henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Dec 31, 2021 2:22 pm
I am asserting that one's own body is all that "property" can be agreed to minimally mean for all people. That is, the lowest possible "equality" of value or meaning for each person as 'proper' is the equity or value of their own physical body. So anything BEYOND that (to which I thought you were meaning by 'none') does not have an agreed ideal for what is proper to own beyond themselves and their own labor.
I said
none becuz -- as I say -- there's no equal distribution of property
If joe has 6 X, as long as he arrived at them without theft, those 6 X are his...he can share them as he likes or not
stan, who only has 3 X, has no claim on any part of joe's 6 X unless joe stole from stan, in which case stan has a claim against joe for those stolen Xs
The FACT that there is no equal distribution is only due to the laws that WE HUMANS created artificially that CONSERVE power in the hands of supposed "lords" of property that assert this as a 'right'. That is, the very concept of 'ownership' BEYOND ones' own personal body and their motive to take from the environment what they need to live is all that Nature 'rightfully' supplies. All other ideas of 'ownership' is not guaranteed as essential by Nature and thus is NOT A "RIGHT"! Your personal religious "deism" is still a bias of your 'freedom' but if you demand your belief about ownership to be fixed as though there is some gene in our bodies that assures some formal bond to particular properties of the environment as their 'own', then you ARE stealing the 'right' of others to 'freely' deny your 'right to rule' over what you declare is your own.
The original CLAIMS upon properties beyond one's own body means nothing to Nature (nor gods) as requiring others to accept it. And when you look close at what 'ownership' means as a
contractual obligation, Nature does not care whether the person's exercise of power is FAIR! So if you accept this, then you cannot complain about the masses who opt to overrule your rules as being 'unfair' given you already hold this inevitable unfairness is natural. If you think that the poor should respect their accident of condition at birth as 'equal' in fairness to another born to privilege, you are begging hypocritically that the poor alone should respect the accidental fortune you have as sufficiently 'fair' while you simultaneously believe that your 'right' to rule is
a right to rule unfairly! ??
By contrast, those opposing special privileged protection for those who 'own' have a more appropriate 'right' to argue that Nature favors the power of their populations to counterCLAIM what is their 'own' by their own standards. A herd of buffalo moving together still have a natural 'right' to use their herd to forcefully get to their pastures safely without being eaten by territorial wolves. So while it may also be true that wolves also have a natural tendency to attack the herd, they cannot expect it 'fair' to demand that the herds agree to any 'ownership' power of the passage territorialized by the them. That is, how would it be 'natural' for the buffalo to just put faith in the wolves' 'right' to territory by appealing to the wolves permission to pass.
"Wolfs": Look we are territorial animals while you are not, by nature. Therefore, if you want to tresspass upon our claim upon control of this pass, we are demanding that our 'right' to rule the pass (our 'ownership') should suffice for you to TRUST us as good natured beings who would let you pass individually if you just come up to us and ask us nicely. But we do not like communism as it is intrinsically evil for ALL animals (because it is for us wolves) and why you should never use the herd as a force against our claims or you are being unfair!
"Buffalo": Why should we let our 'herd' mentality be denied as 'natural' because it is not 'natural' for you? Do we also not 'own' our right to distrust your different idea of what is respectfully
fair about your 'own'? We cannot just place faith in you by separating into individuals who must go one by one to through the pass because that would only make it easier for you to eat us as your own nature. If you attack us as a herd, what does this imply if we were to trust you by adapting to being isolated individuals?
[Bears would be a better example than wolves given wolves are semi-herd-like (social). But this example suffices to get my point across. If the 'herd' is made up of many due to their coincidence of being born into a 'weak' independent nature where the relative individuality of another born 'strong' is also coincidental, why should the majority born into herds require acceptance of the independent strength of some individual demanding that 'fairness' belongs only to all when independent strength is only permitted?
That assumes way too much. You appear to disagree with what I am saying but expect me to be motivated to seek out why I am wrong elsewhere?
and you expect me to be motivated to repeat myself: if, in one way or another, I've already answered your questions in previous posts, isn't it a time and energy saver for both of us if you just just review the relevant threads? there's only 2 and neither is long
If what I argue has been argued already and disproven as a fact in your prior posts, then you should be able to reflect my supposed opinion here and now with me being unable to deny that you understand me, right?
I understand that reading the thread may help understand more about you and others means of responding but it would not be able to dislodge my position because I am not arguing for a specific 'right' of nature to ownership as you are. I know that it is no more 'right' for the herd to rule versus the individual. But since the herd is made up OF individuals, your preference to favor independent rights with the exclusion of the groups of individuals is logically unsound in principle.
You are arguing for a position that demands priority of respect to favor SPECIFIC individuals of some 'right' to rule over property unlimited by the degree of power it can represent over the masses. This is like expecting a dozen stranded people on an island to require trusting the superiority of one of them simply because some piece of paper they hold might assert they 'own' the island exclusively. What does the paper mean even if some God printed such a promised guarantee of power? Certainly, if it were enforced by Nature, then the paper promise is itself redundantly unnecessary no matter what it says is 'rightful'.
"Property ownership" beyond one's personal needs is 'luxury' by contrast.
so what? joe has 6X, he only needs 2X, the other 4 are luxury (personally, I think that extra 4 are an albatross), but he's taken on the responsibility of that extra 4 and, if he didn't steal 'em, I can't see how it's anybody's concern[.]
You cannot compare the one born with privilege as 'suffering' some obligation to rule as equivalent to one 'suffering' due to some obligation to survive when being born empoverished.
I've expressed this before (probably to you in that other thread): the power in unfair favor for one born into better wealth over another is their ability to FAIL with little or less comparable degree of loss. If one is poor and fucks up a job, they may be permanently unable to get another job whereas one who is wealthy and fucks up a job may actually benefit them for both being able to learn from their mistakes AND be able to try again.
So wealth is a 'luxury' (versus a necessity) where it permits such persons having it to be able to confidently be 'freer' to make mistakes than those without such access. This is because wealth is a measure of 'energy' to which things that are monetized represent DEBT stored of someone else's energy or to any 'free' energy access that the privilege person's environment enables then to take 'free'. Nature doesn't charge the decreed "owner" rent of its own properties any more nor less than to the certified ''non-owner". That is, it is
equal to for a rich person to pick an apple as it is for a poor person where granted the same 'free' access by nature. The energy is conserved. But the energy as evaluated in terms of one who has exclusive power of 'owning' the right to pick from a tree that is claimed as one's own is artificial and goes against conservation by nature's means to balance things out. The energy to pick the apple is the same but the one demanding 'ownership' to it EXCLUSIVELY has a biased privilege to the natural 'freedom' to pick that others are denied. That is, 'freedom' is empowered unfairly to the one with wealth because it IS an artificial construct that they can exploit to force others to pay more than nature charged them for.
And how does such persons 'earn' fair power to become equally rich when they would have to accept the artificial terms of the prior 'owners' right to set the final price?
"Owner to Peasant" I understand that you are desperately hungry. But my tree is not yours to access and so I have a right to charge you based upon how much you
need it and to how much I simply
want to keep it.
"Peasant" But you are implying that if I do NOT need it, but merely WANT it trivially, such as another wealthy person, you'd be willing to let it go for cheaper to the one not NEEDING the apple. So you unfairly still favor other privileged people as they would towards you while further disempowering those without. So you believe it is
fair for you to charge me MORE energy of myself than the actual value of energy you give for it unless I already have what I need.
Your recognition of 'fairness' among others of your same economic class can be correct where you can trade your apple for your neighbor's orange. But for those beneath that class, they are not only less 'free' to earn a fair trade, they are in fact exploited to require paying extensively more per capita of the natural balance of value of the same product or service being traded.
And so even claims upon land as 'property' is not a necessary feature of our individual selves by any nature other than what the collection of people decide to define such privileges as.
I think, as the expression goes, mixing one's labor with the soil does confer a right to it. Sensibly, can you look at a farmer, on his tractor, tilling, and say that field isn't his? would you claim he has no right to it? hundreds of hours and many seasons of labor on that plot and his claim to it is mere privilege?
or my property (a small yard, a modest house): I've invested my time, energy, and money in to it. you'd say I have no real claim to it? you'd say I have no right to it?
All I see here is that you falsely presume that one always gets paid in fair trade regardless of supply and demand differentials. If given a person with no prior wealth labors with identical output as one who comes from a family of wealth, the one with the backing of their inherent supports (wealth) will tend to become successful while the other not. So when you point to examples of those who DO work 'hard' and gain enough capital to reinvest, you ignore that the wealthier one can STORE their earnings where the poor one is forced to EXPEND it in order to survive. So regardless of effort, in a capitalistic society, the success from 'toil' is misleading when their backgrounds are not initially on par with each other.
Your hybrid acceptance of labor and capitalism is biased to a National Socialistic type: favoring one's own empowered class struggles but ignoring those outside of it. Yes, you CAN prove some of your own people from your own wealth class can 'earn'
fairly among all others of the same class through hard labor and get ahead. But this does not count as proof that others outside of that economic class who work with the same output get fair compensation for their efforts. If you own a house and car, you don't have to worry about whether the landlord will demand you to pay more than the value they themselves would pay in mortgage; you can also be sure to get to work at great distances from your home that one without a car might require two extra hour in a day to walk back and forth to. Such comparisons to two equally hard working people even earning the same energy per hour in wages will still go against the one with a BACKGROUND lacking in things you COMPLETELY OVERLOOK.
That is, there is no Natural (nor God-given) 'right' to own anything other than your own local needs
yeah, I disagree...I'm a deist...I believe God created man with self-possession, reason, conscience, free will, and purpose...property -- that which we create, that which we make our own thru labors, that which we transact for -- is part & parcel of us as we are ourselves are our first, best properties
but in light of a good society, WE negotiate the degrees to which limits we allow for each other's privilege to rule as 'property' in a community or we are not a community.
my take...
And thus your own belief in some 'right' to own is religious and biased. If you believe others have a right to freedom of beliefs, how does your 'right' to defend this belief count as
more valid other than the coinciding power of wealth you already have to get your religious views justified? If God favors you, then you should have no reason to NEED capitalist advantages that are artificially constructed by mere humans. I fact, you should be happy to prove your equity in labor as 'fair' across any difference of prior wealth by trading your actual conditions to those who are drastically suffering. Give the poorest one your environment while you take theirs and then work at the same energy output. You should be able to prove that the poor one would as often fail when in a good environment than a bad one and vice versa.
