Objectivism

[Misodoctakleidist]

Objectivists always go on about "the right to property" and how it's derived from nature, could an objectivist explain how you can possibly derive the right to property from nature?

[The Sloth]

*Crickets*



No social construct is "derived from nature," as you well know. It's up to the people to determine which of these "social constructs" should be maintained for the benefit of the people (or for the benefit of the minority).

Unfortunately, many have the "brilliant" idea that "private property" a.k.a. property that can only be owned by a "few" or "many" but not "all", even when this property is a minimum necessity (such as water, which is more or less "socialized" in America but "private" in the Third World), is actually beneficial for the majority <--- lie&#33;

[Professor Moneybags]

*Crickets*

Lol &#33; The thread was literally ten minutes old when you posted this and you are expecting a reply in that time ?


No social construct is "derived from nature," as you well know. It&#39;s up to the people to determine which of these "social constructs"

i.e. mob rule.



Objectivists always go on about "the right to property" and how it&#39;s derived from nature, could an objectivist explain how you can possibly derive the right to property from nature?

It&#39;s an extention of the right to life, which derives from nature. i.e. you cannot live if your property (which is either directly or indirectly a product of your labour) is continually stolen from you. I can&#39;t be assed to go into any more detail...look it up yourself if you really want to know.

[Misodoctakleidist]

you cannot live if your property (which is either directly or indirectly a product of your labour) is continually stolen from you

But what makes it your property?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Self-detrermination and the teritoriality of man.

What makes it a central authority&#39;s land to claim as public?

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 7 2004, 07:46 PM
What makes it a central authority&#39;s land to claim as public?
Nothing, it&#39;s not something I have ever advocated.

[Osman Ghazi]

i.e. mob rule.


Your face is mob rule. But seriously, what do you have against self-determination? Besides, the right for the mob to rule extends naturally from the right to life.

[The Sloth]

Lol &#33; The thread was literally ten minutes old when you posted this and you are expecting a reply in that time ?

The right-wing gang sometimes tackles the threads in less than ten minutes. However, it took almost 24 hours to get a reply after I posted here.


i.e. mob rule.

You seem to have a problem with what I said:

It&#39;s up to the people to determine which of these "social constructs"...

So instead of the people deciding, democratically, on what "social construct" is most practical, what do you advocate, then? An elite group of "intellectuals" deciding this a.k.a. Bolshevik rule? :lol:


It&#39;s an extention of the right to life, which derives from nature. i.e. you cannot live if your property (which is either directly or indirectly a product of your labour) is continually stolen from you. I can&#39;t be assed to go into any more detail...look it up yourself if you really want to know.

You&#39;ve really simplified things, haven&#39;t you?

First of all, much of the world does not even own the "property" that you are advocating, even if this property is necessary for survival.

Second, simply because property would be re-distributed to the majority instead of concentrating it into the hands of a minority, I don&#39;t see how you come to the conclusion that you "cannot live." Oh, you definitely will "live"...except no longer at the expense of others.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 07:31 PM

But what makes it your property?
The fact that you traded/earned/made it.

[Professor Moneybags]

So instead of the people deciding, democratically, on what "social construct" is most practical, what do you advocate, then? An elite group of "intellectuals" deciding this a.k.a. Bolshevik rule? :lol:

Another absurd, false dichotomy. "Dictatorship of the many vs dictatorship of the few". How about NO dictatorship, and a universal set of individual rights instead ?


You&#39;ve really simplified things, haven&#39;t you?

First of all, much of the world does not even own the "property" that you are advocating, even if this property is necessary for survival.

It&#39;s those people who need property rights most of all. It&#39;s probably those people whose property rights are respected the least, too. Why do they not own this property ? Are you going to start that fairytale about how Africa&#39;s low living standards is caused by Europe&#39;s high living standards ?


Second, simply because property would be re-distributed to the majority instead of concentrating it into the hands of a minority, I don&#39;t see how you come to the conclusion that you "cannot live." Oh, you definitely will "live"...except no longer at the expense of others.

I don&#39;t know how you came to the conclusion that arrangement involves living at the expense of others. "Nothing" is a default situation. When you re-distribute all property, then those who recieve it will be living at the expense of those it was taken from. I&#39;ll live alright- as a slave to the "poor". You call that a life ?

[The Sloth]

Another absurd, false dichotomy. "Dictatorship of the many vs dictatorship of the few". How about NO dictatorship, and a universal set of individual rights instead ?

The "dictatorship of the majority" is, inevitably, a democracy.

Eventually, this "dictatorship of the majority" fizzles out as the exploiters are subdued.

With no exploiters, there is no "dictatorship of the majority" as their is no longer a need for a state apparatus.


It&#39;s those people who need property rights most of all. It&#39;s probably those people whose property rights are respected the least, too. Why do they not own this property ? Are you going to start that fairytale about how Africa&#39;s low living standards is caused by Europe&#39;s high living standards ?

Africa lives poorly because of imperialism and continual efforts to destroy developing economies or maintain them in terrible states.


I don&#39;t know how you came to the conclusion that arrangement involves living at the expense of others. "Nothing" is a default situation. When you re-distribute all property, then those who recieve it will be living at the expense of those it was taken from. I&#39;ll live alright- as a slave to the "poor". You call that a life ?

In case you don&#39;t understand this concept, let me explain it to you:

The MINORITY controls a substantial amount of capital as opposed to the MAJORITY scrambling for the remainder. Since the MINORITY has that much capital, it is able to own MORE PROPERTY. Since the MAJORITY has that little capital, it is able to own LESS PROPERTY.

And what makes you say that you&#39;ll be "poor"?

[mark_d]

The "dictatorship of the majority" is, inevitably, a democracy.

Eventually, this "dictatorship of the majority" fizzles out as the exploiters are subdued.

With no exploiters, there is no "dictatorship of the majority" as their is no longer a need for a state apparatus.


here&#39;s the problem, marxist think that dictatorship must live no matter what the economic or social format of society. Moneybags make a good point and you completely dive around it: no one has the ability to dictate what anyone else does.

And no, democracy is not inevitable


Africa lives poorly because of imperialism and continual efforts to destroy developing economies or maintain them in terrible states.


wrong . . . africa live poorly because of a constant shift between socialism and anarchy. also, the tribalism in africa makes most of its cities much worse than the gang-warfare of east LA

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 8 2004, 09:35 PM
The fact that you traded/earned/made it.
So how does one come into possesion of a quary, a field or an oil well?

Please don&#39;t say "buy it," you know exactly what I mean.

[The Sloth]

here&#39;s the problem, marxist think that dictatorship must live no matter what the economic or social format of society. Moneybags make a good point and you completely dive around it: no one has the ability to dictate what anyone else does.

"No one has the ability to dictate what anyone else does."

The state exists to control the masses, give them police to protect them and keep them in check, create laws for which to live by, ensure wealth is distributed in a certain way, etc. I guess this isn&#39;t "dictating what anyone else does." (&#33;&#33;)


And no, democracy is not inevitable.

So what do you call majority rule with the suppression of attempts at exploiting the masses by a minority? A plutocracy/oligarchy such as the United States? :D


wrong . . . africa live poorly because of a constant shift between socialism and anarchy. also, the tribalism in africa makes most of its cities much worse than the gang-warfare of east LA

Tribalism in Africa exists because the material conditions aren&#39;t present to allow this "tribalism" to be replaced.

"Africa live[s] poorly because of a constant shift between socialism and anarchy."

:lol:

I&#39;m going to stop discussing this point right....now&#33; That&#39;s a new one, though, I give you credit for originality. In your efforts at defying socialism, you use "socialism" as the system to blame for Africa&#39;s problems. Never mind the imperialism -- we all know that imperialism is a liberal invention&#33; ;) Never mind the fact that America and Europe chokes off economic development by moving their factories/plantations to Africa, maintaining oppressive corporations, pay unbelievably low wages, etc. &#39;Tis not to blame, this "oppression"....it&#39;s all socialism&#33;

:lol:

[Professor Moneybags]

Africa lives poorly because of imperialism and continual efforts to destroy developing economies or maintain them in terrible states.

Spare me the conspiracy theories. It&#39;s like that because of self-inflicted dictatorships and climatic conditions.

I can&#39;t be bothered to refute the rest of the pseudo-economic tripe.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 11:19 AM
So how does one come into possesion of a quary, a field or an oil well?

Please don&#39;t say "buy it," you know exactly what I mean.
Buy it. No, I&#39;m being serious, presuming it was owned by someone originally. If it wasn&#39;t, it would be a first-come, first-owned basis, I believe.

But this presupposes that someone can make money or has some other use for it to want to buy or own it in the first place. Let&#39;s not forget that two hundred years ago, people *hated* having oil on their land; they couldn&#39;t farm it. How different it is today.

[Misodoctakleidist]

That&#39;s all very well but how does the right to own it derive from nature as you claim?

If someone uses a quary, for instance, why is it their right to own it and stop other people from extracting material from it?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 07:28 PM
That&#39;s all very well but how does the right to own it derive from nature as you claim?

If someone uses a quary, for instance, why is it their right to own it and stop other people from extracting material from it?
I&#39;ve just explained that. Someone discovered it and kept it, or someone found a use for it and bought it off him.

Those who didn&#39;t, can&#39;t. Not without a contractual agreement.

[Misodoctakleidist]

I know what you mean but how does this derive from nature as objectivists claim?

How does nature give the person who decides to "keep it" the right to do so at the exclusion of all others? The person could just use it without staking claim to it.

[Professor Moneybags]

How does nature give the person who decides to "keep it" the right to do so at the exclusion of all others? The person could just use it without staking claim to it.

The fact that he did it and not others; the law of identity. You&#39;re being a nuissance now, Mis etc. If you can&#39;t understand this, then ask elsewhere.

[Capitalist Imperial]

It is a means to an end, to satisfy the mammilian territorialty of man.

Lets not kisd ourselves, there is still, geographically, enough space for every person on earth to have their own stamp of land. Even if the population doubles this will still be the case. I believe that we will colonize another planet before we get too overcrowded. Thus, why can&#39;t one have the security and piece of mind that comes with their own sovereign territory?

[Misodoctakleidist]

A nuissance, in my own thread?

You havn&#39;t provided any reason why it&#39;s a "right" to own property, is it just a leap of faith?

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 10 2004, 02:12 PM
It is a means to an end, to satisfy the mammilian territorialty of man.

Lets not kisd ourselves, there is still, geographically, enough space for every person on earth to have their own stamp of land. Even if the population doubles this will still be the case. I believe that we will colonize another planet before we get too overcrowded. Thus, why can&#39;t one have the security and piece of mind that comes with their own sovereign territory?
That&#39;s a different debate, Objectivists claim private property is an "unalianable natural right."

[Capitalist Imperial]

Yeah, but what I&#39;m saying is that perhaps that notion is a derivative of our instinctual territoriality.

Aren&#39;t "rights" simply self- assumed allowances that are really rooted in our mammilian instincts?

[Misodoctakleidist]

According to Randroids they are objective thruths.

[Professor Moneybags]

You havn&#39;t provided any reason why it&#39;s a "right" to own property, is it just a leap of faith?

I don&#39;t think you know what a "right" is. Otherwise, you wouldn&#39;t be asking such stupid questions. Go and learn how to use a search engine.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 03:04 PM
Randroids
I love that word. Expecially the irony of how it&#39;s most frequent users are usually the most robotic people on earth.


Aren&#39;t "rights" simply self- assumed allowances that are really rooted in our mammilian instincts?

A right is the freedom to act in a social context. What you see Mis etc. attempting to do is to undecut the notion of property rights. What he doesn&#39;t understand is that even if you do claim that the right to own a quarry etc is invalid, it doesn&#39;t address the issue of who&#39;s labour is required to dig it. Is the digger&#39;s labour not his ? Is the money he earns for doing it therefore not his too ? Not according to the socialist; it belongs to eveyone else who didn&#39;t do the digging too because wealth is a "collective product" in which everyone is entitled to a share of. Yet, if a factory owner did the same thing, it would be called "exploitation".

This is polylogic.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 10 2004, 08:13 PM
I love that word. Expecially the irony of how it&#39;s most frequent users are usually the most robotic people on earth.
Now that&#39;s ironic.



A right is the freedom to act in a social context. What you see Mis etc. attempting to do is to undecut the notion of property rights. What he doesn&#39;t understand is that even if you do claim that the right to own a quarry etc is invalid, it doesn&#39;t address the issue of who&#39;s labour is required to dig it. Is the digger&#39;s labour not his ? Is the money he earns for doing it therefore not his too ? Not according to the socialist; it belongs to eveyone else who didn&#39;t do the digging too because wealth is a "collective product" in which everyone is entitled to a share of. Yet, if a factory owner did the same thing, it would be called "exploitation".
You make a very good case for the communal ownership of the quary, that way anyone who wishes to labour in it can keep what they earn rather than pay a proportion of it to the "owner" who&#39;s probably lying on a beach somewhere on the other side of the world.


This is polylogic.

I think you&#39;ve been reading a little too much Von Mises, even you know more about Marxism than him.