Why would I need someone else's consent to keep what I have earned, created or collected through my own efforts?
The Right to property is not a Capitalist creation, the source of property rights is the law of causality. All property and all forms of wealth are produced by mans mind and by his labor - the cause is mans mind and labor, the effect is wealth and property. Cause and Effect - the law of causality.
That is a factually inaccurate claim. Massive wage inequities are not created by massively different abilities or skills. There has been a degree of state intervention that has occurred since the early establishment of capitalism, not any sort of "free market." The case involving the imperialistic conquest of the indigenous population of the Americas would be an illustrative example. The land and natural resources of indigenous American tribes was violently seized through hostile state action, and then subjected to privatized ownership authority and capitalistic economic systems. All land and assets have been gained through violent means at one time or another, and many oppressed members of the lower class are in such a position because of their inheritance of this brutal legacy.
Like I said, yours is the policy of criminals, no matter what your numbers. Individuals who work with no right to the product of their efforts are slaves. Your policy of "Human Rights" above property rights simply means you reserve the right to make property out of others. Those with need become the slave masters to those with the ability. A tyranny of the majority, who enslave their betters as productive cattle with no rights to their minds efforts or their bodies labor.
Where did this concept of "human rights" come into the picture? In what context did I ever state that I believed in "human rights?" I do not believe in "human rights" or "natural rights," as I am a utilitarian. I believe that society ought to grant rights to beings based on their level of sapience, notably the existence of self-awareness, ability to form rational moral preferences, as well as some degree of sentience, especially the ability to feel pleasure and pain. I would suggest that you not assume that others hold views or beliefs that they do not. The products of labor are created by mass collaboration, not by any "independent" effort.
You have already admitted we don't have a free market:
That makes your definition manifestly false.
That is the definition of
free market capitalism. Would you claim that our economy is more closely situated with a system involving a high degree of private enterprise and wage labor, or would you claim that it is more closely situated with a system involving collective ownership of the means of production?
OK... Lets pretend you do own a car and I'm government. I can use my power to control every single aspect of your ownership but I stop short of taking actual ownership of your vehicle. You're private decisions cease to exist because I make them for you... but you still "own" the vehicle.
I defy you to come up with ONE SINGLE "freedom" that is left to you that I cannot control through my power as government.
That is the secret of "democratic socialism"... 99.9% control with just the 0.1% left over as "ownership" - so that people who cling to a narrow definition can claim its not really socialism... with all the restrictions, mandates and other regulations that I can place on you and your property, I get to pretend its not socialism because I still let you "own" the vehicle.
You are less aware of libertarian socialism than I presumed.
Possessions would not be controlled by public community assemblies. All would have use-rights. Private property is an establishment of a monopoly over
excess assets, notably the means of production. To illustrate this, if you and your neighbor each owned a cloak that you each wore, you would both be in possession of the cloak. If, at the time that the cloaks had been created, your grandfather had stolen the cloak of your neighbor's grandfather, and had then passed it down as an inheritance to you, so that the end result was that you had two cloaks, and that you wore one of them, while holding a monopoly of control over the cloak that would have otherwise be your neighbor's cloak, then that extra cloak is your
private property.
But this discussion has diverged from being a debate on why or why not Barack Obama is or is not a socialist. Could a mod merge these off-topic posts with the "Socialism is Evil" thread?
