Its never been posed as a qeustion, or ever been able to be disputed, just like during monarchies when there was no mechanism to challenge them, everyone went along with it.
The "extreme left" are mostly anarchists ... not really collectivists, but this whole collectivism vrs individualism is a false dictomy, its really democracy vrs plutocracy, since economics is an inherently social activity.
Right now, but that doesn't make it inherently right.
Also its fallacious to say its our collective ethical opnion, because we've never had another option.
This paper is simply an assertion not an argument, but anyway
The former definition is the real definition, and the main part is the exclusion part.
The latter definition is arbitrary and can mean anything, and its a idealistic concept without any reality in concrete isntitutional reality.
None of those things are property, you dont' need any exclusive right of property, infact the opposite, those values are meaningless IF YOU HAVE exlusive rights to it, such as liberty, its meaningless unless its universal, religion, is almost always a communal concept, the same with free choice. The only time they become property is with intellectual property, which is forced exclusion, not of thought, but of implimentation of thought.
Except that most of the time property IS power.
An assersion posing as an axiom, also what ever "is his own" is arbitrary.
Since when has merit determined who gets property.
I could continue, but my point is that article doesn't show anything really.
When it comes to Liberty I'll quote Bakunin
No you can't, you need to have land first, and have seeds,.
BTW, I agree we DO have laws, but I'm talkinga bout the philosophy of property here.
I explained why that is bull****, opinions do NOT need exclusionary laws for their value, infact the very opposite is true.
Its not a trap, what I'm saying is that people consider taxation to be a form of theft because tehy consider property fundemenatal and the state not.
I don't consider that to be an authority on morality ... Laws don't make right.
That was one founding fathers opinion, other had other opinions ... Also since when does their opinion count more than anyone elses?
If there is a fire in a building we cannot all descend the fireman's later at once.
We cannot all eat the same apple.
If you ban private property who banned it? Bakunin's ideas are meaningless since it would require the same amount of exclusion of personal rights to enforce his ideas. We cannot all enjoy some liberties at the same time in the same place. Bakunin and yourself seem to be asserting that since we cannot all enjoy those liberties at the same time that we shouldn't have those liberties at all. We cannot all own the same property at the same time so then no one can own property since it excludes the right s of others?
If that is what you are asserting (and correct me if you are not, but so far it seems to be) then where does this philosophy end? Will it be deemed unfair for me to possess anything, since I must store my things somewhere and that space would disallow someone else from using that space? So far Im not finding much logic in Bakunin's ideas even though the assertion was written well and sounded great on the surface. But its the details that go array and make the entire assertion childish and idiotic. For the simply fact that we cannot all eat the same apple. But even Bakunin's ideas require laws to enforce them which would be going against Bakunin's ideas, hence the reason why I assert that they are childish and idiotic.
Last edited: