England is mine, she owes me a living...

[Communicate]

Originally Posted by a224

Do something that hasn't been done before.

Upon what land, with what resources?
I am born without property, only my own body.

[Trix Are For Kids]

Originally Posted by Communicate

Upon what land, with what resources?
I am born without property, only my own body.

Nothing is owed to you. The world is collectively OURS, and because of that the only thing that matters is the majority opinion.

Fuck all you people who want to "fight the system". It's not your choice to make.

[Communicate]

Originally Posted by Trix Are For Kids

Nothing is owed to you. The world is collectively OURS, and because of that the only thing that matters is the majority opinion.

Fuck all you people who want to "fight the system". It's not your choice to make.

You're right, largely.
Only people don't collectively make the decision. (and majority opinion isn't the only thing that matters, to many anyway)

The majority of the world believes in a far more egalitarian society than what we have now, only it's suppressed through the stale processes and institutional realities of liberal democracy AND the dominance of the United States and other neo-liberal friendly states at the global level.

Of those who do not believe in it, most would if presented with the full facts and had their cultural and emotional biases cleansed. The fact is, for the vast majority of the world, such a system would be far better. For many of those people it would be better materially, some about the same, and some worse off. Almost all people, and this would be increasingly true for the next generations, would be happier too.

Mankind generally has two concerns which weigh upon our moral conscience. Our self-interest and our sense of justice. Many would seek to overthrow this world, under rational self-interest, with perfect information. And even greater numbers, in fact pretty much all but the most unrepentant neoliberal or sociopath, wouldn't be able to regard it as just.

So what's the idea? It's education, it's love, it's responsibility. It's waking up from an unrealised, collective suicide pact. I'm not necessarily talking about a revolutionary vanguard, that's a flawed idea. Not that it's wrong to be revolutionary, but you must be a popular cause to be just.

And why should we not seek to fight the current exploitative systems? It's not my choice to make? Au contraire, I'm an autonomous individual, it's very much my choice to make. It's all of our choices to make, and more and more people are learning and loving enough that they join this side of the cause everyday.

Let's move past injustice.

[Anders Hoveland]

Originally Posted by ratfrink

... because the state has made it essentially illegal to hunt and forage for food, or to build a shelter outside and live in it. The state therefore owes me a home and food as recompense.

I completely agree. You might want to reasearch geolibertarian philosophy. Or see the site I made:
http://sites.google.com/site/revolut...instdemocracy/

[i poop in your cereal]

Originally Posted by Tachosomoza

Property is robbery.

I'm a person who believes in taking what I want, and it's not a whit less legitimate than what GM or Alcoa has been doing since forever. They're just bigger. Everyone should learn to do the same and stop groveling.

If everyone just "took" and no one "produced", then there'd be nothing to take. Niggerlogic ftw

[MediumD]

GM is a large corporation, so they must make a good example of greed and evil, whether or not I, the poster, know ANYTHING about the organization's history. GM is too stupid to be properly greedy or evil...

[Kwinnie Bogan]

Gotye- Somebody That I Used To Know (feat. Kimbra)- official film clip (HD) - YouTube

Gotye- Somebody That I Used To Know (feat. Kimbra)- official film clip (HD) - YouTube
Video: click to display

[ratfrink]

I had high hopes when I saw your name, Kwincent. But four pages in and still nobody's got the reference.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Communicate

One cannot merely decide to set up a small business, because all land and resources are already owned. When I was born, other people had already divided up the world. Ultimately, this ownership came about (even of those who acquired it through ostensibly fair trading) through the use of force; at some point in history, now or millennia ago, this ownership came about from one individual or group being strong enough to kill another.

Actually one can merely decide to set up a small business. People do it all the time. People trade in land and resources all the time so while the world maybe divided, I can buy into that division to set up a small business or own a home. I do not see the logic in your connection of not being able to set up a small business because all the land and resources are already owned. This is especially true given people do decide to set up and run small businesses and buy or lease land and the resources to do this activity.

Originally Posted by Communicate

This goes on to the other point about property rights. You say people should be free until they infringe upon others, but this is what the capitalist conception of property rights does. I disagree that it property rights in their current form are natural, in fact, they are quite unnatural. It is possible, and indeed very frequent, for most of the land and resources owned to never even be seen in passing by their alleged owner. Vast swathes of the planet are under the ownership of people who live in paradise on a tropical island, never even see let alone use the land and resources they allegedly own.

I will agree that property rights in their current form are not natural because property rights are not a natural right in the first place. I argue that property rights are legal rights because they are relative to specific culture and governments. Every government has different laws dealing with property rights based on a whole slew of criteria. Foreign ownership in your example is a great example of that. In Bulgaria, no foreigner can own land outright but they can own buildings.

Because property rights are legal rights there is not necessarily a requirement for the owner to ever see the property and resources he/she owns, nor to even use said resources the land provides. Going back to my Bulgaria example in order to buy land in Bulgaria the foreigner has to have a Bulgarian company buy it on their behalf. The foreigner doesn't own the land directly but the company (which the foreigner has a stake in) does.

Ownership of property and the use of property are exclusive of each other. Ownership of property always takes precedence in the use of property, unless in the issue of adverse possession or the owner is doing something on the property that is illegal. Someone can buy property and it would be their right to do absolutely nothing with it. Granted it would be a pretty stupid thing to do but it is their right.

Originally Posted by Communicate

This conception of property rights infringes upon the rights of all men. Let's say a brazillian peasant decides to go and grow some crops and build a house, so that he may be self-sustaining. He goes to do this on some unused land, using only his own labour; he's not stealing from anybody. However, when he tries to go through with this, the police swoop down upon him. They savagely beat him, and arrest him, throwing him into a jail cell and deprive him of virtually all his rights. Why? Because his harmless act of self-subsistence has infringed upon the rights of the russian oligarch who owns that land, despite the fact he lives in a moscow mansion and has never even came within 1000 miles of brazil.

I am okay with that. If the Russian got the land legitimately he/she can do whatever he/she see fits with the land, as long as what the Russian does to the land does not run afoul of Brazilian law. It isn't right for some Brazilian peasant to decide that they are going to use some others land just because it's not being used at that time. I mean who the hell are they to make such a decision? The peasant may have done something harmless but as far as I am concerned he broke the law and should be dealt with as such the law allows. If that includes extracting him forcefully, arresting him, and throwing him in jail then so be it. He broke the law and he should be prepared to deal with the consequences of the actions he chose to do.

Originally Posted by Communicate

Now, a more practical example. What if that worker already lived in that house, and already grew crops in that land? However, he was only given the bare necessity in order to live. He spends 14 hours a day working the same land, taking only the minimum amount for himself, and having the rest taken from him and sold. This is a job, he might work for the same russian oligarch. Though he is doing all the work, he is the one using the house and the land, he owns none of it and keeps nothing of his produce. The russian oligarch meanwhile, never has worked a day in his life. He sits in a mansion, eating the finest food the world has to offer, partially purchased through the sale of the goods our brazillian peasant (a serf, really) works himself to the bone for.

Ah but the clincher is does the peasant own the seed? If not then he has no right to what that seed will grow to. He only has the right to be compensated for his labor for growing the crop, nothing more and nothing less.

If the peasant owns the seed then it can get complicated on who owns the crop. The soil in this case is a medium for the crop to grow into something. A seed normally cannot develop outside of the soil. However ultimately it is the peasant who owns the crop because they own the seed. If I remember right back in the feudal days peasants were allowed to plant their own seeds and grow their own crops on their lord's land. The lord would then take a percentage of the peasant's crop grown as rent payment.

A modern day equivalent would be that a person would lease or rent some land from a landowner and grow crops. As long as the person is paying the landowner the right to use their land the person has the right to keep all their crop when harvest time comes.

Originally Posted by Communicate

In a capitalist conception of property rights, this is no contradiction. The russian oligarch owns the land, and may do what he pleases with it. The brazillian peasant owns nothing, and is forced to sell his body to the russian oligarchy (so he may extract profit from his labour) because it's a better choice than joblessness and death.

Capitalism is a voluntary economic system so therefore no one is forced to do anything in a capitalistic economic society. You can participate as much or as little as you want in a capitalistic system. Capitalism because is a voluntary system is the adverse of the very definition of slavery. In slavery you don't have a choice, in capitalism you do. To say otherwise is ludicrous.

Originally Posted by Communicate

I would say that the brazillian peasant owns the land, that he has a right to the crops he produces solely through his own effort. The russian does not own the land, abstract ownership is not possible. There is no natural right to abstract ownership, abstract ownership is denying millions their natural to freedom and ownership of they exclusively use and depend on, day in and out.

And I would say that the law makes abstract ownership of land a legal, legitimate right. Like a said earlier property rights are not natural rights but legal rights, and therefore regarded as such.

[Communicate]

This is my point, you've explained how all this is justified on the basis of it's legality. I'm contesting legality as the basis of justice. It doesn't matter of a russian oligarch legally owns the land, it's the just possession of the brazillian peasant.

And capitalism is not voluntary, or rather, it's only voluntary to the extent that you can choose either capitalism or death. It's exactly comparable to slavery.

If I decide I don't want to engage with the system, then death is all that awaits me. How will I get food? I cannot grow it. How will I have shelter? I cannot build it. When I try to live a life in which I provide for myself, using only my own labour, then I will inevitably infringe upon somebody's else's alleged abstract property rights and be arrested or killed for my transgression.

[ratfrink]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

Actually one can merely decide to set up a small business. People with loads of money do it all the time.

FTFY. The majority of people are born without the resources to do so.

Originally Posted by Nightshade

If the Russian got the land legitimately

Morally speaking, what's legitimate about a billionaire buying land that someone has relied upon for subsistence?

Originally Posted by Nightshade

Capitalism is a voluntary economic system so therefore no one is forced to do anything in a capitalistic economic society. To say otherwise is ludicrous.

Well, yeah, apart from the fact that you're forced to get a traditional job to survive, you're forced to pay taxes on your earnings and your property, you're forced to live in a fixed abode on private land. It's illegal to choose to simply subsist - vagrancy, hunting/gathering (since no 'unowned' land exists), being a traveller - they're all illegal. The only choice that people have is capitalism or starvation, so to say that capitalism is voluntary is ludicrous.

Originally Posted by Nightshade

Like a said earlier property rights are not natural rights but legal rights

There's no such thing as natural or inalienable rights, bro. This thread isn't about the ins-and-outs of the legal status quo, it's about discussing whether it's legitimate that a person's most natural means of survival can be removed without their consent, and furthermore, how should that be legislated?

[ratfrink]

Heh, Ryan you posted while I was typing.

[Kwinnie Bogan]

What, da smiffs?

[constantinople]

Do they owe us a living? Of course they do of course they do.

Crass - Do They Owe Us A Living - YouTube

Crass - Do They Owe Us A Living - YouTube
Video: click to display

^Ryan's ideology in a nutshell.

[testerman]

Originally Posted by Communicate

How will I get food? I cannot grow it. How will I have shelter? I cannot build it. When I try to live a life in which I provide for myself, using only my own labour, then I will inevitably infringe upon somebody's else's alleged abstract property rights and be arrested or killed for my transgression.

Your only option would be to come to the US and live in sparsely populated areas or wildlife refuges. setup camps, go fishing , hunting, foraging, mining. Or just get a job for a while, save up, and buy some land near hunting or fishing grounds and build your own cabin on it.

[The Pat-Man]

lots of people live in quebec way out of the way of the government.

[ratfrink]

Originally Posted by Kwinnie Bogan

What, da smiffs?

Them's the ones.

[nutsack]

Originally Posted by Communicate

One cannot merely decide to set up a small business, because all land and resources are already owned. When I was born, other people had already divided up the world. Ultimately, this ownership came about (even of those who acquired it through ostensibly fair trading) through the use of force; at some point in history, now or millennia ago, this ownership came about from one individual or group being strong enough to kill another

Just like the caveman telling you to piss off with club in hand.

What you need to do is either take it from him, work for him, or ask to borrow and make sure you take your slice.

Bitching achieves nothing.

It's also quite possible to live away from the system if you choose. Perhaps not in the middle of an English city, but look around.