General Discussion > Real World Topics

Right Wing or Left Wing?

<< < (2/7) > >>

Kat:

--- Quote ---Define "legitimate way". Personally, I think that all methods of obtaining property have, at their root, some sort of arbitrary or illegitimate principle behind them. Either the land was taken by force by some guy hundreds of years ago, claimed by virtue of "I stuck a flag in it first" or sold to you by someone who did one of those two things.

--- End quote ---

Ah, the alleged sins of the father still affecting the child in your perspective. No, it does not matter what an ancestor of a person did centuries ago, it matters that the property is recognised by the legal system and registered accordingly in case of estates. Now that the legal system protects property from unlawful takeover, theft is pretty much illegitimate. Protecting lifes and property of the citizens are primary functions of the state and most people agree on that even though some extend the list of those functions.


--- Quote ---Sorry, but charities are not always sufficient. To claim that you can just leave social welfare to charities and that everything will be fine is a laughable notion, and one that is disproven by every situation in which is it actually put into effect
--- End quote ---

Charities and non-government organisations, as well as local governments, do good job in my country, in my opinion at least.

The state's function is not to control and manage every aspect of social aid system, it's to set laws that allows others to help more effectively. It should do what needs to be coordinated at national level, not everything.

Cherry Lover:

--- Quote from: Cool Kat on June 07, 2014, 09:48:01 PM ---Ah, the alleged sins of the father still affecting the child in your perspective.
--- End quote ---

No, the sins of the father do not affect the child, but if the initial reason why you have ownership of something is illegitimate, then that ownership itself is illegitimate. If I buy stolen goods, I have to give them back (without any right to compensation from the original owner or the government) even if it I was in no way at fault, because the person who I bought it from did not have legitimate ownership, and thus my ownership is also not legitimate.


--- Quote ---No, it does not matter what an ancestor of a person did centuries ago, it matters that the property is recognised by the legal system and registered accordingly in case of estates.
--- End quote ---

Right, which part of "anarchist" made you think I cared what the legal system did and did not recognise?


--- Quote ---Now that the legal system protects property from unlawful takeover, theft is pretty much illegitimate.
--- End quote ---

Why?


--- Quote ---Protecting lifes and property of the citizens are primary functions of the state and most people agree on that even though some extend the list of those functions.
--- End quote ---

Well, I would say that protecting the lives of the citizens is a primary function of the state. Protecting property is a function, but I don't think it's on the same level as protecting life, and nor do I think most people see it as being on that level (otherwise characters like Robin Hood wouldn't be anything like as popular).


--- Quote ---Charities and non-government organisations, as well as local governments, do good job in my country, in my opinion at least.
--- End quote ---

Fair enough, but that's certainly not the impression I've got from countries like the US (which have a shit social welfare system).


--- Quote ---The state's function is not to control and manage every aspect of social aid system, it's to set laws that allows others to help more effectively. It should do what needs to be coordinated at national level, not everything.

--- End quote ---

No, the state does not have to do everything, but it should ensure that it is being done. If the rich want their property protected, then they should ensure that the poor are given proper social aid. Otherwise, why the hell should the poor respect their property "rights" when the government is giving them nothing in return for them doing so?

Kat:

--- Quote ---No, the sins of the father do not affect the child, but if the initial reason why you have ownership of something is illegitimate, then that ownership itself is illegitimate. If I buy stolen goods, I have to give them back (without any right to compensation from the original owner or the government) even if it I was in no way at fault, because the person who I bought it from did not have legitimate ownership, and thus my ownership is also not legitimate.

--- End quote ---

Yet you seem to be okay with act of theft yet has a problem that humans has claimed property which did not have any owner.



--- Quote ---Why?

--- End quote ---

Because of social census. Society generally acknowledges theft is not acceptable, thus government protects the property rights on the behalf of society.


--- Quote ---Well, I would say that protecting the lives of the citizens is a primary function of the state. Protecting property is a function, but I don't think it's on the same level as protecting life, and nor do I think most people see it as being on that level (otherwise characters like Robin Hood wouldn't be anything like as popular).

--- End quote ---

Robin Hood was about Saxons vs Normans, rather than poor vs rich. He robbed people Saxons did not like much in the stories.

And yes, property is important because it provides stable means of sustaining oneself. Hobos don't have easy life.


--- Quote ---Fair enough, but that's certainly not the impression I've got from countries like the US (which have a shit social welfare system).
--- End quote ---

USA is still one of wealthiest countries, so it's relative.


--- Quote ---No, the state does not have to do everything, but it should ensure that it is being done. If the rich want their property protected, then they should ensure that the poor are given proper social aid. Otherwise, why the hell should the poor respect their property "rights" when the government is giving them nothing in return for them doing so?
--- End quote ---

Because many poor are decent folks and don't feel like stealing from others?

Cherry Lover:

--- Quote from: Cool Kat on June 08, 2014, 02:14:13 AM ---
--- Quote ---No, the sins of the father do not affect the child, but if the initial reason why you have ownership of something is illegitimate, then that ownership itself is illegitimate. If I buy stolen goods, I have to give them back (without any right to compensation from the original owner or the government) even if it I was in no way at fault, because the person who I bought it from did not have legitimate ownership, and thus my ownership is also not legitimate.

--- End quote ---

Yet you seem to be okay with act of theft yet has a problem that humans has claimed property which did not have any owner.
--- End quote ---

If property cannot be claimed in the first place, then it cannot be owned, which means it therefore cannot be stolen.

And, honestly, it's not that I have no problem with theft, it's that I do not really consider land ownership (in particular) to be particularly legitimate and that I consider the concept of property ownership in general to be more a matter of convenience and a certain amount of courtesy towards others than an absolute right that can never be abridged.


--- Quote ---
--- Quote ---Why?

--- End quote ---

Because of social census. Society generally acknowledges theft is not acceptable, thus government protects the property rights on the behalf of society.
--- End quote ---

That's a pretty good explanation of why we have property laws, yes, but it is in no way a justification of why we even have property in the first place, or why we should have it. There are plenty of things that have been seen as "right" by society in the past which we now consider to be very wrong indeed. This is not an argument about the current legal situation, it's an argument about moral and political beliefs, and the fact that I am in the minority does not in any way make my belief any less legitimate.

Further, whilst society as a whole does see theft as generally a bad thing, I don't think it's true that the majority of society sees theft as always unacceptable. Most people would consider stealing food to feed a starving family to be OK and, similarly, most people would have relatively little objection to stealing from people who they perceive as immoral.


--- Quote ---Robin Hood was about Saxons vs Normans, rather than poor vs rich. He robbed people Saxons did not like much in the stories.
--- End quote ---

Not really, his story is always about stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. Plus, the Normans were the rich, so that's kind-of a red herring.

And, regardless, my point is that Robin Hood was a thief, and people are quite OK with that (even if the original legend was Saxons vs. Normans, the first thing modern people associate with Robin Hood is "robbed from the rich and gave to the poor", and he is very much celebrated for that). Similarly, you often get Hollywood films with thieves as sympathetic protagonists in a way that you would never get with someone committing more violent crimes (Mafia films are a bit different, but then the Mafia isn't generally portrayed as sympathetic in those).


--- Quote ---And yes, property is important because it provides stable means of sustaining oneself. Hobos don't have easy life.
--- End quote ---

Yes, this is a valid point for why property should exist, but it doesn't justify absolutely inviolable property rights, because a Hobo would be better off if he could just steal food and find some empty office to sleep in.

Further, whilst you do need somewhere to live, food to eat and so on, you don't actually need to own any of that. It's entirely possible to live in a house without owning it, and eat food without having previously owned it.


--- Quote ---
--- Quote ---Fair enough, but that's certainly not the impression I've got from countries like the US (which have a shit social welfare system).
--- End quote ---

USA is still one of wealthiest countries, so it's relative.
--- End quote ---

It is, but poor people in the US are a lot worse off than poor people in this country.


--- Quote ---
--- Quote ---No, the state does not have to do everything, but it should ensure that it is being done. If the rich want their property protected, then they should ensure that the poor are given proper social aid. Otherwise, why the hell should the poor respect their property "rights" when the government is giving them nothing in return for them doing so?
--- End quote ---

Because many poor are decent folks and don't feel like stealing from others?

--- End quote ---

So, you're saying that someone who would let their child starve to death rather than steal food is a decent person? Because I sure as hell don't think they are. And, anyone who allows theirself to starve to death rather than steal food is not a "decent person", they're an idiot, because they need that food far more than the shop owner does.

And, frankly, I would say that anyone who prioritises their own ability to buy a slightly bigger house over the ability of the poor to buy a house at all is an utterly horrible person, so if we're going by the "the government should enforce decency" argument, then they should most certainly be taxed in order to pay for social welfare.

Ultimately, though, my point was that, as you alluded to above, property is ultimately a matter of social consensus. We accept that it exists because we believe it to exist and because it is convenient for it to exist, not because there is any fundamental moral reason it should exist. Therefore, people will only obey it if they consider society as a whole to be worth supporting. And, if that society is leaving them to starve to death, then why would they have any desire to uphold that society?

Kat:
Mike, are you even anarchist? Because you defy authority yet you want the government to be involved as much as possible in social aid. Your political philosophy is incoherent.


--- Quote ---If property cannot be claimed in the first place, then it cannot be owned, which means it therefore cannot be stolen.

And, honestly, it's not that I have no problem with theft, it's that I do not really consider land ownership (in particular) to be particularly legitimate and that I consider the concept of property ownership in general to be more a matter of convenience and a certain amount of courtesy towards others than an absolute right that can never be abridged.
--- End quote ---

Land ownership is as legitimate as others because people seems to be fond of it in general and defend it. The consensus of society makes it legitimate, as well as recognizes theft a crime. Millions of people in former USSR pay the highest price in attempt to defend their farms from grubby hands of the government. So if people find it defending, it's legitimate, and I bet if politicians sharing your view on property started disrespecting this kind of property rights, people would rise and defend their stuff in desperation.




--- Quote ---That's a pretty good explanation of why we have property laws, yes, but it is in no way a justification of why we even have property in the first place, or why we should have it. There are plenty of things that have been seen as "right" by society in the past which we now consider to be very wrong indeed. This is not an argument about the current legal situation, it's an argument about moral and political beliefs, and the fact that I am in the minority does not in any way make my belief any less legitimate.

Further, whilst society as a whole does see theft as generally a bad thing, I don't think it's true that the majority of society sees theft as always unacceptable. Most people would consider stealing food to feed a starving family to be OK and, similarly, most people would have relatively little objection to stealing from people who they perceive as immoral.
--- End quote ---

Now there is democracy, and people in overwhelming majority recognizes property rights as legitimate, or some even sacred, so the fact they are in majority actually makes their view more legitimate because it is supported by the very fabric of laws and customs.

Food, not land property. Court would release such people because of marginal harm done to society, but seizing one's home and property is not marginal at all. Still people recognize stealing as crime, and acknowledge it's a crime even if done in desperation, the society just feel magnaminous enough to give a loop that allows to not punish harshly people who commit minor acts of crime in desperation. Again, seizing property unlawfully is a major crime.


--- Quote ---Not really, his story is always about stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. Plus, the Normans were the rich, so that's kind-of a red herring.

And, regardless, my point is that Robin Hood was a thief, and people are quite OK with that (even if the original legend was Saxons vs. Normans, the first thing modern people associate with Robin Hood is "robbed from the rich and gave to the poor", and he is very much celebrated for that). Similarly, you often get Hollywood films with thieves as sympathetic protagonists in a way that you would never get with someone committing more violent crimes (Mafia films are a bit different, but then the Mafia isn't generally portrayed as sympathetic in those).

--- End quote ---

Use legal arguments, not legends and popculture.


--- Quote ---It is, but poor people in the US are a lot worse off than poor people in this country.

--- End quote ---

USA is still in high tier according to HDI scale.


--- Quote ---Yes, this is a valid point for why property should exist, but it doesn't justify absolutely inviolable property rights, because a Hobo would be better off if he could just steal food and find some empty office to sleep in.

Further, whilst you do need somewhere to live, food to eat and so on, you don't actually need to own any of that. It's entirely possible to live in a house without owning it, and eat food without having previously owned it
--- End quote ---
.

Most people feel more comfortable about actually owning stuff. I don't think homeless are particularly happy about their lot, many are resigned.

--- Quote ---So, you're saying that someone who would let their child starve to death rather than steal food is a decent person? Because I sure as hell don't think they are. And, anyone who allows theirself to starve to death rather than steal food is not a "decent person", they're an idiot, because they need that food far more than the shop owner does.

And, frankly, I would say that anyone who prioritises their own ability to buy a slightly bigger house over the ability of the poor to buy a house at all is an utterly horrible person, so if we're going by the "the government should enforce decency" argument, then they should most certainly be taxed in order to pay for social welfare.

Ultimately, though, my point was that, as you alluded to above, property is ultimately a matter of social consensus. We accept that it exists because we believe it to exist and because it is convenient for it to exist, not because there is any fundamental moral reason it should exist. Therefore, people will only obey it if they consider society as a whole to be worth supporting. And, if that society is leaving them to starve to death, then why would they have any desire to uphold that society?
--- End quote ---

Society is not leaving people starve to death except in really severe dictatorship or where the society crumbled into anarchic like state. There are charities, non-profit organisations, finally government actually steps in when there is any danger to human life (food stamps are thing even under Republican administrations). And poor people are content with non-anarchists because the society votes in anyone but anarchists. Funny that.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page