How many businesses must exist for there to be equal opportunity? [Archive]

IcarusAngel

30th March 2010, 06:10

"Property rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property) are not like other rights, contrary to what Madison (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/James_Madison) and a lot of modern political theory says. If I have the right to free speech, it doesn't interfere with your right to free speech. But if I have property, that interferes with your right to have that property, you don't have it, I have it. So the right to property is very different from the right to freedom of speech. This is often put very misleadingly about rights of property; property has no right. But if we just make sense out of this, maybe there is a right to property, one could debate that, but it's very different from other rights. "--chomsky

"
Now they're back. According to estimates by the economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez--confirmed by data from the Congressional Budget Office--between 1973 and 2000 the average real income of the bottom 90 percent of American taxpayers actually fell by 7 percent. Meanwhile, the income of the top 1 percent rose by 148 percent, the income of the top 0.1 percent rose by 343 percent and the income of the top 0.01 percent rose 599 percent. (Those numbers exclude capital gains, so they're not an artifact of the stock-market bubble.) The distribution of income in the United States has gone right back to Gilded Age levels of inequality.

Never mind, say the apologists, who churn out papers with titles like that of a 2001 Heritage Foundation piece, "Income Mobility and the Fallacy of Class-Warfare Arguments." America, they say, isn't a caste society--people with high incomes this year may have low incomes next year and vice versa, and the route to wealth is open to all. That's where those commies at Business Week come in: As they point out (and as economists and sociologists have been pointing out for some time), America actually is more of a caste society than we like to think. And the caste lines have lately become a lot more rigid."--Paul Krugman

Market anarchists claim that in "true capitalism" everybody could start a business thus everybody would be equal and have the opportunity to access resources provided that they don't want to submit themselves to the one or two corporations that control most industries.

How do we know when we've reached that point? Currently in the US there are only about 30 million small businesses or 10% of the population. Keep in mind this figure should be cut in half as the local Goodyear store down the street which leases his products from Goodyear counts as a "small businesses." So basically big corporations are allowed to get SBA loans from the government.

Anyway, wouldn't it technically mean that at least 50% of the population (or around there) would have to be business owners, otherwise what you have is serfdom, or, in better terms, one elite class of bourgeois property owners and another class of proletariats.

This is addressed to "market mutalists" not anarcho-capitalists who are fine with the government contracting out all the property to an elite set of owners.

As of now, markets have created a caste society where very few people are allowed to move around the economic ladder. Disgusting.

Havet

30th March 2010, 10:32

Anyway, wouldn't it technically mean that at least 50% of the population (or around there) would have to be business owners, otherwise what you have is serfdom, or, in better terms, one elite class of bourgeois property owners and another class of proletariats.

Probably more than 50%. By the way, when I say business owner, i'm imagining sole proprietorships (not to mention coops), where the owner actually performs labor, instead of just being elected to manage the company. Obviously if you just have traditional corporate business owners, then it would be impossible for 50% of the population to own a business.

As of now, markets have created a caste society where very few people are allowed to move around the economic ladder. Disgusting.

Indeed, disgusting.

Skooma Addict

30th March 2010, 14:59

This is addressed to "market mutalists" not anarcho-capitalists who are fine with the government contracting out all the property to an elite set of owners.
What is a "market mutualist?"

Market anarchists claim that in "true capitalism" everybody could start a business thus everybody would be equal and have the opportunity to access resources provided that they don't want to submit themselves to the one or two corporations that control most industries.Maybe if scarcity didn't exist then this would be possible.

IcarusAngel

31st March 2010, 19:33

You know what a market mutualist is as you're friends with hayenmill. Don't ask stupid questions.

Also, of course it is possible for 50% of the people to own all of the resources. Don't make stupid comments.

What's debated is "Is this efficient?" (Economics) and "Is this free?" (Political science)

Political science tells us a system where 1% owns and controls nearly everything is not free, and the poor will have no power and the businesses will become privileged by the state. This is why we know deregulation leads to more corporate power and this has been proven has Krugman has noted.

Hayenmill has now just claimed we can't have true free-markets without 50% of the people owning the resources, but that doesn't mean that the other 50% would be well to do or out of wage slavery.

Speaking from a purely political perspective, all communities should regulate themselves. That means you have an entire system of self-regulating, self-functioning systems, or decentralization in other words (what some leftists and people like the Georgists favor).

In our system, the government is the community, so the people have to regulate the government and the businesses the way they see fit. But there's no doubt in my mind that on a level playing field where there are nothing but freely functioning, decentralized communities, leftists, scientists, etc. would create the most effective community by far.

But everybody agrees that there shouldn't be a set of rules like "property rights" that are vague that everybody must be forced to accept without reason.

Havet

31st March 2010, 19:37

Hayenmill has now just claimed we can't have true free-markets without 50% of the people owning the resources, but that doesn't mean that the other 50% would be well to do or out of wage slavery.

Well, I think that free-markets necessarily lead to +50% disperse ownership, and I mainly believe this through Carson's historical analysis.

Speaking from a purely political perspective, all communities should regulate themselves. That means you have an entire system of self-regulating, self-functioning systems, or decentralization in other words (what some leftists and people like the Georgists favor).

I agree

In our system, the government is the community, so the people have to regulate the government and the businesses the way they see fit. But there's no doubt in my mind that on a level playing field where there are nothing but freely functioning, decentralized communities, leftists, scientists, etc. would create the most effective community by far.

Perhaps, but it is not efficient to have a continental-size government with monopolies.

LeftSideDown

31st March 2010, 23:01

IcarusAngel

1st April 2010, 04:01

Freedom of speech is nothing but a derivation of property rights. You are, or at least should be, free to exercise your lungs and your vocal cords to voice opinions formed in your head or at least formed from someone else's head and discovered/read/studied during your free time. By me controlling my body I'm excluding all others from controlling it, yet you would deny me this right because it can be exclusionary? That is disgusting in my mind.

People are not property. That is just another mythical axiom you idiots have come up with to justify slavery. Of course, if I'm property, and there are a few land owners, the can force me to sell myself into slavery if I owe them any kind of a debt. Then they would control access to my lungs etc. since I am technically their property.

In reality, you have the right to the freedom of speech, which should never be infringed no matter what kind of contract you enter into. Property rights have nothing to do with it. When I say something I have no control over whether other people can then take those words and use them on their own, and words are not property.

IcarusAngel

1st April 2010, 10:56

Where is this "Carson historical analysis" that shows that free-markets lead to everybody controlling the resources? Most economists would not admit this. When we had freer markets there was more consolidation of resources.

And what if the government did break up all the monopolies and we get another consolidated country? That means that free-markets are flawed and we have to develop other systems of ownership/trade.

Finally, it's not true that big corporations are inefficient. The twentieth century was not as productive as the twenty-first (where our friend the state was more involved), large because of the rise of computer science, which, as Feynman said, made as much improvements as physics to society in a short amount of time.

The "essence" of computers was public standards, isolated corps, and govt/university research.

Havet

1st April 2010, 11:23

Where is this "Carson historical analysis" that shows that free-markets lead to everybody controlling the resources? Most economists would not admit this. When we had freer markets there was more consolidation of resources.

http://www.mutualist.org/id10.html

what if the government did break up all the monopolies and we get another consolidated country? That means that free-markets are flawed and we have to develop other systems of ownership/trade.

Government is usually the one who creates the monopolies, directly and indirectly.

Finally, it's not true that big corporations are inefficient. The twentieth century was not as productive as the twenty-first (where our friend the state was more involved), large because of the rise of computer science, which, as Feynman said, made as much improvements as physics to society in a short amount of time.

Yes they are, otherwise why does the state grant them subsidies and benefits (http://www.walmartsubsidywatch.org/)? Because they could never expand as much without them.

Tablo

1st April 2010, 15:29

IcarusAngel

1st April 2010, 22:55

http://www.mutualist.org/id10.html

Government is usually the one who creates the monopolies, directly and indirectly.

No where is this shown to be true in the article, and that article attempts to document the regulation that existed in deregulated times.

The fact of the matter is that just because there is regulation doesn't mean that it creates monopolies. You could also say that the regulation helped to create more business competition by preventing corporations from owning everything, and just because "regulation" exists it doesn't automatically follow that it is the cause of the monopolies.

The government also helps small businesses, often to an even greater degree than large corporations. A lot of small businesses pretty much only exist because of the government. So I could point out that because Carson wants to eliminate the government he wants to destroy the thousands of small businesses that exist because of government loans and finance, that are a greater portion of their overall business than they are for large businesses.

Yes they are, otherwise why does the state grant them subsidies and benefits (http://www.walmartsubsidywatch.org/)? Because they could never expand as much without them.

There is nothing in libertarian economics that says that businesses couldn't be huge without government help.

IcarusAngel

1st April 2010, 22:59

Havet

1st April 2010, 23:13

The fact of the matter is that just because there is regulation doesn't mean that it creates monopolies. You could also say that the regulation helped to create more business competition by preventing corporations from owning everything, and just because "regulation" exists it doesn't automatically follow that it is the cause of the monopolies.

Of course if we just talk about regulation as a vague term then it can be used both ways. If you're serious about the discussion, then we need to talk which regulations do what.

The government also helps small businesses, often to an even greater degree than large corporations.

right... (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/5852319/EU-farm-subsidies-paid-to-big-business.html)

There is nothing in libertarian economics that says that businesses couldn't be huge without government help.

You follow libertarian economics? Good for you.

Left-Reasoning

2nd April 2010, 05:33

There is nothing in libertarian economics that says that businesses couldn't be huge without government help.

Comrade, what is libertarian economics?

LeftSideDown

7th April 2010, 07:22

People are not property. That is just another mythical axiom you idiots have come up with to justify slavery. Of course, if I'm property, and there are a few land owners, the can force me to sell myself into slavery if I owe them any kind of a debt. Then they would control access to my lungs etc. since I am technically their property.

In reality, you have the right to the freedom of speech, which should never be infringed no matter what kind of contract you enter into. Property rights have nothing to do with it. When I say something I have no control over whether other people can then take those words and use them on their own, and words are not property.

People are not property, but their bodies certainly are/can be. I own my legs, arms, fingers, mouth etc etc etc. I exercise control over them and I'm free to dispose with them as I wish. I can, however, sell this right. I can promise to use my body to help a company produce goods for a certain number of hours a day at a certain rate. This is essentially what a wage-laborer does. They never actually get control of my body (I ultimately decide what it does), but I'm contractually obligated to act in the manner prescribed, and if I don't (i.e. I don't show up to work or I don't work at work) than they have the right to break their part of their contract (i.e. the part mandating them to pay me for my services).

Words aren't property. Neither are ideas. But, if someone pays me 1 million dollars to not say the word "zebra", is this really immoral? According to your ethics it is, according to mine, it is not. Its a contract like any other. If I want to sell my right to use my voice in some way, I should be free to do this, just like I'm free to do this with my body etc etc.

LeftSideDown

7th April 2010, 07:25

By the way, I was watching the network "MSNBC" and they had on a small businessman who represents a small business union.

He said they were opposed to the chamber of commerce for being "right-wing" conservatives who helped lobby the government to try and oppose health care reform and for lobbying to deregulate environmental protections and so on (which makes it harder for businesses to come up with new ideas when the govt is protecting inefficient ones).

He also said that they support health care because there is too much of a burden on small businesses, etc.

Apparently many small businesses haven't gotten the memo that tyrannical free-markets is the answer to all of our problems.

I agree there is too much burden on small businesses to provide this service (health care). The solution? Stop giving tax breaks to companies for doing this. Stop giving them subsidies to do this. It drives the cost of healthcare up because companies can pay more. If an employer wants to provide health insurance let him, if he doesn't, don't. Health insurance is often paid out of a person's wages, so let them keep their wages and decide for themselves.

If you really think that the healthcare before the recently passed UHC bill was free-market you really need to look up the definition of free-market. I remember reading something crazy like 1/2 of all regulations passed by the federal government pertained to healthcare, so yeah... kinda not free.

RGacky3

7th April 2010, 15:42

People are not property, but their bodies certainly are/can be. I own my legs, arms, fingers, mouth etc etc etc. I exercise control over them and I'm free to dispose with them as I wish. I can, however, sell this right. I can promise to use my body to help a company produce goods for a certain number of hours a day at a certain rate. This is essentially what a wage-laborer does. They never actually get control of my body (I ultimately decide what it does), but I'm contractually obligated to act in the manner prescribed, and if I don't (i.e. I don't show up to work or I don't work at work) than they have the right to break their part of their contract (i.e. the part mandating them to pay me for my services).

Peoples bodies are not property, peoples bodies are part of people, you cannot actually have property rights over a human body, because you ARE that body, infact you just disproved you own theory in your next paragraph.

SO no you don't own your body, you are your body.

Words aren't property. Neither are ideas. But, if someone pays me 1 million dollars to not say the word "zebra", is this really immoral? According to your ethics it is, according to mine, it is not. Its a contract like any other. If I want to sell my right to use my voice in some way, I should be free to do this, just like I'm free to do this with my body etc etc.

Its the exact same with bodies, sure under Capitalism wage labor is allowed, and neccesary, but if someone pays me for a service, and I don't do it, they cannot force me to do it, so you can't actually sell it.

LeftSideDown

7th April 2010, 16:03

Peoples bodies are not property, peoples bodies are part of people, you cannot actually have property rights over a human body, because you ARE that body, infact you just disproved you own theory in your next paragraph.

SO no you don't own your body, you are your body.

I am not my body. I am my brain, if anything, but I most certainly am not my leg, my toe, my kidney, my liver, etc etc. Those are all things that I own and exercise property rights over. You are not your body, you just happen to be housed inside your body.

Its the exact same with bodies, sure under Capitalism wage labor is allowed, and neccesary, but if someone pays me for a service, and I don't do it, they cannot force me to do it, so you can't actually sell it.

So because someone else cannot actually control you property rights for the body don't exist? There will probably be a machine in the future that allows complete control over someone else's body and when this happens will you abdicate that property rights exist over one's own body? You can sell your time, and you can promise to use your body in a certain way in return for wages, and in the future you'll be able to sell complete control of your body (if you so wish).

Dean

7th April 2010, 16:21

So because someone else cannot actually control you property rights for the body don't exist? There will probably be a machine in the future that allows complete control over someone else's body and when this happens will you abdicate that property rights exist over one's own body? You can sell your time, and you can promise to use your body in a certain way in return for wages, and in the future you'll be able to sell complete control of your body (if you so wish).
Actually, the difference is that communists will always maintain that rights over your body are inalienable. If they are property, they can be disassociated from the human being. This example of yours - of complete control over the body of another - would only be acceptable in your paradigm, the extant paradigm, but never in a communist paradigm.

Left-Reasoning

7th April 2010, 16:21

IcarusAngel

7th April 2010, 16:24

IcarusAngel

7th April 2010, 16:25

I do agree though that you only have control over your body, no one else, and you can make the ultimate decision on what to do with your body.

"Property" means that there must be people to recognize the property, namely the state and the corporations. This is ludicrous. You control your body regardless of if the corporations recognize it or not.

Further, if they controlled your body, they could have a legal claim to it.

It seems Libertarians want to put corporations in charge even of our bodies.

Left-Reasoning

7th April 2010, 16:27

Your brain is designed to recognize your body and it is connected to your brain. If you cut off your arms you could stimulate brain waves and neurons to make it seem as if you still had arms if the technology existed. That means that the brain was designed to work with the body.

What is good for your body is likely to be good for the brain and vice versa.

Indeed but you are not your toe. You have a special connection with your toe that you do not have with others' toes. Because of this special connection you have the right of ownership over your toe but you are not your toe. You can cut off your toe and still you will be yourself.

Left-Reasoning

7th April 2010, 16:28

It seems Libertarians want to put corporations in charge even of our bodies.

Block may, but he certainly isn't a libertarian.

IcarusAngel

7th April 2010, 16:30

Just because I control something doesn't mean that I own it. Ownership assumes that there are people who recognize that ownership and I don't need people to "recognize" that I control my body. That's just the way it is. Further, such "ownership" doesn't offer me any protection whatsoever, as laws are based on social customs.

Property rights do not apply. Anyway, this thread was about how many businesses must exist in a free-market. Back on topic please.

Left-Reasoning

7th April 2010, 16:38

Just because I control something doesn't mean that I own it. Ownership assumes that there are people who recognize that ownership and I don't need people to "recognize" that I control my body. That's just the way it is. Further, such "ownership" doesn't offer me any protection whatsoever, as laws are based on social customs.

We are building a normative theory, here. We are claiming that because of your special connection with your toes that you have ultimate decision-making power over them and that those who claim otherwise are thieves and tyrants.

IcarusAngel

7th April 2010, 16:43

You arbitrarily define "special connections" anyway you want to justify your property rights. Historically, this has been the ideology of thieves and tyrants, who make up excuses for their property instead of listening to what the people want democratically.

Property rights and ownership has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is about design and we were designed to control our bodies, but we can't logically prove that no one else could ultimately be driving us, that everything is predetermined, etc.

Left-Reasoning

7th April 2010, 16:52

You arbitrarily define "special connections" anyway you want to justify your property rights.

I wouldn't use property rights. Property rights implies wage slavery. I prefer the term "ownership rights".

: Historically, this has been the ideology of thieves and tyrants, who make up excuses for their property instead of listening to what the people want democratically.

"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called "the People's Stick." - Mikhail Bakunin

Property rights and ownership has nothing to do with evolution.

When did I ever claim otherwise?

Evolution is about design and we were designed to control our bodies,

We were designed? Are you religious IcarusAngel?

IcarusAngel

7th April 2010, 16:58

I wouldn't use property rights. Property rights implies wage slavery. I prefer the term "ownership rights".

We have no such ownership rights. If we had ownership rights because only the individual has control over his body, then you'd have to apply these rights to bugs and animals and so on as well, since only they control the bodies the way they do.

However, that would imply that we should not be able to step on a bug or kill a bug, because that would indicate that we are taking away their "ownership rights" that only they have access to.

If we claim the ownership rights only apply to humans, it's becomes clear that this is a social right made up in the minds of Libertarians and is not based upon any kind of rights.

"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called "the People's Stick." - Mikhail Bakunin

Yes, he was talking about how the USSR was termed a "dictatorship of the proletariat" when it actually wasn't.

Bakunin himself rejected individualist rhetoric designed to give power to the capitalist class.

We were designed? Are you religious IcarusAngel?

Through genetic drift, mutations, and so on, human beings were designed.

Read "The Blind Watchmaker" (i.e. evolution) or take a biology course. Every part of our body has a reason behind it.

Left-Reasoning

7th April 2010, 17:04

We have no such ownership rights. If we had ownership rights because only the individual has control over his body, then you'd have to apply these rights to bugs and animals and so on as well, since only they control the bodies the way they do.

However, that would imply that we should not be able to step on a bug or kill a bug, because that would indicate that we are taking away their "ownership rights" that only they have access to.

If we claim the ownership rights only apply to humans, it's becomes clear that this is a social right made up in the minds of Libertarians and is not based upon any kind of rights.

There exists no metaphysical rights in some platonic form that we can divine.

Yes, he was talking about how the USSR was termed a "dictatorship of the proletariat" when it actually wasn't.
Bakunin died long before the revolution and so I find this explanation doubtful.

T
hrough genetic drift, mutations, and so on, human beings were designed.Design implies a designer. If there is no designer then there is no design.

IcarusAngel

7th April 2010, 17:17

There exists no metaphysical rights in some platonic form that we can divine.

What do you mean that we can divine. Your 'ownership' rights do not exist. There is no such thing as "natural rights" - so where do your rights come from? They are coming from your imagination.

Bakunin died long before the revolution and so I find this explanation doubtful.

The point is he opposed a "dictatorship of the proletariat " - he did not oppose democratic decision making, which is where our rights should come from based on reason.

TDesign implies a designer. If there is no designer then there is no design.

I'm speaking of course of nature being the ultimate designer.

Nolan

7th April 2010, 17:24

I am not my body. I am my brain, if anything, but I most certainly am not my leg, my toe, my kidney, my liver, etc etc. Those are all things that I own and exercise property rights over. You are not your body, you just happen to be housed inside your body.

?? So libertarianism advocates the idea of a soul?

Your body is you. The brain is only a part of you, dependent on the rest of you.

LeftSideDown

7th April 2010, 19:00

?? So libertarianism advocates the idea of a soul?

Your body is you. The brain is only a part of you, dependent on the rest of you.

No, not necessarily or at all. You are your consciousness, your personality, your persona. Your body is just where this persona of you resides and the the only thing your persona's actions (i.e. thoughts) can effect directly (i.e. through the direct medium of thought).

LeftSideDown

7th April 2010, 19:01

?? So libertarianism advocates the idea of a soul?

Your body is you. The brain is only a part of you, dependent on the rest of you.

Let me further extrapolate: if you are brain dead or, rather, you have no brain but your body is kept alive through medical technology, are you still you? According to you you are, according to me, you are not. The body is nothing without the brain to exercise property rights over.

LeftSideDown

7th April 2010, 19:05

Actually, the difference is that communists will always maintain that rights over your body are inalienable. If they are property, they can be disassociated from the human being. This example of yours - of complete control over the body of another - would only be acceptable in your paradigm, the extant paradigm, but never in a communist paradigm.

So, what you're saying, is that in the future it will not be possible to transfer a brain from one body to another? I think it will be possible, but you think it immoral? If you can (conceivably) transfer brains than property rights of the body are impossible to deny, if not they can be.

LeftSideDown

7th April 2010, 19:08

I do agree though that you only have control over your body, no one else, and you can make the ultimate decision on what to do with your body.

Gotta start somewhere.

"Property" means that there must be people to recognize the property, namely the state and the corporations. This is ludicrous. You control your body regardless of if the corporations recognize it or not.

Thats not true. If I'm the only human is more than possible for me to own property without anyone else recognizing it.

Further, if they controlled your body, they could have a legal claim to it.

It seems Libertarians want to put corporations in charge even of our bodies.

Thats not true. People who live in apartments rented from a landlord may use the apartment, but the only legal claim they have to it is to pay for any damage they inflict on it.

Your final point is non-sequitur.

IcarusAngel

7th April 2010, 19:26

Thats not true. If I'm the only human is more than possible for me to own property without anyone else recognizing it.

Yes. Whether you called it your "property" or your "possessions" or anything else still depends upon your subjective values, however.

You could exert as much force as you wanted over the world if you were the only one left, so the problems of what is and what isn't property wouldn't apply. But you would never have complete control. Maybe you run into a lion, and he beats you up or whatever.

We do not completely control our property or our bodies.

Thats not true. People who live in apartments rented from a landlord may use the apartment, but the only legal claim they have to it is to pay for any damage they inflict on it.

This doesn't even make any sense.

Havet

7th April 2010, 19:31

Even though this is besides the point of the thread, just want to drop my two cents regarding "self-ownership":

exclusive rights to control one's body =/= having the right to consume, sell, rent, mortgage, transfer, exchange or destroy one's body.

One cannot:

-Consume him/herself (unless jacking off somehow counts as consumption of yourself)
- Sell him/herself (you can only sell products of your labor. The labor itself as well as the body cannot be sold because, in the end, you still control them. You still have exclusive rights over it)
- Mortgage him/herself
- Transfer him/herself (if you transfer yourself you end up being yourself, right?)
- Exchange him/herself

One could perhaps make the claim that a prostitute is, for example, renting her body when she allows other men to pay sex and use her body in such a fashion, same scenario with a women that could be "renting" her body when she becomes pregnant, but that assumes the prostitute initially owns herself, which is something I don't agree with. She certainly has exclusive rights to her body, but that does not mean she owns herself.

self-ownership is really a poor choice of words to describe a fundamentally good concept.

IcarusAngel

7th April 2010, 19:44

Yes, the individual has the right to do all of that, including allowing the use of the body for money. Even if the state said "no" they cannot prevent someone from trading in this way (but then again by that standard the state has no "monopoly" on law).

The philosophy that you own yourself merely because you have exclusive access to your brain is not very good. First, we should then apply rights to other animals. I like animals and believe they should be treated fairly but even I would recognize this as a terrible faulty argument. Second, it implies the state.

Third, it's inherently contradictory. To plagiarize publius, it's like saying, Object A sets itself above itself. (Object A and the object it acts upon should be different in this scenario, but self-ownership implies that this is possible.)

Another problem with "natural rights" is that it was natural pre-civilization to start murdering people. Logically, murder as well as "property" would thus have to be considered a "natural right."

LeftSideDown

7th April 2010, 21:08

Yes. Whether you called it your "property" or your "possessions" or anything else still depends upon your subjective values, however.

Does it? I guess there are different definitions of how property can be legally acquired and maintained, but the rights of property are pretty well accepted.

You could exert as much force as you wanted over the world if you were the only one left, so the problems of what is and what isn't property wouldn't apply. But you would never have complete control. Maybe you run into a lion, and he beats you up or whatever.

So enforcement lays in the individual. INteresting that if there were a bunch of likeminded people who respected the rights of others there'd be no need to enforce property rights.

We do not completely control our property or our bodies.

How do we not completely control our body? Are you talking about reflexes?

This doesn't even make any sense.

Further, if they controlled your body, they could have a legal claim to it.

You said this. Just because you rent your body out to people during the day doesn't give them a claim to it more than is obligated by the contract. Just like the renter doesn't have the same legal claim to the apartment that he lives in/controls for the most part than the landlord.

Nolan

7th April 2010, 21:26

Let me further extrapolate: if you are brain dead or, rather, you have no brain but your body is kept alive through medical technology, are you still you? According to you you are, according to me, you are not. The body is nothing without the brain to exercise property rights over.

No, you are dead, and I think it makes sense that personhood ends at death. You could not be a brain without a body, unless you were somehow sustained by artificial means. A person is their (living) body.

LeftSideDown

7th April 2010, 21:32

No, you are dead, and I think it makes sense that personhood ends at death. You could not be a brain without a body, unless you were somehow sustained by artificial means. A person is their (living) body.

You're right, you are dead even though your body is all there. Seems to me to destroy whole concept of you being your body (i.e. how can you be dead while your body is still there?). A person obviously isn't their living body if a body can be kept alive but the brain dead.

Nolan

8th April 2010, 00:54

You're right, you are dead even though your body is all there. Seems to me to destroy whole concept of you being your body (i.e. how can you be dead while your body is still there?). A person obviously isn't their living body if a body can be kept alive but the brain dead.

:confused: The brain is part of the human body. It is an organ, like the others. The rest of the body will not survive long after brain death, unless also artificially sustained. A person is their living body, and someone who is brain dead is not alive.

LeftSideDown

8th April 2010, 01:18

:confused: The brain is part of the human body. It is an organ, like the others. The rest of the body will not survive long after brain death, unless also artificially sustained. A person is their living body, and someone who is brain dead is not alive.

Okay, but it is the most fundamental organ in the body. You can live without an arm. An arm is your property. You can live without a leg. A leg is your property. "You" can't live without a brain. Your brain isn't your property, or at least some part of it IS "you". I guess.

Scary Monster

8th April 2010, 01:54

Okay, but it is the most fundamental organ in the body. You can live without an arm. An arm is your property. You can live without a leg. A leg is your property. "You" can't live without a brain. Your brain isn't your property, or at least some part of it IS "you". I guess.

This is so....dumb :lol: And this whole argument is very bizarre and obscure. Whatever body part attached to me is me, end of story.

LeftSideDown

8th April 2010, 02:27

This is so....dumb :lol: And this whole argument is very bizarre and obscure. Whatever body part attached to me is me, end of story.

So if we amputate your arm you are dead.

Left-Reasoning

8th April 2010, 02:40

?? So libertarianism advocates the idea of a soul?

Some libertarians may but libertarianism does not.

Your body is you. The brain is only a part of you, dependent on the rest of you.

I disagree. My hand is not me.

Nolan

8th April 2010, 02:47

Okay, but it is the most fundamental organ in the body. You can live without an arm. An arm is your property. You can live without a leg. A leg is your property. "You" can't live without a brain. Your brain isn't your property, or at least some part of it IS "you". I guess.

A person is their living body. Whether or not you're missing an arm or a leg is irrelevant.

You can't live without a brain, but you can live with half a brain, or one hemisphere. It doesn't matter which. So your brain is only your property as well, according to you. But then what are you?

Nolan

8th April 2010, 02:48

I disagree. My hand is not me.

It is a part of you.

LeftSideDown

8th April 2010, 02:57

A person is their living body. Whether or not you're missing an arm or a leg is irrelevant.

You can't live without a brain, but you can live with half a brain, or one hemisphere. It doesn't matter which. So your brain is only your property as well, according to you. But then what are you?

No its completely relevant. Removing an arm doesn't kill you. Removing your brain does. Inside your brain is where "you" are, whether you need the whole brain or half the brain is irrelevant. You need it, or else all that is left is an ownerless husk, not you.

As I've pointed out, you can keep a body alive when the brain is dead, but you wouldn't call that body Bob, or george, or your friend. Its not, its just THEIR body.

Nolan

8th April 2010, 03:09

No its completely relevant. Removing an arm doesn't kill you. Removing your brain does. Inside your brain is where "you" are, whether you need the whole brain or half the brain is irrelevant. You need it, or else all that is left is an ownerless husk, not you.

It's completely relevant. *Where* are you inside the brain? A person is their living body, and their brain is an organ. According to your logic, we should instead call decapitation "cutting off the body."

As I've pointed out, you can keep a body alive when the brain is dead, but you wouldn't call that body Bob, or george, or your friend. Its not, its just THEIR body.

As I've pointed out, their person status no longer applies once they're dead. And brain death is death.

LeftSideDown

8th April 2010, 03:39

It's completely relevant. *Where* are you inside the brain? A person is their living body, and their brain is an organ. According to your logic, we should instead call decapitation "cutting off the body."

Does it matter? My reasoning is that you are inside your brain, which is inside your body. You are not your body, else if you lost an arm or a leg you would lose yourself. You clearly don't. The difference is this: you say you are "your body", I say you are "your brain" or at least somewhere in your brain or perhaps spread out through you there is a "you". This is like the difference between saying someone is in a house, and someone is in a certain room in the house. You can remove the house and keep the room and that person is still around, whereas if you remove the room they are not.

As I've pointed out, their person status no longer applies once they're dead. And brain death is death.

No its not, what if the body is still digesting, breathing, filtering out toxins etc etc and only brain function has ceased? Were assuming the medical technology to ensure this, but in this case are you still around?

Scary Monster

8th April 2010, 05:45

So if we amputate your arm you are dead.

I could die from bloodloss real quick. Your point? I was born with my arm and any other part of my body, so my body is all me. Why is there even an argument about this?

LeftSideDown

8th April 2010, 07:10

I could die from bloodloss real quick. Your point? I was born with my arm and any other part of my body, so my body is all me. Why is there even an argument about this?

But the point is, given adequate medical attention, you won't die despite losing an arm. The argument is very important because it is the hinge of property rights. You are not your arm, or else you would die with an amputation. You are not your leg for the same reasons. You exercise control over both of these extremities and have the right to dispose of them in anyway you see fit. You remove your brain and you die. The brain is where "you" are. Your body is just your vehicle, if you want to think of it that way.

Drace

8th April 2010, 07:22

What does amputating an arm at all have to do with the topic? :confused:

LeftSideDown

8th April 2010, 07:29

What does amputating an arm at all have to do with the topic? :confused:

Topic of the thread or topic of our tangent? Its unrelated to the first and very related to the second.

Scary Monster

8th April 2010, 19:29

But the point is, given adequate medical attention, you won't die despite losing an arm. The argument is very important because it is the hinge of property rights. You are not your arm, or else you would die with an amputation. You are not your leg for the same reasons. You exercise control over both of these extremities and have the right to dispose of them in anyway you see fit. You remove your brain and you die. The brain is where "you" are. Your body is just your vehicle, if you want to think of it that way.

Well this is just outright stupid. Property rights should not be applied to a person's body. You sound like a madman.

Demogorgon

8th April 2010, 20:49

But the point is, given adequate medical attention, you won't die despite losing an arm. The argument is very important because it is the hinge of property rights. You are not your arm, or else you would die with an amputation. You are not your leg for the same reasons. You exercise control over both of these extremities and have the right to dispose of them in anyway you see fit. You remove your brain and you die. The brain is where "you" are. Your body is just your vehicle, if you want to think of it that way.
By the same token, remove your heart and you die, are you your heart? Remove your lungs and you die, are you your lungs? Remove your liver... See where this is going?

LeftSideDown

9th April 2010, 00:11

Well this is just outright stupid. Property rights should not be applied to a person's body. You sound like a madman.

So what is to stop another person from enslaving your body? If you don't own your body someone else/everyone else can. If you do own your body, no one else can.

LeftSideDown

9th April 2010, 00:13

By the same token, remove your heart and you die, are you your heart? Remove your lungs and you die, are you your lungs? Remove your liver... See where this is going?

No, because, for the most part, you can keep someone (i.e. their brain (i.e. you), not their body necessarily) alive even if they're missing this thing. The second you remove/kill the brain you are no longer you, its just your body.

Nolan

9th April 2010, 00:15

So what is to stop another person from enslaving your body? If you don't own your body someone else/everyone else can. If you do own your body, no one else can.

You are you. Noone can enslave you. Your property model, however, opens the door for slavery. You could be forced to sell yourself on threat of homelessness or starvation.

Demogorgon

9th April 2010, 00:27

No, because, for the most part, you can keep someone (i.e. their brain (i.e. you), not their body necessarily) alive even if they're missing this thing. The second you remove/kill the brain you are no longer you, its just your body.
No, you cannot keep going without a heart or liver. Not even on life support for very long. In other words the brain is dependent on certain vital organs.

If we are going to go down this rather strange tangent though, we could start talking about exactly what constitutes the brain. Certainly parts of the brain can be lost without much apparent effect on a person's mental state. And other parts can be lost with only partial effect. So are we talking about bits of brain or the whole thing?

Left-Reasoning

9th April 2010, 00:35

Comrade, if I somehow remove your brain and transplant it into another body in what sense would your old body be you? Certainly the person inhabiting the new body is you, your old body is merely that.

Scary Monster

9th April 2010, 00:43

This is what this thread sounds like to me- "Well comrade, if your brain is you, then who are you? Your body isnt "you", then why do you call yourself you?" etc etc

Nolan

9th April 2010, 01:05

Left-Reasoning

9th April 2010, 01:06

The new body that the brain is in becomes you. You're not understanding the point.

Then we agree. Any apparent difference of opinion we hold is a purely semantic phenomena.

LeftSideDown

9th April 2010, 01:23

You are you. Noone can enslave you. Your property model, however, opens the door for slavery. You could be forced to sell yourself on threat of homelessness or starvation.

Why can't they enslave you? If you have property rights over your body you have "the right to consume, sell, rent, mortgage, transfer, exchange or destroy [it], and/or to exclude others from doing these things." If you don't own your body, then someone else can. As Mises said "(P)rivate property...can be traced back to a point where somebody... appropriated ownerless goods". Even communists recognize the right to own your toothbrush/bike/living space etc etc. Where does this claim stem from? If you don't have property rights over your body what is to stop someone else from claiming them over you?

LeftSideDown

9th April 2010, 01:26

No, you cannot keep going without a heart or liver. Not even on life support for very long. In other words the brain is dependent on certain vital organs.

If we are going to go down this rather strange tangent though, we could start talking about exactly what constitutes the brain. Certainly parts of the brain can be lost without much apparent effect on a person's mental state. And other parts can be lost with only partial effect. So are we talking about bits of brain or the whole thing?

You're missing the point. In the absence of these organs YOU (you being whatever it is in your brain that makes up your personality etc etc) can continue to exist, even if its only for a short time. Without your brain there is no you, just a body.

Because we (or at least I) don't fully know where the "you" resides within the brain I'm being safe in saying that it exists within the confines of your brain and if you destroy the brain you destroy the you. Saying that you can destroy parts of the brain and not affect the "you" is getting into more specifics that I am unsure. It is safe to say that you are within the brain and that a body without a brain is not you, but a body without an arm still is.

LeftSideDown

9th April 2010, 01:27

The new body that the brain is in becomes you. You're not understanding the point.

You're not understanding the point. If I move my brain to a robot, I'm still me, even though I no longer have my body which you view as necessary to be "you" but I view merely as the original property you own.

Nolan

9th April 2010, 01:33

You're not understanding the point. If I move my brain to a robot, I'm still me, even though I no longer have my body which you view as necessary to be "you" but I view merely as the original property you own.

You're not understanding the point. "My" body can be anything. Ultimately you have to admit there is some unit which is not property but a person, otherwise there is the problem of who or what has the right to ownership. That unit is the human organism.

How did Left-Reasoning thank you?

Left-Reasoning

9th April 2010, 01:36

How did Left-Reasoning thank you?

A few days ago the Admins decided to allow restricted members to thank posts.

Of course, I shouldn't be restricted in the first place but that is another story.

LeftSideDown

9th April 2010, 02:06

You're not understanding the point. "My" body can be anything. Ultimately you have to admit there is some unit which is not property but a person, otherwise there is the problem of who or what has the right to ownership. That unit is the human organism.

How did Left-Reasoning thank you?

The unit is the brain. Or at least some component of the brain for simplicities sake we will just call it the brain. As I have shown your body doesn't matter for determining you as it is where your brain that is the deciding factor: if my brain is in George's body I'm still me and the same goes if my brain is in a robot's body.

RGacky3

14th April 2010, 11:55

Jazzratt

14th April 2010, 16:22

If you don't have property rights over your body what is to stop someone else from claiming them over you?

Because we're not fuckwits that think of people or consciousness in terms of property. Anyone trying to claim property rights over a person would be laughed out of town because people are not property. This is what people have, patiently, trying to explain to you; to talk about "owning" yourself you have to first think of yourself as property, it is the people who do this that validate others' property claims over them more than someone who does not consider themselves "property".

LeftSideDown

14th April 2010, 19:25

I can't believe your still arguing that.

Ok heres a test,

Do you need property laws for your body? NO

Is some one going to steal your body? NO

If they do its not theft its assualt and mutilation.

I can't believe your still arguing that you need property rights for yourself.

1) Yes
2) Slavery kinda of seems like this, but go ahead and ignore this

Why should it be though? What makes these acts wrong?

LeftSideDown

14th April 2010, 19:25

Because we're not fuckwits that think of people or consciousness in terms of property. Anyone trying to claim property rights over a person would be laughed out of town because people are not property. This is what people have, patiently, trying to explain to you; to talk about "owning" yourself you have to first think of yourself as property, it is the people who do this that validate others' property claims over them more than someone who does not consider themselves "property".

Everyone in the south 200 years ago was laughed out of town. You're right.

RGacky3

15th April 2010, 14:01

1) Yes
2) Slavery kinda of seems like this, but go ahead and ignore this

Why should it be though? What makes these acts wrong?

1) No you don't,
2) Slavery IS Imposing property laws on people.
But then again, they thought like you, people are property, and I guess if you find a person first before he realizes he's property, he's your slave ... homesteding right?

Your the one claiming people are property, we are claiming that people are ... people.

RGacky3

15th April 2010, 14:02

Everyone in the south 200 years ago was laughed out of town. You're right.

Actually slavery was based on the notion that black people were not people .... So your wrong again.

Jazzratt

15th April 2010, 16:54

Everyone in the south 200 years ago was laughed out of town. You're right.

That was a case of people being treated like property - which is exactly what you're proposing.

As soon as you "own" yourself you become another piece of property. You can be traded, you can be seized as collateral on debts and so on. Self-ownership is the ultimate denial of the self.

LeftSideDown

15th April 2010, 22:35

Actually slavery was based on the notion that black people were not people .... So your wrong again.

You're wrong to think that was that it was only that. Some people thought it was okay because that was the best relationship between whites and blacks. Some thought it was good economically. There were a myriad of reasons (scientific racism) and to say there was only one is pretty ignorant.

LeftSideDown

15th April 2010, 22:38

That was a case of people being treated like property - which is exactly what you're proposing.

As soon as you "own" yourself you become another piece of property. You can be traded, you can be seized as collateral on debts and so on. Self-ownership is the ultimate denial of the self.

It was an unequal enforcement of property rights. White people were allowed to have property rights over their body and property, blacks were not. I'm proposing people treating their body like property (which you do everytime you type a letter to argue with me) because it is property. Property is the right to dispose of something. Do you not have this right over your body?

And if your son is dying of cancer and a rich man offers to pay for the treatment if you will become his slave for the rest of the life should it be illegal for this transaction to take place if it is the only method possible to save one's son and you value your son more than anything?

Scary Monster

15th April 2010, 23:03

It was an unequal enforcement of property rights. White people were allowed to have property rights over their body and property, blacks were not. I'm proposing people treating their body like property (which you do everytime you type a letter to argue with me) because it is property. Property is the right to dispose of something. Do you not have this right over your body?

Nobody's body is property. That way people wouldnt think of anyone else's body as property to be exploited and used. Slavery wasnt an "unequal enforcement of property rights" :lol:, but rather, it was "work for me your whole life or i kill you or make you starve".

if your son is dying of cancer and a rich man offers to pay for the treatment if you will become his slave for the rest of the life should it be illegal for this transaction to take place if it is the only method possible to save one's son and you value your son more than anything?

Haha. thats why we are communists/socialists/anarchists. we wont have to slave for someone just to get medical care.

Dude youre kinda weird. Why are you still keeping this insane argument up?

Jazzratt

15th April 2010, 23:12

LeftSideDown

15th April 2010, 23:17

You have a bizarre understanding of property.

What other definition could there be other than the right to dispose?

Yes. As should traffiking unicorns :rolleyes:

IF unicorns were around I'd have no problem with them being "trafficked"

LeftSideDown

15th April 2010, 23:20

Nobody's body is property. That way people wouldnt think of anyone else's body as property to be exploited and used. Slavery wasnt an "unequal enforcement of property rights" :lol:, but rather, it was "work for me your whole life or i kill you or make you starve".

How was it not? Well, I guess, more importantly it violated the right to free association (slaves still controlled their body (i.e. had property rights over them)) they would just be high reprimanded for using them anyway not prescribed by the overlords. If your body isn't property, than there must be no problem with someone else using your body (i.e. rape)?

Haha. thats why we are communists/socialists/anarchists. we wont have to slave for someone just to get medical care.

Dude youre kinda weird. Why are you still keeping this insane argument up?

Because I believe it? Oh yes, and as soon as socialism comes along suddenly the gates of heaven will open up everything we will ever need will just plop down into our laps as it has done for all socialist countries in the past.

Scary Monster

15th April 2010, 23:47

How was it not? Well, I guess, more importantly it violated the right to free association (slaves still controlled their body (i.e. had property rights over them)) they would just be high reprimanded for using them anyway not prescribed by the overlords. If your body isn't property, than there must be no problem with someone else using your body (i.e. rape)?

Like i said, a person's body is not property. Because a person's body is not property, then no one else's body is property. I can still have sovereignty and absolute control over my body, because my body is me. My body, that i was born with, can not be subjugated by some external entity, because it is my birthright to have total dominion over my own goddamned body. So this whole argument really comes down to whether youre a Creepy Libertarian who thinks all matter can be privatized simply because it exists, or not a Creepy Libertarian, who thinks someone fucking with your own goddamned body threatens your well-being, treating it as a commodity to be exploited. No one can have power over you, because it interferes with your right to freely exercise control over your being. If someone rapes me then i fucking kill them. Or at the very least, theyll be in prison for a very long time. Pretty simple to me.

I believe it? Oh yes, and as soon as socialism comes along suddenly the gates of heaven will open up everything we will ever need will just plop down into our laps as it has done for all socialist countries in the past.

lol. Socialism isnt a utopia. But people will get their most basic needs met, including health care. Hell, even in "fake socialist" governments, all people have access to quality health care. Even the UK, who isnt socialist in any way, has a national health system. Hell of a lot better than the USA (Cappie HQ) where 50 million people have no healthcare and 45,000 people die each year due to lack of health insurance.

LeftSideDown

16th April 2010, 00:21

Like i said, a person's body is not property. Because a person's body is not property, then no one else's body is property. I can still have sovereignty and absolute control over my body, because my body is me. My body, that i was born with, can not be subjugated by some external entity, because it is my birthright to have total dominion over my own goddamned body. So this whole argument really comes down to whether youre a Creepy Libertarian who thinks all matter can be privatized simply because it exists, or not a Creepy Libertarian, who thinks someone fucking with your own goddamned body threatens your well-being, treating it as a commodity to be exploited. No one can have power over you, because it interferes with your right to freely exercise control over your being. If someone rapes me then i fucking kill them. Or at the very least, theyll be in prison for a very long time. Pretty simple to me.

Besides the obvious ad hominems, you seem to have a pretty hard time at posting and not cursing. Its kind of discrediting for you, I'd recommend perhaps being less angry while you type? Anyway, on to your arguments. You say you have complete "sovereignty" (define:Sovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a territory), but this sounds an awful like your body being your property. If you own property do you not have the supreme, independent authority over it? No one else can control my body except me; I am the sole owner. You even talk in terms of ownership when speaking of your body (using words like "my" in reference to your body). And I am not denying it is a birthright to control your body; it may be the only birthright people are born with (although it takes years to develop). "No one can have power over you, because it interferes with your right to freely exercise control over your being." Kind of like saying "No one can eat a pie because they're not allowed to eat a pie". Why is it wrong? If you don't own your body (as with all un-owned goods) why is it wrong for someone to deposit semen in your rectum? If, for instance, a toilet is publicly possessed (I believe you guys differentiate possession and ownership) is it wrong for anyone to come by and use it? Of course not! If a toilet is privately owned (say in somebody's house) is it wrong for someone to come by and use it? Of course! They are trespassing and using things you paid for with your productivity. Now it would certainly be generous to allow them to use your toilet, but you are by no means obligated to do this.

lol. Socialism isnt a utopia. But people will get their most basic needs met, including health care. Hell, even in "fake socialist" governments, all people have access to quality health care. Even the UK, who isnt socialist in any way, has a national health system. Hell of a lot better than the USA (Cappie HQ) where 50 million people have no healthcare and 45,000 people die each year due to lack of health insurance.

"Nor are the uninsured necessarily poor. A new study by June O'Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, found that 43 percent of the uninsured have incomes higher than 250 percent of the poverty level ($55,125 for a family of four). And slightly more than a third have incomes in excess of $66,000. A second study, by Mark Pauly of the University of Pennsylvania and Kate Bundorf of Stanford, concluded that nearly three-quarters of the uninsured could afford coverage but chose not to purchase it.

And most of the uninsured are young and in good health. According to the CBO, roughly 60 percent are under the age of 35, and fully 86 percent report that they are in good or excellent health.

Finally, when we hear about 45 million Americans without health insurance, it conjures up the notion that all of those are born without health insurance, die without health insurance, and are never insured in between. The reality is that most people without health insurance are uninsured for a relatively short period of time.

Only about 30 percent of the uninsured remain so for more than a year, approximately 16 percent for two years, and less than 2.5 percent for three years or longer. About half are uninsured for six months or less. Notably, because health insurance is too often tied to employment, the working poor who cycle in and out of the job market also cycle in and out of health insurance."

Source: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10449

I know its CATO institute (your sworn enemies) but the study was done by the CBO (thats the Congressional Budget Office, just btw).

And Hong-Kong is "cappie-hq" (number 1 ranking in Economic freedom). The US is number 5 and the UK is number 10.

You know whats funny about that 45,000? Besides it being terrible that the government stepped in and made healthcare expensive so these people could not afford it, 40000 a year die on government roads. And yet you wish to trust them with running your health care? I do not like or endorse the old system (it was riddled with government interference and regulation that ultimately passed costs to consumers), but its a fantasy to believe the government can improve it.

"The system had many decades to work, but widespread apathy and low quality of work paralyzed the healthcare system. In the depths of the socialist experiment, healthcare institutions in Russia were at least a hundred years behind the average US level. Moreover, the filth, odors, cats roaming the halls, drunken medical personnel, and absence of soap and cleaning supplies added to an overall impression of hopelessness and frustration that paralyzed the system. According to official Russian estimates, 78 percent of all AIDS victims in Russia contracted the virus through dirty needles or HIV-tainted blood in the state-run hospitals.

Irresponsibility, expressed by the popular Russian saying "They pretend they are paying us and we pretend we are working," resulted in appalling quality of service, widespread corruption, and extensive loss of life. My friend, a famous neurosurgeon in today's Russia, received a monthly salary of 150 rubles — one third of the average bus driver's salary.

In order to receive minimal attention by doctors and nursing personnel, patients had to pay bribes. I even witnessed a case of a "nonpaying" patient who died trying to reach a lavatory at the end of the long corridor after brain surgery. Anesthesia was usually "not available" for abortions or minor ear, nose, throat, and skin surgeries. This was used as a means of extortion by unscrupulous medical bureaucrats.

To improve the statistics concerning the numbers of people dying within the system, patients were routinely shoved out the door before taking their last breath."

http://mises.org/daily/3650

Scary Monster

16th April 2010, 00:45

Besides the obvious ad hominems, you seem to have a pretty hard time at posting and not cursing. Its kind of discrediting for you, I'd recommend perhaps being less angry while you type?

Haha, negro please, that was the first reply ive given you where i cursed like that. Nice try. And it was only because youre making completely retarded arguments- considering the human body as property and such. Its infuriating. Ill reply to the rest of your post later, cuz i gotta go. Plus i dont feel like responding to such a...lengthy post.

RGacky3

16th April 2010, 10:50

You're wrong to think that was that it was only that. Some people thought it was okay because that was the best relationship between whites and blacks. Some thought it was good economically. There were a myriad of reasons (scientific racism) and to say there was only one is pretty ignorant.

Yeah, but one was not the notion that all people were property, you brought up the example to begin with.

It was an unequal enforcement of property rights. White people were allowed to have property rights over their body and property, blacks were not. I'm proposing people treating their body like property (which you do everytime you type a letter to argue with me) because it is property. Property is the right to dispose of something. Do you not have this right over your body?

And if your son is dying of cancer and a rich man offers to pay for the treatment if you will become his slave for the rest of the life should it be illegal for this transaction to take place if it is the only method possible to save one's son and you value your son more than anything?

Thats retarded, I can't believe this. BLACKS WERE TREATED AS PROPERTY WHITES WERE NO, thats what was happening. The right to dispose of something? What does that have to do with property rights? You don't need property enforcement to kill yourself, because you are yourself.

As far as the second example? Thats within the Capitalist context, and the whole reason its rediculous, also seeing as your perfectly fine with that system shows what type of person we're dealing with.

LeftSideDown

17th April 2010, 02:49

Yeah, but one was not the notion that all people were property, you brought up the example to begin with.

Yes, of themselves. Now they can voluntarily sell the use of their body (labor) in any way they choose, but blacks were not given this right.

Thats retarded, I can't believe this. BLACKS WERE TREATED AS PROPERTY WHITES WERE NO, thats what was happening. The right to dispose of something? What does that have to do with property rights? You don't need property enforcement to kill yourself, because you are yourself.

As far as the second example? Thats within the Capitalist context, and the whole reason its rediculous, also seeing as your perfectly fine with that system shows what type of person we're dealing with.

Mmmm, not exactly right. Black bodies were treated as property. You cannot own anyone elses thoughts (If you count intellectual property maybe you can, but I digress), so the blacks themselves (meaning whatever part of the brain that makes you you) were still privately owned. However they're bodies were made to labor involuntarily (a clear violation of libertarian philosophy). Well if you own something (it is your property) you have the right to dispose of it. (Disposal: give, sell, or transfer to another; "She disposed of her parents' possessions"
discard: throw or cast away; "Put away your worries"
make receptive or willing towards an action or attitude or belief; "Their language inclines us to believe them"
place or put in a particular order; "the dots are unevenly disposed"
qualify: make fit or prepared; "Your education qualifies you for this job")

Please, can you stop the ad hominems?

The Ben G

17th April 2010, 02:58

How about no corparations?

LeftSideDown

17th April 2010, 03:05

How about no corparations?

How about no people? No people, no problem.

Left-Reasoning

17th April 2010, 07:20

As soon as you "own" yourself you become another piece of property. You can be traded, you can be seized as collateral on debts and so on. Self-ownership is the ultimate denial of the self.

That was never to be inferred. You cannot alienate yourself from your body. The special connection between you and your body is what lays claim on the body and it is the most absolute claim of possession that there is. This ownership is inalienable.

Havet

17th April 2010, 11:02

That was never to be inferred. You cannot alienate yourself from your body. The special connection between you and your body is what lays claim on the body and it is the most absolute claim of possession that there is. This ownership is inalienable.

Therefore it is not ownership, because ownership implies alienability.

Exclusive rights to control one's body =/= having the right to consume, sell, rent, mortgage, transfer, exchange or destroy one's body (the definition of property, and therefore, ownership).

Philzer

17th April 2010, 12:26

"How many businesses must exist for there to be equal opportunity?"

Easily. It's only depending on your demands to satisfy.

An individual have a 100 PS car. Some times the neighbor comes driven with a 200 PS car and more wide base tyre. Next week the individual must have it also, otherwise he beliefe he had to die. etc etc etc...

Conclusion:

To make communism with tree-dimensional-knitted individuals you need endless business because the low-consciousness individual have endless demands. :D

My advise to you:

I think the starting point for your thinking/analysis is wrong.

Target for business is the existence of a four-dimensional sanity mankind and not the wasting of world with endless population multiply with endless consumtion. (-> this is the belief of bourgeois-> pantheism->you need sqare of endless business :D )

Marx: The less you have the more you are yourself.

Kind regards

RGacky3

19th April 2010, 14:48

Yes, of themselves. Now they can voluntarily sell the use of their body (labor) in any way they choose, but blacks were not given this right.

Selling your body and selling your labor are not the same thing, blacks BODIES were sold, they were viewed as proeprty, because they were not considered people.

Mmmm, not exactly right. Black bodies were treated as property. You cannot own anyone elses thoughts (If you count intellectual property maybe you can, but I digress), so the blacks themselves (meaning whatever part of the brain that makes you you) were still privately owned. However they're bodies were made to labor involuntarily (a clear violation of libertarian philosophy). Well if you own something (it is your property) you have the right to dispose of it. (Disposal: give, sell, or transfer to another; "She disposed of her parents' possessions"
discard: throw or cast away; "Put away your worries"
make receptive or willing towards an action or attitude or belief; "Their language inclines us to believe them"
place or put in a particular order; "the dots are unevenly disposed"
qualify: make fit or prepared; "Your education qualifies you for this job")

Intellectual property is not owning thoughts btw. Blacks were considered property, its impossible to control someone elses thoughts, you don't own your thoughts, your thoughts are part of YOU, blacks as people were considered property simply beause they wern't considered people, their bodies were sold and bought, and if it was phisically possible to control their thoughts, it probably would have been done.

The right to dispose of something does'nt makeityour property, thats not the definition of property. Your twisting the whole idea of what property is, and what a person is.

LeftSideDown

19th April 2010, 15:53

Selling your body and selling your labor are not the same thing, blacks BODIES were sold, they were viewed as proeprty, because they were not considered people.

And if the blacks in this exchange did not take part in this exchange voluntarily it is a clear violation of libertarian principles.

The right to dispose of something does'nt makeityour property, thats not the definition of property. Your twisting the whole idea of what property is, and what a person is.

What is property then? According to http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Property+(ownership+right) It is the right to enjoy and to dispose of certain things in the most absolute manner as he pleases, provided he makes no use of them prohibited by law. So, I don't think I'm twisting anything.

RGacky3

19th April 2010, 16:28

And if the blacks in this exchange did not take part in this exchange voluntarily it is a clear violation of libertarian principles.

And what? Libertarian principles are not the issue, the issue was what constitutes property.

What is property then? According to http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...nership+right) (http://www.anonym.to/?http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Property+(ownership+right)) It is the right to enjoy and to dispose of certain things in the most absolute manner as he pleases, provided he makes no use of them prohibited by law. So, I don't think I'm twisting anything.

If the right to dispose is what constitutes property, then I take it you don't accept the concept of land as property (niether do I), since you can't dispose of it, so we agree there, land cannot be property.

What constitutes property is things that need enforced property laws. The legal dictionary is what the law says is property, i.e. what the law enforces when it comes to property rights.

LeftSideDown

19th April 2010, 16:38

If the right to dispose is what constitutes property, then I take it you don't accept the concept of land as property (niether do I), since you can't dispose of it, so we agree there, land cannot be property.

What constitutes property is things that need enforced property laws. The legal dictionary is what the law says is property, i.e. what the law enforces when it comes to property rights.

You can't really destroy anything (law of conservation of mass). But if I own land I can burn it, salt it, flood it, cultivate it, deforest it, or anything else (so long as it doesn't violate the law. Dispose more than destroy. "I have troops at my disposal" just means use.

RGacky3

19th April 2010, 16:44

You can't really destroy anything (law of conservation of mass). But if I own land I can burn it, salt it, flood it, cultivate it, deforest it, or anything else (so long as it doesn't violate the law. Dispose more than destroy. "I have troops at my disposal" just means use.

Ok, so your saying, if you can USE it, its your property? And so if you USE it you need property rights for it?

Is that what your saying?

LeftSideDown

19th April 2010, 19:42

Ok, so your saying, if you can USE it, its your property? And so if you USE it you need property rights for it?

Is that what your saying?

Not only. You also have the right to not use it (If I have a bicycle I can just keep it in a shed and not ever use it, it is my right). It is my right to mangle it beyond use. It is my right to withhold it from others, it is also my right to give it.

Dermezel

19th April 2010, 20:11

It doesn't matter. To be fair the means of production has to be democratically owned and controlled because capital tends to centralize and accumulate over time.

Again this is because constant capital i.e. machinery, tends to displace variable capital i.e. labor. Let's say I am a factory owner and I put in new machines that double the efficiency of my workers- my work force is now half as valuable. I can afford to pay them half as much, or simply fire half of them off the bat.

This leads to centralization because with all the money I saved I can now re-invest into better machines, more labor, more advertisement, and hence, sell more products and at a cheaper price. This means I begin to undersell more and more of the competition, putting them out of business or buying them out. And it becomes harder to compete with me since I already own all the nice expensive machines.

You can't make a "small factory" or "small nuclear power plant" or say with robotics, if person A has a billion to buy the best robots, and person B only 100 grand, person A is going to get much better robots. The same will hold with computers, construction equipment, medicine, etc.

RGacky3

19th April 2010, 21:24

Not only. You also have the right to not use it (If I have a bicycle I can just keep it in a shed and not ever use it, it is my right). It is my right to mangle it beyond use. It is my right to withhold it from others, it is also my right to give it.

In a market system where bycicles are sold and bought you need property laws for a bicycle. you don't need property rights for your body or mind, if there is no property rights needed, calling it property is just meaningless. I mean I can call a star my property if I want, because I have the right to dispose and use it as I wish (I phisically can't), but its just meaningless.

LeftSideDown

20th April 2010, 00:56

In a market system where bycicles are sold and bought you need property laws for a bicycle. you don't need property rights for your body or mind, if there is no property rights needed, calling it property is just meaningless. I mean I can call a star my property if I want, because I have the right to dispose and use it as I wish (I phisically can't), but its just meaningless.

Yes you do. Human labor is bought and sold so you need to show that while the services of the body are owned (contractually), for a certain amount of time (contractually), during certain days of th week (contractually), and at a already specified rate (contractually), that ownership of the body is yours. You can't really call a star your property for the reasons you listed. You cannot dispose of it in anyway. No one can own Mars (yet) or Saturn (yet), and no property doesn't work ad coelum.

RGacky3

20th April 2010, 12:39

es you do. Human labor is bought and sold so you need to show that while the services of the body are owned (contractually), for a certain amount of time (contractually), during certain days of th week (contractually), and at a already specified rate (contractually), that ownership of the body is yours. You can't really call a star your property for the reasons you listed. You cannot dispose of it in anyway. No one can own Mars (yet) or Saturn (yet), and no property doesn't work ad coelum.

As was said before you can't dispose of land either.

You cannot actually sell your body, what your selling is labor, unless you cut off your arm and sell it, what your talking about is labor, not selling your body, there is no property rights for your body, because none are needed, and labor is'nt property, its a service.

LeftSideDown

20th April 2010, 23:01

As was said before you can't dispose of land either.

You cannot actually sell your body, what your selling is labor, unless you cut off your arm and sell it, what your talking about is labor, not selling your body, there is no property rights for your body, because none are needed, and labor is'nt property, its a service.

Dispose =\= destroy. You cannot destroy anything (conservation of mass), but you can use it. You can use land. It is "at your disposal". You're selling the rights of use of your body while at a job. You promise to use your body for certain purposes, but you are not selling your body (I'm pretty sure I specifically said this). You cannot (yet) sell your body, but once you are able to will you not then recognize that the body is property like anything else?

Westward-Individualism

20th April 2010, 23:55

How many businesses must exist for there to be "equal opportunity?"

1st off I'm an Anarchist (no Rothbardians are NOT "anarchists")

In anarchist society there are no property-rights because a right is protected by courts or used as a justification of violence or theft (again there must be a force-agency).

In Anarcy there are no property rights (no rights and no property) and there are only "possessions" -- There are ZERO barriers to entry and thus no monopolies.

So, for there to be "equal opportunity" (zero monopoly producers - zero gov'ts) you must have localism (zero nationalism and zero globalism).

You would need to know how many people gov't created monopolies serve then factor it down to the local level -- including gov't offices.

We might be able to factor this if we looked at it per industry; but this question is way too large for a specific answer over the entire U.S (assuming you are from the U.S).

If there were 12 major companies servicing every major industry (serving 200M working adults in the U.S) and we assumed some number "X" of small business could serve 200M people handling 200 customers each; then we'd need 1M small businesses.

You get the idea.

Dermezel

21st April 2010, 00:03

Dispose =\= destroy. You cannot destroy anything (conservation of mass), but you can use it. You can use land. It is "at your disposal". You're selling the rights of use of your body while at a job. You promise to use your body for certain purposes, but you are not selling your body (I'm pretty sure I specifically said this). You cannot (yet) sell your body, but once you are able to will you not then recognize that the body is property like anything else?

The difference between labor and property is political. That is why slaves are counted as property and not labor.

RGacky3

21st April 2010, 12:33

Dispose =\= destroy. You cannot destroy anything (conservation of mass), but you can use it. You can use land. It is "at your disposal". You're selling the rights of use of your body while at a job. You promise to use your body for certain purposes, but you are not selling your body (I'm pretty sure I specifically said this). You cannot (yet) sell your body, but once you are able to will you not then recognize that the body is property like anything else?

So Parents own their children too? The fact is as of now we are debating definitions, something which is pointless. But when it comes to defining property, ist really only loons like you that define people as property, the vast majority of people don't.

LeftSideDown

21st April 2010, 15:56

So Parents own their children too? The fact is as of now we are debating definitions, something which is pointless. But when it comes to defining property, ist really only loons like you that define people as property, the vast majority of people don't.

People are not property. Their bodies, however, are. And people can sell the right to use of the body, if they so choose. A lot of people do this. In libertarianism the parent does not own the child, just the rights of raising the child which they can give up. If they actually owned the child than murder would not be an issue, but it is since they do not own the child they just own the rights of raising the child.

Havet

21st April 2010, 16:41

People are not property. Their bodies, however, are.

So what are people?

Endomorphian

21st April 2010, 16:53

"
Market anarchists claim that in "true capitalism" everybody could start a business thus everybody would be equal and have the opportunity to access resources provided that they don't want to submit themselves to the one or two corporations that control most industries.

How do we know when we've reached that point? Currently in the US there are only about 30 million small businesses or 10% of the population. Keep in mind this figure should be cut in half as the local Goodyear store down the street which leases his products from Goodyear counts as a "small businesses." So basically big corporations are allowed to get SBA loans from the government.

Anyway, wouldn't it technically mean that at least 50% of the population (or around there) would have to be business owners, otherwise what you have is serfdom, or, in better terms, one elite class of bourgeois property owners and another class of proletariats.

This is addressed to "market mutalists" not anarcho-capitalists who are fine with the government contracting out all the property to an elite set of owners.

As of now, markets have created a caste society where very few people are allowed to move around the economic ladder. Disgusting.

Mutualists don't refer to free markets as 'true capitalism' unless in contact with sympathetic apologists who have never heard of libertarian socialism. Even then it becomes necessary to distinguish our ideas from the characteristic Rothbardian model. Yes, we envision most people either being an independent contracter, sole proprietor, or part of some functional cooperative. Most corporations already operate as restricted democracies whereby the board is voted on every year (along with the auditors). Empowering workers in the process rather than stockholders is not that absurd.