You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Capitalism, Harvard And Goldman Sachs
I believe that property rights, like water rights, money and markets, are concepts created and negotiated by men. The end.
Those concepts do not function under any kind of "natural law" because they are governed by the rules of men.
The only time the rules and concepts of men can be boiled down to natural law is when might makes right.
No not the end...far from.
Does a lion have property rights with its territory?
Or ants with their nest...
Hardly man made...?
Animal borders...mmmmm..the construct argument fall apart there a little..?
So you are positing that humans are not natural?
Anything that is a product of nature, is by definition, also a product of nature.
How separate do you see our biological units different than other animal. Why separate?
If you don't believe property is real, send me your steem- none of it's real, right?
Or it's not real but you compromise your principles and whore your soul within the system?
If you don't believe in property rights (starting with the self), you have no problems with your wife/daughter husband or son, being sexually assaulted? - there is no natural property, it's just a construct, right?
I'll wait for your steem.....cheers! lol
Can you sell children?
If so, we're done here.
If not, why not?
If you can't buy children or sell or pay in children it is a regulated market. We're just haggling over price.
If you and I claim rights to the property, who wins? Why?
Courts? That's not natural law. Natural law would be might makes right.
Humans are natural creatures, and we are defined and governed by natural law. But our institutions are not.
Treating man made concepts and constructs as products of nature governed by natural law are how we get eugenics, perpetual war, and other stupid shit.
The creations of man are not natural and do not run on some innate natural law.
Me personally?lolol
I'm a anarchist and freedom is everything to me, and I respect everyone's freedom.
So I find that a bizarre question.
Can you sell children as in is it being done? - well yes it is.
Property right principles forbids ownership of another person!!
Every individual is their own agency.
That's why property rights are essential.
If property doesn't exist (as in the communist utopia), then governmnet can have control over you - because you don't have any agency over yourself...see how this works?
Only you can own you.
You are confused with many different issues all conflating at once, matey.
Start with property rights, and work from their.
If you do understand clearly what the principles of property rights and personal agency are, then you can't argue against them really, can you?
Nope, not confused. Just on point.
"Only you can own you."
Says who? Nature?
The definition of property rights, and their purpose, are rules of men. Not of nature.
There is no "natural law" of property rights.
Rights, on their face, fly in the face of natural law. They are there to mitigate Natural Law; Human and Civil Rights are there because Natural Law doesn't respect them.
I appreciate your anarchist leanings. I clearly share your views on many topics as your comments, the exception being your acceptance of market based dogma as natural law. This conflation is a product of 100 years of corporate propaganda.
experiment - go up to a lion and try to take its teeth - then see if there are no property rights..
...animal territories are property rights.
So if they are the law's of men - what are these?
Lets' iron it out point by point rather than various issues.
So you are arguing that animals don't have property right, correct?
That animals don't claim their territory?
Explain this conundrum (it's not hard really, it's self evident).
Yes. Every living thing owns there self. Or do you think otherwise?
Anything less are man made laws of control.
What about the rights of the lion's prey?
"Take the lion's teeth"?
I think you mean take the formerly living antelope that had it's own self, from the lion's mouth?
The lion's prey has a self or had a self. It is denied its self through through the lion's natural pursuit. So we have lions gorging on antelope all over the place with no recourse. The antelope need to move or accept the consequences. That is natural law.
Territory is not the same as property rights. Territory must be defended, first and foremost. Property rights means you don't have to arm yourself to defend your property. Your rights as a property owner remove the necessity of defending territory first and foremost.
The whole reason for property rights is to avoid the Law of the Jungle shit people throw around by conflating the artificial construct of property rights with predatory or herd territory. That leads to violent conflict, resource overshoot, and unimpeded predator and prey relationships. And even worse, the field is tilted towards the predators for obvious reasons.
I like and respect property rights. I think markets are great. They are important. But they are not a function of natural law. Man made rules like property rights and the rules of trade are in place specifically to supplant natural law as the arbiter of security and opportunity.
Answering a question with a question tells you a such lot about....
Not staying on the issue is either intellectually weak, or disingenuous.
It's a simple question that you refuse to answer.
The reason to avoid clarity is because your logic will fail.
ie your philosophical position is not logical.
I know this, and can illustrate it if you stay on topic.
Then it's just about ego, (winning or losing a discussion), not learning.
Good luck, matey.
My position is completely logical. The creations and institutions of men do not rely on natural law. I have said nothing but this point in all of my comments to you.
Good day.