Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. SubscriberWajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    Provocation
    Joined
    01 Sep '04
    Moves
    65928
    18 Jun '19 05:011 edit
    @no1marauder said
    Stop trying to change the subject. Read the title of the thread; it is about the institution of private property (again you keep giving examples of personal property).

    How did this institution start? We both know it was based on force. We both know it is only maintained by force. Therefore, if you took your own shibboleths seriously (you don't) you'd have to oppose it.
    If no one owned the land and someone settled it, there was no force, there was no theft.

    And there has been no change of subject, what makes a persons retirement home not property? How does buying a farmlet (for example) make one a cut throat and criminal?

    Edit: Trying to establish the difference between defending your barbie doll collection and defending your potatoes.
  2. Joined
    27 Jul '10
    Moves
    30016
    18 Jun '19 10:49
    @wajoma said
    What force?

    There's no force, if the employee doesn't like the conditions they go somewhere else, or they could become an employer themselves, or they could work at one of your 'no boss' model companies, or they could become self-employed.
    Marauder, without wading into the ethereal, answer us this. Does your reasoning, your philosophy, mean that Henry Ford could not have had a factory, or hired workers, to build cars? We would have no cars. Or factories and serfs making ANYTHING, for that matter. A reasonable answer please. Just got my coffee, maybe I missed something.
  3. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40151
    18 Jun '19 11:42
    @averagejoe1 said
    Marauder, without wading into the ethereal, answer us this. Does your reasoning, your philosophy, mean that Henry Ford could not have had a factory, or hired workers, to build cars? We would have no cars. Or factories and serfs making ANYTHING, for that matter. A reasonable answer please. Just got my coffee, maybe I missed something.
    People made things before there was private property.

    Why right wingers can't grasp that simple and obvious fact is beyond my comprehension.
  4. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40151
    18 Jun '19 11:431 edit
    @wajoma said
    If no one owned the land and someone settled it, there was no force, there was no theft.

    And there has been no change of subject, what makes a persons retirement home not property? How does buying a farmlet (for example) make one a cut throat and criminal?

    Edit: Trying to establish the difference between defending your barbie doll collection and defending your potatoes.
    "Settling" means use and occupation. Again, that is not private property.

    The exchange quoted on page 1:

    Personal property is that which you clearly own through use and occupancy. Private property is that which you clearly don't own through use and occupancy, but by the magic of the state still own.

    It's no magic, its batons and tear gas.
  5. Joined
    27 Jul '10
    Moves
    30016
    18 Jun '19 13:34
    @averagejoe1 said
    Marauder, without wading into the ethereal, answer us this. Does your reasoning, your philosophy, mean that Henry Ford could not have had a factory, or hired workers, to build cars? We would have no cars. Or factories and serfs making ANYTHING, for that matter. A reasonable answer please. Just got my coffee, maybe I missed something.
    You missed my question, about how your logic,( or whatever it is ) would play out regarding Ford , his factories, workers and cars. Then I will have a follow up.
  6. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    18 Jun '19 14:18
    Wow. Step away for a good night’s sleep and...nothing changes.
  7. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40151
    18 Jun '19 14:212 edits
    @averagejoe1 said
    You missed my question, about how your logic,( or whatever it is ) would play out regarding Ford , his factories, workers and cars. Then I will have a follow up.
    I answered your question. Things did and would have been produced regardless of the existence or non-existence of private property.
  8. Joined
    27 Jul '10
    Moves
    30016
    18 Jun '19 14:43
    @no1marauder said
    I answered your question. Things did and would have been produced regardless of the existence or non-existence of private property.
    Go, lib. As my coach used to say, you got nuthin.

    OK, dodge this one while we are at it. (You seen the DOW? I’m getting rich in my sleep! No toil!)

    Given your treatise yesterday that ‘the workers should run everything in a factory” or something along those lines, That there is no management from a level above them......

    If you acquired such a factory, the govt or your dad or a red bird gave it to you, ( or you bought it!... Horrors) you will need 100 workers. They like their wages, happy, not disgruntled. They go to work. Are you saying you would turn everything. .... every thing ...in the way of operations, firing, raising, reprimanding,time keeping, pay, production totally over to them? You would contractually with them have nothing to do with it? Ok, Do your jitterbug .
  9. Joined
    27 Jul '10
    Moves
    30016
    18 Jun '19 14:43
    @no1marauder said
    People made things before there was private property.

    Why right wingers can't grasp that simple and obvious fact is beyond my comprehension.
    Did they make a car
  10. Joined
    05 Nov '06
    Moves
    81911
    18 Jun '19 19:36
    @no1marauder said
    People made things before there was private property.

    Why right wingers can't grasp that simple and obvious fact is beyond my comprehension.
    but one can only do so much with tee pees, peace pipes and clay pots.
  11. Alabama
    Joined
    03 Mar '19
    Moves
    238
    18 Jun '19 21:06
    @mott-the-hoople said
    but one can only do so much with tee pees, peace pipes and clay pots.
    .....and importing computer chips from China. Just the travel there and back would have been prohibitive I would think
  12. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40151
    19 Jun '19 03:32
    @mott-the-hoople said
    but one can only do so much with tee pees, peace pipes and clay pots.
    How much more Native Americans were able to do after the Euros introduced them to their "civilized" idea of "private property".
  13. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    57873
    19 Jun '19 04:13
    @wajoma said
    And this has been explained to you a number of times, having a right to a house does not mean others must provide a house for you.

    You have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This does not mean others must make you happy. Same with the house.
    What does it mean?

    What does having a right mean, in your version of reality?
  14. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    57873
    19 Jun '19 04:22
    @averagejoe1 said
    Did they make a car
    I hardly think cars were made before they were invented.

    But who made windmills? Who made the carts horses pulled? Who made chariots, roads, aquaducts, etc.?
    This was all long before capitalism.

    Now, Sweden has nearly no homelessness (they might do, but they just freeze to death and get eaten by yetis), a strong minimum wage, loads of equality, good pay for workers (you need it if you want to buy a beer up there) and they produce Volvo cars.

    Well, maybe I’m thinking of Norway or Denmark or something... it’s all the same...

    Have you ever heard of TPS?
    Toyota Production Systems.
    Anyone on the workfloor sees a problem, they stop the whole process of manufacturing, everyone gets together, solves the problem... and Toyota make some of the best cars in the world (very few break downs compared to other makes).

    That a boss gets paid more than a worker is a system. It’s a choice. There are many other choices and systems you can choose from. And all systems have good points and bad points.
    The fairer the system, the more harmony.
  15. SubscriberWajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    Provocation
    Joined
    01 Sep '04
    Moves
    65928
    19 Jun '19 04:521 edit
    @shavixmir said
    What does it mean?

    What does having a right mean, in your version of reality?
    You have a right to the pursuit of happiness.

    As pointed out before (and I'm sure, by applying some of your own thought time to the statement) this means you have a right to pursue that which makes you happy, it does not mean others must devote their life to trying to make you happy, it does not mean others must hand over a percentage of their working life in the (perhaps futile) hope of making you happy. It does not mean you have an obligation to make yourself happy, but it requires action on your part.

    Remember: A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others.

    You can see the wisdom of this definition, if others allow you to pursue happiness then on a whim revoke that, then that would make it 'not a right'.

    So to say you have a right to a house or shelter says nothing of what that house means to you, anymore than defining what it is that makes you happy. That is for you to work out, a mansion, a shack, an apartment, somewhere with a view or a backyard, somewhere quiet, somewhere warm or near to your work, all these things are for you to decide as it is for you to decide what makes you happy.

    So, by all means pursue a house that suits your needs and allow me to do the same without hobbling my attempts by making me pay for yours as well.
Back to Top