Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Home as property

Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2010 9:53:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Wouldn't one's home be more accurately described as territory than property?

Isn't the home the most central feature of the idea of property?

If so, then our notions of property are flawed. We think that we must own property in order to have a home, and then extend our ideals of ownership outward from that point.
no comment
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2010 10:22:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Isn't the home the most central feature of the idea of property?
No. The most central idea of property is that you own yourself. That is, each person has the absolute right to control his or her body free of any coercive interference, as long as they do not violate anyone else's rights. Property rights in things are derived from this. If someone owns themself, and mixes their labor with unowned things (building a farm on unoccupied land, for example), they then own those things. The only other morally legitimate way to acquire property is to convince its rightful owner to part with it (usually by offering to trade some other good for it, or a standard unit of exchange that can be traded for some other good).
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.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2010 10:35:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Proudhon at one point separates Property from Possession.

Possession is what you possess and use regularly. A tooth brush, a bed, your house.

Property is what you own that earns you money without working. For instance, a factory would be the property of the owner. A house would be the property of the landlord. Money lent at interest would be property.

This is why Proudhon proclaimed that "Property is Theft!".
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2010 10:45:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
This is why Proudhon ignored what it takes to GET such things in the first place.
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.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2010 10:47:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'm not following.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2010 10:54:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
working
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.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2010 10:56:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/4/2010 10:54:16 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/4/2010 10:35:04 PM, Reasoning wrote:
This is why Proudhon proclaimed that "Property is Theft!".

From whom?

From the workers who produce the products. The workers are necessarily unable to buy back their products with their wages as the proprietor gets a cut, in the last analysis, despite not doing any of the work.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2010 11:03:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/4/2010 10:56:22 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/4/2010 10:54:16 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/4/2010 10:35:04 PM, Reasoning wrote:
This is why Proudhon proclaimed that "Property is Theft!".

From whom?

From the workers who produce the products. The workers are necessarily unable to buy back their products with their wages as the proprietor gets a cut, in the last analysis, despite not doing any of the work.

"Just wage" theory is lol.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2010 11:08:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/4/2010 11:03:53 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
"Just wage" theory is lol.

In another thread you said you believed that men are entitled to the fruits of their labor. Which is it? Are they or are they not?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2010 11:11:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/4/2010 11:08:38 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/4/2010 11:03:53 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
"Just wage" theory is lol.

In another thread you said you believed that men are entitled to the fruits of their labor. Which is it? Are they or are they not?

Begging the question. We have different notions of property ownership. You don't recognize the proprietor as legitimately owning the business.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2010 11:13:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/4/2010 11:11:16 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/4/2010 11:08:38 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/4/2010 11:03:53 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
"Just wage" theory is lol.

In another thread you said you believed that men are entitled to the fruits of their labor. Which is it? Are they or are they not?

Begging the question. We have different notions of property ownership.

Irrelevant. The worker produces a product and is unable to keep it, it is given entirely to the proprietor. In return, he receives a wage. With this wage he is unable to purchase the fruit of his labor, should he choose to do so. He is therefore deprived of the fruit of his labor.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2010 11:20:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/4/2010 11:13:49 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/4/2010 11:11:16 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/4/2010 11:08:38 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/4/2010 11:03:53 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
"Just wage" theory is lol.

In another thread you said you believed that men are entitled to the fruits of their labor. Which is it? Are they or are they not?

Begging the question. We have different notions of property ownership.

Irrelevant. The worker produces a product and is unable to keep it, it is given entirely to the proprietor. In return, he receives a wage. With this wage he is unable to purchase the fruit of his labor, should he choose to do so. He is therefore deprived of the fruit of his labor.

He is not deprived of it in an aggressive way in the sense that taxes deprive a person of the fruits of their labor. He chooses to give up the right to that product in exchange for wages. Workers are of course free to set up their own factories and receive the literal fruits of their labor, but choose not to. They give up the physical results of their labor to the capitalist in exchange for wages, because they are less risky than selling the fruits of one's labor directly on the market, and because of the their time-preference. They'd rather have the money now than later, when the goods are actually sold. Thus the role of the capitalist. Surely you, an avid reader of Rothbard, should understand this.
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
10/4/2010 11:20:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/4/2010 11:13:49 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/4/2010 11:11:16 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/4/2010 11:08:38 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/4/2010 11:03:53 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
"Just wage" theory is lol.

In another thread you said you believed that men are entitled to the fruits of their labor. Which is it? Are they or are they not?

Begging the question. We have different notions of property ownership.

Irrelevant. The worker produces a product and is unable to keep it, it is given entirely to the proprietor. In return, he receives a wage. With this wage he is unable to purchase the fruit of his labor, should he choose to do so. He is therefore deprived of the fruit of his labor.

I agree to give to party A X and get Y in return. Then I bitch when he won't let me reverse 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.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2010 11:22:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/4/2010 11:13:49 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/4/2010 11:11:16 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/4/2010 11:08:38 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/4/2010 11:03:53 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
"Just wage" theory is lol.

In another thread you said you believed that men are entitled to the fruits of their labor. Which is it? Are they or are they not?

Begging the question. We have different notions of property ownership.

Irrelevant. The worker produces a product and is unable to keep it, it is given entirely to the proprietor. In return, he receives a wage. With this wage he is unable to purchase the fruit of his labor, should he choose to do so. Assuming the proprietor has no legitimate claim to ownership, the worker is being deprived of the fruit of his labor.

FTFY. If you'd like to debate the economics of Proudhon's possession/property distinction, I'm more than willing.
djsherin
Posts: 343
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2010 11:58:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I really don't see the logic behind the idea that the final laborer should keep the final product.

The worker only produces the final product; the inputs were put together by many other people. Are those people deprived of their labor when they sell it as inputs to the entrepreneur (who hires laborers to make a final product out of it)? Are farm workers exploited when they receive a wage rather than the wheat they harvest? Are they exploited when that wheat is sold to make flour? Are the workers who make the flour deprived when their flour gets turned into buns for hamburgers? Is a burger flipper exploited when he works for a wage rather than the burgers he makes as a final product? Plus the meat, cheese, tomatoes, etc. that make the burger all have similar processes by which they reach the final worker. That's not to mention that the final worker more than likely did not purchase the stove, utensils, building, cash register, seats, tables, napkins, etc. that are necessary to make the business fully functional (those things were purchased by the entrepreneur and were also made by various laborers at various stages of production). Why is it that only the final worker is deprived of his labor but no one else in this process is? The worker who puts together the final product is far from the only person who actually adds value to this whole process.

So why is it that only the final laborer has a legitimate claim to the final product? If it's because everyone else has already received compensation for their work through wages, why doesn't this same logic apply to the final laborer who works for a wage?
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 12:00:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/4/2010 11:20:14 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:

He is not deprived of it in an aggressive way in the sense that taxes deprive a person of the fruits of their labor. He chooses to give up the right to that product in exchange for wages. Workers are of course free to set up their own factories and receive the literal fruits of their labor, but choose not to.

This is where you start getting ridiculous. Why would anyone ever choose wage slavery over owning their own business? There is an obvious monetary gap that you are missing here. One does not choose indenturement. One is forced into wage labor or starvation in a privatized economy.

They give up the physical results of their labor to the capitalist in exchange for wages, because they are less risky than selling the fruits of one's labor directly on the market, and because of the their time-preference.

Again, no one would choose wage slavery over having control of their own wages. Every time the situation has appeared in history, capitalists have directly shut out the small peddlers from business (example: Baltimore, 1700's). One needs heavy amounts of Capital not to be forced to exchange their labor for spit worthy pay.

They'd rather have the money now than later, when the goods are actually sold. Thus the role of the capitalist. Surely you, an avid reader of Rothbard, should understand this.

The money can be had "now" by a merchant and farmer as well.
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 12:36:24 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 12:00:01 AM, Vi_Veri wrote:
At 10/4/2010 11:20:14 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:

He is not deprived of it in an aggressive way in the sense that taxes deprive a person of the fruits of their labor. He chooses to give up the right to that product in exchange for wages. Workers are of course free to set up their own factories and receive the literal fruits of their labor, but choose not to.

This is where you start getting ridiculous. Why would anyone ever choose wage slavery over owning their own business? There is an obvious monetary gap that you are missing here. One does not choose indenturement. One is forced into wage labor or starvation in a privatized economy.

They give up the physical results of their labor to the capitalist in exchange for wages, because they are less risky than selling the fruits of one's labor directly on the market, and because of the their time-preference.

Again, no one would choose wage slavery over having control of their own wages. Every time the situation has appeared in history, capitalists have directly shut out the small peddlers from business (example: Baltimore, 1700's). One needs heavy amounts of Capital not to be forced to exchange their labor for spit worthy pay.

They'd rather have the money now than later, when the goods are actually sold. Thus the role of the capitalist. Surely you, an avid reader of Rothbard, should understand this.

The money can be had "now" by a merchant and farmer as well.

People could set up their own business and keep the literal products of their labor if they really wanted to. The problem is that they would have to work for free until the final product was sold on the market, and may end up working for less than they thought they'd get, or nothing at all, if the product does not sell. That's where the capitalist comes in. The capitalist offers workers wages in exchange for the fruits of their labor. The workers get the security of a job over the risk of investment, and their money immediately rather than only after the product is sold. Of course, smaller competitors have been directly shut down by capitalists in the past. But this isn't part of a free market any more than any other government interference.

As for workers making "spit worthy pay," that's a completely meaningless phrase. Low pay compared to what? Compared to the pay of someone that produces much more than them? A successful CEO is paid a lot of money because of the large benefits he brings to the company. The wages of workers are determined the same way. If a worker contributes $10/hour to a company, they're paid some amount close to $10/hour. (It won't exactly equal $10, because of the reasons mentioned earlier. But judging by the % profit firms currently have, and the fact that the corporatist state artificially increases the power and profits of large corporations, it's safe to assume that workers will be paid very very close to their actual marginal productivity)

The term "wage-slavery" is equally meaningless. Nowadays, in the West, the term is obviously ridiculous, because even the "poor" are far richer than the vast majority of the world, and even far better off than the ultra-rich capitalists of the past. The term is more commonly used to refer to situations such as our Industrial Revolution, but it was no less inaccurate then. People did not have the choice between working and starving. Before the industrial revolution, the vast majority of people lived as subsistence farmers, or close to it. For industrialists to get them to work in their factories, they had to convince workers to leave their farms. And they did, because contrary to popular belief, the industrial revolution caused an enormous increase in the living standards of the average person. They seem like poor conditions when you compare them to the conditions of workers today, but the lives of these "exploited" workers were far better than before the capitalists' "exploitation."
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.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 11:15:08 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/4/2010 11:20:14 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
He is not deprived of it in an aggressive way in the sense that taxes deprive a person of the fruits of their labor.

The result is the same, is it not? His labor produced a certain physical production some or much of this product is taken fro him by force or threat of force.

He chooses to give up the right to that product in exchange for wages.

But he does so only because he is not allowed to use the equipment if he refused.

If you remember Bastiat's Petition of the Candlestickmakers, the candlestickmakers demanded that men block out the sun from their home so as to increase the demand for their product.

Just as easily could someone claim ownership over the sun, itself, and deny anyone the right to use it for any purpose, even the growing of crops without paying the proprietor, himself, tribute.

Now this would be hard to enforce, but suppose that it could be and was.

The farmer who performs all the labor is deprived of part of the fruit of his labor.

This is a tax in all but name.

I have to go now, but this is a very interesting conversation. Thanks for having it with me. I cannot wait to continue it.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 11:31:51 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 11:15:08 AM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/4/2010 11:20:14 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
He is not deprived of it in an aggressive way in the sense that taxes deprive a person of the fruits of their labor.

The result is the same, is it not? His labor produced a certain physical production some or much of this product is taken fro him by force or threat of force.
The result of murder and suicide are the same, are they the same thing? And the product was not taken from the worker by force, he agreed to give up the product by accepting the job. If this is aggressive force, then the concept of aggression is completely meaningless.

He chooses to give up the right to that product in exchange for wages.

But he does so only because he is not allowed to use the equipment if he refused.
So what? What right does the worker have to use the equipment? If earns money legitimately, surely they have the right to save and invest that money. Why do you think that people that saved up their money and bought shares of a factory have no right to the fruits of their labor, but people that the owners of the factory agreed to hire do? How exactly do these workers acquire the right to steal the factory from the people that built it?

If you remember Bastiat's Petition of the Candlestickmakers, the candlestickmakers demanded that men block out the sun from their home so as to increase the demand for their product.

Just as easily could someone claim ownership over the sun, itself, and deny anyone the right to use it for any purpose, even the growing of crops without paying the proprietor, himself, tribute.

Now this would be hard to enforce, but suppose that it could be and was.

The farmer who performs all the labor is deprived of part of the fruit of his labor.

This is a tax in all but name.
No, someone could not claim ownership of the Sun, just as one could not gain ownership of the air, because those things are not scarce resources and are thus not property. Furthermore, if the idea of the Sun as property was legitimate, what right would any one person have to that property? The owner of a farm has the right to that farm because he built it or paid for it. The owner of a factory has the right to that factory because they built or paid for it. How exactly would anyone acquire the right to own the Sun?

I have to go now, but this is a very interesting conversation. Thanks for having it with me. I cannot wait to continue it.
Agreed.
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.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 1:33:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
"Suppose that somehow government becomes persuaded of the necessity to yield to a clamor for a free-market, laissez-faire society. Before dissolving itself, however, it redistributes property titles, granting the ownership of the entire territory of New York to the Rockefeller family, of Massachusetts to the Kennedy family, etc. It then dissolves, ending taxation and all other forms of government intervention in the economy. However, while taxation has been abolished, the Rockefeller, Kennedy, etc., families proceed to dictate to all the residents in what is now "their" territory, exacting what are now called "rents" over all the inhabitants." - Murray Rothbard[1]

1 http://mises.org...
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 1:35:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 1:33:16 PM, Reasoning wrote:
"Suppose that somehow government becomes persuaded of the necessity to yield to a clamor for a free-market, laissez-faire society. Before dissolving itself, however, it redistributes property titles, granting the ownership of the entire territory of New York to the Rockefeller family, of Massachusetts to the Kennedy family, etc. It then dissolves, ending taxation and all other forms of government intervention in the economy. However, while taxation has been abolished, the Rockefeller, Kennedy, etc., families proceed to dictate to all the residents in what is now "their" territory, exacting what are now called "rents" over all the inhabitants." - Murray Rothbard[1]

1 http://mises.org...

I don't recall ever saying that the current system is just, or that the current owners of capital are the rightful owners. Only that paying someone a wage for the fruits of their labor is not inherently unjust, which is what you claimed.
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.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 1:38:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 11:31:51 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
No, someone could not claim ownership of the Sun, just as one could not gain ownership of the air, because those things are not scarce resources and are thus not property.

Governments have claimed ownership over a number of things just as absurd.

Furthermore, if the idea of the Sun as property was legitimate, what right would any one person have to that property? The owner of a farm has the right to that farm because he built it or paid for it. The owner of a factory has the right to that factory because they built or paid for it. How exactly would anyone acquire the right to own the Sun?

Might. Perhaps under the formality of governmental decree.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 1:39:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 1:35:22 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Only that paying someone a wage for the fruits of their labor is not inherently unjust, which is what you claimed.

I did no such thing. I simply said that the two had the same results.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 1:44:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/4/2010 11:22:21 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/4/2010 11:13:49 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
FTFY. If you'd like to debate the economics of Proudhon's possession/property distinction, I'm more than willing.

Nah, that's alright. I just make outlandish claims and then use out of context quotes from dead economists to support them. I don't actually debate.

Meh, I didn't think you would anyway.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 1:48:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 1:35:22 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Only that paying someone a wage for the fruits of their labor is not inherently unjust, which is what you claimed.

As an egoist, I deny justice. Therefore, if the only distinction you can make between taxation and capitalism is ethical, I deny that distinction.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 1:49:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 1:38:08 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/5/2010 11:31:51 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
No, someone could not claim ownership of the Sun, just as one could not gain ownership of the air, because those things are not scarce resources and are thus not property.

Governments have claimed ownership over a number of things just as absurd.
Furthermore, if the idea of the Sun as property was legitimate, what right would any one person have to that property? The owner of a farm has the right to that farm because he built it or paid for it. The owner of a factory has the right to that factory because they built or paid for it. How exactly would anyone acquire the right to own the Sun?

Might. Perhaps under the formality of governmental decree.
I don't see how government decree is relevant to this discussion. If such ownership were only possible by government decree, then it doesn't matter, because we're talking about ownership of things like factories, which is certainly possible without government decree.
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.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 1:49:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 1:39:21 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/5/2010 1:35:22 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Only that paying someone a wage for the fruits of their labor is not inherently unjust, which is what you claimed.

I did no such thing. I simply said that the two had the same results.

"Irrelevant. The worker produces a product and is unable to keep it, it is given entirely to the proprietor. In return, he receives a wage. With this wage he is unable to purchase the fruit of his labor, should he choose to do so. He is therefore deprived of the fruit of his labor."
You said that a capitalist paying a worker a wage for the product that worker produces is depriving the worker of the fruit of his labor. Depriving implies theft, which is immoral. If that is not what you were saying, then why use the word 'deprived'? It would be more accurate to say that the capitalist exchanges with the worker, not deprives him of something.
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.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 1:52:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 1:49:44 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Depriving implies theft, which is immoral.

You're the one that says theft is immoral.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 1:57:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
From a purely wertfrei perspective, property ownership increases the wellbeing of both worker and proprietor. Since you're an emotivist, I really don't see what problem you could possibly have with that. It's obvious not a moral one.