5 ms·

??? That is literally what deprivation means - the thing you need is absent. The deprivation is enforced through a large government program called "property la

??? That is literally what deprivation means - the thing you need is absent. The deprivation is enforced through a large government program called "property law".

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> That is literally what deprivation means - the thing you need is absent. “Deprivation” is the act or process of removing. You’re claiming someone removed the income, but they haven’t done anything to create an income. There’s no income from which to deprive them because they haven’t done anything to generate an income. > The deprivation happens through a large government program called "property law". That doesn’t make sense, the way I understand it, property law codifies the rules around the things that people own. That’s preventing owners from being deprived. You’re asserting that laws which forbid depriving people of property are the mechanism by which they are deprived? How does that work?
- djrobstep 6y ago
  > but they haven’t done anything to create an income "People who don't work full time should starve" is ideology, not some law of physics. > There’s no income from which to deprive them There is plenty. US GDP is trillions a year. > How does that work? Property law creates property ownership. Ownership assigned to one person is deprived from others.
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    > "People who don't work full time should starve" is ideology, not some law of physics. “People are entitled to other people’s labor” is ideology as well. However claiming that someone has been deprived of something that never existed in the first place is just nonsense. > There is plenty. US GDP is trillions a year. So you’re suggesting we deprive people of their income because of your ideology? > Property law creates property ownership. Negative, ownership creates property law. > Ownership assigned to one person is deprived from others. So how do you justify assigning ownership to certain people? What gives you the right to deprive people of their income?
    - djrobstep 6y ago
      > “People are entitled to other people’s labor” is ideology as well. You make a powerful critique of capital income and inheritance law. > So you’re suggesting we deprive people of their income because of your ideology? You're the one advocating we systematically deprive people of income. I'm the one advocating everybody receive an income. > Negative, ownership creates property law. Libertarian ideology has broken your brain. Property law is a government program - it requires enforcement to exist, aka the law. > So how do you justify assigning ownership to certain people? The principles of egalitarianism.
      - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        > You make a powerful critique of capital income and inheritance law. You must have missed the part about entitlement to others’ labor, as inheritance is a transfer initiated by the owner of the property, and capital income is a voluntary exchange by all parties. > You're the one advocating we systematically deprive people of income. No, that was you who suggested that US GDP could be expropriated from its owners and redistributed to your favored recipients. > I'm the one advocating everybody receive an income. Yes, exactly. You’re advocating that some men with guns confiscate the income of the working class and give it to people whom you have deemed more deserving. You haven’t justified this, however. > Property law is a government program - it requires enforcement to exist, aka the law. Property is temporally and logically antecedent to property law. > The principles of egalitarianism. According to egalitarian principles, you have no such right. > Libertarian ideology has broken your brain. Less of this, please. Make your case on the merits or move on.
        djrobstep 6y ago
        > as inheritance is a transfer initiated by the owner of the property Incorrect, dead people cannot own things. Inheritance is a government program that redistributes property to rich children based on what their parents wrote on a piece of paper. > expropriated from its owners and redistributed to your favored recipients You are very confused. People do not own what they are taxed. When a person is taxed and the money given to eg a social security recipient, that's not violating ownership, that's enforcing ownership. That money is literally the property of the SS recipient. The law is very clear on this. > You’re advocating that some men with guns confiscate the income of the working class and give it to people whom you have deemed more deserving. No, that's what you're advocating, by supporting enforcement of status quo capital income laws. > Property is temporally and logically antecedent to property law. It isn't. You can say the statue of liberty is your property - but until that's enforced by somebody (via initiation of force or threats thereof), it is meaningless. Property is the biggest government program there is. > According to egalitarian principles, you have no such right. Yes I do - I'm simply enforcing my view of property rights.
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    Then hand over the computer you're typing this on. It doesn't belong to you, and I've got some people who want to use it. That is, I'm pretty sure that on some level you operate as if private property is both normal and right, no matter what your theory says...
    - readflaggedcomm 6y ago
      That is personal property, not private property.
      - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        What’s the difference? Who appointed you the arbiter of property classes?
    - djrobstep 6y ago
      Self ownership (control over your own body) is in fact the opposite of property ownership, because property enforcement requires violently restricting the bodies of others against for consent.
  - imtringued 6y ago
    >"People who don't work full time should starve" is ideology, not some law of physics. If you don't work then where do you expect your food to come from? I don't work full time and I don't starve so please keep the petty details out.

??? That is literally what deprivation means - the thing you need is absent. The deprivation is enforced through a large government program called "property law".

chordalkeyboard 6y ago

> That is literally what deprivation means - the thing you need is absent. “Deprivation” is the act or process of removing. You’re claiming someone removed the income, but they haven’t done anything to create an income. There’s no income from which to deprive them because they haven’t done anything to generate an income. > The deprivation happens through a large government program called "property law". That doesn’t make sense, the way I understand it, property law codifies the rules around the things that people own. That’s preventing owners from being deprived. You’re asserting that laws which forbid depriving people of property are the mechanism by which they are deprived? How does that work?

djrobstep 6y ago
> but they haven’t done anything to create an income "People who don't work full time should starve" is ideology, not some law of physics. > There’s no income from which to deprive them There is plenty. US GDP is trillions a year. > How does that work? Property law creates property ownership. Ownership assigned to one person is deprived from others.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > "People who don't work full time should starve" is ideology, not some law of physics. “People are entitled to other people’s labor” is ideology as well. However claiming that someone has been deprived of something that never existed in the first place is just nonsense. > There is plenty. US GDP is trillions a year. So you’re suggesting we deprive people of their income because of your ideology? > Property law creates property ownership. Negative, ownership creates property law. > Ownership assigned to one person is deprived from others. So how do you justify assigning ownership to certain people? What gives you the right to deprive people of their income?
  - djrobstep 6y ago
    > “People are entitled to other people’s labor” is ideology as well. You make a powerful critique of capital income and inheritance law. > So you’re suggesting we deprive people of their income because of your ideology? You're the one advocating we systematically deprive people of income. I'm the one advocating everybody receive an income. > Negative, ownership creates property law. Libertarian ideology has broken your brain. Property law is a government program - it requires enforcement to exist, aka the law. > So how do you justify assigning ownership to certain people? The principles of egalitarianism.
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      > You make a powerful critique of capital income and inheritance law. You must have missed the part about entitlement to others’ labor, as inheritance is a transfer initiated by the owner of the property, and capital income is a voluntary exchange by all parties. > You're the one advocating we systematically deprive people of income. No, that was you who suggested that US GDP could be expropriated from its owners and redistributed to your favored recipients. > I'm the one advocating everybody receive an income. Yes, exactly. You’re advocating that some men with guns confiscate the income of the working class and give it to people whom you have deemed more deserving. You haven’t justified this, however. > Property law is a government program - it requires enforcement to exist, aka the law. Property is temporally and logically antecedent to property law. > The principles of egalitarianism. According to egalitarian principles, you have no such right. > Libertarian ideology has broken your brain. Less of this, please. Make your case on the merits or move on.
      - djrobstep 6y ago
        > as inheritance is a transfer initiated by the owner of the property Incorrect, dead people cannot own things. Inheritance is a government program that redistributes property to rich children based on what their parents wrote on a piece of paper. > expropriated from its owners and redistributed to your favored recipients You are very confused. People do not own what they are taxed. When a person is taxed and the money given to eg a social security recipient, that's not violating ownership, that's enforcing ownership. That money is literally the property of the SS recipient. The law is very clear on this. > You’re advocating that some men with guns confiscate the income of the working class and give it to people whom you have deemed more deserving. No, that's what you're advocating, by supporting enforcement of status quo capital income laws. > Property is temporally and logically antecedent to property law. It isn't. You can say the statue of liberty is your property - but until that's enforced by somebody (via initiation of force or threats thereof), it is meaningless. Property is the biggest government program there is. > According to egalitarian principles, you have no such right. Yes I do - I'm simply enforcing my view of property rights.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  Then hand over the computer you're typing this on. It doesn't belong to you, and I've got some people who want to use it. That is, I'm pretty sure that on some level you operate as if private property is both normal and right, no matter what your theory says...
  - readflaggedcomm 6y ago
    That is personal property, not private property.
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      What’s the difference? Who appointed you the arbiter of property classes?
  - djrobstep 6y ago
    Self ownership (control over your own body) is in fact the opposite of property ownership, because property enforcement requires violently restricting the bodies of others against for consent.
- imtringued 6y ago
  >"People who don't work full time should starve" is ideology, not some law of physics. If you don't work then where do you expect your food to come from? I don't work full time and I don't starve so please keep the petty details out.