4 ms·

You clearly didn’t read my argument. What you describe is exactly how it works in a state of nature, but in a state of nature there are no rules. You don’t have

You clearly didn’t read my argument. What you describe is exactly how it works in a state of nature, but in a state of nature there are no rules. You don’t have to obey anyone’s so-called “property rights.” You can just spear the people you don’t like. I personally don’t want to live (would probably die) that way, but if society is going to impose rules on us, it needs to offer something better than the state of nature. Right now it really doesn’t; it has 100 times the resources but offers only artificial scarcity and make-work to keep the wagecucks in line.

badpun 3y ago
Society is better because it offers you comfortable living in exchange for some work. In the state of nature you'd likely already be dead, so that's a huge improvement. Also, how is the current scarcity artificial? Are we limiting the output somehow? Could we for example produce much more cheap food, but we don't, in order to keep the proles scared?
- randomdata 3y ago
  > Are we limiting the output somehow? He is saying that we limit his inputs. He wants to, for example, be able to produce his own food as to not have to rely on deals made with other people to acquire food, but notes that society carefully controls who has control of the land that is able to support that production, leaving nowhere for him to do so, and leaving him at the mercy of being able to reach agreements with others – others who may not want to make an agreement with him – in order to eat. He says that without a strong society he could push anyone standing in his way of the land aside (by brutal force, if necessary), but an entire society standing in his way is a force too great. As such, he believes that great force should provide suitable compensation for the restrictions it imposes (e.g. if you aren't permitted access to land to produce your own food, you should be guaranteed access to food by some other means).
  - badpun 3y ago
    The assumption that, in a lawless society scenario, he'd essentially win the fight over the land (against other people who also want it) is very optimistic.
    - randomdata 3y ago
      He asserted a society, not necessarily a rule of law. Law formalizes a direction for society, but society can also function in a more ad-hoc manner. If an individual does not have any meaningful kind of society behind him, however, defending tens of thousands of acres like a farmer in a society can is likely impossible.
DrThunder 3y ago
"You don’t have to obey anyone’s so-called “property rights.”" You don't have to obey them now either, but don't come crying to us when someone kills you for trying to take it just like they would have if you tried to come in and take over some tribe's land in the past. The only difference now is that you might get the luxury of just going to court or jail.
momirlan 3y ago
if you were a wolf and trespassed another pack's territory, they would kill you. there are rules and "property" in nature - where do you think ours came from ?

badpun 3y ago

Society is better because it offers you comfortable living in exchange for some work. In the state of nature you'd likely already be dead, so that's a huge improvement. Also, how is the current scarcity artificial? Are we limiting the output somehow? Could we for example produce much more cheap food, but we don't, in order to keep the proles scared?

randomdata 3y ago
> Are we limiting the output somehow? He is saying that we limit his inputs. He wants to, for example, be able to produce his own food as to not have to rely on deals made with other people to acquire food, but notes that society carefully controls who has control of the land that is able to support that production, leaving nowhere for him to do so, and leaving him at the mercy of being able to reach agreements with others – others who may not want to make an agreement with him – in order to eat. He says that without a strong society he could push anyone standing in his way of the land aside (by brutal force, if necessary), but an entire society standing in his way is a force too great. As such, he believes that great force should provide suitable compensation for the restrictions it imposes (e.g. if you aren't permitted access to land to produce your own food, you should be guaranteed access to food by some other means).
- badpun 3y ago
  The assumption that, in a lawless society scenario, he'd essentially win the fight over the land (against other people who also want it) is very optimistic.
  - randomdata 3y ago
    He asserted a society, not necessarily a rule of law. Law formalizes a direction for society, but society can also function in a more ad-hoc manner. If an individual does not have any meaningful kind of society behind him, however, defending tens of thousands of acres like a farmer in a society can is likely impossible.

DrThunder 3y ago

"You don’t have to obey anyone’s so-called “property rights.”" You don't have to obey them now either, but don't come crying to us when someone kills you for trying to take it just like they would have if you tried to come in and take over some tribe's land in the past. The only difference now is that you might get the luxury of just going to court or jail.

momirlan 3y ago

if you were a wolf and trespassed another pack's territory, they would kill you. there are rules and "property" in nature - where do you think ours came from ?