianism is not necessarily capitalist, but it is such an ugly error that I feel bound to counter it.
Monopolies and cartels are not just historically only found due to government intervention, but also that rational definitions of “market”, “firm”, and “monopoly” make it logically impossible for there to be monopoly without the government intervening to make it so.
Firstly, I would like you to think, in this modern hybrid capitalist-socialist (when I say socialist, I mean “government controlled” rather than anything to do with the ideals of equality) world, of the main monopolies. Money? Government held. Defence? Government held. Rail? Government held. Road-building? Government held. Education? Government held. Health? Government held (at least in my country). Utilities? Government designed (i.e. they choose the firm with the monopoly and these firms “compete” for this monopoly). Now let’s consider some markets where the government “only” regulates and taxes: telecoms, automobile manufacture, oil drilling, refining and transportation and food production all lack monopolies (except in countries where the government have taken control).
Rockefeller’s standard oil never held a monopoly over oil. Standard Oil at its peak held only 85% of the “oil market” (products are completely homogenous, so there is no such thing as a “oil market”, but for the purpose of explanation/discussion, we will assume the existence of one) and his products were consistently far cheaper than his competitors’ products. If he wielded “monopoly power” then why didn’t he use it for his own aggrandisement? After all, he wasn’t exactly averse to the accumulation of wealth. If Rockefeller could have, he would surely have increased his prices – but no, he consistently decreased prices and gained greater “market share” due to his higher-quality oil. The wages in his firm were also better than his competitors’. [For great detail on the case of Rockefeller, and why it wasn’t even slightly a monopoly, read the excellent book Why Capitalism saved America]
lol… Stephen don’t waste my time.
No shit sherlock.
really… did you figure that out all by yourself…
To be respected somebody else has to recognize it, wow and here I would have thought respect occurs in a vacuum. arrogance… have you figured it out yet.[|-)]
Monopoly only occurs by physical coercion. Anybody can open up a new TV or radio channel in a free market cause a free market is voluntary exchange.
No. If you hire a company, then that means they have only come to help defend you when a voluntary trade occurred through the said hiring.
The police may have a monopoly, but that’s only because the monopoly is physically coerced and thus sustained by the backing of the government.
Look at what I wrote as property. That’s the definition. You are making invalid, unevidenced assertions.
What’s Plato and Rousseau have to do with Shakespeare’s poem? Other than your entertaining reasoning.
yes
Natural Rights are a social construct. Contracts come from mutual agreement. Laws are derived from common practice. And murder is wrong, because it is against our morals. An (political or social) laws are necessarily man made, how they came into being or are justified is a different matter. The state is basically a corporation. There is no reason to believe that a “private defense contractor” would be behaving better then the modern state or feudal lords would do.
You need not project your unwillingness to intellectually apprehend your potential individual demonstration of self-defense and other natural rights upon others.
I say potential cause I don’t know if you fail to individually demonstrate such natural rights due to you freely choose to commit criminal activity or not. If you freely choose not to commit a crime, then the case would be you are individually demonstrating natural rights but are unwilling to intellectually apprehend your own action.
…You act as if Rothbard was a Kantian. Rothbard’s justification for private property was an Aristotelian/Thomist exercise. It is thus [ and I’m paraphrasing ]:
If no one owned property in the world then we would all be dead since property implies the ability of usage.
Therefore property is a necessary institution for human survive.
What are the types of property:
A owns A [ Self-Ownership ]
A owns B [ Slavery and serfdom ]
A owns everyone but him/herself and vice versa [ Communalism/Communism ]
To claim that A can own B is illogical because A and B are both human and therefore have the same objective nature [ perhaps not the same subjective goals, but if I were to not feed A & B then they would die, if I were to bluntly strike A & B they would both die etc. ] Therefore it is a contradiction to establish the basis of rights by stating an individual can transgress the rights of B while still retaining their own rights.
To claim that everyone can own everyone but themselves is utopian. A farmer in Iowa has no say in the production matters of a factory in New Delhi nor can that farmer maintain such a practical connection. Therefore what is likely to arise is a cadre of ‘elites’ claiming to be a representative of the proletariat or workers, and they gain the ability to ration out supplies and choose the labor of the workers. We are now back to A owns B in the sense that the cadre own the labor power of the workers.
Therefore from this logical deduction we can establish that self-ownership is the only real, beneifical, practical approach to the question of property. We now go into Locke homesteading theory and mixing labor with the soil.
Natural rights exist prior to any contractual agreement. Because I have not signed a contract for you not to kill me does not give you the right to exercise such an action.
Evidence that indians in my country had no private property:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3513473
You will find other searching : <“no private property” indians brazil> in google.
“my part to try and use facts” ? Comrade, what you used is a lie, INDIANS IN MY COUNTRY (Brazil, South America) HAD NO PRIVATE PROPERTY AND WERE MORE PRIMITIVE THAN USA ONES, the most primitive, the most primitive a society is, the most natural it is ! THEREFORE PROPERTY IS NOT NATURAL !
That doesn’t provide access to evidence. It’s only a link to a book.
I did that search and nothing came up that discusses private property one way or another.
You can yell the sky is green all day, but that doesn’t prove anything.
This isn’t a primitive society, the U.S.
You said humans were not natural previously and now you are trying to say they are natural if they are primitive.
You have not shown any evidence that Homo sapiens don’t have property.
All humans have culture, thus, have property. Humans are born naked into this world and HAVE to have culture to survive. Even a chimpanzee taking leaves off a stick to project into a termite mound to fish for termites has applied will upon a stick that has now become a tool and thus property for even a chimpanzee. No Homo sapien is more primitive than a chimpanzee.
No, Hasmem. You never gave a basic answer to that question once, that is why I ask it. Nor am I interested in being referred to a dead, and hectic thread, so mind just answering the question?
I thought this was some funny logic [:P]
Yes, following anarcho-communist ideas would lead to death/primitive existence. I don’t think I agree with the idea that tribal societies really had no sense of private property, rather they agreed to live communally. If they truly didn’t believe in private property, including self ownership, wouldn’t they just refuse to defend themselves and their villages from invaders whatsoever? I would be interested in some evidence of that ever happening. Sure there are tons of instances in colonial America and Africa of tribes “giving up easily”, but that isn’t enough.
Evidence that indians in my country had no private property:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3513473
You will find other searching : <“no private property” indians brazil> in google.
About the gentilis people, I guess they had another name, I will ask my history teacher more details about them this weak, when I’ll see him.
Ok, from the evidence I presented you, my country indians (nearly ALL tribes) had originally (naturaly) no private property. That society is one of the MOST primitive in the world, one of the MOST natural, THEREFORE the one that will best represent the natural rights. Bsed on the FACT that they were NATURAL and had NO PROPERTY, then property is not natural, it was either created by social agreement or created by force.
What do you understand by monopoly? Monopoly over something is what happen when all private property over this thing, lies in the same hands. So rockefeller made it accumulating nearly all private property over the oil industry without “physical coercion”, in a almost perfectely free market. The laws that regulated teh market later would make such tendency towards monopoly harder. The only part of the monopoly that requires physical coercion is property itself, but once you defend it, you will probably denny it.
Either way, take a look at the state deffinition (Max Weber) “the state is the institution that has monopoly over the legitimate uses of force and violence” where legitimate is following the social law, not the natural one. In a natural society there is no state because there is no property. The state exists to defend property as I had said back at the beggining.
If you hire a company, you grant it monopoly over the legitimate uses of force and violence over a certain area, your property. If it is legitimate according to the social laws of your system, that company will be your PRIVATE state, far worse than a public one. Property is not a natural law, a natural right, it is an artificial right, to assure this artificial right the state appears.
The origin of property and state can either be social agreement OR force (physical coercion), when property is made by physical coercion, so is the state, if property is made by social agreement, so is the state. Neither of them is a natural right, but not all states (including the police) are made by physical coercion. Monopoly isn’t necessairlly a result of physical coercion.
As I showed on the evidence, natural societies have NO property, property isn’t therefore an extension of one’s will, unless you admit this extension’s existence requires the previous establishment of property (in this case the existence of property would require the previous existence of property, but once at the begining the was no property, this property right was created, is artifical as its feedback). Property is not natural, so natural things CAN"T be property, and your will is a natural thing, its extensions are not property. Property refers to material rights over things you can exchange for material rights over other things. Can you exchange your will? As Proudhon conclude “property IS theft”, and indeed, property requires physical coercion to be maintained and physical coercion to be destroyed.
Plato’s cave has the same idea of Shakespeare world inside a nutshell, from wich I developed that idea about property, such idea also is defended by Rousseau:
"the true founder of the civil society was the firsth that, grabbing a piece of land, made it saing “this is mine”, and found people fool enougth to belive him. How many crimes, wars, muders, mizeries and horrors wouldn’t have prevented humanity the one that, taking back the land, said “Don’t listen to this lier; you’ll be doomed should your forget that the fruits belong to all, and land belongs to none!” Jean Jacques Rousseau
I agree with Rousseau, property IS NOT natural as my EVIDENCE on the indians of my country proves. Either way, I’d like to know what is my abstraction on Shakespeare timeless poerty?
I am not an anarcho-communist, my ideas don’t lead to a primitive existence, I merely study primitive societies to understand natural rights. Self ownership is not based on property rights, it is based on life and liberty rights (natural ones), they didn’t “ageed” to live communaly, this IS the natural way human beings live, as a collective group. So, once people have a tendency to defend their natural rights of life and liberty, it is easier to find a indian massacre in history than to find them “giving up easily”.
Yes I was, but I am tring to convince people here that property is not natural, if you want to take a look at some evidence, here is one about my country some 500 years ago.
@ AC
I guess I was to hasty. This…
is pretty good. I take it back. Sorry about that.
First off, you ignored the facts of Rockefeller. His business market sharing went down from ca. 86% to 48% in the free market before the government unnecessarily intervened.
Secondly, monopoly is only sustained by physical coercion. That’s the understanding.
Max Weber is flat wrong. That definition asserts nothing about justice. It only asserts the state has a monopoly with no questions asked even if the state is unjust - which the only State there is, is an unjust State due to it is a monopoly enforced by physical coercion. The State is an involuntary institution. It is unjust and physically coercive by it’s very establishment/premise.
There is still natural property. You have not been able to provide evidence that humans live without culture cause you can’t because humans have to have culture in order to survive.
No. Self-defense even by a voluntary transaction with others to help is not the State. The State is an involuntary institution. A private defense agency is a voluntary institution.
You showed no evidence. I’m still waiting for you to show how Homo sapiens live without culture. You can’t. Cause it’s impossible.
Dictionary:
abstraction: the process of considering something independently of its associations, attributes, or concrete accompaniments
All humans abstract reality. This wasn’t an argument. I merely made a statement.
Ad hominems have no place in an intelligent, academic discussion.