- 27 Aug 2012 21:06
#14042732
"A social organization that possesses the legal right to unilaterally use force in the enactment of its own decisions and rulings."
Traffic laws also benefit pedestrians, since they are in part written to make sure drivers do not kill pedestrians. Traffic laws outline rules for pedestrians too, which benefits pedestrians--like establishing a uniform set of rules for drivers, and for establishing right of ways (including the right of way for pedestrians). Property privileges do nothing to protect those who do not have property from those who have property.
Sure it is. Property is something that a person has taken from society and claimed as their own. That's by definition something taken at the expense of everyone else--if you own something, I cannot also own it. It is exclusive, and therefore possession of the privilege is at the expense of everyone else.
It denies them the opportunity to have that bit of property for themselves; as long as you own it, they cannot. They might be able to convince you to arrange a transfer ("buy" it), but that's still your choice and ultimately they're shit out of luck if you don't want to sell. That is privation at the expense of the public. And since the organization that defends your privilege is paid for through taxes, it even comes at their expense more directly.
Everything is made of something, with the exception of property claims on ideas, which are even more nonsensical than normal property. That something was part of the public domain before someone privatized it. Hence "at the expense of" everyone else. Your claim of property has curtailed the possibilities of others.
Your proposed government is one stripped of anything but the power to favor the chosen few. Defending "the right of property for all" is meaningless if most people don't have any sizable amount of property. It's a meaningful favor for the chosen few, and a meaningless "favor" for everyone else.
Bullshit. Absolute bullshit. No one can be owned if ownership doesn't exist. That's basic logic right there. It's a tautology on the order of "A equals A."
It's not really its own mess. If you accept that you can own anything it's not really much of a stretch to accept that "anything" includes people too. Believing otherwise requires an innovation in property law--that people innately own themselves, and are unable to sell themselves. Slavery is an abhorrent practice, but property in general is an abhorrent practice. If you accept property, it is really a very short road to accepting slavery too.
The government did nothing about slavery; except acknowledge that a person's absolute right to own anything as property included people too. Until people established otherwise--that people were not natural resources to be claimed--that followed from the basic property privilege. Slavery and other horrific practices are what follows from an unrestricted property privilege.
At the time, people were not acknowledged to have a natural ownership of themselves. That innovation didn't happen until later, when people needed an ideological justification for distinguishing people from everything else. Since, yo uknow, if you're allowed to own anything, it's not altogether obvious why people ought to be excluded from that. It's why ownership in general is abhorrent.
I don't consider defense of the property privilege to be the government's most basic function. The basic function of the government ought to be to translate public demands into practical action.
Joe Liberty wrote:That depends on how broadly you define the word "government".
"A social organization that possesses the legal right to unilaterally use force in the enactment of its own decisions and rulings."
That's like saying traffic laws are unfair becuase they benefit people who drive at the expense of people who don't.
Traffic laws also benefit pedestrians, since they are in part written to make sure drivers do not kill pedestrians. Traffic laws outline rules for pedestrians too, which benefits pedestrians--like establishing a uniform set of rules for drivers, and for establishing right of ways (including the right of way for pedestrians). Property privileges do nothing to protect those who do not have property from those who have property.
There is no "at the expense of".
Sure it is. Property is something that a person has taken from society and claimed as their own. That's by definition something taken at the expense of everyone else--if you own something, I cannot also own it. It is exclusive, and therefore possession of the privilege is at the expense of everyone else.
Property rights would be enforced equally for all; nothing dictates that those without property are being taken advantage of or being forced to pay for anything. So where does the "expense" come in?
It denies them the opportunity to have that bit of property for themselves; as long as you own it, they cannot. They might be able to convince you to arrange a transfer ("buy" it), but that's still your choice and ultimately they're shit out of luck if you don't want to sell. That is privation at the expense of the public. And since the organization that defends your privilege is paid for through taxes, it even comes at their expense more directly.
Secondly, in this context property rights refer to more than physical land.
Everything is made of something, with the exception of property claims on ideas, which are even more nonsensical than normal property. That something was part of the public domain before someone privatized it. Hence "at the expense of" everyone else. Your claim of property has curtailed the possibilities of others.
I still fail to see how a government stripped of the power to favor the chosen few is a boon for the chosen few.
Your proposed government is one stripped of anything but the power to favor the chosen few. Defending "the right of property for all" is meaningless if most people don't have any sizable amount of property. It's a meaningful favor for the chosen few, and a meaningless "favor" for everyone else.
That's just nonsense. No one could be anything but a slave if there were no property rights.
Bullshit. Absolute bullshit. No one can be owned if ownership doesn't exist. That's basic logic right there. It's a tautology on the order of "A equals A."
Blaming government for ignoring property rights is weak, but excusing that because it eventually cleaned up its own mess (not due to any altruisim, but from economic and social pressures) makes sense?
It's not really its own mess. If you accept that you can own anything it's not really much of a stretch to accept that "anything" includes people too. Believing otherwise requires an innovation in property law--that people innately own themselves, and are unable to sell themselves. Slavery is an abhorrent practice, but property in general is an abhorrent practice. If you accept property, it is really a very short road to accepting slavery too.
Your car crash metaphor is a horrible one. It's not like blaming someone for driving by a crash and doing nothing, it's like causing the crash and then being awarded a medal for not utterly killing the other driver.
The government did nothing about slavery; except acknowledge that a person's absolute right to own anything as property included people too. Until people established otherwise--that people were not natural resources to be claimed--that followed from the basic property privilege. Slavery and other horrific practices are what follows from an unrestricted property privilege.
Right, it ignored property rights.
At the time, people were not acknowledged to have a natural ownership of themselves. That innovation didn't happen until later, when people needed an ideological justification for distinguishing people from everything else. Since, yo uknow, if you're allowed to own anything, it's not altogether obvious why people ought to be excluded from that. It's why ownership in general is abhorrent.
You don't want to hold it responsible for betraying its most basic function,
I don't consider defense of the property privilege to be the government's most basic function. The basic function of the government ought to be to translate public demands into practical action.