• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Social justice

What does "sociail justice" mean to you?

  • Equality

    Votes: 13 22.8%
  • Solidarity

    Votes: 7 12.3%
  • Wealth redistribution

    Votes: 21 36.8%
  • Socialism

    Votes: 16 28.1%
  • Justice

    Votes: 17 29.8%
  • Unjustice

    Votes: 11 19.3%
  • Good

    Votes: 9 15.8%
  • Evil

    Votes: 9 15.8%
  • Prosperity

    Votes: 7 12.3%
  • Other

    Votes: 17 29.8%

  • Total voters
    57
You mean, private property should be distinct from personal possession?

Absolutely, there is a huge difference. The former requires a whole state institution, the latter doesn't.
 
Absolutely, there is a huge difference. The former requires a whole state institution, the latter doesn't.

OK, please tell me why a piece of land that feeds you should be different from the shirt you are wearing?
 
OK, please tell me why a piece of land that feeds you should be different from the shirt you are wearing?

The shirt I'm wearing doesn't require a state institution in order to give me exlusive rights to it.

Me wearing a shirt doesn't exclude a piece of nature from others.
 
The shirt I'm wearing doesn't require a state institution in order to give me exlusive rights to it.

Actually it does. It requires a judicial system to guard you from thieves.
On the other hand, it's much more convenient and hygienic for one to NOT wear other peoples shirts or one might catch a disease. It also makes you care for the shirt because if you tear it, you'll have to wear a torn shirt (assuming you don't live in a fantasy world of endless supply of shirts). That's the main purpose of property - to make you care, to bond you with something and be responsible.

Me wearing a shirt doesn't exclude a piece of nature from others.

One could argue that you wearing a shirt leaves someone else shirtless since two humans cannot wear one shirt at the same time.
How about air? When you breathe you diminish air for others, i.e. exclude them in a way.
 
Last edited:
Actually it does. It requires a judicial system to guard you from thieves.
On the other hand, it's much more convenient and hygienic for one to NOT wear other peoples shirts or one might catch a disease. It also makes you care for the shirt because if you tear it, you'll have to wear a torn shirt (assuming you don't live in a fantasy world of endless supply of shirts). That's the main purpose of property - to make you care, to bond you with something and be responsible.

Not really, for them to take it requires an attack on my person, it's clear that it's mine ... I'm using it, I'm wearing it, I'm in direct contact with it, people around know it's mine.

I don't need a document to show that it's mine.

One could argue that you wearing a shirt leaves someone else shirtless it since two humans cannot wear one shirt at the same time.
How about air? When you breathe you diminish air for others, i.e. exclude them in a way.

It doesn't diminish air, because air just exists, but yeah, you can't own air.

As far as me wearing a shirt, one person has to wear it, if I'm wearing it I'm wearing it, that isn't the case with land ownership. Me wearing a t-shirt is not stopping other people from wearing t-shirts, perhaps if I own all the t-shirt factories, but that's different.

Are you seriously saying there is no difference between personal possession and capitalist property?
 
I don't need a document to show that it's mine.

Well, if you own a land in a village, you don't need a document too since everybody knows it's your farm. The document is for outsiders to know you that land belongs to you, you care for it and you can collect the benefits (or negatives like destroyed crop and time) that it brings to you.

It doesn't diminish air, because air just exists, but yeah, you can't own air.

Duh, one can say the same about land - if you want your own land, find some (buy or find uninhabited territory).
I guess it all boils down to whether there is land available or not. I hope I'm not alive when people start arguing about air claims!

Are you seriously saying there is no difference between personal possession and capitalist property?

To me there is two main kinds of property - private and non private (all other property - family, community, county, state, etc.). I've never understood that Marxist play of words (private - personal property)
 
Well, if you own a land in a village, you don't need a document too since everybody knows it's your farm. The document is for outsiders to know you that land belongs to you, you care for it and you can collect the benefits (or negatives like destroyed crop and time) that it brings to you.

Here is the difference, I understand that you claiming to own that land relies on the consent of the village as a whole, i.e. it's a privilege not a right.

It's secondary to the community, not primary.

Duh, one can say the same about land - if you want your own land, find some (buy or find uninhabited territory).
I guess it all boils down to whether there is land available or not. I hope I'm not alive when people start arguing about air claims!

You can't buy land if it isn't property, just like you can't buy air. Also if you find uninhabited territory, you don't need ownership since your the only one there.

No one nees to argue about air claims since no one OWNS air, you're kind of proving my point there.

To me there is two main kinds of property - private and non private (all other property - family, community, county, state, etc.). I've never understood that Marxist play of words (private - personal property)

There is a huge difference, and I explained it, basically, if you need a paper to show it's ours, it's private property, if its something that you just use for your own personal life or your families then it's personal property.
 
There is a huge difference, and I explained it, basically, if you need a paper to show it's ours, it's private property, if its something that you just use for your own personal life or your families then it's personal property.

Dude, you need the papers to prove it's yours, nothing more. Because the police and judges can't know who owns what since there is a myriad stuff on this planet.
For example, somebody stole your car and drive it in you village, everybody will instantly know that it's your car.
But if the guy is from 500 miles away, you will need the papers to prove it's your car, not his (the thieve), when you go to take it back. There is a description for it - colour, model, number of the body, engine, etc). That's documents for you.
 
Dude, you need the papers to prove it's yours, nothing more. Because the police and judges can't know who owns what since there is a myriad stuff on this planet.
For example, somebody stole your car and drive it in you village, everybody will instantly know that it;s your car.
But if the guy is from 500 miles away, you will need the papers to prove it's your car, not his (the thieve). There is a description for it - colour, model, number of the body, engine, etc). That's documents for you.

Ownership is a social institution.

You don't need property unles there are other people that could have a claim on things.

Here is my point for land ownership to exist you need a social institution and you need a state to recognize it, otherwise there is no legitimate claim.

For a car the claim is easy, I use this and as a community we agree that cars are individually used.

For land the ONLY defence I've heard is the homestead argument, which I've knocked down on this forum over and over again.

Land ownership is essencially mini monarchy. You can claim to be a king, but it's meaningless without a social institution to back up your claim.
 
Ownership is a social institution.

You don't need property unles there are other people that could have a claim on things.

Interestingly, a thieve is always ready to claim that your property is his property. ;)
Back to square one. :doh

Are you a practicing anarchist?
 
A cooperative makes you your own boss, literally, there is a huge difference.

The difference (in the case of the Danish agro cooperatives, anyway) is largely symbolic: you follow the rules of the corporation, you are subordinate to the elected CEO and his management team (the most capable Peder Tuborgh, in the case of Arla), and your income structure is similar to that of a "normal" corporate employee working on commission. Except you don't have the stock options, with their serious potential of making you rich (if you joined early enough).
 
What does "sociail justice" mean to you?
It's just a strange euphemism for egalitarianism that is often used by simple minded LWNJs.
 
Last edited:
Again, a democracy is not a type of government .... it's an organizing principle ...

james madsion federalist 10--"The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter.
 
Don't these two contradict each other? How could charity be obligatory?

Kinda like how a person can be "volunteered" in the military against his/her will lol
 
(Almost) Everyone believes in social justice, even if they say they are against it. Take conservative support of Israel, for example. They argue the Jews deserve their own homeland due to the atrocities committed against those people in the past. Conservatives may not call it "social justice" but that is exactly what it is.

I believe in social justice so far as I believe each individual is entitled to the fruits of his/her labor and that what we take from nature should be paid for. Follow those two simple rules and you will see a free and just society.
 
Last edited:
No, demanding from others what they have not earned for themselves has nothing to do with capitalism

And rights have nothing to do with "earning" anything. Rights are inherent. For example, freedom of speech. Did you do anything to earn that right? No. It is inherent. It is part of being a human being.
 
You left out "legally sanctioned theft!"

If there is theft involved then it is not social justice. It is just more injustice.
 
However, this is not about wealth redistribution. Social justice is pretty much about that.

Social justice is (or should be) about ending theft. Only unjustly acquired wealth ought to be redistributed (such as that acquired through the privilege of patents and land speculation).
 
The difference (in the case of the Danish agro cooperatives, anyway) is largely symbolic: you follow the rules of the corporation, you are subordinate to the elected CEO and his management team (the most capable Peder Tuborgh, in the case of Arla), and your income structure is similar to that of a "normal" corporate employee working on commission. Except you don't have the stock options, with their serious potential of making you rich (if you joined early enough).

It isn't symbolic at all, the management is beholdant to the employees, not stockholders, that changes the incentive structure significantly.
 
james madsion federalist 10--"The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter.

Ok, but I'm using the term "democracy" in the broad term.
 
It isn't symbolic at all, the management is beholdant to the employees, not stockholders, that changes the incentive structure significantly.

That is simply not the case. There are the farmers, the numerous co-owners of the enterprise - by virtue of holding integral parts of this enterprise as their legal private property. And then there are the employees, hired workers, whose position is not any different from the position of employees in any other capitalist corporation.
 
That is simply not the case. There are the farmers, the numerous co-owners of the enterprise - by virtue of holding integral parts of this enterprise as their legal private property. And then there are the employees, hired workers, whose position is not any different from the position of employees in any other capitalist corporation.

I misspoke I meant the farmers, i.e. the members of the cooperatives.
 
This is a thread in desperate search for a point.
 
Back
Top Bottom