Humans are equal to property - capitalists, defend this statement

[IcarusAngel]

Capitalists claim that humans are merely just pieces of property, placing us below even single-celled life forms and to the role of inanimate objects.

How are humans just pieces of property when we're biological beings?

How do humans, being property, come to be considered "better" property than other organisms.? How is it possible that all rights come from being property? And why should humans be considered property when, in the past, humans as "property" has been a disasterous idea?

[Bud Struggle]

Capitalists claim that humans are merely just pieces of property, placing us below even single-celled life forms and to the role of inanimate objects.

How are humans just pieces of property when we're biological beings?

How do humans, being property, come to be considered "better" property than other organisms.? How is it possible that all rights come from being property? And why should humans be considered property when, in the past, humans as "property" has been a disasterous idea?

Could you give a quote source for all of that above? Are you talking about slavery? Anyway, animals are property and biological beings--not that I think there is any comparison between animals and humans.

[mikelepore]

I never heard any capitalism supporters say that humans are only pieces of property. The crazy claim that I've heard capitalism supporters assert is that the capitalists did the most to create society's wealth, by "having good ideas", and that the workers didn't contribute much to the process at all -- "all the workers did was sell their labor". The other thing they say is that the workers are apparently in "agreement" with all conditions, because "it's legal to quit."

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Uh, libertarians refer to humans as property all the time when they talk about "self-ownership." Say a plane crashes in the desert. Over night one of the stronger men builds a little crappy house over the only oasis present for miles. He demands that the others sell their lives for the water. Capitalists argue that this is a legitimate show of nature - not forceful. Nay, they say whatever force is around (state or association) should uphold this contract until it is formally ended by the two parties.

This is actually eerily alike to the theories about the rise of the first states.

What distinguishes the answer (most) capitalists (sound in their own circular beliefs) give to what socialists give is the recognition that third parties don't have to uphold private contracts, that people aren't property (socialism recognizes that labor is dependent on the individual and that property is social), and - from a purely analytical stance - it's batshit crazy.

Say the other people destroy this person's house and drink from the oasis without his approval. A socialist would argue this is a right course of action: after all, the man didn't create the oasis. He just built over it. If a thief took a cow and milked it, would that thief still be entitled to the milk? No. But the capitalist would call these desperate persons despicable for violating his property rights. Some of the more rational ones (social libs and moderates) might justify the action, but they're being hypocrites by saying that you can legitimize such beliefs in most circumstance. Lest I forgot something, the only man capable of making matter from nothing was pitched onto a cross and left to die.

[mikelepore]

There are some mainstream arguments upholding capitalism, which the left needs to debate publicly, during the process of educating the working class, and then there are also some more extreme pro-capitalist factions, less than one percent of the population, who have no social influence. Whomever said that it should be an enforcable contract if people "sell over their lives for water" is a kook. Never mind the kooks. We need to debate the popular arguments that dominate.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

There are some mainstream arguments upholding capitalism, which the left needs to debate publicly, during the process of educating the working class, and then there are also some more extreme pro-capitalist factions, less than one percent of the population, who have no social influence. Whomever said that it should be an enforcable contract if people "sell over their lives for water" is a kook. Never mind the kooks. We need to debate the popular arguments that dominate.

But that example is just a slightly modified example of what capitalism is based around. Instead of selling oneself over to slavery, it's renting oneself.

Expand the environment to be "Earth" and the oasis to be "any natural part of the world."

[pusher robot]

Uh, libertarians refer to humans as property all the time when they talk about "self-ownership." Say a plane crashes in the desert. Over night one of the stronger men builds a little crappy house over the only oasis present for miles. He demands that the others sell their lives for the water. Capitalists argue that this is a legitimate show of nature - not forceful. Nay, they say whatever force is around (state or association) should uphold this contract until it is formally ended by the two parties.

That's a terrible example. The strong man has done nothing to provide a basis for his claim of ownership. If he had dug a well, or purified the water, or even personally undertook the effort of searching for the oasis, he might have some legitimate claim that he mixed his labor with the resources of nature to establish a legitimate claim of ownership. Unless he does something to improve nature, it's still nature and should rightfully be considered a commons.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

That's a terrible example. The strong man has done nothing to provide a basis for his claim of ownership. If he had dug a well, or purified the water, or even personally undertook the effort of searching for the oasis, he might have some legitimate claim that he mixed his labor with the resources of nature to establish a legitimate claim of ownership. Unless he does something to improve nature, it's still nature and should rightfully be considered a commons.

So let's be perfectly clear: property owners have no legitimate claim to natural bodies of water? And trees can't be owned without turning them into something? And backyards must be mowed, trimmed, and watered? You don't have to respond individually. They're all interrelatedly concerns.

In your propertarian viewpoint why does he not have a claim to the oasis? He took the stones (yes, stones appeared in my desert!) and built it around some space. That's labor, and it's certainly an improvement now that the stones act as shelter.

How does taking property from someone, improving it, and then saying it's now yours even chip off the phrase "some legitimate claim?" That's silly talk, silly.

What you're saying is all very neat and polished, but it fails to satisfy the belief that one deserves property for improving it. The example demonstrates why private property can and does use force, even if improvements are made. Unless you're exploiting your own labor's advantages (Karate teacher wanting my watch to teach me how to throw up a defense, or a hunter wanting my shoes to teach me how to shoot), the hierarchy is created by force. Labor is the only source of wealth that derives from the individual. Thus, socialists argue that any property system that allows such advantages (outside of labor) is exploitive. That doesn't mean we live in community homes, with community bathrooms. Land can easily evolve from being a commodity by just refusing to recognize all the benefits of land ownership without a certificate. A system of "use" instead of "ownership" as envisioned by Proudhon would create an economy of individual entrepreneurs and cooperatives.

It's not elementary statistics. The logic is pretty cut and dry.

[JimmyJazz]

I never heard any capitalism supporters say that humans are only pieces of property.

Capitalism treats humans (well, a class of them) as commodities to be traded on a "labor market". It also treats them as capital. And finally, if they have any money, as consumers. The one thing it does not treat them as is ends in themselves. They serve the economy, not the other way around. And "the economy" is really just code for "profits"--which only go to that other class of people.

[pusher robot]

So let's be perfectly clear: property owners have no legitimate claim to natural bodies of water? And trees can't be owned without turning them into something? And backyards must be mowed, trimmed, and watered? You don't have to respond individually. They're all interrelatedly concerns.

There should be some improvement or at least intent to improve.


In your propertarian viewpoint why does he not have a claim to the oasis? He took the stones (yes, stones appeared in my desert!) and built it around some space. That's labor, and it's certainly an improvement now that the stones act as shelter. That's still pretty weak, though it's a better justification than nothing. The real problem with your scenario is that you seem to be assuming a monopoly, whereas noncompetitive monopolies are usually recognized as elements impeding, not contributing to, a free market. So even in your scenario, assuming that the strong man did indeed shelter the oasis, if he assumes control of a true monopoly on water that could be sufficient basis for even a strong free-marketeer to reject his claim of exclusive ownership.


How does taking property from someone, improving it, and then saying it's now yours even chip off the phrase "some legitimate claim?" That's silly talk, silly.Now you seem to be assuming that "someone" owned the oasis to begin with. In your original scenario, it was unowned.


What you're saying is all very neat and polished, but it fails to satisfy the belief that one deserves property for improving it. Eh? How does one "satisfy" a belief? Did you perhaps mean "justify?"


The example demonstrates why private property can and does use force, even if improvements are made.No, it doesn't, because (a) it isn't a plausible scenario, it's a thought experiment, which ipso facto doesn't demonstrate anything about what actually happens in the real world, and (b) even accepting that it does, you haven't demonstrated that force has been used, as understood by the people whose arguments you are attempting to refute.


Unless you're exploiting your own labor's advantages (Karate teacher wanting my watch to teach me how to throw up a defense, or a hunter wanting my shoes to teach me how to shoot), the hierarchy is created by force.
No it isn't.

Labor is the only source of wealth that derives from the individual. No it isn't. Wealth can be created through exchange between individuals for mutual benefit.


It's not elementary statistics. The logic is pretty cut and dry.
I haven't seen you use any actual logic, just a lot of assertions strung together.

[Demogorgon]

That's a terrible example. The strong man has done nothing to provide a basis for his claim of ownership. If he had dug a well, or purified the water, or even personally undertook the effort of searching for the oasis, he might have some legitimate claim that he mixed his labor with the resources of nature to establish a legitimate claim of ownership. Unless he does something to improve nature, it's still nature and should rightfully be considered a commons.

The real world doesn't work that way. In this country there are vast sweeps of virgin land that have never been worked on (apart from the odd electricity pylon being put up), due to the fact that they are unsuitable for building or farming. Yet almost every inch is owned, either by private land owners or "trusts". The philosophical arguments for justifying capitalism may say that unused land should not be considered property, and obviously I agree with it, but it is as plain as day that capitalism does not work that way.

On a wider note, the notion of humans being property comes from the idea of self-ownership which is an absolutely ridiculous idea. That being said the restricted members here are hardly the only ones guilty of believing it. Many members of the CC believe in it also.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Pusher admitting he's wrong? Fughetaboutit!


There should be some improvement or at least intent to improve.

Intent to improve - this is sounding more and more arbitrary by the second.


The real problem with your scenario is that you seem to be assuming a monopoly, whereas noncompetitive monopolies are usually recognized as elements impeding, not contributing to, a free market. So even in your scenario, assuming that the strong man did indeed shelter the oasis, if he assumes control of a true monopoly on water that could be sufficient basis for even a strong free-marketeer to reject his claim of exclusive ownership.

A marketeer doesn't equate to a capitalist. I'm not asking for pro-market sympathies; I'm talking about capitalism.

Furthermore, I'll just edit my statement again. There are three oasis, and ten refugees. Three of the stronger individuals build homes over the three oasis. There you go - competition. You probably won't have to sell yourself into slavery, but you'll be renting out your labor.


Now you seem to be assuming that "someone" owned the oasis to begin with. In your original scenario, it was unowned.

Actually, I never said such a thing. You really shouldn't speak on my behalf. I believe it's controlled by everyone.


Eh? How does one "satisfy" a belief? Did you perhaps mean "justify?"

Frivolous one-line responses like this don't make you look more intelligent.


No, it doesn't, because (a) it isn't a plausible scenario, it's a thought experiment, which ipso facto doesn't demonstrate anything about what actually happens in the real world, and (b) even accepting that it does, you haven't demonstrated that force has been used, as understood by the people whose arguments you are attempting to refute.

You're just being a hypocrite.

I have a hard time believing you think (at least before entering this thread) someone has to mow every blade of grass before it can be considered theirs. Now you're saying they can make it their intent to improve the land. What the hell does that even mean?


No it isn't. Wealth can be created through exchange between individuals for mutual benefit.

You're not creating wealth. You're exchanging it.


I haven't seen you use any actual logic, just a lot of assertions strung together.

Sorry, but you hit a new low when you said "intent to improve." That's akin to something Baconator would use.

[ships-cat]

Where on EARTH are you all getting your definition of "Capitalism" from ? (Let alone "Capitalist").

Capitalism is just the concept of people having the right to possess and/or trade property, goods, or services.. and the right to employ other people: e.g. trade their services for wages.

(As opposed, for example, to the feudal system - where only the ruling lords where allowed to 'own' anything, or to trade, or to employ - or the communist system, where everything is held in trust by a nebulous construct of "the people".)

Meow Purr :)

[Dean]

Capitalists claim that humans are merely just pieces of property, placing us below even single-celled life forms and to the role of inanimate objects.

How are humans just pieces of property when we're biological beings?

How do humans, being property, come to be considered "better" property than other organisms.? How is it possible that all rights come from being property? And why should humans be considered property when, in the past, humans as "property" has been a disasterous idea?

This is one of the primary divergences between capitalist and communist rhetoric. While capitalists see things in terms of efficiency and might, communists are primarily interested in the human being as the sole benefactor in social theory. For this reason, communists have no interests in property rights when they become the cornerstone in an exclusory, humanly disinterested social organization. Communists, rather, seek to uplift and empower the human as their primary goal, and property is irrelevant to this aim. The concept of human property, which capitalism ultimately relies upon, is a grotesque affront to this humanist standard.

[pusher robot]

Pusher admitting he's wrong? Fughetaboutit!

Actually, I've often admitted when I'm wrong or conceded points, as anyone can verify from my posting histroy. Will you admit that you are a liar?


Intent to improve - this is sounding more and more arbitrary by the second.

In what way? Do you not understand the concept of "intent?" Perhaps you'd care to clarify your point?


A marketeer doesn't equate to a capitalist. I'm not asking for pro-market sympathies; I'm talking about capitalism.

Well then perhaps you'd care to specify what you mean by "capitalism" and how it is different from "free markets." It would save us all a lot of time and arguing past one another.

Furthermore, I'll just edit my statement again. There are three oasis, and ten refugees. Three of the stronger individuals build homes over the three oasis. There you go - competition. You probably won't have to sell yourself into slavery, but you'll be renting out your labor.

Ah, but now there is a positive incentive for each owner to provide the water at a cost lower than the others, pushing the price down to approximately the cost of production. That's why a competitive market is so efficient.


Actually, I never said such a thing. You really shouldn't speak on my behalf. I believe it's controlled by everyone.

Well your belief is stupid. It obviously is not in fact controlled by everyone when nobody is controlling it. I'm not prepared to accept your beliefs on the assurance that you believe it really, really hard.

Frivolous one-line responses like this don't make you look more intelligent.
It's not frivolous, I really didn't understand what you were trying to say. See, when language is insufficient for understanding, a listener may often ask for clarification or elucidation. That's called "communication." Since you are unwilling to participate in this process, I can only speculate that your intent is to throw up a mass of words that makes you look good but doesn't really say anything substantive.


You're just being a hypocrite.

Assume that I am. So what?

I have a hard time believing you think (at least before entering this thread) someone has to mow every blade of grass before it can be considered theirs. Now you're saying they can make it their intent to improve the land. What the hell does that even mean?

What do you think it means? It means, if I wish to claim possession of a portion of the commons, then I should at least have a plan of some kind to put it to productive use, as opposed to simply possessing it for the sake of possession.


You're not creating wealth. You're exchanging it.

No, you're wrong. Exchange creates wealth by increasing the efficiency of allocation. This is the consensus view of virtually all economists.


Sorry, but you hit a new low when you said "intent to improve." That's akin to something Baconator would use.

You're just looking for any possible excuse not to have to make substantive replies.

[pusher robot]

This is one of the primary divergences between capitalist and communist rhetoric. While capitalists see things in terms of efficiency and might, communists are primarily interested in the human being as the sole benefactor in social theory. For this reason, communists have no interests in property rights when they become the cornerstone in an exclusory, humanly disinterested social organization. Communists, rather, seek to uplift and empower the human as their primary goal, and property is irrelevant to this aim. The concept of human property, which capitalism ultimately relies upon, is a grotesque affront to this humanist standard.

A fundamental error in logic is committed when the leap is made from "humans own themselves" to "humans are property," because not everything that can be owned is property. Human beings are not property, they are agents. The existence of self-ownership is what makes a human an agent and everything else that is called "property." So the reasoning goes like this:

1. Things that are incapable of self-ownership may be owned by others and these things are called "property."
2. Corollary: things that are capable of self-ownership may not be owned by others.
3. Humans are capable of self-ownership.
4. Therefore, humans are not property and may not be owned by others.

[Self-Owner]

On a wider note, the notion of humans being property comes from the idea of self-ownership which is an absolutely ridiculous idea. That being said the restricted members here are hardly the only ones guilty of believing it. Many members of the CC believe in it also.

In the words of G.A. Cohen (a Marxist!), self-ownership "says that each person enjoys, over herself and her powers, full and exclusive rights of control and use." Now, it seems pretty hard to me to deny this. Who else should have the right of control and use over the body of person A than person A himself?

It's also interesting to note that a lot of Marxist thought seems to be premised on self-ownership, or at least something pretty similar. Capitalists are seen to be acting unjustly because they are expropriating something that is not rightfully theirs - the labour of the workers. But for this to be the case, the labour of the workers must rightly belong to them - and under self ownership (and none of its alternatives) this follows.

[Socialist18]

I never heard any capitalism supporters say that humans are only pieces of property. The crazy claim that I've heard capitalism supporters assert is that the capitalists did the most to create society's wealth, by "having good ideas", and that the workers didn't contribute much to the process at all -- "all the workers did was sell their labor". The other thing they say is that the workers are apparently in "agreement" with all conditions, because "it's legal to quit."
Thats funny because we all know without workers the capitalists would have nothing.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Where on EARTH are you all getting your definition of "Capitalism" from ? (Let alone "Capitalist").

Capitalism is just the concept of people having the right to possess and/or trade property, goods, or services.. and the right to employ other people: e.g. trade their services for wages.

(As opposed, for example, to the feudal system - where only the ruling lords where allowed to 'own' anything, or to trade, or to employ - or the communist system, where everything is held in trust by a nebulous construct of "the people".)

Meow Purr :)

You have a pretty lackluster view of history, but that's typical of capitalist apologists. Lords were not the only ones who owned property. Merchants did as well. There was social mobility under feudalism, albeit far less than today.

The peasantry existed as a consequence of private property. In Russia, for example, when serfdom was abolished the aristocrats contested liberal notions by saying commonfolk resided on their property - it was their right to dismiss or accept their lives.

You're being very "socialist" when you tell me I can't kill a five year old child who wanders on my property!

[Schrödinger's Cat]

In the words of G.A. Cohen (a Marxist!), self-ownership "says that each person enjoys, over herself and her powers, full and exclusive rights of control and use." Now, it seems pretty hard to me to deny this. Who else should have the right of control and use over the body of person A than person A himself?

It's also interesting to note that a lot of Marxist thought seems to be premised on self-ownership, or at least something pretty similar. Capitalists are seen to be acting unjustly because they are expropriating something that is not rightfully theirs - the labour of the workers. But for this to be the case, the labour of the workers must rightly belong to them - and under self ownership (and none of its alternatives) this follows.

None of the alternatives? Yes, the belief that you are yourself (which is biologically verifiable, unlike 'self-ownership') doesn't extend the dependency of labor to the individual. You're making quite an exception by saying you can't sell yourself into slavery under the premise of self-ownership: why not? I can sell anything else I own.:laugh:

The fact you even brought this up has me questioning your priorities: since labor is the only source of wealth tied to the individual (Pusher will adamantly deny anything that contests his superiority, which is why I'm ignoring him as a troll), why does the most prevalent model of business reallocate capital (the product of labor and land) away from the source of labor?

One clue: property.

[Plagueround]

Where on EARTH are you all getting your definition of "Capitalism" from ? (Let alone "Capitalist").

Capitalism is just the concept of people having the right to possess and/or trade property, goods, or services.. and the right to employ other people: e.g. trade their services for wages.


Now that you marginalized capitalism to a simple paragraph, the next step would be to explain why people have the right to own property, and how far those rights extend...which is what this thread is about. Here's what I've been thinking about lately...If all land is owned by someone, and to claim a piece of that land or even a shelter to live in, I have to participate in the capitalist system, then is capitalism truly a "trade" of wages for services, or is it not as voluntary as you claim?

[Bud Struggle]

Now that you marginalized capitalism to a simple paragraph, the next step would be to explain why people have the right to own property, and how far those rights extend...which is what this thread is about. Here's what I've been thinking about lately...If all land is owned by someone, and to claim a piece of that land or even a shelter to live in, I have to participate in the capitalist system, then is capitalism truly a "trade" of wages for services, or is it not as voluntary as you claim?

Capitalism is as voluntary as breathing. You can't actually exist in society with participation in Capitalism. I suppose you can live and "extra legal" life scavaging around the outskirts of society to to date that area has been the sole province of the mentally ill.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Capitalism is as voluntary as breathing. You can't actually exist in society with participation in Capitalism. I suppose you can live and "extra legal" life scavaging around the outskirts of society to to date that area has been the sole province of the mentally ill.

That's not true. Exclusive use of space requires force, otherwise "use" (as Proudhon described it) would take precedent. It's not natural to exclude people from large plots of land.

[ships-cat]

Hmmm... interesting points...

I would, however, suggest that Capitalism per se does not describe the specific legal or moral issues of how "ownership" occurs. It merely describes a society under which ownership is not FORBIDDEN to the general populace at large.

There are other mechanisms that might produce a phillosphy of "humans are equall to property", as per the OP. These mechanisms may operate in a Capitalist environment, but it is erronous to blame capitalism for the consequences.

Sharks swim in the ocean. If you get bitten, do you blame the water ?

woof woof:p

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Sharks swim in the ocean. If you get bitten, do you blame the water ?

Meow Purr.

No i blame the tossers who let them near normal people.

[ships-cat]

Excellent Comrade Joe, so either
1) you agree that Capitalism - per se - is not a repressive or reactionary force
2) you didn't read the previous posts ?

Vote now... our operators are waiting to take your call. :D

woof woof:p

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Excellent Comrade Joe, so either
1) you agree that Capitalism - per se - is not a repressive or reactionary force
2) you didn't read the previous posts ?

Vote now... our operators are waiting to take your call. :D

woof woof:p

Your post surgests that there will always be people who look to minipulate others for there own gain. I was pointing out that person should be kept away from normal people like somone who causes harm by going on a killing spree and try to remove the social conditions which cause people to minipulate / go on killing sprees.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

woof woof:p
Hello Garry back to your own games of barking at people under the age of consent again?

http://img.mp3fiesta.com/covers/70/7015/art_7015_big.jpg

[ships-cat]

The point of my metaphor was to illustrate the fallacy of blaming "Capitalism" for the social problems that can exist in some "capitalist societies".

Your introduction of Gary Glitter to the equation looks rather like Trolling.

Meow Purr.

[pusher robot]

Pusher will adamantly deny anything that contests his superiority, which is why I'm ignoring him as a troll

What, I'm a "troll" because I take a contrary position? You do realize what forum you're posting in, yes?

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

The point of my metaphor was to illustrate the fallacy of blaming "Capitalism" for the social problems that can exist in some "capitalist societies".

Your introduction of Gary Glitter to the equation looks rather like Trolling.

Meow Purr.

Capitalism has a habit of imperialism/free market capitalism because thats what makes profit.

Thereforth in a system which the driveing force is profit these things which fuck alot of the world over will occur.


And garry glitter was a joke. (I could have done alot worse if i wanted to troll)

[Luís Henrique]

In the words of G.A. Cohen (a Marxist!), self-ownership "says that each person enjoys, over herself and her powers, full and exclusive rights of control and use." Now, it seems pretty hard to me to deny this. Who else should have the right of control and use over the body of person A than person A himself?

If people had actually full rights of control and use over themselves, then people would have the "right" to sell themselves into slavery.

But people do not have the right to sell themselves into slavery, which means that people do not have full rights of control and use over themselves.

Which is to say, in a capitalist society, people are not property, either of themselves or of others.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Capitalism is as voluntary as breathing. You can't actually exist in society with participation in Capitalism.

That.

It is a totally coercitive system.

Luís Henrique

[ships-cat]

Capitalism has a habit of imperialism/free market capitalism because thats what makes profit.

Thereforth in a system which the driveing force is profit these things which fuck alot of the world over will occur.


And garry glitter was a joke. (I could have done alot worse if i wanted to troll)

Strictly speaking, the term 'capitalist' has got nothing to do with the concept of profit.

I always thought that 'free market' simply meant a system whereby there where no state controls on prices, and they could 'float' freely ? (usually associated with the theory of supply and demand).

I'm not sure what you mean by the term "imperialist capitalism".

Non of these thus far account for a system where "humans are merely just pieces of property" ... that would probably relate to state legislation on property which - as I understood it - had nothing to do with the concept of capitalisation itself.

woof woof:p

[revolution inaction]

Capitalism is a system where a minority called capitalists own the means of production, and the majority (the workers) are forced to exchange there labour for money.
A free market is not actually necessary to capitalism, and will often be against the interests of some of the capitalists.

[Dean]

Strictly speaking, the term 'capitalist' has got nothing to do with the concept of profit.

I always thought that 'free market' simply meant a system whereby there where no state controls on prices, and they could 'float' freely ? (usually associated with the theory of supply and demand).
Strictly speaking, they're not the same thing. Capitalism is an orientation of economic activity interested in accumulating capital, or profit.


I'm not sure what you mean by the term "imperialist capitalism".
Probably Mercantalism, which is widely credited as helping to form capitalism.


Non of these thus far account for a system where "humans are merely just pieces of property" ... that would probably relate to state legislation on property which - as I understood it - had nothing to do with the concept of capitalisation itself.
That describes contemporary capitalism, and specifically how such a society treats its members. Because all material is at the whim of forces interested in the profit motive, including materials required for life, the life of the human himself must be oriented toward profit. If a human fails in this manner, they will not survive. In effect, the life of the human being becomes nothing but a vassal for the usage of Capital, and this is true for nearly all people in a capitalist system, from workers to CEOs (with varying forces which act to instill capitalist values).

[Decolonize The Left]

A fundamental error in logic is committed when the leap is made from "humans own themselves" to "humans are property," because not everything that can be owned is property.

Actually, a fundamental error in logic occurs when something can own itself, as this has already implied that a self is actually two: one owner, and one object/property.


Human beings are not property, they are agents. The existence of self-ownership is what makes a human an agent and everything else that is called "property." So the reasoning goes like this:

1. Things that are incapable of self-ownership may be owned by others and these things are called "property."
2. Corollary: things that are capable of self-ownership may not be owned by others.
3. Humans are capable of self-ownership.
4. Therefore, humans are not property and may not be owned by others.

Really? Your whole argument for property hinges on "the existence of self-ownership" which you have posited without justification, which I have demonstrated is nonsensical and illogical? Uh oh...

- August

[Schrödinger's Cat]

There's a bad habit of assumption in capitalism:

- Self-ownership (unverifiable)
- Belief that land is tied to the individual (unverifiable)
- Belief that only physical violence constitutes force (obviously wrong)

[Bud Struggle]

There's a bad habit of assumption in capitalism:

- Self-ownership (unverifiable)
- Belief that land is tied to the individual (unverifiable)
- Belief that only physical violence constitutes force (obviously wrong)

1.) Does anyone reall understand all of that let alone care?
2.) Deeds spell all that out.
3.) There are all kinds of force.

[Self-Owner]

If people had actually full rights of control and use over themselves, then people would have the "right" to sell themselves into slavery.

But people do not have the right to sell themselves into slavery, which means that people do not have full rights of control and use over themselves.

Luís Henrique

You're confusing positive and normative statements here. When I say that people have self ownership, I don't mean in fact that every single person ever to exist in the world is a self owner - the existence of involuntary slavery in the past is enough to show this. No, I mean that people should be self owners.

To put it another way, if someone told you that everyone has a right to healthcare, you wouldn't say "No they don't; people in the US, for instance, don't have universal health care" because if you did, you'd be missing the point.

[Self-Owner]

None of the alternatives? Yes, the belief that you are yourself (which is biologically verifiable, unlike 'self-ownership') doesn't extend the dependency of labor to the individual. You're making quite an exception by saying you can't sell yourself into slavery under the premise of self-ownership: why not? I can sell anything else I own.:laugh:

Why is there any contradiction in saying both that you are yourself and that you own yourself? 'You are yourself' is a statement of identity, and 'you own yourself' is a moral claim. There's no incompatibility there.

And no, you still haven't answered my question at all: if self-ownership, as I stated it earlier, is false, then either someone (or group) has rightful control over your own body, or no one does. If no one does, I think you'll find staying alive pretty difficult. And if some other person or group owns you, congratulations - you've just justified slavery! So I'd love to know which it is.


The fact you even brought this up has me questioning your priorities: since labor is the only source of wealth tied to the individual (Pusher will adamantly deny anything that contests his superiority, which is why I'm ignoring him as a troll), why does the most prevalent model of business reallocate capital (the product of labor and land) away from the source of labor?



I don't think capitalism does reallocate capital away from the source of labour. Laborers in modern capitalist societies personally own more capital than any other laborers in human history.


There's a bad habit of assumption in capitalism:

- Self-ownership (unverifiable)
- Belief that land is tied to the individual (unverifiable)
- Belief that only physical violence constitutes force (obviously wrong)

Maybe all these statements are unverifiable (luckily, I'm not a logical positivist so I don't think this really matters.) But what you ignore is that this is true for any other system of ethics, even yours. You think that the proletariat should own the means of production? Tough shit, because it's unverifiable.

Marx was smarter than this: he thought that all morality was bourgeois and therefore of dubious character. Of course, he didn't really see the need to use moral arguments because he thought communism was inevitable anyway. You, on the other hand (unless you actually believe the rise of communism is still inevitable) have no such luxury - it will certainly take some arguing for. You had better start using some 'unverifiable' moral statements of your own if you want to make your case.

[Self-Owner]

Actually, a fundamental error in logic occurs when something can own itself, as this has already implied that a self is actually two: one owner, and one object/property.



Really? Your whole argument for property hinges on "the existence of self-ownership" which you have posited without justification, which I have demonstrated is nonsensical and illogical? Uh oh...

- August

All you have demonstrated is that you don't understand logic. Ownership is a two place relation which holds between people and ownable things. There is no logical reason why two place relations cannot have the same thing on both sides; there are plenty of examples (for instance, 'being the same height as' - everything is precisely the same height as itself). Unless you're blithely assuming your conclusion, that ownership is irreflexive, you haven't shown anything.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

1.) Does anyone reall understand all of that let alone care?
2.) Deeds spell all that out.
3.) There are all kinds of force.

1.) Capitalists do. They try to excuse wage slavery through it.
2.) Deeds don't me jackshit. Deeds spelled out slavery.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

And no, you still haven't answered my question at all: if self-ownership, as I stated it earlier, is false, then either someone (or group) has rightful control over your own body, or no one does. If no one does, I think you'll find staying alive pretty difficult.What the fuck kind of hogshit logic is this? If nobody owns me, staying alive is difficult? How about nobody owns me because I'm not a commodity. Are you that dense of an apologist for slavery?


And if some other person or group owns you, congratulations - you've just justified slavery! So I'd love to know which it is.Hey sucker - if you believe in self-ownership, slavery falls under the same category as selling labor. If you contract with me and sign away your rights, you broke no principle of "self-ownership." Worse still: when siezing on unpaid debt, now that you trivialized humans into becoming property, we can re-invent debters' prisons.


Laborers in modern capitalist societies personally own more capital than any other laborers in human history.Excluding primitive society, perhaps. So what? Owning more doesn't mean it's enough. Even conservative capitalists understand that whenever they complain about taxation "stealing money from the rich."


You think that the proletariat should own the means of production? Tough shit, because it's unverifiable.Yes, it's unverifiable that my scenario between the stranded airplane passengers and the oasis creates force when you extend capitalist "rights" into the equation. You're just another troll, aren't you? :rolleyes:


You, on the other hand (unless you actually believe the rise of communism is still inevitable) have no such luxury - it will certainly take some arguing for. You had better start using some 'unverifiable' moral statements of your own if you want to make your case.Where did I say communism is inevitable? Answer: I didn't.

Even for a capitalist apologist your logic fails to satisfy (Satisfy, Pusher! Hear me say it again!) any remote sense of logic. :laugh:

[Decolonize The Left]

Ownership is a two place relation which holds between people and ownable things.

Indeed. Now how is a person, who we have already agreed is an agent, an "ownable thing?"


There is no logical reason why two place relations cannot have the same thing on both sides; there are plenty of examples (for instance, 'being the same height as' - everything is precisely the same height as itself).

Do you read what you write before clicking "submit reply?"

Let's do this slowly, using your supposed 'logic:'
"I am the same height as me."

The above statement, which you have claimed is plenty logical, is incoherent, nonsensical, and ungrammatical.

You can see how you do not understand how to use language. Something cannot be the same measurement as itself, as using the word "same" already implies that there are two things which are being compared. One cannot compare oneself to oneself, for this is not a comparison.

Hence, by extension, one cannot be both an agent and an "ownable thing." One is one or the other.

- August

[Schrödinger's Cat]

What I'm getting out of all this is that humans are somehow ownable, yet not like anything else that is ownable, just 'cuz. :rolleyes:

[Self-Owner]

What the fuck kind of hogshit logic is this? If nobody owns me, staying alive is difficult? How about nobody owns me because I'm not a commodity. Are you that dense of an apologist for slavery?

Hey sucker - if you believe in self-ownership, slavery falls under the same category as selling labor. If you contract with me and sign away your rights, you broke no principle of "self-ownership." Worse still: when siezing on unpaid debt, now that you trivialized humans into becoming property, we can re-invent debters' prisons.

Excluding primitive society, perhaps. So what? Owning more doesn't mean it's enough. Even conservative capitalists understand that whenever they complain about taxation "stealing money from the rich."

Yes, it's unverifiable that my scenario between the stranded airplane passengers and the oasis creates force when you extend capitalist "rights" into the equation. You're just another troll, aren't you? :rolleyes:

Where did I say communism is inevitable? Answer: I didn't.

Even for a capitalist apologist your logic fails to satisfy (Satisfy, Pusher! Hear me say it again!) any remote sense of logic. :laugh:

I don't like these one line responses so I think I'll number your points instead:

1) X owns Y means, simply that X has the exclusive right to control Y. It has nothing to do with commodification, at least in the way I (and most libertarians) use the term. So if you don't own your own body, and no one else owns it, it means that no one has the right to control it. Therefore you have absolutely no right to perform any action, no matter how trivial. Someone needs to have the right to control your body, and libertarians say it should be you.

2) I'm not sure that people shouldn't be able to sell themselves into indentured service. It's a shitty thing for someone to have to do, but if they really think it's better than the alternative then why not? Note that this differs from slavery in one important respect: the children of someone who does this would not be slaves, because they are also self owners.

3) You said that '[capitalism] reallocates capital... away from the source of labour.' It's clearly not doing it very well if workers have more capital than they ever have done in the past.

4) If you read what I wrote (I know I might use some big words) you'll see that I explicitly said you have to make moral claims unless you believe that capitalism is inevitable, the implication clearly being that you don't.

And on a personal note, do you actually want to try and have a discussion or do you just want to rant to anyone who's reading? I mean, I read your posts before I say anything, but from what you just wrote I don't think the same is true for you.

[Self-Owner]

Indeed. Now how is a person, who we have already agreed is an agent, an "ownable thing?'

Because property rights are statements about who has the right to exclusively control something, and it's pretty clear (at least to me) that the only person who has the right to control you is you.



Do you read what you write before clicking "submit reply?"

Let's do this slowly, using your supposed 'logic:'
"I am the same height as me."

The above statement, which you have claimed is plenty logical, is incoherent, nonsensical, and ungrammatical.

You can see how you do not understand how to use language. Something cannot be the same measurement as itself, as using the word "same" already implies that there are two things which are being compared. One cannot compare oneself to oneself, for this is not a comparison.

Hence, by extension, one cannot be both an agent and an "ownable thing." One is one or the other.

- August

Look up a reflexive relation on wikipedia. If you don't like that example, the predicate 'x is x' is always true.