[Truth To Power]

For me the basic morality starts out with the fact that you cannot have private property outside the context of society.

Morality does not originate in property, but the other way around.

People originally lived in small hunter gatherer societies in which there was no centralized state, but also no private property.

It is true that our pre-human ancestors had no private property; but they did probably have morality, in the sense that there were social behaviors that went beyond instinct. Private property originated in the physical fact that a product of labor comes into existence in the producer's possession; depriving him of it attenuates his incentive to produce, impoverishing all. However, human beings have always been producers of capital goods -- tools -- so we have always had private property.

Private property arose when people began moving into cities and coincidentally moving into states.

False. Private property in the fruits of one's labor, especially tools and most food items, is observed in all known societies.

Libertarians like to overlook this but it is true, left-wing anarchists are right in that private property cannot be sustained without state coercion.

That's baldly false. Private property in the fruits of one's labor is recognized to varying degrees in all known societies. It is only private property in land and other privileges that cannot exist without state coercion.

That being said I think that private property has been good for society over the years in that it has promoted division of labor, allowing people to choose their occupation and specialize leading to us building better and more advanced civilizations. It has also encouraged people do deliver valuable goods and services people want motivated by the desire to acquire more property.

Yes, private property in the fruits of one's labor gets the incentives right, increasing prosperity for all.

Private property has had its dark sides like inequality and even slavery, but on balance we have advanced to a much more comfortable life via private property.

Once the valid institution of private property in the fruits of one's labor was recognized and codified, the greedy went about applying the same institution invalidly, first to enslave other human beings (which are products of "labor" only in an equivocal sense) by owning them as private property, and then, with marvelous subtlety, to enslave other human beings by owning the land they needed to use to survive.

I don't think the life of a hunter gatherer living in a cave is the life I want, but I suspect it is the life we would have had if we had not developed private property or the state. I believe the arrival of these two institutions facilitated the technological advances that led us to today.

Private property in the fruits of one's labor is needed to get production incentives right; private property in land arose as a quick and dirty solution to the problem of private property in fixed improvements. As such, it was better than no solution, just as slavery is better than no solution to the problem of what to do with captives obtained through successful warfare: you can't trust them not to kill you if you free them, but it's a dreadful waste to just kill them, especially if your own society's war losses have left you with a labor shortage. Private property in land at least preserves the incentive to make fixed improvements, and encourages more efficient allocation. It's just that, as with slavery, we now know much better ways to accomplish those same goals.

Private property, being the result of a society and inherent coercive institutions, is important but in my view not a completely inalienable and unrestricted right as libertarians view it.

See above. Once you realize private property is not all equally valid, you can start to understand how the institution needs to be changed to serve people rather than enslave them.

Society does have the right to use the surplus of property in order to benefit society as a whole, since people who own private property benefit from society recognizing and protecting their claim.

As explained above, that is true only of private property in land and other privileges, not of private property in the fruits of private labor.

The debate is between how much then government should do.

But the prior debate is about the character and validity of different kinds of property, and how they relate to their owners and the state.

Most people in society accept my reasoning, even a lot of people who call themselves conservatives but simply favor a smaller social safety net.

See above. We don't need to abrogate valid private property rights in the fruits of one's labor if we treat invalid property rights in land and other privileges according to their merits.

As to the practical question, I think a society with perpetual inequality and poverty would be a miserable society for all.

No, the owners of the privileges that enrich them and impoverish and enslave everyone else are made happy and prosperous by enslaveing others. That is why historically, they have always chosen to perish in blood and flame, and to watch their children slaughtered before their eyes, rather than relinquish even the smallest portion of their unjust advantages.

Everything DrLee said applies.

Except the parts refuted above.

Society is eventually going to demand some sort of social reform.

But will it be a reasoned and informed reform as outlined above, or just more stupid, unjust, and destructive Procrustean socialism?

This is why government should provide some programs for the poor.

No, government should first stop abrogating the rights of the poor for the unearned profit of the rich. Programs for the poor (whether state or private charity) never actually help them, because their landlords just charge them full market value for access to those programs. This has been going on at least since Roman times, when the state provided bread to the poor. They couldn't figure out that the rents in the areas around the bread distribution depots just rose to absorb the full value of the bread, so the poor were no better off. They doubled and then tripled the bread allowance, and it made no difference: the poor's landlords just took it all.

The key is balancing programs to help people in society versus causing laziness.

No. See above. The key is understanding how institutionalized privilege creates poverty for the victims and unearned wealth for rich, greedy, privileged parasites, and eliminating such privilege.

To some extent any program will include a moderate disincentive to work.

No. Restoring the liberty of the poor to work and retain the fruits of their labor will INCREASE their incentive to work.

This is why you need to look at all factors, including the world in absence of those programs.

You need first to understand how the rich are robbing the poor, and stop it.

[Drlee]

Private property in the fruits of one's labor.....

You have just blathered on for another 2000 words using a term that is utterly beyond definition. So let's see if you can. Carefully define "the fruits of one's labor". Specifically define what that is. What does one acquire through "the fruits of one's labor" and what does one not acquire that way?

Go for it. You won't because you can't.

Fellow members. Watch the dodge begin now.

[Truth To Power]

Private property in the fruits of one's labor.....

You have just blathered on for another 2000 words using a term that is utterly beyond definition.

Nonsense. Everyone reading this knows exactly what I am talking about, including you.

And if you have learned anything from your exchanges with me, it should be that I always know exactly what I am talking about, and requests for definitions thereof do not intimidate me in the slightest.

So let's see if you can. Carefully define "the fruits of one's labor". Specifically define what that is.

The desirable goods and services that exist as a result of one's efforts to produce them.

What does one acquire through "the fruits of one's labor" and what does one not acquire that way?

I assume you mean rightly acquire, as people can acquire things in all sorts of wrongful ways.

Labor earns its product, so one rightly acquires the things one brings into existence, and which would not otherwise have existed. Anything not produced by labor -- i.e., other human beings and the resources of the physical universe that nature provided for all -- can never rightly be acquired by labor. Knowledge, ideas, information, culture, etc. that are naturally abundant in the public domain can be acquired by all with or without labor, but never rightly acquired as an exclusive monopoly except by producing them privately and then keeping them out of the public domain (i.e., secret).

The only complicated issue involves things produced by more than one person's labor. Anything produced by a voluntary group is acquired by the group, or by its individual members according to consensual arrangements regarding their shares. If one person brings together a group to produce something, arranging for their consensual participation on mutually agreed terms, that person acquires the group's product by satisfying the agreed terms.

Go for it. You won't because you can't.

LOL!! I just did, and didn't break a sweat.

Fellow members. Watch the dodge begin now.

Yes. Do that.

[Saeko]

Anything not produced by labor -- i.e., other human beings

I beg to differ.

[Drlee]

Well TTP. That was sure an exercise in nonsense. In your previous post you said, "Private property in the fruits of one's labor is recognized to varying degrees in all known societies. It is only private property in land and other privileges that cannot exist without state coercion."

Of course this is nonsense in the first place. So let's start with it.

Why do you refer to land as a "privilege". You assert that there are "other privileges" too. What fruits of one's labor do not belong to the land and "other privileges" group?

And if you have learned anything from your exchanges with me, it should be that I always know exactly what I am talking about, and requests for definitions thereof do not intimidate me in the slightest.

On the contrary. I have found that though you are wordy, you rarely demonstrate to me that you know what you are talking about. I am not saying you are not convinced. I am saying that you are usually wrong and when not directly wrong very shallow.

The desirable goods and services that exist as a result of one's efforts to produce them.

Desirable? Desirable by who?

So you would maintain that if I write a song, that song is my property and that I have the right to the fruits thereof. No one else may perform my song without paying me. Correct?

But then you go on to say:

Knowledge, ideas, information, culture, etc. that are naturally abundant in the public domain can be acquired by all with or without labor, but never rightly acquired as an exclusive monopoly except by producing them privately and then keeping them out of the public domain (i.e., secret).

So are you saying that I can not assert ownership of my song? Are you saying that art is not "the fruits of someone's labor"? Are you making an exception to your hard-and-fast rule? Are you saying that if I write a book that they only way I may only assert ownership if I keep my book to myself?

What if I make a horseshoe? Do I own the horseshoe? I do right? It is a tangible object that I made. Now suppose I invent a new kind of horseshoe. Do I own the right to protect my invention? Or are you maintaining that the very moment I put it on the horse, someone else may copy my design and make them for profit? In other words, I hear you maintaining that there is no such thing as a protectable interest. IS that what you are maintaining?

If my idea has no value beyond its exposure to view why is land different? If I am granted a forest why can't someone else use it just as you would have them use my horseshoe? Or song?

You see, what you said is just so much nonsense. It is extremely shallow. I hear it all of the time from our libertard community. Fortunately the overwhelming majority of people are way past this sort of mental masturbation.

It is not my intention to intimidate you. If you feel intimidated it is only natural though.

[Truth To Power]

Well TTP. That was sure an exercise in nonsense.

Everyone reading this is aware that my post was very clear and logical, including you.

In your previous post you said, "Private property in the fruits of one's labor is recognized to varying degrees in all known societies. It is only private property in land and other privileges that cannot exist without state coercion."

Of course this is nonsense in the first place.

It is fact.

Why do you refer to land as a "privilege".

<sigh> I said PRIVATE PROPERTY IN LAND is a privilege.

You assert that there are "other privileges" too.

Correct. Ownership of land does not steal enough wealth from producers to satisfy all the world's greedy parasites, so the latter have contrived a multitude of other privileges that enable them to steal from everyone else without either the legal or the physical risks of crime. In all advanced countries, their thieving appropriates more than half of GDP.

What fruits of one's labor do not belong to the land and "other privileges" group?

?? All of them, obviously. Land is not the product of anyone's labor, and privileges are created by legal fiat, not labor in the relevant sense.

And if you have learned anything from your exchanges with me, it should be that I always know exactly what I am talking about, and requests for definitions thereof do not intimidate me in the slightest.

On the contrary. I have found that though you are wordy, you rarely demonstrate to me that you know what you are talking about.

That more likely indicates a deficiency in your willingness to know the facts of objective physical reality I identify that prove your beliefs are false and evil. Don't beat yourself up over it. Most people find it difficult to handle being proved evil, and will say, do, and believe ANYTHING WHATEVER in order to avoid knowing it.

I am not saying you are not convinced. I am saying that you are usually wrong and when not directly wrong very shallow.

Garbage with no basis in fact.

The desirable goods and services that exist as a result of one's efforts to produce them.

Desirable? Desirable by who?

Anyone. You are now engaged in trying not to know the self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality that I have identified for you, and which prove your beliefs are false and evil. That is normal, routine, and expected.

So you would maintain that if I write a song, that song is my property and that I have the right to the fruits thereof.

No, there are no fruits of the song. The song is itself the fruit of your labor, which you own.

No one else may perform my song without paying me. Correct?

Incorrect. The song that you wrote is the fruit of your labor. You did not produce anyone else's copy, version, or performance of that song, and those are therefore not your property.

But then you go on to say:

Knowledge, ideas, information, culture, etc. that are naturally abundant in the public domain can be acquired by all with or without labor, but never rightly acquired as an exclusive monopoly except by producing them privately and then keeping them out of the public domain (i.e., secret).

So are you saying that I can not assert ownership of my song?

Of course you can: the song that YOU WROTE.

Are you saying that art is not "the fruits of someone's labor"?

It is indisputably the fruits of someone's labor: the artist's. And a copy of an artist's work made by someone else is just as surely the fruit of THEIR labor, and not the artist's.

Are you making an exception to your hard-and-fast rule?

No, I am applying it literally.

Are you saying that if I write a book that they only way I may only assert ownership if I keep my book to myself?

You own the book you wrote. If someone else copies it, that copy is the fruit of their labor, not yours. Once you allow someone else to read your book, their knowledge of its contents is knowledge in their mind, not yours, and you have no rightful property interest in the contents of other people's minds.

What if I make a horseshoe? Do I own the horseshoe? I do right?

Definitely.

It is a tangible object that I made. Now suppose I invent a new kind of horseshoe. Do I own the right to protect my invention?

What do you mean, "protect" it? Is someone proposing to damage your horseshoe? That would deprive you of something you would otherwise have, so is a violation of your property right in the horseshoe.

But I suspect that by "protect" you actually mean, "forcibly prevent others from exercising their natural liberty to use their knowledge of." Is that about it?

Or are you maintaining that the very moment I put it on the horse, someone else may copy my design and make them for profit?

Everyone is naturally at liberty to use whatever knowledge and information they possess in their own minds, for profit or any other legitimate purpose that does not deprive anyone else of anything they would otherwise have.

In other words, I hear you maintaining that there is no such thing as a protectable interest. IS that what you are maintaining?

That depends on what you mean by a "protectable interest." If you mean, "rightful legal entitlement to benefit from the uncompensated abrogation of others' rights," then no, there is no such thing as a protectable interest.

If my idea has no value beyond its exposure to view why is land different?

Huh?? Who says your idea has no value beyond its exposure to view (this is called its release into the public domain)? How is land similar??

If I am granted a forest

How would you be "granted" a forest? By whose right?

why can't someone else use it

We are all naturally at liberty to use what nature provided for all. If you want to exclude others from a forest, make just compensation to the community of those thus excluded, and in return, they should rightly place everyone else's liberty to use it in abeyance.

just as you would have them use my horseshoe? Or song?

Your horseshoe and song -- the ones YOU MADE -- are your rightful property. Similar ones that others might make are not your property because they are the fruits of others' labor, not yours. I'm not sure what is so hard to understand about this, but I know that many people contrive not to understand it.

You see, what you said is just so much nonsense.

No, it is very clear and logical. It just proves that your beliefs are false and evil, so you have to find some way of not knowing it.

It is extremely shallow.

No, it is as deep as anything you have ever seen on the subject.

I hear it all of the time from our libertard community.

I doubt it.

Fortunately the overwhelming majority of people are way past this sort of mental masturbation.

<yawn> Non-response noted. At this point, you appear to have no factual or logical arguments to offer. That, too, is normal, routine, and expected.

It is not my intention to intimidate you. If you feel intimidated it is only natural though.

LOL! No problem. You clearly just don't understand the subject well enough to realize that you are the one who should be intimidated.

[Drlee]

The usual extremely shallow libertarian/ANCAP nonsense. Fortunately people from the beginning of time have been smart enough to laugh at it. And utterly reject it. It does though continue to titillate high school students. Not many educated beyond that level would give these ideas any time at all.

[Truth To Power]

The usual extremely shallow libertarian/ANCAP nonsense.

Garbage. The usual libertarian/ANCAP nonsense is married to private property in land.

Fortunately people from the beginning of time have been smart enough to laugh at it.

They also laughed at abolitionists.

And utterly reject it.

Really? I doubt you can name anyone who can demonstrate accurate understanding of it, and still rejects it.

It does though continue to titillate high school students. Not many educated beyond that level would give these ideas any time at all.

What a gracious concession of defeat.

It is clear that you have been comprehensively and conclusively demolished, you know it, and you have no answers.

You are just sad, now.

[Drlee]

I will leave it to others to decide whether it is necessary to spend any more time on this off-topic diversion. Suffice it to say that I have no personal desire to spend anymore time in the shallow end of the pool. Besides, any argument I might make would be way over your head it would appear.

You have, on several threads, maintained that you have a superior education. This leads me to believe that you value superior education. You should simply realize that you are way out of your league.

[Truth To Power]

I will leave it to others to decide whether it is necessary to spend any more time on this off-topic diversion. Suffice it to say that I have no personal desire to spend anymore time in the shallow end of the pool. Besides, any argument I might make would be way over your head it would appear.

I have demolished and humiliated you, you know it, and you have no answers. Simple.

You have, on several threads, maintained that you have a superior education.

My education is well above average, but my intellect is far better.

This leads me to believe that you value superior education.

Not as much as I value intelligence, and I have learned to value intelligence less than honesty.

You should simply realize that you are way out of your league.

Oh, I know I am: I haven't encountered anyone here worth the effort of shredding since Eran left.

[Pants-of-dog]

TtP,

Please provide a clear and simple defintion of private property.

Thank you.

[SueDeNîmes]

The usual extremely shallow libertarian/ANCAP nonsense.

Garbage. The usual libertarian/ANCAP nonsense is married to private property in land.[

Yep, the usual Libertard nonsense with a land quibble.

They also laughed at abolitionists.

Really? I doubt you can name anyone who can demonstrate accurate understanding of it, and still rejects it.

What a gracious concession of defeat.

It is clear that you have been comprehensively and conclusively demolished, you know it, and you have no answers.

You are just sad, now.

I have demolished and humiliated you, you know it, and you have no answers. Simple.

My education is well above average, but my intellect is far better.

Oh, I know I am: I haven't encountered anyone here worth the effort (..etc)

Then mere mortals wonder why such an intellectual giant goes to such lengths to do such a terrible job of spreading the good word.

[Truth To Power]

Please provide a clear and simple defintion of private property.

Private property is a legally (or in pre-legal systems, socially) recognized relationship whereby a private person or institution is entitled to control, benefit from, exclude others from, and dispose of items considered their property as they will, subject to such societal restrictions as may be in force to secure others' rights.

[Pants-of-dog]

And do you believe that all cultures and society had this?

[Truth To Power]

Garbage. The usual libertarian/ANCAP nonsense is married to private property in land.

Yep, the usual Libertard nonsense with a land quibble.

No, that is just more false, absurd, and ignorant garbage from you.

The only difference between private property in land and slavery is that slavery removes people's rights to liberty one person at a time, landowning removes them one right at a time. This fact is proved by the slave-like condition of the landless in EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY, THROUGHOUT ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY, where private property in land was well established, but government did not intervene massively to rescue the landless from its inevitable social and economic effects through minimum wages, poverty relief programs, publicly funded health care, education and pensions, labor standards laws and union monopoly privileges, etc.

Only the most vicious, dishonest, irrational, bigoted, anti-justice, anti-liberty, anti-human and outright EVIL belief system could call the difference between liberty and slavery a "quibble."

Then mere mortals wonder why such an intellectual giant goes to such lengths to do such a terrible job of spreading the good word.

I occasionally get fan mail -- always literate, grammatical, and well expressed, indicating well above average intelligence -- including on this forum, that persuades me I am not doing such a terrible job at all. I address myself to the brave, honest, and intelligent but uninformed among my readers, not to the stupid, dishonest, lazy, greedy, cowardly, vicious and evil.

And do you believe that all cultures and society had this?

All societies known to anthropologists have had it in various degrees and forms, yes. No other animal species has it, and I suspect you would have to go pretty far back into anatomically pre-modern humans to find a society without it.

[Drlee]

The only difference between private property in land and slavery is that slavery removes people's rights to liberty one person at a time, landowning removes them one right at a time.

Wow. One absurdity after another.

Only the most vicious, dishonest, irrational, bigoted, anti-justice, anti-liberty, anti-human and outright EVIL belief system could call the difference between liberty and slavery a "quibble."

Strawman much?

Really TTP. You claim all of this education and then post some of the most absurd claptrap I have ever heard.

Just for fun, what do you call this economic system you espouse? I can think of two terms. One begins with horse and the other with bull.

[Pants-of-dog]

All societies known to anthropologists have had it in various degrees and forms, yes. No other animal species has it, and I suspect you would have to go pretty far back into anatomically pre-modern humans to find a society without it.

I doubt it. Some societies probably felt that people were not entitiled to certain goods, but instead felt that those people who had them were responsible for them.

Also, this wiggle room you left at the end of the statement was very vague. If each society restrcited it according to social context, it is possible that a society restricted so much that it was not a thing.

Also, do you think that personal property is private property?

[Truth To Power]

The only difference between private property in land and slavery is that slavery removes people's rights to liberty one person at a time, landowning removes them one right at a time.

Wow. One absurdity after another.

More false and ignorant garbage from you. It is an OBJECTIVE FACT OF PHYSICAL REALITY that appropriation of land as private property deprives people of their liberty to use that land. When all the land has been appropriated, they have no right even to the space in which to exist, and live only by the sufferance and permission of landowners. Of course they are then enslaved, and can only be rescued from slavery by the kind of government programs I described.

Only the most vicious, dishonest, irrational, bigoted, anti-justice, anti-liberty, anti-human and outright EVIL belief system could call the difference between liberty and slavery a "quibble."

Strawman much?

It is the literal truth. Indeed, the equivalence of landowning and slavery has been demonstrated historically, as when the USA putatively freed its slaves, and people were mystified that their condition was not noticeably improved:

"During the war I served in a Kentucky regiment in the Federal army. When the war
broke out, my father owned sixty slaves. I had not been back to my old Kentucky
home for years until a short time ago, when I was met by one of my father's old
negroes, who said to me: 'Master George, you say you set us free; but before God,
I'm worse off than when I belonged to your father.' The planters, on the other hand, are contented
with the change. They say, ' How foolish it was in us to go to war for slavery. We get labor cheaper
now than when we owned the slaves.' How do they get it cheaper? Why, in the shape of rents
they take more of the labor of the negro than they could under slavery, for then they were compelled
to return him sufficient food, clothing and medical attendance to keep him well, and were
compelled by conscience and public opinion, as well as by law, to keep him when he
could no longer work. Now their interest and responsibility cease when they have
got all the work out of him they can."

From a letter by George M. Jackson, St. Louis. Dated August 15, 1885.
Reprinted in Social Problems, by Henry George.

Really TTP. You claim all of this education and then post some of the most absurd claptrap I have ever heard.

But oddly, you can't refute any of it.

Just for fun, what do you call this economic system you espouse?

Liberty, justice and truth.

I can think of two terms. One begins with horse and the other with bull.

That's because you are against liberty, justice and the truth. You favor injustice over justice, tyranny over liberty, lies over truth, and evil over good.

Simple.

All societies known to anthropologists have had it in various degrees and forms, yes. No other animal species has it, and I suspect you would have to go pretty far back into anatomically pre-modern humans to find a society without it.

I doubt it.

But are incorrect.

Some societies probably felt that people were not entitiled to certain goods, but instead felt that those people who had them were responsible for them.

Not sure what you mean. Example?

Also, this wiggle room you left at the end of the statement was very vague. If each society restrcited it according to social context, it is possible that a society restricted so much that it was not a thing.

It is always a thing.

Also, do you think that personal property is private property?

Do you mean personal effects, like the contents of one's dwelling? Certainly.

[Drlee]

letter by George M. Jackson, St. Louis. Dated August 15, 1885.

Actually...no. Probably a compendium of ideas dictated (if that) to a white banker named Valentine.

Since you enjoy truth you will want to know that.

So you call your economic "system" ,..."Liberty, justice and truth".



I know I am not alone about now in rolling my eyes at such fatuous nonsense.

The whole world ignorant and you holding the key to "the truth". Seen it before. A most uninteresting pathology.

[Pants-of-dog]

TtP,

Do you think that the gift economy used by the indigenous people of the Pacific Northwest is an example of peoplebeing entitiled to do anything they want with property?

Also, why do you include personal property in private property?