|
Callum
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: March 20, 2008, 04:06:11 PM » |
|
Then you can hand the keys to your house and car to any Tom, Dick and Harry who feels they should belong to him.....as for mine.....they will be staring down the barrel of my Desert Eagle 0.50......
Ermmmm Patton I think you are not getting the point. If 'your' house,car etc don't 'belong' to you they don't 'belong' to anybody else either. Think Amish.... Removing the idea of property rights doesn't remove the idea of civilised individual rightful usage of things. However, take the case of the town I live in now.... there is a chronic housing shortage, yet 20% of homes here are unoccupied for most of the year - they are 'holiday homes'. But young families who work around here - and service those homes in summer - have nowhere they can afford to buy, and rental is even more than loan costs (and we even have a well regulated loans market - unlike the cancerous US subprime)..... Others living in the 'sticks' - agricultural or forest workers have no transport and are cindemned to isolation. But there are numerous unused vehicles around - left for when absentee owners decide to come... Seems to be a rather wasteful use of finite resources... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
illy
Hero Member
Karma: +94/-105
Posts: 958
illerino if youre not into the whole brevity thing
|
|
« Reply #16 on: March 20, 2008, 05:20:02 PM » |
|
From a pragmatic perspective, people are going to strive for property (albeit some in different ways than others). The perfect world doesn't exist, and in this one people want stuff. The issue of property rights is going to come up one way or another. We have three basic ways we can deal with this:
1) We all go and get 0.50's, and the best shot gets the most property.
2) We start a 'workers paradise' in which property rights are abolished.
3) We set up a legal system in which rights are protected.
On a philosophical level I was never able to really rationalize property rights (especially intellectual property rights and land ownership), but on a practical level our society would be screwed without them.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ammunition spitting is him, is it, you listening
Littering written, it\\'s in slippers, get the rebel in him
Sticking it with sinners, sizzlin\\' rhythm, verbally hit him
Did he did it, or did he didn\\'t, admit it -
Rugged Man - Give it Up
|
|
|
|
IamMe
|
|
« Reply #17 on: March 21, 2008, 12:06:11 PM » |
|
I feel Locke is begging the question: he assumes that by "mixing your labour" with something it becomes exclusively yours..... Unless the "with something" was paid for or procured from someone else. I believe that everything on the planet is owned equally by everyone, and that by "fencing it off from the common" (another phrase used) i.e. asserting ownership you are essentially stealing it. Hogwash. What culture does not respect private property rights......whether it is a mudhut or an estate? Patton just because something is near-universal does not make it right. Then you can hand the keys to your house and car to any Tom, Dick and Harry who feels they should belong to him.....as for mine.....they will be staring down the barrel of my Desert Eagle 0.50...... Nice try. Obviously I'm not going to do that within the system we have. Oh, I get it....this was all just "pie in the sky" talk.....nothing to do with reality. It is not pie in the sky! I'm advocating a complete systemic change, not a pointless one-man revolution ("here take my all my stuff while I lie down in the gutter and die" is not socialism!). You may not believe a better world is possible but I do. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"Anarchism is the ideal to which all societies should approximate\\\\" - Bertrand Russell
If you strike me down I shall become more dead than you can ever imagine.
|
|
|
Patton
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +97/-137
Posts: 1,745
NObama '08
|
|
« Reply #18 on: March 21, 2008, 01:38:30 PM » |
|
I feel Locke is begging the question: he assumes that by "mixing your labour" with something it becomes exclusively yours..... Unless the "with something" was paid for or procured from someone else. I believe that everything on the planet is owned equally by everyone, and that by "fencing it off from the common" (another phrase used) i.e. asserting ownership you are essentially stealing it. Hogwash. What culture does not respect private property rights......whether it is a mudhut or an estate? Patton just because something is near-universal does not make it right. Then you can hand the keys to your house and car to any Tom, Dick and Harry who feels they should belong to him.....as for mine.....they will be staring down the barrel of my Desert Eagle 0.50...... Nice try. Obviously I'm not going to do that within the system we have. Oh, I get it....this was all just "pie in the sky" talk.....nothing to do with reality. It is not pie in the sky! I'm advocating a complete systemic change, not a pointless one-man revolution ("here take my all my stuff while I lie down in the gutter and die" is not socialism!). You may not believe a better world is possible but I do. I believe in a better world...within the confines of reality....vacating personal property rights is not realistic. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
IamMe
|
|
« Reply #19 on: March 21, 2008, 01:42:03 PM » |
|
I feel Locke is begging the question: he assumes that by "mixing your labour" with something it becomes exclusively yours..... Unless the "with something" was paid for or procured from someone else. I believe that everything on the planet is owned equally by everyone, and that by "fencing it off from the common" (another phrase used) i.e. asserting ownership you are essentially stealing it. Hogwash. What culture does not respect private property rights......whether it is a mudhut or an estate? Patton just because something is near-universal does not make it right. Then you can hand the keys to your house and car to any Tom, Dick and Harry who feels they should belong to him.....as for mine.....they will be staring down the barrel of my Desert Eagle 0.50...... Nice try. Obviously I'm not going to do that within the system we have. Oh, I get it....this was all just "pie in the sky" talk.....nothing to do with reality. It is not pie in the sky! I'm advocating a complete systemic change, not a pointless one-man revolution ("here take my all my stuff while I lie down in the gutter and die" is not socialism!). You may not believe a better world is possible but I do. I believe in a better world...within the confines of reality....vacating personal property rights is not realistic. Why do you say that? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"Anarchism is the ideal to which all societies should approximate\\\\" - Bertrand Russell
If you strike me down I shall become more dead than you can ever imagine.
|
|
|
Patton
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +97/-137
Posts: 1,745
NObama '08
|
|
« Reply #20 on: March 21, 2008, 01:43:49 PM » |
|
I feel Locke is begging the question: he assumes that by "mixing your labour" with something it becomes exclusively yours..... Unless the "with something" was paid for or procured from someone else. I believe that everything on the planet is owned equally by everyone, and that by "fencing it off from the common" (another phrase used) i.e. asserting ownership you are essentially stealing it. Hogwash. What culture does not respect private property rights......whether it is a mudhut or an estate? Patton just because something is near-universal does not make it right. Then you can hand the keys to your house and car to any Tom, Dick and Harry who feels they should belong to him.....as for mine.....they will be staring down the barrel of my Desert Eagle 0.50...... Nice try. Obviously I'm not going to do that within the system we have. Oh, I get it....this was all just "pie in the sky" talk.....nothing to do with reality. It is not pie in the sky! I'm advocating a complete systemic change, not a pointless one-man revolution ("here take my all my stuff while I lie down in the gutter and die" is not socialism!). You may not believe a better world is possible but I do. I believe in a better world...within the confines of reality....vacating personal property rights is not realistic. Why do you say that? Go ahead and propose how you will accomplish this. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
illy
Hero Member
Karma: +94/-105
Posts: 958
illerino if youre not into the whole brevity thing
|
|
« Reply #21 on: March 21, 2008, 03:19:55 PM » |
|
A loss of property rights would impact the poor the worst. People who have a lot of property usually will find some way of defending it. In this 'better world', the rich would have more and the poor less. My guess is that it would be very similar to feudalism.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ammunition spitting is him, is it, you listening
Littering written, it\\'s in slippers, get the rebel in him
Sticking it with sinners, sizzlin\\' rhythm, verbally hit him
Did he did it, or did he didn\\'t, admit it -
Rugged Man - Give it Up
|
|
|
|
Callum
|
|
« Reply #22 on: March 22, 2008, 02:29:30 AM » |
|
A loss of property rights would impact the poor the worst. People who have a lot of property usually will find some way of defending it. In that case there wouldn't be a loss of property rights. Me, Patton is old. You are young. I'm pretty certain you are both right and wrong in equal measures  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
illy
Hero Member
Karma: +94/-105
Posts: 958
illerino if youre not into the whole brevity thing
|
|
« Reply #23 on: March 22, 2008, 06:17:38 AM » |
|
A loss of property rights would impact the poor the worst. People who have a lot of property usually will find some way of defending it. In that case there wouldn't be a loss of property rights. I'd have to disagree here. It's the difference between might and right. Just because you can take and hold something doesn't mean it's your right. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ammunition spitting is him, is it, you listening
Littering written, it\\'s in slippers, get the rebel in him
Sticking it with sinners, sizzlin\\' rhythm, verbally hit him
Did he did it, or did he didn\\'t, admit it -
Rugged Man - Give it Up
|
|
|
|
IamMe
|
|
« Reply #24 on: March 23, 2008, 01:00:44 PM » |
|
I feel Locke is begging the question: he assumes that by "mixing your labour" with something it becomes exclusively yours..... Unless the "with something" was paid for or procured from someone else. I believe that everything on the planet is owned equally by everyone, and that by "fencing it off from the common" (another phrase used) i.e. asserting ownership you are essentially stealing it. Hogwash. What culture does not respect private property rights......whether it is a mudhut or an estate? Patton just because something is near-universal does not make it right. Then you can hand the keys to your house and car to any Tom, Dick and Harry who feels they should belong to him.....as for mine.....they will be staring down the barrel of my Desert Eagle 0.50...... Nice try. Obviously I'm not going to do that within the system we have. Oh, I get it....this was all just "pie in the sky" talk.....nothing to do with reality. It is not pie in the sky! I'm advocating a complete systemic change, not a pointless one-man revolution ("here take my all my stuff while I lie down in the gutter and die" is not socialism!). You may not believe a better world is possible but I do. I believe in a better world...within the confines of reality....vacating personal property rights is not realistic. Why do you say that? Go ahead and propose how you will accomplish this. Well the first step is to convince people that it is just - one major mistake made by Communists is that it was a violent revolution by a minority rather than the will of the people. Then, gradually, through political means, the state would begin to take control of essential services, then industry and finally all property (the state, of course, being democratic and hence controlled by the people). The state would then be overhauled, direct democracy (using the internet) would replace representative democracy (thus removing the possibility of state abuse of its newfound power). Then we would have true government of the people, by the people and for the people. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"Anarchism is the ideal to which all societies should approximate\\\\" - Bertrand Russell
If you strike me down I shall become more dead than you can ever imagine.
|
|
|
|
Callum
|
|
« Reply #25 on: March 24, 2008, 01:55:58 AM » |
|
A loss of property rights would impact the poor the worst. People who have a lot of property usually will find some way of defending it. In that case there wouldn't be a loss of property rights. I'd have to disagree here. It's the difference between might and right. Just because you can take and hold something doesn't mean it's your right. We are here getting to some interesting musings on what are 'rights'.... There are plenty of people who would accept openly, even even more who act as if, might makes right and thats that. Its hard to divorce power from 'rights' - they do after all need some enforcement mechanism when transgressors violate them. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
IamMe
|
|
« Reply #26 on: March 24, 2008, 12:52:25 PM » |
|
We are here getting to some interesting musings on what are 'rights'.... There are plenty of people who would accept openly, even even more who act as if, might makes right and thats that. Its hard to divorce power from 'rights' - they do after all need some enforcement mechanism when transgressors violate them.
It's quite easy to divorce power from rights IMO. For example, most people would accept the existence of a right to life, even in places where murder is rampant. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"Anarchism is the ideal to which all societies should approximate\\\\" - Bertrand Russell
If you strike me down I shall become more dead than you can ever imagine.
|
|
|
Patton
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +97/-137
Posts: 1,745
NObama '08
|
|
« Reply #27 on: March 24, 2008, 03:07:06 PM » |
|
Go ahead and propose how you will accomplish this. Well the first step is to convince people that it is just the will of the people. OK....convince me. Then, gradually, through political means, the state would begin to take control of essential services, then industry and finally all property (the state, of course, being democratic and hence controlled by the people). How is this done? The state would then be overhauled How exactly? ...direct democracy (using the internet) would replace representative democracy (thus removing the possibility of state abuse of its newfound power). Implemented how? What of those who have no internet? Then we would have true government of the people, by the people and for the people. Hardly. I asked how this will be accomplished and you offered a "pie in the sky" with no basis in reality.......similar to saying: Well the first step is to develop warp drive.........That's nice......HOW? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
IamMe
|
|
« Reply #28 on: March 24, 2008, 03:21:58 PM » |
|
Go ahead and propose how you will accomplish this. Well the first step is to convince people that it is just the will of the people. OK....convince me. I was trying, until you insisted on dealing with practicalities. Then, gradually, through political means, the state would begin to take control of essential services, then industry and finally all property (the state, of course, being democratic and hence controlled by the people). How is this done? Raise taxes, set up state enterprises to take over essential services, then take control of all other businesses (seize, or buy - buying is probably preferable) in the sector. Same for industry etc. This would have to be gradual change, or else there would be massive resistance and the business owners would have to be compensated. The state would then be overhauled How exactly? See below. ...direct democracy (using the internet) would replace representative democracy (thus removing the possibility of state abuse of its newfound power). Implemented how? What of those who have no internet? That's simple, it only requires legislative change and a little technology. Everyone would have some kind of internet connection - that would have to be in place before anything like that was implemented - or there would have to be places they could go to vote. This is not essential for socialism BTW, it is just one of my beliefs. Then we would have true government of the people, by the people and for the people. Hardly. I asked how this will be accomplished and you offered a "pie in the sky" with no basis in reality.......similar to saying: Well the first step is to develop warp drive.........That's nice......HOW? It is not pie in the sky. It is a big change, I grant you, but not impossible. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"Anarchism is the ideal to which all societies should approximate\\\\" - Bertrand Russell
If you strike me down I shall become more dead than you can ever imagine.
|
|
|
|
gommi
|
|
« Reply #29 on: March 24, 2008, 05:46:45 PM » |
|
I believe in a better world...within the confines of reality....vacating personal property rights is not realistic. I agree with you completely. Society cannot function without private property, as it is the most essential component of individual rights, and a basic financial market cannot exist without it. The private sector may be taxed, and wealth publicly redistributed, however private property must be maintained. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
__Committed IAPer since 2004__
|
|
|
|
