This is absolutely ludicrous. The products of labor are alienable. And the employee is being payed to alienate the products of his labor. The fact that people readily agree, voluntarily, to labor contracts doesn’t give you pause while espousing this theory?
The products of labor are alienable. And the employee is being payed to alienate the products of his labor.
Even if that were true, that would mean that employment of workers who do service jobs is still illegitimate. But it’s not, workers never alienate products of their labor, always the labor, alienating products of labor is not called employment, it’s called selling (products).
The fact that people readily agree, voluntarily, to labor contracts doesn’t give you pause while espousing this theory?
People used to agree, voluntarily, to slave contacts, that doesn’t make slavery legitimate.
Pics or it didn’t happen. Please provide a source for this claim.
Me: 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.
Papirius: 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.
The labor theory of property (natural resources only become owned once someone has mixed his labor with them) is sufficient to eliminate the possibility of people owning, selling, or excluding others from the use of virgin resources. It is not the labor theory of property which I claimed has no bearing on discussions of property. What is irrelevant to discussions of property is this idea of abstract area. Abstractions cannot be used in the same sense that real, particular things can be used. And property is about determine rights to use things. Hence abstractions are alien to discussions of property. Saying you have a right to use an abstraction (e.g. area) is like saying you have a right to drink a color. It is literally nonsense.
The above mentioned would not be possible.
I take it “the above mentioned” is this:
people…own (buy and sell) areas of land even if they are in the state of nature
But, again, a strict labor theory of property is sufficient to prohibit this behavior. There is no need to bring abstract area into the discussion. The only conceivable reason to bring area into the discussion is to justify the land tax. That is, the necessity for the land tax does not follow from the principle of inalienable self-ownership and a labor theory of property. The land tax only follows if, in addition, you posit this bizarre area concept.
he ownes his labor, and and everything that is product of his labor is his property
It seems this could have two meanings:
(1) The product of one’s labor is inalienable property. In this case, voluntary exchange itself is illegitimate.
(2) The product of one’s labor is alienable property, but it cannot be alienated in advance. That is, Bob can produce a widget, and then sell the widget. But Bob cannot contract with an employer such that the widget becomes the employer’s property automatically as soon as it is produced. I believe this is your view? What are implications of this? Debt is an alienation of the product of one’s labor in advance: in other words, an alienation of one’s future labor. Hence, by this view, debt itself is illegitimate.
That’s precisely what employment is, the selling of labor services. Employment is not some special arrangement unlike other kinds of transactions in the marketplace. It is instead a continuing purchase of labor services. Any other conception of it is nonsensical.
People agreed to indentured servitude perhaps, I don’t think anyone’s ever agreed to be an outright slave, as slavery as a concept denotes aggression on the part of the slave owner.
Please provide a source for this claim.
“Slaves are either born so, their mothers being slaves themselves, or they become so; and this either by the law of nations, that is to say by capture in war, or by the civil law, as when a free man, over twenty years of age, collusively allows himself to be sold in order that he may share the purchase money.” Corpus Iuris Civilis http://www.humanistictexts.org/justinian.htm Slavery by debt bondage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_bondage
What is irrelevant to discussions of property is this idea of abstract area. Abstractions cannot be used in the same sense that real, particular things can be used.
Yet in capitalism areas can legally be property.
Saying you have a right to use an abstraction (e.g. area) is like saying you have a right to drink a color.
You’re talking gibberish. I have the right to use any area because I have the right to freedom because of which I have the right to where ever I want.
But, again, a strict labor theory of property is sufficient to prohibit this behavior.
My talking about areas not being legitimate property is talking about labor theory of property.
That is, the necessity for the land tax does not follow from the principle of inalienable self-ownership and a labor theory of property.
From self-ownership and LTP follows that areas cannot be property, from which follows that my right to freedom is being impaired, because I’m denied access to something that is unowned (areas). And being that you can have property (ius in re) only over products of labor, you can only have exclusive use over land by using it. Now, in order not to have those state of nature situation where you remove your property for a few minutes and someone else comes and puts his property there and to mess with you, in exchange for the recompensation you owe the community community makes a social contract to give you ius ad rem over and area that you use continuously.
2) The product of one’s labor is alienable property, but it cannot be alienated in advance.
It can be. I sell chairs, and you come and give me money for a chair, and I go and make a chair and give it to you at a later date on which we agreed, and there you go- I sold you my chair before I made it.
But Bob cannot contract with an employer such that the widget becomes the employer’s property automatically as soon as it is produced.
That would make Bob the seller, and the guy who becomes the proprietor of the wigdet a buyer. If Bob becomes an employee he alienates his labor, he doesn’t get payed for widgets, but for hours of labor, and, by alienation of labor, the employer becomes the exclusive user of his labor, whereas if someone were to come to self-employed Bob to buy widgets, there would be no alienation, with Bob remaining the only boss of his labor, determining how much to charge for widgets, how, when, at what pace, how many etc to make them. Bob remaining the only owner of his labor is the only legitimate option.
That’s precisely what employment is, the selling of labor services.
Making employment illegitimate, because labor is a part of self, and thus inalienable.
as slavery as a concept denotes aggression on the part of the slave owner.
It doesn’t, from Code of Hammurabi to Justinian’s Corpus three types of slaves are recognized- born into slavery, war captives, and those who sold themselves into slavery (which includes those who became slaves by pledging themselves as collateral for a loan). The third kind doesn’t denote aggression, but a voluntary contract.
Let’s say I agree with you for one second. Let’s say labor is part of the self. Then the only moral way to deal with another person would be to trade with him for his labor, whatever price he’s willing to accept for that labor, like, oh I don’t know, a wage. Because a person owns his labor the only illegitimate thing to do would be to take it by force. It could never be illegitimate to freely trade someone for that which they own!
With all due respect, I really hope you’re not trying to insult my intelligence here.
I thought it was clear from the context that I was referring to “alienate” in the sense of “transfer, abandon, or destroy”, which is the sense I used when I first talked about the kinds of right that Roman law considered to constitute ownership. So your usage of “alienate” above is inconsistent with my usage. That doesn’t make it wrong, just different (and conflicting).
So let me ask you this: when a person commits suicide, does he destroy himself in any way?
I couldn’t care less what the Merriam-Webster dictionary says. There’s no particular necessary meaning of the word “own”. It’s just a word. So the question is what definition do you attach to it.
Now I’ll point out that “to have something as property, to possess” is an inconsistent definition. You’ve agreed that property and possession are two different things. Yet this definition of “own” treats them as if they’re identical. Please make up your mind. You’re not being consistent at all with your definitions.
Your statements about self-ownership make no sense to me, because I don’t understand your definition of “self-ownership”. And that’s because I don’t understand your definition of “ownership”. So none of it makes sense to me yet. What I’ve been trying to do is make sense out of what you’re saying, and at this point it seems as though you’re being deliberately obtuse in order to obfuscate my efforts at attaining clarity. I don’t know why you would do that, and if that’s indeed what you’re doing, I ask you to please stop.
Okay, this comes closer to making sense. Do you think mere possession of something entails the right to destroy it and/or the right to exclude everyone else from using or destroying it?
As far as I can tell, the Roman-law concept of jus abutendi (“the right to alienate”) included transfer, abandonment, and destruction. Would you not agree that destroying something is a way of abandoning it - in the sense of giving up your rights over it?
What do you think constitutes abandonment in this context? For example, if I leave my house to go on vacation for two weeks, would you say that I abandoned my house?
Yet in capitalism areas can legally be property.
I don’t believe that’s true. I have never heard anyone speak of owning an area. Can you provide a single example of a case where someone is claiming to own an abstract area: as distinct from the real, particular land which occupies it?
I have the right to use any area
You are talking about the area as if it is distinct from the contents. If it is not distinct, then your entire argument breaks down. You need to show/explain what it means to use an area, as distinct from using its contents. Of course, you already admitted it is not possible to use the area without using its contents. Hence this “right” to use area is a right to do something impossible: like a right to drink colors.
It is my opinion that advocates of this view you are espousing did not reason disinterestedly to the conclusion that there were wrongs which needed to be righted by the land tax. Rather, you all wanted the land tax from the start, and built up this system to justify it. This would account for the otherwise inexplicably bizarre talk of rights to use abstract areas.
Bump. I’d really like you respond to my last post, Papirius.
Let’s say I agree with you for one second. Let’s say labor is part of the self. Then the only moral way to deal with another person would be to trade with him for his labor, whatever price he’s willing to accept for that labor, like, oh I don’t know, a wage. Because a person owns his labor the only illegitimate thing to do would be to take it by force. It could never be illegitimate to freely trade someone for that which they own!
Self (which includes labor) is inalienable, that is- slavery, serfhood and employment are illegitimate irrespective of the consent of the slave/ serf/ employee.
Would you not agree that destroying something is a way of abandoning it - in the sense of giving up your rights over it?
I thought you were a mortal enemy of polysemy
What do you think constitutes abandonment in this context? For example, if I leave my house to go on vacation for two weeks, would you say that I abandoned my house?
In state of nature abandonment would be instant. In a society (social contract) people would agree upon what constitutes lack of continuous use.
I don’t believe that’s true. I have never heard anyone speak of owning an area.
It’s called “land” in property law. Estate in land.
You are talking about the area as if it is distinct from the contents.
Because it is. If you till some land, you own the soil. When you leave and the soil returns in it’s state of nature (it is not plowed), you don’t own anything there, and anyone can come and start using it, whereas in capitalism it’s considered “homesteaded”, and even though it is unused land, if anyone wants to come and use it, you have the legal right to deny usage to him and everyone else, and to rent or sell it, etc. Which is to say that in capitalism, by the fact labor has been excerted, not only the products of labor are made property but also the abstact area.
That doesn’t answer my question. Please try again. Please also answer my other questions.
Okay, fair enough. As an aside, how do you see societies/social contracts forming in the world you envision?
That doesn’t answer my question.
Define what you mean with someone destroying oneself and what by someone abandoning oneself.
Please also answer my other questions.
What questions have not been answered?
As an aside, how do you see societies/social contracts forming in the world you envision?
By revolution or election. What other options are there?
How can you claim the individual owns himself and yet does not have the legitimate right to do what he wants with his labor or the products of his labor, including selling them?
How can you equate slavery and serfhood with employment, the former two involving coercion and the latter being purely a product of free choice among two equals?
Upon what rubric is your judgment of legitimacy being made? If labor is inalienable how does that make employment illegitimate, what connects the two concepts. Since inalienability would imply that the laborer owns his labor and therefore should be able to legitimately do whatever he or she wants with it.
How can you claim a legitimate right to tell the laborer what he can and cannot do with his labor and its products if you also claim the laborer owns his labor?
Your position is confused and not well thought out philosophically.
How can you claim the individual owns himself and yet does not have the legitimate right to do what he wants with his labor or the products of his labor, including selling them?
I mentioned products of his labor? I said that the self is inalienable, and that the labor is a part of the self, and thus inalienable. Products of labor are alienable.
How can you equate slavery and serfhood with employment, the former two involving coercion and the latter being purely a product of free choice among two equals?
Neighter slavery nor serfhood involve coercion by themselves. People could (and somewhere still can) become slaves by selling themselves into slavery, likewise with serfhood.
If labor is inalienable how does that make employment illegitimate, what connects the two concepts.
The fundamnt of employment is alienation of the labor of the employee to his employer. You don’t work for the money you got by doing a service to a customer or selling him a product you made, you work for a wage, and the mentioned earnings (which are products of your labor) go to your employer to which you have alienated your labor.
Since inalienability would imply that the laborer owns his labor and therefore should be able to legitimately do whatever he or she wants with it.
Inalienability would imply alienability? Bravo.
How can you claim a legitimate right to tell the laborer what he can and cannot do with his labor and its products if you also claim the laborer owns his labor?
I do not claim it, I say it is not a right, it as a violaton of the right to liberty to tell other people what to do (unless they waive that right by violating the same right of some else). Also, you again confuse labor and products of labor- labor, as a part of self, is inalienable, the products of labor- the opposite.
By “destroy”, I mean “damage beyond use or repair”. By “abandon”, I mean “give up all rights over”.
As I see it, three questions:
-
When a person commits suicide, do you think he destroys himself in any way?
-
Do you think mere possession of something entails the right to destroy it and/or the right to exclude everyone else from using or destroying it?
-
Do you think to own something means to have it as property, or do you think it means to simply possess it?
That last one was implicit in my earlier post.
I guess I should’ve been more specific. I wasn’t talking about how you see getting there from here. How do you see new societies/social contracts forming in a social mutualist world?
1. When a person commits suicide, do you think he destroys himself in any way?
Yes.
Do you think mere possession of something entails the right to destroy it and/or the right to exclude everyone else from using or destroying it?
No.
3. Do you think to own something means to have it as property, or do you think it means to simply possess it?
I have explained my views of property (/ownership) and use (/possession).
How do you see new societies/social contracts forming in a social mutualist world?
Changing laws would be achieved by plebiscite on an area that those laws apply to.
Okay. Do you also think that, when a person destroys himself, he abandons himself (using the definitions of “destroy” and “abandon” that I provided)?
Okay. So clearly you can’t consistently define the verb “own” as both “have something as property” and “possess”, since you clearly don’t think merely possessing something conveys the same rights as having something as property. I’d argue that, based on the evidence, you actually define the verb “own” as only “have something as property”. Does that sound accurate to you?
With all due respect, I don’t think you’ve yet done so to my satisfaction. But I think I’m getting closer to understanding your views here.
Let’s talk about land for a bit. You’ve made it clear that, when you use the term “land”, you mean the same thing as “area”. But area is an abstract concept, isn’t it? For example, even if Earth was somehow destroyed, the area once occupied by its surface would still exist, wouldn’t it? So you’re right - area per se can’t be destroyed or destroyed (at least not by humans). But is that the same thing as talking about e.g. “an area of fertile soil”? I would say it isn’t the same thing.
So you’re presuming that there’s no part of Earth’s surface that’s under what you’d call “the state of nature” in a social mutualist world? That is, there’s nowhere for any group of people to move to and form a society/social contract ex nihilo?
Regardless of your answer there, how do you see such a plebiscite being conducted? In particular, who do you think would determine the area that it applies to?
Do you also think that, when a person destroys himself, he abandons himself (using the definitions of “destroy” and “abandon” that I provided)?
I don’t see why is equating destroying my body with me giveing up all rights so important, I don’t know if I think they are eqatible, tell me to what do you wish to apply that construction, and I’ll tell you if it’s equatable, I don’t have the will to sit here and try to think of all the situation that this sort of equation would justify or imply.
I’d argue that, based on the evidence, you actually define the verb “own” as only “have something as property”. Does that sound accurate to you?
Yes.
But is that the same thing as talking about e.g. “an area of fertile soil”?
Why does it matter? I have given conrete examples. You owning the soil you till, but not the area that it is on means that once you stop tilling it and it returnst to it’s untilled state of nature, that area is free to be used by anyone else; i.e. the homesteading of an area (which is allowed in capitalism, where the area is called “land”) is illegitimate.
That is, there’s nowhere for any group of people to move to and form a society/social contract ex nihilo?
There would be, but I guess that depends on the size of the human population.
Regardless of your answer there, how do you see such a plebiscite being conducted? In particular, who do you think would determine the area that it applies to?
In whatever way the people agree to. The people themselves would organize depending of their proximity, bioregion and language, and would next determine by themselfs the areas. That was from the perspective of mutualism, whereas I’m a “state mutualist”, I envision it similarly, but with the existance of the state making it ‘simpler’.
In this context, “abandon something” means to me “give up all rights over something”. Furthermore, I’m treating “abandon” and “alienate” as synonyms in this context. So if a person kills himself, he’s certainly given up all rights over himself. If he’s dead, he can no longer exercise any rights that he may be purported to have. Hence suicide is a form of abandonment, and hence the self is alienable. That’s my point.
Thank you. Given what you earlier wrote about what you think it means to “have something as property”, I believe I can break down your definition of the verb “own” even further: “have the right to use or destroy something and to exclude everyone else from using or destroying it, and depending on the nature of the thing owned (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”. However, if you agree with my definition of “abandon”, then destruction is a form of abandonment, as I’ve explained already - if something is destroyed, no purported rights can be exercised with/over it. Furthermore, if you agree to treat “alienate” as a synonym of “abandon”, as I’m doing, then that makes destruction a form of alienation, and thus all things that can be owned are in some way alienable. Your definition of the verb “own” would then fall in line with the Roman law concept: “have the right to use, the right to enjoy the fruits of use, and the right to alienate”.
Okay, I think I have a better idea of what you’re talking about in regards to land ownership. I’m glad you brought up the notion of “the state of nature”, because I think it’s an important one. I would actually agree with you that, if I plow an acre of land, but then leave it to return to the state of nature, then I’ve abandoned that land. Thus it would be illegitimate for me to subsequently claim the rights of ownership over that acre.
However, I think an important question here is what constitutes use. For example, if I buy a car, but just so I can put it in a garage and admire its beauty, do you think I’m using that car? If you do, then how is that different from me fencing off an area of land so I can admire its natural beauty?
Okay, fair enough.
What is your definition of “state”?