France Needs Victims


Ed Hudgins

Recommended Posts

But the reason that you aren't allowed to sell them is because money is dirty, meaning property rights are dirty.

If two people are willing to trade money for kidney, they should not be allowed, because some other person needs a kidney, and although he/she cannot afford or is not willing to pay for the kidney, and at the same time cannot demand the kidney, it would offend them too greatly to see a kidney bought right in front of them.

By this logic, nobody should be allowed to buy and eat food deemed superior to the food available to the very poorest. Or did you already vote for that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam, no you didn't, I should have said "life" not self.

Technically I suppose my body is my property, but my rights over it are not absolute. For example, here i can't sell my kidneys not that anybody would want them. However, being extracted the kidneys would be outside my body and therefore my property, which I would not have the right to sell.

First of all, I see no valid reason why you should not be allowed to sell your body, or, its' parts.

However, we do now agree that, "technically," each individual's body is his/her property.

Good - that is a start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam, no you didn't, I should have said "life" not self.

Technically I suppose my body is my property, but my rights over it are not absolute. For example, here i can't sell my kidneys not that anybody would want them. However, being extracted the kidneys would be outside my body and therefore my property, which I would not have the right to sell.

First of all, I see no valid reason why you should not be allowed to sell your body, or, its' parts.

However, we do now agree that, "technically," each individual's body is his/her property.

Good - that is a start.mehow

I'm not sure it is. My body is not the same entity as my life (a series of actions in progress) or my self (my consciousness); you seem to be coming from a premise that one's life is one's primary property. You introduced the verticality...I see life and property and separate, but I think you want to consider them somehow morally indivisible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carol:

Fair enough.

What did you mean by your statement...

"Property rights are not equal to the right to life..."

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carol:

Fair enough.

What did you mean by your statement...

"Property rights are not equal to the right to life..."

Adam

I mean, as you defined the verticality, that rights to property are not as important as rightrs to life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carol:

Fair enough.

What did you mean by your statement...

"Property rights are not equal to the right to life..."

Adam

I mean, as you defined the verticality, that rights to life are not as important as rightrs to life.

OK ...now I am lost...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this thread is fading, but I just checked up on it now...

Carol, the concept of property rights was key for me understanding Capitalism vs Socialism, and later Libertarianism/Anarchism vs Capitalism.

At first I thought, "How can anyone own anything?" None of us created the material necessary for "property", so how can we claim that any part of the world is ours? Doesn't the world belong to all of us?

There is a difference, though, between the world belonging to everyone and the world belonging to nobody. If the world belongs to everyone, what incentive would there be for someone to discover unused land? If once they discovered it, it was divided between everyone in the world? And how would someone ever trade unused resources for consumable goods? If everything belonged to everyone, and everyone must maintain an equal "share" of material property, then trading would be restricted to equal amounts of material, regardless of the form.

And here we should note that form has value to the same degree that material does. In the right form material can sustain life, while material in the wrong form is useless. So neither form nor material is more or less consequential to human existence. It is possible to say that the material provided by nature belongs to all of us, but the right forms of that material must be provided by humans.

Even if the material of the world can only fairly be shared equally, we would still be free to trade our labor... If material cannot be traded for labor (or encapsulated labor), then nobody could ever enjoy a level of material forms that they could not create themselves. Someone with unused resources could not trade for labor/material form, and the only alternative, to force capable men to trade their capital/consumer goods for their material value, or to force them to labor at no charge, would both be slavery.

So, we must conclude that the material of the world belongs to nobody, and it is necessary for man to have absolute property in the forms he creates (as an extension of his right to action/self-benefiting labor), which he can use/dispose of at his will, or else trading goes out the window, and human progression goes with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I too tired to pursue this tonight. Tomorrow then. Let me say that without property rights people are no different than slaves, or beasts at best. I cannot understand anyone not grasping this immediately.

And with property rights paramount, people have been slaves and the property of someone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this thread is fading, but I just checked up on it now...

Carol, the concept of property rights was key for me understanding Capitalism vs Socialism, and later Libertarianism/Anarchism vs Capitalism.

I follow your thinking, I think. But you understand the human world in Versus,where we are all in battle for or against opposing concepts. I see it as countless individuals in diverse muti-motivated pursuits,ultimately interdependent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I too tired to pursue this tonight. Tomorrow then. Let me say that without property rights people are no different than slaves, or beasts at best. I cannot understand anyone not grasping this immediately.

And with property rights paramount, people have been slaves and the property of someone else.

This is an absurd statement. You evidently define property rights and capitalism as the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition. If property rights are "paramount" in a given population there are no slaves. This happy situation has never existed to a large scale in the world. People can live as clever beasts. But to thrive requires people to trade, and be motivated to acquire complex skills and to innovate. Without being able to KEEP what they earn through the fruits of their labor people are not motivated and capital, or wealth, is not created in the first place. Increased wealth and standard of living make possible the solutions to all of the problems socialists constantly complain about but prevent by their interference in markets and innovation. They distort markets by introducing coercion and inefficiencies then complain that markets "don't work". Socialists are self righteous in their contempt for "money" and capitalism and the "caring" for the "little" people and pretend those on the "right" just don't care about people and are just "greedy". This appeal to emotionality serves to bypass careful examination of the facts. Socialist leaders know exactly what they're doing and want their followers to live in a state of willful ignorance. I am not ignorant of the facts of economic and political history or of the nature of man and will continue to refer to liberals and the left as "looters, losers, liars and their lawyers". To self righteously live in a state of willful ignorance and immorally advocate large scale coercion of others is contemptible. Poetic license is not a cover.

Regarding life and property: The average person at retirement in the United States has a net worth of around $200,000 dollars I think. The US deficit has increased by about $5 trillion in the last 3 1/2 years with no perceptible return for that debt. That's equivalent to the life savings of 25 million people down a rat hole for no benefit to anyone. Do these lives, the hard work and savings of these lifetimes mean nothing? Seeing this what would motivate an ordinary person to work hard and save? Do you think a culture with a strong work ethic can continue to exist when hard work is not rewarded? Do the lives of people with strong work ethics mean nothing? Are they cattle to be slaughtered for the do nothings?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Mikee, the average person and the ordinary person, are different beings in our two minds. The average ordinary Canadian to me, is a fortunate recipient of geohistorical grace, a person I like and trust and feel connected to.Idon't have the sense that youI Americans have that , and maybe it is just a stage in all national history, which like all things must pass to make way for the unknown new.

I don't know about the Mexicans but this is North America to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course the average, ordinary person is different in our minds! You couldn't be a socialist if you saw human nature the same as I do. What kind of a reply is that anyway? You might as well just play the Canadian National Anthem. I knew you were provincial but jeez...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now