Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If ownership can be practiced by claim, does that not represent force in determining who can have what level of freedom depending on that ownership?
Yes, defensive force. You don’t have the freedom to take what someone else rightfully owns without their consent.
So now we get to our disagreement on who is allowed to own what...and I’d say if you’re deciding to stop someone from acquiring property using the 3 ways No_Recess laid out (first use, trade, charity) then you’ve just become a state.
Yes, defensive force. You don’t have the freedom to take what someone else rightfully owns without their consent.
So now we get to our disagreement on who is allowed to own what...and I’d say if you’re deciding to stop someone from acquiring property using the 3 ways No_Recess laid out (first use, trade, charity) then you’ve just become a state.
1. If you live in house and you have to ask permission to use its facilities, are you free?
free market capitalism allows this principle to run wild
2. I see it the other way, you must explain how you protect non-operated property without force.
Further, there can be no such thing as “involuntary intercourse” for the female slave whose owner is a pimp. In her slave contract, she has already agreed to alienate her body for such sexual services. Yes, it is indeed, and only, rape if her owner does not consent to this sexual intercourse. And, if the woman in question objects, which she has no right to do, ask her if she really wishes she had not made the contract in the first place, and instead allowed her child to die.
Walter Block, "Why Libertarianism is Not a Liberal View, and a Good Thing Too; Reply to Samuel Freeman" pg. 551
So. In answer to: "Question: Is the "Social Contract" a morally and logically sound paradigm?"
Allow me to 'cut to the chase', so to speak, who needs the concept of the 'Social Contract' when one can easily dismiss or deny it by replacing with the 'slave contract'?
Is the 'slave contract', based on the underlying belief that people & their natural rights are interchangeable with property & its inanimate rights, a "morally sound & logically sound paradigm"?
1. If you live in house and you have to ask permission to use its facilities, are you free?
free market capitalism allows this principle to run wild
2. I see it the other way, you must explain how you protect non-operated property without force.
1. It depends on who the rightful owner of the house is. If you built the house, paid for someone else to build it, traded/paid for it with a previous owner, or had the previous owner give it to you for free, yet you are STILL forced to ask permission to use it, then no, you’re not free.
If you didn’t acquire it by any of those means, you don’t have the right to take it or use it without the permission of whoever did acquire it one of those ways. You’re not free to violate the property of others.
What I will add is that there’s a legitimate debate over when you can consider something abandoned, and someone else can come to claim it as their own.
2. You do use force, but it’s used to defend the property from thieves. The thief is the aggressor, and they are a thief if they didn’t acquire the property one of those 3 ways we listed - first use, trade, charity.
So...if you want to change our minds, you’d either have to convince us that there’s another way to rightfully acquire property, or that those 3 ways aren’t valid.
1. It depends on who the rightful owner of the house is. If you built the house, paid for someone else to build it, traded/paid for it with a previous owner, or had the previous owner give it to you for free, yet you are STILL forced to ask permission to use it, then no, you’re not free.
If you didn’t acquire it by any of those means, you don’t have the right to take it or use it without the permission of whoever did acquire it one of those ways. You’re not free to violate the property of others.
What I will add is that there’s a legitimate debate over when you can consider something abandoned, and someone else can come to claim it as their own.
2. You do use force, but it’s used to defend the property from thieves. The thief is the aggressor, and they are a thief if they didn’t acquire the property one of those 3 ways we listed - first use, trade, charity.
So...if you want to change our minds, you’d either have to convince us that there’s another way to rightfully acquire property, or that those 3 ways aren’t valid.
1. I was using the house as an analogy, not an example.
Take the story of Bluebeard ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluebeard); the wife was allowed in every room but one. All the rooms are vacant but her freedom is regulated by an unseen force (the owner/husband).
The point was less about the ownership of a house, and more of a statement on ownership without operation. That means someone can use the tools of purchase you mention to control capital and structure what other people can and can’t use, and how they can use certain things. That is not freedom.
For an example doing with home ownership, take rent. If you pay someone to live in a vacant home, they control to some extent what your freedoms are. And in a mass scale this can be reproduced by real estate and land companies that own property in mass and control how they are distributed.
2. I have disagreements with force to defend property, but that is a discussion for another day.
More importantly I question how do you defend property you don’t use nor operate under without it being practiced as aggression. That is why the police force exists, to punish those who use private property that can only be defined as such thanks to a certificate of ownership.
Funny that we’re talking about property rights and I just noticed someone stole my scissors from my desk drawer at work.
Or are the scissors the means of production, and therefore I’m the scissor thief if I prevent anyone from using them? Hmmm..
That doesn’t matter, anything can be used as a means of production or not (though facilities like factories are different).
It’s yours but if multiple people use them, then you have cooperative ownership (and that’s not the same thing as sharing).
The scissors are used by yourself and are your personal property. And sharing with another person is a trust claim. If someone steals it without your permission that is one thing, but if you allow someone to use it, then you put a level of trust in that person.
And if they don’t give it back I wouldn’t support force to get it back.
1. I was using the house as an analogy, not an example.
Take the story of Bluebeard ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluebeard); the wife was allowed in every room but one. All the rooms are vacant but her freedom is regulated by an unseen force (the owner/husband).
The point was less about the ownership of a house, and more of a statement on ownership without operation. That means someone can use the tools of purchase you mention to control capital and structure what other people can and can’t use, and how they can use certain things. That is not freedom.
For an example doing with home ownership, take rent. If you pay someone to live in a vacant home, they control to some extent what your freedoms are. And in a mass scale this can be reproduced by real estate and land companies that own property in mass and control how they are distributed.
2. I have disagreements with force to defend property, but that is a discussion for another day.
More importantly I question how do you defend property you don’t use nor operate under without it being practiced as aggression. That is why the police force exists, to punish those who use private property that can only be defined as such thanks to a certificate of ownership.
1. I guess that gets into the abandonment issue. If they rightfully own it, they have the higher claim than others and make the rules. From there, it depends how long they leave it vacant before someone else can claim it as their own (re-homestead it), in which case the new person becomes the one with the highest claim.
2. We wouldn’t view it as aggression (offensive force) to defend your own property, even if you aren’t currently using it. If it’s decided that you’ve abandoned it, then yes, you’d be the aggressor if you suddenly came back and said “no, I changed my mind and I’m taking it back for myself.”
1. I guess that gets into the abandonment issue. If they rightfully own it, they have the higher claim than others and make the rules. From there, it depends how long they leave it vacant before someone else can claim it as their own (re-homestead it), in which case the new person becomes the one with the highest claim.
2. We wouldn’t view it as aggression (offensive force) to defend your own property, even if you aren’t currently using it. If it’s decided that you’ve abandoned it, then yes, you’d be the aggressor if you suddenly came back and said “no, I changed my mind and I’m taking it back for myself.”
1. The problem remains if ownership is allowed beyond ownership (purchasing deeds and making money off of rent, etc.) then you still arrive at the problem of invisible control over property that will be used to limit the freedom of others.
2. The question is not presence. I can leave my house and I will still be living in it. The question is operation. If you buy a factory you never work in, a house you don't live in, or land/capital that is used as an investment due to capital value.
You can 'own' a house, a car, a pair of scissors, or a tooth brush. That is different from claiming ownership to multiple homes, acres of land, production facilities, and all the things you can't physically operate under and then control and dictate how others use this capital.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
