8 ms·

There's an old wobbly story: A wobbly was riding a freight train across the midwest one summer, in between jobs. The train sided out in the middle of nowhere,

by moxie 14y ago

There's an old wobbly story: A wobbly was riding a freight train across the midwest one summer, in between jobs. The train sided out in the middle of nowhere, and it was scorching hot, so the wobbly got off the train and started walking down a dirt road. After a couple of miles, the road passed by an apple orchard. The wobbly hopped over the fence, and sat down to rest under the shade of a big apple tree. The wobbly sat there enjoying the shade for 20 minutes, until a farmer came across him. "You can't be here!" exclaimed the farmer, "This is my land!" The wobbly looked up at the farmer and asked "Really? What makes it your land?" "What are you talking about you dirty tramp, I inherited it from my father!" replied the farmer, almost bewildered at such an indignant question. "Hmm, and what made it his land?" asked the wobbly. "Why, he inherited it from his father!" replied the farmer, now really angry. "It's been in my family for three generations!" "And what made it your grandfather's land?" asked the wobbly. The farmer, now barely able to contain himself, yelled proudly "Why! My grandpappy fought the indians for it!" The wobbly nodded, stood up, pulled back his sleeves, and replied "Uh huh. Then I'll fight you for it, right now." The point being that a lot of these conceptions about who belongs and who doesn't are based on private property, but that there fundamentally isn't any real justification for private property. Even John Locke's attempts to justify it break down. I can understand two groups being in conflict with each-other, but I can't understand conceptualizing one as the "guests" of the other group simply because they don't own property.

eli_awry 14y ago
Because some people might not know: Wobbly=member of the Industrial Workers of the World, a union opposed to capitalism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Workers_of_the_World http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Workers_of_the_World . They're over a century old, and are still active.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
SilasX 14y ago
>The point being that a lot of these conceptions about who belongs and who doesn't are based on private property, but that there fundamentally isn't any real justification for private property. Even John Locke's attempts to justify it break down. Its negation breaks down too, computer-hoarder.
Locke1689 14y ago
I don't see why you need a broad intellectual foundation here. Property is granted by governments. Why? Because it's a useful abstraction. Where did the government get the property? It claimed it and enforced its claim by force. So I guess my answer to the story would be: fine, you can fight the owner for it, but the real owner isn't me, it's the United States government. If you are so inclined to fight the government, fine, but don't be surprised when people who find the abstraction useful and productive, or even simply find the other mechanisms of the government productive, decide to fight back.
- vacri 14y ago
  I imagine the wobbly will quite happily let the farmer go and get a representative of the US government for him to fight. Likely he will have naturally moved on before such a representative responds to 'someone is enjoying my shade against my will!'
  - Locke1689 14y ago
    I agree that people can commit crimes without getting caught much of the time? I'm not sure if you have a point.
    - vacri 14y ago
      It's a sad world we live in when "sitting in the shade" is called a crime - and imply that it's bad people aren't getting 'caught' for such trivial things. I mean, if we're talking about absurdity of points, you are saying that a single travelling poor man sitting in the shade is something that is worthy of invoking the power of the federal government to combat.
      - kstenerud 14y ago
        "sitting in the shade" is not the crime; trespass is the crime. The concept of private property is useful enough on the whole that governments are willing to enforce it, and leave discretion for right-of-access to the owner of said property. This allows the property owner to assess people in terms of risk they pose to said property and either grant or deny access. If said farmer has had problems with transients damaging his property in the past, he will certainly appreciate the right to deny access, with the power of the government backing the decision.
johngalt 14y ago
Here's a justification for private property. How will there ever be an orchard otherwise? Orchards don't just burst spontaneously into existence. Imagine that no one 'fought the natives for it'. Instead the land was a vacant waste with no one living there and nothing growing there. Over the years through hard work, dedication and sacrifice the land was amended and the trees grew creating the orchard. The only thing the farmer asked for in return was to sell his surplus. Lowering the cost of apples to all. Then some jackass jumps off a train and expects it all handed to him for free or he'll attack the farmer. I can understand the idea of not wanting to participate in a capitalist system, but I can't understand what makes someone 'evil' just because they've created something that you haven't.
- vacri 14y ago
  A nice turnaround, but in the story, the land wasn't a vacant waste, it was acquired by force. The story isn't "Oh, you moved into emptiness and created something, so I'll fight you", it was "you fought the people here before, so I'll continue with your method of ownership". Similarly, the wobbly wasn't demanding an apple, but enjoying the shade. Was the farmer selling shade? Lowering the cost of shade to all? The idea of a one-sided "fuck off, this is MY land" seems to be a new-world Anglo thing - back in Europe a lot of countries have a form of right to roam that sits in conflict with property rights. While there is certainly a 'my land!' aspect, there's also the competing philosophical idea that people are free to travel over it or use it recreationally http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam#Right_to_roam_in_Britain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam#Right_to_roam_i...
  - dreamdu5t 14y ago
    It wasn't acquired by force by the farmer, it was acquired by force by the great grandfather. Either way, you disprove your own point. The farmer has a more legitimate claim because he worked for it, he didn't attack someone for it like the guy who showed up wants to.
    - vacri 14y ago
      My point was that the parent post was misrepresenting the original story. I'm not sure how that's disproved by what you're saying.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
KillerDIller88 14y ago
Oliver, is that you?
roel_v 14y ago
"Even John Locke's attempts to justify it break down." How so? It's a perfectly reasonable explanation of how to avoid an Hobbesian free-for-all.
fusiongyro 14y ago
This would be really significant if philosophy had any bearing on real life.

by moxie 14y ago

eli_awry 14y ago

Because some people might not know: Wobbly=member of the Industrial Workers of the World, a union opposed to capitalism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Workers_of_the_World http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Workers_of_the_World . They're over a century old, and are still active.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

SilasX 14y ago

>The point being that a lot of these conceptions about who belongs and who doesn't are based on private property, but that there fundamentally isn't any real justification for private property. Even John Locke's attempts to justify it break down. Its negation breaks down too, computer-hoarder.

Locke1689 14y ago

I don't see why you need a broad intellectual foundation here. Property is granted by governments. Why? Because it's a useful abstraction. Where did the government get the property? It claimed it and enforced its claim by force. So I guess my answer to the story would be: fine, you can fight the owner for it, but the real owner isn't me, it's the United States government. If you are so inclined to fight the government, fine, but don't be surprised when people who find the abstraction useful and productive, or even simply find the other mechanisms of the government productive, decide to fight back.

vacri 14y ago
I imagine the wobbly will quite happily let the farmer go and get a representative of the US government for him to fight. Likely he will have naturally moved on before such a representative responds to 'someone is enjoying my shade against my will!'
- Locke1689 14y ago
  I agree that people can commit crimes without getting caught much of the time? I'm not sure if you have a point.
  - vacri 14y ago
    It's a sad world we live in when "sitting in the shade" is called a crime - and imply that it's bad people aren't getting 'caught' for such trivial things. I mean, if we're talking about absurdity of points, you are saying that a single travelling poor man sitting in the shade is something that is worthy of invoking the power of the federal government to combat.
    - kstenerud 14y ago
      "sitting in the shade" is not the crime; trespass is the crime. The concept of private property is useful enough on the whole that governments are willing to enforce it, and leave discretion for right-of-access to the owner of said property. This allows the property owner to assess people in terms of risk they pose to said property and either grant or deny access. If said farmer has had problems with transients damaging his property in the past, he will certainly appreciate the right to deny access, with the power of the government backing the decision.

johngalt 14y ago

Here's a justification for private property. How will there ever be an orchard otherwise? Orchards don't just burst spontaneously into existence. Imagine that no one 'fought the natives for it'. Instead the land was a vacant waste with no one living there and nothing growing there. Over the years through hard work, dedication and sacrifice the land was amended and the trees grew creating the orchard. The only thing the farmer asked for in return was to sell his surplus. Lowering the cost of apples to all. Then some jackass jumps off a train and expects it all handed to him for free or he'll attack the farmer. I can understand the idea of not wanting to participate in a capitalist system, but I can't understand what makes someone 'evil' just because they've created something that you haven't.

vacri 14y ago
A nice turnaround, but in the story, the land wasn't a vacant waste, it was acquired by force. The story isn't "Oh, you moved into emptiness and created something, so I'll fight you", it was "you fought the people here before, so I'll continue with your method of ownership". Similarly, the wobbly wasn't demanding an apple, but enjoying the shade. Was the farmer selling shade? Lowering the cost of shade to all? The idea of a one-sided "fuck off, this is MY land" seems to be a new-world Anglo thing - back in Europe a lot of countries have a form of right to roam that sits in conflict with property rights. While there is certainly a 'my land!' aspect, there's also the competing philosophical idea that people are free to travel over it or use it recreationally http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam#Right_to_roam_in_Britain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam#Right_to_roam_i...
- dreamdu5t 14y ago
  It wasn't acquired by force by the farmer, it was acquired by force by the great grandfather. Either way, you disprove your own point. The farmer has a more legitimate claim because he worked for it, he didn't attack someone for it like the guy who showed up wants to.
  - vacri 14y ago
    My point was that the parent post was misrepresenting the original story. I'm not sure how that's disproved by what you're saying.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

KillerDIller88 14y ago

Oliver, is that you?

roel_v 14y ago

"Even John Locke's attempts to justify it break down." How so? It's a perfectly reasonable explanation of how to avoid an Hobbesian free-for-all.

fusiongyro 14y ago

This would be really significant if philosophy had any bearing on real life.