Where does property derive from? Property is an extension of the self, and persons who have created a product have made it their property and an extension of their life.
Under most employment contracts, what employees produce is required to be bestowed as property to the employer, and employees in this case have no ownership of what they produce.
Alienating ownership of the self, or an extension of the self, is a form of slavery. Since libertarians generally oppose contracts which permit slavery, it’s inconsistent of them to then allow employers to form contracts in which workers must alienate ownership of their product.
Do you think if you walk up uninvited to somebodies block of marble and make a statue out of it, that you are entitled to what you have produced? sounds like vandalism to me.
According to Tannehil, a man has a right to ownership over his life and therefore also his property, because he has invested time (i.e. part of his life) in it and thereby made it an extension of his life.
What one invests part of one’s life in, one creates this property as an extension of one’s life.
An individual would have ownership of the marble or the statue to the extent that they invested time into it, especially if the original property owner requested construction of the statue.
Maybe the thing to question here is whether Tannehil is correct. I think ‘owning your time’ , is not much more than a metaphor.
but besides, I don’t know what your source says in fulltext; but here what you write as support to your original statements does not add up to deriving it.
A man invests his time, exchanging his labour time for wages, wages which he then comes to own due to his investment of his time. Just what you specified in your elucidation.
Yet, suddendly, we say he came to own the product too? how so?? the product was made from the capitalists material base, and the labourer had been invited to spend his labour time interacting with it and transforming it. The labourer has been paid as per prior agreement, to claim also the capitalists property would surely be a crime.
It’s first ownership - hence why you can’t go and carve a picture of a troll in someone’s arm and claim that he’s your property. You are arguing that you should be able to do the latter.
The example you gave would not be a consensual transaction. Slavery may not be said to be consensual because it is an illegitimate transaction.
A consensual transaction where a worker produces a product, and then is required to alienate control over it, is identical to alienating control over an extension of the self. Alienating any part of the self is slavery.
For example, a miner, extracting marble from its natural state, has full ownership of the work of his hands (the marble) that cannot be alienated by an employment contract. The same can be said for a wage-employed farmer extracting produce from its natural state. The farmer’s employer cannot alienate the work of the farmer’s hands in extracting produce from its natural state.
This does not address the point. The product of one’s labor is an extension of the self. Your statement is equivalently legitimate to a contract where, in your vulgar prose,
“hey, I will let you use my capital and I will give you $X provided I keep an extension of your self.”
or, alternatively,
"“hey, I will let you use my capital and I will give you $X provided I keep your self.”
That transaction is not consensual if the worker does something with the product without the owner’s consent, in the same way that carving a troll in someone’s arm isn’t consensual if the troll carver does it without the owner of the arm’s consent. Thus your point is ridiculous and my original analogy exact.
If I’m a plumber and I’m hired to fix a pipe - do I then own that pipe? It’s exactly the same as the troll carving scenario.
The “product owner” you are referring to does not legitimately become a product owner if they did not apply labor to the product and transform it into an extension of themself.
In that instance, an object becomes an extension of another’s self insofar as the original owner requested that another individual’s labor become embodied in the object, transforming the object into an extension of the other individual’s self. The original owner would retain self-ownership of their own person, however.
Haha no he didn’t request it to be embodied in the object at all. It cannot be given up without his express consent. Otherwise it’s alienation, which is slavery. It’s already owned by the employer, just as his arms are. That’s why he won’t let you carve your troll signature into them. Stop trying to enslave people.
But that troll is the extension of his self, and the employer is alienating the extension of his labor’s self when he denies that I forcibly circumcise his extended member’s self in front of his parents selves, denying my right to extend my self’s scissors into de-extending his extension of his self