Sorry, I was guessing at the Latin term. It’s actually jus fruendi.
If a person owns his labor, then he has the right to alienate his labor, doesn’t he?
On the other hand, do you think a farm (for example) is a product of labor?
We cannot alienate ourselves, we cannot alienate our action, our labor. Every alienation of labor is illegitimate, just like alienation of body.
We can own the ore we mine, land we dig, water we bottle, fruits we pick, crops we grow, tools, clothes, buildings etc we make, but we cannot have legitimate property over territory, over an area of land.
Then who, or what, does own the land?
Are you trying to say everyone co-owns the land equally? That for each plot of land, every person has a 1/7 billionth share? How exactly would any decisions about land get made in such a system? You would need to obtain the permission of at least 3.5 billion people to do anything with any plot of land.
So nothing would get done. And everyone starves in the meantime.
So, your plan–completely impractical.
Of course land can be owned, because land is literally no different than any other physical object you might find and homestead by picking up and laboring on. What could possibly make land different than any other physical obejct in your mind??? Because it’s scarce? Well so is this stone I just picked up. There’s only one of these. THat means it has to take its 1/7 billionth share?
At least make a cogent argument and explain why you think there’s a salient difference between land and all other property.
You won’t find one, but at least entertain us.
There is at least one way a person can alienate himself - suicide. He can also alienate parts of himself.
Labor per se isn’t a material thing in the same sense that a house, a car, and a person are material things. So I don’t see how labor per se can be possessed, let alone owned. Means of labor can be possessed and therefore owned.
But my real point was to highlight the logical inconsistency in your argument. Maybe laying it out in the form of a syllogism will help:
-
(Premise) Ownership includes the right to alienate.
-
(Premise) Labor can be owned.
-
(Conclusion) Therefore, one who owns labor has the right to alienate it.
Do you see how that conclusion necessarily follows from the premises?
If I plow an acre of land, what would you say I own there (if anything)?
It is unowned.
Which you made and called it my plan.
To “mix labor with” something, you have to, as Locke (who came up with the “mixing of labor” too) says, you have to “remove it from the state of nature”. When I go into wilderness (unused territory), and pick a berry from a tree, that berry is mine by virtue of me picking it, I from a berry in the wilderness made it into ‘a picked berry’, similar like (but more complicated) I can turn soil into bricks, or tree into lumber or (ever more complicated) a chair. The point is that the act of me picking a berryt doesn’t make the tree mine. Same with land, the crops I grow, or the house I build on it are my property, but the area itself cannot be property, being that it is not a product of my labor.’
There is a huge difference in me selling a chair I made and me selling an unused area of land that I have a paper that says it’s “mine”.
You can also sell yourself into slavery, even today, I’m sure someone somewhere would buy you. Being able to (legaly) do something doesn’t make it legitimate.
It is a part of selfownership. We own our actions means that if I kill you, I killed, not someone else, no matter if someone thinks that he owns me, or the law too says that I’m someone’s property.
This starting premise is not in my argument. I mention alienable and inalienable property (the latter being the ownership of self) using “property” in the plain meaning “that which is (legitimately) mine, alienably or inalienably”, not in the meaning that includes the alieanation right - because if I were to use the words ‘property’ and ‘ownership’ to include the right to alianate, then I would have to make up a new term for selfownership and say that everybody ownes himself.
The crops you grow or whatever you make there. Area itself is not a product of a labor, and thus cannot be legitimate property.
Earlier you said that it’s not possible to alienate oneself. Now you’re saying that you simply don’t think it’s legitimate to do so, which implies that it is possible. Thus you’re contradicting what you said earlier.
You’re equivocating over the meaning of “own”. Please stick to a single definition of this word.
That begs the question - what criteria do you think determine whether something is legitimately yours?
If your definition of “ownership” is such that it does not include the right to alienate, then how is your definition of “ownership” any different from your definition of “usufruct”?
So you don’t think I made anything by plowing the soil on that acre of land?
In slaveownership societies you are legally alowed to sell yourself into slavery. Slavery is illegitimate because it is contradictory, that is- from a philosophical point of view- impossible. But as said, it is nominally possible- it existed in legal/ economic practice, and exists today in some places.
Please do not try and limit me to a single specified meaning (you chose) of word that doesn’t have such a narrow meaning.
own verb transitive verb a : to have or hold as property : possess b : to have power or mastery over (wanted to own his own life)
The apriori axiom of selfownership and labor theory of property that follows from it.
You started to use the land, but didn’t produce anything. What’s the product of labor that you could sell to someone?
Okay, I’ll try a different approach. Do you think it’s physically possible for a person to alienate himself in any way whatsoever? Yes or no? This is an entirely descriptive question, which means normativity is irrelevant here.
Words don’t have inherent meanings. We impute meanings to them.
That said, I’m simply asking you to stick to a single specified meaning of the word “own”, period. I’m not asking you to stick to a single specified meaning that I chose. But if you’re not going to be consistent in your usage of words, that means you’re equivocating, which means you’re knowingly employing a logical fallacy, which means your position is logically invalid, which means you concede the debate. I’m not trying to be rude, but that’s the way I see it.
Please see above. I don’t know what you mean by “self-ownership”, because I don’t know what you mean by “ownership”.
As I see it, I did produce something. I produced an acre of plowed soil.
Homesteading principle (that says that land bacomes property by using it [just by the fact that it is the first use]) is a social, arbitrary, contruct. Property defined as a product of one’s labor is a principle following from selfownership, which is an apriori axiom. I don’t see why should I accept homesteading principle, because I already have a definition of property, and that addition is unnecessary- I don’t see the justification of adding the homesteading principle to the definition of property.
Since all ethics are normative, the only rational basis for choosing between conflicting ethical systems is to look at the consequence each would yield, and adopt the ethical system whose consequences you prefer. The consequences of the labor-production principle of homesteading, and of the principle of inalienable self-ownership from which it is derived, are for labor to be inalienable and land to be unownable, which I think any rational person would find absurd and unacceptable. I certainly do. But perhaps you don’t find these consequences absurd and unacceptable, in which case we can have no meeting of the minds on this topic, as we are beginning from fundamentally different valuations, which are of course subjective.
Body is de facto inalienable. Only I can control my body. Not only because of that is that I don’t see how can the body be legitimately de jure alienable,
This line of reasoning is fallacious. You have taken a matter of fact (no one but me can control my body) and tried to derive a normative claim (no one but me should be allowed to own my body). It is a non sequitur.
but also because discursive/ argumentation ethics show that selfownership is an apriori axiom.
Ethics are normative. There is no such thing as an a priori ethical axiom. One cannot deduce an ought from an is.
Papirius: You started to use the land, but didn’t produce anything. What’s the product of labor that you could sell to someone?
Autolykos: As I see it, I did produce something. I produced an acre of plowed soil.
Papirius, would you please define “production” as you mean it?
It seems to me that one could define production in one of two ways: (1) changing the form of some quantity of matter-energy, or (2) being the creator of the matter-energy itself. By the first view, to plow a field is indeed to produce something: namely, the plowed field. Your production lies in the fact that you changed the form of existent matter-energy. Whereas, by the second view, no human being ever has or will produce anything, per the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy. I don’t mean to force you into this box, perhaps there are other options I’m missing. I would just like to hear a definition of production which explains why (for example) building a house counts as production of that house, such that the builder owns the house, while plowing a field does not count as production of that plowed field, such that the farmer does not own the field.
Autolykos
No.
That which is owned, alienably or inalienably. If I own something, it is not owned by anyone else and it is not unowned. That simple.
Selfownership says that I own myself (and my actions) and no one else. I own myself (and my actions [including labor]) inalienably. Products of my labor are my property, and I own that property alienably.
Then take it with you and sell it. You did not produce the acre, and you can’t legitimatelly sell that.
Minarchist
Which I already did by quoting Locke- mixing one’s labor with something and removing it from the state of nature.
Farmer can own the plowed soil but not the area. The area is just being used to make products of labor, it is not a product of labor.
- In order for anything to be justified it needs to be done by argumentation. 2. Argumentation has many apriori norms that constitute it (eg. participants are alive), including selfownership principle. Whoever negates those principles is commiting a performative contradiction (eg. saying “I am not alive” or “participants in argumentation don’t need to be alive in order argumentation to exist”). 3 In order to justify anything one has accept selfownership principle, meaning the selfownership principle is an apriori norm of any attempt to justify anything, meaning the selfownership principle is an apriori axiom of ethics, because any attempt of denying is apriori false, being a performative contradition.
[production is] mixing one’s labor with something and removing it from the state of nature.
Farmer can own the plowed soil but not the area. The area is just being used to make products of labor, it is not a product of labor.
What is “the area” as distinct from the ploughed soil within the area?
…I’ll get back to you on argumentation ethics.
Area is a quantity that expresses the extent of a two-dimensional surface.
Farmer can own the plowed soil but not the area. The area is…not a product of labor.
Area is a quantity that expresses the extent of a two-dimensional surface.
land is not a product of labor and therefore not legitimate
The underlined “land” above refers to the area, not to the plowed soil, correct? That is, you define land as an abstract area, not as real, particular things like plowed soil?
If so, then your argument is not that land cannot be owned (by the normal definition of land), but rather that abstract area cannot be owned. A claim which I think no one will challenge. It is also a trivial claim: like saying I can own the tomato but not its redness or the volume it occupies. This doesn’t have any bearing on discussions of property, as no one can use abstractions, and so no disputes about use of abstractions can arise.
Put another way: what would be the difference between a society where land (by your definition: i.e. area) cannot be owned, and a society where land (by the normal definition) can be owned?
If I now understand your claim that land cannot be owned, I would like to move along to the issue of alienability.
alienation of one’s labor is too illegitimate, no matter if the serf/ employee gives his consent. All property gained trough someone else’s alienation of their own body or labor is illegitimate.
You’re saying that when a person produces a widget it is his property regardless of who owned the resources from which the widget was produced?
For example, if the employer owns some clay, and hires the employee to produce bowls from that clay, the bowls are the property of the employee?
I’ve seen some leftists make this claim; I wouldn’t be surprised if he advocates it. It’s insane of course.
The underlined “land” above refers to the area, not to the plowed soil, correct? That is, you define land as an abstract area, not as real, particular things like plowed soil?
Yes, land in the sense of territory, area. That’s why people are called “landowners”, and mutualists are oppossed to “absentee landlordship”.
This doesn’t have any bearing on discussions of property, as no one can use abstractions, and so no disputes about use of abstractions can arise.
It doesn’t? Systems of slavery, feudalism and capitalism have all legaly allowed people to own (buy and sell) areas of land even if they are in the state of nature. Eg. someone owns 20 acres of unused fertile land, or 20 acres of forest, and can deny it’s use to anyone else, and can sell it.
what would be the difference between a society where land (by your definition: i.e. area) cannot be owned, and a society where land (by the normal definition) can be owned?
The above mentioned would not be possible. Land could be under exclusive use by “occupancy-and-use”, but not legally owned.
You’re saying that when a person produces a widget it is his property regardless of who owned the resources from which the widget was produced?
Yes. If the recources were stolen, he owes recompensation for them of cource, but he ownes his labor, and and everything that is product of his labor is his property.
For example, if the employer owns some clay, and hires the employee to produce bowls from that clay, the bowls are the property of the employee?
Employment is illegitimate because it includes alienation of labor, and labor, being a part of the self, falls under the inalienable right to selfownership.
Okay. So you don’t consider suicide to be self-alienation? If not, what do you consider it to be?
That definition is self-referencing and hence circular. It’s like defining “apple” as “that which is an apple”. Please try again.
Also keep in mind that I’m asking you to define the verb “own”. I don’t think I was clear enough about that earlier, sorry. If you thought I was asking you to define the adjective “own”, then the definition you gave isn’t circular after all.
I’ll wait on addressing this, since I still haven’t received a definition of the verb “own” from you.
So if I build a house, I can’t sell it because I can’t take it with me? Or what?
Would you say that I produced my own body?
Okay. So you don’t consider suicide to be self-alienation? If not, what do you consider it to be?
Well, when you commit suicide, you cannot feel isolated, estranged, unsympathethic or hostile.
al·ien·ate/ˈālēəˌnāt/ 1. Cause (someone) to feel isolated or estranged; Cause (someone) to become unsympathetic or hostile.
If we use alienate in the meaning “transfer as property” in the sense of “transer ownership from oneself to someone else” then suidice is not self-alienation, because you haven’t by suidide transfered ownership over your body to someone else (and you can’t do that legitimately anyway).
al·ien·ate/ˈālēəˌnāt/ 2. Convey or transfer (as property or a right) usually by a specific act rather than the due course of law
That definition is self-referencing and hence circular.
Tell it to the people who wrote Marriam Webster dictionary. To own something means to have something as property, to possess.
Selfowership is an apriori axiom and ownership of self is inalienable because alienability would make it contradictory. Property follows from selfownership (labor theory of property) and you can’t use a definition of the word property that includes alienability to show the self to be alienable, because that would make selfownership contradictory and thus impossible, making property non existant, because it would have nothing to stem from, but if property is non existant, how can then it’s definition prove the ownership of self to be alienable? Making that line of reasoning contradictory.
Which means: we have inalienable ownership over ourselves. We have alienable ownership over products of labor. We cannot have ownership over something that is not a product of labor, but in the state of nature.
Therefore, to have property over something means to have the right to use or destroy it and to exclude everyone else from using or destroying it, and depending on the nature of the property (i.e. if it’s alienable or inalienable) also the right to exchange it for something or give it as a gift or just abandon it.
So if I build a house, I can’t sell it because I can’t take it with me? Or what?
You can sell it, but not the area it is on. If you distroy that house and abandon that area, anyone is free to come and use that area, because it is unowned. You can’t legitimately say- that area is my property and if you want to use it, you have to buy it from me.