APP - Property is Theft

[I'm Watermark]

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.

I think that I've aptly done so. But if you want, I can re-frame my argument.

1. The first topic brought up in that post is whither private property is theft. To me, it is, because that property was once in the commons, then stolen through privatization. It's no different from me just claiming my neighbor's land. When this argument was conceived it was geared towards land, but also towards the raw materials used in production. There is no god-given right, no ethical justification to say private property should be anything but democratically controlled. It was ought to be for the use of those who live upon it, with that population sharing it in an equitable fashion. Not the exclusive control which facilitate the extraction of labor value (The second theft involved.)

2. I'm talking about democratic control. It's worked well in many local governments, and many corporations as well. The Italian and Spanish co-ops were huge success stories, even during their countries economic declines. The Americas have plenty of successful co-ops - and Venezuela built a fairly successful cooperative economy -, as do most places in the world. Plus, when these things start up, they have tons of perks over top-downs.

Here's a really good article which cites a study on productivity, decreases in cost to consumers, and better conditions for workers.

http://stirtoaction.com/the-hidden-power-of-cooperatives/

 

[I'm Watermark]

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.

You can't just simply discard my definitions to avoid dealing with the realities of my arguments, 3D. :lol:

 

[Timshel]

I think that I've aptly done so. But if you want, I can re-frame my argument.

1. The first topic brought up in that post is whither private property is theft. To me, it is, because that property was once in the commons, then stolen through privatization. It's no different from me just claiming my neighbor's land. When this argument was conceived it was geared towards land, but also towards the raw materials used in production. There is no god-given right, no ethical justification to say private property should be anything but democratically controlled. It was ought to be for the use of those who live upon it, with that population sharing it in an equitable fashion. Not the exclusive control which facilitate the extraction of labor value (The second theft involved.)

2. I'm talking about democratic control. It's worked well in many local governments, and many corporations as well. The Italian and Spanish co-ops were huge success stories, even during their countries economic declines. The Americas have plenty of successful co-ops - and Venezuela built a fairly successful cooperative economy -, as do most places in the world. Plus, when these things start up, they have tons of perks over top-downs.

Here's a really good article which cites a study on productivity, decreases in cost to consumers, and better conditions for workers.

http://stirtoaction.com/the-hidden-power-of-cooperatives/

You have a problem with context.

The acquisition has nothing to do with privatization in your argument. We went over it with my example of the car I owned, rented and then hired an employee to rent. It did not become theft until I hired an employee, under your argument. When it changed from personal to private property is not the point when it was "taken out of the commons."

Your argument only works on land and raw materials but advanced economies deal with many other types of property. You want social conventions to fit your primitive notions and it does not work. Capitalism and free market concepts of property are better suited to advanced economies.

Your examples are not of true Marxism and have little connection to the convoluted ideas on property you have presented.

Venezuela is your idea of a democracy? A dictatorship that virtually outlaws competing political parties? Can we hold all Marxists to that or when the full train wreck becomes obvious will you disown them?

 

[/MSG/]

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.

Except the world isn't a co-op. Hasn't been for at least 1000 years.

 

[Minister of Truth]

You can't just simply discard my definitions to avoid dealing with the realities of my arguments, 3D. :lol:

I absolutely can discard your definitions, or perhaps I could call them "nonfinitions," since they have no meaning. You Marxists made them up. They are simply not used in civil society, and are entirely confined to the gulags of your minds.

 

[I'm Watermark]

You have a problem with context.

The acquisition has nothing to do with privatization in your argument. We went over it with my example of the car I owned, rented and then hired an employee to rent. It did not become theft until I hired an employee, under your argument. When it changed from personal to private property is not the point when it was "taken out of the commons."

Your argument only works on land and raw materials but advanced economies deal with many other types of property. You want social conventions to fit your primitive notions and it does not work. Capitalism and free market concepts of property are better suited to advanced economies.

Your examples are not of true Marxism and have little connection to the convoluted ideas on property you have presented.

Venezuela is your idea of a democracy? A dictatorship that virtually outlaws competing political parties? Can we hold all Marxists to that or when the full train wreck becomes obvious will you disown them?

That's true and its not. The first aspect (removal from the commons) only applies to some examples of private property - the second applies universally. Either way, neither is degraded by those facts.

And your free market economics? Sure, take away the authoritarian, anti-democratic and dictatorial elements, and I'm on board. The capitalist concepts of property, however, are ideology, not economics to be taken seriously. They, as John Stuart Mill pointed out, are nothing if not highly underdeveloped.

* * *

Now, for your understanding of socialist politics, you've got a long way to go. I, and most other socialists, will embrace the democratic venture of Venezuela. It took an underdeveloped nation, and with the support of the people, created a beautiful, cooperative economy. Venezuela's socialist revolution should be help up as an example to the world.

You keep acting like socialists just pick and choose socialisms to own and disown. That's just not the case. If a society accurately reflects our principals, we embrace it - but don't expect us to accept capitalism as the reality of our ideology. The Soviet Union, this state capitalism you keep talking about, failed due complex conditions outside of socialism. And if you had any understand of socialist history and politics, you wouldn't be using such a distorted narrative.

 

[Timshel]

That's true and its not. The first aspect (removal from the commons) only applies to some examples of private property - the second applies universally. Either way, neither is degraded by those facts.

The "second" aspect refers to what?

You are arguing that property becomes theft when we use it while employing another person. Your claim has nothing to do with the acquisition of the property or its "removal from the commons."

And your free market economics? Sure, take away the authoritarian, anti-democratic and dictatorial elements, and I'm on board. The capitalist concepts of property, however, are ideology, not economics to be taken seriously. They, as John Stuart Mill pointed out, are nothing if not highly underdeveloped.

The capitalist concepts of property work very well and you don't need to be an expert in Marxist bs to understand it.

Now, for your understanding of socialist politics, you've got a long way to go. I, and most other socialists, will embrace the democratic venture of Venezuela. It took an underdeveloped nation, and with the support of the people, created a beautiful, cooperative economy. Venezuela's socialist revolution should be help up as an example to the world.

You keep acting like socialists just pick and choose socialisms to own and disown. That's just not the case. If a society accurately reflects our principals, we embrace it - but don't expect us to accept capitalism as the reality of our ideology. The Soviet Union, this state capitalism you keep talking about, failed due complex conditions outside of socialism. And if you had any understand of socialist history and politics, you wouldn't be using such a distorted narrative.

That is exactly what you do. The fact is, that private property (as you define it) exists in Venezuela, though, property rights have not been well secured.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2010/08/property_rights_venezuela

 

[I'm Watermark]

The "second" aspect refers to what?

You are arguing that property becomes theft when we use it while employing another person. Your claim has nothing to do with the acquisition of the property or its "removal from the commons."

As I said, some forms of private property are subject to the first assertion, not all, but that doesn't take away from my argument.

The capitalist concepts of property work very well and you don't need to be an expert in Marxist bs to understand it.

They do? The capitalist conceptions of property facilitate theft, create artificial inequalities, alienate people from their labor, turn them into commodities, evacuate work of creative expression, and institutionalize murder, abuse and environmental destruction. Not to mention the heinous effects they've had on the world's poor and working.

What a beautiful, successful, truly individualist property system.

That is exactly what you do. The fact is, that private property (as you define it) exists in Venezuela, though, property rights have not been well secured.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2010/08/property_rights_venezuela

Haha, now you've gone and done it. You've pointed out that there exist private firms/properties during a socialist transition. Duh.

 

[Timshel]

So far I think it has been made pretty clear that the idea that property is theft is at best hyperbolic and at worst complete nonsense. Rose's argument on how property becomes theft or why property is theft as explained is always related to employment and had nothing to do with the acquisition of the property.

I acquire a title to a car and that is no theft. I decide to use the car commercially and rent it out for the use of others and that is not theft. I hire someone else to handle the rental arrangements of the car and, suddenly, my property in the car becomes an act of theft. This makes no sense. Theft means usurping something from its rightful owner. I took possession of the car long before hiring the employee and the two actions are not related. So, Rose is either redefining theft to mean an unlawful use of property or Rose is using the slogan wrong.

Marxism is a primitive philosophy and does not transfer well into advanced economic situations. The strongest argument Marxists have on this notion that property is theft is not related to a finished good, like a car, but to some unfinished and unimproved resource, like raw materials or land. The first instance of a person taking property in either is unlike other transactions in our advanced economy. The initial property owner can be said to have removed the good from the commons, which could be called theft. But that still goes back to the initial complaint and implies that it was owned or it was property. So the idea that property is theft is still a failure. Further, the fact that this conception of property does not translate to finished or improved goods is a huge problem.

When land and raw materials were initially removed from the commons it was not really theft and often had the implicit or explicit blessings of whatever person or body could have possibly been said to own it. One could argue that no one really owned it in a way that granted them a right to transfer it because future generations were denied their property rights. I am not going to a offer a full defense of this but I think it is a line of argument that has some merit, at least. Still, you are better off defending these ideas with Henry George's arguments than Karl Marx's. Marxist theory is just one crappy and half baked idea piled on top of another.

The Marxist theory of property is a weak premise that offers a poor foundation. That's why you never see REAL Marxist nations. These convoluted ideas can't work themselves out in the market and so there has to be some central authority that hands out property rights. Marxists will claim it is done by democratic institutions but it rarely is anything resembling a free and fair democratic system that establishes the institutions. A free and fair democratic system would probably be worse. Just imagine the sort of chaos that would exist if Democrats and Republicans (as in the US parties) swapped control over the authority to strip and reward people of property rights every 4-8 years. Of course, the poor would then support a dictator. They are getting screwed either way but at least a dictator could offer some stability while screwing them over.

 

[I'm Watermark]

So far I think it has been made pretty clear that the idea that property is theft is at best hyperbolic and at worst complete nonsense. Rose's argument on how property becomes theft or why property is theft as explained is always related to employment and had nothing to do with the acquisition of the property.

I acquire a title to a car and that is no theft. I decide to use the car commercially and rent it out for the use of others and that is not theft. I hire someone else to handle the rental arrangements of the car and, suddenly, my property in the car becomes an act of theft. This makes no sense. Theft means usurping something from its rightful owner. I took possession of the car long before hiring the employee and the two actions are not related. So, Rose is either redefining theft to mean an unlawful use of property or Rose is using the slogan wrong.

Marxism is a primitive philosophy and does not transfer well into advanced economic situations. The strongest argument Marxists have on this notion that property is theft is not related to a finished good, like a car, but to some unfinished and unimproved resource, like raw materials or land. The first instance of a person taking property in either is unlike other transactions in our advanced economy. The initial property owner can be said to have removed the good from the commons, which could be called theft. But that still goes back to the initial complaint and implies that it was owned or it was property. So the idea that property is theft is still a failure. Further, the fact that this conception of property does not translate to finished or improved goods is a huge problem.

When land and raw materials were initially removed from the commons it was not really theft and often had the implicit or explicit blessings of whatever person or body could have possibly been said to own it. One could argue that no one really owned it in a way that granted them a right to transfer it because future generations were denied their property rights. I am not going to a offer a full defense of this but I think it is a line of argument that has some merit, at least. Still, you are better off defending these ideas with Henry George's arguments than Karl Marx's. Marxist theory is just one crappy and half baked idea piled on top of another.

The Marxist theory of property is a weak premise that offers a poor foundation. That's why you never see REAL Marxist nations. These convoluted ideas can't work themselves out in the market and so there has to be some central authority that hands out property rights. Marxists will claim it is done by democratic institutions but it rarely is anything resembling a free and fair democratic system that establishes the institutions. A free and fair democratic system would probably be worse. Just imagine the sort of chaos that would exist if Democrats and Republicans (as in the US parties) swapped control over the authority to strip and reward people of property rights every 4-8 years. Of course, the poor would then support a dictator. They are getting screwed either way but at least a dictator could offer some stability while screwing them over.

Oh, please. All that text, and you have yet to launch a sufficient criticism of my assertion.

You do, however, bring up that property was taken out of the commons with the blessing of those initially using it. Interesting point. Now tell me about the Americas - or what happens historically when property is returned to the commons.

And your argument about the car is just utterly wrong. As you pointed out, private property facilitates theft through employment. That's an example in which property is theft by facilitating, no? So its theft. For A to have merit, either B or C, must apply - by saying one only applies to certain forms of property, you don't refute A.

Clarification: I broke up the various points into three bits of shorthand.

A: Initial assertion. Private property is theft.
B: Explanation 1. Private property was removed and is withheld from the commons.
C: Explanation 2. Private property facilitates employment, and thus theft.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Actually, the commons sold that property off to individuals in order to generate revenue and set in motion the growth of civil society. The commons continue to tax much of that property for more revenues.

 

[I'm Watermark]

Actually, the commons sold that property off to individuals in order to generate revenue and set in motion to growth of civil society. The commons continue to tax much of that property for more revenues.

The government and the commons are two vastly different things - especially in a class society.

Anyway, when I began reading that, I thought you were talking about earth share. No luck. :/

 

[Minister of Truth]

Example 3: Private property facilitates theft. Hence, Marxism is a failure that desires unemployment.

 

[I'm Watermark]

Example 3: Private property facilitates theft. Hence, Marxism is a failure that desires unemployment.

Brilliant, threedee.

 

[Timshel]

Oh, please. All that text, and you have yet to launch a sufficient criticism of my assertion.

You do, however, bring up that property was taken out of the commons with the blessing of those initially using it. Interesting point. Now tell me about the Americas - or what happens historically when property is returned to the commons.

And your argument about the car is just utterly wrong. As you pointed out, private property facilitates theft through employment. That's an example in which property is theft by facilitating, no? So its theft. For A to have merit, either B or C, must apply - by saying one only applies to certain forms of property, you don't refute A.

Clarification: I broke up the various points into three bits of shorthand.

A: Initial assertion. Private property is theft.
B: Explanation 1. Private property was removed and is withheld from the commons.
C: Explanation 2. Private property facilitates employment, and thus theft.

It was up to you to prove your assertion. Not only have you failed but your assertion has been thoroughly discredited.

Neither b nor c are supported. Not all property is necessarily removed from the commons. As for c, it is clearly a non sequitur.