Self-Ownership?

[Epicurus_Ibn_Kalhoun]

I don’t see any aggression there…How has the factory owner initiated force against the workers? If he had stolen the factory from the workers, yes, I would support that they could take it back. But, simply, that’s not the case.

He is the beneficiary of a long chain of abuses and aggression, dating back to sometime around when the first tribe put up the first fence. The situation is similiar to a Pawn Shop owner who must return stolen goods to their rightful owner free of charge that were traded to him by a 3rd party (the theif).

Aggression, in brief, includes assault, theft, and slavery. I do not see how the factory owner in your scenario has committed any such act, necessarily. Where there is an initiation of force, counter-force can be use in proportional measure. So, like I said, I only support the usage of force in proportional retaliation to one of the three categories of aggression

I’m going to give you a scenario. I would consider the property holder in this scenario to be the aggressor. But for the sake of argument let us call the tresspasser the aggressor:

John, a wandering minstrel, happens upon a pond. He has had no parents that he can remember, and has only known the wilderness and his guitar. He sits down at the pond to enjoy its majesty.

Frank comes running out with a gun, flashing a piece of paper that says “Title” on it, screaming “MINE GTFO” and threatens to shoot John.

Now, in our society John is the aggressor. But it was Frank who initated force. (Again, I find it absurd to consider John the aggressor. But for the sake of argument, whatever.)

Have I initiated Force against the labourers in some way? I could just as arbitrarily state, “if my labourers do not work to their full potential or treat me like shit, creating a strong negative comminity, I will call in my goons to seize their house and all their property.” Would that be justified?

To you it might. Of course it wouldn’t to me.

How have I aggressed upon anyone by paying others to build me a factory?

You are the beneficiary of a long chain of abuses and aggression dating back to sometime around when the first tribe put up the first fence. The situation is similar to when a Pawn Shop owner must return stolen goods to their rightful owner free of charge.

Disciple, thank you for getting my joke about being a ninja, and realizing it was just a joke. Thanks for not flaming me for it

[RothbardsDisciple]

The situation is similiar to a Pawn Shop owner who must return stolen goods to their rightful owner free of charge that were traded to him by a 3rd party (the theif).

Where has the theft occured? I just paid some guys to build a factory. I would wholly concur with your sentiments, if I had stolen their money and enslaved them to build the aforementioned factory. But, in this case, I paid some guys out of my own wallet to build a factory for me. That’s Free Market Capitalism.

I’m going to give you a scenario.

OK, I think I was not specific or detailed enough last time in my answer to you. I have some more points to make:

1. If this is unowned land, yes, you are indubitably correct. Frank has aggressed upon John, who is entirely innocent.
2. If Frank owns the land, having mixed his labour with it, then John has trespassed upon his property. To make this more clear, consider a farmer and his field of crops, upon whose field (near a pond) John has trampled and trespassed. By contrast, if Frank is merely laying claim to unowned resources, which he has not mixed his labour with, then the land is still unowned. In that case, return to point 1.
3. Even if Frank owns the land, he has acted out of proportion to John’s crime of trespass*. A true Libertarian does not believe that it is acceptable to shoot a little boy who has stolen bubble gum from your store. Like I said, one must use Force in roughly equal measure to the original crime. The store owner can take his bubble gum back, but he cannot murder the little boy. If he murders the little boy, he becomes a bigger criminal himself. The situation is the same here. If Frank tries to shoot John, threatening to kill him for merely trespassing on his land, I would be entirely against that. The proportional usage of counter-force, which is entirely acceptable, would be for Frank to evict John from his property. John can justifiably defend himself, even though he is the trespasser here, since Frank has aggressed upon him by not using roughly proportional force. Obviously, the mainstream position here is antithetical to my Rothbardian view, so I suggest not conflating the two.
4. ^For future reference, some Libertarians disagree with the above. They are crazy and are known by us Rothbardians as maximalists.
5. Just to cover all my bases, if John happened to be the property owner here (to flip the positions), Frank would have committed crimes twofold: trespassing, and an overt threat to murder. John can justifiably whip out his gun and use proportional force to Frank’s crime.
6. Covering even more bases. xD If a third party owns this property, both of these two are acting as trespassers against the third party. Trespasser Frank, of course, is acting even more wrongly against trespasser John, whom he has threatened with murder.

*John’s ignorance can only add to the fact that Frank’s response was out of proportion.

To you it might. Of course it wouldn’t to me.

No, no. To me that would be immoral, just as seizing the factory from the innocent owner would be immoral. My point was simply that I could flip this scenario on the workers, using a similar justification as you, and arrive at similar conclusions: that the seizure of worker property is justified. Which of course it is not.

Disciple, thank you for getting my joke about being a ninja, and realizing it was just a joke. Thanks for not flaming me for it

No problem, and sorry if we got off on the wrong foot. I have never discussed with a communist before, and this was an entirely new situation to me, so I may have been a little feisty. xD But I hope you can forgive me for that; I’d like to have reasonable discussions with you, and, on a personal level, you seem like a pretty cool guy.

[Epicurus_Ibn_Kalhoun]

Where has the theft occured? I just paid some guys to build a factory. I would wholly concur with your sentiments, if I had stolen their money and enslaved them to build the aforementioned factory. But, in this case, I paid some guys out of my own wallet to build a factory for me. That’s Free Market Capitalism.

The pawn shop owner didn’t necessarily do anything wrong either. But he still is an illegitimate holder of property justly traded to him, and must return it.

Would you concur with my statement if the government came in, cleared the people off the land, and then sold the land to the factory owner? Again, in this situation, the owner did nothing inherently wrong. He just trade with the person that did.

OK, I think I was not specific or detailed enough last time in my answer to you. I have some more points to make:

All valid points. It kind of goes along with my points too. The difference between defense and aggression is arbitrary and open to interpretation.

No, no. To me that would be immoral, just as seizing the factory from the innocent owner would be immoral. My point was simply that I could flip this scenario on the workers, using a similar justification as you, and arrive at similar conclusions: that the seizure of worker property is justified. Which of course it is not.

To some people it is not justified. To others it is. I’m really quite the moral relativist. I hold MY morals to be absolute, for me. But it would be, in my opinion, to posit them to be actually absolute.

No problem, and sorry if we got off on the wrong foot. I have never discussed with a communist before, and this was an entirely new situation to me, so I may have been a little feisty. xD But I hope you can forgive me for that; I’d like to have reasonable discussions with you, and, on a personal level, you seem like a pretty cool guy.

Thank you. And I apologize for calling you a fundamentalist. It’s just, you know… sometimes people have their positions and absolutely refuse to even consider anything else. We’re all subject to it sometimes, even myself. So again, my apologies

I look forward to fruitfull future discussions as well.

[RothbardsDisciple]

Would you concur with my statement if the government came in, cleared the people off the land, and then sold the land to the factory owner? Again, in this situation, the owner did nothing inherently wrong. He just trade with the person that did.

100%. Did you see my final post in our last discussion? Yes, the people stolen from could A) use vigilante justice to seize their stolen property, or B) use the court system to take back their stolen property. In this particular case, I will stipulate that I believe they should ideally first ask the factory owner. With either option A or B, however, they must be able to prove that they were actually stolen from. Otherwise, the person who they have taken their allegedly stolen property from can counter-sue, of course.

The difference between defense and aggression is arbitrary and open to interpretation.

Now that I would heartily disagree with. Aggression is where I decide to point a gun at your face; defensive and retaliative force is when you act as a Ninja to prevent me from killing you, by using proportional force. (In this case you could use any force up to killing me).

I apologize for calling you a fundamentalist. It’s just, you know… sometimes people have their positions and absolutely refuse to even consider anything else.

Thanks, I think both of us should aviod doing that. Haha, why would we want to stress ourselves out like that?

[Neodoxy]

“I apologize for calling you a fundamentalist. It’s just, you know… sometimes people have their positions and absolutely refuse to even consider anything else.”

“Thanks, I think both of us should aviod doing that. Haha, why would we want to stress ourselves out like that?”

Wow. That worked out WAYYY better than I thought it was going to…

[Epicurus_Ibn_Kalhoun]

100%. Did you see my final post in our last discussion? Yes, the people stolen from could A) use vigilante justice to seize their stolen property, or B) use the court system to take back their stolen property. In this particular case, I will stipulate that I believe they should ideally first ask the factory owner. With either option A or B, however, they must be able to prove that they were actually stolen from. Otherwise, the person who they have taken their allegedly stolen property from can counter-sue, of course.

Ya. Any other response here from me, other than “I disagree” would be a topic for another debate. I find the nature of property itself and the historical role of property combined make a pretty strong case for the abolishment (at least in the normative sense, if not the legal sense) of private property. As the vast majority of people who’ve been harmed by the property system are dead (not to say tons and tons of people right now don’t suffer under it as well. It’s just that property goes back a long time), they cannot “prove their claim.”

Modern property society, ie capitalism, is vastly more progressive than the previous ones; feudal and slave systems. But, it is my stance that we can do better.

Basically what I am saying is; society itself is the legitimate owner. So, within reason, I really have no problem with certain expropriations from current property holders (but only by the workers themselves! If the state does it, I basically categorically oppose it).

Now that I would heartily disagree with. Aggression is where I decide to point a gun at your face; defensive and retaliative force is when you act as a Ninja to prevent me from killing you, by using proportional force. (In this case you could use any force up to killing me).

We’re in complete agreement. On a related note: do you find the use of violence abhorrent to humanity, or sometimes neccessary (this includes both aggressive and defensive violence)? I would think, from your posts, the latter (and I would agree if that’s the case. It’s a “sad but true” scenario, imo). I’m just asking out of curiosity.

(On a side note: I’m not your typical commy. So don’t expect the rest of us to be like me . I actually learned a lot here about voluntaryism. But I totally agree with the basic tenants of socialism, and the socialist community at large [barring a few scattered Marxist-Leninist and Maoist authoritarians] accepts my views. So I have no problems calling myself a socilaist, even tho it’s just a meaningless label I only started using because a lot of people see the word itself as some kind of boogeyman catch-all for the ills of society.)

Thanks, I think both of us should aviod doing that. Haha, why would we want to stress ourselves out like that?

[RothbardsDisciple]

They cannot “prove their claim.”

Right, you are entirely correct, that is why one should not go around saying that the workers should seize property. Generally, except in the cases where stolen property can be proven on an individual basis, the current owner should retain possession. The current owner is certainly far more rightly in possession of the stolen good than the State, after all! As Rothbard said:

Suppose, for example, that A steals B’s horse. Then C comes along and takes the horse from A. Can C be called a thief? Certainly not, for we cannot call a man a criminal for stealing goods from a thief. On the contrary, C is performing a virtuous act of confiscation, for he is depriving thief A of the fruits of his crime of aggression, and he is at least returning the horse to the innocent “private” sector and out of the “criminal” sector. C has done a noble act and should be applauded. Of course, it would be still better if he returned the horse to B, the original victim. But even if he does not, the horse is far more justly in C’s hands than it is in the hands of A, the thief and criminal.

So, if Worker A seized factory X, and could not prove that factory X had originally been stolen from him, his action would be aggression. This is certainly sensible. Also, I do not think we should be worried about restoring property to dead folks. Such property can just stay in the hands of the current owner. (Unless the current “owner” is the State, in which case it should be privatized!)

Modern property society, ie capitalism, is vastly more progressive than the previous ones; feudal and slave systems.

Capitalism just means “the private ownership of the means of production.” What I advocate is Free Market Capitalism, i.e., private ownership of the means of production, without a State. (Note that Capitalism requires the qualifier “free market”; it’s an important distinction). Modern corporatism is entirely a different beast. =)

Basically what I am saying is; society itself is the legitimate owner.

Let me rephrase this. Would you agree with the statement, “Interactions between various specific individuals are the legitimate owner of property?”

We’re in complete agreement.

Cool, good to know we’re not just talking past each other. =)

On a related note: do you find the use of violence abhorrent to humanity, or sometimes neccessary (this includes both aggressive and defensive violence)?

I find aggression abhorrent to humanity, certainly. Now, retaliative violence, I would have to say no. It’s not just a necessity, but I laud it as justice. If A murders B, A damn well can face the death penalty at the hands of B’s family,* or (more ideally imo) be enslaved to work for private companies by the victim!

So, yeah, I am a big fan of justice.

*Note that I consider the death penalty as the anti-mercy solution, and prefer other solutions, since death cannot be revoked. But I do still think that a murder victim could do so.

[RothbardsDisciple]

That is why one should not go around saying that the workers should seize property.

Oh, let me add to what I said, that the exception to this guiding principle is confiscation from the State. =) For example, the employees at a State school should seize and privatize the school.

[stevendouglas]

@RothbardsDisciple

Oh, let me add to what I said, that the exception to this guiding principle is confiscation from the State. =) For example, the employees at a State school should seize and privatize the school.

Does that not give the presumpion of innocence (more like immunity from guilt or culpability) to the State? What if the State is a completely abusive and exploitive ass? Or is that not possible?

Also, is the principle of “workers seizing and taking ownership of the factory” fully scalable? What if there is one employer/owner, with just one employee?

[Autolykos]

@Laotzu del Zinn

Disciple, thank you for getting my joke about being a ninja, and realizing it was just a joke. Thanks for not flaming me for it

I call BS on this. You’re full of it, as far as I’m concerned. But I’m going to continue to hound you until you finally decide to grow up.

[Autolykos]

I said that I would address the rest of this post, so now I’m doing that.

@Laotzu del Zinn

*[Sinc]*e you won’t bother even beginning to explain what you actually mean by the word “society”, let alone provide a systemic exposition of your reasoning in this regard

Except I did, numerous times. It’s none of my business why you refuse to accept that I even said it.

… Not in this thread (until this post). Come on. You know better than this.

@Laotzu del Zinn

I regarded it - among other things - as an attempt at intimidation or "getting under my skin

Well I don’t know why. I was sincere, and I still am. But if you don’t want my help, all you have to do is say “I don’t want/need your help.” There’s no reason to start incessantly flaming me because of it.

I think there is. If you want to call it “flaming”, be my guest. I don’t care. My point with it is to show everyone else what it sure looks to me like you’re doing. I still don’t think I’m that far off the mark, if I’m off it at all. Again, I’ll say that, as far as I’m concerned, if you really cared about my well-being, you wouldn’t have polluted the thread with such concern, as it’s entirely off-topic. Instead, you would’ve PMed me about it. The fact that you still haven’t done so, despite your alleged concern, I think is very telling.

@Laotzu del Zinn

“All societies are different…” means absolutely nothing to me, since I have no idea what you mean by “society”. If you’re man enough to actually provide your definition for that word, then we can actually get started for once

1) This is flaming. I am surprised it is allowed on these forums. It certainly does not create productive conversation, that’s for sure.

Really? And you refusing to provide your definition of “society”, and more generally to clarify and explain your reasoning on your positions, does create productive conversation? Are you kidding me? I was simply calling you out on your nonsense. I think it’s cowardly to speak in ambiguous platitudes and bare assertions, and then simply respond to requests for clarification with “It’s self-evident, bro.” Guess what? I still think it’s cowardly. Apparently it did - thankfully! - strike a nerve with you, because you’ve now provided a definition of “society”.

@Laotzu del Zinn

2. You can think whatever you want of me; judgement says more about the judger than the judgee.

Prove it. I’m not going to take this bare assertion on faith, just because the “almighty” “Laotzu del Zinn” said it.

@Laotzu del Zinn

3. I have provided definitions for society: Groups of people that share common goals, etc and which individual actions of its members effect each other, in both seen and unseen ways.

Not in this thread (until now), you haven’t. And excuse me if I don’t instantly recall every other thread in this forum that you’ve posted in.

Now then, it seems that that definition is inherently contradictory, as everyone’s actions affect everyone else, in both seen and unseen ways. So it seems there can only be one “society”, namely the entire human race.

@Laotzu del Zinn

If you want a better definition, I am basically using this one [sic - you posted two!]:

• The aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.
• The community of people living in a particular region and/or having shared customs, laws, and organizations

The dictionary definition; which I try to use as often as possible, as it is supposed to make conversation easier (and does with most people). I have layed this definition out multiple times in this thread, and if I am not mistaken in another conversation we had a year or two ago. It is your problem, not mine, that you refuse to accept this fact.

You certainly have not laid this definition out multiple times in this thread. I challenge you to show me where you think you did that.

Now then, I don’t find those definitions satisfying. Why is that? Because they boil down to what I see as a synonym: “community”. I prefer the first part of the definition you posted earlier, namely “groups of people that share common goals, etc.” - although I’d really like you to explain to me just what exactly you think can fall under the “etc.”

Moving along, we can see that this definition of “society” obviously allows for societies that aren’t tied to political boundaries. So any appeal to the notion of “living in a society, therefore being subject to its laws” falls flat on its face. Otherwise, you’re admitting to de facto conflating “society” with “government”.

As it stands, I don’t see much clarification here. Rather, I see you continuing to make mealy-mouthed assertions in the hopes of ending the discussion, i.e. shutting me up. Giving me your definition for “society” was just throwing me a bone. I asked you to clarify many more things.

@Laotzu del Zinn

can only read this as an attempt to bully me into using your definitions - your implicit definitions! - which only reveals your own narrow-mindedness in refusing to entertain other people’s possibly different semantics. I’d be perfectly happy to entertain yours if you’d simply lay them out for me. But no, you won’t even do that at this point, now will you? Thus it seems obvious to me that I’ve struck quite a nerve

It wasn’t. And you haven’t. Tho it is funny that you are trying to “strike a nerve” with me, and at the same time accusing ME of being a troll…

You don’t think it’s okay for people to retaliate against trolling? Either way, I don’t care.

@Laotzu del Zinn

No, I think you’re already angered

If me getting angry will make you feel better, I will gladly do that. Tho I should warn you that it will not make you feel any better in the long run.

So now you know me better than I know myself? Glad to see a psychic here among us!

Yes, I think you’re angry. Otherwise you wouldn’t have escalated your attempts to get me to back off.

[apehead]

Malachai,

@Malachai

So would I be correct in saying that you define anything that is empirically discovered to be part of the physical world?

Yes, I would say that is accurate.

@Malachai

is there, then, a non-physical world that you have not experienced and contrasting this with?

I was working off of John James’ distinction,

@John James

I would have to assume one exists in the physical world, one doesn’t.

I don’t necessarily hold the same to be true, I was taking the stance as granted for the sake of argument.

@Malachai

Or is the word “physical” unnecessary, since the physical world now includes whatever ghosts one might meet?

@Jackson LaRose @ John James

“Exist”, and “exist in the physical world” mean the same thing to me, since I’ve never experienced anything beyond the physical world!

@Malachai

If you do not believe that the physical world is anything, then why speak of it at all?

To clarify my position, I’m not sure whether the physical world is anything. “Brain in a vat” style. Why? I dunno, intrest in the opinions of others, boredom, etc.

Reality may be something, it may be nothing, I have no way of telling. My world is limited by my perception, which may or may not be conveying an accurate portrayal of the “ding a sich”, that is “reality at large”.

[Malachi]

My world is limited by my perception, which may or may not be conveying an accurate portrayal of the “ding a sich”, that is “reality at large”.

how would you define a “reality at large” that is totally divorced from sensory perception?

To clarify my position, I’m not sure whether the physical world is anything.

can you explain what you mean by “anything”?

[LogisticEarth]

• Basically what I am saying is; society itself is the legitimate owner. So, within reason, I really have no problem with certain expropriations from current property holders (but only by the workers themselves! If the state does it, I basically categorically oppose it).

I believe this is being discussed with various other posters, but have you defined anywhere how “society” can own something? If everyone has a right to everything, wouldn’t each and every person need to be consulted before performing any kind of work that involves land or capital? It seems like an untenable position for anything beyond the smallest of tribes.

How can “society” own anything, outside of what has been established via contract?

[apehead]

@Malachai

how would you define a “reality at large” that is totally divorced from sensory perception?

I don’t think I can. I am limited by my perceptive ability. To imagine anything outside of my perception would be pure conjecture.

Anything… I guess having any sort of constituents of any kind, in a “real”, or “true” sense, some immovable kernel of fact upon which I can deduct other “truths”.

[Malachi]

In that case, may I ask why such a thing is relevant to any topic of consideration? What utility is found by positing an unknowable, irrelevant universe at all? Could not one simple analyze sensation, perception, and conception as themselves without reference to another universe of unperceived, unsensed, noncognitive entities?

[Malachi]

Anything… I guess having any sort of constituents of any kind, in a “real”, or “true” sense, some immovable kernel of fact upon which I can deduct other “truths”.

it seems like you are rejecting the identity axiom here.

[Epicurus_Ibn_Kalhoun]

Right, you are entirely correct, that is why one should not go around saying that the workers should seize property. Generally, except in the cases where stolen property can be proven on an individual basis, the current owner should retain possession. The current owner is certainly far more rightly in possession of the stolen good than the State, after all! As Rothbard said:

I think Rothbard’s quote is just justifying criminal activity, which is fine, since the law is often wrong. But I don’t see A or C as the legitimate holder. The only legitimate use of the property is the returning it to its original owner, or if that proves impossible, giving it to the poor.

So, if Worker A seized factory X, and could not prove that factory X had originally been stolen from him, his action would be aggression. This is certainly sensible. Also, I do not think we should be worried about restoring property to dead folks. Such property can just stay in the hands of the current owner. (Unless the current “owner” is the State, in which case it should be privatized!)

Actually it would more like workers A-W seizing it from X and Y while being hunted by their police force Z

But either way, I largely agree with you. I think we will be far better served evolving to Socialism rather than imposing it. I just find that there are certain circumstances where the siezing of a MoP is justified; especially in cases where the firm recieves large state support and subsidy, is harmful to communities and environments, and degrading to workers. “Ends justify the means” I know… sad but true.

Let me rephrase this. Would you agree with the statement, “Interactions between various specific individuals are the legitimate owner of property?”

No. Consider your example earlier. Neither A nor C are legitimate in their holdings. Also consider the theif and the pawn shop owner.

Honestly I don’t consider any one individual to be a legitimate holder. But for the sake of argument, the above is true.

Cool, good to know we’re not just talking past each other. =)

Despite what some “people” will tell you, I’m no dogmatist. I give much credit to this site, actually, for teaching me about voluntaryism. I’m not a strict v-ist, I think that would be naive. But nonetheless, it is a generally good principle to live by and create societies around.

I find aggression abhorrent to humanity, certainly. Now, retaliative violence, I would have to say no. It’s not just a necessity, but I laud it as justice. If A murders B, A damn well can face the death penalty at the hands of B’s family,* or (more ideally imo) be enslaved to work for private companies by the victim!

Whoa buddy! We don’t need to take it that far

But, other than the strength of the punishment, I agree with you there. I’m not really a big fan of punishment in the first place, as opposed to “re-education” (if we take all the negative boogeyman connotations away from it).

[Epicurus_Ibn_Kalhoun]

I believe this is being discussed with various other posters, but have you defined anywhere how “society” can own something? If everyone has a right to everything, wouldn’t each and every person need to be consulted before performing any kind of work that involves land or capital? It seems like an untenable position for anything beyond the smallest of tribes.

How can “society” own anything, outside of what has been established via contract?

Well.. they can’t. That would render the term “ownership” obsolete. But a community can possess and control things.

It’s about setting up worker co-ops, and having strong oversight of the productive effort, making hiring more voluntary, combatting prejudices, and promoting a culture of solidarity.

You don’t have to have consultation with everyone beforehand. What you need is a democratic workplace, where the monopolist property holder cannot impose his will upon everyone else (simply because he has a title of ownership) without their representation.

[apehead]

Malachai,

Anything may not be relevant. There may not be any utility in positing that.

One could certainly percieve, but analysis becomes impossible without some reference, even if that reference is past perception. One cannot live completely “in the moment”, and also engage in analysis. As far as “reference to another universe”, I’m not sure where your getting this concept from, but it seems possible to analyze without necessitating another universe.

I’m not familiar with the identity axiom. I did a quick Google search, but only found mathematical stuff. Was that what you were referring to?