A Thread for "Classical Liberals"

[Nathyn]

Well, actually, Geolibertarian, which is based upon largely Classical Liberal principles. This thread is going to demonstrate how Communism can be logically derived from a belief in the Classical Liberal conception of property rights.

The specific train of thought goes:
Classical Liberalism-->Geolibertarianism\Georgism-->Communism

Sounds strange, but read on. Perhaps you're a Communist and didn't even know it! :lol:

The way this thread works is almost like a "choose-your-own adventure," story. You read the first question and go to a different question based upon your answer. This, I thought, would be a lot more simple than just laying out my argument, only to have someone dissect each premise erroneously, as has been my experience with Libertarians.


By that
I mean


that they
have a tendency


to do this
annoying fucking shit


instead of
actually logically addressing my argument. This method of argument forces them to logically address the point of dispute and enables me to know precisely which premise they disagree upon, in order to avoid getting sidetracked by them scrambling to defeat every premise.

#1. Do you agree that a person owns something only if they labored for it? If yes, go to question 2. If no, go to question 8.

#2. In order to own a particular piece of property, you must have legitimate ownership of the means of production, right? I.E., let's say that that you own livestock. If I steal a cow from you and derive dairy-products from it, not only do I not own the cow, but I do not own the milk either, because it was accomplished through the use of stolen property; your property. If you agree, go to question 3. If you disagree, go to question 8.

#3. It is ideal for property rights to be established in a state of nature, right? If yes, go to question 4. If no, go to question 8.

#4. If property rights are not established in a state of nature, it is ideal for us to return them to the conditions which would have existed had they been established, right? If yes, go to question 5. If no, go to question 8.

#5. Nobody ever labored for land or natural resources, so they cannot claim ownership of them. (See "Georgism" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism) and "Geolibertarianism" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism)). Stepping on a piece of land does not imply ownership anymore than breathing air or moving into a particular space implies ownership of that air or space. Furthermore, all claims to land and natural resources always involve a "radius," around what is labored for. When a person lays claim to land, they don't claim ownership over the house their land is built upon, but the house and the empty land around it. When a person lays claim to a gold mine, they don't lay claim to just the piece of the gold mine they used, but the entire gold mine itself, which they have yet to labor for. If a person lays claim to an oil well, they do not lay claim to the portion of the oil they used, but the entire oil well, including that which they have yet to labor for. All claims to ownership of land and natural resources do not involve labor, but an assertion that, because they used one portion of land or a natural resource that they inherently own the entire whole. The only way that the ambiguity of this "radius," of ownership over natural goods not labored for is by accepting that natural resources may not be owned. Land and natural resources are also a fixed commodities, so that ownership of such means that the initial "land-owners," can exploit people in the future. Theoretically, a caveman with a bucket of paint could run one thousand miles, leaving trails of paint behind. Leaving such paint could be considered, "labor," and this way, he could have gained ownership over an entire continent and then some, because ownership of land always involves an ambiguous "radius," of ownership. If you agree go to question 6. If not, go to question 8.

#6. Non-ownership equates with communal ownership. Because, the determination of property rights is not the justification for why humans should have property, but the proper allocation. The justification for the existence of property is axiomatic: Without property, the human race could not exist. Therefore, non-ownership equates with communal ownership. If you agree, go to question 7. If not, go to question 8.

#7. If you were to establish such property rights under a state of nature, how could anyone assert ownership over even manufactured items? Because such manufactured items' ownership rely upon theft from society. As you agreed in the second question, you must have legitimate ownership of the means of production in order to justifiably own a piece of property. But the means of production are communally-owned; Communism. Just as I cannot own milk from your cow without your permission, I cannot own milk from a cow owned by society without society's permission. If you are now a Socialist, pinch yourself. You are not dreaming, comrade! Capitalism is unethical and Socialism may only rejected on the grounds that it does not accomplish the goal of communal ownership. If you are not a Socialist, go to question 8.

#8. Why not?

[Tungsten]

Pity you didn't hang around "classic liberalism" long enough to realise that there is nothing inherently wrong with communism provided no one was forced to do it.

People who own property don't retain ownership of it forever, only so long as they occupy or work it in some way. If someone abandons their house, then their rights to it should be relinquished after a certain period of time, say seven years.

[Nathyn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 08:52 AM
Pity you didn't hang around "classic liberalism" long enough to realise that there is nothing inherently wrong with communism provided no one was forced to do it.

People who own property don't retain ownership of it forever, only so long as they occupy or work it in some way. If someone abandons their house, then their rights to it should be relinquished after a certain period of time, say seven years.
Did you read the rest of the post? Individual property is completely illegitimate.

Here's one point to make: Often, people such as you talk about "self-ownership" based upon Locke's Two Treatise of Government. Locke argued we own ourselves axiomatically. And if we do not get what we labor for, we are in slavery. Because, under slavery, the fruits of our labor are owned.

Now, the problem is this: His axiomatic argument for self-ownership is baseless. Slavery may be axiomatically rejected on the grounds that no one can own you, without the necessity to believe that you own yourself. Secondly, according to his claims, taxing a portion of what one labors for would be "partial slavery." But what is "partial slavery"? The concept of slavery is not divisible.

Locke, though, expressed Georgism. He said, for instance, that no one should own water from public wells because the water was not labored for. Wouldn't this therefore hold true for all natural resources? And, without inherent ownership of natural resources, individual ownership of goods is illegitimate and Capitalism is unjustifiable.

Also, I fail to understand from a Classical Liberal standpoint, why leaving property over a certain period of time makes you lose ownership over it. Why 7 years? And what of today, where some members of society have so much money that they couldn't possibly use everything they own regularly.

[encephalon]

nice dissection. Now all you have to do is look into reformism vs. revolution and you're all set.

[theraven]

your very first premise is incorrect. labor is the best way to get money but there are other ways. you can inherit it, win it gambaling or be given it as a gift. You own land via your purchase of it. if you let it sit for 20 years thats your choice, your an idiot but maybe you can't do anything with it yet. working the land is not a nescity to owning it.

[Tungsten]

Nathyn

Here's one point to make: Often, people such as you talk about "self-ownership" based upon Locke's Two Treatise of Government. Locke argued we own ourselves axiomatically. And if we do not get what we labor for, we are in slavery. Because, under slavery, the fruits of our labor are owned.

Now, the problem is this: His axiomatic argument for self-ownership is baseless.
How is it baseless?

Slavery may be axiomatically rejected on the grounds that no one can own you, without the necessity to believe that you own yourself.
You ought to read your own writing: "#6. Non-ownership equates with communal ownership." I don't want to be "communally owned" thank you. The chances are it won't be in my private interest, and probably won't be in the interest of anyone but those giving the orders (and mark my words- there will be people giving orders).

Secondly, according to his claims, taxing a portion of what one labors for would be "partial slavery." But what is "partial slavery"? The concept of slavery is not divisible.
That last statement is so ridiculous I had to read it twice. If I take half of your money, you're a slave for half of the time you spent earning that money. If I take all of your money, you're a complete slave. Slavery is very much "divisible", destructive and should be reduced to a minimum, if not abolished altogether (although believing in no taxation whatsoever risks putting us the road to utopianism).

Locke, though, expressed Georgism. He said, for instance, that no one should own water from public wells because the water was not labored for. Wouldn't this therefore hold true for all natural resources?
I'm not a Lockean as such, but no. A natural resource isn't yours unless you mix labour of some kind with it. Since all labour is the product of individuals- whether working together or not- the rewards should remain individual property.

Also, I fail to understand from a Classical Liberal standpoint, why leaving property over a certain period of time makes you lose ownership over it.
For the reason above.

Why 7 years?
No particular reason. That's the number of years a squatter must stay in a particular place before it becomes his legally according to English common law. It's far more sensible that the six months that Blair prick has altered it to. Even then, the property becomes that of the state.

And what of today, where some members of society have so much money that they couldn't possibly use everything they own regularly.
What, in seven years? No, you can't retain ownership indefinitely.

[Avtomatov]

okay, communists do not beleive you only own something if you laboured for it. What happens when you want to trade something with no use-value to you for something that has use-value which is of equal value based on the LTV. Do you not own the thing you bought?

[Nathyn]

Originally posted by theraven+Sep 2 2006, 04:23 PM--> (theraven @ Sep 2 2006, 04:23 PM)your very first premise is incorrect. labor is the best way to get money but there are other ways. you can inherit it, win it gambaling or be given it as a gift. You own land via your purchase of it. if you let it sit for 20 years thats your choice, your an idiot but maybe you can't do anything with it yet. working the land is not a nescity to owning it.[/b]
From a Classical Liberal perspective, the concept is that the only way to initially ethically gain ownership of property is through labor, yet upon gaining ownership, that ownership may be transferred. Some also dispute whether it's possible to transfer ownership, but it was one nuance I never figured out.

However, transferrence of ownership is still irrelevant, because my argument centers around a state of nature. I could revise my original question:


Do you agree that a person can only gain first ownership of something if they labored for it?


Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 06:00 PM
Nathyn

Here's one point to make: Often, people such as you talk about "self-ownership" based upon Locke's Two Treatise of Government. Locke argued we own ourselves axiomatically. And if we do not get what we labor for, we are in slavery. Because, under slavery, the fruits of our labor are owned.

Now, the problem is this: His axiomatic argument for self-ownership is baseless.
How is it baseless?

Slavery may be axiomatically rejected on the grounds that no one can own you, without the necessity to believe that you own yourself.
You ought to read your own writing: "#6. Non-ownership equates with communal ownership." I don't want to be "communally owned" thank you. The chances are it won't be in my private interest, and probably won't be in the interest of anyone but those giving the orders (and mark my words- there will be people giving orders).

Secondly, according to his claims, taxing a portion of what one labors for would be "partial slavery." But what is "partial slavery"? The concept of slavery is not divisible.
That last statement is so ridiculous I had to read it twice. If I take half of your money, you're a slave for half of the time you spent earning that money. If I take all of your money, you're a complete slave. Slavery is very much "divisible", destructive and should be reduced to a minimum, if not abolished altogether (although believing in no taxation whatsoever risks putting us the road to utopianism).

Locke, though, expressed Georgism. He said, for instance, that no one should own water from public wells because the water was not labored for. Wouldn't this therefore hold true for all natural resources?
I'm not a Lockean as such, but no. A natural resource isn't yours unless you mix labour of some kind with it. Since all labour is the product of individuals- whether working together or not- the rewards should remain individual property.

Also, I fail to understand from a Classical Liberal standpoint, why leaving property over a certain period of time makes you lose ownership over it.
For the reason above.

Why 7 years?
No particular reason. That's the number of years a squatter must stay in a particular place before it becomes his legally according to English common law. It's far more sensible that the six months that Blair prick has altered it to. Even then, the property becomes that of the state.

And what of today, where some members of society have so much money that they couldn't possibly use everything they own regularly.
What, in seven years? No, you can't retain ownership indefinitely.
LOL.


Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 11:08 PM

By that
I mean


that they
have a tendency


to do this
annoying fucking shit


instead of
actually logically addressing my argument.
Stop being a quote nazi.

Anyway, to reply:

You did bring up one interesting point, that I don't regard our bodies to be owned, yet didn't consider them to be communally owned. This is, upon immediate observation, a flaw in my argument. However, there is no reason to believe that communal ownership of persons is inherently unjust.

You simply misinterpret the concept to mean, "State ownership," or "Ownership by the majority," for arbitrary reasons. Neither the state nor the majority can exercise arbitrary authority over any person unless it is in the interest of every other person. Because, if the state or the majority acts towards the disadvantage of one person or group, then they are technically asserting "ownership," over the disadvantaged. Authority may only be exercised when it is in the equal interests of all. My proposition is that Capitalism inherently benefits the upper-class and the lower-class. Communists call this "wage-slavery." Socialism itself is not unequal treatment, but removal of unequal treatment; removal of capitalism which benefits the bourgoisie.

To some extent, I would also argue that Classical Liberals believe in communal ownership, such as when John Locke and other Liberals argued that governments have the right to employ persons in carrying out the law if and only if that law benefits all people equally.

Your criticism regarding "half-slavery," is also interesting. However, if you take half of my wages, thereby making me a slave for half of that time, which half would that be? There is no such thing as "partial slavery."

Also, you said "A natural resource isn't yours unless you mix labour of some kind with it," I'd like your opinion on what I said above regarding radius of ownership.

Also, regarding "7 years," if you may exercise authority for no particular reason, what makes your beliefs any better than your perception that Socialism is arbitrary authority?


[email protected] 2 2006, 06:06 PM
okay, communists do not beleive you only own something if you laboured for it. What happens when you want to trade something with no use-value to you for something that has use-value which is of equal value based on the LTV. Do you not own the thing you bought?
Of course they don't. I just used that as a starting point to lead to an argument regarding communal ownership. I, for example, believe in a mixed market for now and a gift economy after the revolution.