3 ms·

What does?

icebraining 13y ago
"For starters, you were never even asked, you never had a chance not to participate, and you can't just opt out of the system either."
- anoncowherd 13y ago
  That may be, but people are not property. Or, well.. should not be.
  - icebraining 13y ago
    You do realize that the system of property doesn't apply to actual objects? My house doesn't become green if I write so in the deed. The system of property is a set of obligations imposed on people, not things. Much like the social contract.
    - anoncowherd 13y ago
      Hm. Yeah, I guess that's a good point. The idea of property can be thought of as "obligations between people", but it's not the same as the idea of the social contract. For starters, it's between individual people, not some collective entity and a given individual, and second, it involves no force as long as no one aggresses against anyone. Another difference is that the "system of property" actually works to everyone's favour - quite the opposite of "the social contract", and imposes no other obligations on you than to not aggress against anyone else's property. If "aggress" sounds out of place, let's say "interfere with someone's (exclusive) control of their property". There's lots of room for pointless bickering in moral issues, etc. There are various sensible ways to view the concept of property. One is Murray Rothbard's idea of something becoming your property by "mixing your labour" with it. For example, if you build a house, or plow a corn field, they're your property.
      - eli_gottlieb 13y ago
        >The idea of property can be thought of as "obligations between people", but it's not the same as the idea of the social contract. For starters, it's between individual people Well no. If we're talking about capitalist property, it's between a single individual and the entire rest of the human race at once. Or, if we want to be realistic, it's between an individual and anyone in shooting distance of that individual. >Another difference is that the "system of property" actually works to everyone's favour No, it works to the favor of property owners and creditors (who are, essentially, fractional property-owners in people). >imposes no other obligations on you than to not aggress against anyone else's property Since the entire world is thus privatized, this "one simple trick!" becomes totalitarian.
      - goshakkk 13y ago
        All good, but even though Rothbard mentions it, this theory of property is actually Lockean, not Rothbardian. [1] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_property https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_property
        anoncowherd 13y ago
        Alright. Keep up the good work, fellow sane person :p

What does?

"For starters, you were never even asked, you never had a chance not to participate, and you can't just opt out of the system either."

anoncowherd 13y ago
That may be, but people are not property. Or, well.. should not be.
- icebraining 13y ago
  You do realize that the system of property doesn't apply to actual objects? My house doesn't become green if I write so in the deed. The system of property is a set of obligations imposed on people, not things. Much like the social contract.
  - anoncowherd 13y ago
    Hm. Yeah, I guess that's a good point. The idea of property can be thought of as "obligations between people", but it's not the same as the idea of the social contract. For starters, it's between individual people, not some collective entity and a given individual, and second, it involves no force as long as no one aggresses against anyone. Another difference is that the "system of property" actually works to everyone's favour - quite the opposite of "the social contract", and imposes no other obligations on you than to not aggress against anyone else's property. If "aggress" sounds out of place, let's say "interfere with someone's (exclusive) control of their property". There's lots of room for pointless bickering in moral issues, etc. There are various sensible ways to view the concept of property. One is Murray Rothbard's idea of something becoming your property by "mixing your labour" with it. For example, if you build a house, or plow a corn field, they're your property.
    - eli_gottlieb 13y ago
      >The idea of property can be thought of as "obligations between people", but it's not the same as the idea of the social contract. For starters, it's between individual people Well no. If we're talking about capitalist property, it's between a single individual and the entire rest of the human race at once. Or, if we want to be realistic, it's between an individual and anyone in shooting distance of that individual. >Another difference is that the "system of property" actually works to everyone's favour No, it works to the favor of property owners and creditors (who are, essentially, fractional property-owners in people). >imposes no other obligations on you than to not aggress against anyone else's property Since the entire world is thus privatized, this "one simple trick!" becomes totalitarian.
    - goshakkk 13y ago
      All good, but even though Rothbard mentions it, this theory of property is actually Lockean, not Rothbardian. [1] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_property https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_property
      - anoncowherd 13y ago
        Alright. Keep up the good work, fellow sane person :p