4 ms·

"Consent" is the favorite weasel-word of market-worshippers. Pray tell, in what sense do I "consent" to turn over a large share of my income just to have a roof

"Consent" is the favorite weasel-word of market-worshippers. Pray tell, in what sense do I "consent" to turn over a large share of my income just to have a roof over my head and to put distance between my home and criminals? Consent in a bargain between vastly unequal parties (in this case, an ordinary citizen vs. a market of wealthy people peddling almost exactly the same raw deal via emergent, silent price-fixing) is not consent at all. As for "legitimacy" - what makes your landlord the legitimate owner of his property? Fine, he paid for it. And the person he paid? Go back just a couple generations and you will find a corpse. And, not infrequently, a genocide. The legitimacy of a political system is always a collective hallucination. This is not a moral judgment. Collective hallucinations make for fine Nash equilibria and can benefit the people involved. But sometimes they do not.

lotharbot 15y ago
> what makes your landlord the legitimate owner of his property? .... Go back just a couple generations and you will find a corpse. You touched off this subthread by arguing that > Soviet dairy farms once belonged to the Soviet people [who] were not adequately compensated for their loss. You find corpses in the past of the Soviet people's dairy farms as well. Why, then, is their ownership "legitimate" such that they should be "adequately compensated"?
- wnight 15y ago
  So, nobody's got a valid claim. How come one guy who didn't build the farm can pay another guy who didn't build the farm and suddenly own it. Neither of them have any more claim to it than anyone else. If you think about it you can see why private ownership of resources is ridiculous. Unless you bought my share from me, fairly, why should I recognize your ownership claim? The only answer, of course, is the non-libertarian one: force. If you pay the biggest guy around for something he'll beat up anyone who wants a share of the payment and legitimize your claim because to prevent a run on his now-valuable right to sell everything, he has to crack down on theft. It's a scam no matter how you slice it.
  - lotharbot 15y ago
    > So, nobody's got a valid claim. Under the previous guy's reasoning, that if you go back in time far enough "you'll find a corpse" and that this makes the property claim illegitimate, this is true. It's not reasoning I agree with, but I thought it was worth pointing out that if one accepts his reasoning, it contradicts his prior point that the Soviet people deserved compensation. > If you think about it you can see why private ownership of resources is ridiculous. I've thought about it and I think private ownership is perfectly reasonable in most cases. It's true that in the past, faction A took land or materials from faction B, who took them from faction C, and it's turtles all the way down. But within the context of faction A, I am the legitimate owner of certain items, and you are the legitimate owner of certain items, many of which we either created ourselves or received in exchange for other things we created. Since we have to start somewhere, "I am the present owner, and I paid for this in a legally binding manner" is as good a starting point as any. Trying to account for whether my ancestors paid for your share, or even how many shares we're entitled to based on the size of our family trees, is a waste of time.
    - asciilifeform 15y ago
      it contradicts his prior point that the Soviet people deserved compensation. My point was that a better concept of legitimacy would define it as flowing out of how you use the property, rather than how you came to own it. The notion of land as a resource which belongs collectively to all of mankind is not a new one, and more than one internally-consistent philosophical system includes it.
      - lotharbot 15y ago
        > a better concept of legitimacy would define it as flowing out of how you use the property Why, then, do you argue that the Soviet people's loss of the property was not adequately compensated? If legitimacy is based on usage rather than how ownership occurred, why do you complain about how ownership came about? The statement that privatization is theft is a direct comment on the process of ownership transition! One can certainly make an internally consistent philosophical system based on public or communal ownership. I just don't think you've presented one.

lotharbot 15y ago

> what makes your landlord the legitimate owner of his property? .... Go back just a couple generations and you will find a corpse. You touched off this subthread by arguing that > Soviet dairy farms once belonged to the Soviet people [who] were not adequately compensated for their loss. You find corpses in the past of the Soviet people's dairy farms as well. Why, then, is their ownership "legitimate" such that they should be "adequately compensated"?

wnight 15y ago
So, nobody's got a valid claim. How come one guy who didn't build the farm can pay another guy who didn't build the farm and suddenly own it. Neither of them have any more claim to it than anyone else. If you think about it you can see why private ownership of resources is ridiculous. Unless you bought my share from me, fairly, why should I recognize your ownership claim? The only answer, of course, is the non-libertarian one: force. If you pay the biggest guy around for something he'll beat up anyone who wants a share of the payment and legitimize your claim because to prevent a run on his now-valuable right to sell everything, he has to crack down on theft. It's a scam no matter how you slice it.
- lotharbot 15y ago
  > So, nobody's got a valid claim. Under the previous guy's reasoning, that if you go back in time far enough "you'll find a corpse" and that this makes the property claim illegitimate, this is true. It's not reasoning I agree with, but I thought it was worth pointing out that if one accepts his reasoning, it contradicts his prior point that the Soviet people deserved compensation. > If you think about it you can see why private ownership of resources is ridiculous. I've thought about it and I think private ownership is perfectly reasonable in most cases. It's true that in the past, faction A took land or materials from faction B, who took them from faction C, and it's turtles all the way down. But within the context of faction A, I am the legitimate owner of certain items, and you are the legitimate owner of certain items, many of which we either created ourselves or received in exchange for other things we created. Since we have to start somewhere, "I am the present owner, and I paid for this in a legally binding manner" is as good a starting point as any. Trying to account for whether my ancestors paid for your share, or even how many shares we're entitled to based on the size of our family trees, is a waste of time.
  - asciilifeform 15y ago
    it contradicts his prior point that the Soviet people deserved compensation. My point was that a better concept of legitimacy would define it as flowing out of how you use the property, rather than how you came to own it. The notion of land as a resource which belongs collectively to all of mankind is not a new one, and more than one internally-consistent philosophical system includes it.
    - lotharbot 15y ago
      > a better concept of legitimacy would define it as flowing out of how you use the property Why, then, do you argue that the Soviet people's loss of the property was not adequately compensated? If legitimacy is based on usage rather than how ownership occurred, why do you complain about how ownership came about? The statement that privatization is theft is a direct comment on the process of ownership transition! One can certainly make an internally consistent philosophical system based on public or communal ownership. I just don't think you've presented one.