Socialism is the ideal way to go. Change my Mind - Page 14 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

As either the transitional stage to communism or legitimate socio-economic ends in its own right.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15004924
Pants-of-dog wrote:A transfer of title. So, when you say you own it, you are saying you are legally entitled to it?

I am saying I have a right to it. Literally that it is morally right for me to have it.

Pants-of-dog wrote:In this situation, and in Anglophone culture, to whom do we present our ownership claims?

We are not going to ask your neighbours, for example. Nor would we ask a panel of hard core leftists.

Whose decision would actually be binding and enforced?

Historically you actually would look to neighbours for backup. Even in the present 90% of property disputes are solved this way. Even when they go to court whoever arbitrates makes a decision by asking what the relevant parties think and then trying to determine who is telling the truth.

Dude if you are trying to use the socratic method to prove that we are all secretly retarded commies then you made a mistake.
#15004926
SolarCross wrote:I am saying I have a right to it. Literally that it is morally right for me to have it.


Maybe.

But we were talking about the bill of sale. Unless you are claiming that the bill of sale is a moral document, this is irrelevant.

You said it was a transfer of title. By this, you mean that the legal entitlement to that vehicle was legally transferred from the seller to you. Is that correct?

Historically you actually would look to neighbours for backup. Even in the present 90% of property disputes are solved this way.


I am not going to discuss your ideas about history and economics right now.

These days, your neighbours would just look at you and say that this is not their problem.

But if we lived in a neighbourhood of communists, then the neighbours would say that the car belongs to the collective, or maybe to you, depending on what you want to use it for.

I like this point about neighbours, because it shows how ownership is a social construct.

Even when they go to court whoever arbitrates makes a decision by asking what the relevant parties think and then trying to determine who is telling the truth.


Ah yes, the judge.

And the judge is a legal arbiter who decides who legally is entitled to the car.

It certainly seems like private property is legal entitlement.

Now, let us imagine I lose the case and then take your car anyway.

Is the car mine, even though I have possession of it?
#15004928
Pants-of-dog wrote:Maybe.

But we were talking about the bill of sale. Unless you are claiming that the bill of sale is a moral document, this is irrelevant.

You said it was a transfer of title. By this, you mean that the legal entitlement to that vehicle was legally transferred from the seller to you. Is that correct?

Hopefully a legal system that wasn't broken would consider it evidence of transfer. It would still be evidence of transfer even if there were no professional courts subsidised by taxpayers or purely private (yes they do exist). The right exists seperately from enforcement, indeed enforcement can come from a source other than a notional government, and historically usually did.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I am not going to discuss your ideas about history and economics right now.

These days, your neighbours would just look at you and say that this is not their problem.

But if we lived in a neighbourhood of communists, then the neighbours would say that the car belongs to the collective, or maybe to you, depending on what you want to use it for.
I like this point about neighbours, because it shows how ownership is a social construct.

Actually my neighbours would probably be fine with backing me up as they have the same ideas about rightful ownership and they own stuff too.

I wouldn't live in a neighbourhood of commies no more than I would live in a mental asylum and for the same reasons. Nor would I knowingly allow a commie into my house as I would have to make him empty his pockets before leaving given their habit of lying and stealing.


Pants-of-dog wrote:Ah yes, the judge.

And the judge is a legal arbiter who decides who legally is entitled to the car.

It certainly seems like private property is legal entitlement.

Now, let us imagine I lose the case and then take your car anyway.

Is the car mine, even though I have possession of it?


The arbiter's job is to recognise rights not create rights. Do you know the story of King Solomon where he is asked to judge which woman was telling the truth about who was the real mother to a child? What if he was less clever or lazy and made the incorrect judgement? Would you say that the mother was literally whoever he said it was even if he was mistaken? @B0ycey would say so.
#15004929
SolarCross wrote:The arbiter's job is to recognise rights not create rights. Do you know the story of King Solomon where he is asked to judge which woman was telling the truth about who was the real mother to a child? What if he was less clever or lazy and made the incorrect judgement? Would you say that the mother was literally whoever he said it was even if he was mistaken? @B0ycey would say so.


Strawman. Although it does need to be said that the mother was who he (Solomon) said it was as logical deduction isn't always correct FYI. :lol:

As for medieval practices, if you had a dispute you would fight it out in a field as their was no right to anything back then FYI. You wouldn't ask your neighbours for help because chances are they didn't give a shit. And then you if you lost your family would execute blood feuds to save honor to what they believed was right. Nonetheless morals are subjective which is why any format of private property you adhere to, even VSs notion of it, requires objective values. But why am I repeating myself. It never fixes your ignorance.
#15004931
B0ycey wrote:Strawman. Although it does need to be said that the mother was who he (Solomon) said it was as logical deduction isn't always correct FYI. :lol:

The correct answer is that the real mother of the child is still the real mother of the child even if Solomon bungles his job. He does not create the right only could he enforce it or violate it through malfeasance or error.

B0ycey wrote:As for medieval practices, if you had a dispute you would fight it out in a field as their was no right to anything back then FYI. You wouldn't ask your neighbours for help because chances are they didn't give a shit. And then you if you lost your family would execute blood feuds to save honor to what they believed was right. Nonetheless morals are subjective which is why any format of private property you adhere to, even VSs notion of it, requires objective values. But why am I repeating myself. It never fixes your ignorance.

You don't know any history.

-----------

So this is how commies intend to steal the whole world:

step 1. get on the internet and lie about stuff
step 2. lie even more
step 3. ? :?: ?
step 4. TOTAL WORLD DOMINATION!

:lol:
Last edited by SolarCross on 15 May 2019 18:55, edited 2 times in total.
#15004932
SolarCross wrote:Hopefully a legal system that wasn't broken would consider it evidence of transfer. It would still be evidence of transfer even if there were no professional courts subsidised by taxpayers or purely private (yes they do exist). The right exists seperately from enforcement, indeed enforcement can come from a source other than a notional government, and historically usually did.


Maybe, but right now, ownership is defined as legal entitlement which is enforced through law, courts, et cetera.

Actually my neighbours would probably be fine with backing me up as they have the same ideas about rightful ownership and they own stuff too.


Yes, most people in the Anglosphere are capitalists.

This does not refute the important point that ownership is a social construct.

The arbiter's job is to recognise rights not create rights.


Yes. And in this case, they are recognising your right to the car.

So, is the car mine now that I stole it? Yes or no?
#15004933
Private property and national property are not moral they are practical. How could an individual or any subset of human beings ever become the moral owner of scarce natural resources? I agree with the left that western settlers had no right to own the lands they conquered. Where I disagree is that I don't consider the so called indigenous peoples had any right to won the lands either. Native people constantly fought each other and protected their lands against racial outsiders with ferocious terror.

Note in principle an individual would be entitled to own property that they had created without the use of scarce natural resources, just by their own labour, but in reality everything we create and have created is dependant on the possession and consumption of scare natural resources. If I have no right to own land, then I have no right own the Wheat that was grown on it. If I have no right to consume scare easily accessible Iron resources, then I have no right to own the tool I made from that Iron. Land and Capital are fungible. So I am you see philosophically a Communist.

Its quite funny when you look at what lefties are actually saying: "Blut und Boden." The modern left are pure Nazis! Its just that their Nazi hate is directed against Whites, Infidels and Gentiles.

junking absolute morality is actually quite liberating. Life is unfair. Life has always been unfair, and as far as I can make out is likely to remain so. Non absolute Private property combined with wealth transfers, public spending and regulations can produce a system that it is in the interests of the overwhelming majority to buy into. One can accept the system without having to believe in its fairness.
#15004935
SolarCross wrote:The correct answer is that the real mother of the child is still the real mother of the child even if Solomon bungles his job. He does not create the right only could he enforce it or violate it through malfeasance or error.


The biological mother remains as such due to genetics. But who obtained the right of motherhood for the child once Solomon gave the order? And why was that right obtained? Perhaps understand that and you might get somewhere when understanding what property is.

You don't know any history.


:lol:

Your problem is that I do and you don't.
#15004936
Pants-of-dog wrote:Maybe, but right now, ownership is defined as legal entitlement which is enforced through law, courts, et cetera.

It actually isn't. Legal systems did come into being to judge rights because that is a thing claimants wanted, but they are not original claimants themselves and the fact that they can make mistakes shows that the right of something exists independently of a legal judgement.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, most people in the Anglosphere are capitalists.

This does not refute the important point that ownership is a social construct.

My dinner is a "social contract", lol.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes. And in this case, they are recognising your right to the car.

So, is the car mine now that I stole it? Yes or no?

I would say no. You will lie and say yes.

---------

Thanks to @B0ycey and @Pants-of-dog I now understand why communist regimes always produce fake justice or "kangaroo courts". Pro-tip: Never let yourself be ruled by commies.
#15004937
SolarCross wrote:It actually isn't. Legal systems did come into being to judge rights because that is a thing claimants wanted, but they are not original claimants themselves and the fact that they can make mistakes shows that the right of something exists independently of a legal judgement.


Yes, it actually is, and this is true regardless of your ideas about history.

My dinner is a "social contract", lol.


No, your economic relationship with your dinner is a social construct.

I would say no.


So mere possession is not ownership. Thank you,
#15004938
@Pants-of-dog so after all that lying and screwing around how much real stuff did actually manage to steal from me? It is nothing at all, am I right?

Whenever I think about the tragic failures that inhabit pofo I like to think of successful thieves like Ronnie Biggs. He would have a good laugh at your pathetic attempts to scam stuff out of people. Actions speak louder than words, chumps.

Image
#15004940
Pants-of-dog wrote:As long as we agree that ownership is not possession.

Instead, it is a legal entitlement that is enforced through the state.

This is what you want to believe because you imagine one day you will be the state and then you can magically unmake everyone's rightful property. This is a self-serving narrative of a thief who needs a state to feel brave enough to do what Ronnie Biggs did without one.
#15004946
Pants-of-dog wrote:Exploitation of labour (or labor) is the act of treating one's workers unfairly for one's own benefit. It is a social relationship based on an asymmetry in a power relationship between workers and their employers.[1] When speaking about exploitation, there is a direct affiliation with consumption in social theory and traditionally this would label exploitation as unfairly taking advantage of another person because of his or her inferior position, giving the exploiter the power.

Again, this definition does not account for the difference between having the power to give and having the power to take, which socialism refuses to know. By this definition, a baker who has made some bread is "exploiting" hungry people by charging them more for a loaf than it cost him to bake it. It's "exploitation" because there is a "power imbalance": he has bread, and they are in an "inferior position" because they are hungry. But why are they hungry? Why not bake their own bread? Well, they don't have that option because the local protection racket forcibly stops anyone but the baker from dealing with the flour mill -- and charges him a handsome sum for this "service." The socialist refuses to distinguish between the protection racketeer, who deprives the hungry people of the option of feeding themselves which they would otherwise have, and the baker, who provides them with the option of buying bread. Indeed, the socialist declares the baker to be a wicked exploiter of the hungry, and forcibly seizes his ovens and equipment, which are then operated by a workers' collective that produces less bread than the baker did, of lower quality, and charges a higher price for it.
Socialism is not supposed to be a panacea for all the world’s ills. It is merely supposed to address economic exploitation.

But absurdly -- almost comically -- it seeks to address the baker's "exploitation" of hungry people by inflicting even greater hunger on them, because it can't understand the difference between the protection racket that deprives hungry people of an option they would otherwise have and the baker who provides them with an option they would not otherwise have. And because it can't tell the difference between a protection racket and a baker, it can't understand that it is the former that is causing the hunger and consequent imbalance of power, not the latter.
#15004948
Truth To Power wrote:Again, this definition does not account for the difference between having the power to give and having the power to take, which socialism refuses to know. By this definition, a baker who has made some bread is "exploiting" hungry people by charging them more for a loaf than it cost him to bake it. It's "exploitation" because there is a "power imbalance": he has bread, and they are in an "inferior position" because they are hungry.


No. This is a misunderstanding.

It has nothing to do with who has possession of the bread.

It is about who owns the bakery.
#15004969
SolarCross wrote:It was a human concept first. Laws reflect custom.

Sometimes, sometimes not. One can say that they are ideally an attempt to codify a social concept of justice, but they are often just imposed by force. Example: the Norman laws granting private ownership titles to vast tracts of English land that had been held in village commons under Celtic tradition, almost all of which is still owned by the remote descendants of the Norman nobles who were granted the titles.
Besides "governments" are not the only source of law.

But they are the only known source of private land titles. It is no accident that hunter-gatherer and nomadic herding peoples typically revolted against private landowning when imperialist and colonial powers imposed it on them by force.
#15004970
Truth To Power wrote:Sometimes, sometimes not. One can say that they are ideally an attempt to codify a social concept of justice, but they are often just imposed by force. Example: the Norman laws granting private ownership titles to vast tracts of English land that had been held in village commons under Celtic tradition, almost all of which is still owned by the remote descendants of the Norman nobles who were granted the titles.

The Norman conquest replaced a SAXON landowning class with a Norman one. The style of land ownership did not change at all, only the exact persons doing the owning changed. You are literally making shit up.

Truth To Power wrote:But they are the only known source of private land titles. It is no accident that hunter-gatherer and nomadic herding peoples typically revolted against private landowning when imperialist and colonial powers imposed it on them by force.

Again you are making shit up.
#15004971
Pants-of-dog wrote:No. This is a misunderstanding.

No, it is a direct application of the definition of exploitation YOU gave: taking advantage of an imbalance of power that places others in an inferior position.
It has nothing to do with who has possession of the bread.

Huh?? How could it? The baker has possession of the bread he baked because he produced it, and that is what enables him to "exploit" his customers by taking advantage of the "imbalance of power" and their "inferior position."
It is about who owns the bakery.

OK, so you do claim that the baker is exploiting his customers because he created both the bakery and the bread, and is thus in a position to sell them food they would not otherwise have; but (inexplicably, in my estimation) you refuse to admit that the protection racket that deprived the people of their liberty to buy flour and make bread themselves in the first place has anything to do with the bread shortage and consequent high price that enable the baker to "exploit" his customers. Thank you for so eloquently exemplifying the willful refusal to know indisputable facts that I identified as characteristic of socialists.
#15004972
SolarCross wrote:The Norman conquest replaced a SAXON landowning class with a Norman one. The style of land ownership did not change at all, only the exact persons doing the owning changed. You are literally making shit up.

No; although the Saxon landowners were certainly dispossessed in favor of Normans, the Normans also imposed feudal landlordism over areas that had previously been village commons where each household had a right to use a portion of the land. In many cases the nominal Saxon "owners" had not disturbed the village commons they formally owned, and had not reduced the free yeomanry living on "their" land to feudal serfdom as the Normans subsequently did.
  • 1
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 21
Undocumented Aliens and Crime

Lungs have no volition of their own, not being s[…]

Election 2020

No. Just no. He is way different. (Classic pr[…]

Ukrainegate

Yes. Like I said, he doesn't have to. It's not a[…]

My girlfriend will be 50 in January and she's got[…]