Political Crossfire Forums

[thefranzkafkafront]

Zoot wrote: Quote: Morally: Every human being possesses the right to their own life, which, in turn, leads to their right to the products of their life: labor.

In other words, you are a socialist.
That statements not socialist. Labour as the foundation of property and the right to life and lockean ideas.

[Nathyn]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Zoot wrote: Quote: Morally: Every human being possesses the right to their own life, which, in turn, leads to their right to the products of their life: labor.

In other words, you are a socialist.
That statements not socialist. Labour as the foundation of property and the right to life and lockean ideas.
I actually interpreted it the same way Zoot did.

[VMAN]

Hear is the thing, you equate liberty with economics and equality with economics being economically on the tier with the man down the street. I'm going to speak about American capitalism because that's what I am an American capitalist. In the declaration of independence it says life,liberty,and the pursuit of happiness. If the cops come when I call them just like they do for the man down the street, and no one but the government can infringe upon my right to life legally we both have life. If we both can criticize the government, and do as we please to the extent that it harms no one both have liberty. If I am allowed to start a business that could potentially allow me to match or exceed him economically. And more importantly if I can leave my job for this company when I please, or simply to become a surf bum we both have the pursuit of happiness. Communism may pretend to offer the first two but never the last one. And owner ship of property is irrelevant, if we were solitary animals and did all for ourselves we wouldn't be having this discussion but we are. Societies are made so that I can supplement my short comings with your talents and vice versa so that we can all do a little and all get alot. Because a milk man provides transportation for milk and as a result society supplies his needs. The butcher gets milk and everything he needs and gives processed meat and so on and so forth. Also the reason I equate socialism with communism is because the same argument can be used to debink them both.

[LostSoul3412]

VMAN wrote: In the declaration of independence it says life,liberty,and the pursuit of happiness.

For the record, the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document.

[RueTheDay]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Zoot wrote: Quote: Morally: Every human being possesses the right to their own life, which, in turn, leads to their right to the products of their life: labor.

In other words, you are a socialist.
That statements not socialist. Labour as the foundation of property and the right to life and lockean ideas.

Labor alone cannot be the foundation of a right to property, as the labor must be performed somewhere (on the land) and on something (natural resources) in order to create the product. Since neither land nor natural resources themselves are products of labor, it is impossible to ground any sort of absolute right to property on the basis of labor.

[MplsBison]

Zoot wrote: A just distibution of wealth is one that is proportionate to the distribution of labour that went into creating that wealth.

Capitalist property rights as they stand today make it possible for someone to do nothing and profit greatly and for many others to do everything and profit very little.



Why do socialists and communists assume that there is some inherent correlation between the number of J of energy dissipated and the number of dollars earned?

No such correlation has ever existed and never will exist.


You think it's unjust that someone with a huge pile of cash can just sit around and live off the interest while another person must sweat away in a hot factory all day and make peanuts?

It's not unjust.

It's not unfair.

It's the way things should be, seeing that resources are scarce.


If resources weren't scarce, then fine. Have your utopian slumber party where everyone gets as much of anything as they want.

But they are.

[zMtLlC]

Quote:
Labor alone cannot be the foundation of a right to property, as the labor must be performed somewhere (on the land) and on something (natural resources) in order to create the product. Since neither land nor natural resources themselves are products of labor, it is impossible to ground any sort of absolute right to property on the basis of labor.

Since both you and Nathyn cite this idea as a defense of stealing a worker's labor, I'll just respond to it once.

If a laborer owned the land and resources used to make their product, they would reap all the profit from the product, but this is not the case. For example, let's say someone worked in a factory putting together some type of toy or something. They only enjoy the profits from their input into the product, their labor. The owner of the factory, the land that the factory is on, and the resources used to make the product gets most of the profits from the product, generally. That is why the person who owns the factory or invests generally earns more money than a common laborer: they risked their capital to get it started in the first place.


Quote: The problem, though, is that even if you assume that labor is the basis for ownership, no one can own anything, because we do not labor for our bodies (both Conservatives and Liberals agree that every individual has some form of moral obligation to society) and more importantly, we do not labor for natural resources. We steal gifts of nature and then mix labor with it. The process of mixing labor with natural resources occurs before anyone has actually labored for the natural resources to begin with. No one can "labor," to create land or water, the very first materials necessary for any goods, period.

Just because one doesn't labor for something doesn't mean that it isn't their's. A person's life is, undoubtedly, their's. If it isn't their's whose is it? It's definitely not the state's or "society's" to divide up among those who need it. If you can't justify that a single person can own something, how can you justify that a collection of them can? By following your logic out, property would belong to no one, not everyone.

Another note: saying that two groups of people believes something doesn't make it necessarily true.

[edit]To be painfully honest, I've never thought of it this way. Jefferson just says that the right to private property is self-evident; it is because it is, and I've never really challenged the idea before. But then the question arises: how did those resources become man's property in the first place? The answer is, most of the time, like you stated: by force. I'll have to think about it more and come up with a better reply later.

[zMtLlC]

LostSoul3412 wrote: VMAN wrote: In the declaration of independence it says life,liberty,and the pursuit of happiness.

For the record, the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document.

You just love saying that, don't you?

[sully111]

zMtLlC wrote: I believe the system is wrong both morally and realistically.

Morally: Every human being possesses the right to their own life, which, in turn, leads to their right to the products of their life: labor. How can you just put everyone's labor into a pot and dispense it without regard to who actually contributed to it? Wealth is not just some nameless form which comes from "society," it comes from individuals, and they have the right to that wealth. The real question is: who owns your life: you or society?

Realistically: While the idea that everyone gets what they need and gives what they have sounds like a good idea in theory, it, plain and simple, doesn't work in practice. The fact is that humans will only work to their capability when their self-interest on the line. Look at the difference of how hard someone works when they're compelled to compared to when they do it by their own choice and get the profits from it. By nature, humans only do things for their own self-interest, so, realistically, Communism would not work. Ronald Reagan, in his address to the British Parliament in 1982, stated:

Quote: Were it not for the private sector, the tiny private sector tolerated in Soviet agriculture, the country might be on the brink of famine. These private plots occupy a bare 3 percent of the arable land but account for nearly one-quarter of Soviet farm output and nearly one-third of meat products and vegetables

I also take a stance against socialism, it is a practice which in theory sounds brilliant but is fataly flawed. For instnace why should a world skilled surgeon, who has trained for seven years be paid more than a unemployed person. A socialist may argue humans are all equal thats why everyone should be treated the same, but then if we are all equal in theory everyone would just stop working then there would be no money, hense the history of harsh rule by communist countries on their people.

However, i also believe socialism does present some good perspectives on life of which improve a captalist society, for example in Britian the welfare state, and many western countries incorparate a lot of socialist ideas, which are great. But socialism by itself does not work, just look at what happned to USSR, you may say well Cuba and China are doing well, this only after incorpirating Captalist ideologies into thier systems.

[LostSoul3412]

zMtLlC wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: VMAN wrote: In the declaration of independence it says life,liberty,and the pursuit of happiness.

For the record, the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document.

You just love saying that, don't you?

Yes, because you cannot imagine how many people I have seen attempt to use the Declaration of Independence as the document that supports their argument.

I have a tendency to become frustrated when people attempt to make claims without actually understanding what the law says. (Hence, my title.)

[zMtLlC]

Nathyn wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Zoot wrote: Quote: Morally: Every human being possesses the right to their own life, which, in turn, leads to their right to the products of their life: labor.

In other words, you are a socialist.
That statements not socialist. Labour as the foundation of property and the right to life and lockean ideas.
I actually interpreted it the same way Zoot did.
How is the right over one's life a socialist principle?

[LostSoul3412]

zMtLlC wrote: Nathyn wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Zoot wrote: Quote: Morally: Every human being possesses the right to their own life, which, in turn, leads to their right to the products of their life: labor.

In other words, you are a socialist.
That statements not socialist. Labour as the foundation of property and the right to life and lockean ideas.
I actually interpreted it the same way Zoot did.
How is the right over one's life a socialist principle?

It isn't the right to one's own life, the issue is the rights to the product of one's own labor.

The rights to the product of one's labor is a socialist principle.

[zMtLlC]

LostSoul3412 wrote: zMtLlC wrote: Nathyn wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Zoot wrote: Quote: Morally: Every human being possesses the right to their own life, which, in turn, leads to their right to the products of their life: labor.

In other words, you are a socialist.
That statements not socialist. Labour as the foundation of property and the right to life and lockean ideas.
I actually interpreted it the same way Zoot did.
How is the right over one's life a socialist principle?

It isn't the right to one's own life, the issue is the rights to the product of one's own labor.

The rights to the product of one's labor is a socialist principle.
That's a new one to me, I always thought the rights to the "fruits of one's labor" was a capitalist or free enterprise principle.

[LostSoul3412]

zMtLlC wrote: That's a new one to me, I always thought the rights to the "fruits of one's labor" was a capitalist or free enterprise principle.

No. That's socialism.

Capitalism states that the product is the property of he who owns the means of production.

[zMtLlC]

LostSoul3412 wrote: zMtLlC wrote: That's a new one to me, I always thought the rights to the "fruits of one's labor" was a capitalist or free enterprise principle.

No. That's socialism.

Capitalism states that the product is the property of he who owns the means of production.
By "fruits of one's labor" I'm referring to the right to enjoy the product of one's input into production. The factory owner owns the final product since he owns everything used to make the product, but he must pay the workers who labored on it in relation to their input.

[LostSoul3412]

zMtLlC wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: zMtLlC wrote: That's a new one to me, I always thought the rights to the "fruits of one's labor" was a capitalist or free enterprise principle.

No. That's socialism.

Capitalism states that the product is the property of he who owns the means of production.
By "fruits of one's labor" I'm referring to the right to enjoy the product of one's input into production. The factory owner owns the final product since he owns everything used to make the product, but he must pay the workers who labored on it in relation to their input.

Here's the two different sides to that scenario:

Socialism: The worker owns the product, because he made it, and sells that product to the employer.

Capitalism: The worker makes the product, but does not own it, and it paid for his labor.

Basically, there two sides of employment as well:

Socialism: The worker sells the product made by his labor.

Capitalism: The worker sells his labor.

That's socialism vs. capitalism in a nutshell.

[RueTheDay]

zMtLlC wrote: Quote:
Labor alone cannot be the foundation of a right to property, as the labor must be performed somewhere (on the land) and on something (natural resources) in order to create the product. Since neither land nor natural resources themselves are products of labor, it is impossible to ground any sort of absolute right to property on the basis of labor.

Since both you and Nathyn cite this idea as a defense of stealing a worker's labor, I'll just respond to it once.

If a laborer owned the land and resources used to make their product, they would reap all the profit from the product, but this is not the case. For example, let's say someone worked in a factory putting together some type of toy or something. They only enjoy the profits from their input into the product, their labor. The owner of the factory, the land that the factory is on, and the resources used to make the product gets most of the profits from the product, generally. That is why the person who owns the factory or invests generally earns more money than a common laborer: they risked their capital to get it started in the first place.



Nice strawman. Nowhere did I say anything about factories (or capital in general). I said land and natural resources. No one made the land or natural resources. No one risked anything for them to come into existence (unlike finished goods and services or capital). The land and natural resources were always there, independent of any human action. At some point someone CLAIMED the land and natural resources as their exclusive property, and at that point initiated force against all people who otherwise would have been able to USE the land and natural resources. It is impossible to produce goods and services, including capital, without access to land and natural resources, which themselves are not the product of human action. Thus all attempts to build a moral philosophy around private property rights are erected on a foundation of quicksand and are logically incoherent.

[zMtLlC]

RueTheDay wrote: zMtLlC wrote: Quote:
Labor alone cannot be the foundation of a right to property, as the labor must be performed somewhere (on the land) and on something (natural resources) in order to create the product. Since neither land nor natural resources themselves are products of labor, it is impossible to ground any sort of absolute right to property on the basis of labor.

Since both you and Nathyn cite this idea as a defense of stealing a worker's labor, I'll just respond to it once.

If a laborer owned the land and resources used to make their product, they would reap all the profit from the product, but this is not the case. For example, let's say someone worked in a factory putting together some type of toy or something. They only enjoy the profits from their input into the product, their labor. The owner of the factory, the land that the factory is on, and the resources used to make the product gets most of the profits from the product, generally. That is why the person who owns the factory or invests generally earns more money than a common laborer: they risked their capital to get it started in the first place.



Nice strawman. Nowhere did I say anything about factories (or capital in general). I said land and natural resources. No one made the land or natural resources. No one risked anything for them to come into existence (unlike finished goods and services or capital). The land and natural resources were always there, independent of any human action. At some point someone CLAIMED the land and natural resources as their exclusive property, and at that point initiated force against all people who otherwise would have been able to USE the land and natural resources. It is impossible to produce goods and services, including capital, without access to land and natural resources, which themselves are not the product of human action. Thus all attempts to build a moral philosophy around private property rights are erected on a foundation of quicksand and are logically incoherent.
I was saying the factory was the land and they were performing labor on the resources owned by the factory. Like I said later in my earlier post, I've never really thought about challenging the right to private property or where the property actually came from.

[Nathyn]

zMtLlC wrote: Quote:
Labor alone cannot be the foundation of a right to property, as the labor must be performed somewhere (on the land) and on something (natural resources) in order to create the product. Since neither land nor natural resources themselves are products of labor, it is impossible to ground any sort of absolute right to property on the basis of labor.

Since both you and Nathyn cite this idea as a defense of stealing a worker's labor, I'll just respond to it once.

If a laborer owned the land and resources used to make their product, they would reap all the profit from the product, but this is not the case. For example, let's say someone worked in a factory putting together some type of toy or something. They only enjoy the profits from their input into the product, their labor. The owner of the factory, the land that the factory is on, and the resources used to make the product gets most of the profits from the product, generally. That is why the person who owns the factory or invests generally earns more money than a common laborer: they risked their capital to get it started in the first place.
zMtLlC, what you described is the result of the division of labor and the development of capitalism, not the natural state of mankind. The land-owner does benefit from hiring employees and giving them a cut of what he owns in exchange for helping him produce a good or service, but that doesn't change the fact that the land-owner didn't truly do anything to gain ownership of the land to begin with.

Furthermore, because there is this complex division between property-owners and those without property, there arises "wage slavery," which can be just as perilous as direct enslavement.

To explain using an extreme example: Say that you have an economy where everyone needs widgets in order to survive. Widgets grow naturally from the land. 10 people live in this economy and each one owns land (the entire Earth is owned).

Now, say that a man suddenly falls from the sky and lands in this economy: He has no widgets. But not only that, he has nothing to barter with other than his labor. Yet what is unskilled labor worth? In our economy, unskilled labor is arguably one of the most predominant commodities.

But still, some will employ his labor, yet at what cost? If this man does not find work, he will die, yet his employer's opportunity cost for breaking the contract is merely a loss in profit and seeking other employees. This condition of "work or die," is slavery under the most extreme conditions.

The laborer, too, derives some benefit from the contract, but as you said: not as much as the property owner (the factory-owner or the investor). The reason, however, isn't because one group takes a risk (the risk in employing their capital), but rather, one group profits more because they are more capable of taking risks. I.E., if the poor take financial risks, they will perish. If the wealthy take financial risks, they will merely lose profit. Hence, contracts between the wealthy and the poor will inherently benefit the wealthy.

What you described is the result of property-ownership, not something which makes it just.

zMtLlC wrote: Quote: The problem, though, is that even if you assume that labor is the basis for ownership, no one can own anything, because we do not labor for our bodies (both Conservatives and Liberals agree that every individual has some form of moral obligation to society) and more importantly, we do not labor for natural resources. We steal gifts of nature and then mix labor with it. The process of mixing labor with natural resources occurs before anyone has actually labored for the natural resources to begin with. No one can "labor," to create land or water, the very first materials necessary for any goods, period.
Just because one doesn't labor for something doesn't mean that it isn't their's. A person's life is, undoubtedly, their's. If it isn't their's whose is it? It's definitely not the state's or "society's" to divide up among those who need it. If you can't justify that a single person can own something, how can you justify that a collection of them can? By following your logic out, property would belong to no one, not everyone.

Another note: saying that two groups of people believes something doesn't make it necessarily true.

[edit]To be painfully honest, I've never thought of it this way. Jefferson just says that the right to private property is self-evident; it is because it is, and I've never really challenged the idea before. But then the question arises: how did those resources become man's property in the first place? The answer is, most of the time, like you stated: by force. I'll have to think about it more and come up with a better reply later.
You almost made my point for me: One can reject self-ownership while also rejecting slavery. It isn't either\or. No one can implicitly "own," your body, including you. Just as with land, there is no justifiable owner, but people can simply voluntarily employ what they use. And no one obviously can say that they have a greater need to use your body than you do. No one can sincerely ask, "Would you like to voluntarily be my slave?" And in the absence of coercion, you would not agree. Hence, there is no inherent right to self-ownership, but that doesn't justify slavery.

This idea of "self-ownership," is really just propagated to put human beings on the same level as property. I could put through a long list of reasons which distinguish our bodies from typical examples of property, in a way which is just as extensive as the distinctions between property and intellectual monopoly. The most striking point is the fact that your body is part of who you are. All forms of property are inherently external. You "own," your house, so you can leave and\or give it to somebody else. But you don't own your body. You are your body. You can't leave it and you can't give it to anybody (labor isn't the act of "giving" others your body, either, but the act of employing it).

[Nathyn]

zMtLlC wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: zMtLlC wrote: Nathyn wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Zoot wrote: Quote: Morally: Every human being possesses the right to their own life, which, in turn, leads to their right to the products of their life: labor.

In other words, you are a socialist.
That statements not socialist. Labour as the foundation of property and the right to life and lockean ideas.
I actually interpreted it the same way Zoot did.
How is the right over one's life a socialist principle?

It isn't the right to one's own life, the issue is the rights to the product of one's own labor.

The rights to the product of one's labor is a socialist principle.
That's a new one to me, I always thought the rights to the "fruits of one's labor" was a capitalist or free enterprise principle.
I think it is, to some extent, shared by both Capitalists and Socialists. The principle was first asserted by the Classical Liberal, Locke (others before him made vague references to it as well). After Locke, other Classical Liberals agreed with it, but so did Marxists. They simply defined it differently.

The dispute is over the impact that property ownership has on ownership of one's labor. For Libertarians today, property-ownership has little or no impact on ownership of one's labor and any government intervention is theft of one's labor. For Marxists (including Anarchists), property-ownership is the direct cause of a substantial amount of theft of ownership of one's own labor.

The economic theory that equal labor deserves equal pay (Mutualism) also seems to be popular among both Socialists and Capitalists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29

I've come across both Socialists and Anarcho-Capitalists who speak highly of it.

Oh, and Mutualism was developed by the Anarchist, Proudhon. So, yes, "ownership of one's own labor," is an idea that is both Capitalist and Socialist.