Political Crossfire Forums

[zMtLlC]

Quote:
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.
In most current cases, the land owner (or one of their relatives) traded their capital in exchange for the natural resources they now own, but, like I said before, if you trace it back to the beginning someone simply claimed that land for their own, so it was. That's the central question here: what is the moral justification for a person to simply take the land? The answer, I truly don't know. But you never answered my question before, if one person can't own the land, what's your justification for a group of people or a government to own it?


Quote: 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.

Even though this situation is completely absurd, I'll humor you. Now, the person does have something to trade besides his or her labor: intellectual power and innovation. Unskilled labor is, like you said, very common so not very valuable, but innovation, on the other hand is not. If the imagined person wishes to merely survive, then he continues to trade his unskilled labor for what it's worth, but if he wishes to go above and beyond that, he becomes skilled or uses innovation and trades that.

Quote: 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).

I don't understand how you came to the conclusion that a person does not own their own body from that. If a person does not own their own body, who does? It's definitely not society's to divide up based upon need.

[Nathyn]

zMtLlC wrote: Quote:
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.
In most current cases, the land owner (or one of their relatives) traded their capital in exchange for the natural resources they now own, but, like I said before, if you trace it back to the beginning someone simply claimed that land for their own, so it was. That's the central question here: what is the moral justification for a person to simply take the land? The answer, I truly don't know. But you never answered my question before, if one person can't own the land, what's your justification for a group of people or a government to own it?
None. Nobody can own anything.

zMtLlC wrote: Quote: 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.
Even though this situation is completely absurd, I'll humor you. Now, the person does have something to trade besides his or her labor: intellectual power and innovation. Unskilled labor is, like you said, very common so not very valuable, but innovation, on the other hand is not. If the imagined person wishes to merely survive, then he continues to trade his unskilled labor for what it's worth, but if he wishes to go above and beyond that, he becomes skilled or uses innovation and trades that.
Innovation is as rare as luck.

zMtLlC wrote: Quote: 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).
I don't understand how you came to the conclusion that a person does not own their own body from that. If a person does not own their own body, who does? It's definitely not society's to divide up based upon need.
I think you misunderstand: Nobody needs to own anything, including our bodies or the world. Nobody needs to own it and non-ownership doesn't imply anything, though non-ownership is essentially communal control. The problem here is that you're assuming, "Somebody has to own it," and from there, you try to think of the proper means of dividing up ownership.

We begin by assuming that we, as individuals, should be able to use whatever we want, in voluntary agreements which we agree are fair. Obviously, when I say "nothing is owned," I don't mean we should throw out the assumption that I should be able to go outside and plant a garden for food. What I mean is that I can still do that without being bound by any implicit system of ownership. Nothing is owned and so, what we do is bound by ethical standards other than ownership.

The problem is that you think rejecting property-ownership suddenly automatically means advocating state-ownership or ownership by the largest mob. It is a false dichotomy. I oppose individual property and oppose self-ownership, but I still think slavery is wrong and the act of "theft," is wrong. Now, in saying "theft," obviously, nobody owns anything, so nothing can truly be "stolen." So, I don't really believe in "theft." But simply taking something away from somebody else is wrong.

Perhaps it's easier to explain it like this: Think of mankind as a family. There is no real individual ownership in family, except in an abstract sense: what's mine and yours isn't so because of any implicit ownership, but solely because you and I recognize such. Yet is family control over their property "collectivist"? No. In the absence of individual property rights within the framework of a family, there isn't automatically theft and slavery. But rather, though family members have nothing "owned," they still have rightful possessions. They settle such matters, not by claiming they have implicit ownership, "This is mine!" but through use and implication. Obviously, nobody would take your toothbrush and it would be intuitively wrong for them to do so, hence, in response you might say, "That's mine!" if they try and take it. And it's obviously wrong. In the case of things such as the TV remote, it all depends upon who is using it.

Is my point clear? Property rights are established by assuming mankind controls everything in common and then establishing individual property right, not by having every individual assume, "What I possess is mine and no one will take it!" and having to work out some system of individual ownership from there. Because the act of communal control is inherently non-coercive. The act of squatting on land and defending it with violence is not.

[MplsBison]

LostSoul3412 wrote:

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.

An even easier way to think about it is that in socialism, labor is the basis of all economic activity.

In capitalism, labor is merely a commodity bought and sold at market value.

[zMtLlC]

Quote: Innovation is as rare as luck.
Doesn't change the fact that it's something that our fictional person could sell on the market.

Quote: I think you misunderstand: Nobody needs to own anything, including our bodies or the world. Nobody needs to own it and non-ownership doesn't imply anything, though non-ownership is essentially communal control. The problem here is that you're assuming, "Somebody has to own it," and from there, you try to think of the proper means of dividing up ownership.

We begin by assuming that we, as individuals, should be able to use whatever we want, in voluntary agreements which we agree are fair. Obviously, when I say "nothing is owned," I don't mean we should throw out the assumption that I should be able to go outside and plant a garden for food. What I mean is that I can still do that without being bound by any implicit system of ownership. Nothing is owned and so, what we do is bound by ethical standards other than ownership.

The problem is that you think rejecting property-ownership suddenly automatically means advocating state-ownership or ownership by the largest mob. It is a false dichotomy. I oppose individual property and oppose self-ownership, but I still think slavery is wrong and the act of "theft," is wrong. Now, in saying "theft," obviously, nobody owns anything, so nothing can truly be "stolen." So, I don't really believe in "theft." But simply taking something away from somebody else is wrong.

Perhaps it's easier to explain it like this: Think of mankind as a family. There is no real individual ownership in family, except in an abstract sense: what's mine and yours isn't so because of any implicit ownership, but solely because you and I recognize such. Yet is family control over their property "collectivist"? No. In the absence of individual property rights within the framework of a family, there isn't automatically theft and slavery. But rather, though family members have nothing "owned," they still have rightful possessions. They settle such matters, not by claiming they have implicit ownership, "This is mine!" but through use and implication. Obviously, nobody would take your toothbrush and it would be intuitively wrong for them to do so, hence, in response you might say, "That's mine!" if they try and take it. And it's obviously wrong. In the case of things such as the TV remote, it all depends upon who is using it.

Is my point clear? Property rights are established by assuming mankind controls everything in common and then establishing individual property right, not by having every individual assume, "What I possess is mine and no one will take it!" and having to work out some system of individual ownership from there. Because the act of communal control is inherently non-coercive. The act of squatting on land and defending it with violence is not.

This is a clear difference of belief. It is my opinion that if one labors, they deserve the profits in relation to their input into the final product. Under your system, what guarantees that a person enjoys profits for their labor and what is the incentive to work at the best of your ability? Laboring for society instead of yourself is the worst sort of slavery. While it may be debatable whether land can be owned, it's fundamentally indisputable that a person's body and the products of that body belong to himself.

[Nathyn]

zMtLlC wrote: Quote: Innovation is as rare as luck.
Doesn't change the fact that it's something that our fictional person could sell on the market.
Not every person has innovation, though, so it can't be any kind of ethical basis.

zMtLlC wrote: Quote: I think you misunderstand: Nobody needs to own anything, including our bodies or the world. Nobody needs to own it and non-ownership doesn't imply anything, though non-ownership is essentially communal control. The problem here is that you're assuming, "Somebody has to own it," and from there, you try to think of the proper means of dividing up ownership.

We begin by assuming that we, as individuals, should be able to use whatever we want, in voluntary agreements which we agree are fair. Obviously, when I say "nothing is owned," I don't mean we should throw out the assumption that I should be able to go outside and plant a garden for food. What I mean is that I can still do that without being bound by any implicit system of ownership. Nothing is owned and so, what we do is bound by ethical standards other than ownership.

The problem is that you think rejecting property-ownership suddenly automatically means advocating state-ownership or ownership by the largest mob. It is a false dichotomy. I oppose individual property and oppose self-ownership, but I still think slavery is wrong and the act of "theft," is wrong. Now, in saying "theft," obviously, nobody owns anything, so nothing can truly be "stolen." So, I don't really believe in "theft." But simply taking something away from somebody else is wrong.

Perhaps it's easier to explain it like this: Think of mankind as a family. There is no real individual ownership in family, except in an abstract sense: what's mine and yours isn't so because of any implicit ownership, but solely because you and I recognize such. Yet is family control over their property "collectivist"? No. In the absence of individual property rights within the framework of a family, there isn't automatically theft and slavery. But rather, though family members have nothing "owned," they still have rightful possessions. They settle such matters, not by claiming they have implicit ownership, "This is mine!" but through use and implication. Obviously, nobody would take your toothbrush and it would be intuitively wrong for them to do so, hence, in response you might say, "That's mine!" if they try and take it. And it's obviously wrong. In the case of things such as the TV remote, it all depends upon who is using it.

Is my point clear? Property rights are established by assuming mankind controls everything in common and then establishing individual property right, not by having every individual assume, "What I possess is mine and no one will take it!" and having to work out some system of individual ownership from there. Because the act of communal control is inherently non-coercive. The act of squatting on land and defending it with violence is not.

This is a clear difference of belief. It is my opinion that if one labors, they deserve the profits in relation to their input into the final product. Under your system, what guarantees that a person enjoys profits for their labor and what is the incentive to work at the best of your ability? Laboring for society instead of yourself is the worst sort of slavery. While it may be debatable whether land can be owned, it's fundamentally indisputable that a person's body and the products of that body belong to himself.
A person has the full profit in relation to their input in the product because all they own is the input and the enjoyment of such. Nobody owns natural resources, so nobody owns commodities. Anybody can use what they like, though, so that it's a system of perfect liberty and perfect equality.

[zMtLlC]

Quote:
Not every person has innovation, though, so it can't be any kind of ethical basis.

We shouldn't base our belief on what is a person's right on whether such an attribute is shared by all. The fact is that people do innovate, so they deserve the rights to their innovation.



Quote: A person has the full profit in relation to their input in the product because all they own is the input and the enjoyment of such. Nobody owns natural resources, so nobody owns commodities. Anybody can use what they like, though, so that it's a system of perfect liberty and perfect equality.

It's still debatable whether anyone owns natural resources or not. Most of the people who own them now payed for such resources with their capital, so one can't deprive them of it regardless of whether, if one traced it back, that person had the right to sell it.

[Geronimo]

Seclusion from other human beings is the key to survival. No enemies, no control over lives, no hate.

[Nathyn]

Geronimo wrote: Seclusion from other human beings is the key to survival.
Does that include internet forums?

[Geronimo]

ouch...that was cold....

[bob.appleyard]

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. How can you just put everyone's labor into a pot and dispense it without regard to who actually contributed to it?

And this is an argument against socialism?