Dominance, Hierarchies, and UPB

[Congafury]

I've been a long time libertarian and have flirted with anarchism in the past, but it wasn't until reading Stefan's books recently on anarchy that I realized I can't go back to the state. The moral argument is what converted me, because even though I don't have all the answers, I can understand the moral argument and trust that anarchism would work out somehow. However, now that I am open to these new possibilities of social order, I can't shake the possibility that anarcho-communism (Acom) is more morally right than anarcho-capitalism (Acap). I find it disconcerting that Stefan has never mentioned (at least in my 3 months of listening to random podcasts) the counter argument to Acap given by Acoms (particularly arguments made here http://www.infoshop.org/AnAnarchistFAQ on hierarchies). Acoms argue that hierarchies are morally wrong and that capitalism creates hierarchies. I have tried to look at the counterargument for this and I just keep finding Acaps say, "Hierarchies are unavoidable," or "Hierarchies are NOT immoral," or "How could a society run WITHOUT hierarchies?!" These arguments sound very much like the arguments I hear for the use of the state. So, I turned to the theory of UPBs to see if the use of hierarchies are indeed immoral as Acoms say. Well, hierarchies are not a behavior, so I believe that is the first problem. However, "dominance" is and I think that dominating another person is the essence of creating a hierarchy. If you use the step-by-step analysis in Stefan's UPB book it looks quite similar to rape, ending in dominating another person as morally evil.  

 

If this is the case, then if Capitalism is deemed to be a system that fosters dominance of one person to another than capitalism would need to be thrown out as a morally wrong system. It sounds like an Acom would argue that capitalism is inherently domineering because those with no capital starting out in life are dependent on those with capital. I can hear an Acap argument go something like, "You can choose not to do business with someone else if you don't want to, you are not physically forced to do that, so therefore it is not morally wrong." However, it is my understanding that if you chose not to do business with anyone you will die in a society of Acaps (or will be dependent on charity, which is still a dominant/dependent relationship). Therefore, you are forced to do it by the system. Maybe not by another person pointing a gun at you, but the system, "capitalism" is the inherent force that will kill you if you do not participate in a fully capitalistic society where all land is owned and you are thus dependent upon the will of another.

 

Also, a similar and relevant argument against capitalism is that it is exploitative. Which when thrown into the UPB I think exploitation can be considered evil. If those with capital exploit those without capital, then that is evil. Acoms argue that the full product of the workers are not split among the workers but is taken by those who own the capital and given to the workers as they see fit, which is exploitative. To be not exploitative, all of the profits would need to be split with all the workers. 

 

Please feel free to poke holes in this argument as I am recently leaning towards Acom and away from Acap and I dread having to tell my communist friends that I disagree with capitalism now, that would be somewhat embarrassing, but I'll do it if I think its moral. However, although there are plenty of other arguments against communism that might come up here please stick to the moral argument of dominance/exploitation is evil, capitalism relies on dominance/exploitation, capitalism is evil.

 

Thanks

 

 

[powder]

OK, I'll bite.  

 

evil is the initiation of force and violating property rights - assault, theft, rape...  

 

how do you define 'dominance' and 'exploitation'?  

 

how do Acom's plan to re-distribute this capital?

 

why are people entitled to anything, esp other people's resources?  

 

what is wrong with people working hard to acquire more resources, success, responsibility, opportunity?  If that puts them in a position of hierarchy in relation to other people involved in the same business or endeavor, how is that immoral if all interactions are voluntary?  

[Gavitor]

I fail to see how hierarchies dont exist in communism.

 

Also in both communism and capitalism everyone starts out with nothing and relies on their parents.

 

In capitalism there is an unlimited number of ways to get resources. So I don't see how its in any way exploitative.

 

 

Also, a similar and relevant argument against capitalism is that it is exploitative. Which when thrown into the UPB I think exploitation can be considered evil. If those with capital exploit those without capital, then that is evil. Acoms argue that the full product of the workers are not split among the workers but is taken by those who own the capital and given to the workers as they see fit, which is exploitative. To be not exploitative, all of the profits would need to be split with all the workers. 

 

Please feel free to poke holes in this argument as I am recently leaning towards Acom and away from Acap and I dread having to tell my communist friends that I disagree with capitalism now, that would be somewhat embarrassing, but I'll do it if I think its moral. However, although there are plenty of other arguments against communism that might come up here please stick to the moral argument of dominance/exploitation is evil, capitalism relies on dominance/exploitation, capitalism is evil.

 

Thanks

 

 

So if I give you money to perform a task using something I own, how is that exploitative?

[Congafury]

 

how do you define 'dominance' and 'exploitation'?  

 

 

Let's say dominance being "utilizing your power and influence over others to their detriment." Exploitation being "the acquisition of resources from another to their detriment." I'm sure an Acom might have better definitions, but that's what I'm thinking they mean. 

 

how do Acom's plan to re-distribute this capital?

 

I am hesitant to answer this because that seems more of a logistical question that would be solved once the moral idea is established. Similar to, "what are we going to do about the roads?"

 

 

 

why are people entitled to anything, esp other people's resources?  

 

I would assume for the same reasons that people are entitled to be treated without force and aggression? Entitlement just means a right to something. If we are looking at rights being based on UPB then if it is universally preferable to not be dominated and exploited by those with the capital, then the entitlement comes from that. 

 

 

 

what is wrong with people working hard to acquire more resources, success, responsibility, opportunity?  If that puts them in a position of hierarchy in relation to other people involved in the same business or endeavor, how is that immoral if all interactions are voluntary?  

 

I think there is this assumption that our business dealings are voluntary when they are not. As I said in the first post you must enter into a business arrangement with someone in order to survive, meaning business arrangements are not voluntary. Sure you can chose which one you want to engage in, but you must engage in one. And you must engage in one with someone who is going to profit off of your labor, putting that person in a higher position. It seems that it is universally preferable to not be in this situation. So abolishing the acquisition of capital sounds like the moral thing to do. 

 

 

I fail to see how hierarchies dont exist in communism.

 

Also in both communism and capitalism everyone starts out with nothing and relies on their parents.

 

In capitalism there is an unlimited number of ways to get resources. So I don't see how its in any way exploitative.

 

 

 

So if I give you money to perform a task using something I own, how is that exploitative?

 

When a baby is born they can not survive without the assistance of others. This assistance does not have to be dominating or exploitative. I think Stefan makes many points about how domination and exploitation as parents is an awful thing and immoral. Hierarchies are bad in families. By my definition, feeding a dependent baby is not "to [the baby's] detriment" and thus not dominance or exploitative. Now, if you forced the kid to do your dishes with use of fear and punishment, then that is dominating, exploitative, and immoral.

[dsayers]

I can't go back to the state. The moral argument is what converted me, because even though I don't have all the answers, I can understand the moral argument and trust that anarchism would work out somehow. However, now that I am open to these new possibilities of social order, I can't shake the possibility that anarcho-communism (Acom) is more morally right than anarcho-capitalism (Acap).

 

Morality is not analog. A behavior is either moral, immoral, or amoral (lacking a moral component).

 

This is one of those times where it is imperative to define terms. You've arrived at the false conclusion that communism is moral because you're looking at the label instead of unpacking what the label means. Communism IS the State. It's the division of people into two moral categories where one set owns much more than themselves while the other set supposedly doesn't even own themselves. "Anarcho-communism" is a contradiction in terms.

 

This is an example of the balloon analogy usually used to denote the relationship between the State and other religions whereby most people that denounce one clings to the other out of not being used to being responsible for themselves and their actions. Here, you've denounced the State for moral reasons, but cling instead to what you don't see as the State in spite of the moral reason not to.

 

Theft, assault, rape, and murder are the only behaviors that are immoral. The term "hierarchy" does not denote if it's coercive or voluntary. Therefore, it is neither inherently moral or immoral.

[PGP]

This issue of dominance has come up alot and it is important. It is one of the things in an anarchic society that "frightens" people from what I have read so far. 

ATM, as my thinking develops, I can see something else important that is: just how blunted human potential is in the world. Hierarchy in merit and ability and all the rest doesn't scare me. At least there would be a structure that enabled progress rather than the current miasma of stagnation and nihilism I see alot of now and indeed have had myself in the past. Conversely, I am reading alot on Soviet Union in 20's and 30's atm and I could not contemplate any sort of communism. It would be one thing I would fight to the death to prevent taking over the West if it was necessary, UPB be damned.

[Gavitor]

I think there is this assumption that our business dealings are voluntary when they are not. As I said in the first post you must enter into a business arrangement with someone in order to survive, meaning business arrangements are not voluntary. Sure you can chose which one you want to engage in, but you must engage in one. And you must engage in one with someone who is going to profit off of your labor, putting that person in a higher position. It seems that it is universally preferable to not be in this situation. So abolishing the acquisition of capital sounds like the moral thing to do. 

 

You do not have to enter into a business arrangement to survive...

 

You can grow your own food or mooch off your parents.

 

Alternatively you can also start your own business or create products to sell.

 

 

When a baby is born they can not survive without the assistance of others. This assistance does not have to be dominating or exploitative. I think Stefan makes many points about how domination and exploitation as parents is an awful thing and immoral. Hierarchies are bad in families. By my definition, feeding a dependent baby is not "to [the baby's] detriment" and thus not dominance or exploitative. Now, if you forced the kid to do your dishes with use of fear and punishment, then that is dominating, exploitative, and immoral.

 

You completely failed to answer my question

 

So if I give you money to perform a task using something I own, how is that exploitative?

[dsayers]

Let's say dominance being "utilizing your power and influence over others to their detriment." Exploitation being "the acquisition of resources from another to their detriment."

 

"To the detriment of others" is not a standard. I'm breathing right now, which is to the detriment of everybody else on the planet.

 

Entitlement just means a right to something.

 

Not at all. The right to live is very different from the right to not be murdered. The right to live means you are entitled to my kidneys if yours fail.

 

As I said in the first post you must enter into a business arrangement with someone in order to survive, meaning business arrangements are not voluntary. Sure you can chose which one you want to engage in, but you must engage in one. And you must engage in one with someone who is going to profit off of your labor, putting that person in a higher position.

 

You do not have to trade with others to survive. It's just that trading with others makes your survival so much more efficient. Meaning that the people you're touting as victims benefit from the relationship. Also, the fact that I will perish if I do not eat is not a situation that any other human placed me in (except my parents). Additionally, the people you are touting as the bosses have to answer to customer demand, making them the victim according to your claim.

 

So abolishing the acquisition of capital sounds like the moral thing to do. 

 

Abolition is inherently immoral as it makes no consideration for consent. Also, your body, time, and labor are your capital. How do you propose to separate people from their bodies? How do you propose to survive to next week if you are unable to eat anything because in order to be able to morally eat something, you must first own it?

[powder]

Let's say dominance being "utilizing your power and influence over others to their detriment." Exploitation being "the acquisition of resources from another to their detriment." I'm sure an Acom might have better definitions, but that's what I'm thinking they mean. 

 

'dominance' is not a moral category, the question is only whether it is consensual, voluntary.  people even pay money to be dominated.  do you have a problem with the definition of evil that I gave in my post?  you have not defined power or influence, or detriment for that matter so it is hard to know what you are talking about.  

 

 

I am hesitant to answer this because that seems more of a logistical question that would be solved once the moral idea is established. Similar to, "what are we going to do about the roads?"

 

No, it is question of morality.  I am actually asking you to establish this moral 'idea' and you have not.  I can only assume that the distribution of resources is going to be decided upon and carried out by some sort of hierarchical dominant class, that have some magical formula for figuring out what is fair and egalitarian, and enforced somehow.  

 

 

I would assume for the same reasons that people are entitled to be treated without force and aggression? Entitlement just means a right to something. If we are looking at rights being based on UPB then if it is universally preferable to not be dominated and exploited by those with the capital, then the entitlement comes from that. 

 

You have the right to defend yourself and your property, how are you entitled to anything?  these words are not interchangeable.  

 

 

 

I think there is this assumption that our business dealings are voluntary when they are not. As I said in the first post you must enter into a business arrangement with someone in order to survive, meaning business arrangements are not voluntary. Sure you can chose which one you want to engage in, but you must engage in one. And you must engage in one with someone who is going to profit off of your labor, putting that person in a higher position. It seems that it is universally preferable to not be in this situation. So abolishing the acquisition of capital sounds like the moral thing to do. 

 

You are making assertions, not arguments.  You are not forced to do anything in a free society.  I would certainly say that we can rely on each other to make our lives more comfortable thru voluntary exchange of goods and services, it is just more practical that way.  You could go off and be self-sustaining if you don't want to submit your labor for the profit of others, or start your own enterprise, or seek charity, whatever.  

 

 

When a baby is born they can not survive without the assistance of others. This assistance does not have to be dominating or exploitative. I think Stefan makes many points about how domination and exploitation as parents is an awful thing and immoral. Hierarchies are bad in families. By my definition, feeding a dependent baby is not "to [the baby's] detriment" and thus not dominance or exploitative. Now, if you forced the kid to do your dishes with use of fear and punishment, then that is dominating, exploitative, and immoral.

 

Different moral category - the child parent relationship is not voluntary.  the parent is then morally responsible for the child's well being and the use of coercion is immoral.  

I would just like to add that, as usual, I think dsayers did a much better job than I did in his last post of responding to these issues.  I hope this stuff helps you with your desire to sort this out.  

[sith_wampa]

This is one of those times where it is imperative to define terms. You've arrived at the false conclusion that communism is moral because you're looking at the label instead of unpacking what the label means. Communism IS the State. It's the division of people into two moral categories where one set owns much more than themselves while the other set supposedly doesn't even own themselves. "Anarcho-communism" is a contradiction in terms.

 

So I have recently been studying what communism actually means, because the apparent contradiction seemed really obvious to me and I wanted to pin it down. In basically every historical example, communism has been synonymous with the state. But if we define communism as purely "the common ownership of the means of production" then there is no need for a state. People can consent to common ownership. That part checks out. What I think is unavoidable is the creation of hierarchies. Some people are going to be better at their jobs than others, and some people are going to have more to say about business decisions than others. The way I see it, if you consent to being part of a company with a hierarchy, then morally that checks out. But if somehow a hierarchy was forced upon you, ie the state, that would be immoral. In the case of the parent-child hierarchy, I think it is reasonable to say parents have special moral responsibility because it's not possible for the child to consent.

[dsayers]

People can consent to common ownership.

 

How? Ownership begins with self. What you do with your body, time, and effort is yours also. Ownership is inherently exclusive. You can give, share, and lend, but you cannot have an identical claim of ownership over something with somebody else. You could voluntarily enter into a contract in an attempt to do so, but you would literally have to conceive of every possible scenario of competing claims with regards to that property, which is impossible.

 

We wouldn't want shared ownership to be true either. Maintenance, overhead, "the cost of doing business," etc are unfortunate side effects of property ownership. If shared ownership were valid, no participating party would be incentivized to engage in this expense/investment. The more people that supposedly share ownership and the less incentive you'd have to do so. I think it's called the tragedy of the commons.

[J. D. Stembal]

How? Ownership begins with self. What you do with your body, time, and effort is yours also. Ownership is inherently exclusive. You can give, share, and lend, but you cannot have an identical claim of ownership over something with somebody else. You could voluntarily enter into a contract in an attempt to do so, but you would literally have to conceive of every possible scenario of competing claims with regards to that property, which is impossible.

 

We wouldn't want shared ownership to be true either. Maintenance, overhead, "the cost of doing business," etc are unfortunate side effects of property ownership. If shared ownership were valid, no participating party would be incentivized to engage in this expense/investment. The more people that supposedly share ownership and the less incentive you'd have to do so. I think it's called the tragedy of the commons.

 

To do the communal ownership scenario, you have to have a local dictator running the books and making all the decision for exactly the reason dsayers is spelling out. Everyone wants the benefits of communal living because they don't have to invest in many necessities themselves. This is how the state works. It's a hippy commune at the national level with charismatic narcissists in charge of the commune.

 

The commune concept starts to fall apart when you realize that eating, shitting, breathing and fucking are also communally owned. What woman is going to want to live on you sex farm when you tell her that she do not have sexual autonomy?

[MarcAnthony]

The issue as far as I can see is that you are conflating two types of hierarchies. Natural and imposed. A natural hierarchy occurs by proxy of the undesigned interactions between people collecting for a single goal. Stefs favorite example is that its a natural hierarchy for the headliner of a band to be more important and better paid than a stage hand or back up singer. And imposed hierarchy utilizes force in replacement for natural utility.

 

 

Capitalism, if undertaken in a true free market, operates within the natural hierarchy definition. The hierarchies in a business (in a free market) are natural from the inception of the business until it begins violating NAP.

 

Anarcho-communism sees all hierarchy as oppressive but fails to take into account both the by proxy nature of natural hierarchies that are not oppressive and how the important aspect is what the mobility among the different stratas in the hierarchy are.

 

Ancom is the dream that you can live for free. Ancap is the dream that you can be free to live.

[Josh F]

I think the free market, in many cases, is beginning to find decentralized and networked solutions more competitive than hierarchical business structures.

 

How? Ownership begins with self. What you do with your body, time, and effort is yours also. Ownership is inherently exclusive. You can give, share, and lend, but you cannot have an identical claim of ownership over something with somebody else. You could voluntarily enter into a contract in an attempt to do so, but you would literally have to conceive of every possible scenario of competing claims with regards to that property, which is impossible.

 

We wouldn't want shared ownership to be true either. Maintenance, overhead, "the cost of doing business," etc are unfortunate side effects of property ownership. If shared ownership were valid, no participating party would be incentivized to engage in this expense/investment. The more people that supposedly share ownership and the less incentive you'd have to do so. I think it's called the tragedy of the commons.

 

Then what is stock if not shared ownership divided amongst several people?  You think some guy owns Exxon Mobile and its all his property?  

[dsayers]

Then what is stock if not shared ownership divided amongst several people?

 

"People own stock therefore joint ownership is valid" has the philosophical integrity of "a church is proof that God exists". It's not, it only proves that some people believe it to be true.

 

If people can outvote you on what you do with "your property," then either it is not your property or their claim to your property is invalid. Joint ownership suggests that these are simultaneously true despite being mutually exclusive.

 

If my conclusion is in error, you could make a case to the contrary or reveal how the logic I employed is faulty. All you offered was a contradiction and fallacious evidence.

[square4]

the system, "capitalism" is the inherent force that will kill you if you do not participate in a fully capitalistic society where all land is owned and you are thus dependent upon the will of another.

 

As a thought experiment, imagine there are no other people, only you and land, then you are forced to either work hard (self-sufficient farming) or die. This shows this "inherent force that will kill you" does not come from the other people or from capitalism, but it is the force of nature. Then add back all the people. Now the difference is that you have the opportunity to cooperate with them, which provides tremendous benefits. It is indeed possible that they might want to cooperate only on certain very unattractive conditions. However, if we make sure there is always some land available (similar to the Lockean proviso) for those who would want to live self-sufficiently, then, regardless of the conditions other people set on cooperation with them, you are not worse off, because you can always ignore them, and go back to the land, which would be the only possibility if the other people would not be there.

 

Acoms argue that the full product of the workers are not split among the workers but is taken by those who own the capital and given to the workers as they see fit, which is exploitative. To be not exploitative, all of the profits would need to be split with all the workers. 

 

Counterarguments: 1) the argument ignores that capital was itself produced using labor. 2) Profit earned with capital is a reward for delayed consumption. 3) Competition on the capital, labor and consumer product market ensures that businesses cannot pay whatever they want. 4) The salaries of the workers are voluntarily agreed on.

[Josh F]

"People own stock therefore joint ownership is valid" has the philosophical integrity of "a church is proof that God exists". It's not, it only proves that some people believe it to be true.

 

If people can outvote you on what you do with "your property," then either it is not your property or their claim to your property is invalid. Joint ownership suggests that these are simultaneously true despite being mutually exclusive.

 

If my conclusion is in error, you could make a case to the contrary or reveal how the logic I employed is faulty. All you offered was a contradiction and fallacious evidence.

People are engaging in a voluntary relationship with contractual rules for how the property is managed.  I don't think property is like xeno's paradox, it is quite a human concept not limited by any kind of indivisible physical law.  I hear the argument is contradictory without seeing the contradiction, and fallacious without proof of the fallacy.  Your entire argument just uses the wrong pronouns.  

 

"If people can outvote you on what you do with "your property," then either it is not your property or their claim to your property is invalid."

 

If majority owners of property can out vote you on your portion of the property, then you are sharing property under voluntary contractual agreements.  

 

And of course this exists outside of just a corporate structure.  If you and your roommates all chip in to pay the electricity, or you and your wife buy a home together, or you and your buddies order some Chinese food and eat it family style.  

[shirgall]

Stock is merely a claim on the assets of an entity that is paid after all liabilities senior to the claim are paid. It is a form of shared ownership based on the agreement that formed the entity. Contractually, a person might give money to an entity in return for this claim on the assets and other powers over than entity. Those powers may include voting rights to select a board of directors or to vote on certain decisions. That entity does not have to be a corporation, which is a particular legal fiction supported by government and law to limit liability. People use corporations because of the mechanisms that exist for limiting liability, handling disagreements, and dealing with tax implications.

 

Imagine a group of rural neighbors that pool their savings to jointly buy some farm equipment to rent to themselves and others in the area. They can set up a stock contract in order to give each contributor of capital a stake in the sell-off value of the farm equipment if the agreement needs to come to a close (after any loans and other liabilities are settled). They can use the starting capital and rent proceeds to pay for purchasing, storing, renewing, and maintaining the equipment. They can choose to pay excess proceeds to themselves as dividends in proportion to the shares of the initial capital investment.

 

Is there anything inherently wrong with such a joint ownership scheme? I think your claim is that because the contract has the potential to be misused and for you to be outvoted that it's not a valid scheme. But you can choose not to participate, too. Or you can choose to write a thoughtful agreement. And, especially, you can keep your entity small to keep the visible ownership stake of each participant obvious to all concerned.

[dsayers]

it is quite a human concept not limited by any kind of indivisible physical law.

 

So what? Four is a human concept. That doesn't mean it has the capacity to equal 4 and 5 simultaneously. As I recently argued elsewhere:

 

Ownership is inherently exclusionary. You own yourself and therefore you cannot be owned by somebody else. In order for me to use you (exercise ownership over your body), I'd have to override your use of you. For me to use myself to deny you use of yourself would be contradictory. This contradiction I feel is adequate proof that ownership is exclusionary.

 

If majority owners of property can out vote you on your portion of the property, then you are sharing property under voluntary contractual agreements.  

 

This is again begging the question.

 

If you and your roommates all chip in to pay the electricity, or you and your wife buy a home together, or you and your buddies order some Chinese food and eat it family style.  

 

Paying for electriticy is usage, not ownership. Two people signing a deed/splitting a meal is evidence of a BELIEF in joint ownership, not ownership itself.

 

I had asked you to either make a case for joint ownership or point out how my logic is faulty. If you cannot, then you should revise your conclusion to more accurately describe the real world. Check shirgall's post for a what a case for joint ownership might look like.

 

@shirgall: I understand what you're saying. But in order for the contract to be binding in all circumstances, all circumstances must be addressed in advance. As human desires are infinite and joint ownership would require at least two people, I have argued that this is logically impossible. The moment you are faced with unforeseen competing claims, the fallacy of joint ownership becomes apparent.

[shirgall]

@shirgall: I understand what you're saying. But in order for the contract to be binding in all circumstances, all circumstances must be addressed in advance. As human desires are infinite and joint ownership would require at least two people, I have argued that this is logically impossible. The moment you are faced with unforeseen competing claims, the fallacy of joint ownership becomes apparent.

 

Nah, so long as you can put in a mutually satisfactory process to amend the agreement you can pretty much roll with changes. Claiming that there must always be a situation that make the amendment process ineffective is pretty similar to Gödel's incompleteness theorem. Sure, it's a weakness, but you don't run into it very often. When I write contracts, I discuss how to either change or end the agreement, and that's usually enough.

[Josh F]

So what? Four is a human concept. That doesn't mean it has the capacity to equal 4 and 5 simultaneously. As I recently argued elsewhere:

 

Ownership is inherently exclusionary. You own yourself and therefore you cannot be owned by somebody else. In order for me to use you (exercise ownership over your body), I'd have to override your use of you. For me to use myself to deny you use of yourself would be contradictory. This contradiction I feel is adequate proof that ownership is exclusionary.

 

 

This is again begging the question.

 

 

Paying for electriticy is usage, not ownership. Two people signing a deed/splitting a meal is evidence of a BELIEF in joint ownership, not ownership itself.

 

I had asked you to either make a case for joint ownership or point out how my logic is faulty. If you cannot, then you should revise your conclusion to more accurately describe the real world. Check shirgall's post for a what a case for joint ownership might look like.

 

Just because you own yourself does not mean you can't share ownership of other things.  There is no necessary connection, you logic isn't faulty it doesn't exist, you just keep repeating that ownership means something that it doesn't.  Thats now how arguments work.

 

I mean look, let me make it axiomatic for you: if you own yourself and property rights stem from that axiom, resulting in you owning the product of your labor, then if two people labor towards one creation they have joint ownership.  Wow, not very hard to delineate that reasoning.  

 

Oh and of course you own the energy you pay for, I don't even get what "usage" has to do with it, I use my car too, and I own that right?

[dsayers]

Sure, it's a weakness, but you don't run into it very often. When I write contracts, I discuss how to either change or end the agreement, and that's usually enough.

 

I have no doubt. And in a free society, I'm certain the likelihood that people would not work together even amid competing claims is negligible. I don't think this has any bearing on the descriptive truth that ownership is inherently exclusionary.

 

you logic isn't faulty it doesn't exist...

 

I mean look, let me make it axiomatic for you: if you own yourself and property rights stem from that axiom, resulting in you owning the product of your labor

 

Logic is derived from matter and energy, but not comprised of matter and energy. I'm not sure how to respond to the claim that ANY logic doesn't exist as if that refutes it.

 

If I understand what you meant to say correctly, I think your ability to outline the logic I used contradicts your claim that it's not there. If your position is correct and mine is faulty, you won't convince me by making exaggerated claims.

 

if two people labor towards one creation they have joint ownership.  Wow, not very hard to delineate that reasoning.

 

Can you give an example? You keep saying that if two people agree that we can fly, that is proof that we can fly. I keep asking you to provide a logical explanation. I'm not saying that just because you're cannot that you are wrong, but I think you should at least be honest with yourself that you can't.

 

Oh and of course you own the energy you pay for, I don't even get what "usage" has to do with it, I use my car too, and I own that right?

 

When you pay your electric bill, you are trading for a service, not something that you own/keep. Sure, you could argue that batteries are a way to store the effects of that service. However, this would mean that you own part of my cellphone if we pay the same electric bill. It continues to be self-detonating.

[shirgall]

Provably fair solutions for splitting rent, goods, credit...

 

http://www.spliddit.org/

[Josh F]

I have no doubt. And in a free society, I'm certain the likelihood that people would not work together even amid competing claims is negligible. I don't think this has any bearing on the descriptive truth that ownership is inherently exclusionary.

 

 

Logic is derived from matter and energy, but not comprised of matter and energy. I'm not sure how to respond to the claim that ANY logic doesn't exist as if that refutes it.

 

If I understand what you meant to say correctly, I think your ability to outline the logic I used contradicts your claim that it's not there. If your position is correct and mine is faulty, you won't convince me by making exaggerated claims.

 

 

Can you give an example? You keep saying that if two people agree that we can fly, that is proof that we can fly. I keep asking you to provide a logical explanation. I'm not saying that just because you're cannot that you are wrong, but I think you should at least be honest with yourself that you can't.

 

 

When you pay your electric bill, you are trading for a service, not something that you own/keep. Sure, you could argue that batteries are a way to store the effects of that service. However, this would mean that you own part of my cellphone if we pay the same electric bill. It continues to be self-detonating.

You used no logic, you only made a statement, I see zero logical proof.  I've also already laid out many examples, which you dismissed with more irrational non-arguments.  Your definitions of property are not shared with other humans if you think consumptive goods are not property you have an inaccurate definition of property period.

 

So, unlike you, I cited examples of shared ownership and actually laid out a logical proof for it, the ball is in your court I'm not going to respond to the same things over and over again.  Your emotional commitment to this bad argument is blinding.  When you're ready to tackle this idea without hostility we can talk more.  

[labmath2]

I was under the impression that the fundamental difference between communists and capitalists is to whether land ownership is allowed or not. The case then for communism will be if the all "good" land is already taken, then you have no choice but to engage in the market (landowners as geographic monopolies). The capitalist will argue that as long as you engage freely then there is no problem. PS, i do find it interesting that when Stefan answered a similar question about two guys in a room and homesteading, he assumed they would both homestead half the room.

[labmath2]

I thought the difference between communism and capitalism was about property ownership? Communist do not think people should own lands because it results in good lands being taken and everyone else having to engage in the market to survive. Where capitalists believe as long you you engage freely, it's ok. 

 

P.S I find it interesting that in the video about two guys in a room and homesteading, it was assumed that they would each homestead half the room.

[sith_wampa]

If you own yourself and property rights stem from that axiom, resulting in you owning the product of your labor, then if two people labor towards one creation they have joint ownership. 

 

/thread

dsayers:

If multiple parties sign a contract for joint ownership, how is that invalid?

[dsayers]

If we both sign a something saying you can fly, would you be able to? Mutual consent cannot override the real world. In the real world, two people cannot dispose of a resource in differing manners simultaneously.

[J. D. Stembal]

We are missing a fairly obvious example of the inherent problem with joint ownership - divorce settlements. How does a divorced couple split ownership of the home and custody over the kids? In most cases, the resolution is not without some serious logistical complications, which is why family lawyers and mediators exist to serve divorced families.