Topic: Bitcoins Lost - page 2. (Read 21589 times)

Is this a debate about the stickiness of property?

I supposed a property abandoned for really long period of time will be free to homestead.

I give up. it's like trying to convince a jew that pork is good for you. I will tell you this: Don't expect to keep any property past the time the owner comes back. When I get home from the store to find squatters have moved in during my absence, I will treat them like any other infestation.

While I'm not generally one for shameless self-promotion, I think this classic celebrity video is relevant here.

http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2009/03/25/glen-jacobs-why-liberty-is-inevitable/

Yes, but this rarely happens in a capitalist society because one party exercises his power over the other in order to get more than he would if he hadn't.

I say you create property through labor and then exchange your surplus for something you need. Money can facilitate that exchange. If you tolerate the exchange of labor for property, between people, then you must also tolerate people owning other people as property because you cannot separate a person from his labor. Why anyone would participate in such an exchange comes from the fact capitalists will use coercion to increase the value of their property to the point where an individual, who has less capability to coerce, must exchange more property than he would have in the absence of coercion to get what he needs. Considering that capitalists can call land and other resources, which they haven't worked, property by using force to keep workers out, the workers have nothing to turn into property with their own labor, and therefore nothing to trade except themselves. As long as cooperatively minded workers remain in the minority, they must submit to the capitalist despots.

Perhaps he does. He still should own that which he produces from his own labor. If Alice is good at making organized workplaces he can pay her for the organized workspace that she produces.

If Alice uses coercion, trickery, or deception to affect the exchange, it is objectively not fair.

If you choose not to maintain the house you live in, you still own it because you occupy it. If you abandon it, you cease to own it.

You did hit a major, relevant point, however: upkeep. You DO need to keep investing labor into a piece of property to keep it in the same condition. If you're fine with your house falling apart after you've bought it, feel free to do no maintenance on it. The resale value will go down, as will any potential income you might make from renting it, until it's worth nothing at all for either purpose, but you can do it.

Mardi Gras was fun    but I do need some rest. Thnx.

Only Alice and Bob can make that designation as to what is fair and what is not fair. Everybody else who are not involved in the affair, GTFO.

wb3 = Charlie sheen?

I think it might be nearing bedtime again, my friend.

Or perhaps he does not wish to expend the time and effort to start a business himself, and wishes to use the resources Alice has made available to make some easy, risk-free money.

Again, your proposed society and the ideology it embodies leaves no room for individual desires different from your own. Anyone who agrees to accept a wage is either a fool, and anyone who offers a wage is an exploiter. The idea that one party is putting themselves at much more risk, and both parties enter into the agreement willingly flies completely above your head. I would like to see you explain why Bob is being exploited, why he deserves to be paid "fairly" (at the same rate as Alice, who has more risk). You have provided no such explanation as yet, only that you know better than everyone else, including Alice and Bob.

*actually, I agree he deserves to be paid fairly, but only Bob can make that designation

Interesting:


Labor --> Money --> Property

Correct, but a trick.  No matter how much you think, you do not own your property. It must continually be paid for to retain or replace it.

The entity that controls the money is the trickster.

Think of it in terms of Swimming Pools and Horses.  If I give you a pool, did I give you anything or do you now have to buy chemicals.

The only way out of this is to trick the trickster, Labor --> Money --> Buy Labor.  Now the Money Trickster is relying on your labor force for its using of Money. You are now in control, of the system.

If you think you own anything, you are fooling yourself, maybe with the help of time and position but still a misperception. Even Kings loose their possessions.

Your only value is in the amount of ManHours that can be produce from your direction.  The more people you can get to work with out money, the more power and control you have.  Think of the big families of the past. Now why would authority not want big families but small disorganized and broken families? To prevent other systems from gaining control.

One close family, over 3 generations, utilizing nepotism can have "a lot" of power and control over a system.

I did. let me put it in terms you will understand. My money is the condensed product of my labor. when I give my money to someone in order to acquire property, that property becomes mine through the actions of my labor. when you come along and take it, you are stealing the results of that labor.

let me break it down even more:

labor --> money --> property

when you take the property, you break that chain, rendering my labor moot. I should not need to continue laboring in order to keep my property. In order to extract more money from it, perhaps, but not simply to keep it. Follow?

It's called a mutually profitable exchange.

Sorry, I misread. In the case of a cooperative society, if Bob gives Alice the product of his labor in exchange for anything less than she might turn around and sell it for, the he is either foolish (and Alice is taking advantage of his foolishness), a fetishist, or doing Alice a favor.

I already said that this arrangement takes place in your hypothetical society, so there is no position of power. Bob can work elsewhere, but he chose to work for Alice instead. Your ideology cannot handle two people making a voluntary agreement without labeling it as exploitative, so I think we're not going to be able to have any further rational discussion.

It would be aberrant behavior although not necessarily impossible. It would be unlikely that Alice would find someone like Bob to accept anything less than ownership of that which he produces because most people would expect to own the product of their labor.

It is in use and it will look as such. If the discoverers aren’t sure, they can wait for the farmer to come back to maintain the field. If he does not come back, and the discoverers start to take care of the field, they will own that which they produce from it by their own labor. If the farmer ever comes back and can prove that he didn’t really neglect the crop, he can have the share of the harvest that his labor in planting the crop entails him.

Well, think about it. The only way you can get an income from a piece of land without working it is by working to keep others from working that land unless they pay you a tithe. I imagine a land owner patrolling his property claim trying to keep workers out. But that’s tiring, and he can only patrol so much land himself, so he hires thugs to do the task for him. But that’s expensive, so with the help of other land owners with similar concerns, he sponsors a government that will help him and do so at least partly on funds extorted from the workers themselves.

If you’d like to make that argument, please present it.
 
You didn’t. A cooperative society will simply exist while a neighboring exploitative society will just try to eat it. Naturally, the cooperative society will resist, but this is not competition because the two societies do not want the same thing. You can compare the two ideas in your head though, if that’s what you mean by competition.

It's not a "trade". It's a right. by taking my property, regardless of whether or not I am actively using it at the time, you are taking away the resources i have invested in that property. In the terms of the "philosophy of liberty" video, you are stealing my past.Where did I lose you?

a. Less than 1 %
b. Less than 5 %
c. Less than 10 %
d. Less than 15%
e. More than 15%


Personnaly I'd add:

f.  Who cares?  Mines are not lost

Who said he's not using it? Say he's a farmer and he just planted his fields. Is he no longer "using" that land and that equipment? Does it matter if he is "using" it or the people who agreed to work on his behalf? What if he builds or purchases robots to work on his behalf?


Are you saying that the syndicalists do not understand the concept of private property, not just disagree with it? They don't realize that by using the equipment or land, they are depriving the person who claims to own it of its use at a time of their discretion?


The non aggression principle only justifies a proportional amount of force to be used in self defense.


Would the type of society you envision not have any sort of protection measures? How does this society respond when one or more individuals decide they can own private property? It starts off with a group of people building a machine that makes really useful widgets. Soon, everyone wants to use the machine to make their own really useful widgets, but the creators don't think it's fair that they put in all the work and everyone else reaps the rewards. So they start denying people use of the machine, first using words, and then physical force. Would all of society be obligated to prevent this violence, or would there be a specialized group of people that do so?

Bob made an agreement with Alice that she would pay him 1 BTC per hour for his work. Assume this is occurring in a society such as you envision. Does this seems like impossibly abberent behavior based on the way you think this society would operate? If no, then can you explain how such an agreement is exploitative of its very nature, even in such a society? Otherwise, does it bother you that your ideology cannot withstand an agreement between two individuals that you find unsatisfactory?


Correct me if I'm wrong, but you support private property, just not of land and capital? Why do you oppose the private ownership of capital? Additionally, how do you define capital? It seems to me anything from a hammer to a factory falls in that category. If I'm not using my hammer, can someone else just take it as long as they use it? What about my car, because they can put it to better use than sitting in my driveway?

There's the problem. You would claim that a given area of land, which you aren't actively using, and a party, meaning no offense to you, starts using it because they do not recognize vacant or unused property, you will try to drive them away or destroy them thereby plying your trade--land ownership, if you could call it a trade--by violence. Perhaps you will hire someone else to do it. What other recourse does a capitalist have? The two ideas aren't compatible.

It just seems like an oxymoron to me.