The New Appeal Of Communism

[Kimura]

wrong. You gave me your own personal idiosyncratic statist collectivist definition of property, and then you promptly discredited it.

Here let’s try the dictionary:
prop•er•ty
noun, plural prop•er•ties.
1.that which a person owns; the possession or possessions of a particular owner: They lost all their property in the fire.
2.goods, land, etc., considered as possessions: The corporation is a means for the common ownership of property.
3 a piece of land or real estate: property on Main Street.
4.ownership; right of possession, enjoyment, or disposal of anything, especially of something tangible:to have property in land.
5.something at the disposal of a person, a group of persons, or the community or public: The secret ofthe invention became common property.

I have no idea what you mean by "token symbols," but property rights are a matter of law. They aren't "symbols" of any kind. It's true that property rights have to be defended, you it's erroneous to believe that only nation states can perform the task. The Treaty of Versailles and the occupation of the Rhineland had nothing to do with property rights. They had to do with control over territory.

You mean actual property as opposed to territory.

Having government and its laws only means that if someone disputes your property rights and can get some government officials to support your claims, you're still out of your property. As lawyers will often tell you, possession is nine tenths of the law. Pre-state societies had means of settling disputes, and there's no reason to believe that post-state societies could devise a means of settling disputes. Your belief that only states can perform this function lacks any visible means of support.

Like I said I said before, groups are better and more effective at defending property due to strength in numbers. Another reason is specialization of labor. Groups are way more efficient because families defending their homes are also defending their country as citizens, the same soldiers defend their country are also defending their families’ homes, etc.

My Hitler example was used to demonstrate that treaties and other types of ways to acquire property have no legal basis in a court system if such a system doesn't exist in an anarcho-libertarian fantasy land. These agreements are merely symbolic as long they can’t be enforced through the use of force.

The rules of property ownership consist of definitions of what is and isn’t property. History, which you seem to ignore, is full of many types of property which have been abolished, such as owning slaves, We also have other types of property which have been created, such as intellectual property and control the airways by national governments.

Not true. In fact, the local constabulary does little to prevent the violation of property rights other than show up after the fact and take down the details of what occured. Most private property is defended through private means such as gated communities, private security and alarm systems.

The police are delegated with protecting property, but the law gives citizens the freedom to protect their own property, so I tend to agree. For example, you use force to stop a purse snatcher, but you don’t have a legal right to kill said person.

The social contract is a myth. I certainly never agreed to it, and neither has anyone living today.

No, it’s a reality. Our constitution and governing laws form the social contract. They are enforced by the government on the basis that the government is the penultimate owner of the nation’s territory. Your agreement to live on its territory is an agreement to accept the social contract, much the same way taking a taxi requires you to pay a fare. If you refuse the social contract, you can take your pick among the market of nations for greener pastures. Libertarians who object to this are hypocrites, because your ideal society would recreate the market of nations on an albeit much tinier scale. Basically, you guys would create a market of sovereign property owners so to speak, so one would naturally expect disgruntled renters, employees and customers to search elsewhere in the market.

Nope. History doesn't support anything you've claimed

History is on my side ever since the emergence of the city-states of antiquity.

 

[georgephillip]

So taking a corn crop away from a man who worked an entire year to produce it isn't a violation of his human rights?

It would be a violation of his property and humanity, wouldn't it?

According to you it doesn't violate his rights since corn is mere property.

His property and labor have been violated, right?

 

[Uncensored2008]

It’s not about left or right, it’s about historical realities and civilization.

Of course it's about left and right. The questions of property and human rights were answered in the late 18th century, the ONLY reason they are discussed again is the effort of the left to move society back into an authoritarian structure.

The purpose of territorial groups is multifaceted. First and foremost, it must defend against external threats, such as invasion through the threat or use of credible military force. It then creates a subordinate system of property for its members on an individual basis, and defends them from internal threats, such as robbery, for example, through the exercise or threat of police or private forces. Historically, this has resulted in the most stable system of property ownership, despite the ahistorical nonsense put forth by anarcho-capitalists.

Some of this is true, some not so much.

Yes, free people cede a small measure of their sovereignty to provide mutual defense of borders. But it is not the state granting small authority to the ruled that this represents; rather it is what Mason termed the "consent of the governed" ceding some measure of authority for the purpose of mutual defense.

This holds true on the municipal level, government is contracted by the people, who are the authority.

This is where the left/right paradigm enter in to the equation, the left advocates a top down structure where a king or dictator are the ultimate rulers, any authority held by others flows down from the supreme ruler.

The right advocates for a bottom up structure, where the individual has the legitimate sovereignty and cedes small portion in exchange for needed civil services. In the model of the right, government derives it's authority from the governed, who can revoke that authority if the state infringes the rights and immunities of the people.

The government (which is simply a representative of the entire group) is the country’s final owner of all property, because it’s the only entity with the force that can control it. This is the reality. If other groups had the force, they’d be the penultimate owners. As the controller of the country’s property, it creates and manages the subordinate property system.

This is the goal of the left, but not currently the situation. Currently, some level of liberty still exists among the citizens. Prior to Kelo, any seizure of property via eminent domain required clear demonstrations of public need and benefit, now the SCOTUS acted in an unconstitutional and immoral way by granting New London the power to infringe civil rights, but this doesn't alter that this nation is designed around the concept of private property - not that of a crown that fields a nation of serfs on the Kings land, as you suggest.

 

[bripat9643]

It would be a violation of his property and humanity, wouldn't it?

According to you it doesn't violate his rights since corn is mere property.

His property and labor have been violated, right?

I'll repeat so perhaps you can understand. You labeled property rights as something separate from human rights, as simply a legalism. So, according to you, his human rights weren't violated. All property is acquired through labor, so its specious to make a distinction between property rights and "labor."

 

[ScienceRocks]

You right wing extremist don't even know what communism is...When our government starts nationalizing the private sector and taking away private property. Well, then you may have a point.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You right wing extremist don't even know what communism is...When our government starts nationalizing the private sector and taking away private property. Well, then you may have a point.

Matthew, so far this thread has displayed an amazing level of discussion. Feel free to join in, but please try and educate yourself on the subject at hand before posting.

If you don't mind.

 

[Kimura]

Of course it's about left and right. The questions of property and human rights were answered in the late 18th century, the ONLY reason they are discussed again is the effort of the left to move society back into an authoritarian structure.

The entire concept of property rights and private property rights really came up during the Renaissance. Later religious elements promoted property rights through the bible, and we saw the Protestant work ethic emerge. Private property was equated with human rights in the late 17th century. The debate over human rights come to a boil in the 18th and 19th centuries as human rights become the subject of intense debate

Some of this is true, some not so much.

Yes, free people cede a small measure of their sovereignty to provide mutual defense of borders. But it is not the state granting small authority to the ruled that this represents; rather it is what Mason termed the "consent of the governed" ceding some measure of authority for the purpose of mutual defense.

This holds true on the municipal level, government is contracted by the people, who are the authority.

This is where the left/right paradigm enter in to the equation, the left advocates a top down structure where a king or dictator are the ultimate rulers, any authority held by others flows down from the supreme ruler.

The right advocates for a bottom up structure, where the individual has the legitimate sovereignty and cedes small portion in exchange for needed civil services. In the model of the right, government derives it's authority from the governed, who can revoke that authority if the state infringes the rights and immunities of the people.

We basically have 4 types of absolute property systems: one person within a group, a group within the group, sovereigns within the group and the whole group. The first two can reject as I’m sure you would agree. These would include monarchies, aristocracies, etc. The criminality and tyranny under these system are historical reality.

We have two left as the only examples for a fair and legitimate property system. We have the anarcho-capitalist system where people own 100% of their property and they can do with it as they wish in the alleged “free market”. But this will eventually recreate the first two systems so to speak, whereby rent collectors and business owners morph into aristocrats and monarchs of their own fiefdoms. We’ll have the problem of the nation state but on a much smaller scale. Decreasing the scale, however, makes this type of systems no less stable, corrupt or violent, and these systems have a long history of such problems.

The system most nation states have chosen is group ownership. The entire group (representative government) owns all the property at the end of the day.

Individual citizens are allowed to own property in exchange for taxation and accepting certain responsibilities. A property system can range from market-based to complete socialism to a mixture of both.

In the end, at the end of the day, property ownership is based on force. People that refer to the right of ownership as negative rights are simply incorrect, since the entire concept of property is based on coercive denial of other people to use it. In our case, the US federal, state and local governments are the forces that protect and define our system of property in this country, whereby you and I can control the use of our property.

This is the goal of the left, but not currently the situation. Currently, some level of liberty still exists among the citizens. Prior to Kelo, any seizure of property via eminent domain required clear demonstrations of public need and benefit, now the SCOTUS acted in an unconstitutional and immoral way by granting New London the power to infringe civil rights, but this doesn't alter that this nation is designed around the concept of private property - not that of a crown that fields a nation of serfs on the Kings land, as you suggest.

I’m glad you brought up Kelo since I’m actually not a fan of the ruling. No thread hijack

 

[georgephillip]

According to you it doesn't violate his rights since corn is mere property.

His property and labor have been violated, right?

I'll repeat so perhaps you can understand. You labeled property rights as something separate from human rights, as simply a legalism. So, according to you, his human rights weren't violated. All property is acquired through labor, so its specious to make a distinction between property rights and "labor."

I'll reciprocate.
Property rights represent the interests of legal persons with respect to things.(corn)
Human rights protect the interests of humans with respect to themselves. (theft)
In your example, both are violated.
BTW, not all property is acquired through labor. (Ask the Walton heirs)

 

[bripat9643]

His property and labor have been violated, right?

I'll repeat so perhaps you can understand. You labeled property rights as something separate from human rights, as simply a legalism. So, according to you, his human rights weren't violated. All property is acquired through labor, so its specious to make a distinction between property rights and "labor."

I'll reciprocate.
Property rights represent the interests of legal persons with respect to things.(corn)
Human rights protect the interests of humans with respect to themselves. (theft)
In your example, both are violated.
BTW, not all property is acquired through labor. (Ask the Walton heirs)

According to you humans have no rights with respect to things. Property rights aren't human rights. They're arbitrary legalisms that have nothing to do with real human rights.

Or are you now arguing that property rights are human rights?

 

[whitehall]

Nothing new. Democrats have coddled, encouraged, defended and embraced communism for the better part of the 20th century. Barry Hussein is their best shot at total revolution and they know it.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

of course, provided just compensation is given.

thank you for clarifying that. I don't see how you can reconcile what you say above with what you said below...

...
All civil rights are predicated upon the notion of the sovereignty of the individual, if the state has ultimate title to lands or assets, then the individual has no actual rights,...

...given the fact that eminent domain does seem an affront to the sovereignty of the individual, especially considering that eminent domain is a sovereign power, but i can afford you some relevant rhetoric when making your points.

i think you have confused me with an anarchist.

I recognize that humans will have conflicts. To deal with these conflicts there must be a system of arbitration. Societies must have the means to deal with conflict in a peaceful manner, or the law of the jungle will prevail.

Throughout history there have been only two methods by which men are governed, the reign of rulers, and the rule of law. The concept of the rule of law is that of the social contract, we cede a small portion of our sovereignty to the recognition of codified law. When a society agrees that roads and easements are needed to facilitate trade, the movement of people and goods, then the concept of eminent domain becomes obvious. There is no contradiction between recognition of sovereignty and the idea of eminent domain.

At this point in american history, the clash between the rule of law, subscribed to be a sovereign people, and the rule of men, where the word of kings and dictators is the only real law, is at a breaking point. The left seeks an authoritarian system where a dictator has the authority to rule, call it presidential edicts, or what you like. But the idea that men are invested with the authority that their word is law, clashes with the republican ideals that this nation was built on, where codified law alone dictates the rules of society.

Whether we speak of a dictatorship of the proletariat, or simply obama ignoring obstacles, the concept is the same, rulers unconstrained by codified laws created by representatives of the people. Here we return to the concept of property rights, the rulers and dictators promoted by the left assume the power they wield because they hold that the state owns all - all lands, all assets, all people. Without the right of people to own land, to own goods, and most importantly, to own themselves, there can be no civil rights of any kind.

From the OP onward you have been trying to establish a dichotomy where the "left" is, either by ignorance or malevolence, inclined to support communism and the "right" is staving off the left's lumbering assaults on liberty. The immediate difficulty I have with this dichotomy is that it requires a delineation between "right" and "left" that you have not provided.

I was wondering if you would clarify where you draw the line between "right" and "left". Does the "right" wing of politics, by your definition, support the Stanley v. Georgia decision? Does the "right" wing of politics, by your definition, support the Lawrence v. Texas decision? These decisions are germane to the topic because they deal with the sovereign individual, privacy and property.

I have noticed you have the words "Libertarian Radical" in your profile. Would you then be willing to exclude Rick Santorum from the ranks of the "right" and label him a "leftist"? How about John Ashcroft, is he "right" or "left"? How about Michele Bachmann, is she a leftist who will inflict the authority of the state on individuals or does she embrace all liberties of sovereign individuals? Who would remain in the ranks of the right after the right was purged of all those who would infringe on the basic freedoms of individuals?

If you are going to establish a dichotomy between the authoritarian left and libertarian right, you need to draw a line that establishes said dichotomy and let all the pieces fall where they may. It is not enough to rely upon putative definitions.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The greatest threat to Capitalism in the United States are the Capitalists. Greed is a deadly sin, and the lust for more wealth and more power will eventually lead to civil unrest.

 

[whitehall]

The greatest threat to Capitalism in the United States are the Capitalists. Greed is a deadly sin, and the lust for more wealth and more power will eventually lead to civil unrest.

Wealth and power used to be part of the American dream. I rest my case.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The greatest threat to Capitalism in the United States are the Capitalists. Greed is a deadly sin, and the lust for more wealth and more power will eventually lead to civil unrest.

Wealth and power used to be part of the American dream. I rest my case.

Before you rest your case, I suggest you read some history.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Silly of me to offer advice to the willfully ignorant.

 

[bripat9643]

The greatest threat to Capitalism in the United States are the Capitalists. Greed is a deadly sin, and the lust for more wealth and more power will eventually lead to civil unrest.

How will "the lust for more wealth and more power" lead to civil unrest if turds like you are not fanning the flames?

 

[bripat9643]

wrong. You gave me your own personal idiosyncratic statist collectivist definition of property, and then you promptly discredited it.

Here let’s try the dictionary:
prop•er•ty
noun, plural prop•er•ties.
1.that which a person owns; the possession or possessions of a particular owner: They lost all their property in the fire.
2.goods, land, etc., considered as possessions: The corporation is a means for the common ownership of property.
3 a piece of land or real estate: property on Main Street.
4.ownership; right of possession, enjoyment, or disposal of anything, especially of something tangible:to have property in land.
5.something at the disposal of a person, a group of persons, or the community or public: The secret ofthe invention became common property.

allow me to quote your definition:

"We can define property as anything whose ultimate use is controlled, mostly through the threat of initiation of force. "​

Where do any of the definitions from the dictionary mention the initiation of force?

I have no idea what you mean by "token symbols," but property rights are a matter of law. They aren't "symbols" of any kind. It's true that property rights have to be defended, you it's erroneous to believe that only nation states can perform the task. The Treaty of Versailles and the occupation of the Rhineland had nothing to do with property rights. They had to do with control over territory.

You mean actual property as opposed to territory.

Like I said I said before, groups are better and more effective at defending property due to strength in numbers. Another reason is specialization of labor. Groups are way more efficient because families defending their homes are also defending their country as citizens, the same soldiers defend their country are also defending their families’ homes, etc.

There's nothing about groups being more effective that means only government can provide protection.

You lost your way when you started to explain the reason specialization of labor means government would be more effective. It's not because groups are more efficient. It's because specialization of labor means that some people can train full time at being soldiers and are thus far more effective than untrained civilians. That still doesn't mean government government is required, but it would imply the existence of private armies which pose their own problems. I won't go into the discussion of how such problems can be resolved. I'll leave it by saying these issues have been examined and various solutions proposed.

My Hitler example was used to demonstrate that treaties and other types of ways to acquire property have no legal basis in a court system if such a system doesn't exist in an anarcho-libertarian fantasy land. These agreements are merely symbolic as long they can’t be enforced through the use of force.

Territory is not property. The too things are entirely separate. Military force decides which court system is in force, but it doesn't decide who owns the property unless the invader decides to abolish or confiscate private property, which few ever do.

The rules of property ownership consist of definitions of what is and isn’t property. History, which you seem to ignore, is full of many types of property which have been abolished, such as owning slaves, We also have other types of property which have been created, such as intellectual property and control the airways by national governments.

Owning slaves is about the only kind of property that has been abolished. That was never a legitimate form of property in the first place. as for the airwaves, they came into existence because of the invention of the radio. Government didn't create radio, Guglielmo Marconi invented it. Once invented boundaries had to be established to make it useful, just as upon discovering the new world the various governments involved had to establish the boundaries of privately owned land. However, history shows that communities found means other than government to establish property boundaries. There's no reason to imagine that some means other than government couldn't have been used to establish boundaries on the radio spectrum.

The social contract is a myth. I certainly never agreed to it, and neither has anyone living today.

No, it’s a reality. Our constitution and governing laws form the social contract.

Wrong. It's a myth. A genuine contract must be agreed to by both parties. I never agreed to any of the rules that government imposes on me. Getting born doesn't constitute agreement to anything. That's basic contract law.

They are enforced by the government on the basis that the government is the penultimate owner of the nation’s territory.

Only if you believe our country is a monarchy. In this country government exists at the sufferance of the citizens, including the property owners. It has authority only so lone as it does what the citizenry wants it to do. It does not have authority to arbitrarily impose its will as it would if it was the true owner. Your view of property ownership died with the revolution and monarchy in general.

Your agreement to live on its territory is an agreement to accept the social contract, much the same way taking a taxi requires you to pay a fare.

It's no such thing. In the first place, getting born isn't agreement to anything. In the second, government doesn't own the property I live on. You explicitely agree to pay a taxi fair because you voluntarily entered the taxi knowing you would have to pay a fair. Getting born withing the boundaries of a specific government doesn't constitute knowledge or agreement to anything. This is the weakest of all the arguments statists use to justify government.

If you refuse the social contract, you can take your pick among the market of nations for greener pastures. Libertarians who object to this are hypocrites, because your ideal society would recreate the market of nations on an albeit much tinier scale. Basically, you guys would create a market of sovereign property owners so to speak, so one would naturally expect disgruntled renters, employees and customers to search elsewhere in the market.

That's just wrong because the social contract is a myth. Government has no rights over me simply because I was born. That's the central myth of government and the reason it's not legitimate.

Nope. History doesn't support anything you've claimed

History is on my side ever since the emergence of the city-states of antiquity.

Duh, . . . wrong. The fact that private property existed prior to this point in time proves that you are wrong. You haven't even contested that fact.

 

[georgephillip]

I'll repeat so perhaps you can understand. You labeled property rights as something separate from human rights, as simply a legalism. So, according to you, his human rights weren't violated. All property is acquired through labor, so its specious to make a distinction between property rights and "labor."

I'll reciprocate.
Property rights represent the interests of legal persons with respect to things.(corn)
Human rights protect the interests of humans with respect to themselves. (theft)
In your example, both are violated.
BTW, not all property is acquired through labor. (Ask the Walton heirs)

According to you humans have no rights with respect to things. Property rights aren't human rights. They're arbitrary legalisms that have nothing to do with real human rights.

Or are you now arguing that property rights are human rights?

Humans have rights with respect to things, and humans have rights with respect to themselves. You made the claim property rights are human rights; are you now arguing human rights are property rights?

 

[bripat9643]

I'll reciprocate.
Property rights represent the interests of legal persons with respect to things.(corn)
Human rights protect the interests of humans with respect to themselves. (theft)
In your example, both are violated.
BTW, not all property is acquired through labor. (Ask the Walton heirs)

According to you humans have no rights with respect to things. Property rights aren't human rights. They're arbitrary legalisms that have nothing to do with real human rights.

Or are you now arguing that property rights are human rights?

Humans have rights with respect to things, and humans have rights with respect to themselves. You made the claim property rights are human rights; are you now arguing human rights are property rights?

If humans have rights with respect to things, are those not human rights?

 

[georgephillip]

According to you humans have no rights with respect to things. Property rights aren't human rights. They're arbitrary legalisms that have nothing to do with real human rights.

Or are you now arguing that property rights are human rights?

Humans have rights with respect to things, and humans have rights with respect to themselves. You made the claim property rights are human rights; are you now arguing human rights are property rights?

If humans have rights with respect to things, are those not human rights?

Yes.
Now, what happens when property rights and human rights conflict?