Political Crossfire Forums

[The Central Scrutinizer]

RueTheDay wrote:
Property is a social construct. It is a relationship between an individual and the rest of society regarding a thing. It is an agreement that defines the use, exclusion, benefit, and transfer of the "thing". It is not some natural right based on the natural laws of the universe or any other similar such nonsense. And being a relationship between an individual and society regarding the thing, it cannot concern the "self" unless you consider the individual and the self to be two separate entities.

Do a search. I have covered this time and time again.

---

False.

You are talking about possession here, not property. Possession is a relationship between a person and a thing. "This thing is my possession". It is based upon the physical facts of occupation and use. Property is not a relationship between a person and a thing. A property right is a relationship between a person and all other people REGARDING a thing. The reason for this is simple - all rights imply a corresponding duty on the part of all other people to respect that right. A "thing" cannot have a duty. Please see my thread on "Rights, Duties, and Liberties" in the Philosophy Forum for a more detailed explanation. Libertarians are always confusing property and possessions.

Isn't this just a question of your philosophical definition of "property"? I wasn't aware that there was a universally accepted definition of such. Then again, I haven't really done much research into the concept. Yet even within your definition, might there be a tacit agreement that, within a society, individuals' possession of their own bodies be respected by those others in the society in a manner akin to your description of property? If your thread in the Philosophy forum explains this already, just say so, and I'll check it out later when I have the time.

[RueTheDay]

The Central Scrutinizer wrote: RueTheDay wrote:
Property is a social construct. It is a relationship between an individual and the rest of society regarding a thing. It is an agreement that defines the use, exclusion, benefit, and transfer of the "thing". It is not some natural right based on the natural laws of the universe or any other similar such nonsense. And being a relationship between an individual and society regarding the thing, it cannot concern the "self" unless you consider the individual and the self to be two separate entities.

Do a search. I have covered this time and time again.

---

False.

You are talking about possession here, not property. Possession is a relationship between a person and a thing. "This thing is my possession". It is based upon the physical facts of occupation and use. Property is not a relationship between a person and a thing. A property right is a relationship between a person and all other people REGARDING a thing. The reason for this is simple - all rights imply a corresponding duty on the part of all other people to respect that right. A "thing" cannot have a duty. Please see my thread on "Rights, Duties, and Liberties" in the Philosophy Forum for a more detailed explanation. Libertarians are always confusing property and possessions.

Isn't this just a question of your philosophical definition of "property"? I wasn't aware that there was a universally accepted definition of such. Then again, I haven't really done much research into the concept.

Of course definitions are always open to debate. I'm just looking for logical consistency within an analysis of property rights, and I find it sorely lacking in most of what passes for philosophical discussion over the subject on the internet.

Quote:
Yet even within your definition, might there be a tacit agreement that, within a society, individuals' possession of their own bodies be respected by those others in the society in a manner akin to your description of property?

Again, then why not simply say that individuals possess a right of self-control or self-determination, which in some ways (but not all) is similar to a property right?

I'll tell you why libertarians will not agree to this logical analysis - they want to be able to make the argument that 1. you possess an absolute property right to your body, therefore 2. you possess an absolute property right to your labor, therefore 3. when you "mix" your labor with objects in the external world you acquire an absolute property right to those objects. It's a horribly flawed, illogical, inconsistent argument, but they stick to it. It's central to the libertarian ethic which distills down to little more than "property is that which you can do whatever you want with, therefore, do whatever you want with your property and no one elses".

Quote:
If your thread in the Philosophy forum explains this already, just say so, and I'll check it out later when I have the time.

Have a look at it. It's an attempt to provide some clarity of thought around terms like rights, duties, and liberties. I'm open to suggestions.

[Free Thinkr]

The Central Scrutinizer wrote: Yet even within your definition, might there be a tacit agreement that, within a society, individuals' possession of their own bodies be respected by those others in the society in a manner akin to your description of property?
Oh, society is absolutely guaranteed to respect individuals' posession of their bodies; it's those damned demons that can't be trusted!

[Gus]

Free Thinkr wrote: The Central Scrutinizer wrote: Yet even within your definition, might there be a tacit agreement that, within a society, individuals' possession of their own bodies be respected by those others in the society in a manner akin to your description of property?
Oh, society is absolutely guaranteed to respect individuals' posession of their bodies; it's those damned demons that can't be trusted!



Ohhhhh somebody's head is gonna be rolling for leaking GND's pic.

[Free Thinkr]

Gus wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: The Central Scrutinizer wrote: Yet even within your definition, might there be a tacit agreement that, within a society, individuals' possession of their own bodies be respected by those others in the society in a manner akin to your description of property?
Oh, society is absolutely guaranteed to respect individuals' posession of their bodies; it's those damned demons that can't be trusted!



Ohhhhh somebody's head is gonna be rolling for leaking GND's pic.
Burn! :lol:

[Harbinger]

RueTheDay wrote:
The Central Scrutinizer wrote:
Isn't this just a question of your philosophical definition of "property"? I wasn't aware that there was a universally accepted definition of such. Then again, I haven't really done much research into the concept.
Of course definitions are always open to debate. I'm just looking for logical consistency within an analysis of property rights, and I find it sorely lacking in most of what passes for philosophical discussion over the subject on the internet.

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:
Yet even within your definition, might there be a tacit agreement that, within a society, individuals' possession of their own bodies be respected by those others in the society in a manner akin to your description of property?

Again, then why not simply say that individuals possess a right of self-control or self-determination, which in some ways (but not all) is similar to a property right?

I thought we did.

RueTheDay wrote:
I'll tell you why libertarians will not agree to this logical analysis - they want to be able to make the argument that:

1. you possess an absolute property right to your body,

I would agree with this.

RueTheDay wrote:
therefore
2. you possess an absolute property right to your labor,

No, I would say we have a right to the fruits of our labor but, labor itself isn't a tangible thing so, it can't really be regarded as property. (Um.. uh oh. :shifty:)

I think of labor, not as a commodity but as a liberty- a property right of self ownership.

RueTheDay wrote:
therefore
3. when you "mix" your labor with objects in the external world you acquire an absolute property right to those objects. It's a horribly flawed, illogically inconsistent argument but, they stick to it.

Yes, this would be nonsense in my opinion as well. As owners of ourselves, we are entitled to the fruits of our labor but, we are also entitled to sell the fruits of our labor. A sale is a transfer of entitlement so, once the fruits of our labor have been sold, we are no longer entitled to them.

Labor isn't a transferable asset so, people can't actually sell it and employers can't actually buy it. What happens is that workers acquire a financial interest in the products they help create from the application of their labor in the creation process. This interest exists as a debt to employers who agree to pay it off with wages and salaries. People might feel compelled to call such interest "partial ownership" but, that would be grossly inaccurate. Having a financial interest in something has nothing to do with having ownership and the phrase is an oxymoron anyway, IMO.

RueTheDay wrote:
It's central to the libertarian ethic which distills down to little more than "property is that which you can do whatever you want with, therefore, do whatever you want with your property and no one elses".

Well, this sounds more Libertarian than number 3 above which sounds down right Marxist. I still don't agree with it.

You could do whatever you want with your property if you were living on your own island, on another planet. Unfortunately, we live and work in and on other peoples property all the time so, we are obligated to respect their rights as property owners. They have the right to make rules about when, where and to what extent we may use our property- including ourselves- in and on their property. Of course we have rights too and they are obligated to make rules that respect our rights so, it goes both ways.

[RueTheDay]

Harbinger wrote: RueTheDay wrote:
The Central Scrutinizer wrote:
Isn't this just a question of your philosophical definition of "property"? I wasn't aware that there was a universally accepted definition of such. Then again, I haven't really done much research into the concept.
Of course definitions are always open to debate. I'm just looking for logical consistency within an analysis of property rights, and I find it sorely lacking in most of what passes for philosophical discussion over the subject on the internet.

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:
Yet even within your definition, might there be a tacit agreement that, within a society, individuals' possession of their own bodies be respected by those others in the society in a manner akin to your description of property?

Again, then why not simply say that individuals possess a right of self-control or self-determination, which in some ways (but not all) is similar to a property right?

I thought we did.

I did. You insist on the contradictory idea of an actual property right in one's person.

Quote:
RueTheDay wrote:
I'll tell you why libertarians will not agree to this logical analysis - they want to be able to make the argument that:

1. you possess an absolute property right to your body,

I would agree with this.

See. You just did it again.

Quote:
RueTheDay wrote:
therefore
2. you possess an absolute property right to your labor,

No, I would say we have a right to the fruits of our labor but, labor itself isn't a tangible thing so, it can't really be regarded as property. (Um.. uh oh. :shifty:)

I would agree with that statement. However, it does raise joint-product issues. IOW, there is a fundamental difference between using your labor to create a product and then selling that product directly versus selling your labor on the market to a firm that employs many people all of whom contribute jointly to the creation of products that the firm will own when finished.

Quote:
I think of labor, not as a commodity but as a liberty- a property right of self ownership.

That doesn't make much sense. I think you're trying to get at a "right of contract" here.

Quote:
RueTheDay wrote:
therefore
3. when you "mix" your labor with objects in the external world you acquire an absolute property right to those objects. It's a horribly flawed, illogically inconsistent argument but, they stick to it.

Yes, this would be nonsense in my opinion as well. As owners of ourselves, we are entitled to the fruits of our labor but, we are also entitled to sell the fruits of our labor. A sale is a transfer of entitlement so, once the fruits of our labor have been sold, we are no longer entitled to them.

Labor isn't a transferable asset so, people can't actually sell it and employers can't actually buy it. What happens is that workers acquire a financial interest in the products they help create from the application of their labor in the creation process. This interest exists as a debt to employers who agree to pay it off with wages and salaries. People might feel compelled to call such interest "partial ownership" but, that would be grossly inaccurate. Having a financial interest in something has nothing to do with having ownership and the phrase is an oxymoron anyway, IMO.

That contradicts your earlier distinction between owning your labor vs. owning the fruits of your labor. Also, a "financial interest" isn't a very accurate term either.

Quote:
RueTheDay wrote:
It's central to the libertarian ethic which distills down to little more than "property is that which you can do whatever you want with, therefore, do whatever you want with your property and no one elses".

Well, this sounds more Libertarian than number 3 above which sounds down right Marxist. I still don't agree with it.

Number 3 is straight from Locke, so I don't see how it could be "Marxist".

Quote:
You could do whatever you want with your property if you were living on your own island, on another planet. Unfortunately, we live and work in and on other peoples property all the time so, we are obligated to respect their rights as property owners. They have the right to make rules about when, where and to what extent we may use our property- including ourselves- in and on their property. Of course we have rights too and they are obligated to make rules that respect our rights so, it goes both ways.

That isn't really different than what I said above. Notice where I said "with your property and no one elses".