/liberty/ - Liberty

An individual or group has a right to the property that is a product of their labor. For instance, a farm they have homesteaded or aquired in an exchnage or something they have made. To say otherwise is to deny the indiviual the right to their own labor, which violates their bodily autonomy and is tantamount to slavery.

An individual or group has a right to the property that is a product of their labor. For instance, a farm they have homesteaded or aquired in an exchnage or something they have made. To say otherwise is to deny the indiviual the right to their own labor, which violates their bodily autonomy and is tantamount to slavery.

"Property is theft" was just Proudhon whining about le ebil porcine capitalizts engaging in "exploitation." Or have you not read his work and are you just assuming you know what he meant? He also said "property is freedom."

>>18547

>>18549

Basically what Locke wrote: http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/FAQquotes/Locke3Property.html

>>18547

But the property right over a farm comes directly from the idea that he, either claimed to be the proprietor of a similar site, (which enabled them to generate enough value to acquire a new property), from being rewarded by another proprietor or simply taking it by force.

It is pretty clear that in the first case, he didn't merely acquired the property, he increased he wealth and transfered it to a new one, the prior property right entitled them to make the new claim

the wealth is not his either, since he acquired it making use of stolen property.

the capacity for owning the second property does not come from a natural right, but from an artificial privilege the proprietor awarded to himself by stealing the first one.

In the same way, being confered by someone via the reward of exerting authority over a property is again an artificial privilege.

They are not different from the third case in which he took it by force, the force is simply not violent.

>>18550

>"property is freedom."

which directly implies property has a contradictory definition, wouldn't it then be the case for the society to determine if property is theft or freedom?

>>18554

>enabled them

him*

>>18554

>"No one is living here, let me settle here and farm or mine!"

How is this taking it by force?

>>18556

well you are not claiming to bee the proprietor in that case, you are simply saying you will make use of it

>>18557

Use of the land requires the labor of the individual, which becomes inseparable from the land itself. As long as the individual can own their own labor, they have a claim to the ownership of the land.

>>18559

but how are you deriving the right of ownership of property from the right of ownership of the value of your labour?

labour is a finite activity, you start working at some point in time and stop at another, even if you wanted to claim ownership of the property with the justification of the right to own your labour, the right of ownership would only apply as long as you labour the land

>>18560

those are too many "of"s, i need to work on my english

>>18560

After a period of being unused, land reverts to an unowned state. On that we are in agreement.

>>18562

When the land returns to the state of nature, and has shed the imprint left by a person's labor, they lose their claim to it.

>>18563

inb4 some classical anarchist pops up and calls labor a spook

>>18562

alright, how would you solve this problem tho?

lets say you mine coal, a kilogram of coal, first:

>you now own the coal

I understand that, but how? does the ownership of your labour extend to the coal?, and then how do you extend the ownership of the coal to the mine? I mean the only difference between the coal outisde and inside the mine is just that, that one was mined, property would come from labour right?

now lets say you sell or exchange the kilogram of coal for a house, the house is set in a piece of land, you are now claiming ownership of the land, lets say you built your house over useful land, isnt that violating the NAP, because people won't be able to make use of it?

what if you built your house 20 years ago, and someone who is now 18 tells you he wants to exploit the land under it, isnt he in an inherent disadvantage because he was born several years after you?

this example is not meant to be taken literally, what I mean is that how does one claim ownership oversomething, in the way that of permanent ownership of it (including being able to decide who will own it after you die) just because a finite amount of labour?

one owns the coal and therefore the mine as long as he labours it, but how does one permanently owns something?

>>18565

One mixed one's labour with the 1kg of coal to extract it.

Also, property claims are rivalrous, so one does not need to establish so much that one owns something, one just has to establish that no one else has a claim to an item. This methodology applies to the claim that one owns one's body.

Re. building a house upon land - I seriously doubt that NAP extends to depriving someone of the use of something that is not even his. As to any advantages or disadvantages, there is no guarantee of a level playing field.

In a free society, there would be no government to act as the arbiter of property rights, so I would wager that this would be done through a DRO (dispute resolution organisation).

>>18590

This

Also the coal was worth nothing, and the land worth nothing, before the person put them to good use sheltering himself and maybe trading the coal with people who need it

>>18554

The assumption here is that the person who came after could have made their profit if not for the initial profiter investing into the property. In this case, we're talking about renting land.

The wealth used to pay the electrician to wire the house had to be acquired somewhere. It did not come out of thin air. Do the electrician or construction worker deserve a "share" of the house simply for participating in the process of putting value into the property? Well I'd say no because it was a contract, which anyone rent in property would also have, but if you argued that yes they do, how do you determine how many "shares" in the house each person gets? How do you determine if a tenant is allowed to rent the property or not when they have to go through the 3,000 shareholders who invests in the property prior to them moving in? Does building a garden without permission (thus raising the property value) give the tenant a share of the property as well?

For the sake of practicality, even if you disagree on the concept of a contract, everyone benefits from clear property rights that allow for accumulation of wealth.

Property to be defined as something…

Defineable (dimensioned, had physical characteristics)

Defendable (can be defended, whether by fences or guns)

Excludeable (you can choose who uses it/goes on it)

Allocateable (you decide how to allocate the resources of your property how you wish)

Liable (you as the owner are liable for damages your property/care of your property causes)

While other definitions exist, DDEAL covers 99% of questions about the nature of property.

>>18565

All technology today was built upon the wealth of others and by extension has limited others wealth if it's a finite resource.

One can argue that Microsoft patents are bullshit, but at the end of the day, Microsoft owned that computer before they sold it to you. Microsoft deprived some land somewhere of a resource, making that resource never available in that location ever again, thus depriving someone of the ability to use the resources on that land, in order to build your computer. (Replace microsoft as necesary).

Is a computer immoral? After all, they (whoever made it) built factories and took arbitrary resources that could have been used elsewhere in order to make it, thus depriving others of that ability to use it in future generations.

While this seems anal, the premise is that all technology and all advances in human living conditions were born from completely arbitrary and finite amounts of labour.

See vid related. Is the tribe guaranteed a right to the water even though one man took the initiative to build the water flow and well, improving everyone's lives through his finite labor?

http://youtu.be/cgNxQ-C7ZYk

(Can't embed on my phone for some reason)

>>18638

It's not sufficient to say "because I said so"; we have to explain why it is so by virtue of the principles of the NAP et. al.

>>18638

>feels>reals

faggot