Page 7 of 10 [ 148 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States

14 Oct 2012, 10:24 am

ruveyn wrote:
RushKing wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
RushKing wrote:
I believe property needs to be justified. Personal property improves our lives. Private property violates liberty.


No it doesn't. Private property simple indicates what belongs to whom so there is no fighting over it.

Good fences make good neighbors.

ruveyn

Private property is an indication of theft and aggression. Territorial behavior is violent.


Then you deny land ownership. See what kind of society you get with that denial. Something like the late stone age culture of the Aboriginal People of the world.

I prefer technology based civilization. For that we need property rights, both real and abstract.

I refuse to beg the rest of mankind for permission to grow veggies on a piece of land I took from nature. Or pick apples from a tree not owned by another person.

So let territorial nature be violent. It is a necessary evil. The alternative is some bogus communistic collective ownership scheme are always, always, always, results in tyranny and death. Study the late and unlamented Soviet Union or the currenty barely alive People's State of North Korea.

There is no property there, but somehow Dear Leader gets to own or at least control it.

ruveyn

So you respond with nothing but strawmans and other baseles assumptions.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

14 Oct 2012, 10:27 am

TM wrote:
[

You cannot differentiate in a meaningful way between "personal property" and "private property" as the two are the same thing.


But one can distinguish real property (real estate) from other kinds of property. Nature provides for free land, water, minerals in and on the ground. All the rest involve some kind of human made artifact. However all kinds of property are necessary to have a society that advances beyond killing animals and picking berries off of bushes.

Property is a necessary condition for civilization.

Without property, we are barbarian savages.

With property we are better (sometimes) but not nearly often enough.

ruveyn



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

14 Oct 2012, 10:38 am

ruveyn wrote:
TM wrote:
[

You cannot differentiate in a meaningful way between "personal property" and "private property" as the two are the same thing.


But one can distinguish real property (real estate) from other kinds of property. Nature provides for free land, water, minerals in and on the ground. All the rest involve some kind of human made artifact. However all kinds of property are necessary to have a society that advances beyond killing animals and picking berries off of bushes.

ruveyn


That wasn't part of my argument, but I do agree with you.



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

14 Oct 2012, 10:40 am

RushKing wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
RushKing wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
RushKing wrote:
I believe property needs to be justified. Personal property improves our lives. Private property violates liberty.


No it doesn't. Private property simple indicates what belongs to whom so there is no fighting over it.

Good fences make good neighbors.

ruveyn

Private property is an indication of theft and aggression. Territorial behavior is violent.


Then you deny land ownership. See what kind of society you get with that denial. Something like the late stone age culture of the Aboriginal People of the world.

I prefer technology based civilization. For that we need property rights, both real and abstract.

I refuse to beg the rest of mankind for permission to grow veggies on a piece of land I took from nature. Or pick apples from a tree not owned by another person.

So let territorial nature be violent. It is a necessary evil. The alternative is some bogus communistic collective ownership scheme are always, always, always, results in tyranny and death. Study the late and unlamented Soviet Union or the currenty barely alive People's State of North Korea.

There is no property there, but somehow Dear Leader gets to own or at least control it.

ruveyn

So you respond with nothing but strawmans and other baseles assumptions.


Well, you're not leaving much room for arguments outside of the one he made. Either you have private property, communal property or no property.

Private property would per your definition be violent aggression.

Communal property would be the same as Ruveyn argued.

No property, would render us unable to operate a modern society.



RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States

14 Oct 2012, 11:08 am

TM wrote:
RushKing wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
RushKing wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
RushKing wrote:
I believe property needs to be justified. Personal property improves our lives. Private property violates liberty.


No it doesn't. Private property simple indicates what belongs to whom so there is no fighting over it.

Good fences make good neighbors.

ruveyn

Private property is an indication of theft and aggression. Territorial behavior is violent.


Then you deny land ownership. See what kind of society you get with that denial. Something like the late stone age culture of the Aboriginal People of the world.

I prefer technology based civilization. For that we need property rights, both real and abstract.

I refuse to beg the rest of mankind for permission to grow veggies on a piece of land I took from nature. Or pick apples from a tree not owned by another person.

So let territorial nature be violent. It is a necessary evil. The alternative is some bogus communistic collective ownership scheme are always, always, always, results in tyranny and death. Study the late and unlamented Soviet Union or the currenty barely alive People's State of North Korea.

There is no property there, but somehow Dear Leader gets to own or at least control it.

ruveyn

So you respond with nothing but strawmans and other baseles assumptions.


Well, you're not leaving much room for arguments outside of the one he made. Either you have private property, communal property or no property.

Private property would per your definition be violent aggression.

Communal property would be the same as Ruveyn argued.

No property, would render us unable to operate a modern society.

In capitalism, if you don't own land to grow your own food, your only option is to starve or beg to become a wage slave. In an anarchist society, land is shared so you don't need permission from a landlord to grow food for yourself. Neither of you explained why land ownership is nessecary for technology to develope. Co-operatives can compete with eachother for votes.



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

14 Oct 2012, 11:34 am

RushKing wrote:
In capitalism, if you don't own land to grow your own food, your only option is to starve or beg to become a wage slave. In an anarchist society, land is shared so you don't need permission from a landlord to grow food for yourself. Neither of you explained why land ownership is nessecary for technology to develope. Co-operatives can compete with eachother for votes.


Land being shared is a possibility until people have started to grow food on it, then it becomes "taken" by someone, thus there are property rights. I.E. the vegetables I grow for myself are mine.

Land ownership is needed, because it makes it possible to develop further than no land ownership. I'm not going to put a ton of effort into developing a piece of land if nobody agrees that the proceeds are mine.



RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States

14 Oct 2012, 11:51 am

TM wrote:
RushKing wrote:
In capitalism, if you don't own land to grow your own food, your only option is to starve or beg to become a wage slave. In an anarchist society, land is shared so you don't need permission from a landlord to grow food for yourself. Neither of you explained why land ownership is nessecary for technology to develope. Co-operatives can compete with eachother for votes.


Land being shared is a possibility until people have started to grow food on it, then it becomes "taken" by someone, thus there are property rights. I.E. the vegetables I grow for myself are mine.

Land ownership is needed, because it makes it possible to develop further than no land ownership. I'm not going to put a ton of effort into developing a piece of land if nobody agrees that the proceeds are mine.

Land ownership is not needed, and the reality is that nothing truly belongs to anyone. We need to discuss when force and theft is justifiable. But I can't with capitalists because the refuse to agknoledge the fact that they already steal in the first place. I believe you should be free to keep the food you will eat. The stuff you grow and don't eat should be distributed.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

14 Oct 2012, 11:55 am

RushKing wrote:
and the reality is that nothing truly belongs to anyone. We need to discuss when force and theft is justifiable. But I can't with capitalists because the refuse to agknoledge the fact that they already steal in the first place. I believe you should be free to keep the food you will eat. The stuff you grow and don't eat should be distributed.


There are people with loaded guns who will gladly refute your nonsensical statement that nothing belongs to anyone.

Well if that is true, why are you wearing the underwear you have on. It does NOT belong to you.

Sir, you have the same mentality as a pre-civilized savage. You do not recognize the distinction between what is yours and what is not. In fact you have asserted the logical equivalent that everything is yours. I could say the same. Let's have a fight to decide whose it really is.

Civilization is possible only when the distinction between mine and not mine is clearly made.

ruveyn



RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States

14 Oct 2012, 12:03 pm

ruveyn wrote:
RushKing wrote:
and the reality is that nothing truly belongs to anyone. We need to discuss when force and theft is justifiable. But I can't with capitalists because the refuse to agknoledge the fact that they already steal in the first place. I believe you should be free to keep the food you will eat. The stuff you grow and don't eat should be distributed.


There are people with loaded guns who will gladly refute your nonsensical statement that nothing belongs to anyone.

Well if that is true, why are you wearing the underwear you have on. It does NOT belong to you.

Sir, you have the same mentality as a pre-civilized savage. You do not recognize the distinction between what is yours and what is not. In fact you have asserted the logical equivalent that everything is yours. I could say the same. Let's have a fight to decide whose it really is.

Civilization is possible only when the distinction between mine and not mine is clearly made.

ruveyn

I believe personal property is a justifiable form of theft because it improves our lifes. I don't think anything is truly mine, but I believe personal property is a justifiable construct.



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

14 Oct 2012, 12:22 pm

RushKing wrote:
I believe personal property is a justifiable form of theft because it improves our lifes. I don't think anything is truly mine, but I believe personal property is a justifiable construct.


The problem is that real estate is excluded, yet other forms of property would be included. So, if I had a trailer that I elected to park on a piece of real estate, I am monopolizing its use, thus preventing anyone else from using it with a piece of personal property, I'd also be inclined to fire a few barrels at anyone who tried to move it without my permission, so for all intents and purposes the land is mine.



RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States

14 Oct 2012, 12:50 pm

TM wrote:
RushKing wrote:
I believe personal property is a justifiable form of theft because it improves our lifes. I don't think anything is truly mine, but I believe personal property is a justifiable construct.


The problem is that real estate is excluded, yet other forms of property would be included. So, if I had a trailer that I elected to park on a piece of real estate, I am monopolizing its use, thus preventing anyone else from using it with a piece of personal property, I'd also be inclined to fire a few barrels at anyone who tried to move it without my permission, so for all intents and purposes the land is mine.

Depends on the form of anarchism. In some types anyone would be allowed to sleep in the trailer or home. There is other kinds where you only own the house or trailer if you use it, and if it is vacant for a certain amount of time, a different person can obtain it.



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

14 Oct 2012, 1:03 pm

RushKing wrote:
TM wrote:
RushKing wrote:
I believe personal property is a justifiable form of theft because it improves our lifes. I don't think anything is truly mine, but I believe personal property is a justifiable construct.


The problem is that real estate is excluded, yet other forms of property would be included. So, if I had a trailer that I elected to park on a piece of real estate, I am monopolizing its use, thus preventing anyone else from using it with a piece of personal property, I'd also be inclined to fire a few barrels at anyone who tried to move it without my permission, so for all intents and purposes the land is mine.

Depends on the form of anarchism. In some types anyone would be allowed to sleep in the trailer or home.


Sounds like a great way to cause rape and murder. "Hi, I'm Henry Lee, me and my buddy Otis are gonna crash in this here trailer with ya'll."


Rushking wrote:
There is other kinds where you only own the house or trailer if you use it, and if it is vacant for a certain amount of time, a different person can obtain it.


Sounds like the kind of world where it would really be worth investing time and effort into something.



RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States

14 Oct 2012, 1:16 pm

TM wrote:
RushKing wrote:
TM wrote:
RushKing wrote:
I believe personal property is a justifiable form of theft because it improves our lifes. I don't think anything is truly mine, but I believe personal property is a justifiable construct.


The problem is that real estate is excluded, yet other forms of property would be included. So, if I had a trailer that I elected to park on a piece of real estate, I am monopolizing its use, thus preventing anyone else from using it with a piece of personal property, I'd also be inclined to fire a few barrels at anyone who tried to move it without my permission, so for all intents and purposes the land is mine.

Depends on the form of anarchism. In some types anyone would be allowed to sleep in the trailer or home.


Sounds like a great way to cause rape and murder. "Hi, I'm Henry Lee, me and my buddy Otis are gonna crash in this here trailer with ya'll."


Rushking wrote:
There is other kinds where you only own the house or trailer if you use it, and if it is vacant for a certain amount of time, a different person can obtain it.


Sounds like the kind of world where it would really be worth investing time and effort into something.

It would, if you value the time and effort that went into building your house you would use it.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,440
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

14 Oct 2012, 1:32 pm

My goodness, do I dare follow this conversation to the point where I left..hmm decisions, decisions.


_________________
We won't go back.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

14 Oct 2012, 1:44 pm

RushKing wrote:
]
I believe personal property is a justifiable form of theft because it improves our lifes. I don't think anything is truly mine, but I believe personal property is a justifiable construct.


All property owned by an individual and under his supervision and control is personal property.

Absentee landlord type ownership where the supervision and control is done by a hired third party is a different matter.

There is a difference between operative ownership and absentee rent collecting.

ruveyn



DancingDanny
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 351

14 Oct 2012, 1:47 pm

TM wrote:
Hopper wrote:
Then overthrow it already! Tch.

But really, that's a whole load of different arguments there. A government function is legitimate assuming it has democratic assent and doesn't go against whatever constitution or bill of rights etc that a particular country has. Where there is sufficient discord, there will be uprisings, civil wars etc. Where you break a law, the government assumes legitimacy in (if necessary) using force. That goes for every law, and would be the same even under the most minimal of governments. What those laws should be - if they should be at all - is a matter for political discourse. I'm a Socialist in the UK. I loathe a whole heap of stuff my government is doing. I follow a lot of debates and talks and thoughts on the left, and there is a lot of confusion as to what to do.


Part of the problem is that with the very split views on various things, democracy has a tendency to turn into a majority dictatorship. "You are free to leave", if this is a legitimate argument then it has to be legitimate in all cases where someone disagrees with government.

If there were more "2/3 majority" requirements it would most likely help, but if you take a lot of democratic countries a majority government does what it pleases. Even if it, thanks to voting districts or something similar has less than 50% of the votes.


When Hitler was elected, it was a social contract. When he established a dictatorship, there wasn't a social contract anymore.