APP - Property is Theft

[I'm Watermark]

This distinction is absurd. It has nothing to do with the nature of the item, the method of acquisition or the property rights one holds in the item. It is meaningful in the jargon of communists but not in any significant way to others.

Again, what you are arguing is that employment is theft. Your argument seemingly has nothing to do with property.

To highlight this further, if I hire an actor to play a role in a play or performance piece I am doing, is that theft?

It has a lot to do with property. In Billy's case, does the machine not allow the extraction of value, the exploitation of labor, and the perpetuation of a useless social strata?

And the distinction is meaningful to the realities of our economic system. Don't blame me if your reaction to another narrative is to, without grounds, simply reject it.

To your question: I'd argue that it isn't. If you you play a necessary role (like writing) in the production of the play, you are hire, but are also a proletarian. Although some of the more hard-line Marxists may disagree with me. In any event, I was arguing against property, not employment relations in general.

 

[I'm Watermark]

Rose, you are simply inventing a definition with the intent of having your own way with it. There is no legal history or common tradition of making such a distinction. Marxists may have invented the distinctions in their own minds, but they have never had any basis in reality.

If you can demonstrate that, as a skeptic, I'll be happy to hear you out.

 

[I'm Watermark]

Its entirely fair,I bought it. If he had his own, then why would he work for me? Unless of course he did not have access to a market, or credit for a factory, or knowledge of sales. In such case he is equally unable to use the machine to his benefit. As for being paid, he's getting an agreed upon sum, as well as benefits.

What a nice, simplistic response. But you really didn't answer the question. If the worker financially unable to purchase the machine, while you (being less capable of using it) are, is that fair?

No, it is not. And the only purpose you serve in that relationship is to reduce the income of the worker.

 

[/MSG/]

What a nice, simplistic response. But you really didn't answer the question. If the worker financially unable to purchase the machine, while you (being less capable of using it) are, is that fair?

No, it is not. And the only purpose you serve in that relationship is to reduce the income of the worker.

I fail to see how providing him with income is reducing his income, as if he didn't have me his income would be $0.00

 

[Timshel]

It has a lot to do with property. In Billy's case, does the machine not allow the extraction of value, the exploitation of labor, and the perpetuation of a useless social strata?

No, his employment of this worker seems to be the key factor in your assertion of exploitation, not the machine.

And the distinction is meaningful to the realities of our economic system. Don't blame me if your reaction to another narrative is to, without grounds, simply reject it.

I presented the grounds for rejecting it. The distinction is not relevant to the realities of our economic or legal system. There is no change in the nature of the car or my ownership based on whether I rent it or not or whether I hire someone else to rent it or not. It certainly does not effect whether I have justly acquired the car, which is the matter in establishing theft. The car and my ownership of it are not even a necessary part of the legal relationship to the imagined employee.

Your distinction is meaningful only in the jargon of communists.

To your question: I'd argue that it isn't. If you you play a necessary role (like writing) in the production of the play, you are hire, but are also a proletarian. Although some of the more hard-line Marxists may disagree with me. In any event, I was arguing against property, not employment relations in general.

It is not clear why it would not be theft. Can you elaborate how the relationship suddenly becomes less exploitative once capital assets are removed?

You only argue against property when it can somehow be related to an employment relationship. Property in the car is not theft if I use for personal use; it is not theft if use it in a business but have no employees; it is theft if I use it in business and have an employee. But hiring an employee has nothing to do with whether I justly acquired the car and to say it suddenly makes property in the car theft, is absurd.

 

[Timshel]

What a nice, simplistic response. But you really didn't answer the question. If the worker financially unable to purchase the machine, while you (being less capable of using it) are, is that fair?

No, it is not. And the only purpose you serve in that relationship is to reduce the income of the worker.

What does this have to do with whether the property was unjustly acquired, i.e., theft?

I also fail to see whether he or the worker is competent to use the machine has anything to do with whether it is fair that he owns it. However, you seem to be arguing that we should ignore consideration of whether property is justly acquired in determining theft and only consider whether it is justly held, which you seem to want to predicate on whether the holder is competent to use the property. By whom and how is that decided?

 

[I'm Watermark]

I fail to see how providing him with income is reducing his income, as if he didn't have me his income would be $0.00

If he had the machine, his income would be X. If you had the machine and hired him, his income would be X minus Y(ours).

 

[I'm Watermark]

No, his employment of this worker seems to be the key factor in your assertion of exploitation, not the machine.

Both play a role, but employment, in this case, is the most important.

I presented the grounds for rejecting it. The distinction is not relevant to the realities of our economic or legal system. There is no change in the nature of the car or my ownership based on whether I rent it or not or whether I hire someone else to rent it or not. It certainly does not effect whether I have justly acquired the car, which is the matter in establishing theft. The car and my ownership of it are not even a necessary part of the legal relationship to the imagined employee.

Your distinction is meaningful only in the jargon of communists.

I'm not talking about laws, I'm talking about economics.

If the object facilitates a capitalist-proletarian relationship, it is private.
If it doesn't, it is personal.

I hardly see how that's not meaningful.

And "the jargon of communists" is just an accurate description of how the world works.

It is not clear why it would not be theft. Can you elaborate how the relationship suddenly becomes less exploitative once capital assets are removed?

You only argue against property when it can somehow be related to an employment relationship. Property in the car is not theft if I use for personal use; it is not theft if use it in a business but have no employees; it is theft if I use it in business and have an employee. But hiring an employee has nothing to do with whether I justly acquired the car and to say it suddenly makes property in the car theft, is absurd.

Hmmm. Let's put it this way:

My belief is that productive property ought to be controlled democratically. Thus, I oppose the use of that property in a manner running contrary to that idea - or private property.

I'll use a farmland for example.

- That farmland is controlled privately, so I oppose both the historical privatization of that farmland and the capitalist' use of that property to produce capital.
- I would like that farmland to be controlled by a group of farmers, who thus live in that area. It is in this sense that the property is returned to its initial state, and the farmers wages are no longer set below the value of their labor - which is done to appropriate wealth for use of the capitalist(s).

Does that make any more sense?

 

[Timshel]

Both play a role, but employment, in this case, is the most important.

I'm not talking about laws, I'm talking about economics.

If the object facilitates a capitalist-proletarian relationship, it is private.
If it doesn't, it is personal.

I hardly see how that's not meaningful.

And "the jargon of communists" is just an accurate description of how the world works.

It's meaningful to marxists. This distinction between private and personal has nothing to do with how the world works now or ownership rights.

You asserted that property is theft. You are talking about political philosophy and laws, not really about economics. The reality of Marxist economics is what you true believers call state capitalism and attempt to disown.

Hmmm. Let's put it this way:

My belief is that productive property ought to be controlled democratically. Thus, I oppose the use of that property in a manner running contrary to that idea - or private property.

I'll use a farmland for example.

- That farmland is controlled privately, so I oppose both the historical privatization of that farmland and the capitalist' use of that property to produce capital.
- I would like that farmland to be controlled by a group of farmers, who thus live in that area. It is in this sense that the property is returned to its initial state, and the farmers wages are no longer set below the value of their labor - which is done to appropriate wealth for use of the capitalist(s).

Does that make any more sense?

Then property is not theft. You are arguing that property should only be held by those who work it in some way but you are no longer claiming that property is theft. You have lost that debate.

How does one acquire and dispose of property? How does one become a farmer? When they are ready to retire can they sell their property to another farmer?

 

[Timshel]

Also, how do the farmers deal with the seasonal demands for labor if they can't hire laborers?

 

[I'm Watermark]

It's meaningful to marxists. This distinction between private and personal has nothing to do with how the world works now or ownership rights.

Do we have labor? Then it does. And I have yet to see you refute the Theory of Surplus Value, or even try.

You asserted that property is theft. You are talking about political philosophy and laws, not really about economics. The reality of Marxist economics is what you true believers call state capitalism and attempt to disown.

The legal system of capitalism institutionalizes, not prosecutes, this kind of theft. Thusly, we're talking about economics.

And, oh? You want to talk socialist history? Your use of Stalin's NEP to characterize socialism is, quite frankly, pathetic. But bring it on - I won't turn down a debate request.

Then property is not theft. You are arguing that property should only be held by those who work it in some way but you are no longer claiming that property is theft. You have lost that debate.

I'm arguing that private property is theft, not common property.

How does one acquire and dispose of property? How does one become a farmer? When they are ready to retire can they sell their property to another farmer?

1. Purchase, inheritance, seizure - there are many ways. But they all rely on removing that property from the commons, at one point or another.
2. Quite a number of ways. But I don't see how that's relevant.
3. How would that work if it's controlled by a democratic firm?

 

[I'm Watermark]

Also, how do the farmers deal with the seasonal demands for labor if they can't hire laborers?

Who says they can't co-opt more members?

 

[/MSG/]

If he had the machine, his income would be X. If you had the machine and hired him, his income would be X minus Y(ours).

But that's not inherently true. He might be able to run the machine yes, but can he sell his work? Possibly not. Or he may not have the requisite land or other such things. He may, in time, acquire those things for himself, but at current he works for me because he needs my machine, and I need his labor.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Do we have labor? Then it does. And I have yet to see you refute the Theory of Surplus Value, or even try.



The legal system of capitalism institutionalizes, not prosecutes, this kind of theft. Thusly, we're talking about economics.

And, oh? You want to talk socialist history? Your use of Stalin's NEP to characterize socialism is, quite frankly, pathetic. But bring it on - I won't turn down a debate request.



I'm arguing that private property is theft, not common property.



1. Purchase, inheritance, seizure - there are many ways. But they all rely on removing that property from the commons, at one point or another.
2. Quite a number of ways. But I don't see how that's relevant.
3. How would that work if it's controlled by a democratic firm?

Actually, it's on you to prove that these things actually work or are real. Since they have never worked in history, we can't exactly fall back on that as a metric. Therefore, you are going to have to amuse us, and convince us to join your imaginary Marxist brainwave.

 

[Timshel]

Do we have labor? Then it does. And I have yet to see you refute the Theory of Surplus Value, or even try.



The legal system of capitalism institutionalizes, not prosecutes, this kind of theft. Thusly, we're talking about economics.

And, oh? You want to talk socialist history? Your use of Stalin's NEP to characterize socialism is, quite frankly, pathetic. But bring it on - I won't turn down a debate request.



I'm arguing that private property is theft, not common property.



1. Purchase, inheritance, seizure - there are many ways. But they all rely on removing that property from the commons, at one point or another.
2. Quite a number of ways. But I don't see how that's relevant.
3. How would that work if it's controlled by a democratic firm?

Yes, we have labor but it's use has no bearing on whether property is justly acquired, the nature of the property or the ownership rights in it.

This is about whether property is theft a position you pretty quickly abandoned. If you want to concede that point and talk about Marx's ridiculous theory of value we can but I'd prefer to get resolution before we turn to something else then which you might retreat from to property is theft.

I don't know what Stalin's nep refers to. I am talking about the fact that this nonsense on property rights is convoluted, unworkable and requires central planners to direct.

Now there is some new class of common property? How does it differ from private and personal or do you have to make a donation to the church before they tell you?

You have not explained how one acquires or disposes of property. If you argue that property is theft then it would seem you should be concerned with these matters, but instead you act as if they do not really matter.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Also, the New Economic Plan was an innovation of Lenin and not Stalin. You would think Rose would like it for that very reason.

 

[Timshel]

Who says they can't co-opt more members?

And they just kick them out once the season is over?

 

[Minister of Truth]

In fact, if we are going to play games with definitions of property, why not rely upon our beloved English Common Law heritage for such obfuscation?

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Property+(law)

Real Property: Land, and the parts attached to the land, such as structures and crops.

Personal Property: Basically, everything else. Stocks and bonds, money, notes, patents, copyrights, and intangible possessions.

 

[I'm Watermark]

Also, the New Economic Plan was an innovation of Lenin and not Stalin. You would think Rose would like it for that very reason.

It was. But after debates were carried out over the composition of the NEP's second stage, Stalin's "socialism from above" - his NEP, if you would - was put in place.

That's why I wrote "Stalin's NEP", not "the NEP".

 

[I'm Watermark]

But that's not inherently true. He might be able to run the machine yes, but can he sell his work? Possibly not. Or he may not have the requisite land or other such things. He may, in time, acquire those things for himself, but at current he works for me because he needs my machine, and I need his labor.

Actually, the sale of his work wouldn't be a problem the resulting economic structure.

When co-ops begin operating, they're limited in size and almost all of the sales are to locality in which they operate. In cases where sales become problem, salesmen or a marketing team are co-opted in.

So, once again, your place in that exchange is not justified.