Libertarianism

[Beatsong]

No, I own property because I am able to defend that ownership. Society recognizes my ownership as a way to keep me from killing anyone who attempts to divest me of that which is mine.

You obviously can't defend your ownership against the army sending a tank division down your street to take it or even a few criminal gang members who want to take it

That I may be unsuccessful in defending my property does not render the taking of it by those to whom it does not belong moral or ethical. It just means they have superior force.

This is what's so hilarious; the fact that you don't even see the blatent contradiction between the two sides of your ridiculous non-position.

1. It's only "mine" because I have the force to take and defend it.
2. If The Collective has the force to take and defend it - Oh no, that doesn't mean it's "theirs"!!!

You're so full of self-contradictory crap it's not true. To be honest, I don't have the slightest problem with people like you insisting you have some right to property via sheer force of will. I just enjoy laughing at the barefaced idiocy with which you insist that that "right" somehow applies uniquely to yourself, and mysteriously ceases to apply when someone else (the evil Marxist Collective) takes it via superior force of will. Your morality is nothing. It's the morality of a 3 year old child who grabs his brother's rattle and insists he'll hold his breath until he turns blue if it's taken off him.

Good for a laugh, anyway.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Seeth lives in "The Walking Dead".

[Beatsong]

So what if he inherited it? It's his. Is inherited property somehow different from any other form of property?

Yes, of course it is.

But don't blame me. It's the right wing (not least including Seth) who constantly insist that we are expected to respect property rights because property is a person's reward for labour. A person therefore has the moral right, and not just the legal right that happens to be recognised arbitrarily by our society, to enjoy the "fruits of their labour" free of interference.

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. If property is going to be so sacred because it represents just reward for labour, then you're going to have to admit that in many cases it doesn't represent any such thing, and that the existence of those cases severely compromises the argument for its sacredness. There are many ways we can deal with that problem, and I'm not for a moment suggesting that outright communism or abandoning the whole concept of private property is the best or the right one. But a degree of measured redistribution in order to maintain a society in which all young people at least have a chance to participate and make a good life for themselves, even if they're born on the wrong side of the arbitrary inheritence bell curve; and in which the poorest are protected from the worst consequences of it, might be. OTOH sticking your fingers in your ears and repeating "LA LA LA: property is PURELY just reward for labour... LA LA LA anyone who says otherwise is an evil Marxist Collective Thief.... LA LA LA NOT LISTENING!!!" probably isn't.

You need to remember that it ISN'T "his" unless the other people inhabiting his country agree that it is. Don't believe me? Try being a Russian landowner during the Bolshvik revolution, an Australian aborigine or a native American subject to European colonialism. If the people wielding power where you live decide that your property rights don't exist, then they don't, and that's nothing to do with what "ought" to be, it's simply what is.

So we try to maintain a society in which people believe in property rights and respect those of others. But we can only do that by convincing people of why they're important and what their value is. And part of that is being honest about their limitations.

[Svartalf]

What counts is that property belongs to you by social convention, not by right of might.

[Coito ergo sum]

What counts is that property belongs to you by social convention, not by right of might.

This is exactly Seth's position. A social convention is society's set of agreed, stipulated or generally accepted standards, norms, social norms or criteria, often taking the form of a custom.

However, for the most part, property rights are not unwritten, as social conventions generally are. Instead, they are written into constitutional law, and statutory law. What Seth says is that the property rights precede the written laws and constitutions and exist as part of human society -- arising out of the coming together of humans into groups and communities. That's social convention.

Congrats. You agree with Seth.

[aspire1670]

So what if he inherited it? It's his. Is inherited property somehow different from any other form of property? Sounds a bit sour-grapey to me.

But Seth argues that his ownership is rooted in his ability to defend it by force. I pointed out that his ownership derives from inheritance rooted in and defended by property law. Sounds a bit like you haven't been paying proper attention to me.

[Coito ergo sum]

So what if he inherited it? It's his. Is inherited property somehow different from any other form of property?

Yes, of course it is.

But don't blame me. It's the right wing (not least including Seth) who constantly insist that we are expected to respect property rights because property is a person's reward for labour. A person therefore has the moral right, and not just the legal right that happens to be recognised arbitrarily by our society, to enjoy the "fruits of their labour" free of interference.

Who in the world has said that "property is a person's reward for labour?"

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. If property is going to be so sacred because it represents just reward for labour, then you're going to have to admit that in many cases it doesn't represent any such thing,

Sure, but nobody said that it represents just reward for labour. Property can be acquired through no labor and it is still possessed by the owner.

and that the existence of those cases severely compromises the argument for its sacredness. There are many ways we can deal with that problem, and I'm not for a moment suggesting that outright communism or abandoning the whole concept of private property is the best or the right one. But a degree of measured redistribution in order to maintain a society in which all young people at least have a chance to participate and make a good life for themselves, even if they're born on the wrong side of the arbitrary inheritence bell curve; and in which the poorest are protected from the worst consequences of it, might be. OTOH sticking your fingers in your ears and repeating "LA LA LA: property is PURELY just reward for labour... LA LA LA anyone who says otherwise is an evil Marxist Collective Thief.... LA LA LA NOT LISTENING!!!" probably isn't.

You need to remember that it ISN'T "his" unless the other people inhabiting his country agree that it is. Don't believe me? Try being a Russian landowner during the Bolshvik revolution, an Australian aborigine or a native American subject to European colonialism. If the people wielding power where you live decide that your property rights don't exist, then they don't, and that's nothing to do with what "ought" to be, it's simply what is.

So we try to maintain a society in which people believe in property rights and respect those of others. But we can only do that by convincing people of why they're important and what their value is. And part of that is being honest about their limitations.

I don't get the point you're making here. The thief doesn't "agree" that my car is my property. When he is stealing it, he's trying to take it from me for free. This "agreement" you speak of is a fiction. What really happens is that the idea of a person owning property, and what property rights entail, is defined by law. This is not contingent on one's neighbors agreeing that those concepts are correct. They're bound regardless of their own agreement.

[Beatsong]

What counts is that property belongs to you by social convention, not by right of might.

This is exactly Seth's position. A social convention is society's set of agreed, stipulated or generally accepted standards, norms, social norms or criteria, often taking the form of a custom.

However, for the most part, property rights are not unwritten, as social conventions generally are. Instead, they are written into constitutional law, and statutory law. What Seth says is that the property rights precede the written laws and constitutions and exist as part of human society -- arising out of the coming together of humans into groups and communities. That's social convention:{D

That is absolutely not Seth's position.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

What counts is that property belongs to you by social convention, not by right of might.

This is exactly Seth's position. A social convention is society's set of agreed, stipulated or generally accepted standards, norms, social norms or criteria, often taking the form of a custom.

However, for the most part, property rights are not unwritten, as social conventions generally are. Instead, they are written into constitutional law, and statutory law. What Seth says is that the property rights precede the written laws and constitutions and exist as part of human society -- arising out of the coming together of humans into groups and communities. That's social convention:{D

That is absolutely not Seth's position.

It's Coito's position under Seeth.

[MrJonno]

Yeah since when has Seth cared about social convention (or society in general) , its him and his natural rights everything else is secondary/Marxist


I pay taxes to support people who are poorer than me as basically I don't want them starting a revolution or dying in the streets making everything unpleasant. It's protection money sure but so what better via the taxman than constant conflict

[Beatsong]

So what if he inherited it? It's his. Is inherited property somehow different from any other form of property?

Yes, of course it is.

But don't blame me. It's the right wing (not least including Seth) who constantly insist that we are expected to respect property rights because property is a person's reward for labour. A person therefore has the moral right, and not just the legal right that happens to be recognised arbitrarily by our society, to enjoy the "fruits of their labour" free of interference.

Who in the world has said that "property is a person's reward for labour?"

Loads of people, not least, as I said, Seth on many occasions. It's one of the most common arguments for capitalist economics, private property and limiting taxation - that when people are allowed to keep and enjoy the fruits of their labour, they are more likely to work hard and that benefits everybody. And that people DESERVE to keep the fruits of their labour and not have them taken from them by people who didn't work for them.

It's an argument I happen to agree with. It's just peculiar that one the occasions when property turns out to represent the exact opposite - "reward" for the dumb luck of being born to the right parents no matter how indolent you are, the response of the same people seems to be to mutter vaguely and try and pretend it isn't happening. Personally I'd rather be open minded about how to create a society in which property functions as a genuine reward for labour.

You need to remember that it ISN'T "his" unless the other people inhabiting his country agree that it is. Don't believe me? Try being a Russian landowner during the Bolshvik revolution, an Australian aborigine or a native American subject to European colonialism. If the people wielding power where you live decide that your property rights don't exist, then they don't, and that's nothing to do with what "ought" to be, it's simply what is.

So we try to maintain a society in which people believe in property rights and respect those of others. But we can only do that by convincing people of why they're important and what their value is. And part of that is being honest about their limitations.

I don't get the point you're making here. The thief doesn't "agree" that my car is my property. When he is stealing it, he's trying to take it from me for free. This "agreement" you speak of is a fiction. What really happens is that the idea of a person owning property, and what property rights entail, is defined by law. This is not contingent on one's neighbors agreeing that those concepts are correct. They're bound regardless of their own agreement.

Nonsense. Law, while by no means a perfect representation of society's will in its minute day-to-day application, relies ENTIRELY on people agreeing that it is "right" in order to EXIST as law in a general sense. When a critical mass of people DON'T any longer believe it is right, it gets changed. That's precisely how all societies have changed throughout history.

You seem to suggest that law just exists in some strange bubble of its own where it was invented one day and is not subject to what anybody thinks about anything. That's absurd. In fact your example proves my point: society as a whole recognises the concept of property and that theft of property is wrong, and punishes thieves accordingly. The guy who steals your car goes to jail if he gets caught precisely because he is operating contrary to the laws that are in operation. By contrast, there are areas of the world where you can steal whatever you like and have the physical power to steal, because there is no effective law in operation to the contrary.

I'm not arguing the morality of it here. On the contrary, I'd reiterate what I said to Seth: if you want to argue that property law is just some entirely arbitrary thing that exists as en entitly unto itself, with nothing to do with morality or what most of society believes, then that's absolutely fine. But the corollary of that is that all it takes for someone to deny your property right over your house or car and decide it's theirs, is for a certain number of people with a certain number of power to decide that's the case. Then it is.

That's just the law of the jungle. If someone wants to argue for that they can. What's ridiculous is when they then try to pretend there's some moral basis to it, when the entire idea is based on exactly the opposite. Most arguments for libertarianism are fundamentally hypocritical and self-contradictory in this respect. They just switch back and forth between moral and amoral attitudes as it happens to suit them.

[pErvinalia]

So what if he inherited it? It's his. Is inherited property somehow different from any other form of property?

Yes, of course it is.

But don't blame me. It's the right wing (not least including Seth) who constantly insist that we are expected to respect property rights because property is a person's reward for labour. A person therefore has the moral right, and not just the legal right that happens to be recognised arbitrarily by our society, to enjoy the "fruits of their labour" free of interference.

Who in the world has said that "property is a person's reward for labour?"

Libertarians, including Seth, do it all the time.

[pErvinalia]

Yeah since when has Seth cared about social convention (or society in general) , its him and his natural rights everything else is secondary/Marxist


I pay taxes to support people who are poorer than me as basically I don't want them starting a revolution or dying in the streets making everything unpleasant. It's protection money sure but so what better via the taxman than constant conflict

While I don't doubt the accuracy in that statement of yours, Jonno, like most of your empty pronouncements the situation is far more nuanced than that. I pay taxes to support people who are poorer than me as it is the humane thing to do.

[Svartalf]

So what if he inherited it? It's his. Is inherited property somehow different from any other form of property?

Yes, of course it is.

But don't blame me. It's the right wing (not least including Seth) who constantly insist that we are expected to respect property rights because property is a person's reward for labour. A person therefore has the moral right, and not just the legal right that happens to be recognised arbitrarily by our society, to enjoy the "fruits of their labour" free of interference.

Who in the world has said that "property is a person's reward for labour?"

Libertarians, including Seth, do it all the time.

and it's wrong, serfs labour all the time to raise crops and animmals and whatnot that are the Lord's property.

[Seth]

The only way you can support your system is to make my property rights subordinate to the collective

Which of course they are, the only thing you own is what society says you own. You think you own your house because you paid someone else money for it. Think again own it because society recognizes your transaction

No, I own property because I am able to defend that ownership. Society recognizes my ownership as a way to keep me from killing anyone who attempts to divest me of that which is mine. Society's laws are merely a mechanism by which conflicts over possession of resources are resolved by means other than the Law of the Jungle. But the basis of the right to own property is not society's permission, it is the individual's ability to find, acquire and defend those resources from being appropriated by others.

The collective has no rights in my property. Never has, never will. And if the collective tries to take what is mine, I'm justified in resisting that attempted theft using whatever force is required to thwart the theft.

If you think I'm wrong, I encourage you to try to break into my house in the middle of the night and take what is mine. I'll prove to you that I'm able to defend that ownership. It will cost you your life.

Nope. You own property because you inherited it and property law defends it for you. Default on any mortgage against your property (if there is one) and you will be out on your ear, guns or no.

Strawman argument. If I have a mortgage on my property (real estate...ONE form of "property" we're discussing) then it's not "my property" until I've paid the mortgage off, it's the mortgage holder's property which I am making use of as I pay for it.

And property law is merely a more civilized and less violent method of resolving disputes over the ownership of property. Property law does not grant the right to own property, it merely adjudicates disputes over it, which in the past might have been resolved by the King or by "might makes right" single combat. The right to reduce to possession and claim exclusive use of property flows from the necessity and ability to do so, nothing more.

I must secure exclusive access to those resources necessary for my survival if I am to survive, and having done so, by my own labor, that resource becomes my property which I am then entitled to defend against those who would take it from me. The complexity of the system of defense, whether it be direct physical force or sublimated physical force in the form of courts and cases backed by the force of government, it still reduces to taking, holding, and defending "property" in one form or another. But the right to take, hold and defend property is not granted by any government, it exists as a natural function of all living organisms and it is vindicated by that organisms ability to take, hold and defend that property. This is because a "right" is nothing more than a freedom of action that can be defended against intrusions by others.

In a lawless natural world, my rights are defined by my ability to claim them and defend them. In civilization, my ability may be enhanced or diminished by either gaining or losing the support of the community or the government in exercising that ability to claim and defend my rights, but the function is merely more complex, not different in nature. My ability to claim and defend a right does not come from the permission of anyone. It originates in my physical ability to perform the acts necessary to claim and defend the right. Government may limit or regulate my exercise of a right, but it DOES NOT GRANT IT, it merely defines the parameters of the society in which I live as regards the exercise of the right.