1
   

Property is theft

 
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2005 07:20 pm
lol, boomer. this is the first time i even wrote 'lol' online. once i occupy a slot on a cemetery i will not give a rat's whisker who owns it or whether anyone owns anything.
Cyracuz, your opinions are just as valuable as anyone else's, but if you insist on reinventing the wheel, i will yawn, stretch, and go partake in discussion somewhere else. good discussion is based on arguments and counter-arguments that have been developed in the past. That is indeed how we learn and develop finer points, as mentioned above. And refrain from jumping to insult people left and right, those are also not arguments.
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2005 07:24 pm
Oh, just a note on the margin: Proudhon lived a century after Rousseau. Rousseau died in 1778, before Proudhon was even born. But Proudhon, being a radical and a socialist, has developed arguments in favor of abolishing all property much more than Rousseau, who only treated it as the beginning of all civil society.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2005 04:36 am
Merry Andrew. I agree with what you say. We are the sum of our ancestors. What I meant by my last point is that during discussion people have a tendency to rush to conclusions. If my viewpoints are similar to marxism for instance, the people I debate tend to start arguing against marxism as soon as this similarity is evident. They automatically assume that just because my views on one issue are the same as in marxism, all my views are the same as marxism. Not that you have done this. I just wanted to beat anyone to it.

I believe in what you say about heritage. Yesterday, in fact, I dug up rosseau from my bookshelf and started reading in it, but soon Kierkegaard had me ensnared (there was a quote in the book I read about rosseau).

Our forefathers did great things, and we do not have to feel shame to walk in their steps. But still, the responsibility lies with us to see that we move forward, and that these footsteps don't just take us back to where we once were.

Quote:
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.


Maybe in a long time. Maybe not voluntarily, but some day it is bound to happen.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2005 04:39 am
Patience dagmaraka.. :wink:

Why would I re-invent the wheel? But keep in mind, that just because a rounded stone rolls, doesn't mean it is a perfect circle.
0 Replies
 
val
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2005 05:51 am
Re: Property is theft
Cyracuz, I cannot find any solid argument to justify property. In a way I agree with Proudhon: things are there, they are not a projection of ourselves, so to seize something could be understood as theft - not with the meaning of taking something from other person, but just take something.
But there is another perspective of the problem.
You seize something, land for instance. Then you work that land. For years and years you change it. You create new things, threes, cultures. That is your work. The thing you have seized is not the same anymore. Now, it is a projection of you, a part of your life.
That land is not an abstract land, but the land you created wuith your work, ideas. You have created something new. That is the work of your life, and in some ways, your life itself. But you are mortal. So you want your sons carry on your work, because now it is not only property but also life, work, struggle, memories.
In this perspective I think property has a much more human meaning.

I don't want to say that that property in natural, according to human nature, because I don't know want human nature is. But we see that most of the experiences of societies that refused private property or societies that established forms of collective property had no success.

Of course, limits must be establish in order to prevent private property becoming power, not only over things but over other human beings. Those limits, the struggle to impose them, is in part the history of mankind. And I accept, with no great success. Todays world has nothing to do with the notion of property I gave.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2005 09:00 am
I think what you're getting at val is the age old truth: The things you own end up owning you. The relationship between owner and owned has long since become mutual. It's quite a tragedy really.

As for what is human nature. Everything that is within the capacity of a human being is human nature. Not neccesarily rightheous, but still human nature. When you hear the world leaders proclaim that this or that act of terrorism was inhuman I beg to differ. Conducted by humans, not inhuman. What other animal can do such things? So you see, all monsters were once human.
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
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/12/2021 at 11:33:53