The Socratic curse and "You didn't build that"

[crazymilk]

Hi, i'm new here, name is kobi:)

 

I'd like to have your response and possibly help on what is the best way to counter that evil and obnoxious argument, that the state has given rise to you, you should respect and conform to it's rules, and it's comparison to what would happen in a voluntary community with it's own set of rules. you probably all know that line of argumenation:

 

"Oh, but in a voluntary community, you are gonna have kids, why are they bound to the contracts of the community itself?" therefore welfare state.

 

When you try to say that the state is not a specific owner of a private area like it should be, they claim it is because it is just like a big community commonly owned by "the citizens". obviously, "if you dont like the current situation, you are free to leave or change the rules of the current system".

 

When you try to differenciate between private ownership to the collective theft of the state, they discard homesteading or any of these methods of knowing what belongs to whom and just say this sort of tautological thing which is "you only have property cause the state and citizens of it acknowledge it"

 

It is all a part of this "canceling the individual" sort of thing, like obama's "you didn't build that" and what stef talked about in the "Trial and death of socrates". I am just appalled and stunned as to the fact people are practically using the same "echo" (as stef called it) over and over again, but I yet found a good way to rebuttle it.

 

If you can give me tips or reading material specifically for this matter I would be forever grateful (essays, books, articles, anything).

 

Thanks in advance,

kobi

[RestoringGuy]

I suppose it would be like McDonald's telling people they will starve to death without fast food.  I think there is no way to oppose the state argument for land and natural resources because, whether public or private, it is always a race for the ability to fabricate boundaries and write the most convincing piece of paper to rationalize forced obligations.  We all just try to convince people an absentee soul exists at places where property is thought to be held.On the other hand for constructed property one can make argument private ownership is correct because the "build" component is something the state fails to do.  It is always by threat of violence the state's constructed property comes into being.That is why it's sometimes good to differentiate between forms of property (natural, constructed, and intellectual) because they have different causes and possible ethics. 

[FiddlertheLeper]

Well in my opinion, it's really hard to deal with this type of argument, because the argument itself has nothing to do with the person your talking to own thoughts, it's all cultural/national etc.. programming.  Because these conclusions were bestowed upon them (or taken upon themselves depending on how you look at it) they become almost impregnable to logic, because if you have the "answer" the process becomes irrelevant, and because they never really went through the process of coming to the conclusion based on evidence or logic, any argument which points out a flaw in the logic/process or even the showing of evidence, really will fall on deaf ears.  You would have to get to the root of the issue, which is the acceptance of the programming without question, until they are willing to question their "borrowed" beliefs the best argument in the world will typically not even leave a dent in the wall of preconstructed conclusions.  

  There maybe one way though, but finding someone willing to go through with it will probably be difficult. That would be to actually (without them realizing where your going or what your building too) lead them through the logic and evidence that allowed you to come to the conclusion you hold.  Get them to agree on the basic logic, and the truth value of the evidence for the precursors to the overall argument.  If they agree with every necessary component of the conclusion, they really will have to realize that to hold to their previously espoused conclusion would be to admit the logic and evidence are meaningless to them, and thus they would have to then think about what really is meaningful to them.  And most people will avoid that kind of thinking even at the cost of accepting a position that is contrary to their overall approach or acceptance to the world. 

 

Just my 2 cents, this is all off the top of my head, so take non of my points/arguments with any sort passive acceptance, if my logic and belief about the programming and such is correct i think this will work, if i am totally off base with why they hold these beliefs then it will probably not work any better than the arguments you mentioned in your OP.

[carlip]

I take the position as follows, "no I didn't build it, but the people that did were PAID to build it, and have been compensated already."

 

This can take you to the topic of either slavery or voluntary exchange of labor and time for money, either of which will reveal that property has been exchanged and it does not matter it's source.

[crazymilk]

I take the position as follows, "no I didn't build it, but the people that did were PAID to build it, and have been compensated already."This can take you to the topic of either slavery or voluntary exchange of labor and time for money, either of which will reveal that property has been exchanged and it does not matter it's source.

 

carlip I find that argument interesting could you expand on it a bit more?

 

(thanks for the rest of you guys you have been helpful aswell:))

[carlip]

@crazymilk

I'm not sure there is much to expand about it without just creating a overly wordy rehash. My basic premise is to try to get them to understand that through the exchange of labor for money, when purchased by a public entity, has been done for all to use without paying more.

 

If the person doesn't understand basic property rights, there is no hope in saying any of this to them, and they are probably hopeless.

 

Most people know its wrong to expect further compensation for a job already done. We could role play or just ask specifically what you want to hear about ill get back to ya

[jpahmad]

The best way to look at it would be with what carlip said above.  Compemsation for eveyone's labor in society gets granted in the form of wages.  There are no "I owe you's" left over.  The circle is closed, no one owes anyone anything after wages have been paid. 

 

Barak Obama seems to think that everyone's labor is an offering of good will, which is why he says things like "you didn't build that." People do jobs, provide services, build things, for a wage.  A wage which is market value compensation for their labor.  No more, no less. 

 

Obama has swaped the word "help" for "work."  We are not a nation of helpers.  We are a nation of workers.

[RestoringGuy]

The best way to look at it would be with what carlip said above.  Compemsation for eveyone's labor in society gets granted in the form of wages.  There are no "I owe you's" left over.  The circle is closed, no one owes anyone anything after wages have been paid. 

It seems to me compensation also includes reputation and implied warranties.  When you open the McDonald's bag there is quality of service being discovered long after payment was exchanged.  Consumers do not buy from uniformly random vendors, and employers do not hire uniformly random people.  There is a lingering chain reaction of compensation.  I do not know how that can be removed from the pure idea of an instantly closed circle of compensation.