Old Geezer Posted March 31, 2004 Report Share Posted March 31, 2004 Assuming the trend towards privatization of property continues, what will happen when all physical material is owned? If distribution of resources is not yet a reflection of merit by that time, will this mean that the status quo will remain? If man exists by applying his mind to his physical environment, what will happen when he has no access to a physical environment? (born without property) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y_feldblum Posted March 31, 2004 Report Share Posted March 31, 2004 All physical material will be owned. If X has not occurred, will X not have occurred? Man exists by his mind, not by public property. The Indians had plenty of public property; Manhattanites have nearly none (comparatively, anyway). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Geezer Posted March 31, 2004 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2004 "If X has not occurred, will X not have occurred?"I don't understand, can you elaborate? "Man exists by his mind, not by public property" Man either exists by his mind and property or his mind and non property which he makes his own. Man does not live on mind alone. "The Indians had plenty of public property;" By this I suspect you mean material which they were free to use (such as forests etc) in which case their ability to own something de facto is still present, as is the case in Manhatten. (for instance I am free to perform on a sidewalk to earn money) What will happen to men born with no property and no access to anything that can be turned to property?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielshrugged Posted March 31, 2004 Report Share Posted March 31, 2004 You seem to be thinking that, deductively: Under capitalism, everything is aleady owned by private individuals. When someone is born, he does not yet own anything. In order for him to acquire property, he will have somehow to get property from others. But he can't do that, because he doesn't have any property of his own from which to create anything of value. I would answer this question by pointing to the fact that people are born already having value. They have value to their parents, who support them until they can function independently. When they are ready to find jobs, they need not have any property of their own. They have bodies; they have minds. That's all someone needs in order to start working and acquiring property. Note that not owning any property does not equal not having access the physical environment. People who do own the property need to let you have access in order to take advantage of the value offered by your mind and body. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard_Halley Posted March 31, 2004 Report Share Posted March 31, 2004 When a man has no property, he sells physical work, time, ideas etc... One can grow very rich on such commodities. Old Geezer seems to be operating under the premise: "one needs money to make money." That premise is false. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y_feldblum Posted March 31, 2004 Report Share Posted March 31, 2004 That is the fundamental premise of Marxist economics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Geezer Posted March 31, 2004 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2004 Thats not what I am getting at... "When a man has no property, he sells physical work, time, ideas etc..."Not necessarilly true. sometimes he makes the unowned INTO property. "Under capitalism, everything is aleady owned by private individuals. not true. if you dropped a hundred naked capitilists onto an island and they began to trade/sell things, only the things that they apply effort to has the property of value that allows it to be considered property. "They have value to their parents, who support them until they can function independently."Thats not necesarilly true. all employees have value to their employers otherwise they wouldnt be employees, all girlfriends have value for their boyfriends otherwise they wouldnt be girlfriends etc. etc.... such is not the case for parenthood. also, in much of india for instance babies are killed according to the parents gender preference. Now one might argue that those parents SHOULD value their babies, but not that they DO otherwise they wouldnt kill them. another example that comes to mind is that of "They have bodies; they have minds all someone needs in order to start working and acquiring property" No, they need freedom of movement or freedom of communication, not something necessarilly allowed on other people's private property "Note that not owning any property does not equal not having access the physical environment. People who do own the property need to let you have access in order to take advantage of the value offered by your mind and body. " But it means that you are always accessing SOMEONE ELSES physical environment which means you are not able to exist on purely your own efforts, and must engage in interaction with another person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielshrugged Posted March 31, 2004 Report Share Posted March 31, 2004 Now your argument is that since one must engage in interaction with another person in order to acquire property, there is some sort of problem. I do not see how a need to interact with others is a problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amorparatodavida Posted March 31, 2004 Report Share Posted March 31, 2004 danielshrugged, what type of social/economic system do you find to be the ideal?? i'm interested. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielshrugged Posted March 31, 2004 Report Share Posted March 31, 2004 I am a proponent of laissez-faire capitalism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amorparatodavida Posted March 31, 2004 Report Share Posted March 31, 2004 that makes me happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard_Halley Posted March 31, 2004 Report Share Posted March 31, 2004 if you dropped a hundred naked capitilists onto an island and they began to trade/sell things, only the things that they apply effort to has the property of value that allows it to be considered property. This is the answer to all of your questions... value comes, not from physical objects, but from effort. So how would things be different in a world where every object is owned than they are now, they wouldn't. Effort is the only way one may gain property in your hypothetical world, and effort is the only way one may gain property now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erik Posted March 31, 2004 Report Share Posted March 31, 2004 If all property is owned when I am born ( and lets just say I'm an orphan ). I grow up and get a job and make some money. Then I go out and buy some food. That food was someone elses property and now its mine. Whats the problem? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Geezer Posted April 1, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2004 "I do not see how a need to interact with others is a problem. " 1. interactions among men are supposed to be mutual and voluntary 2. It would not be possible exist without having your physical movement under the control of someone else. (I am imagining a world without public walkways/streets etc) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielshrugged Posted April 1, 2004 Report Share Posted April 1, 2004 1. interactions among men are supposed to be mutual and voluntaryThere's nothing involuntary about the type of interactions I describe. 2. It would not be possible exist without having your physical movement under the control of someone else. (I am imagining a world without public walkways/streets etc) You're confusing economic with coercive or political power here. I'll quote Ayn Rand, taking advantage of my new Objectivism Research CD-Rom =) "A disastrous intellectual package-deal, put over on us by the theoreticians of statism, is the equation of economic power with political power. You have heard it expressed in such bromides as: "A hungry man is not free," or "It makes no difference to a worker whether he takes orders from a businessman or from a bureaucrat." Most people accept these equivocations—and yet they know that the poorest laborer in America is freer and more secure than the richest commissar in Soviet Russia. What is the basic, the essential, the crucial principle that differentiates freedom from slavery? It is the principle of voluntary action versus physical coercion or compulsion." -- Ayn Rand in CUI: America's Persecuted Minority: Big Business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Geezer Posted April 1, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2004 " It is the principle of voluntary action versus physical coercion or compulsion." if there is no place for me to stand without being on someone's private property, than physical coercion would always be legal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erik Posted April 1, 2004 Report Share Posted April 1, 2004 OG are you purposefully making contradictions or are you truly confused? How is it voluntary when I'm FORCED to pay for roads ( or anything ) whether I use them or not but not voluntary when I can CHOOSE to pay to drive on a road or CHOOSE to not drive on a private road. Just like I could CHOOSE to take a train instead of driving. Or I could CHOOSE to violate someones elses propert rights and break the law. All are CHOICES. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Geezer Posted April 1, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2004 I don't necessarily refer to spaces that need effort to be in. also, if all the land is owned and I get kicked off one piece of land (plot A owned by person A) and the surrounding land is owned by someone else (Plot B owned by person B ) what are the obligations of person A under such circumstances? Certainly person B is under no obligation to take on people into his property Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erik Posted April 1, 2004 Report Share Posted April 1, 2004 "The world is full of innumerable entities. Without the ability to generalize -- forced to approach the world as if every entity were entirely unique and different -- you would waste all of your time grasping fundamentals over and over again. Life would be impossible." Your mind is filled with concretes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Geezer Posted April 1, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2004 Your mind is filled with concretes. Thats great now how does that respond to any of my statements? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard_Halley Posted April 1, 2004 Report Share Posted April 1, 2004 Geezer, you are assuming that no one would find it in their interest to allow people to move freely on their property. The people who owned the sidewalks outside of shopping areas for instance, would be delighted to allow you to walk from shop to shop. You are also assuming that you are incapable of making enough money to allow you to rent/buy a reasonable place to live. Really, if everything was private property, things would be pretty much the same as they are now. At least with respect to your personal space and movement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erik Posted April 1, 2004 Report Share Posted April 1, 2004 LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apprentice Posted April 1, 2004 Report Share Posted April 1, 2004 Assuming the trend towards privatization of property continues, what will happen when all physical material is owned? If distribution of resources is not yet a reflection of merit by that time, will this mean that the status quo will remain? If man exists by applying his mind to his physical environment, what will happen when he has no access to a physical environment? (born without property) Hi Geezer-- I'm just curious, because I don't think you've really stated explicitly---would you answer your own questions from your first post? I just want to know where you think this sort of situation would logically go. What do you think will happen if all land everything is privately owned? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elle Posted April 5, 2004 Report Share Posted April 5, 2004 What will happen to men born with no property and no access to anything that can be turned to property?? If man is born with no property then he will have been born without a mind capable of reason and obtaining knowledge, or without intellectual property. If there is no access to anything that can be turned to property there will be no Earth, or material possessions of any kind... in essence human existence will have ceased to exist and therefore man would not be born at all under those conditions. However, these conditions can not exist because in order for man to be man he must be born with a mind capable of conceptualization of himself, and therefore intellectual property. And in order for man to exist there must be somewhere liveable to exist, and as long as the Earth exists it's "property" will be on the market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.