A Proof of Property Rights

A short example of how to use a universal theory of ethics to prove the validity of property rights. (And yes, I did get the year wrong... :) Freedomain Radio www.freedomainradio.com

Category:

Howto & Style

Tags:

• anarchism
• anarchist
• freedomain
• libertarian
• molyneux
• objectivism
• objectivist
• philosophy
• property
• radio
• rights
• stefan

[dinkolino2]

wiht all due respect, this is a bullshit debate, which ofcourse it is because it is based primarily on the play of words and not the content for which they should stand. All the statements made here and shown to be self-contradictory can be reformulated in a way that they no longer are and will still mean the same thing to 99% of the people. Logic as a scientific discipline is imperfect because it relies on the language which is imperfect, but it assumes that it is perfect.

[stefbot]

you're using a logical argument to argue against logic, you might want to try again... :)

[FlamingHound]

You may say these things were "traded," but who granted "ownership" to the things that were bought? The reality is that it is the workers of the world who have made everything by their own actions. But the surplus value produced in the labor process is taken from the worker by the capitalist under duress. Capitalism is founded upon force and violence. Also, where does one draw the line between "mores" and "laws"? How strong does social organization have to be before a more is a law?

[stefbot]

So you are exclusively using your computer as property to argue against the validity of property rights -- you might want to take another run at that one... :)

[hara001]

I could claim that you can't do anything at all unless you are alive as you are using the fact that you are alive to do anything else. Therefore, you should steal food and medicine to keep yourself alive when you need to, violating property rights. What's your answer?

[stefbot]

well, talk to a charity instead of stealing, since involves a contradictory set of ethics - see my free book on ethics, on my web site :)

[HookLineandSchenker]

if you did not steal it and you claim it as yours then you own it, weather you paid for or worked for or recieved it as a gift, if someone else disputes that fact, its on him to prove it. possesion is powerful........... as long as its legit

[Dirge987]

@RV56 "The fact that the aasgards were rich and powerful and every day in control of the work of the rest of the people was the result of free agreements"

If that's what each individual person wanted, and they did it under no duress or coercion, then there's no problem. Ask a masochist why they voluntarily choose to be dominated and abused. The only problem comes when that directive is enforced on subsequent generations who did not consent. I.E. the social contract.

[Dirge987]

@RV56 But you are taking voluntary trade, and aggressive slavery and making it the same thing. It's like saying having consensual sex and committing rape are the same thing when they're not.

Because I own my body and my time, I have the ability to sell my body and my time voluntarily, and that's what I do by working. If the trade between my labor and money were not worth it for me, if I could find something better somewhere else, I would.

[RV56]

The solution Locke came up with was this: The people being free and equal had voluntarily agreed to not be free and equal! The fact that the aasgards were rich and powerful and every day in control of the work of the rest of the people was the result of free agreements, and the bulk of these agreements had been met in ancient times that no body remember.

[RV56]

After the asgaard had defeated the old rulers, the giants, they were faced with a problem. The giants had been defeated by the aasgards together with the rest of the people, and it had been declared that from now all people were free and equal!

But the aasgards wanted to rule the people and become rich. But how could they say that all people are free and equal, yet not free and equal? The aasgards asked the cunning trickster Locke to provide a solution to this dilemma.

[RV56]

@Dirge987 No, it is not just semantics. If I own my body, it is something that I can trade. If I am my body, that would be called slavery. And I belive it is slavery when I sell my body to an employer. I am against the whole idea of employing people, for me it is slavery. If we were truly free we would join free associations, but we would not sell ourselves. If you sell yourself, you are not free. You do so because you need to. Because you cant reproduce using your own labour on your own terms.

[Dirge987]

@LibertyOfExpression I've thought about this before, and this is the conclusion I came to. Because your brain can control your body without the use of force as a natural biological process, and since no other brain or body can control you without the use of force, your brain/consciousness therefore have legitimate ownership over your body.

[Dirge987]

@RV56 But then you are just arguing over semantics. Self-ownership might not be the best of terms, because you cannot "own" something you cannot vacate, and since you cannot vacate your body, you technically can't "own" it. However you do not disagree with the principal of self ownership, which can be described as body autonomy, or personal sovereignty. Those terms have nearly identical definitions and principals, however self-ownership is easier to understand to the layperson.

[TheObserver2012]

@RV56 You are not a body.....you have a body. you also have a mind but you are not that either.

Energy is what you are!

[RV56]

I don't agree with the idea of self-ownership. I don't own my body, I am my body.