[Eran]

How is human labour "inherently" social?

You can easily envision a sole pioneer clearing a field, sowing it, building a cabin, etc.
How was his labour a "social activity"? Why is he not the rightful sole owner of the property he created?

[Ataxia]

How is human labour "inherently" social?

You can easily envision a sole pioneer clearing a field, sowing it, building a cabin, etc.
How was his labour a "social activity"? Why is he not the rightful sole owner of the property he created?

And he just dropped out of the sky as a fully-formed adult in the middle of that field with all the tools and expertise needed to carry out the task?

[Eran]

His labour was not social - it was individual. He might have emerged out of a society, but hasn't performed his labour as part of a society.

As he emerged from society - an adult equipped with a few tools and some know-how, the field wasn't clear and the cabin wasn't built. Had he died at that moment, there would have been no cleared field, no cabin.

But your argument can easily apply at any level.

Let's try the following:

A nation cannot justly own property, since human labour is inherently an international activity. Therefore, national borders are illegitimate.

[Ataxia]

His labour was not social - it was individual. He might have emerged out of a society, but hasn't performed his labour as part of a society.

As he emerged from society - an adult equipped with a few tools and some know-how, the field wasn't clear and the cabin wasn't built. Had he died at that moment, there would have been no cleared field, no cabin.

He absolutely did perform his labour as part of society. Without out the labour of the countless individuals involved in the sustaining of his life up to that point, the people who made the tools, the people who developed the processes of cabin building and agriculture, and the people who taught him how to use them, etc. there would have been no cleared field or cabin. Labour is not a discrete individuated action, it a fluid continuous process, a flow of human energy and creativity.

But your argument can easily apply at any level.

Let's try the following:

A nation cannot justly own property, since human labour is inherently an international activity. Therefore, national borders are illegitimate.

I don't think nations can reasonably be said to exist, except as constructs imposed through violence.

[Eran]

Labour is not a discrete individuated action, it a fluid continuous process, a flow of human energy and creativity.

We are getting a little bit metaphysical here. Labour is precisely a discrete individuated action. That action typically takes place in a societal context, and invariably builds on past actions by other members of society.

But let's see where your argument, logically applies, takes us.

Do you believe in punishing criminals? If not, I'd be curious to understand how you propose, without the concepts of crime and punishment nor of private property to structure your society.

If you do believe in punishing criminals, couldn't we just as equally apply your argument to crime?

"An individual can't be guilty of a crime, since human crime is inherently a social activity."

Is that your position?

[Ataxia]

But let's see where your argument, logically applies, takes us.

Do you believe in punishing criminals? If not, I'd be curious to understand how you propose, without the concepts of crime and punishment nor of private property to structure your society.

If you do believe in punishing criminals, couldn't we just as equally apply your argument to crime?

"An individual can't be guilty of a crime, since human crime is inherently a social activity."

I think its fairly obvious that crime, in the sense of transgression against both another individual and against society, does not occur in a vacuum, but is a result of various social, cultural and environmental factors. Does that mean we don't punish rapists? Obviously not, but equally we need to acknowledge that rape is a cultural phenomenon, and recognise our individual and collective contributions towards patriarchy, rape culture, power relations etc.

[Eran]

Earlier you categorically ruled out individual property ownership.

But if rapists deserve individual sanction against their deeds, why don't entrepreneurs deserve individual reward for their actions?

[Ataxia]

Earlier you categorically ruled out individual property ownership.

But if rapists deserve individual sanction against their deeds, why don't entrepreneurs deserve individual reward for their actions?

It's not about "deserving" punishment. Abstract justice is not something I'm interested in. I think punishment (i.e. acts of violence against criminals, such as imprisonment) should be a very small part of our concept of justice. I think the state prison and policing system should be abolished. The focus should be on dismantling the systems of domination which brutalise people and cause crime in the first place, and by rehabilitating those who are already damaged. We prevent crime by making our world habitable, not by building prisons.

[Eran]

I too believe that the current criminal-justice system is counterproductive, and that crime can be greatly reduced without locking so many people in cages for so many years.

But unless you honestly believe that in your ideal society, crime will not exist, you must have some conception of holding people responsible for their actions, even those actions conducted in a societal context.

Do people ever deserve individual reward or punishment for their actions? If so, your original argument falls, because every action is carried in a societal context.

If not, I simply cannot imagine your society, or what will motivate its members to act cooperatively.

[Ataxia]

It's not a question of reward or punishment, its a question of ownership. It's about the artificiality and manifest unfairness of fencing off a particular product of the social labour process and declaring it yours because either 1) you were the last person to perform labour on it or 2) much more likely, you're the person who "owns" the area of space and the means of production used to perform that labour. Of course people should be rewarded for working, but that doesn't require private property. The product of human labour belongs to humanity, and we collectively should get to decide how that it is distributed.

[Eran]

You seem to want to treat humanity like an ant colony, where everybody works for the whole, and no private property exists.

I am not sure whether I should proceed by pointing out the historically-disastrous outcomes of any nation-wide attempt to abolish private property, the fallacy of the very concept of collective decisions, or the moral bankruptcy of deducing illegitimacy of private property from the mere fact that people don't live in a vacuum.

Btw, I assume you oppose all private property, not just private property in the means of production? In other words, if I painted a picture, built a house, or hold a family photo I value, any of those can be taken away at any time based solely on your "collective decision"?

[Ataxia]

You seem to want to treat humanity like an ant colony, where everybody works for the whole, and no private property exists

Like an ant colony in those particular respects, yeah, although I don't really want larvae, or queens, or spending my day carrying massive leaves.

I am not sure whether I should proceed by pointing out the historically-disastrous outcomes of any nation-wide attempt to abolish private property,

What about the historically disastrous outcomes of systems based on private property? (i.e. our present reality) Or maybe read something anarchists wrote about the dangers of authoritarian communism.

the fallacy of the very concept of collective decisions,

Sounds interesting. Go for it.

or the moral bankruptcy of deducing illegitimacy of private property from the mere fact that people don't live in a vacuum.

You were trying to, but haven't, as yet, succeeded.

Btw, I assume you oppose all private property, not just private property in the means of production? In other words, if I painted a picture, built a house, or hold a family photo I value, any of those can be taken away at any time based solely on your "collective decision"?

I don't think arbitrary evictions would be very anarchistic, do you?

[Eran]

What about the historically disastrous outcomes of systems based on private property?

Such as? The world has never been a better place for humans to live in.

the fallacy of the very concept of collective decisions

Briefly, modern societies are much too complex to be run by direct democracies. Thus every "collective" decision inevitably becomes a decision made by a ruling elite. Being human, the ruling elite will invariably make decisions that benefit themselves, even while they proficiently try to persuade the voting public that the decisions are intended for the "public good".

I don't think arbitrary evictions would be very anarchistic, do you?

I don't. But without property rights, what criterion do you have to rule them out?

[ThePublicOpinions]

What about the historically disastrous outcomes of systems based on private property? (i.e. our present reality)

I know.. it's so terrible, with the nice houses and fancy cars and fast computers. God, why are we not all living in some third world shit hole where we own nothing, are slaves to the state and probably were actually just shot dead 5 years ago when we pissed of some petty party official... that would be the good life!

[ingliz]

You can easily envision a sole pioneer clearing a field, sowing it, building a cabin, etc.

In the 1870's?

Most "pioneers" arrived in the US in ships.

Building a ship is a social activity.

Many "pioneers" started their journey into the interior on the railroads.

Building a railroad is a social activity

Many were granted the land by government

Government is a social activity

Many of the tools they used to clear the land were made in factories.

Factory production is a social activity

Most of the seed and the fixtures on, or in, their cabins were ordered from catalogues or bought at the general store next to the railway line.

The distribution of staple and manufactured goods is a social activity

etc. etc.

[Eran]

I'm not sure where you got the 1870's time frame.

Earlier pioneers relied much less on other people's labour. Some pioneers were born in America and used carriages to move west. They certainly didn't have to rely on government's "grant" of land.

Pioneers would frequently use tools made by others (though in small workshops, rather than factories).

But that is besides the point. As a matter of principle, their labour wasn't social - it was personal. They relied on getting their tools through trade with others, but the labour associated with homesteading was clearly personal.

[ingliz]

I'm not sure where you got the 1870's time frame.

"Go West, young man": editorial in the New York Tribune, July 13, 1865

As a matter of principle, their labour wasn't social

What principle is this?

[SecretSquirrel]

I would venture to say it would be the principle of "using logic rather than talking out of your ass."

You know, the principle which you don't ever use or understand

[ingliz]

"using logic rather than talking out of your ass."

Logically, if you use the labour of others to perform a task then it is not "personal" labour. It is a social activity.

[SecretSquirrel]

if a man who is alone for miles digs a trench in the centre of a field (his pioneer example), how did someone else's labor participate in that act