Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

Is your work really your property?

Harper
Posts: 374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2015 12:11:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I have, for the most part, been an individualist, proponent of the free market, and of private property. Additionally I was an opponent to most forms of redistribution because of the idea that your work belongs to you as private property and that the confiscation of your work or the gain received from your work constitutes theft. (Obviously I was not a fan of taxes.)

However, is it not true that an individual never really did anything on their own, in reality, as they were brought up and protected by their own society? Meaning that their life outcomes (good or bad) would have been impossible if not for the influence of their society (including the cultural values and ideas that made them who they are)? Doesn't this mean that an individual's work and wealth is dually owned-- both by the individual and by the society that they live under? If it is dually owned, how much of a share should society have? It is obviously not entitled to 100% of your wealth/work, as your wealth would not even have been gained if not for your work, but doesn't this establish a moral basis for certain forms of redistribution? (Like welfare or national healthcare, for example)

And on the flip side, since society's influence could result in bad life outcomes, doesn't this then establish a moral obligation on society to help those who are unfortunate?

This post is especially for fellow individualists/libertarians to answer, I'd like to see what you think of the moral basis of redistribution in response to this.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2015 7:01:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/19/2015 12:11:08 PM, Harper wrote:
This post is especially for fellow individualists/libertarians to answer, I'd like to see what you think of the moral basis of redistribution in response to this.

The main problem seems to be the use of this incredibly vague entity 'society'; which is used only in justification, but then once we've gotten past the justification, it's specific courses of action. I mean, just because you justify something under the umbrella of 'society', doesn't mean the specific recourse you take is also valid just because it's also a part of society... everything is part of society.

So, if I build something, aren't there other people who also input work into the building of that thing, too? Yes. There's the people who supplied the materials, who were paid when I bought them. There's the land that I'm staying on while building it, which I pay for through rent, etc etc.

The difference between the two approaches is not in ignoring the input of others, but of specifying it and actually repaying it in kind, rather than repaying the entity 'society' spiritually, by taking resources and doing whatever some unrelated minority chooses to do with them.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2015 7:59:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I really don't see how society plays a part in the trade of work for wages.

We contract politicians to collectively bargain for us with taxes from wages from our work, not the other way around.
Harper
Posts: 374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 4:09:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/19/2015 7:01:15 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 4/19/2015 12:11:08 PM, Harper wrote:
This post is especially for fellow individualists/libertarians to answer, I'd like to see what you think of the moral basis of redistribution in response to this.

The main problem seems to be the use of this incredibly vague entity 'society'; which is used only in justification, but then once we've gotten past the justification, it's specific courses of action. I mean, just because you justify something under the umbrella of 'society', doesn't mean the specific recourse you take is also valid just because it's also a part of society... everything is part of society.
Well, you would have to look and see who is mostly responsible for the maintenance and creation of the society, which in many ways would be the government.
Harper
Posts: 374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 4:34:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/19/2015 7:59:12 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
I really don't see how society plays a part in the trade of work for wages.
Your cultural values, economic opportunities, etc.

We contract politicians to collectively bargain for us with taxes from wages from our work, not the other way around.
I'm sorry, could you clarify that?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 5:52:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/20/2015 4:34:16 PM, Harper wrote:
At 4/19/2015 7:59:12 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
I really don't see how society plays a part in the trade of work for wages.
Your cultural values, economic opportunities, etc.

We contract politicians to collectively bargain for us with taxes from wages from our work, not the other way around.
I'm sorry, could you clarify that?

Ok, let me put it to you this way. When someone tells you "You didn't build that(society infrastructure)" they are correct. But we all inherit the infrastructure our parents and the previous dead generations already paid into. We shouldn't have to pay for something that was already paid for.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 11:57:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/20/2015 4:09:13 PM, Harper wrote:
Well, you would have to look and see who is mostly responsible for the maintenance and creation of the society, which in many ways would be the government.

In that case, you've accepted the premise, and you're saying that the government owns society, right? That whoever is in the government owns everyone outside of it.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Josh_debate
Posts: 170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 9:03:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/19/2015 12:11:08 PM, Harper wrote:
I have, for the most part, been an individualist, proponent of the free market, and of private property. Additionally I was an opponent to most forms of redistribution because of the idea that your work belongs to you as private property and that the confiscation of your work or the gain received from your work constitutes theft. (Obviously I was not a fan of taxes.)

However, is it not true that an individual never really did anything on their own, in reality, as they were brought up and protected by their own society? Meaning that their life outcomes (good or bad) would have been impossible if not for the influence of their society (including the cultural values and ideas that made them who they are)? Doesn't this mean that an individual's work and wealth is dually owned-- both by the individual and by the society that they live under? If it is dually owned, how much of a share should society have? It is obviously not entitled to 100% of your wealth/work, as your wealth would not even have been gained if not for your work, but doesn't this establish a moral basis for certain forms of redistribution? (Like welfare or national healthcare, for example)

And on the flip side, since society's influence could result in bad life outcomes, doesn't this then establish a moral obligation on society to help those who are unfortunate?

This post is especially for fellow individualists/libertarians to answer, I'd like to see what you think of the moral basis of redistribution in response to this.

The protection that society gives you is paid for by taxes, that's the first point i would like to make. Secondly the ideas you create regardless of what they are inspired from are yours.
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2015 5:14:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/19/2015 12:11:08 PM, Harper wrote:
I have, for the most part, been an individualist, proponent of the free market, and of private property. Additionally I was an opponent to most forms of redistribution because of the idea that your work belongs to you as private property and that the confiscation of your work or the gain received from your work constitutes theft. (Obviously I was not a fan of taxes.)

However, is it not true that an individual never really did anything on their own, in reality, as they were brought up and protected by their own society? Meaning that their life outcomes (good or bad) would have been impossible if not for the influence of their society (including the cultural values and ideas that made them who they are)? Doesn't this mean that an individual's work and wealth is dually owned-- both by the individual and by the society that they live under? If it is dually owned, how much of a share should society have? It is obviously not entitled to 100% of your wealth/work, as your wealth would not even have been gained if not for your work, but doesn't this establish a moral basis for certain forms of redistribution? (Like welfare or national healthcare, for example)

And on the flip side, since society's influence could result in bad life outcomes, doesn't this then establish a moral obligation on society to help those who are unfortunate?

This post is especially for fellow individualists/libertarians to answer, I'd like to see what you think of the moral basis of redistribution in response to this.

What is "property" defined as?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
jkerr3
Posts: 177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2015 12:50:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/19/2015 12:11:08 PM, Harper wrote:
I have, for the most part, been an individualist, proponent of the free market, and of private property. Additionally I was an opponent to most forms of redistribution because of the idea that your work belongs to you as private property and that the confiscation of your work or the gain received from your work constitutes theft. (Obviously I was not a fan of taxes.)

However, is it not true that an individual never really did anything on their own, in reality, as they were brought up and protected by their own society? Meaning that their life outcomes (good or bad) would have been impossible if not for the influence of their society (including the cultural values and ideas that made them who they are)? Doesn't this mean that an individual's work and wealth is dually owned-- both by the individual and by the society that they live under? If it is dually owned, how much of a share should society have? It is obviously not entitled to 100% of your wealth/work, as your wealth would not even have been gained if not for your work, but doesn't this establish a moral basis for certain forms of redistribution? (Like welfare or national healthcare, for example)

And on the flip side, since society's influence could result in bad life outcomes, doesn't this then establish a moral obligation on society to help those who are unfortunate?

This post is especially for fellow individualists/libertarians to answer, I'd like to see what you think of the moral basis of redistribution in response to this.

This is why taxes were invented, in some cases people have to pay as much as 45% of their income in taxes. So there's your redistribution right there.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2015 4:21:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/1/2015 12:50:31 PM, jkerr3 wrote:

This is why taxes were invented, in some cases people have to pay as much as 45% of their income in taxes. So there's your redistribution right there.

I find this hard to believe.
And, while it is theoretically possible, I do not think it is very common, even for those at that income level.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2015 4:23:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/19/2015 12:11:08 PM, Harper wrote:
I have, for the most part, been an individualist, proponent of the free market, and of private property. Additionally I was an opponent to most forms of redistribution because of the idea that your work belongs to you as private property and that the confiscation of your work or the gain received from your work constitutes theft. (Obviously I was not a fan of taxes.)

However, is it not true that an individual never really did anything on their own, in reality, as they were brought up and protected by their own society? Meaning that their life outcomes (good or bad) would have been impossible if not for the influence of their society (including the cultural values and ideas that made them who they are)? Doesn't this mean that an individual's work and wealth is dually owned-- both by the individual and by the society that they live under? If it is dually owned, how much of a share should society have? It is obviously not entitled to 100% of your wealth/work, as your wealth would not even have been gained if not for your work, but doesn't this establish a moral basis for certain forms of redistribution? (Like welfare or national healthcare, for example)

And on the flip side, since society's influence could result in bad life outcomes, doesn't this then establish a moral obligation on society to help those who are unfortunate?

This post is especially for fellow individualists/libertarians to answer, I'd like to see what you think of the moral basis of redistribution in response to this.

Is not society better off with my labor or invention or whatever? Does society not benefit due to the invention of the phone, the bakery down the street, or even my raising my children well?
Am I to be compensated for all that I do?
My work here is, finally, done.