1
   

Property is theft

 
 
Cyracuz
 
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2005 09:58 am
It is my opinion that most of our difficulties stem from the notion that one man can own land. The first person who stood up and declared: "This is my land, get off", started this landslide. He was a thief, and all who follow his lead are decendants of thieves. We cannot rightfully own things.

Ask youself, before rushing to state your disagreement, why you are such a steadfast defender of property. Do you have property? The worlds riches are divided so that 90% is owned by 10% of the population. Are we that ten percent? What is the division among us rich people then? I am pretty sure that if you balance your debts with your property the outcome is somewhere around zero. We too live on the indulgence of those who have it all. Is this how it is supposed to be?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,165 • Replies: 25
No top replies

 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2005 09:59 am
I do not own property but for an exorbitant fee I, at least temporarily, own the rights to live on it.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2005 10:06 am
Same with me. But the right to live temporarily was given to me at birth. By this same right I claim space in the world to exist. If it is wrong to kill me it is equally wrong take away this privelege.
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2005 10:07 am
Every American Indian would agree with you heartily, Cyracuz. (That is, unless they owned a gaming casino on their reservation land. Smile)
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2005 10:14 am
Spite, my cruel devices,
Up-side-down even at need
To earn good will where will is given,
Corrupt even the noblest deed.

All peoples are native of somewhere. Most just don't remember it. The earth is our mother. No one owns their mother.
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2005 10:20 am
If no one owns anything, if there is no property, there can be no theft either.
Your inspiration comes from J.J. Rousseau, yes? Partial quote: "The first man who, after enclosing a plot of land, saw fit to say: "This is mine," and found people who were simple enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society. How many crimes, wars, murders, sufferings and horrors mankind would have been spared if someone had torn up the stakes or filled up the moat and cried to his fellows: "Don't listen to this impostor; you are lost if you forget that the earth belongs to no one, and that its fruits are for all!" But there is much evidence to indicate that, by that time, things had already reached the point of being unable to go on as they had: for this idea of property, which depended upon many preceding ideas that could only make their appearance one after another, did not take shape in the human mind all of a sudden. There had to be many advances; people had to acquire a great deal of knowledge and technique, and transmit and augment it all from one era to the next, before this last point in the state of nature could be arrived at. . . . "

http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/inequality.html
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2005 10:24 am
I am not familiar with rosseau. Not directly at least. But it sounds as if he had his head on the right way.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2005 10:25 am
I am not familiar with rosseau. Not directly at least. But it sounds as if he had his head on the right way. Except one thing. Propert IS theft.
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2005 10:35 am
well, perhaps you should start there. read rousseau. while he might agree, he also explains that theft or not, it is inevitable.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2005 10:40 am
Inevitable you say, and I can see how you would. Simply because we are too far along the wrong path to turn back. But to turn back is never a solution. In the same way that property is inevitable, the fall of this philosophy and this practice is inevitable. We are not, and will never be, above evolution.
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2005 10:54 am
nope, i don't say anything. i said read rousseau.
what have you read on the topic? plenty has been written.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2005 11:16 am
What I have read? I find books to be a valuable contribution to my learning, and only a fool would say otherwise. But how is what I have read important? My opinions are not some derivates of famous thinkers' ideas. They are not new, but formed on the basis of my existence rather than the level of my education.

To categorize my views according to what has been said before is only a way to brush aside the issue saying: "Look here. It's been said. Didn't matter then. Don't matter now." In short: So long as I have my own thoughts on the issue I do not care what rosseau or anyone else from the great pool of history says. No dead people can counter the living.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2005 12:49 pm
Forget Rousseau: read Pierre Joseph Proudhon. He was the guy who first said "property is theft."
0 Replies
 
Idaho
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2005 12:53 pm
The whole, no-ownership thing has been tried, and failed, numerous times. In fact, the very beginnings of this country were communist in philosophy until they nearly starved. Once people had thier own property and responsibility for themselves, they thrived. Ownership is a nice way to reward those who work hard - gives folks something to strive for.
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2005 12:59 pm
Sorry. Cyracuz, but we are the sum of everything and everyone that has gone before. To not know the opinions and reasoning of those who have preceded us is to have no heritage. To have no heritage is to have no focus. No one is asking you to "categorize [your] views according to what has been said before," but to be ignorant of what has been said by others does not necessarily lead to any original thought. Whether we like to admit it or not, all of our thinking and reasoning is influenced by what others have said to us, be it our parents, our peers or the great thinkers of the past. Do read Rousseau. And Karl Marx. Some of what you say is also quite compatible with Marxist theory.

BTW, I agree, in principle, that the concept of ownership of land is absurd. We cannot "own" something of which we are a part. It is here for our use only. But, that said, do you seriously envisage a time when the concept of land ownership will be in decline and humankind will go back to some pre-industrial societal model where everyone owns everything in common with everyone else? I'm not even sure I'd care to live in such a society. We all love our creature comforts too much.
0 Replies
 
Idaho
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2005 01:14 pm
It's probably more accurate to say "property is and illusion" than "property is theft." After all, by owning something, you haven't really taken it away from your mother earth. Really, you are only restricting, to a degree, the use of that property for others. BUT, you are compensating them for the property in the form of taxes spent to the benefit of all (schools, roads, etc. etc.). Ownership of property is paying extra for the privelege of paying rent to the government until such time that you pass that privelege along to someone else. If you really think you own property, try skipping your tax payments and see how long you own.
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2005 01:19 pm
Good point, Idaho.
0 Replies
 
Ray
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2005 02:36 pm
There can be no theft if there is no property.
0 Replies
 
Etruscia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2005 04:41 pm
I would tend to agree with Idaho. We do not really have property per se, we only have possesions. We may possess something, but we essentially dont own it becuase we cannot take it away from the earth, it will always be a part of the earth.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2005 05:47 pm
Hmmmm.

What about cemetary plots?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Property is theft
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 06/14/2021 at 08:25:29