[quote]kamui wrote:
the “theft of work” rhetoric
value and property defined by human labor and human labor only.
labor defined as the intelligent transformation of Nature by Man.
it reminds me of something.[/quote]
Value is decided by human action, subjectively.
That a person decides to mix his labor with land to develop it for a specific purpose is only because he values that specific purpose over some other purpose.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
To economize means to decided how a resource is to be used or if it should be used at all. One cannot economize something that is not self owned.[/quote]
Then one could’ve claimed the New World and simply decided not to the vast, vast, majority of it.[/quote]
That is what the governments did. And yes, there are national parks.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
A society is nothing but a large regime.[/quote]
If that’s how you wish to see it, then private property relies on a regime.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Allow me to defeat the Austrians with their own perverted use of the word, “slavery.” Since none created the raw resources of this earth, no man has any real claim to it. A person who wants to own a mine privately is no more correct than those who want it owned collectively. Each will have to rely on force (or the threat of). We are simply born into the assumption that a single man can own vast resources he didn’t create. We weren’t there to agree to boundries, and to how resources would be used. Since land and resources are sold, traded, and used without the uncoerced consent of everyone, capitalism makes us slaves of others. Oh noes![/quote]
Homesteading.
Or in other words, finders keepers.
[/quote]
That’s not an answer. “I homestead the entire New World! Yeah, this stuff I had no input in creating, I own it all!” No, private (and collective) property is the conclusion of coercive force and the willingingness of society to go along with for however long continue to consent/submit.[/quote]
If you can find a whole new world and actually homestead it you can do that, yes.
If someone wants to take away from you what is rightfully yours, you are free to defend yourself.
[quote]kamui wrote:
the “theft of work” rhetoric
value and property defined by human labor and human labor only.
labor defined as the intelligent transformation of Nature by Man.
it reminds me of something.[/quote]
The voices in your head?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
A society is nothing but a large regime.[/quote]
If that’s how you wish to see it, then private property relies on a regime.[/quote]
No, the model doesn’t flow all the way down to the individual. There is a big difference between a group and an individual. Individuals can do labor and have rights. Groups can’t do labor, can’t think, can’t run and jump and have no rights.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
They get to be members because there are hypothetical situations where they could have to pay tax. right?[/quote]
Yep, they have obligations.
But THIS is the question I answered “nope” to.
“So they get to be society members because they are being required to not pay taxes”
Taxation: something that people (ostensibly) derive a benefit from. It’s called being a member of society.
Slavery: something that there is no benefit to be derived from on the part of the enslaved, except for food and shelter which is only provided in order to make sure that the slave does not die and cost his owner.
Taxation: something that can be altered through participation in the democratic process through voting and other such political activity that does not carry the imminent threat of death for protesting against.
Slavery: something that the enslaved have no legal recourse to escape from or alter.
Taxation: something that can be entirely avoided by freely moving out of the country if the democratic process fails to remove all taxes.
Slavery: something that the enslaved cannot voluntarily leave; escape is the only recourse and it carries the imminent possibility of death or severe punishment if captured.
Taxation: a system that takes on average about 35% of our paycheck and uses it to fund things that the country as a whole gets some benefit from that we elect leaders to keep funded (hence no leaders currently elected arguing for the abolishment of ALL taxes)
Slavery: a system that takes not only any money earned beyond a mere pittance (except in the most extraordinary of circumstances) but it takes your life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness away as well with no prospect of ever getting it back.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Individuals can do labor and have rights. Groups can’t do labor, can’t think, can’t run and jump and have no rights.[/quote]
Groups are doing labor as we speak. From the group in the stock room, to the group on the assembly line, to the sales team.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Individuals can do labor and have rights. Groups can’t do labor, can’t think, can’t run and jump and have no rights.[/quote]
Groups are doing labor as we speak. From the group in the stock room, to the group on the assembly line, to the sales team. [/quote]
Good.
Then take all the individuals out of that group and see how much work gets done.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Individuals can do labor and have rights. Groups can’t do labor, can’t think, can’t run and jump and have no rights.[/quote]
Groups are doing labor as we speak. From the group in the stock room, to the group on the assembly line, to the sales team. [/quote]
Funny, sounds like you are talking about individual people doing work within an abstract framework you are labeling “group”.
You can’t get past it. Property lines are imaginary lines. Property lines rely on social consent and force (since you’ll never have unanimous consent). It’s a social construct, not a law of the universe.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Individuals can do labor and have rights. Groups can’t do labor, can’t think, can’t run and jump and have no rights.[/quote]
Groups are doing labor as we speak. From the group in the stock room, to the group on the assembly line, to the sales team. [/quote]
Good.
Then take all the individuals out of that group and see how much work gets done.
[/quote]
And take out the group and see how much labor gets done.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
To economize means to decided how a resource is to be used or if it should be used at all. One cannot economize something that is not self owned.[/quote]
Then one could’ve claimed the New World and simply decided not to the vast, vast, majority of it.[/quote]
No, how does one take ownership of something he cannot physically possess?
Even with land one can put his feet on he needs to establish it, produce it, defend it, etc. He can’t just claim it…because while he just claims it verbally someone else has already started to actually physically use it.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Individuals can do labor and have rights. Groups can’t do labor, can’t think, can’t run and jump and have no rights.[/quote]
Groups are doing labor as we speak. From the group in the stock room, to the group on the assembly line, to the sales team. [/quote]
Funny, sounds like you are talking about individual people doing work within an abstract framework you are labeling “group”.[/quote]
It’s not abstract, it’s concrete. The group is doing work.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
You can’t get past it. Property lines are imaginary lines. Property lines rely on social consent and force (since you’ll never have unanimous consent). It’s a social construct, not a law of the universe. [/quote]
In truth I half agree with you.
BUT i do believe self ownership to be a natural right and you can logically build other property rights on that.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
You can’t get past it. Property lines are imaginary lines. Property lines rely on social consent and force (since you’ll never have unanimous consent). It’s a social construct, not a law of the universe. [/quote]
Lines are imaginary but a fence or a wall is real and that takes labor to build.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I find it absolutely hysterical that people on here think that Lincoln “went to war” over economics first and foremost. If Lincoln was so concerned about money, why would he have run on a platform that would have virtually guaranteed the loss of revenue from cotton production?
Why did he oppose the extension of slavery into the territories, basically an opposition of an extension of revenue into the territories?
When the war began to drag on much further than most anticipated it would, why did Lincoln then change his stance and decide that not only should slavery not extend into the territories, but it should also not exist anywhere?
If Lincoln was so concerned about money, why did he not offer some sort of amnesty and the guarantee that slavery could continue to exist in the seceded states if they rejoined the Union?
Why would Lincoln issue the Emancipation Proclamation and virtually permanently remove the very thing that guaranteed that cotton production would remain economically viable for the entire country?
If Lincoln was so concerned about the revenue stream from the South (which was dwindling more and more each year as the Industrial Revolution made its way across the Atlantic from Europe), why would he undermine it by beginning to import cotton from India and Egypt?
If money was what motivated Lincoln, the why did he not allow the Southern states to rejoin the Union as slave states or make any attempt to create legislature that would have protected the institution of slavery (and therefore the main factor behind the profits from cotton). Why did he “go to war” at all, given that war in the South was guaranteed to undermine any economic power that the South had?
If those who truly believe that Lincoln was motivated purely or primarily by economic gain, then answer these questions, because his actions, his speeches and his private correspondences fly in the face of this “economic motivation” theory.[/quote]
You haven’t the first clue about economics.
Edify yourself and then rejoin the discussion.[/quote]
What a copout. Answer the questions directly, don’t give me some mile and a half long pdf file that doesn’t even come close to directly answering the questions I asked YOU, not Murray Rothbard. If you cannot answer a series of clear-cut questions with a direct answer to each one then I have to assume you have no answer. That’s probably why you hide behind some bullshit link hoping that I won’t click on it and realize it does nothing to address what I directed toward you.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
To economize means to decided how a resource is to be used or if it should be used at all. One cannot economize something that is not self owned.[/quote]
Then one could’ve claimed the New World and simply decided not to the vast, vast, majority of it.[/quote]
No, how does one take ownership of something he cannot physically possess?
Even with land one can put his feet on he needs to establish it, produce it,[/quote]
You already said inaction was a valid use of land.
Then they are in the wrong for using land I didn’t plan on using.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
You can’t get past it. Property lines are imaginary lines. Property lines rely on social consent and force (since you’ll never have unanimous consent). It’s a social construct, not a law of the universe. [/quote]
Lines are imaginary but a fence or a wall is real and that takes labor to build.[/quote]
That’s what ladders and bolt-cutters are for.