Addessing claims of 'private property'.

[Oswy]

I'm in a debate with a self-declared libertarian who is trying hard to present 'private property' as an ontological fact, i.e. not merely an historically situated invention. I need some advice on how to address this point:


When you eat an apple, that is your property, correct? I mean, you're controlling it, aren't you? It is, for all you protest, your property. The process of controlling and isolating resources for yourself (i.e. PRIVATE property to which you have a claim) is an ONTOLOGICAL FACT.

I appreciate that they are coming from an analytical philosophical position but otherwise what is the best way to proceed?

[Tim Cornelis]

It is merely semantics he is arguing. Using his logic every communist is in favour of private property and this would not contrast communist principles.

Private property is the right to exclusive ownership of the means of production, an apple is personal property; or a private possession, but not private property.

Most communists are not against possession (the right to exclusive control of goods), but are against private property.

Moreover, he is arguing that because you control something it is therefore your legitimately owned property. By this logic I could steal your bicycle and ride it around town. You are controlling and isolating it, yet it is not legitimately owned.

Similarly, if workers seize control over a factory -- and expropriate it -- it is their property, correct? I mean, they are controlling it, aren't they? It is, for all their protest, their property. The process of controlling and isolating resources for yourself is an ONTOLOGICAL FACT. Therefore... socialism is legitimate?

[cenv]

Ask him what he thinks about isolating and controlling resources used by other people. Is this also an "ontological fact"?

That's why Marxists distinguish personal property (the clothes you wear, the food you eat, etc.) from private property (privately owned factories, land, and so on).

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

note that he'll probably try and claim there is no difference between mop and personal property and your just drawing an arbitary line, but i think thats quite an immature position and you can probably argue against it on they're own (after all every philospohy has line drawing problems; ask him about voluntaryism in regards to children or mentally disabled or implicit consent etc, there has to be some degree of reasonableness.

[Tim Finnegan]

When you eat an apple, that is your property, correct? I mean, you're controlling it, aren't you? It is, for all you protest, your property. The process of controlling and isolating resources for yourself (i.e. PRIVATE property to which you have a claim) is an ONTOLOGICAL FACTThis is basically tautological- "If I have it, I have it". It says nothing about human society, nothing about how humans actually interact. It's not an argument that you can refute because it's simply not an argument. You may as well "sky is blue, therefore private property".

[mastershake16]

I don't think either of you understand what property actually is.

Learn the difference between property and possession.

[Ocean Seal]

Obvious strawman is obvious. So only the materials that I am controlling are automatically mine. What if I tried to lug a computer out of my workplace? Is that my property because I am controlling and isolating those resources?

[ColonelCossack]

I'm in a debate with a self-declared libertarian who is trying hard to present 'private property' as an ontological fact, i.e. not merely an historically situated invention. I need some advice on how to address this point:



I appreciate that they are coming from an analytical philosophical position but otherwise what is the best way to proceed?

So does stealing a sack of money automatically make it your private property?

[Comrade Jandar]

By this logic I could steal your bicycle and ride it around town. You are controlling and isolating it, yet it is not legitimately owned.

I'm sorry but this sentence made me chuckle. I'm not sure why.

[Strannik]

This argument made me think that a lot of capitalistic self-justification is based on throwing different concepts together under the same cathegory and claiming there is no distinction. That's how their arguments work. Personals possessions and private property are treated as if they are the same thing; use value and exchange value are thrown into the same box and labeled price; freedom to work and freedom to exploit are generalized into abstract freedom etc.

If I understand this correctly, then the general rule of thumb for arguing with bourgeoise would be to show that their neat abstract concepts have contradictions in them.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

So, by the obvious extension of his argument, workers "own" the means of production, since they hold it in their hands, utilize them, etc.? I mean, the only sense in which this is not true, by extension of his logic, would be that capitalists "[control] and isolat[e] resources" through the use of armed force. Unless he thinks the state is an "ontological fact" and not a historically contingent mode of social organization, there are some pretty huge holes in his argument. That, and I think he may not actually know what "ontological" means. You might be having an internet debate with a junior high student.

[MotherCossack]

ontological== relating to ontology. Of or related to the nature of being


"Principal questions of ontology are "What can be said to exist?", "Into what categories, if any, can we sort existing things?", "What are the meanings of being?", "What are the various modes of being of entities?"." so says wikipedia.
i think your pal is attempting to take up a seriously exclusive and elusive concept, and apply it to the everyday, the world we actually inhabit, rather than leaving it to the dusty bookshelves and wizened scholars of philosophy.
not sure if that is what your pal intended....
but that is what it looks like to me.