Owners rights

[offense74]

A woman goes out to pick apples and wheat. She grounds the wheat and goes to get some water. She bakes an apple cake.

A man comes in and takes the cake. She tries to protect her cake by violently try to stop him.

Who is the fellon and why?

 

The fundamental question to be asked from this is; who owns your time?

 

I know that there is a lot of socialist vegans and I've tried to get answeres to this question before.

Thing is capitalism is just a natural extension to owners rights. If you own your body, intellect and time you should also own the fruits of these traits.

If you want a non-capitalist society ALL owners rights must be abolished, including owners rights to your own time.

 

Can someone explain where the line of what is mine is drawn?

 

(Most far-left boards throws you out if you question these things or shows tendencies to be liberal. I'm hoping it's ok to ask here ).

[Matt]

I think the context is rather vague, and the question is extremely hypothetical. There isn't a clear line there. Is this situation a metaphor related to something actually happening in your life?

[CollegeB]

It's your life, you own your time.

[willpeavy]

It's hard to say. What kind of violence does she use to stop him? Punching him in the face is a completely different situation than if she shoots him.

[Last of the Sane]

Hey there,

 

I could go on for days on this subject (I study Political Philosophy) but to save you from a long and tedious theoretical semi-explanation, I'll try to be brief and stick to my own viewpoint.

 

Thing is capitalism is just a natural extension to owners rights. If you own your body, intellect and time you should also own the fruits of these traits.

In my opinion it is not a natural extension. There's a HUGE difference between working hard and thus earning lots of stuff for yourself and just leaning back and profiting from your capital. I think it's alright for someone to have a nice life and thus working hard for it. The problem starts when you start amassing more than you can use in order to make extra profit, especially when it concerns scarce goods. There's a theory that distinguishes between generations of profit (1st gen is the direct result of your work, like grain you planted and harvested, 2nd gen is the profit you make over your existing capital by letting it grow, like interest over your money, 3rd gen is profit over profit, like stock-trading, 4th gen is profit over profit over profit like trading in options) Most anti-capitalists agree that 3rd and 4th gens are wrong, and 2nd is doubtable at best.

 

If you want a non-capitalist society ALL owners rights must be abolished, including owners rights to your own time.

What? Why? Could you explain this further, since I'm not quite sure what you're getting at?

 

Sacco

[runner]

both adam smith and karl marx used labour time as measurement to get to the price off a product. Not in the same way, but to show you that this is not something for left or right, but from a periode in time

 

I think most socialists would not claim the product that comes from there labour. This would also be strange, because this could only count for some work fields.. how would a cleaner, a manager, a teacher claim the product from there labour?

 

I sympathy with your point, but see some mayor problems in the every day situation..

[offense74]

It's hard to say. What kind of violence does she use to stop him? Punching him in the face is a completely different situation than if she shoots him.

I'm with you here. Police should always have monopoly in vioence. And there is a big difference between shooting someone and bitchslap them.

[offense74]

I could go on for days on this subject (I study Political Philosophy)

Yay, a pro . I studied philosophy too, though not political (at least at the university).

There's a theory that distinguishes between generations of profit (1st gen is the direct result of your work, like grain you planted and harvested, 2nd gen is the profit you make over your existing capital by letting it grow, like interest over your money, 3rd gen is profit over profit, like stock-trading, 4th gen is profit over profit over profit like trading in options) Most anti-capitalists agree that 3rd and 4th gens are wrong, and 2nd is doubtable at best.

Imagine you having an idea of making eco-friendly products where you control the whole production line from the seeds to the actual food. To get things started you need a bunch of money (for employment, agriculture machines, etc.). Yo don't have this money, however a Mr. Burns does. He looks at your idea and likes it (ie. he thinks there could be a large market for it) so he is willing to give you the money in exchange for 25% of your company. If the idea fails, he takes the loss and if it turns out good he can get earnings from your profit or he could sell his 25% (or some of it) for a higher price than he purchased it for. Without a stock market he would never invest and instead sit on the money.

There's a HUGE difference between working hard and thus earning lots of stuff for yourself and just leaning back and profiting from your capital. I think it's alright for someone to have a nice life and thus working hard for it. The problem starts when you start amassing more than you can use in order to make extra profit, especially when it concerns scarce goods.

When in this process of making it from 1st to 4th gen do you steal his money? The money he has has come his way from free transactions from free people. He has in some way or another made people pay money for something that he provided. Buying stocks from Mr. Burns in the above example is one such service. Without him buying, Mr. Burns wouldn't have invested in the first place.

I don't know enough about the economics of options but they seem stupid at first look. Either you want to invest or you don't, right?!

Sidenote: In the US, more than any industrialized country, the corporate world is sitting in the piliticians laps and vice versa. This is not free capitalism, it's bad politics and can explain some of the problems the US faces with bad competition, etc.

If you want a non-capitalist society ALL owners rights must be abolished, including owners rights to your own time.

What? Why? Could you explain this further, since I'm not quite sure what you're getting at?

Every organism on this planet want to invest as little energy as possible to get the most energy back. At first sight extreme socialism (ie communism) solves this problem by saying that you invest no energy and you get maximum energy that the collective produces. This, of course, if you own your own time. Somehow the collective needs to work out a plan to steal some of your time to be able to produce food for the community and the community is probably the one deciding where you're work hours is the most needed otherwise the collective would produce nothing but high-scores on ps2 and likewise non-edible stuff.

I personnaly agree with some stealing like this in the form of tax. But it seems to me that by wanting to get rid of one form of slavery (ie. business owners taking some of your time as profit) for anoher (community takes your energy). I don't see the logic. Either way you have to steal my energy. In the latter (communism) I can't be said to own my time because I can't choose to whom I sell my energy (to get more energy) and therefore it's effectively not my time, but the communitys.

[Last of the Sane]

Hey Offense74,

 

The points you make deserve a good response, so I'm gonna think about it for a few days before I'll reply. Please be patient!

[9nines]

I would think it is situational, determined by how each parties conducts himself.

 

For example:

 

(1) If both of you are part of the same or similar societies and you both mutually agree to be bound by those societies' norms then society (civilization) determines.

 

(2) If one or both do not agree with norms, then your encounter will have to be determined by your actions (does one party ignore the others and just let him do what he wants, do they fight? If so who wins? Does one party rely on civilization for help, if so, does it help?)

[loveliberate]

It's hard to say. What kind of violence does she use to stop him? Punching him in the face is a completely different situation than if she shoots him.

I'm with you here. Police should always have monopoly in vioence. And there is a big difference between shooting someone and bitchslap them.

 

Hola,

I'm curious, why do you feel that the police "should have a monopoly on violence"? Also, how do you define violence?

[willpeavy]

It's hard to say. What kind of violence does she use to stop him? Punching him in the face is a completely different situation than if she shoots him.

I'm with you here. Police should always have monopoly in vioence. And there is a big difference between shooting someone and bitchslap them.

 

Hola,

I'm curious, why do you feel that the police "should have a monopoly on violence"? Also, how do you define violence?

 

I think the police should have a monopoly on violence too, because if they police didn't have it there would be disorder. And by violence I mean physical force, i.e. the force to detain and imprison

[compassionategirl]

I havent read this whole thread but I just want to add one thing:

 

F*** owners rights and private property when the property that is "owned" are animals on fur farms, labs, etc. and where the property owned is animal torture machinary. period. full stop.

[offense74]

I havent read this whole thread but I just want to add one thing:

 

F*** owners rights and private property when the property that is "owned" are animals on fur farms, labs, etc. and where the property owned is animal torture machinary. period. full stop.

So, try to change the fact that animals is considered to be owned. Animals should have rights. This is not a right-left issue, there are people on both sides taking both stands. Robert Nozick for example was a vegan and he spoke for animals from a libertarian point of view.

[offense74]

It's hard to say. What kind of violence does she use to stop him? Punching him in the face is a completely different situation than if she shoots him.

I'm with you here. Police should always have monopoly in vioence. And there is a big difference between shooting someone and bitchslap them.

 

Hola,

I'm curious, why do you feel that the police "should have a monopoly on violence"? Also, how do you define violence?

The most basic function of a government is to protect people from being violently forced into action by other people. If someone does use force on you you should of course be able to defend yourself. But the act of using force in the first place is a crime.

Violence is hurting or threatening someone to hurt them, physically (and even perhaps mentally, allthough this involves alot of shades of grey).

[loveliberate]

I think the police should have a monopoly on violence too, because if they police didn't have it there would be disorder. And by violence I mean physical force, i.e. the force to detain and imprison

 

Thanks for the reply Will. I do not think that is necessary or desirable for the police to have a "monopoly on violence" or that it prevents "disorder".

Realistically, the police do not have such a monopoly now and I'm not sure how they ever could, yet things seem to be fine...

[loveliberate]

[The most basic function of a government is to protect people from being violently forced into action by other people. If someone does use force on you you should of course be able to defend yourself. But the act of using force in the first place is a crime.

Violence is hurting or threatening someone to hurt them, physically (and even perhaps mentally, allthough this involves alot of shades of grey).

 

Thanks for the reply. I'm glad to see that you distinguish between self-defense and violence. Personally, I define violence as the act of initiating a violation of someone else, and self-defense as taking action to stop such a violation - 2 different things.

[willpeavy]

I think the police should have a monopoly on violence too, because if they police didn't have it there would be disorder. And by violence I mean physical force, i.e. the force to detain and imprison

 

Thanks for the reply Will. I do not think that is necessary or desirable for the police to have a "monopoly on violence" or that it prevents "disorder".

Realistically, the police do not have such a monopoly now and I'm not sure how they ever could, yet things seem to be fine...

 

Where I live the police are the only people that can arrest you and throw you in jail. If you don't think they help prevent disorder, try going to a town where the police are scared of the inhabitants and can't arrest

[loveliberate]

Actually there is this legal mechanism known as a citizens arrest...

 

But many people can use violence to physically detain and/or lock you up somewhere if they choose. That's not where the police get their power and it should not be. Their power comes from the whole social system we live under and the fact that most people accept the role of the police in that system.

 

If anyone has to be afraid, I'd much rather have the police fear the people than the other way around. If a social order can only be maintained by force and/or the threat of force, then it's time to start looking at other alternatives.

 

And if you depend solely on the police for your safety, you may be unpleasantly suprised when they are not there when you need them...

[willpeavy]

Citizen's arrest doesn't work the same way as the police being able to arrest and keep someone in a jail while they await trial. I would rather live in a society where people know there will be consequences if they break laws and state funded law enforcement has power. You have an entirely different perspective, and that's fine with me. I think we will just have to agree to disagree