Alright, well this post may not be super popular, due to the heavy right-libertarian presence on this forum. This does not mean I really disagree with the ideology, I just view it differently. Plus I'm not really planning out the post, just kind of winging it, lol. The argument used against egalitarian forms of society and economies generally comes down to something like 'Why does someone have the right to take someone else's property/money?' Well, this is certainly valid, which is why my egalitarian/communist vision has always been qualified by the use of the term 'voluntary.' Nonetheless, I think this argument merits looking into a bit more deeply, in terms of whether or not it truly defeats arguments in support of pure equality in terms of access to resources. Since this argument centers around the concept of property rights, we must investigate what it means to 'own something,' and how we come about to 'own it' in the first place. I pay for things with the money from my job, therefore I own those things. I work my job, therefore I own that money. I get money for my job, because people higher up in the chain have money to give me. People higher up in the chain have money to give me because they are able to sell a product or service to others. They are able to sell a product or service to others due to a complex web of interactions between people. Those complex interactions are able to occur due to material and currency being owned by those people. Material and currency is owned by those people due to the process described above, and it repeats. So you can see how this whole process is cyclical. Its cycle functions because the basic system is self-perpetuating. But where is the beginning point to this cycle? How did someone originally 'own' something? Somehow, artificial systems were imposed to create property rights and currency. It seems self-apparent that it 'is' that way now, but you can see how this was something that was CREATED, and does not inherently exist. Seeing things from this perspective, you can see how an egalitarian society, in which all have equal access to resources, is not some drastic idealistic fantasy. Minus the assumptions which lead to the above cycle, it is a perfectly natural way of managing resources.
Libertarians (right) believe in Locke's theory of property. Initial ownership is gained by mixing one's labor with land or resources and thereby creating something new or using something previously unused. By doing this you now own what you created or the piece of land you used for living, building a house, whatever.
Interesting. Given that view of property rights, wouldn't our whole economic/social system now be a sham? I mean, if I go to a piece of land that is un-owned, and build a house, that should be my house/land according to that theory, right? Unless something is owned by someone else, I have a right to it, if I make use of it through work. Since that is clearly not the way our social/economic systems work, aren't our systems a sham, by that definition?
[quote name='"TheJourney"'] Interesting. Given that view of property rights, wouldn't our whole economic/social system now be a sham? I mean, if I go to a piece of land that is un-owned, and build a house, that should be my house according to that theory, right? Unless something is owned by someone else, I have a right to it, if I make use of it through work. Since that is clearly not the way our social/economic systems work, aren't our systems a sham, by that definition?[/quote] Idk where you're finding this non-owned land. Ninja'd
I don't know about being a sham, but it's certainly not libertarian. In a libertarian society you could do exactly what you described.
Not 'un-owned land,' but this thread is discussing what it means to 'own' something. Land is 'owned' through the process described above, and by Locke's theory 'ownership' is by mixing work with resources/land. There is unused land. Unused land is more true to the definition proposed above of 'ownership,' as opposed to our concept of 'ownership' in this society which seems artificial. If I work on un-used land, it is more mine than who our society says 'owns it.'
It works on the Lockean principle of property. I would explain it to you, but instead you should type "Second treatise on civil government" into google and there's a chapter on property. Edit: The chapter is actually called "of property".
The people that lived on the land prior to the europeans arriving and stealing it didn't really get a say in terms of ownersip.
Although Locke wouldn't agree that ownership is "artificial", the concept of artificiality isn't an important factor. Locke saw ownership of property as essential to being a part of society. In owning property, every person has an important stake in society and thus all decisions made by policy makers also concern the individual. It's all a part of his idea of the social contract.
Sure, it's a part of our accepted ideas about society. That doesn't mean it is inherent, or right. Suppose someone, whether a government, corporation, or individual, owns thousands of acres of land which is being totally un-used. They 'own' it, but it has no use whatsoever. It is absolutely non-sensical to say someone can just own endless land, despite not using it, and noone is allowed to use it. I'm not saying it can't be justified with some theory, but any theory that justifies that sort of thing is in need of revision.
Isn't it the same with money though? People with millions in the bank that just sits there and were it in circulation would benefit the economy? At the end of the day, it's their choice and their right, but it is counter-productive.
I submit the genesis wasn't created but rather is. The first piece of property a person owns is their body, which leads to a person owning the effects of their actions. Whether the effect is another person's broken nose, a painting, crops, etc.
I can agree that, when it comes to unused land, it seems wrong that ownership should act as a barrier to the many possible uses of the land, however this doesn't necessarily negate the positive aspects of ownership and property rights. At the end of the day, humans naturally strive to live in a state of security, and ownership and property rights are the best way to achieve this without reliance upon other people who, on the whole, are unpredictable by their nature.
Unfortunately this is true. However the state has trodden on many people in its many different forms. Natives are just one group of many whom the fangs of the state have been turned.
what does money in a bank do? have sexy parties when no one is around? it sits there. If it isn't being spent or used, it merely contributes to the banks own ends.
Money in a bank is always invested in some way, whether through lending or in shares. This means that the money is constantly circulating, leading to taxation at almost every stage.
Yes, but these europeans not only stole the land, they then enforced the concept of economy on these people, placing them squarely at the bottom on the capatlist ladder. It was the equivalent of someone barging into your house and saying 'here's how things are going to be done now - and all this shit you've been upkeeping and making use of, it's not yours anymore'.
Yes, by the bank. Doesn't change the fact that someone with 5 million in the bank in a savings account isn't actively contributing it to the economy. They are storing a ridiculous sum of money.