4 ms·

Tools are capital. Land is capital. > No capital, no ownership (no words to even express the concept). My understanding is that the Australian government is c

Tools are capital. Land is capital. > No capital, no ownership (no words to even express the concept). My understanding is that the Australian government is continuing to expropriate their land (capital). So it seems to be a basic fact that they did own it before, and that is no longer the case.

onethought 6y ago
You are applying future concepts on the past. This is nonsense.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  I don’t understand what you mean. Did Aborigines own the land in what is now called “Australia” before the colonialists invaded and appropriated the territory? You understand that tools are capital, right?
  - onethought 6y ago
    No. They didn’t own the land. They shared the land (it’s really interesting history). Ownership was a concept introduced in the 1700s. The Native title reference you made occurred in the 1980s as a defence not because they wanted ownership, but because they were being denied access to their spiritual home. Also capital has become important to survival now... which wasn’t the case prior. Like I said, your position ignores a lot of history. Tools are not capital, as they pre-existed the concept of capital/ownership. This isn’t like a scientific concept that was discovered. This is a human made dichotomy, there are a myriad of other ways to view the resources and how we consume/share/allocate things. Yes you can put everything in terms of capital (which is what you’re attempting) but there is nothing “more valid” about your concept than any other competing concept. These aren’t laws of physics.
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      > No. They didn’t own the land. They shared the land (it’s really interesting history). Thats a distinction without a difference. If you say it was wrong for the settlers to take the land, I ask you why? Either the Aborigines had the right to determine its disposition, or they did not. The right to determine its disposition is ownership rights. Therefore you’re not able to criticize the expropriation of the Aborigines without acknowledging that they held property rights in the land. > Ownership was a concept introduced in the 1700s. This is not true, Aborigines have (and had) ownership. When the Europeans got here, the Aborigines had things they owned and territories they excluded other Aborigines from. > Tools are not capital, as they pre-existed the concept of capital/ownership. This is nonsense, the concept of capital is the same as the concept of a tool. Means of production. > This isn’t like a scientific concept that was discovered. This is a human made dichotomy, Thats correct, ownership is a social construct. Its a social construct that has existed for thousands of years [0] and is not something that you can change unilaterally on the basis of some dogma you prefer. > there are a myriad of other ways to view the resources and how we consume/share/allocate things. Yes and you are well within your rights to propose any of those ways, and then other people can choose whether to adopt those ways or not. However taking a different way and forcing it on people is not the way to go, as it amounts to you claiming the right to dispose of other people’s property. Furthermore just because you can posit a concept does not make that concept logical, sensical, or coherent; and you should be prepared to justify your proposition. > Yes you can put everything in terms of capital (which is what you’re attempting) but there is nothing “more valid” about your concept than any other competing concept. These aren’t laws of physics. The validity is the correspondence between concept and real world behavior. Tools are capital because they are literally capital according to the basic definition of the word and we have no reason to say otherwise. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ötzi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ötzi
      - onethought 6y ago
        Okay, so to rewind the discussion as I see you can't be convinced away from Capital as the only way to view this. I'll reframe in terms of capital to point out the problem with how you describe "Efficient Capital Allocation". Capitalist A hires Worker X to generate some value (P) for them and they pay X: W (wage) - M (margin) (the difference being the surplus value SV). (So W+M = P, and P - W = SV) -- (Edit: Sorry to make that so confusing I could have done that better) That is how capitalism works. I don't think you'd disagree. Now A takes SV and hires worker Y and repeats the process and generates another lot of SV. Why does A have rights to SV at all? The thing you are referring to as "Capital" is really just the "Right to collect others SV" -- where does that right come from?

onethought 6y ago

You are applying future concepts on the past. This is nonsense.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
I don’t understand what you mean. Did Aborigines own the land in what is now called “Australia” before the colonialists invaded and appropriated the territory? You understand that tools are capital, right?
- onethought 6y ago
  No. They didn’t own the land. They shared the land (it’s really interesting history). Ownership was a concept introduced in the 1700s. The Native title reference you made occurred in the 1980s as a defence not because they wanted ownership, but because they were being denied access to their spiritual home. Also capital has become important to survival now... which wasn’t the case prior. Like I said, your position ignores a lot of history. Tools are not capital, as they pre-existed the concept of capital/ownership. This isn’t like a scientific concept that was discovered. This is a human made dichotomy, there are a myriad of other ways to view the resources and how we consume/share/allocate things. Yes you can put everything in terms of capital (which is what you’re attempting) but there is nothing “more valid” about your concept than any other competing concept. These aren’t laws of physics.
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    > No. They didn’t own the land. They shared the land (it’s really interesting history). Thats a distinction without a difference. If you say it was wrong for the settlers to take the land, I ask you why? Either the Aborigines had the right to determine its disposition, or they did not. The right to determine its disposition is ownership rights. Therefore you’re not able to criticize the expropriation of the Aborigines without acknowledging that they held property rights in the land. > Ownership was a concept introduced in the 1700s. This is not true, Aborigines have (and had) ownership. When the Europeans got here, the Aborigines had things they owned and territories they excluded other Aborigines from. > Tools are not capital, as they pre-existed the concept of capital/ownership. This is nonsense, the concept of capital is the same as the concept of a tool. Means of production. > This isn’t like a scientific concept that was discovered. This is a human made dichotomy, Thats correct, ownership is a social construct. Its a social construct that has existed for thousands of years [0] and is not something that you can change unilaterally on the basis of some dogma you prefer. > there are a myriad of other ways to view the resources and how we consume/share/allocate things. Yes and you are well within your rights to propose any of those ways, and then other people can choose whether to adopt those ways or not. However taking a different way and forcing it on people is not the way to go, as it amounts to you claiming the right to dispose of other people’s property. Furthermore just because you can posit a concept does not make that concept logical, sensical, or coherent; and you should be prepared to justify your proposition. > Yes you can put everything in terms of capital (which is what you’re attempting) but there is nothing “more valid” about your concept than any other competing concept. These aren’t laws of physics. The validity is the correspondence between concept and real world behavior. Tools are capital because they are literally capital according to the basic definition of the word and we have no reason to say otherwise. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ötzi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ötzi
    - onethought 6y ago
      Okay, so to rewind the discussion as I see you can't be convinced away from Capital as the only way to view this. I'll reframe in terms of capital to point out the problem with how you describe "Efficient Capital Allocation". Capitalist A hires Worker X to generate some value (P) for them and they pay X: W (wage) - M (margin) (the difference being the surplus value SV). (So W+M = P, and P - W = SV) -- (Edit: Sorry to make that so confusing I could have done that better) That is how capitalism works. I don't think you'd disagree. Now A takes SV and hires worker Y and repeats the process and generates another lot of SV. Why does A have rights to SV at all? The thing you are referring to as "Capital" is really just the "Right to collect others SV" -- where does that right come from?