Pskapompos:I think that private property is a contract with the people. To hoard your wealth while others starve is a breach of contract and is a crime. Smoking is a vice, not greediness. Serving oneself at the behest of all others violates peoples basic right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and is a crime.
And that's precisely where the knowledge of economics would prove useful to you, if you had any. Adam, I'm done with you.
We have literature on this, you could listen to our arguements on the subject, but you won't do this.
Pskapompos:I think that private property is a contract with the people.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
How is private property a contract with the people?
Private property is simply the extension of your own self-ownership. Just as you own your body, you own anything that you consume. For example, if you eat an apple, it is fair to say that that apple in your stomach is yours. That apple is yours as soon as you pick it off a tree (if it is unowned previously) or as soon as you pay someone who owns it to hand over the rights to the apple to you. Likewise, property is yours if you mix your labor and efforts with it or purchase it from someone who did so. For example, if I move to empty, unowned land, and begin farming, isn't it fair to say that that land is mine, since I was the one who put the sweat, blood, and tears in cultivating that land? Doesn't that ownership follow naturally from my self-ownership, as I mix my efforts with the previously unowned land, thereby making the land my own?
To hoard your wealth while others starve is a breach of contract and is a crime.
How is hoarding a breach of contract?
Smoking is a vice, not greediness. Serving oneself at the behest of all others violates peoples basic right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and is a crime.
When you serve oneself, you ultimately serve others. That's how free markets work. At the very basic level, all exchanges in free markets are, by definition, voluntary. I exchange $1 for a newspaper, the newspaper saleman exchanges the newspaper for $1. We both benefit, since I value that newspaper more than the dollar and the salesman values that dollar more than the newspaper. Likewise, other efforts to seek out your own self interest by working hard, earning high pay, saving, investing your money, etc. all benefits others since my work, my consumption, and my saving/investment either provides others with goods, jobs, or capital.
Mises Community Natural Rights Discussion Group
First of all I would like to thank those with formal arguments for engaging me in this philosophic debate about the fundamental nature of society. Juan, your not productive to this engagement at all. Dmitry, you consistently run away when someone challenges your worldview (you say I need an education in economics but what you dont realize is that your faith leads you to believe only those educated in austrian economics are educated in economics). But all the others... thank you for engaging a non-libertarian, becuase those are the only people everyone else debates with.
Im thinking its well established thought that private property is a contract. If so, then who is it a contract with. Nobody has a natural right to the land, and private property is a contract with the great collective that you will not use it to harm the citizenry. Saving wealth is great, hoarding wealth you couldnt use anyway is harmful to the citizenry at large.
Adam E Zandarski
Pskapompos:only those educated in austrian economics are educated in economics
thats true though.......
Pskapompos:Im thinking its well established thought that private property is a contract.
i dont think you are right. but i havent done a poll, yet even if you were, it would just mean the majority of people are wrong.
Pskapompos: Im thinking its well established thought that private property is a contract. If so, then who is it a contract with. Nobody has a natural right to the land, and private property is a contract with the great collective that you will not use it to harm the citizenry. Saving wealth is great, hoarding wealth you couldnt use anyway is harmful to the citizenry at large.
Well I'm glad you just sort of skipped over the part where it was explained that there is no such thing as "hoarding", at least not with money.
For what it's worth, I've never heard of private property being described as a contract. I don't see why a contract is necessary to establish property - a piece of land is unowned; I work that piece of land; it is now my farm. You may need a contract to *defend* that property from aggression, which is the way that Locke (which, you'll be happy to hear, is not an Austrolibertarian; perhaps you would deign to read his work) describes government. I'm not too well-read on the position held by an-caps, but I suppose they believe you don't need a contract with all of society to defend your property.
Nirgraham do you realize how religous about anarchocapitalism you made yourself appear to be? "if you dont agree with me you're wrong."
And before you lay that charge on me I think I have repeatedly spelled out how I dont think youre wrong, I think your policy is based on idealism. That it would only work in a what-if world.
In fairness to Adam, Mises might have agreed that private property is useful only insofar as it serves human ends:
Private property is a human device. It is not sacred. It came into existence in early ages of history, when people with their own power and by their own authority appropriated to themselves what had previously not been anybody's property. Again and again proprietors were robbed of their property by expropriation. ...
Ownership in the market economy is no longer linked up with the remote origin of private property. Those events in a far-distant past, hidden in the darkness of primitive mankind's history, are no longer of any concern for our day. For in an unhampered market society the consumers daily decide anew who should own and how much he should own. The consumers allot control of the means of production to those who know how to use them best for the satisfaction of the most urgent wants of the consumers. ...
The meaning of private property in the market society is radically different from what it is under a system of each household's autarky. Where each household is economically self-sufficient, the privately owned means of production exclusively serve the proprietor. He alone reaps all the benefits derived from their employment. In the market society the proprietors of capital and land can enjoy their property only by employing it for the satisfaction of other people's wants. They must serve the consumers in order to have any advantage from what is their own. The very fact that they own means of production forces them to submit to the wishes of the public. Ownership is an asset only for those who know how to employ it in the best possible way for the benefit of the consumers. It is a social function. (HA, 683ff)
For Mises society is not just a spontaneous order but is an outcome of an explicit ideology. It is part of the liberal ideology that private property is a means to greatest happiness for the greatest number. In this sense it could be considered a "social contract" entered into by all people with the purpose of making social cooperation both possible (as contrasted with socialism) and most efficient (as contrasted with interventionism).
Pskapompos: Nirgraham do you realize how religous about anarchocapitalism you made yourself appear to be? "if you dont agree with me you're wrong." And before you lay that charge on me I think I have repeatedly spelled out how I dont think youre wrong, I think your policy is based on idealism. That it would only work in a what-if world.
what do i care of appearances? if you want to pick a point, start a thread on it, focus a second. feel free to challenge me.
also, you're not wrong, you are just too *blah de blah* is really irrelevent. as if you concede that i am not wrong, but right.
then i am right, and ballerina's often dance to music.
and i am right and im idealistic
and i am right and im pragmatic.
and if you disagree with me on a topic, and you think im right on it. then you have surely found a way to be wrong somehow. this is how we play the logic game.
dchernik: For Mises society is not just a spontaneous order but is an outcome of an explicit ideology. It is part of the liberal ideology that private property is a means to greatest happiness for the greatest number. In this sense it could be considered a "social contract" entered into by all people with the purpose of making social cooperation both possible (as contrasted with socialism) and most efficient (as contrasted with interventionism).
And thus why somebody that doesn't want to morally or lawfully work with others in a more moral and thus lawful society, that man or woman would be ostracized. I'm glad I live where I can use the honest system still. Out this way there are farms that leave corn out without any man or woman to give your money to and get the corn. People are so honest here this system works. You honestly leave the money and grab as much corn as the selling price written on the sign and leave.
"I used to see a mountain as a mountain.. Thereafter.. when I saw a mountain; lo! it was not a mountain.. yet now of final tranquillity: I see a mountain just as a mountain as I used to.." - Master Yuan; molon labe
I would almost put money out that says those farmers are provided subsidized assistance, and therefore can afford to rely on an honesty system. I would bet the bulk of their selling is to large stores, etc. And only provide this service becuase they first can afford it, but most importantly are good people.
Pskapompos: I would almost put money out that says those farmers are provided subsidized assistance, and therefore can afford to rely on an honesty system. I would bet the bulk of their selling is to large stores, etc. And only provide this service becuase they first can afford it, but most importantly are good people.
I wasn't talking to you.
wilderness: dchernik: For Mises society is not just a spontaneous order but is an outcome of an explicit ideology. It is part of the liberal ideology that private property is a means to greatest happiness for the greatest number. In this sense it could be considered a "social contract" entered into by all people with the purpose of making social cooperation both possible (as contrasted with socialism) and most efficient (as contrasted with interventionism). And thus why somebody that doesn't want to morally or lawfully work with others in a more moral and thus lawful society, that man or woman would be ostracized. I'm glad I live where I can use the honest system still. Out this way there are farms that leave corn out without any man or woman to give your money to and get the corn. People are so honest here this system works. You honestly leave the money and grab as much corn as the selling price written on the sign and leave.
dchernik, my apologies. This would be more correctly stated as this: I'm glad I live where I can use the honor system still.
Juan, your not productive to this engagement at all.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Juan:Juan, your not productive to this engagement at all. Come on kid. Explain what gives you the right to give orders to your 'brothers'.
Logic and facts are for greedy, selfish oppressors of the poor! If the facts don't fit the theory, obviously the former need adjusting.
Did you just try to say the great trust buster is on your side in this debate? The creator of the national parks system. The Mentor to Franklin; creator of the New Deal. Really? Did you just try and make the argument that social democracy isnt what made America the so-called "greatest nation in the world?" That all this open and free trade wasnt facilitated by more liberal economic policies? Isnt that the definition of liberal? Are you trying to say that progressive policy didnt create 70yr life spans, literate societies, and roads from san fran to new york to orangeville, PA?
Ya rly! Go figure.
Except all the apple trees are owned by Johny and he isnt giving them up for nothing. But party A has nothing. He lost it all in the flood. And he has no family to turn to. If your taking from the poor to give to the poor your not getting anywhere. Were trying to go after whats not being used anyway. If you can convince some rich guy that if he gives up 80 billion dollars we can feed the poor, more power to you. But he wont get anything in return. Meanwhile, hes not doing anything with that money. Its just sitting there. And ACTUAL people are starving. People who are working are starving. Poor is not just a product of lazy. Some of these people are trying very hard, they just dont have the knowhow.
Except all the apple trees are owned by Johny and he isnt giving them up for nothing. But party A has nothing. He lost it all in the flood. And he has no family to turn to.
If your taking from the poor to give to the poor your not getting anywhere. Were trying to go after whats not being used anyway. If you can convince some rich guy that if he gives up 80 billion dollars we can feed the poor, more power to you. But he wont get anything in return.
Meanwhile, hes not doing anything with that money. Its just sitting there. And ACTUAL people are starving. People who are working are starving. Poor is not just a product of lazy. Some of these people are trying very hard, they just dont have the knowhow.
Oh noes, poor little Johny! What contrived nonsense. Perhaps "Johny" better make himself useful and get a skill. And as for this bullshit of the money "sitting" there, what the hell are you on about? Maybe when I'm idling about my body is just "sitting" there, so maybe it should go to some desperate loser who "needs" sex. Rubbish. It's not your money to take, and it's not your job to proclaim ex cathedra whose wants are more urgent or not, i.e. "needs".
There is absolutely no reason why we cant provide quality education to many, and at least competent education to all.
There is. The state can spend lavish amounts of money on education to provide "quality" education. In so doing it will strip more urgently wanted goods of their funding, and waste.,
Is there not a point where the amount of wealth you hold becomes symbollic and entirely useless? .
No.
Its not about ME. You are the ones protecting the self here. Its about US. WE owe EACH OTHER a decent civilized life.
Yes, from egomaniacally driven violation.
Nobody has a natural right to the land, and private property is a contract with the great collective that you will not use it to harm the citizenry. Saving wealth is great, hoarding wealth you couldnt use anyway is harmful to the citizenry at large.
Which assumes the collective has prior ownership over this land. Question-begging nonsense. "Hoarding" wealth is not harmful, as people can simply switch to another medium of exchange and will benefit from lower prices when you're not spending. So please put a modicum of effort into your arguments. There is no "collective" to which any duties are owed.
To darkness I condemn you...
wilderness:Government official gets tired of this never-ending story and does some labour, finally, and picks an apple from the tree.
Your allegory is flawed though. In between each step, the government takes a bite of the food. They have no insentive, nor desire to do the labor in procuring new food. They're getting full off people "hiring" (electing) them to steal from others.
Pskapompos:I think that private property is a contract with the people. To hoard your wealth while others starve is a breach of contract and is a crime.
By its definition, "private" property implies the full right of the private individual to do with his property as he wants (as long as it isn't towards causing aggression against another individual).
Certainly, it could be seen as some sort of intersocial contract, that is to be respected between peaceful individuals. But your idea is not private property at all. You're talking about communal property. Your idea is that I can "controll" the things I produce to the degree that the community around me allows. That if I use things I produce in a way that others don't deem socially beneficial, they are right in depriving me of those products. In what way is this different from slavery? You're claiming that I am bound to do labor to the interests and specifications of my peers absent of my own.
Pskapompos:Serving oneself at the behest of all others violates peoples basic right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and is a crime.
On the contrary, it is the fulfillment of such rights. Failing to service others is not a violation of someones life.
banned: wilderness:Government official gets tired of this never-ending story and does some labour, finally, and picks an apple from the tree. Your allegory is flawed though. In between each step, the government takes a bite of the food. They have no insentive, nor desire to do the labor in procuring new food. They're getting full off people "hiring" (electing) them to steal from others.
True. The government would take a bite of the apple. When the government official got tired of the never-ending story and did some labour, I was saying the government stepped down, folded up, and disappeared. The guy that went to pick the apple from the tree. He wasn't a government official anymore. He was an apple farmer. My story did end in a dream world.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap