Myth: Humans have the inherent, natural right to create and own property.

[indefiance24]

Do you own your body? are we bound by actions and consequence? Are you responsible for any crimes you commit? If you commit murder isn't it true that you "own" the consequences of your actions? If you argue that such is not the case, then you must agree to the premise that murder is moral, and everyone can see your emperor has no clothing. If you do not argue that murder is moral, and yet continue to assert that you cannot own property, your admitting a logical fallacy...

[ryan84160]

@indefiance24 Actually it is you who is committing a fallacy.Saying that someone "owns" a murder is incoherent. Being responsible for causing something to happen is not the same thing as ownership. Neither is claiming some object or piece of land that is not being used. You are conflating the concept of possession with the legal grant that is ownership.

[landgabriel]

Great video.

[Beingism]

@landgabriel Thanks!

[RedBloodReign]

@ineptsegue I don't care whether you approve of my comments or not, but since you seem to think it's unclear I'll say it a different way. He's moaning about people believing in human rights on the one hand and on the other hand he says that people "aren't being paid what they're worth". What are they "worth"? That's a pronouncement of a belief and in the United States we have something called "money" to decide what people's work is "worth".

[Beingism]

@RedBloodReign There's nothing magical about the way money is distributed in the USA (nor about the way laissez-faire advocates want it distributed) that makes it some kind of objective end-all of value judgments. Markets are often useful, but they can also cause serious problems—and the idea that we must always default to them to define value is as arbitrary as it is dangerous.

As for your lack of concern for other people's feelings, I'll put it another way: Be civil or be blocked.

[RedBloodReign]

@Beingism I agree. There's nothing magical about it at all. We believe in human rights; it made the most powerful nation on the planet. We believe no one has the authority to distribute wealth so that life will be fair; life isn't fair. I'm pointing out that there's a huge inconsistency with you saying American beliefs don't mean shit and then you smuggle in a comment about how we need someone deciding what people are worth as if we have some intrinsic value.

[Beingism]

@RedBloodReign You've no interest in a fair society? That's fine, but fairness is the purpose of law. If you're in favor of having some laws, this would seem to represent an inconsistency in your position.

"Smuggle in" a comment? No. Wealth is constantly redistributed under any possible economic system.

Not sure where you're getting this idea that "American beliefs don't mean shit." Also, the beliefs that shaped America were quite diverse and most had little to do with what you're advocating.

[RedBloodReign]

Fairness is not the "purpose of law". Everyone is equal under the law, there's a huge difference. Wealth is "redistributed' freely, but it should not be centralized; deciding who should get paid what. American beliefs are listed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. They were also lived by Americans at its foundation; We had the right to own property, freely start our own businesses, and freely exchange goods and services. These "myths" as you call them, built America.

[Beingism]

@RedBloodReign The reason we care about treating all people equally under the law is because not to do so would be blatantly unfair.

Your characterization of our position as one opposing all freedom to start businesses, exchange goods and services, and own property is totally inaccurate, and I have no idea why you think we oppose the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

[RedBloodReign]

@Beingism

Rights cannot be preserved if they are merely preferences. By saying that owning property is a natural right, we say that it is not impeachable, suspend-able, or alterable (unless they conflict with someone elses rights). By saying rights are given to us by government/society, they suddenly become impeachable, suspend-able, and alterable.

Freedom cannot exist without unalienable rights. Opposition to unalienable rights (or natural rights) is opposing the foundation of the US.

[Beingism]

@RedBloodReign There's no evidence for the idea that rights have an objective basis in reality. In fact, that concept doesn't really even make any sense. No rational justification has ever been developed to show how is implies ought. What is a right is defined by what makes sense, what's practical, and what works, and only by arbitrary definition would a subjective concept of rights be at odds with "the foundation of the US."

[RedBloodReign]

@Beingism Agree:

-You can not get an 'ought' from an 'is'.

-Rights are not something you find in your backyard. (Intangible)

-Rights make sense, are practical, and they work.

Disagree:

-Rights have no objective basis in reality.

-People have authority over rights, they are not inalienable.

-Government is instituted to make life fair. (off topic)

I really don't think I can give this subject the attention it deserves in such short posts, suffice it to say, "No U!"

I might make a video on this.

[Beingism]

@RedBloodReign Government often makes life a lot *less* fair in practice, but we're not in favor of such uses. If you oppose the use of law to make life more fair, you have no justification for laws against murder or theft, either.

Getting away from the word "objective": There's no single set of "correct" principles regarding rights. There are many ways to run a society. What works best depends on the situation & culture. More than one way can work, & most ways have at least some disadvantages.

[ryan84160]

@Beingism Do you think fairness should be the goal of society ? What if having a slightly unfair society produced much more happiness and well being than a society that was perfectly fair ?

[guidedmarkets]

@ryan84160 Fortunately, that's not the case—fairness produces much more happiness—though it's also true that some income disparities are necessary to motivate productivity.

[ryan84160]

@guidedmarkets I think fairness is subjective. Some that they should be able to own as much private property as humanly possible and any restriction of this right is not fair. On the other end,you have people that it is only fair if the economic pie is divided up into perfectly equally portions. I think both of these situations would produce enormous amounts of unnecessary suffering.

[ryan84160]

@ryan84160 I personally think we should be focused only on what reduces suffering or increasing happiness instead of focusing on a subjective term like fairness.

[guidedmarkets]

@ryan84160 I see your point, and it appears we share the same overall goal, though I also think it's valid to have multiple rhetorical strategies for coming at the problem. I think equality of autonomy is another useful concept here.

[RedBloodReign]

I commend you sir, you went from bashing the beliefs that built the most powerful nation on Earth to coming out of the closet riding a unicorn. How does one decide, without some sort of magical powers, what a persons work is worth without profits? It's like measuring "goodness" with a teaspoon. So again, I commend you for your fanciful gibberish, I was very amused.

[younitehumanity]

There is a way to get out of Property Taxes. It is called Alloidial Title. It is funny that when the city sends you a Tax Bill, they can't show proof of an order. In the laws of Comerce, when you place an Order, you are then presented with a Bill. But the City sends you a Bill and you never placed an Order.

[younitehumanity]

Look up the word "DEED" in a Black's Law Dictionary. I looked it up and it says: At Common Law a written instrument that is signed, delivered and that conveys "some" interest in property.

So if you only have "some" interest to your property...then who has the other interest?

[Beingism]

The state, presumably. Whether it uses that interest in ways that benefit the public's legitimate stake in them or not is another question entirely, of course.

[MigDanskeren]

I understand. When running out of reasonable arguments it's easier to attack my person. Classic case of Ad hominem but who am I to demand a reasonable response.

[MigDanskeren]

Come on, blaming white people and colonialism is such an old cliché which has been debunked long time ago.

Many nations have been colonies or occupied for centuries but are doing well. Czech Republic and Greece to mention a few. Or what about the Asian Tigers which have been colonies of UK and Japan respectively, and which are now doing very well?

As best some colonialism created a structural basis for economic development, at worst it had only little negative effect.

[MigDanskeren]

Comparing blacks in the US with Africans I have no doubt that they benefited a lot from being descendants of slaves. I'm not saying that slavery is good but it did turn out to be net-beneficial for their descendants.

When, In your opinion, is ownership "right"?

[MigDanskeren]

Naturally you can't create anything from nothing, but it is completely impossible to determine who is entitled to what and who benefited in the long run. Indians and blacks certainly gained from their interaction with European culture.

Furthermore, the argument presented in this video assumes that someone owned something before "we" took it away, thus recognizing the property right that it's supposed to counter.

[MigDanskeren]

Bullshit. Far most riches of today can not be lead back to any unethical treatment 150+ years ago, but to technical development created by US.

If all we had was things that we took from Asians and Africans we would still be very poor.

[trick0171]

Well said!