Property Right's

[JustMovement]

A person cannot have a relationship with an inanimate object. When you say that you own something, what is meant in practice is that you are saying to everyone else that you reserve the right to use that object exclusively. The only way to eforce property right's is either by violence and the threat of it (e.g. the court's, the police, a big stick) or by consent. In practice in society there is a combination of both of these. The legitimacy of property right's is thus not derived by some intangible moral bond between the object and it's owner, but is established socially. Historically property rights have taken various forms, different societies viewed the legitimate use and accumulation of property in different ways. Communal and individual property forms have both existed since prehistory. Bourgeois ideology takes a specific, historical property form and makes it eternal and "natural".

Because property is established and mantained socially, because the accumulation of property has been effected through conquest and dispossesion, and because the arugment that private property is legitimate because it is legitimately acquired is circular (as it already presupposes private property), then there is no immediate reason why we should regard the socialisation of private property as immoral. Yes it is an imposition on some people against there will, but the exclusion of some people form the use of property is also affected against their will, and it is done so socially.

The only plausible argument for private property is that it is of greater social benefit for society. Personally I do not agree. But at least now that there is some kind of definition and explenation of private property the argument can be had.

[JustMovement]

Just in: I don't know why I put an apostrophe in property rights

[Night Ripper]

Yes it is an imposition on some people against there will, but the exclusion of some people form the use of property is also affected against their will, and it is done so socially.

Rape is an imposition on a person against their will but the exclusion of rape is also affected against the rapist's will.

[JustMovement]

SET A= [a,b,c,d]
SET B= [d,e,f,g]

SET A and SET B both include the element:d

SET A=SET B?

[Night Ripper]

SET A= [a,b,c,d]
SET B= [d,e,f,g]

SET A and SET B both include the element:d

SET A=SET B?

You're being inconsistent. If you think that property is a two-way street of imposing wills then so too should you think the same about rape. The fact is, there's more to it than you admit. Also, try being explicit and using complete sentences.

[JustMovement]

To be fair I think it as you was not being explicit. You stated that there was a similarity between rape and expropriation but you did not bother to draw out what the similarity consisted in. I assume that it was not merely that they were both immoral because you have to argue why exproriation is immoral.

Since you didn't bother to argue for why expropriation is immoral I will do it for you. I think it is based on the view that you "own" your body the same way you own your property. Thus if we find that rape is immoral, it is because it is in somesense like theft or expropriation. If, the, we find rape immoral, we must find expropriation immoral, because they are both two instances of the same fundamentally immoral act.

What I would say is this: rape is not immoral because we are "stealing" from someone. Personally I think the whole idea of owning your body is crass and reduces our humanity to just another thing we own. I think it is immoral because it A) hurts someone, and B) violates our autonomy as a human being. I think this is a fascinating discussion and if you want to continue it elsehwere I would be happy to.

Expropriation on the other hand is not the same because what you are in effect doing is changing property rights. Property rights are established and derived socially, through force and consensus, as previously explained. They are not eternal, and are subject to change. They can therefore be legitimately altered.

[Misanthrope]

Rape is an imposition on a person against their will but the exclusion of rape is also affected against the rapist's will.

Complete false dichotomy. You can't compare a predominantly black/white issue with the complexity of a "right".

Property rights are self contradictory and cannot be justifiably maintained. As the OP has stated one cannot have a social relationship with an inanimate object. Ownership is a subjective, abstract label given by society. Capitalists claim that this is justification enough. It's not. At the end of it all, force and coercion are what "justify" private property rights.

[Night Ripper]

Property rights are established and derived socially, through force and consensus, as previously explained.

So is the right not to be raped. There's nothing eternal or unchanging about it.

At the end of it all, force and coercion are what "justify" private property rights.

The same applies to rape.

[JustMovement]

Oh man this is why I wanted to discuss rape seperately. I would rather talk about property rights than moral relativism, but you are right they are realated.

I would say that rape violates your autonomy in a way that changing property rights does not.

On a more basic level, the economic organisation of society is an unavoidable problem. In any arrangement there will be some winners and some losers. A decision has to be made. Rape on the other hand is purely hurting another person.

[Night Ripper]

In any arrangement there will be some winners and some losers. A decision has to be made. Rape on the other hand is purely hurting another person.

Are you saying the rapist doesn't gain anything? Anyways, I'm not trying to make this about rape. It's a reductio ad absurdum. If your argument doesn't make a distinction between rapist and rapee (without special pleading) then so much for your argument.

It seems that most people around here have some sort of fetish for society but it's just a bunch of individuals. One individual wants to use an acre of land to ride motorcycles on and another group of individuals wants it for something else. There's no logical connection between number of individuals and somehow having more of a right to use property.

[JustMovement]

Well fair enough but that was kind of what I was trying to say. I do not think there is any god-given right to own property. It is something you have to work out with other people, or you have to coerce them into accepting. There is no logical connection between the number of individuals and the right to use property because there is no such right in the first place. But we still have all this shit here and we have to figure out a good way to put it to use. Keeping things as they are just because that is how we've done it for the past 100 years isn't a good enough reason to keep it the way it is. You have to convince me that this way makes sense, or you have to arrest me when I disagree.

As for the rape thing I was trying to show that the connection between rape and property is tenuous. We do not own property the same way we own our body. We do not own our body because our body is us. To say you own your body is at best redundant and at worse nonsensical.
On the other hand you cannot expect me to expound a whole new moral system.

[Misanthrope]

So is the right not to be raped. There's nothing eternal or unchanging about it.


The same applies to rape.

Okay then the state "rapes" a geographical territory's citizens individual autonomy by enforcing property rights.

I don't know why you're so hard set on comparing this to rape. How about you argue theory instead of randomly comparing political theory to rape? It's a complete false dichotomy. Rape involves a small amount of people (2+), property rights are a global force..

[Night Ripper]

Well fair enough but that was kind of what I was trying to say. I do not think there is any god-given right to own property. It is something you have to work out with other people, or you have to coerce them into accepting. There is no logical connection between the number of individuals and the right to use property because there is no such right in the first place. But we still have all this shit here and we have to figure out a good way to put it to use. Keeping things as they are just because that is how we've done it for the past 100 years isn't a good enough reason to keep it the way it is. You have to convince me that this way makes sense, or you have to arrest me when I disagree.

You're right. I agree with you. I'd also like to thank you for the civil tone you are using with me. I appreciate it.

Here's a quote for you:

"Capitalism is the best. It's free enterprise. Barter. Gimbels, if I get really rank with the clerk, 'Well I don't like this', how I can resolve it? If it really gets ridiculous, I go, 'Frig it, man, I walk.' What can this guy do at Gimbels, even if he was the president of Gimbels? He can always reject me from that store, but I can always go to Macy's. He can't really hurt me. Communism is like one big phone company. Government control, man. And if I get too rank with that phone company, where can I go? I'll end up like a schmuck with a dixie cup on a thread." -Lenny Bruce

It's from the Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman. I think you'd like it, even if you disagree with it at the end. Please read the introduction at least. You can find it for free online (http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf).


We do not own our body because our body is us.

If you have a real leg or a fake leg, I think it's still yours. The most I'll grant you is that we don't acquire our bodies in the same way we acquire other property but everything else is the same. I maintain exclusive control over my body parts. I can still be "me" without having arms, legs, eyes, ears, etc. You can't have them though, not because they are me but because they are my property.

[Kotze]

Would you say that individuals should own their own bodies and that proper ownership always also means the right to sell, so that in a society that properly respects self-ownership you should have the right to sell parts of your body and also to sell yourself into slavery?

[Night Ripper]

Would you say that individuals should own their own bodies and that proper ownership always also means the right to sell, so that in a society that properly respects self-ownership you should have the right to sell parts of your body and also to sell yourself into slavery?

Let me answer your question by supposing the opposite, that I can't sell parts of my body or sell myself into slavery. Then, do I really own myself? There's clearly things I'm not allowed to do with it, so how can it really be mine?

Just to avoid confusion, I'm saying yes, you can do whatever you want with your body, ink it up, put holes in it, rent it out for the night, pump it full of drugs, destroy it or yes even sell parts or all of it.

[JustMovement]

Im off to bed but I will check out the link and reply further tomorrow. No problem at all, I enjoyed discussing with you as well (talk about free and equal mutually beneficial exchange!).

[Revolution starts with U]

You're being inconsistent. If you think that property is a two-way street of imposing wills then so too should you think the same about rape. The fact is, there's more to it than you admit. Also, try being explicit and using complete sentences.

I say punishing a rapist is Coercion, it requires violence and or imposition against his will. So the actions of individual actors against rape influence a cultural norm that ssometimes becomes codified into law. That's the whole point about property; its a norm we keep that can and must change.

The socialist argument is that the monopolization of property is mostly bought by force, extortion, and violence, in the real world, then later peaceably traded on the open market. The interest of the vast majoritry of the people, the working class/es of society are in democratizing that property, and creating a situation of anti-antagonistic societies of voluntary laborers, to be rewarded the full value of their productive capacity. Profit is in essence nothing but a tax on productivity by the ownership class: until and unless that decision comes about in a majoritarian manner.


Are you saying the rapist doesn't gain anything? Anyways, I'm not trying to make this about rape. It's a reductio ad absurdum. If your argument doesn't make a distinction between rapist and rapee (without special pleading) then so much for your argument.

It seems that most people around here have some sort of fetish for society but it's just a bunch of individuals. One individual wants to use an acre of land to ride motorcycles on and another group of individuals wants it for something else. There's no logical connection between number of individuals and somehow having more of a right to use property.

The restriction of free expression, ie laws, customs, and norms, must be decided uopn. You can say anyone does with their will as they want, unless they hurt someone. But that doesn't answer the question. Who is doing the deciding? You? Me? Or us?

[Kotze]

Suppose tomorrow we allow people of a specific ethnic group to sell their organs (also to people outside that group) and to sell themselves into slavery. Do you think that would make them better off?

[Night Ripper]

The restriction of free expression, ie laws, customs, and norms, must be decided uopn. You can say anyone does with their will as they want, unless they hurt someone. But that doesn't answer the question. Who is doing the deciding? You? Me? Or us?

How about we each decide for ourselves? If you want to live in a society where dancing is illegal then you and your buddies can start a community where everyone that buys land or rents from other community member has to sign a contract stipulating that they won't dance and if they do then they can be arrested.

If we have one rule, "don't touch other people or their stuff without permission" then we only need something that tells us how to determine what is "their stuff" and what is unowned. That's where property rights come in.

[Night Ripper]

Suppose tomorrow we allow people of a specific ethnic group to sell their organs (also to people outside that group) and to sell themselves into slavery. Do you think that would make them better off?

Why make it about race? That's uncalled for. Ask me again without the race baiting.

[Kotze]

I do not aim for "winning" an argument by squicking people out. The people who receive the right to sell themselves into slavery might as well be lottery-selected and put into a public database.

Freedom is choice, and more choice means more freedom, right? So when Ms X has the choice between A, B, C and Mr Y has the choice between A, B, C, D, that is the same options plus something else, then Mr Y surely doesn't have less freedom than Ms X? The worst thing that can happen to Mr Y is that the bonus options are absolutely idiotic or tasteless in the eyes of everybody, at least he isn't worse off than X, right?

Or maybe there is something about social dynamics that I have ignored with that sort of reasoning.

[Night Ripper]

I do not aim for "winning" an argument by squicking people out. The people who receive the right to sell themselves into slavery might as well be lottery-selected and put into a public database.

Freedom is choice, and more choice means more freedom, right? So when Ms X has the choice between A, B, C and Mr Y has the choice between A, B, C, D, that is the same options plus something else, then Mr Y surely doesn't have less freedom than Ms X? The worst thing that can happen to Mr Y is that the bonus options are absolutely idiotic or tasteless in the eyes of everybody, at least he isn't worse off than X, right?

Or maybe there is something about social dynamics that I have ignored with that sort of reasoning.

Right. Nail meet hammer.