6 ms·

Interesting that liberty is irrelevant. It's only shopping whatever system produces the most prosperity for certain voting blocks. Just the framing of the dis

Interesting that liberty is irrelevant. It's only shopping whatever system produces the most prosperity for certain voting blocks. Just the framing of the discussion signals dark times ahead.

hwillis 7y ago
Property is theft.
- tengbretson 7y ago
  The concept of theft is predicated on the existence of property.
  - rexpop 7y ago
    Bingo.
  - hwillis 7y ago
    Yes, that is almost verbatim what Marx said: "'theft' as a forcible violation of property presupposes the existence of property." So to put it more clearly: Proudhon was clear that his opposition to property did not extend to exclusive possession of labor-made wealth. Proudhon was describing the fact that people do not start out on an equal footing and are subject to power imbalances throughout their lives. Whether you accept the obvious fact that economic exploitation is a real thing (monopolies all the way to gunboat diplomacy) or just the historical fact that wealth is inherited, property is clearly not distributed in any ethically reasonable way. People are robbed of an equal footing from the start, which robs them of their ability to empower themselves, which robs them of liberty. Proudhon was an anarchist and libertarian- both things I disagree with personally, but it's absolutely bizarre that his ideas are controversial in the modern day. They're concise, obvious, and fit in well with the common canon.
  - primroot 7y ago
    The concept of property is predicated on the existence of government, and we've just completed the circle. "Wherever there is great property there is great inequality. For one very rich man there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many. The affluence of the rich excites the indignation of the poor, who are often both driven by want, and prompted by envy, to invade his possessions. It is only under the shelter of the civil magistrate that the owner of that valuable property, which is acquired by the labour of many years, or perhaps of many successive generations, can sleep a single night in security. He is at all times surrounded by unknown enemies, whom, though he never provoked, he can never appease, and from whose injustice he can be protected only by the powerful arm of the civil magistrate continually held up to chastise it. The acquisition of valuable and extensive property, therefore, necessarily requires the establishment of civil government. Where there is no property, or at least none that exceeds the value of two or three days labour, civil government is not so necessary. Civil government supposes a certain subordination. But as the necessity of civil government gradually grows up with the acquisition of valuable property, so the principal causes which naturally introduce subordination gradually grow up with the growth of that valuable property. " (Emphasis mine) http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN20.html http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN20.html
    - carapace 7y ago
      Reminds me of "The Gods Must be Crazy". The !Kung live in a society without laws and without private property. The are incredibly poor, but don't know it, and so they are incredibly happy. Until one day a bottle falls from the sky... - - - - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_people > A set of tools almost identical to that used by the modern San and dating to 42,000 BCE was discovered at Border Cave in KwaZulu-Natal in 2012. A culture forty-thousand years old...
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- dang 7y ago
  Maybe so, but please don't post generic ideological flamebait to Hacker News. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - hwillis 7y ago
    It could be reasonably called inciteful, but it's not ideological. It's a factual observation that liberty is diminished by power structures of all kinds. Monopolies and unfair economic arrangements can exist without any explicit restraints on human decisionmaking, but they do not maximize human freedom.
    - dang 7y ago
      It has been one of the most famous ideological slogans of all time, since Proudhon.
Ididntdothis 7y ago
How do you define liberty? there seem to be a lot of competing definitions of liberty.
- primroot 7y ago
  The adjective liber in Latin is what the slaves are not, that is, "unrestricted [people]". The root 'lewdh-, from which it comes, is also in Leute and ljudi (people). Liberty today seems to be often used to mean unrestrictedness of capital/property/contracts, so the connection I see with its semantic history is the idea that some people can be more people than others, and that the government should be strong enough to deter anyone from threatening this state of liberty (e.g. back then by fleeing from slavery, now by ... well the list is too long). Remember the words of Laozi, long and short give rise to each other.
rexpop 7y ago
What liberty is there to be found in the hierarchical private firm? I'm certainly not at liberty to do aught but what my manager commands, nor he but what his commands, and so on.
harimau777 7y ago
I'm not sure it's possible to have liberty without prosperity. If the only way someone can provide for their needs is to conform then they don't have liberty. This is probably even more the case as it becomes less and less realistic for people to go off and provide for themselves (e.g. by homesteading).

Interesting that liberty is irrelevant. It's only shopping whatever system produces the most prosperity for certain voting blocks. Just the framing of the discussion signals dark times ahead.

hwillis 7y ago

Property is theft.

tengbretson 7y ago
The concept of theft is predicated on the existence of property.
- rexpop 7y ago
  Bingo.
- hwillis 7y ago
  Yes, that is almost verbatim what Marx said: "'theft' as a forcible violation of property presupposes the existence of property." So to put it more clearly: Proudhon was clear that his opposition to property did not extend to exclusive possession of labor-made wealth. Proudhon was describing the fact that people do not start out on an equal footing and are subject to power imbalances throughout their lives. Whether you accept the obvious fact that economic exploitation is a real thing (monopolies all the way to gunboat diplomacy) or just the historical fact that wealth is inherited, property is clearly not distributed in any ethically reasonable way. People are robbed of an equal footing from the start, which robs them of their ability to empower themselves, which robs them of liberty. Proudhon was an anarchist and libertarian- both things I disagree with personally, but it's absolutely bizarre that his ideas are controversial in the modern day. They're concise, obvious, and fit in well with the common canon.
- primroot 7y ago
  The concept of property is predicated on the existence of government, and we've just completed the circle. "Wherever there is great property there is great inequality. For one very rich man there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many. The affluence of the rich excites the indignation of the poor, who are often both driven by want, and prompted by envy, to invade his possessions. It is only under the shelter of the civil magistrate that the owner of that valuable property, which is acquired by the labour of many years, or perhaps of many successive generations, can sleep a single night in security. He is at all times surrounded by unknown enemies, whom, though he never provoked, he can never appease, and from whose injustice he can be protected only by the powerful arm of the civil magistrate continually held up to chastise it. The acquisition of valuable and extensive property, therefore, necessarily requires the establishment of civil government. Where there is no property, or at least none that exceeds the value of two or three days labour, civil government is not so necessary. Civil government supposes a certain subordination. But as the necessity of civil government gradually grows up with the acquisition of valuable property, so the principal causes which naturally introduce subordination gradually grow up with the growth of that valuable property. " (Emphasis mine) http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN20.html http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN20.html
  - carapace 7y ago
    Reminds me of "The Gods Must be Crazy". The !Kung live in a society without laws and without private property. The are incredibly poor, but don't know it, and so they are incredibly happy. Until one day a bottle falls from the sky... - - - - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_people > A set of tools almost identical to that used by the modern San and dating to 42,000 BCE was discovered at Border Cave in KwaZulu-Natal in 2012. A culture forty-thousand years old...
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
dang 7y ago
Maybe so, but please don't post generic ideological flamebait to Hacker News. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- hwillis 7y ago
  It could be reasonably called inciteful, but it's not ideological. It's a factual observation that liberty is diminished by power structures of all kinds. Monopolies and unfair economic arrangements can exist without any explicit restraints on human decisionmaking, but they do not maximize human freedom.
  - dang 7y ago
    It has been one of the most famous ideological slogans of all time, since Proudhon.

Ididntdothis 7y ago

How do you define liberty? there seem to be a lot of competing definitions of liberty.

primroot 7y ago
The adjective liber in Latin is what the slaves are not, that is, "unrestricted [people]". The root 'lewdh-, from which it comes, is also in Leute and ljudi (people). Liberty today seems to be often used to mean unrestrictedness of capital/property/contracts, so the connection I see with its semantic history is the idea that some people can be more people than others, and that the government should be strong enough to deter anyone from threatening this state of liberty (e.g. back then by fleeing from slavery, now by ... well the list is too long). Remember the words of Laozi, long and short give rise to each other.

rexpop 7y ago

What liberty is there to be found in the hierarchical private firm? I'm certainly not at liberty to do aught but what my manager commands, nor he but what his commands, and so on.

harimau777 7y ago

I'm not sure it's possible to have liberty without prosperity. If the only way someone can provide for their needs is to conform then they don't have liberty. This is probably even more the case as it becomes less and less realistic for people to go off and provide for themselves (e.g. by homesteading).