Property

[Connolly]

Yeah - id like to hear a capitalists view as to what justifies ones property in your own opinion - irresepective of law?


Say, your TV for example. What makes you more entitled to have that as your property than say.........me walking into your home and taking it and claiming it as my own?

TRB

[Ragnar]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 22 2006, 06:03 PM
Yeah - id like to hear a capitalists view as to what justifies ones property in your own opinion - irresepective of law?


Say, your TV for example. What makes you more entitled to have that as your property than say.........me walking into your home and taking it and claiming it as my own?

TRB
That i went to work, did a specific task, earned money for my time at doing that task, exchanged the money for the T.V. So lets say i worked for 8 dollars an hour, and the tv is worth 80 dollars. when you come and take my tv, you are taking 10 hours of my life. The TV is my property beacuse i earned it at its value, where as you have not, for if you had earned it, you would have bought it at a store.

[theraven]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 22 2006, 06:03 PM
Yeah - id like to hear a capitalists view as to what justifies ones property in your own opinion - irresepective of law?


Say, your TV for example. What makes you more entitled to have that as your property than say.........me walking into your home and taking it and claiming it as my own?

TRB
beccause its the basis of our economy. we want to encourgae pole to work, to contirbue to society. the most effective way to do this is to have work invovle material rewards. thus if i work, i can spend my earnings on the esstiansl and thne buy extras. if you can just take it, theres no encouragment to work, thus why should anyone work to support others?

[Connolly]

That i went to work, did a specific task, earned money for my time at doing that task, exchanged the money for the T.V. So lets say i worked for 8 dollars an hour, and the tv is worth 80 dollars. when you come and take my tv, you are taking 10 hours of my life. The TV is my property beacuse i earned it at its value, where as you have not, for if you had earned it, you would have bought it at a store.

Ok, lets keep this simple now - im no master of law.

So, quite simply, and predictably - your concept and answer is that "I worked for it, and therefore Its mine and I should own it" (lets keep it simple)

The TV, for which you have worked for, has been made by workers who have added their labour time and value to your property - and visversa - you add your labour time (assuming your a worker) and value to their property, lets say a chair.

But neither the workers who made the TV own it (since its yours), nor do you own the chair you have made(since someone in society has bought it off you).

Rather - you have contributed your labour time to society, in return for their labour time of what they have produced.

By this - you do not accept that someone breaking into your home and robbing your TV, and therefore, your property, should be entitled to that property being theirs - since they did not contribute to that of society by doing that "act".

To the robber of course - its work. But its not legitimate since he has not contributed to the production of property of society - and therefore of any benifit to you or that of society.

So, from your definition of property we can conclude a few things

1) a person must contribute to the production of society to be entitled property - unless they produce that property themselves.

2) From one, a person who takes property without contributing to the production of anything - is a theif.


Would you agree with those conclusions of your definition of property so far?


beccause its the basis of our economy. we want to encourgae pole to work, to contirbue to society. the most effective way to do this is to have work invovle material rewards. thus if i work, i can spend my earnings on the esstiansl and thne buy extras. if you can just take it, theres no encouragment to work, thus why should anyone work to support others?

I asked you for your opinion and definition of property - you have not provided it.

Your post was useless then.

Unless you would like to contribute it.

[BobKKKindle$]

beccause its the basis of our economy.

This is an apologist attitude that merely tries to excuse the Capitalist mode of production because it is what exists in the present, and you cannot envisage a different system. Slavery used to form the basis of Ancient 'Oriental Despotic' Societies such as Greece and Rome - does that make it acceptable?


we want to encourgae pole to work, to contirbue to society. the most effective way to do this is to have work invovle material rewards.

In a Marxist Context, propety means the private ownership of the means of production. It is through this form of propety Ownership that the Capitalist derives the benefits and ownership of Commodities that he did not produce, and hence Marxists view ownership of the MOP as unfair, because Commodities are stores of labour value, and the Capitalist did not contribute any of this labour value. Socialists broadly have no problem with the ownership of 'personal propety' - Items that are not used in conjunction with Wage labour to produce commodities.

[theraven]

I asked you for your opinion and definition of property - you have not provided it.

Your post was useless then.

Unless you would like to contribute it.

no you asked


Yeah - id like to hear a capitalists view as to what justifies ones property in your own opinion - irresepective of law?




This is an apologist attitude that merely tries to excuse the Capitalist mode of production because it is what exists in the present, and you cannot envisage a different system. Slavery used to form the basis of Ancient 'Oriental Despotic' Societies such as Greece and Rome - does that make it acceptable?

greece and rome were (for most of their history anyway) not "orietnal despots" and your right that i have toble imaging a system that doestn allow property, since just about every system does.



In a Marxist Context, propety means the private ownership of the means of production. It is through this form of propety Ownership that the Capitalist derives the benefits and ownership of Commodities that he did not produce, and hence Marxists view ownership of the MOP as unfair, because Commodities are stores of labour value, and the Capitalist did not contribute any of this labour value. Socialists broadly have no problem with the ownership of 'personal propety' - Items that are not used in conjunction with Wage labour to produce commodities.

we aren't talking about Marxist context. marxism, economcily anyway, is largely useless.

[BobKKKindle$]

greece and rome were (for most of their history anyway) not "orietnal despots" and your right that i have toble imaging a system that doestn allow property, since just about every system does.

In the Marxist Analysis of History, Oriental Despotism is the period that typically exists between a Hunter Gatherer Society and a Feudal Society, and often exhibits an autocratic, and often deified Leader, and a underclass of Slave Labourers. Therefore, especially in the case of Ancient Rome, these Societies fit the Classification of Oriental Despotism. Regardless of Whether These Societies were Oriental Despotic Societies, you are still accepting a System on the simple notion that it is the system that exists, and so you are Reactionary and Anti-Progressive. You say that very few propety-less Societies have existed, but the private ownership of the means of production and the Class Society that Accompanies this Ownership is a comparitively recent phenomenon - Humanity existed for thousands of years under a hunter gatherer Society in which everything was communally owned and controlled.

PS - Learn to Spell

[Zero]

Originally posted by "theraven"
beccause its the basis of our economy. we want to encourgae pole to work, to contirbue to society. the most effective way to do this is to have work invovle material rewards. thus if i work, i can spend my earnings on the esstiansl and thne buy extras. if you can just take it, theres no encouragment to work, thus why should anyone work to support others?
The 'Stimulus to industry' arguement is always the first one to be propped up, answered, and then propped up again.

'Stimulus to industry' is a defunct term by itself anyway, there will be no 'Stimulus' if there isn't a intrest! If there is no intrest there will never be sufficient 'Stimulus' to commit to your industry. People are naturally drawn to different areas of labor because we are all different social beings. If there is no 'draw' to an area of labor, then there will never be enough people to do the job. No matter what socio-economic system you implement!

At the end of the day, you don't require a white, fat, rich, balding man poking you in the ass with a stick while barking orders at you to eat your favorite meal.

[encephalon]

greece and rome were (for most of their history anyway) not "orietnal despots" and your right that i have toble imaging a system that doestn allow property, since just about every system does.


Urghh... you have any idea what constitutes human history whatsoever? "property is a concept of the 17-1800s. For fuck's sake man, if you're referring to the property of ancient rome, then say so. Then we'll at least know you support out-right slavery. The "property" of today has very significant differences than the property of yesterday.

In addition, leftists generally acknowledge a difference between "personal property" and "'legal' property." I rent an apartment, but that still does not give the legal "property-owners" of the land the right to go through my personal space. But is it not the land-owner's property? Can they not do with it as they will?

Oh dear, a capitalist conundrum..

[theraven]

In the Marxist Analysis of History, Oriental Despotism is the period that typically exists between a Hunter Gatherer Society and a Feudal Society, and often exhibits an autocratic, and often deified Leader, and a underclass of Slave Labourers. Therefore, especially in the case of Ancient Rome, these Societies fit the Classification of Oriental Despotism. Regardless of Whether These Societies were Oriental Despotic Societies, you are still accepting a System on the simple notion that it is the system that exists, and so you are Reactionary and Anti-Progressive. You say that very few propety-less Societies have existed, but the private ownership of the means of production and the Class Society that Accompanies this Ownership is a comparitively recent phenomenon - Humanity existed for thousands of years under a hunter gatherer Society in which everything was communally owned and controlled.

PS - Learn to Spell

1) again we aren't discussing the marxist view, we are dicussing reality

2) most of humanity practiced slaery up into the 19th century, and there is evidnce of it existing even in hunter gathereer tirbes in africa

3) you could argue rome/greece becae oreitnal despots with their empires in the east, but before that they did not qualify.


The 'Stimulus to industry' arguement is always the first one to be propped up, answered, and then propped up again.


'Stimulus to industry' is a defunct term by itself anyway, there will be no 'Stimulus' if there isn't a intrest! If there is no intrest there will never be sufficient 'Stimulus' to commit to your industry. People are naturally drawn to different areas of labor because we are all different social beings. If there is no 'draw' to an area of labor, then there will never be enough people to do the job. No matter what socio-economic system you implement!

At the end of the day, you don't require a white, fat, rich, balding man poking you in the ass with a stick while barking orders at you to eat your favorite meal.

so in communism people are going to WANT to make shoes in factoires?? ya right



Urghh... you have any idea what constitutes human history whatsoever? "property is a concept of the 17-1800s. For fuck's sake man, if you're referring to the property of ancient rome, then say so. Then we'll at least know you support out-right slavery. The "property" of today has very significant differences than the property of yesterday.

all societise in history have aknoweldgesd some sort of property rights. they may have differed in a few ways, but largely they al come down to one thing, that they recognize peopel can own land and machinary to produce things


In addition, leftists generally acknowledge a difference between "personal property" and "'legal' property.

and whats that diffeence?

"
I rent an apartment, but that still does not give the legal "property-owners" of the land the right to go through my personal space. But is it not the land-owner's property? Can they not do with it as they will?

Oh dear, a capitalist conundrum..

not really, it depends on your contract. thre are some contracts wher the land lord is indeed entitled to search your room. othrs where he is not.

[Connolly]

theraven - you have not provided your own definition of what justifies property.

Your responses are not what I asked.

So, again - what justifies your TV being your property?

[(Do you agree with ragnars definition? - if not - how does it vary?)]

[theraven]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 23 2006, 03:44 PM
theraven - you have not provided your own definition of what justifies property.

Your responses are not what I asked.

So, again - what justifies your TV being your property?

[(Do you agree with ragnars definition? - if not - how does it vary?)]
i did justify why it is my proprety. I worked to obtain the currency to purchase the tv.

[Connolly]

i did justify why it is my proprety. I worked to obtain the currency to purchase the tv.

So its the same as Ragnars then? - or where do you differ?

What justifies "work"?...............If a thief steals for a living, and sells what he has stolen for currency - can that be justified as work?

Can doing my own garden be justified as work?.............if I cook meals for my children..........is that justified as work?

If everyone did those domestic tasks - would it be 'work'?....should they obtain currency for doing those domestic tasks?

Or is there something else that justifies what 'work' is - for which you should get the property of others labour?

[Zero]

Originally posted by "theraven"
so in communism people are going to WANT to make shoes in factoires?? ya right

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automation

[Connolly]

Whats wrong raven? I was only eleven minuites late. :lol:

[theraven]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 23 2006, 04:15 PM

i did justify why it is my proprety. I worked to obtain the currency to purchase the tv.

So its the same as Ragnars then? - or where do you differ?

What justifies "work"?...............If a thief steals for a living, and sells what he has stolen for currency - can that be justified as work?

Can doing my own garden be justified as work?.............if I cook meals for my children..........is that justified as work?

If everyone did those domestic tasks - would it be 'work'?....should they obtain currency for doing those domestic tasks?

Or is there something else that justifies what 'work' is - for which you should get the property of others labour?
1) no the what the theif is doing is not "work" because it is not productive.

2) doing persanl chores counts as "work" but nto work that generally results in currency

3) I left the house and thus did not see your repsponse


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automation


so machines are going to do all the unpleseant work? this sounds,..fesiable :lol:

[Zero]

Originally posted by "theraven
so machines are going to do all the unpleseant work? this sounds,..fesiable

Well of course. With a P$ there is no way to advance technology to the point of complete automation of services which would be considered "boring work".

[theraven]

Originally posted by Zero+Jul 23 2006, 10:31 PM--> (Zero @ Jul 23 2006, 10:31 PM)
"theraven
so machines are going to do all the unpleseant work? this sounds,..fesiable

Well of course. With a P$ there is no way to advance technology to the point of complete automation of services which would be considered "boring work". [/b]
so then whos gong to do it?

[red team]

so machines are going to do all the unpleseant work? this sounds,..fesiable :lol:

"The human brain is special because it's made by God and is endowed with a soul".

By saying that unpleasant, repetitive work cannot be automated by machines that's what you're essentially implying -- that the human brain is supernaturally unique from all other physical matter. Nope. Brain damaged individuals who have massive loss of physical brain cells lose the ability to think or even move. The causes for any sort of cognitive abilities including human cognitive abilities are physical in nature. No mystical claptrap like a soul is required.

This means machines replacing routine human labour is possible after a certain technological level is reached and we're getting there.

[red team]

so then whos gong to do it?

Engineers and scientists.

Scientifically incompetent people like Capitalists and Religious Fundamentalists need not apply.

[theraven]

Originally posted by red [email protected] 23 2006, 10:54 PM

so then whos gong to do it?

Engineers and scientists.

Scientifically incompetent people like Capitalists and Religious Fundamentalists need not apply.
of ocures with the problem that why should they work hard as enginers and scietnets? espeicaly if they aren't interasted in what we need.



This means machines replacing routine human labour is possible after a certain technological level is reached and we're getting there.

sure but were nto there yet..or even realy close..

[red team]

sure but were nto there yet..or even realy close..

Compare 1906 to 2006 which is a span of 100 years.

In 1906 there was horse drawn buggies and street lanterns. Large scale electrification hasn't even begun yet let alone computers and the internet. Genetics wasn't discovered until mid century and probing the DNA didn't start until the late 70's. Space travel let alone sending spacecraft to the outer reaches of the solar system was still science fiction. Robotics was a word that wasn't even coined yet. Artifical intelligence? What's that? Having a desktop computer in your own home? What's a computer? Many other examples too numerous to name...

But, right now the U.S. is going backwards. Science and math competency are at a all time low. Public education worldwide is being privatised and destroyed. Progress it seems is measured in stock upticks and accountancy fraud rather than intellectual gain. What is this other than a symptom that the economic system has ran it's course and is in terminal decline?


of ocures with the problem that why should they work hard as enginers and scietnets? espeicaly if they aren't interasted in what we need.

Because their work also benefits them. Also, the funny thing with science and engineering is that once a discovery is made, no new work needs to to be done to rediscover it again. It's the ultimate lazy man's job. You do it once and you won't have to do it ever again because knowledge once gained and recorded cannot be consumed. It's there forever for anybody willing to look for it.

[Zero]

We're not there yet?

I beg to differ. I believe we have the technology to have near 100% farm automation, as well as almost 100% plumbing automation. This is however, not our main priority as far as using money. We're stuck in a arms funded economy, and I don't see a peaceful end in sight.

[theraven]

Compare 1906 to 2006 which is a span of 100 years.

In 1906 there was horse drawn buggies and street lanterns. Large scale electrification hasn't even begun yet let alone computers and the internet. Genetics wasn't discovered until mid century and probing the DNA didn't start until the late 70's. Space travel let alone sending spacecraft to the outer reaches of the solar system was still science fiction. Robotics was a word that wasn't even coined yet. Artifical intelligence? What's that? Having a desktop computer in your own home? What's a computer? Many other examples too numerous to name...

But, right now the U.S. is going backwards. Science and math competency are at a all time low. Public education worldwide is being privatised and destroyed. Progress it seems is measured in stock upticks and accountancy fraud rather than intellectual gain. What is this other than a symptom that the economic system has ran it's course and is in terminal decline?


yes we have advanced a lot in 100 years, but even at that rate of another 100 years full automatino is ways away



Because their work also benefits them. Also, the funny thing with science and engineering is that once a discovery is made, no new work needs to to be done to rediscover it again. It's the ultimate lazy man's job. You do it once and you won't have to do it ever again because knowledge once gained and recorded cannot be consumed. It's there forever for anybody willing to look for it.

lemme guess-don't know many engineers do ya?

[Zero]

Originally posted by "theraven"
yes we have advanced a lot in 100 years, but even at that rate of another 100 years full automatino is ways away

And why is that? Maybe because it is antithetical to a competitive market!

Complete automation would create an almost imediate depression, skyrocketing inflation, and bankruptcy. Banks would close, and riots would insue.

I would say go fer it! But it would never happen. The revolution will come sooner then that :hammer: :banner: :star: :AO: .

[red team]

yes we have advanced a lot in 100 years, but even at that rate of another 100 years full automatino is ways away

Closer than you think. Prototype robotic surgeons are already a reality. Check out the science forum.


lemme guess-don't know many engineers do ya?

The cutting edge of engineering is done in software which is still very much advancing at a rapid pace. Why such a rapid pace and with so many free programs? I know quite a few software engineers that advocate public software. I'm using a computer operating system made by one.

I'm one.

[theraven]

The cutting edge of engineering is done in software which is still very much advancing at a rapid pace. Why such a rapid pace and with so many free programs? I know quite a few software engineers that advocate public software. I'm using a computer operating system made by one.

I'm one.

some do, bu you know what, plenty don't.

[Zero]

Originally posted by "theraven"
some do, bu you know what, plenty don't.
It's more like 'Those who know what they are doing are doing it for free.'

[Ragnar]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 22 2006, 08:49 PM

That i went to work, did a specific task, earned money for my time at doing that task, exchanged the money for the T.V. So lets say i worked for 8 dollars an hour, and the tv is worth 80 dollars. when you come and take my tv, you are taking 10 hours of my life. The TV is my property beacuse i earned it at its value, where as you have not, for if you had earned it, you would have bought it at a store.

Ok, lets keep this simple now - im no master of law.

So, quite simply, and predictably - your concept and answer is that "I worked for it, and therefore Its mine and I should own it" (lets keep it simple)

The TV, for which you have worked for, has been made by workers who have added their labour time and value to your property - and visversa - you add your labour time (assuming your a worker) and value to their property, lets say a chair.

But neither the workers who made the TV own it (since its yours), nor do you own the chair you have made(since someone in society has bought it off you).

Rather - you have contributed your labour time to society, in return for their labour time of what they have produced.

By this - you do not accept that someone breaking into your home and robbing your TV, and therefore, your property, should be entitled to that property being theirs - since they did not contribute to that of society by doing that "act".

To the robber of course - its work. But its not legitimate since he has not contributed to the production of property of society - and therefore of any benifit to you or that of society.

So, from your definition of property we can conclude a few things

1) a person must contribute to the production of society to be entitled property - unless they produce that property themselves.

2) From one, a person who takes property without contributing to the production of anything - is a thief.


Would you agree with those conclusions of your definition of property so far?


1) Not necessary, as I believe in inheritance, and if one persons parents worked so hard that they produce enough extra(beyond what they spend in there life) that there children do not have to work, then good for them.

2) I would say yes, but that is by my own definitions, and many on this forum would say that the owner of the T.V. factory contribute nothing, so for me to give a clear answer, I must ask you if, In your opinion, Does the management of a factory, or any organisation, contribute to production if they are not on the assembly lines?

PS Sorry the response took so long, I was Away from the computer for the rest of the week until today.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Zero+Jul 24 2006, 05:31 AM--> (Zero @ Jul 24 2006, 05:31 AM)
"theraven"
some do, bu you know what, plenty don't.
It's more like 'Those who know what they are doing are doing it for free.' [/b]
I highly doubt that. its more like "those who know what they are doing but don't care if they live in moms basement do"

[elmo sez]

Hmmmmmmmmm I know this is a bit off topic but were nearly all major scientific break throughs in the all the years before say the 20th century made by upper class people who really didnt need to invent anything because they were already rich yet they did example robert boyle ...care for anymore theres hundreds thousands if not millions .think of how far weed be then if class and welth didnt hold inventors back ...im sure there were many working class or slaves that had a few good ideas ....or are they all just stupid ?

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 10:28 PM
Hmmmmmmmmm I know this is a bit off topic but were nearly all major scientific break throughs in the all the years before say the 20th century made by upper class people who really didnt need to invent anything because they were already rich yet they did example robert boyle ...care for anymore theres hundreds thousands if not millions .think of how far weed be then if class and welth didnt hold inventors back ...im sure there were many working class or slaves that had a few good ideas ....or are they all just stupid ?
edison was poor...franklin was hardly rich...marie curie was not wealthy...louis pastuer became well off only because of his job..

i can go on if you like...

[red team]

I highly doubt that. its more like "those who know what they are doing but don't care if they live in moms basement do"

Don't forget to add college students and professors who know what they are doing, but haven't had their creativity and natural inquisitiveness crushed by corporate culture, clueless managers and office politics.

Hey, if I was in the same position I would take the same greedy, soulless mega-corporation for everything they have! It's not as if they owe me any favours for taking away what I've worked on as their own private cash cow.

[elmo sez]

sorry i meant to include 19th aswell my bad ........anyway before that

[theraven]

Originally posted by red [email protected] 24 2006, 10:50 PM

I highly doubt that. its more like "those who know what they are doing but don't care if they live in moms basement do"

Don't forget to add college students and professors who know what they are doing, but haven't had their creativity and natural inquisitiveness crushed by corporate culture, clueless managers and office politics.

Hey, if I was in the same position I would take the same greedy, soulless mega-corporation for everything they have! It's not as if they owe me any favours for taking away what I've worked on as their own private cash cow.
I'm sure the fact that students and porffesors rarely have to worry about cash flow either helps. obviously if your indepentely wealthy your ok.

[Zero]

Originally posted by "theraven"
I'm sure the fact that students and porffesors rarely have to worry about cash flow either helps. obviously if your indepentely wealthy your ok.

... -.-'

Have you ever been to college??!