[Smith 2.0]

Anyone here have any opinions on his conception and defence of property in the two treatises of government?

[smashthestate]

"Every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but himself. The labor of his body and the work of his hands are properly his."
– John Locke, 1690

[malachi151]

"Every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but himself. The labor of his body and the work of his hands are properly his."
– John Locke, 1690

This is exactly true, which is the basis of Marxism.

Contrary to popular misconception, Marx and Locke agree on a lot, all "great thinkers" agree on the same basic set of ideas.

Adam Smith, John Locke, and Karl Marx all said the same exact things.

The fact that a man's labor is his is THE basis of Communism. Profits are a form of theft of the labor of a man.

When a man does work on an object teh value of that object is increased. According to bopth Locke and Marx the man has teh right to all of that value. Capitlaism is the means through which rights to that value are retained by the property owner, depriving the worker of the value whcih he imparted to the object.

[smashthestate]

When a man does work on an object teh value of that object is increased. According to bopth Locke and Marx the man has teh right to all of that value. Capitlaism is the means through which rights to that value are retained by the property owner, depriving the worker of the value whcih he imparted to the object.

Except that under capitalism, all of this is voluntary to the worker. Under socialism and communism, the collectivization is forceful. What happens in a communst society if you refuse to work?

Yes, the work a man does is his AND it is his choice what he wants to do with it. Capitalism guarantees his right to CHOICE about his labor. Communism or socialism does not.

John Locke was NOT in favor, in any way, of forced collectivization. You are completely mistaken. Marx and Locke would never agree on a socio-economic system.

"It is true governments cannot be supported without great charge, and it is fit every one who enjoys his share of the protection should pay out of his estate his proportion for the maintenance of it. But still it must be with his own consent- i.e., the consent of the majority, giving it either by themselves or their representatives chosen by them; for if any one shall claim a power to lay and levy taxes on the people by his own authority, and without such consent of the people, he thereby invades the fundamental law of property, and subverts the end of government. For what property have I in that which another may by right take when he pleases to himself?"
- John Locke

"It cannot be supposed that they should intend, had they a power so to do, to give any one or more an absolute arbitrary power over their persons and estates, and put a force into the magistrate's hand to execute his unlimited will arbitrarily upon them; this were to put themselves into a worse condition than the state of Nature, wherein they had a liberty to defend their right against the injuries of others, and were upon equal terms of force to maintain it, whether invaded by a single man or many in combination. Whereas by supposing they have given up themselves to the absolute arbitrary power and will of a legislator, they have disarmed themselves, and armed him to make a prey of them when he pleases..."
- John Locke

Does that sound like someone who favors communism/socialism to you?

Trusting the government to ensure the welfare of the people is like trusting a fox to guard the hen house.

[Locke]

Thought I should post... since I like Locke and all...

"...whenever the Legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the People, who are thereupon absolved from any farther Obedience ... [Power then] devolves to the People, who have a Right to resume their original Liberty, and, by the Establishment of a new Legislative (such as they shall think fit) provide for their own Safety and Security, which is the end for which they are in Society."
-Second Treatise

Now, correct me if I am wrong, don't communist governments take away property for the "good of the masses"?

[smashthestate]

Now, correct me if I am wrong, don't communist governments take away property for the "good of the masses"?

Yes, but it's not that simple. They believe that the bourgeois never had any proper claim to that property in the first place, and that it should rightly belong to the worker.

[Edric O]

Ahem - the phrase "communist government" is an oxymoron. A government could be, at most, socialist.

As for the forced collectivization (if force will be necessary at all), it is quite similar to the forced abolition of slavery in 19th century America. Do you believe that the slaves should not have been emancipated because it violated the slave owners' "property rights"?

It is morally justified to use force against tyrants and exploiters. Your beloved capitalism would not have been possible without armed revolution and the forced abolition of serfdom.

[smashthestate]

Do you believe that the slaves should not have been emancipated because it violated the slave owners' "property rights"?

No, and that is not what capitalism believes either. Anyone who tells you any different isn't a capitalist and doesn't know their head from their ass. Every person has the same individual freedoms, and slaves, someone being FORCED against their will to work, is slavery.

It is morally justified to use force against tyrants and exploiters.

Force is only justified if it is retaliatory. You may only use force justly against "tyrants" and "exploiters" if they used force against you first--only if they initiated the force.

Your beloved capitalism would not have been possible without armed revolution and the forced abolition of serfdom

You're absolutely correct. But that use of force was justified in that it was retaliatory. Serfdom relies on FORCED labor, therefore it is immoral.

[Edric O]

So when the use of force suits your purposes, you call it "retaliatory". When it doesn't suit your purposes, you call it "initiation of force".

How convenient.

I consider tyranny and exploitation to be more than enough to warrant the use of "retaliatory" force. (as if that word had any real meaning)

[smashthestate]

So when the use of force suits your purposes, you call it "retaliatory". When it doesn't suit your purposes, you call it "initiation of force".

Did you even read what I said? Force is only justifed in RETALIATION TO FORCE. You can't use force just because it suits your purposes.

[Edric O]

I was commenting on the fact that "retaliatory" force is a term you use however you wish, to mean whatever you wish.

Let's say you drop a bag by accident. A man picks it up (thus he did not steal it, and did not initiate any kind of force) and refuses to give it back to you. Are you justified in using force against him? Even if he did not use force against you?

The argument that force is only justifiable in reply to force is full of holes, because a man may infringe on your rights or commit injustice without actually using physical force.

[malachi151]

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/commu ... arxism.htm

[Comrade Ogilvy]

The argument that force is only justifiable in reply to force is full of holes, because a man may infringe on your rights or commit injustice without actually using physical force.

The entire basis of your argument requires force to be physical in nature. Force doesn't have to be physical.

[Maxim Litvinov]

Every person has the same individual freedoms, and slaves, someone being FORCED against their will to work, is slavery.

Is there really a qualitative difference between a slave having to do particular work because s/he is owned, and someone else having to particular work because in practicality they have no alternative?

Surely the right to defend one's property is proportionate to the legitimacy of its ownership in the first place? That is - if I steal something off you I should not have the same right to my ill-gained property, as you might - having constructed the object, or earned it yourself?

If one is forced - either physically or by economic circumstances - to mortgage one's individual property to the state or to the rich then this is an injustice that ought to be corrected.