3 ms·

The right to have your legally earned income is one given to you by society. It's not something that arose out of natural order, or given by God if you are a be

The right to have your legally earned income is one given to you by society. It's not something that arose out of natural order, or given by God if you are a believer. It is not absurd at all that society thinks you shouldn't have this right if it is at the expense of others. Society can take all the wealth it wants from you if it thinks there is a problem to be solved. Poverty for example. Taxes are tool at civil society's disposal to tackle problems. Considering them immoral that they should only be used as a last resort is absurd. It quite funny that we consider property more important than people's lives. In the current political climate, going to warnis easier than rising taxes.

dsfyu404ed 8y ago
>The right to have your legally earned income is one given to you by society. It's not something that arose out of natural order, or given by God if you are a believer. NO! The right to the fruit of one's labor is a basic human right! The form the fruit of one's labor takes is irrelevant. It basically boils down to the right to private property or to be able to have ownership of things. What you legally own is yours. If you grow a tomato in your garden it's your tomato. If you trade that tomato for a dollar it's your dollar. If you help someone grow tow tomatoes and they give you one it's your tomato. If you help someone grow a ton of tomatoes and they give you money it's your money. We just so happen to tolerate society (via the government) skimming some off the top because the benefits (i.e. everything taxes pay for) far outweigh the cost. Pretty much every society ever recognizes the right to private property. Taxes in various forms are an exception to that rule. To proclaim that it is the other way around and that society owns everything by default and one may only keep what society lets them is basically the same as medieval Europe where the land and everything on it (people included) and all wealth generated by it are property of the lord by default and he/she can do with them as he/she pleases (only the lord is replaced with "society"). Taxes are an important part of a functioning modern society but people would do well to remember that private property is the rule and a forced contribution to the group fund is the exception not the other way around.
- sacheendra 8y ago
  It is debatable of course. But the current consensus is that property is not fundamental to the existence of a human. The term property doesn't appear once on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human.... Following your tomato example, you grew the tomato on some land and the plant absorbed nutrients from the land. Who gave your the right to do that? Do you own the nutrients? How did humans come to own land? Was everybody born with their piece which they chose to trade? Of course not. What we call property came about over thousands of years due to complex interactions between people. There is a concept of fairness to getting to keep what you made. But, there is nothing simple or fundamental about it.
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    >Following your tomato example, you grew the tomato on some land and the plant absorbed nutrients from the land. Who gave your the right to do that? Do you own the nutrients? >Who gave your the right to do that? Do you own the nutrients? If I lend you a pen and expressly state that I want it back when you're done and you use some of the ink in the pen that's to be expected. If I rent you land it's foreseeable that you might grow something on it and unless our agreement stipulates that you can't it's implied that you can. When property is in the hands of someone else we don't bother controlling for the common use cases. If I let you borrow my pen I expect you to write with it. If I sell you a pen it comes with the ink in it. If I rent you land I can expect you to grow something on it. If I sell you land it comes with everything therein. We specifically negotiate for the uncommon use cases (e.g. mining/timber rights) >How did humans come to own land? Was everybody born with their piece which they chose to trade? Of course not. This is a sideshow and not material to the conversation. Pretty much all land in the world is owned by someone or some entity. There is a chain of ownership. If you go back far enough the land was owned by whoever was there first.
  - maceurt 8y ago
    Blatantly false. I looked it up, and actually it is included in the universal declaration of human rights. Maybe next time don't just ctrl+f the wikepedia entry and instead actually look at the document you moron. http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ > (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
pcstl 8y ago
The system where anything can be taken from you by a higher power in the name of a “greater good” is called Tyranny, not “Society”.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > The system where anything can be taken from you by a higher power in the name of a “greater good” is called Tyranny, not “Society”. But all property relies on the state alienating (or ratifying a predecessors alienation) of material—and thus the natural freedom enjoyed by every member other than the one favored by the alienation with regard to that material—from the commons to some particular party, in the most beneficent case—where it is not overtly solely for the private good of the recipient and/or the state decision-maker—at least notionally because doing so will indirectly serve the public good. So, all systems with property are, thus, by the standard you have proposed, Tyranny at best.
  - pcstl 8y ago
    No. People had possessions long before the state ever arose. It was just that they could only possess that which they could defend themselves. The state allows for people to possess material things without needing to provide for the defense of those possessions. It is incredibly naive to assume that anything ever belonged to "the commons". "The commons" are a spook. At best, some material possessions would have collectively belonged to a tribe - which would brutally massacre anyone who tried to take it from them or get brutally massacred in turn - and others would be unclaimed.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > People had possessions long before the state ever arose. Having a possession isn't the same as having property. Property is the legal right to deny other people some set of actions regarding a thing. That people did things before the state arose also, in any case, doesn't establish a right to those things. People were, after all, deliberately killing each other without provocation (often to secure possessions) before the state arose, too (by any definition where “before the state arose” is a coherent concept, which it arguably is not under one of the more common ones used), but virtually no one argues on that basis that theft and murder are natural rights. > It is incredibly naive to assume that anything ever belonged to "the commons". No, it's not: the commons consist of everything in which no one is vested exclusive proprietary rights (and if there was no commons, then instead of alienation from the commons property—which unquestionably often involves conversion of something in which the property holder did not ab initio have a property interest—would generally involve theft from someone in particular rather than alienation from the commons; that property involves state-licensed alienation from the commons is the only alternative to “property is theft”.)

dsfyu404ed 8y ago

>The right to have your legally earned income is one given to you by society. It's not something that arose out of natural order, or given by God if you are a believer. NO! The right to the fruit of one's labor is a basic human right! The form the fruit of one's labor takes is irrelevant. It basically boils down to the right to private property or to be able to have ownership of things. What you legally own is yours. If you grow a tomato in your garden it's your tomato. If you trade that tomato for a dollar it's your dollar. If you help someone grow tow tomatoes and they give you one it's your tomato. If you help someone grow a ton of tomatoes and they give you money it's your money. We just so happen to tolerate society (via the government) skimming some off the top because the benefits (i.e. everything taxes pay for) far outweigh the cost. Pretty much every society ever recognizes the right to private property. Taxes in various forms are an exception to that rule. To proclaim that it is the other way around and that society owns everything by default and one may only keep what society lets them is basically the same as medieval Europe where the land and everything on it (people included) and all wealth generated by it are property of the lord by default and he/she can do with them as he/she pleases (only the lord is replaced with "society"). Taxes are an important part of a functioning modern society but people would do well to remember that private property is the rule and a forced contribution to the group fund is the exception not the other way around.

sacheendra 8y ago
It is debatable of course. But the current consensus is that property is not fundamental to the existence of a human. The term property doesn't appear once on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human.... Following your tomato example, you grew the tomato on some land and the plant absorbed nutrients from the land. Who gave your the right to do that? Do you own the nutrients? How did humans come to own land? Was everybody born with their piece which they chose to trade? Of course not. What we call property came about over thousands of years due to complex interactions between people. There is a concept of fairness to getting to keep what you made. But, there is nothing simple or fundamental about it.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  >Following your tomato example, you grew the tomato on some land and the plant absorbed nutrients from the land. Who gave your the right to do that? Do you own the nutrients? >Who gave your the right to do that? Do you own the nutrients? If I lend you a pen and expressly state that I want it back when you're done and you use some of the ink in the pen that's to be expected. If I rent you land it's foreseeable that you might grow something on it and unless our agreement stipulates that you can't it's implied that you can. When property is in the hands of someone else we don't bother controlling for the common use cases. If I let you borrow my pen I expect you to write with it. If I sell you a pen it comes with the ink in it. If I rent you land I can expect you to grow something on it. If I sell you land it comes with everything therein. We specifically negotiate for the uncommon use cases (e.g. mining/timber rights) >How did humans come to own land? Was everybody born with their piece which they chose to trade? Of course not. This is a sideshow and not material to the conversation. Pretty much all land in the world is owned by someone or some entity. There is a chain of ownership. If you go back far enough the land was owned by whoever was there first.
- maceurt 8y ago
  Blatantly false. I looked it up, and actually it is included in the universal declaration of human rights. Maybe next time don't just ctrl+f the wikepedia entry and instead actually look at the document you moron. http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ > (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

pcstl 8y ago

The system where anything can be taken from you by a higher power in the name of a “greater good” is called Tyranny, not “Society”.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> The system where anything can be taken from you by a higher power in the name of a “greater good” is called Tyranny, not “Society”. But all property relies on the state alienating (or ratifying a predecessors alienation) of material—and thus the natural freedom enjoyed by every member other than the one favored by the alienation with regard to that material—from the commons to some particular party, in the most beneficent case—where it is not overtly solely for the private good of the recipient and/or the state decision-maker—at least notionally because doing so will indirectly serve the public good. So, all systems with property are, thus, by the standard you have proposed, Tyranny at best.
- pcstl 8y ago
  No. People had possessions long before the state ever arose. It was just that they could only possess that which they could defend themselves. The state allows for people to possess material things without needing to provide for the defense of those possessions. It is incredibly naive to assume that anything ever belonged to "the commons". "The commons" are a spook. At best, some material possessions would have collectively belonged to a tribe - which would brutally massacre anyone who tried to take it from them or get brutally massacred in turn - and others would be unclaimed.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > People had possessions long before the state ever arose. Having a possession isn't the same as having property. Property is the legal right to deny other people some set of actions regarding a thing. That people did things before the state arose also, in any case, doesn't establish a right to those things. People were, after all, deliberately killing each other without provocation (often to secure possessions) before the state arose, too (by any definition where “before the state arose” is a coherent concept, which it arguably is not under one of the more common ones used), but virtually no one argues on that basis that theft and murder are natural rights. > It is incredibly naive to assume that anything ever belonged to "the commons". No, it's not: the commons consist of everything in which no one is vested exclusive proprietary rights (and if there was no commons, then instead of alienation from the commons property—which unquestionably often involves conversion of something in which the property holder did not ab initio have a property interest—would generally involve theft from someone in particular rather than alienation from the commons; that property involves state-licensed alienation from the commons is the only alternative to “property is theft”.)