Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Crucial omissions in Ayn Rand's theory?

Fabian_CH
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2011 4:50:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I've been learning about Ayn Rand and Objectivism. I've ordered several of her books, but haven't gotten to reading any of them yet - so perhaps my knowlege is simply incomplete.

But it seems to me that while almost everything she says is true (some things I'm not quite sure on, I guess the question is whether Ayn Rand is inconsistent on them, or I am), it seems to me that as far as her political theory, there is one glaring omission.

She identifies the two political philosophies as collectivism and individualism. I'm on board so far; BUT that seems to neglect one group of people. Those who are not honest actors. Those who seek to abuse Government power, who seek to establish for themselves Government monopolies. You might call them modern aristocrats, or simply Monopolists. In the Randian style, you could say they're "rich looters".
They're the people who give capitalism a bad rep, they're the ones people perhaps think of when they hear Ayn Rand calling selfishness a virtue.

Mind you, she discusses them, and they feature prominently in her novels from what I can tell. It just seems to me that she totally neglects them in her political theory. Wouldn't it be important to mention that? It just seems that people confuse actual capitalists with these "Monopolists" far too often.

What do you think? Am I simply thinking too much and complaining about something that isn't actually a problem in Ayn Rand's philosophy?
"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2011 6:45:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/19/2011 4:50:54 AM, Fabian_CH wrote:

She identifies the two political philosophies as collectivism and individualism. I'm on board so far; BUT that seems to neglect one group of people. Those who are not honest actors. Those who seek to abuse Government power, who seek to establish for themselves Government monopolies. You might call them modern aristocrats, or simply Monopolists. In the Randian style, you could say they're "rich looters".
They're the people who give capitalism a bad rep, they're the ones people perhaps think of when they hear Ayn Rand calling selfishness a virtue.

You are talking about the end product of an ideology, not the ideology itself. It could arise from collectivist notions, ideals of pragmatism, interventionism etc. The issue of looters is one more of individual epistemology applied to ethics, the problems of which are talked about fairly extensively. Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal deals with coercive monopolies, anti trust and so on.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2011 7:02:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Good eye.

There are three aspects of ideology: Autonomy(individualism), Democracy(collectivism) and hierarchy(the aristocrats of which you spake). http://www.debate.org...

Rand's over-looking of hierarchy is precisely why her ideology--ahem, religion--still does not have freedom for it is consumed by it.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2011 8:35:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/19/2011 7:31:32 AM, Puck wrote:
Forgot to add the term she uses is Bureaucrat for what you are describing.

The OP referred to, "Those who seek to abuse Government power, who seek to establish for themselves Government monopolies. You might call them modern aristocrats, or simply Monopolists." This applies not only to bureaucrats but capitalists themselves. Property itself is a government monopoly. You can take away the "government" but uphold the same concept through "protective agencies" ready to use force to establish this monopoly. It's the same thing. And yes Rand conveniently ignores this in her political philosophy.

Overall I find this ideology to be self-refuting in a lot of ways.
President of DDO
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2011 2:02:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/19/2011 8:23:42 AM, TheSkeptic wrote:
Why Rand when you can read Nozick ;(?

Why read Nozick when you can read Rothbard and Hoppe?
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2011 2:03:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
. Property itself is a government monopoly.

Not in the same sense. It is not granted by government, but protected by it (except where it is violated of course). Whether a government grants title does not however determine whether something is property. The mixing of labor in the absence of previous property does.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2011 2:06:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/19/2011 8:35:30 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 3/19/2011 7:31:32 AM, Puck wrote:
Forgot to add the term she uses is Bureaucrat for what you are describing.

The OP referred to, "Those who seek to abuse Government power, who seek to establish for themselves Government monopolies. You might call them modern aristocrats, or simply Monopolists." This applies not only to bureaucrats but capitalists themselves. Property itself is a government monopoly. You can take away the "government" but uphold the same concept through "protective agencies" ready to use force to establish this monopoly. It's the same thing. And yes Rand conveniently ignores this in her political philosophy.

Overall I find this ideology to be self-refuting in a lot of ways.

Property doesn't need protection to be property. In fact, there are pacifist ancaps who think there shouldn't be any protective agencies, or any violence whatsoever. http://mises.org...
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2011 2:13:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/19/2011 7:31:32 AM, Puck wrote:
Forgot to add the term she uses is Bureaucrat for what you are describing.

I don't recall that term being centrally used (Though the lexicon quotes a businessmen/bureaucrat dichotomy twice). If so it's a poor one, as the term bureaucrat has historical definitions that would confuse people by attaching itself also to a minarchist government.

I think "aristocracy of pull" is better.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Fabian_CH
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2011 5:06:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/19/2011 8:23:42 AM, TheSkeptic wrote:
Why Rand when you can read Nozick ;(?

Why limit yourself when you have decades to read up on everything that interests you? Have to start somewhere...
"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2011 4:23:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/19/2011 2:03:35 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
. Property itself is a government monopoly.

Not in the same sense. It is not granted by government, but protected by it (except where it is violated of course).

If it is not granted by the government, then who/what is it granted by? You cannot just say something outside yourself belongs to you have POOF have it be a right. I can say I have the right to have sex with Kate Beckinsale but that doesn't make it true. Property is only a right because people agree that it is. I disagree with property rights... now what?

Whether a government grants title does not however determine whether something is property. The mixing of labor in the absence of previous property does.

I can just as easily say the mixing of labor in the absence of previous property does not make something property. So yeah.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2011 4:25:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/19/2011 2:06:04 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Property doesn't need protection to be property. In fact, there are pacifist ancaps who think there shouldn't be any protective agencies, or any violence whatsoever. http://mises.org...

I'm saying property is a concept and not an inherent right. I'm also saying that Ragnar is basically just saying "This is what makes something property" as if his opinion (or Rand's, Nozick's or Rothbards) is the be-all and end-all of the discussion. You have your theories on property just like I have mine, just like Locke had his, just like Henry George had his, etc.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2011 4:26:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/19/2011 2:02:47 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Why read Nozick when you can read Rothbard and Hoppe?

Why read Rothbard when you could slit your wrists?
President of DDO
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2011 8:03:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/22/2011 4:23:45 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 3/19/2011 2:03:35 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
. Property itself is a government monopoly.

Not in the same sense. It is not granted by government, but protected by it (except where it is violated of course).

If it is not granted by the government, then who/what is it granted by?
One grants it to oneself by mixing one's labor.

Property is only a right because people agree that it is.
No, they only agree with it because they already think it a right for other reasons.

I disagree with property rights... now what?
Now nothing relevant differs. Obama's views on weed do not alter your property rights in your lungs and your weed. They alter whether he respects them.


Whether a government grants title does not however determine whether something is property. The mixing of labor in the absence of previous property does.

I can just as easily say the mixing of labor in the absence of previous property does not make something property.
That's what the word property here refers to-- "Objects, intellectual works or other resources which one has applied labor to create or alter in the absence of a claim by a prior laborer, or which were granted to one by the person who did so." That's the definition for my purposes-- do you have a better definition of property? Not shorter or simpler mind you, just better. The question if you do not is whether you believe that respecting this property is a good plan, not whether you believe it is property. I argue that it is because we have a reciprocal need to produce material things to support our several existences, and if you act to prevent me from supporting mine in this manner, I am now motivated to destroy you-- previous to your act, I was motivated to leave you alone to avoid precisely the same treatment, not to mention motivated to trade with you to mutual benefit, considering all the goodies trade gets me, like this computer.

If you do not respect property, then why precisely do you think one person should not rape another, let alone why do you think I should not steal your computer?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2011 9:10:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/22/2011 4:26:15 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 3/19/2011 2:02:47 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Why read Nozick when you can read Rothbard and Hoppe?

Why read Rothbard when you could slit your wrists?

Learning something vs. suicide... Hmm....
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2011 5:43:36 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/22/2011 9:10:26 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/22/2011 4:26:15 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 3/19/2011 2:02:47 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Why read Nozick when you can read Rothbard and Hoppe?

Why read Rothbard when you could slit your wrists?

Learning something vs. suicide... Hmm....

Cake or death?
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2011 5:43:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/23/2011 5:43:36 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 3/22/2011 9:10:26 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/22/2011 4:26:15 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 3/19/2011 2:02:47 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Why read Nozick when you can read Rothbard and Hoppe?

Why read Rothbard when you could slit your wrists?

Learning something vs. suicide... Hmm....

Cake or death?
Cake please
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2011 5:44:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/23/2011 5:43:57 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 3/23/2011 5:43:36 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 3/22/2011 9:10:26 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/22/2011 4:26:15 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 3/19/2011 2:02:47 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Why read Nozick when you can read Rothbard and Hoppe?

Why read Rothbard when you could slit your wrists?

Learning something vs. suicide... Hmm....

Cake or death?
Cake please

We're all out of cake. We didn't expect there'd be so much demand...
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2011 5:45:15 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/23/2011 5:44:31 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 3/23/2011 5:43:57 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 3/23/2011 5:43:36 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 3/22/2011 9:10:26 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/22/2011 4:26:15 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 3/19/2011 2:02:47 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Why read Nozick when you can read Rothbard and Hoppe?

Why read Rothbard when you could slit your wrists?

Learning something vs. suicide... Hmm....

Cake or death?
Cake please

We're all out of cake. We didn't expect there'd be so much demand...

So my options are "or death?"
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2011 5:45:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/23/2011 5:45:15 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 3/23/2011 5:44:31 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 3/23/2011 5:43:57 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 3/23/2011 5:43:36 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 3/22/2011 9:10:26 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/22/2011 4:26:15 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 3/19/2011 2:02:47 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Why read Nozick when you can read Rothbard and Hoppe?

Why read Rothbard when you could slit your wrists?

Learning something vs. suicide... Hmm....

Cake or death?
Cake please

We're all out of cake. We didn't expect there'd be so much demand...

So my options are "or death?"

Yes
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2011 5:45:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/23/2011 5:45:35 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 3/23/2011 5:45:15 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 3/23/2011 5:44:31 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 3/23/2011 5:43:57 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 3/23/2011 5:43:36 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 3/22/2011 9:10:26 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/22/2011 4:26:15 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 3/19/2011 2:02:47 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Why read Nozick when you can read Rothbard and Hoppe?

Why read Rothbard when you could slit your wrists?

Learning something vs. suicide... Hmm....

Cake or death?
Cake please

We're all out of cake. We didn't expect there'd be so much demand...

So my options are "or death?"

Yes

In that case I'll have the chicken.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2011 9:48:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/22/2011 8:03:55 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

The question if you do not is whether you believe that respecting this property is a good plan, not whether you believe it is property.

I noticed that your definition of property conveniently included intellectual works; however, it's widely debated whether or not intellectual property is property -- so once again, just because Ragnar defines something as such does not necessarily make it so.

I argue that it is because we have a reciprocal need to produce material things to support our several existences, and if you act to prevent me from supporting mine in this manner, I am now motivated to destroy you-- previous to your act, I was motivated to leave you alone to avoid precisely the same treatment, not to mention motivated to trade with you to mutual benefit, considering all the goodies trade gets me, like this computer.

First, the idea that you have the right to "destroy me" is only based on your perception that I have violated your rights to begin with. Second I see no discrepancy for why you could not produce things to support yourself in an anarcho-syndicalist society, for example. Capitalism is not the only system that allows for this.

If you do not respect property, then why precisely do you think one person should not rape another, let alone why do you think I should not steal your computer?

The leap from property to rape is more than far-fetched. It's not contradictory to believe one has the right to govern their own person yet does not have the right to legislate a land monopoly. Also, semantics aside, there's a difference between property and possession in political philosophy.
President of DDO
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2011 2:22:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/23/2011 9:48:23 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 3/22/2011 8:03:55 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

The question if you do not is whether you believe that respecting this property is a good plan, not whether you believe it is property.

I noticed that your definition of property conveniently included intellectual works
Yes, that's a consequence of defining property in terms of creation.

however, it's widely debated whether or not intellectual property is property
This, however, is not an argument.


I argue that it is because we have a reciprocal need to produce material things to support our several existences, and if you act to prevent me from supporting mine in this manner, I am now motivated to destroy you-- previous to your act, I was motivated to leave you alone to avoid precisely the same treatment, not to mention motivated to trade with you to mutual benefit, considering all the goodies trade gets me, like this computer.

First, the idea that you have the right to "destroy me"
I didn't say I had a right to destroy you. I said I had a motivation to destroy you that I did not have before.

Second I see no discrepancy for why you could not produce things to support yourself in an anarcho-syndicalist society, for example.
Because the syndicate would take them.

If you do not respect property, then why precisely do you think one person should not rape another, let alone why do you think I should not steal your computer?

The leap from property to rape is more than far-fetched.
Why? the reasons I don't rape the nearest attractive female are the SAME reasons I don't take her material goods. If you had reasons for the same nonrape before your relationship with Vi that aren't also reasons to leave someone's material goods alone, name them.

It's not contradictory to believe one has the right to govern their own person yet does not have the right to legislate a land monopoly.
Their person can't exist if every time they grow a crop somewhere someone tramples it because their property right as a result of planting isn't respected.

Also, semantics aside, there's a difference between property and possession in political philosophy.
Did I suggest the contrary?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2011 3:26:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/23/2011 2:22:03 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Yes, that's a consequence of defining property in terms of creation.

So you're admitting that one cannot define something any way they want and have that be the be-all and end-all of the discussion. I can omit the word creation from your proposition as many capitalists do and then IP wouldn't be property as a consequence of me omitting the term. IP is only valid to you because you support creation justification, but invalid to those who support a scarcity justification.

Some define property as the product of labor upon natural resources and assert that land itself cannot be property. Frédéric Bastiat says property is not a physical object, but rather as a relationship between people with respect to an object. Benjamin Tucker posits that only when items are relatively scarce with respect to people's desires do they become property. So again, what's stopping me from saying these are the correct interpretations, and you're simply choosing to respect it or not?

however, it's widely debated whether or not intellectual property is property
This, however, is not an argument.

It was in juxtaposition to my point that the parameters of what constitutes as property is disputed. That's like me copying and pasting half your sentence and then saying it's not a sentence.

I didn't say I had a right to destroy you. I said I had a motivation to destroy you that I did not have before.

Oh so we're talking about motivations and not rights? In capitalism, there is motivation to destroy the capitalist. What's your point?

Second I see no discrepancy for why you could not produce things to support yourself in an anarcho-syndicalist society, for example.
Because the syndicate would take them.

Notice that I said anarcho-syndicalism, meaning one would have to opt into letting the syndicate take anything (if the syndicate were to at all) in an anarchist society. It's no different than saying a landlord "takes" your money in an an-cap society.

The leap from property to rape is more than far-fetched.
Why? the reasons I don't rape the nearest attractive female are the SAME reasons I don't take her material goods. If you had reasons for the same nonrape before your relationship with Vi that aren't also reasons to leave someone's material goods alone, name them.

Self-ownership is pretty much axiomatic, but it is not synonymous to the kind of property you are talking about. The connection between self-ownership and property rights is usually described as follows: If a person owns themselves, they own their actions, including those that create or improve resources. Therefore, they own their own labor and the fruits thereof. Proudhon agrees with that statement and yet does not share your conception of property rights.

Philosophically speaking, the human body is a valuable source for obtaining knowledge and producing labor but cannot be treated as a mere instrument or physical property. The "moral status of human body parts" is a huge branch of ethical philosophy that I don't have the time or inclination to seriously delve into here.

One could say property is that which is alienable to you, and the self is not therefore does not constitute as property. As I said there are a number of approaches, though I think that goes a little OT.

It's not contradictory to believe one has the right to govern their own person yet does not have the right to legislate a land monopoly.
Their person can't exist if every time they grow a crop somewhere someone tramples it because their property right as a result of planting isn't respected.

I've been trying to avoid semantics but I dunno if it can be done, hence why I offered possession vs. property. In short there are various theories that suggest if you are planting a crop, that it's your "property" (possession) and nobody has the right to take or destroy it. This concept offers a lot of protections and rights that property does.

Also, semantics aside, there's a difference between property and possession in political philosophy.
Did I suggest the contrary?

Yeah, or you seem ignorant to it at least.
President of DDO
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2011 6:07:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/23/2011 3:26:30 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 3/23/2011 2:22:03 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Yes, that's a consequence of defining property in terms of creation.

So you're admitting that one cannot define something any way they want and have that be the be-all and end-all of the discussion.
I already asked if you had a better definition. Go on.

I can omit the word creation from your proposition as many capitalists do
I should hope they make their own damn definition. Omitting the word creation clause(, and to quicken things along also omitting IP-related terms) from my definition gives us: "Objects or other resources... in the absence of a claim by a prior laborer, or which were granted to one by the person who did so."
In other words, we have something that doesn't tell us how to get there. It even changes the meaning of the word has, because the word "Has" in my sentence didn't make sense without the creation clause. In other words, without creation, unless you introduce something new that isn't in my definition, you get the usual strawman "HAHA I CLAIM EVERYTHING AND DONT HAVE TO DO ANYTHING TO DO SO."

It was in juxtaposition to my point that the parameters of what constitutes as property is disputed. That's like me copying and pasting half your sentence and then saying it's not a sentence.

"however, it's widely debated whether or not intellectual property is property"

THAT was in juxtaposition to a point that there is a dispute over definition? THATS EXACTLY THE CONTENT I QUOTED. If you repeated yourself with something broader, then why do I need both? If I quote something you say there is a dispute and you say "Well, that's not an argument, you missed this other part where I say there is a dispute on the same basic issue", I DIDNT MISS ANYTHING. The point is, SAYING THE DEFINITION IS DISPUTED IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. Is the definition disputed? Great, then DISPUTE IT. Propose a better one.

Oh so we're talking about motivations and not rights?
Considering how I already laid out the reason the motivations in question are the source of "rights" (proper limits on behavior toward other people...) that's like saying "Oh, we're talking about numbers and not addition?" In order to add, we need numbers to add.

In capitalism, there is motivation to destroy the capitalist.
That has no comparability to my point. Motivation by whom that wasn't already motivated to destroy the capitalist, let alone was specifically motivated to NOT do so? Is the motivation in question rational? What the hell do you mean by "The capitalist?" Is this person someone who exists in the absence of capitalism?

What's your point?
If the source of your motivation to refrain from destroying me is the fact that I and others will reciprocate if you continue that refrain, and it works both ways, that's a pretty good reason to refrain from destroying someone-- or the other mutual conditions of existence, such as freedom of action or the fruits of one's labor.

Notice that I said anarcho-syndicalism, meaning one would have to opt into letting the syndicate take anything
Then what's the point of having an anarcho syndicate as opposed to capitalism (Which permits private communes)? And how is it that it my consent is a necessary condition of the syndicate taking something if anyone can form a syndicate and no one stops those syndicates from taking things (the usual anarchist problem)?

It's no different than saying a landlord "takes" your money in an an-cap society
Remember, I'm not an ancap. ^_^.

Self-ownership is pretty much axiomatic
How can I own myself if I don't own the nourishment I've grown for myself without interfering with anyone else?

Also, self-ownership is not an "Axiom" in a sense forbidding rape. There is no need to affirm the prohibition on rape in order to deny it. Axioms are things like A is A.

The connection between self-ownership and property rights is usually described as follows: If a person owns themselves, they own their actions, including those that create or improve resources. Therefore, they own their own labor and the fruits thereof. Proudhon agrees with that statement and yet does not share your conception of property rights.
That is not an argument that for him to do so is consistent. "Someone disagrees" is never evidence against a point.

Philosophically speaking, the human body is a valuable source for obtaining knowledge and producing labor but cannot be treated as a mere instrument or physical property
Why not?

The "moral status of human body parts" is a huge branch of ethical philosophy that I don't have the time or inclination to seriously delve into here.
Then why did you bring it up?

One could say property is that which is alienable to you, and the self is not therefore does not constitute as property.
Which would therefore deny self ownership. Also, you are alienable to me, therefore you constitute my property. williehorton.jpeg.

I've been trying to avoid semantics but I dunno if it can be done,
You're trying to argue against a DEFINITION. It can't even in the artificial narrow sense in which its ever possible (Strictly speaking, its never possible to avoid semantics, or at least, its not possible to accomplish anything while doing so-- you have to post something that means nothing.)

In short there are various theories that suggest if you are planting a crop, that it's your "property" (possession) and nobody has the right to take or destroy it. This concept offers a lot of protections and rights that property does.
That is not what possession means anywhere I've ever heard. If I pin you on a bed, I possess you until you happen to escape. That has nothing to do with rights. It sounds like you're offering an alternate theory of property that for some reason you just don't want to call property. Of course, you'd have to lay out a theory of why it is right to respect that in order to make an ARGUMENT for it.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2011 2:12:01 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/23/2011 6:07:34 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I already asked if you had a better definition. Go on.

In response to my assertion that property was a government granted land monopoly, you said, "Not in the same sense. It is not granted by government, but protected by it (except where it is violated of course). Whether a government grants title does not however determine whether something is property. The mixing of labor in the absence of previous property does."

While the government does not have to grant something as property to have it constitute as property, my point was that conceptions of what should constitute as property varies. I've presented at least 5 different interpretations to you. Regarding your interpretation (which is not necessarily right or the most moral), as a libertarian you expect the government to grant you a land monopoly so to speak on your property. In other words you have exclusive control. One with a different view of property might see your deed as nothing more than a monopoly on that land.

In other words, without creation, unless you introduce something new that isn't in my definition, you get the usual strawman "HAHA I CLAIM EVERYTHING AND DONT HAVE TO DO ANYTHING TO DO SO."

If all you're asking me to do is define property in a way that's convenient for me in this conversation then I can do that. My point was that you have your view of property, and that view requests a government or agency to protect the monopoly you think you are entitled to. Likewise, a communist requests a government or agency to protect whatever they think they are entitled to, but that does not necessarily make them right. The same concept obviously applies to you.

"however, it's widely debated whether or not intellectual property is property"
THAT was in juxtaposition to a point that there is a dispute over definition? THATS EXACTLY THE CONTENT I QUOTED... The point is, SAYING THE DEFINITION IS DISPUTED IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. Is the definition disputed? Great, then DISPUTE IT. Propose a better one.

I have no idea why you're bugging out.

But let's see if you quoted EXACTLY WHAT I SAID RAWR!!!

I said, "It's widely debated whether or not intellectual property is property." You responded, "That's not an argument." I replied, "It was in juxtaposition to my point that the parameters of what constitutes as property is disputed." Clearly you did NOT quote exactly what I said.

Once again, you're veering OT in the sense that you want me to uphold my concept of property vs. yours... but that is not what this is about. My point is that you have Concept X of property and would like the government to defend it. I could have Concept Y of property and want the government to defend it. That doesn't mean that either of our concept is right. So, once again, I'm not arguing WHICH STANDARD IS PREFERABLE. I'm saying that to someone who disagrees with Rand's concept of property rights, then her quote "Those who seek to abuse Government power, who seek to establish for themselves Government monopolies" might be committing that very same thing.

Considering how I already laid out the reason the motivations in question are the source of "rights" (proper limits on behavior toward other people...) that's like saying "Oh, we're talking about numbers and not addition?" In order to add, we need numbers to add.

You wrote, "...because we have a reciprocal need to produce material things to support our several existences, and if you act to prevent me from supporting mine in this manner, I am now motivated to destroy you." I could just as easily say that things like "wage slavery" compel me toward a very similar motivation. Therefore I could say I don't believe you have certain rights that you think you do. Once again, this is getting OT. If you want to have a discussion on my views vs. yours someday then fine, but it's not what I was getting at in my OP.

What the hell do you mean by "The capitalist?" Is this person someone who exists in the absence of capitalism?

I thought it was quite obvious that capitalist here refers to the owner of capital. Capital refers to the means of production not consumed in their use, unique from labor and land, in that land isn't man-made. "Capitalism" developed from "capitalist," which referred to a person that owned such capital. "Capitalism" is used as a term to mean "having ownership of capital. For more about the etymology of 'capitalist' read here: http://www.spiritus-temporis.com...

Then what's the point of having an anarcho syndicate as opposed to capitalism (Which permits private communes)?

Different ideological differences on property, mostly. An-syns seek to abolish private ownership of the means of production which is anti-capitalism.

And how is it that it my consent is a necessary condition of the syndicate taking something if anyone can form a syndicate and no one stops those syndicates from taking things (the usual anarchist problem)?

Who says nobody stops "the syndicate" from taking things? You just made that up.

It's no different than saying a landlord "takes" your money in an an-cap society
Remember, I'm not an ancap. ^_^.

Yes, and yet the same analogy still applies.

How can I own myself if I don't own the nourishment I've grown for myself without interfering with anyone else?

Semantics. Yawn. Nobody's saying you can't "own" an apple.

Also, self-ownership is not an "Axiom" in a sense forbidding rape. There is no need to affirm the prohibition on rape in order to deny it. Axioms are things like A is A.

First of all, I said PRETTY MUCH axiomatic to avoid this exact statement. Hans-Herman Hoppe argues that it's pretty much axiomatic in that a person contradicts himself when arguing against it (self-ownership). The person making this argument is caught in a "performative contradiction", because in choosing to use persuasion instead of force to have others agree that they are not sovereign over themselves, that person implicitly grants that those who he is trying to persuade have a right to disagree. If they have a right to disagree, then they have legitimate authority over themselves.

That is not an argument that for him to do so is consistent. "Someone disagrees" is never evidence against a point.

You made a connection between self-ownership and property. I explained how that connection is made, and that agreeing with the premises of that connection as Proudhon does doesn't mean you necessarily agree with the conclusion. I don't buy it. So? Who cares.

The "moral status of human body parts" is a huge branch of ethical philosophy that I don't have the time or inclination to seriously delve into here.
Then why did you bring it up?

You're the one who brought it up by making the connection between property and self-ownership.

Also, you are alienable to me, therefore you constitute my property.

Holy fallacy.

You're trying to argue against a DEFINITION.

K. Keep telling yourself that.

That is not what possession means anywhere I've ever heard. If I pin you on a bed, I possess you until you happen to escape. That has nothing to do with rights. It sounds like you're offering an alternate theory of property that for some reason you just don't want to call property. Of course, you'd have to lay out a theory of why it is right to respect that in order to make an ARGUMENT for it.

Rights are basically entitlements agreed upon by society that we give each other for our own convenience. Society X might say you have no right to rape but that you have every right to plant a tree and "own" the apples from your tree. However they might say you don't have the right to own land exclusively to charge rent. So yes, you can call it "property" but it may not mean the same thing in a society with different "property rights."
President of DDO
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2011 2:51:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/24/2011 2:12:01 AM, Danielle wrote:]
While the government does not have to grant something as property to have it constitute as property, my point was that conceptions of what should constitute as property varies. I've presented at least 5 different interpretations to you.
Not one of which came with a definition. You've presented one definition so far (maybe), but you seem to be backing away in horror from its consequence.

as a libertarian you expect the government to grant you a land monopoly so to speak on your property.
I expect it to recognize. Land grants are frankly a distinct thing I expect it not to do, as land grants are a system in which everything is government-owned until the government specifically says otherwise, not in which everything is non-property until homesteaded.

In other words you have exclusive control. One with a different view of property might see your deed as nothing more than a monopoly on that land.
Property is a monopoly, what of it? The problem is an out-of-context prohibition on "monopolies." Lest you wish me to break your monopoly on the distribution of services of your body.

If all you're asking me to do is define property in a way that's convenient for me in this conversation then I can do that.
I'm asking that as a start point mind, not an endpoint.

My point was that you have your view of property, and that view requests a government or agency to protect the monopoly you think you are entitled to. Likewise, a communist requests a government or agency to protect whatever they think they are entitled to, but that does not necessarily make them right. The same concept obviously applies to you.
I do not claim that expectations are the cause of my correctness.

I said, "It's widely debated whether or not intellectual property is property." You responded, "That's not an argument." I replied, "It was in juxtaposition to my point that the parameters of what constitutes as property is disputed." Clearly you did NOT quote exactly what I said.
I didn't say it was exactly what you said, I said it was the same content. The different wording does not mean there was a relevant difference in meaning.


I'm saying that to someone who disagrees with Rand's concept of property rights, then her quote "Those who seek to abuse Government power, who seek to establish for themselves Government monopolies" might be committing that very same thing.
No, they wouldn't, because it would be a different thing to which the same words happened to be attached by someone else. Two people might disagree what constitutes property, but their varying rules aren't "Both property" in the same context, and someone who condemns "Violating property" is clearly only referring to one particular definition of property.

You wrote, "...because we have a reciprocal need to produce material things to support our several existences, and if you act to prevent me from supporting mine in this manner, I am now motivated to destroy you." I could just as easily say that things like "wage slavery" compel me toward a very similar motivation.
How do they do that? What reciprocal need do they violate?

I thought it was quite obvious that capitalist here refers to the owner of capital. Capital refers to the means of production not consumed in their use, unique from labor and land, in that land isn't man-made. "Capitalism" developed from "capitalist," which referred to a person that owned such capital.
That's capitalism the slur, not the ideology. The advocates of an ideology take precedence in defining it unless their definition is incoherent.

Then what's the point of having an anarcho syndicate as opposed to capitalism (Which permits private communes)?

Different ideological differences on property, mostly. An-syns seek to abolish private ownership of the means of production which is anti-capitalism.
Either they'll take stuff without my consent or they won't. They can't possibly abolish private ownership of the means of production unless they take it from me without my consent. Why? Because I'll make sure of it. They'll have to start with my most important means of production. My brain. Then my hands, so on and so forth.


And how is it that it my consent is a necessary condition of the syndicate taking something if anyone can form a syndicate and no one stops those syndicates from taking things (the usual anarchist problem)?

Who says nobody stops "the syndicate" from taking things?
The person who put an anarcho in. :P

It's no different than saying a landlord "takes" your money in an an-cap society
Remember, I'm not an ancap. ^_^.

Yes, and yet the same analogy still applies.
No, it really doesn't. The landlord is prevented from "taking" my money without my consent, lest the government be proven non-capitalist. Contrariwise, I am enjoined from occupying his land without his consent.

Semantics. Yawn. Nobody's saying you can't "own" an apple.
Sure they are, lest they disprove their claim of abolishing private property.

First of all, I said PRETTY MUCH axiomatic to avoid this exact statement. Hans-Herman Hoppe argues that it's pretty much axiomatic in that a person contradicts himself when arguing against it (self-ownership).
Which is why I said "in a sense forbidding rape." If ownership means "It is moral for one to take action/speech," which is the only sense one contradicts by arguing against it, that tells us nothing about the axiom status of "It is immoral to take certain actions against anyone else," which is the sense that prohibits race. Indeed, I wouldn't call the former view ownership, I'd just call it moral agency.

The person making this argument is caught in a "performative contradiction", because in choosing to use persuasion instead of force to have others agree that they are not sovereign over themselves, that person implicitly grants that those who he is trying to persuade have a right to disagree.
No he doesn't. If I choose to enslave a criminal rather than execute them am I acknowledging that they have a right to live?

If they have a right to disagree, then they have legitimate authority over themselves.
False induction. If I have legitimate authority over a certain broadcast spectrum in a certain territory, do i have legitimate authority over everything in a certain territory? Or in a sense for your problematic ideology-- if your syndicate has legitimate authority to seize the "means of production" I created, do they have legitimate authority over all things related to me?

I don't buy it. So?
So what is your objection to the steps from premise to conclusion, since you agree with the premises?

You're the one who brought it up by making the connection between property and self-ownership.
Amended, why did you make your argument hinge on it if you aren't willing to argue it? Am I and any observers to take your word for it?

Holy fallacy.
What fallacy? You said that property is that which is alienable to me. That sounds like (finally!) a definition. Perhaps not an intentional one. If you intended it not to be a definition, then you really should have given a definition which permits you to say "It's not alienable to me, therefore it's not property" without making it defined in the term of alienability alone.

Rights are basically entitlements agreed upon by society
They are no such thing. And no such thing has ever existed or will ever exist.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2011 2:52:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
ically entitlements agreed upon by society that we give each other for our own convenience. Society X might say you have no right to rape but that you have every right to plant a tree and "own" the apples from your tree. However they might say you don't have the right to own land exclusively to charge rent
Then fat lotta good my tree does me, someone else can put the land the tree is on to conflicting use.

Not to mention you haven't given a definition that makes that happen, let alone an argument to use and honor that definition.

So yes, you can call it "property" but it may not mean the same thing in a society with different "property rights."

Society has nothing to do with the matter.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.