Originally posted by no1marauderDeliberately misunderstanding what I said is sophomoric. Argumentativeness for argumentativeness's sake. "People use their labor in order to improve their situation not to worsen it."? What are you babbling on about? Read my post, for heaven's sake. Have you never ever encountered critique of Locke your whole life long?You seem rattled. If you don't understand what "Might not mixing what is mine with something that is not mine just as easily mean that I lose what is mine?" means, then just say so. Don't just go off half cock. You asked me: "Do you think a piece of wood can gain ownership rights over a sentient being?" And you call ME a moron? Good grief. If you don't understand, just admit it. Don't get all angry and aggressive. You have made a fool of yourself with your last 2 or 3 posts. Calm down, will you? Read my post, for heaven's sake.
A complete load of hot air. Your critique of Locke is as moronic as this post. People use their labor in order to improve their situation not to worsen it. Yet you stated: Might not mixing what is mine with something that is not mine just as easily mean that I lose what is mine?
Originally posted by FMFI read your post; it is nonsensical. I've asked you to clarify; you refused and want off on personal attacks as you invariably do. You've yet to explain how "Might not mixing what is mine with something that is not mine just as easily mean that I lose what is mine?" is a statement that makes any sense. I doubt you ever will.
Deliberately misunderstanding what I said is sophomoric. Argumentativeness for argumentativeness's sake. "People use their labor in order to improve their situation not to worsen it."? What are you babbling on about? Read my post, for heaven's sake. Have you never ever encountered critique of Locke your whole life long?You seem rattled. If you don't understand w ...[text shortened]... with your last 2 or 3 posts. Calm down, will you? Read my post, for heaven's sake.
If you wish to admit that your statement was nonsense, do so. If you wish to explain how a rational person who believes his labor is used to better his position could possibly feel that by "mixing what is mine with something that is not mine just as easily mean that I lose what is mine?", do so. I maintain that statement is poorly thought out rubbish; give some (ANY) reason why you feel it is valid.
Originally posted by no1marauderI actually thought the Locke question was a good one. Here is what I take the worry to be:
A complete load of hot air. Your critique of Locke is as moronic as this post. People use their labor in order to improve their situation not to worsen it. Yet you stated:
Might not mixing what is mine with something that is not mine just as easily mean that I lose what is mine?
No, it wouldn't for a rational being which you clearly are not.
Suppose I come across some unowned piece of wood and carve it into a spoon. I have mixed my labor with the wood, invested myself in it, and according to Locke thereby acquired a property right to the spoon (subject to the Lockean proviso about there being as much and as good left for others). But what is it about mixing my labor with the wood that makes it mine? One could reasonably question whether mixing my labor with a piece of the world gives me a right to that piece of the world. It could be that mixing my labor with a piece of the world merely results in that piece of the world being more useful to me, without it also resulting in a legitimate claim I have to that piece of the world. If so, it would still be the case that people use their labor to become better off; they become better off by making parts of the world useable to them.
Originally posted by bbarrIt would give you a claim as opposed to other people's claim to that piece of wood. As to the point of view of the piece of wood, I cannot say.
I actually thought the Locke question was a good one. Here is what I take the worry to be:
Suppose I come across some unowned piece of wood and carve it into a spoon. I have mixed my labor with the wood, invested myself in it, and according to Locke thereby acquired a property right to the spoon (subject to the Lockean proviso about there being as much an ...[text shortened]... labor to become better off; they become better off by making parts of the world useable to them.
2 edits
Originally posted by bbarrWhy not? If you change a piece of wood into a spoon or a piece of marble into the Venus De Milo you have created something that did not previously exist. The thing that exists is a product of your labor. What reasoning would preclude you from owning a thing you have created?
But now you are just repeating the very thing FMF wants explained. Why does mixing labor give one a claim?
NOTE: Please nobody say "you can create a child, do you mean you can own that?" Sentient beings can't be legitimately owned due to their sentience; obviously pieces of word or marble or other inanimate objects are a different matter.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderWell, to borrow an argument from Robert Nozick, the fact that I labor to mix tomato juice with the ocean does not entail that the ocean becomes mine, even if there are other oceans as good that are left over for others. It is more plausible in this case to assume that I simply lose the product of my labor. And this raises a worry: The practical constraints on the acquisition of property are constraints of reasonableness, and if these constraints inform the content of our rights, then one could argue that rights are simply reasonable constraints on human action. But, if this is right, then the question of the origin of rights; whether they are ours purely by virtue of our nature or whether they are ours because there are moral reasons to accord them to us is ultimately practically irrelevant. When faced with a regime that fails to treat us properly, we can say either "you are failing to respect the various rights I inherently possess", or "you are failing to respect decisive moral reasons to accord me various rights".
Why not? If you change a piece of wood into a spoon or a piece of marble into the Venus De Milo you have created something that did not previously exist. The thing that exists is a product of your labor. What reasoning would preclude you from owning a thing you have created?
NOTE: Please nobody say "you can create a child, do you mean you can own tha tience; obviously pieces of word or marble or other inanimate objects are a different matter.
EDIT: Note, you depart from Locke in your Note, as he thought that God has property rights over us by virtue of being our maker. But, no matter, you can keep the structure of the view and reject the absurd and ancillary metaphysical commitments.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderMight not mixing what is mine with something that is not mine just as easily mean that I lose what is mine?
...you're an imbecile...A complete load of hot air...Your critique of Locke is moronic...Are you serious...If you wish to admit that your statement was nonsense, do so...it wouldn't for a rational being which you clearly are not...I read your post; it is nonsensical...that statement is poorly thought out rubbish...Do you think a piece of wood can gain ownership rights over a sentient being?
Locke was writing before the Industrial Revolution and before the emergence of the modern capitalist economy. His theory about there being a natural right to property is fascinating, historically important, anachronistic, inapplicable and irrelevant by virtue of the fact that it is utterly ignored in the real world. There is no natural right to property. The concept of ownership is a social convention - justified by the 'common good' - enabled and enforced by legal systems.
Why does "mixing my labour" with something that was not mine, make the entire object mine? Locke talked of people tilling the land, fashioning furniture out of wood, gathering fruit - thus owning (indeed having a natural right to own) that land, those resulting wooden objects, that fruit and so on. Furthermore, we assume that an individual can sell, give away, or buy this property. This is the basis for Locke's justification for the rights to property.
Why should a person mixing their labour with - let's say - some unowned land necessarily result in a person gaining the land? Why not - logically speaking - result in that person 'losing' (expending) their labour? Mixing does not always imply a gain; when someone constructs a latrine in a public park it becomes the property of the park, not the builder. If someone turns leather into a pair of shoes in a Jakarta factory, they don't own those shoes. If I put salt that I 'own' - because I extracted it from the ground - into a lake, I don't make all the water in that like mine. If I carve a piece of wood and somebody else polishes it who owns it? If the wood came from a tree growing on land that somebdy else tilled, and if I cut it down do I then own it? What if the owner of the land had invested no labour in that tree? If, in this ambiguous situation, I carve something out of the wood, does ownership pass to me? Or, not owning it, have I simply wasted my labour on it? What if I, together with other members of a community, build a village hall. Do I own the village hall? And if I do, what happens to my 'ownership' if I move away from the village? What if, after the hall is built, people bring some wild vegetables - that they have gathered from unowned land - to be eaten in celebration. If I cook them, does ownership of the vegetables pass to me? Did the other villagers start owning the previously unowned land when they gathered food from it?
It would seem not. The builder of the latrine does not end up owning it. The Jakarta shoe maker expends labour ('loses' it) without gaining the shoes. The owner of the salt loses the salt without gaining the lake. If I cut down that tree, I expend labour, but the tree still belongs to the person who owns the land on which it grew. As for the carver and the polisher: is it 50%-50%, 60%-40%, 80%-20%, who's to say? If the wood was owned by someone else before they worked on it, it's 0%-0%, regardless of how much labour the carver and the polisher "mix" with the wood. They have 'lost' their labour and not gained property. But why was the wood owned by someone else beforehand? What labour had been mixed with the wood from the tree before the craftsmen fashioned it into something new?
Originally posted by no1marauderHow can you possibly assert that the requirement that we leave sufficient resources for others "cannot be satisfied in the real world"?
...you're an imbecile...A complete load of hot air...Your critique of Locke is moronic...Are you serious...If you wish to admit that your statement was nonsense, do so...it wouldn't for a rational being which you clearly are not...I read your post; it is nonsensical...that statement is poorly thought out rubbish...Do you think a piece of wood can gain ownership rights over a sentient being?
The problem with Locke's concept is his proviso that "enough and as good be left for others." It is so vague that even his defenders find it necessary to express it differently. They seek to strengthen it by saying that a person trying to gain a property right to a previously unowned thing will not do so if the position of others no longer at liberty to use the thing is thereby worsened. Maybe so. But we are left - to some extent - to guess what Locke actually meant. Presumably he meant that a person may not appropriate the only water hole in the desert - or the only oil well - and then charge whatever he or she wants. Presumably he meant that a person's capacity to appropriate property is limited by the impacts such an appropriation has upon other people.
One obvious question about Locke's justification of property rights concerns the availability of unowned property. Outside the utterly hypothetical "state of nature" is there - or was there ever - "enough and as good left over for others" to appropriate? Locke was writing in the 18thC when all the land in England was already appropriated. He countered this by pointing to the New World where homesteading was allowed. But what happens when nothing is left to homestead? In this context, Locke's "enough and as good" formulation doesn't really work because it relied on him always pointing elsewhere to unowned objects suitable for appropriation. The "not worsen" proviso - conjured up by Locke's defenders - leaves room for the possibility of compensating those negatively impacted by an appropriation, and seems a little more relevant in an increasingly crowded world.
The key to all this is whether or not Locke's scheme is in any sense practical or applicable and there seems to be a big problem with regard to the determination of when and to what extent a person's position has been "worsened". If no1marauder has appropriated a piece of land, then it may be that bbarr suffers a loss from not owning it. Yet bbarr may also suffer from not being able to use the property in the future, say, for acquiring additional wealth. Property usually breeds wealth, and failing to own it is a disadvantage in this regard. It also is doubtful whether the full loss of not owning property could ever be accurately calculated. The amount of money needed to compensate a propertyless person in society for his or her lack of ownership may not correspond to the prices at which those who do own property happen to buy and sell it. Furthermore, Locke's proviso was intended to apply to future generations as well as present ones. But it wasn't possible to determine in the past whether - and to what extent - our situation today is worse than it would have been if some person had not appropriated a given piece of property. This problem is simply overwhelming. Locke's theory runs aground.
Finally, let's plonk this down in the world of 2008 for just a moment. Even if Locke's belief that investing labour should have a property payoff is correct, why stop with investments in the hypothetical state of nature? Why not include modern-day investments, at least when the value of the invested labour exceeds the rate of reimbursement? Some have argued that corporate employees who labour for years to create a corporate reputation should acquire certain property rights in the corporation. A corporation's good reputation is worth money, and accountants list it as an asset under the heading of "goodwill." But, critics assert, the amount listed as "goodwill" was not created by stockholders, nor does it belong to them. Rather, a corporation's earned reputation, considered as an asset, should belong to those who "laboured" for it: the employees.
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrI totally agree. I wish I'd been able to put it as succinctly as this when AThousandYoung and no1marauder basically refused to discuss "rights" with me anymore on account of the fact that I don't subscribe to the American/Lockean conception. As AThousandYoung put it: "Ok, you're talking about something other than what the rest of us are. Enjoy." It would seem the right to talk about "rights" is a severely restricted one!
the question of the origin of rights; whether they are ours purely by virtue of our nature or whether they are ours because there are moral reasons to accord them to us is ultimately practically irrelevant. When faced with a regime that fails to treat us properly, we can say either "you are failing to respect the various rights I inherently possess", or "you are failing to respect decisive moral reasons to accord me various rights".
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrMixing tomato juice with the ocean does not create anything nor is it something a rational person would do. Sure it is possible to construct examples of lunatic behavior that are purposeless, but what does that prove? That said, the concept of personal ownership is pretty much universal and according to anthropological evidence has been as long as there have been Homo Sapiens (and before).
Well, to borrow an argument from Robert Nozick, the fact that I labor to mix tomato juice with the ocean does not entail that the ocean becomes mine, even if there are other oceans as good that are left over for others. It is more plausible in this case to assume that I simply lose the product of my labor. And this raises a worry: The practical constraints keep the structure of the view and reject the absurd and ancillary metaphysical commitments.
It is not surprising to find that Natural Rights are constrained by "reasonableness" since they are the result of Man's nature which is that of a reasoning, social, emphatic animal. What else can be expected?
I disagree that the two statements you can make to the regime that "fails to treat us properly" are equivalent or of equal force. I would change the first statement to "you are failing to respect the various rights ALL OF US inherently possess". This is a far more accurate and powerful statement stressing the fundamental equality of Man. Asking someone to "accord" you "various rights", no matter how compelling the "decisive moral reasons" seem is to admit that some of the animals are more equal than others.
Locke found the source of Natural Rights in the Christian God; not believing in such a thing I, of course, reject any ancillary views regarding such a God. One doesn't need a God to believe in Natural Rights that stem from human nature and reason.
Originally posted by FMFIdentity the source of this two post long cut and paste; it is obviously not your original work.
[b]How can you possibly assert that the requirement that we leave sufficient resources for others "cannot be satisfied in the real world"?
The problem with Locke's concept is his proviso that "enough and as good be left for others." It is so vague that even his defenders find it necessary to express it differently. They seek to strengthen it by saying th ...[text shortened]... should belong to those who "laboured" for it: the employees.[/b]
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFNo one "loses" labor in a capitalist economy. The labor is sold for something. Locke was referring to the basis of property rights; he never stated or implied someone couldn't sell their labor. You are attacking a Strawman.
[b]Might not mixing what is mine with something that is not mine just as easily mean that I lose what is mine?
Locke was writing before the Industrial Revolution and before the emergence of the modern capitalist economy. His theory about there being a natural right to property is fascinating, historically important, anachronistic, inapplicable and irrele e wood from the tree before the craftsmen fashioned it into something new?[/b]
Let's actually read some Locke (something you obviously have never done):
Whatsoever then he removes out of the State that Nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his Labour with, and joyned to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his Property. It being by him removed from the common state Nature placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other Men. For this Labour being the unquestionable Property of the Labourer, no Man but he can have a right to what that is once joyned to, at least where there is enough, and as good left in common for others.
AND:
Sec. 45. Thus Labour, in the Beginning, gave a Right of Property, where-ever any one was pleased to imploy it, upon what was common, which remained, a long while, the far greater part, and is yet more than Mankind makes use of. Men, at first, for the most part, contented themselves with what un-assisted Nature offered to their Necessities: and though afterwards, in some parts of the World, (where the Increase of People and Stock, with the Use of Money) had made Land scarce, and so of some Value, the several Communities settled the Bounds of their distinct Territories, and by Laws within themselves, regulated the Properties of the private Men of their Society, and so, by Compact and Agreement, settled the Property which Labour and Industry began; and the Leagues that have been made between several States and Kingdoms, either expressly or tacitly disowning all Claim and Right to the Land in the others [sic.] Possession, have, by common Consent, given up their Pretences to their natural common Right, which originally they had to those Countries, and so have, by postive agreement, settled a Property amongst themselves, in distinct Parts and parcels of the Earth:
excerpted from Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise
http://www.users.muohio.edu/mandellc/locke.htm
If that's too hard to understand, the gist of it is that Man has a right to ownership of things he produces, but by compact and agreement he can forego such ownership (though a rational man will receive something in return). Locke knew about money and the market economy and his philosophy is perfectly consistent with how these creations of human beings work.
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat's with this "deliberate misunderstanding" tactic you pull over and over again? You know full well what "loses" means in this context - for heaven's sake, it's even in inverted commas! And just in case, I even put the word 'expended' in brackets after it. 'Man "gains" property by mixing his labour with something', says Locke. No, say those who reject Locke, maybe we cannot make that assumption - maybe the labour is simply "expended" ("lost" ) without "gaining" us ownership of the object worked on, even though the labour was "mixed" with it. "Loses it" as opposed to "gains something with it". Blimey. I even put it in inverted commas to flag it. Which of course you knew. So thanks for the disingenuous quibbling.
No one "loses" labor in a capitalist economy. The labor is sold for something. [...] Man has a right to ownership of things he produces,
You seem to have zoomed in on the 'labor is sold for something' part and ignored the more fundamental points I made. You seem to have basically sidestepped my response in fact. But then, that is your prerogative. You're a person who asked me this: Do you think a piece of wood can gain ownership rights over a sentient being? in response to my first short critique of the quaint "mixing labour" thesis. So, you are obviously in 'Oppose, Oppose, at all costs!' mode.
Man clearly does not have a right to ownership of things he produces. Some people own what they produce. Some people do not own what they produce. Hundreds and hundreds (maybe 1,000s) of millions of people fall into the second category, I would suggest. Locke is fascinating and significant historically, but his conception of property rights is simplistic and irrelevant in the modern world. Insisting on applying ideas written in 1690 to the world as it really is today, is akin to having some kind of irrational religious belief. Ownership is not a natural relationship between a person and a thing. It is a social convention, and in societies with a legal system, it is defined by the law. That's my view. We obviously disagree.
Originally posted by FMFYou also disagree with just about everybody on the planet who think they have a right to own something without getting permission from their betters who happened to control the State.
What's with this "deliberate misunderstanding" tactic you pull over and over again? You know full well what "loses" means in this context - for heaven's sake, it's even in inverted commas! And just in case, I even put the word 'expended' in brackets after it. 'Man "gains" property by mixing his labour with something', says Locke. No, say those who reject Locke, ...[text shortened]... t is defined by the law. That's my view. We obviously disagree.
Locke's conception is quite logical and flows directly from the noncontroversial idea that we own our bodies (do you disagree with that, too?). Therefore, we should also have ownership rights in thing we create with our bodies. That makes sense assuming our rationality; your counter idea that "oh well maybe we just waste our time for no purpose" is absurd. I seriously doubt that a homo sapien making a stick into a spear 40,000 years ago was thinking "gee I hope someone else lets me use this!" More probably he was thinking "Gee, I now have a neat spear for myself". Do you have ANY evidence to present that your view that rational people labor merely to "lose" their labor is correct? It is certainly counter to common experience and reason.
Man has ownership rights ("property"😉 in his labor. He is free to sell his labor and his interest in the things produced if he pleases; Locke certainly didn't oppose contracts. Apparently to you, slavery would be OK as Man doesn't even own the right to his labor (he simply "loses" if social convention says so). Quite simply, you are wrong. There is nothing more natural than the idea that we own our bodies and the fruits of our labor; and that my misinformed friend, is the very basis of the "right to property".