Private property is a social construct

One of the flaw of libertarian philosophies is that they largely treat property rights as being some intrinsic moral principle, despite the fact that what even constitutes private property is, and always has been, solely a matter of law or your ability to protect it. The actual idea that anything outside of your own body is "owned" by you is completely your feeling. Two people could both feel just as strongly that they own an object, but we certainly wouldn't say, based on that, they are both owners. So we create laws that allow us to make objective determinations on who owns what. We create money to facilitate the exchange of those resources.

Libertarians argue under the assumption that anarcho-capitalist-like economies are something that follow a priori from the principles of our political system, and that's simply not true. The fact of the matter is that our economic systems exists to distribute limited resources. It exists precisely to PREVENT a person from hoarding all the resources to themselves and having an inordinate amount of power over people.

I am not making the argument that private property shouldn't exist, but gross inequalities should not exist. Someone should not have 100 billion dollars while there are children going to bed hungry every night.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=fsM66qA0HEw
youtube.com/watch?v=x8OmxI2AYV8
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>but gross inequalities should not exist.
Why not? Why do you honestly care if that faggot has $100B dollars? I don't. He's no immortal so fuck him. And fuck you for being greedy.

The dirty little secret about wealth is that no person really has any of their own. Bezos is a vassal of monetary power for the powers that be. If he gets out of line, they will take his money from him one way or another.

>>>fuck you for being greedy
The fuck are you talking about.

Only those who covet money care about the money others have.

Isn't your idea that inequalities (financial or otherwise) are inherently wrong just as flimsy/loosely defined as the libertarians' interest in protecting their coveted private property? I'm not making a moral judgement here but your justification isn't striking me as particularly strong.

So is he the richest man alive now?

Rothschilds net worth is upwards of 8.1 trillion

I am not arguing that my belief about gross inequality isn't subjective.

I'm arguing that libertarian treatment of their economic systems as objectively-derived principles is flawed and that an economic system that permits gross inequality has failed its purpose.

what does it mean?

Technically, maybe.
BUT, of that $100B, he might only be able to reach into $500M of it for his own pleasure. He could not spend a billion dollars on himself without tanking his investments and company.
That's the part the leftists don't tell you because they don't know how money works. The man doesn't have a hundo-bill sitting in his Scrooge McDuck moneybin that he can just spend at whim.

Can I ask what you'd be interested in implementing in order to change this then? Or if it's a totally different system?

So tired of the pseudo intellectual application of ‘social construct’

Everything is a social construct. No moral or political consequences follow from this. Even the concept of social construct is a social construct.

The absolute state of universities.

Language is a social construct, too.

Let's not be dishonest. Everyone cares about money.

>Sells off all his stock
>Feds take half
Seems about right

the entire identitarian ideology on the left requires this though. the two core thesis are that a) race exists, however b) only because we believe it does. this is how they avoid the natural reaction to anyone obsessed with race and oppression, which is "ok if its not real then just act like it".

You own what you can defend, ultimately through violence.
Ownership is an abstraction of territoriality

Caring about and coveting is very different, my avaricious young brainlet

I do agree that property rights do not exist as anything more than an abstract concept. But you take a huge leap from this to people should not be allowed to have x amount of money. Children that are starving are off in either bumfuck nowhere, suffering because the gov't has been incapable at providing decent infrastructure, or are in a foreign shithole, often suffering because of civil war or incompetent dictatorships. Willing away his ability to have money would fail because he would leave or hide his wealth, meanwhile you have not actually designed a policy which benefits the poor. All you have done is said "fuck you Jeff Bezos stop having so much money" and tanked the economy. If you genuinely wanted to help the poor, you would support a robust public education system and a policy of deregulation.

>they largely treat property rights as being some intrinsic moral principle
Any "moral principle" is a social construct, there are no "intrinsic" moral principles, morals itself is a spook.
>The actual idea that anything outside of your own body is "owned" by you is completely your feeling
Why exactly? Why draw an arbitrary line between what is in your own body as a possible private property and anything else? What stops the govt from picking a healthy person with two kidneys who can live with only one kidney, take one kidney by force and than give that kidney to someone who is a match, and needs it to survive?
>It exists precisely to PREVENT a person from hoarding all the resources to themselves and having an inordinate amount of power over people.
Bullshit, you just pulled that out of your ass. There is nothing to suggest that an economic system exists only to provide for your lazy ass.
>Someone should not have 100 billion dollars while there are children going to bed hungry every night.
You should not have a PC, while children are starving to death.It doesn't matter that you can't change the world by yourself; just by selling all your property and buying basic resources and sharing them with people who would starve to death, could at least save one person, maybe even more. For such a humane and selfless moron like you, saving even a single life should be worth giving up all of your material goods.

You must be retarded.

but this is true tho

Tacos are a social construct.

Yes, but I'm not losing sleep at all over billionaires.
How come it's ALWAYS businessmen and bankers who get the ire of people over being rich? What about pro-athletes? Actors and musicians? No one shits on Paul McCartney for being a billionaire.

The necessities, eg food access, housing access, utilities, healthcare, and schooling should be socialized. People shouldn't have to work simply to eat, not die, or not be in massive debt. The money you make from working should be almost solely disposable income.

Everything else would be largely capitalist.

>necessities, eg food access, housing access, utilities, healthcare, and schooling should be socialized
The accessibility, affordability and quality of those necessities depend on the incentives of those who manage or own them, and the government is bad owner.Nothing except courts, military and law enforcement should ever be socialized.

It's not that they shouldn't have X amount of money. It's that people should not be able to hoard wealth when there are people unable to afford basic necessities.

>a policy of deregulation.
You lost me.

You are retarded.

/thread.

are starving children able to enforce their will or their alleged rights to food are something different from a contingent construct?

Unfortunately you're in a forum full of moneyless republicans and economics majors, so you aren't going to achieve much

This is just the fucking peak of retardation. How do you pay farmers, grocers, construction workers to build houses and utility infrastructure, doctors, nurses, teachers, etc., in a society where anyone who breathes can receive their services free of charge? Where does this unlimited source of income generate from??

Please google Paul McCartney's net worth. Then compare that number to Jeff Bezos' net worth. Thanks in advance.

Why do you think the courts and law enforcement shouldn't be socialized? I am assuming because you recognize that putting a profit-motive behind those institutions puts people at harm. You recognize that the reason we have those institutions in our society isn't profit.

It is for the other institutions too. It's really not a question of whether or not the government is a "bad owner" by the standards of capitalism because that isn't the standard we're using to judge them by. What's important is that as many people have equal access to these things, not "efficiency."

>The fact of the matter is that our economic systems exists to distribute limited resources. It exists precisely to PREVENT a person from hoarding all the resources to themselves and having an inordinate amount of power over people.

I completely disagree. Our property-based system exists to create order. So I know that if I plant the apple trees on my land and harvest the apples, no one is allowed to take them from me. This incentivizes investment, which is the engine of wealth.

Wealth is not finite. When people create things of value, society's wealth expands.

>People shouldn't have to work simply to ea
How do you think you get food dumbass.

Paul McCartney has more liquidity to his worth.
But that aside, what does it matter? Billionaires are billionaires. You commie fucks never talk shit about athletes and "artists" and actors printing money for themselves, probably because you're a bunch of false idealists.

Go fuck yourself. Learn to live life in happiness. Buddhist monks do it without owning ANYTHING and without bitching about those who do.

The problem is that you're operating under the assumption that people will have no desire to work if they aren't threatened with death.

That isn't how humans actually work. That is why we are in this problem in the first place. If people stopped working as soon as they got just the amount of money they need to survive, Jeff Bezos wouldn't have $100 Billion dollars.

Humans are competitive. They want fame and fortune within their communities. In my system, the capitalistic structures enabling social and economic hierarchy would still exist, and more people would compete because things would actually be competitive. It simply won't be this intrinsic matter of life and death as you apparently would like it to be.

>I am assuming because you recognize that putting a profit-motive behind those institutions puts people at harm
Well stop assuming my answer before you read it. Privatizing anything other than these three institutions will maximize the benefit to society by increasing their efficiency. It is no more efficient for a court to be privatized, and established on the consensus on moral standards by the majority of people recognizing the legal authority of their government, the law is a relative to those people, an objective ethical code. As something that is supposed to at least be an alternative to an *objective* moral code, it is the most appropriate (and possibly most efficient, nobody knows) that a court should be managed by a central body of authority, such as a federal, state or local government, as an institution that is (at least to some degree) democratically chosen by the people being governed by it. This is not the case with any other necessity, as a government policy is ultimately based on a law, that, as I previously mentioned, is based on the general consensus on the moral standards of the people who accept being governed by that law; a government policy is not based on empathy, and for a government to provide any necessity to people who can't afford it, it requires that it bases its policies on empathy instead of laws.
>What's important is that as many people have equal access to these things, not "efficiency."
I could easily argue against with social Darwinism.

I don't.

Haven't in 15 years. I usually just give it away.

So how come commies and shit tend to talk about not needing to work for basic necessities and also talk about how workers "don't receive their full pay" or whatever, when it seems less fair that farmers are essentially supposed to work so that lazy asses don't starve in that kind of ideology?

Oh shit, do you understand that most jobs in a society are not like Jeff Bezos' where people get to lead a company and do shit they love doing?
Many jobs are at least equally as important as his, if note more important to society, but are simply not jobs that people would have if there were no financial incentives to have them. Remove the financial incentive from being a doctor and you'll immediately see a plunge in the number of people deciding to go through 12 years of medical school only to end up staring at 81 year old vaginas.

The only thing you own is time. Your time is a finite amount from the moment you were born till the moment you die. When you mix your time with that which exists in nature, then that part of nature becomes your property.

Most people provide goods or services for money, which then represents their time providing said goods or services. The money is a physical representation of time. To divest someone of their money or property is to take away their time, time they cannot get back. That is why it is a crime.

gtfo commie faggot

>Jeff Bezos is now the richest man in the world with $90 billion

What a load of bs

youtube.com/watch?v=fsM66qA0HEw

Most of his value is in Amazon stock, which hardly makes any profit. It's not like he has a $100 billion laying around.

>Privatizing anything other than these three institutions will maximize the benefit to society by increasing their efficiency

Oh yea like all that oil money here in Canada that could go to healthcare, education, law enforcement etc but instead gets hoarded by multi-billionaires into offshore accounts in the Caribbeans. But thank G*d our country's natural resources are being exploited by amerimutts and other scum, nationalizing our energy sector would be extremely ''inefficient'' and make us bad goyim as well. Cuck.

>Remove the financial incentive from being a doctor and you'll immediately see a plunge in the number of people deciding to go through 12 years of medical school only to end up staring at 81 year old vaginas.
But you would also see an increase in the quality of the remaining doctors. If you are doing a job you hate you are almost certainly going to be shit at your job.
And then there's this idea that people have to be wealthy. This is what pushes idiots into college to begin with. They want money. They're greedy. They see their favorite rapper driving a Lambo and think they can get one too by being the next Carmack and taking CompSci classes.

This bribery is used to lure impressionable dumbasses into college where the fucking marxists can have their way with them.

>but gross inequalities should not exist.
Why not?
>Someone should not have 100 billion dollars
He doesn't have 100 billion dollars. He owns stock and investments worth 100 billion dollars. He probably has only a small amount of cold hard cash.
> while there are children going to bed hungry every night.
Do you feel sorry for wild animals that go hungry in the woods? No? Then why would you feel sorry for some hairless mutant ape species?

A privatized justice system doesn't imply a justice system without government backing or one that is immune to government regulation. There is no economic reason why you couldn't have competing private companies that handle law enforcement or courts who are given authority by the government. In fact, that is exactly what happens with private prisons.The issue is purely social.

>a government policy is not based on empathy, and for a government to provide any necessity to people who can't afford it, it requires that it bases its policies on empathy instead of laws.

Government policies are directed by laws that the government creates, and laws are ultimately an expression of ethical beliefs, so to suggest that the government's hands are tied by some ambiguous objective authority preventing it from engaging in empathy is simply wrong.

Your fedora is on a bit too tight.

>But you would also see an increase in the quality of the remaining doctors
There are two reasons why doctors are well paid. First, their job is very necessary in society, given all the things people would give to save their life and health, and second, because in economic terms, there is almost always a shortage of doctors. Following the most basic principle of economics, as the supply decreases and the demand stays the same, the price, that is the price of their labor (their salary) increases. So partially, the reason why one major incentive for people to become doctors is their high salary, is precisely the shortage of doctors in a society. And you want to increase this shortage, by making sure that removing the financial incentives to become a doctor would hopefully eliminate all the bad doctors, even though they have passed the most rigorous tests in any field to become a doctor in the first place. Just read what you wrote, and think about what would the consequences be to a society, if the majority of the electorate would think the way you do.

IT'S NAWT FAYER!
;_;

Except financial incentives are not taken away. Again, the issue is that you think the threat of death is the only financial incentive to work, which is simply false. More importantly, it's simply unethical to have an economic system based on such a thing. You know what that creates? Incentive to ensure that there are always impoverished people who will do the least desirable jobs purely out of desperation.

Money doesn't matter. Cock size is the only thing that matters in life.

>Someone should not have 100 billion dollars while there are children going to bed hungry every night.
life isnt fair, fucking deal with it you pussy ass bitch

>11X8
>women love being fucked by pringles cans
ok jew

don't be that imbecile that argues from a point as if we had hones banking and money, the real blow to lolbertarianism is race/ethnicity realism
youtube.com/watch?v=x8OmxI2AYV8

That's more or less what our constitution is based on, the idea of property rights starting with one's own body as a natural right and all other rights extending from that.

Why not just have ONE doctor in every state? Who cares that millions more people will die? It's more important that doctor's salaries are as high as possible!

But seriously, does an economic system that requires a shortage of doctors, ie not enough doctors to care for the population, actually sound like a good economic system to you? And your suggestion that it's simply how things are, and that there's nothing we can do, is simply not true (source: every other democracy in the world).

pffft...

What the fuck does a hat have to do with money?

lolbertarians and ancapistans eternally BTFO, HOW WILL THEY EVER RECOVER???

Equality and fairness are also social constructs

Using social construction as a derogatory is a spook

>A privatized justice system doesn't imply a justice system without government backing or one that is immune to government regulation.

As long as there is a central body whose authority the majority of the society I live in recognizes, and a central body whose member I had the legal right to vote for, that regulates or manages that court, and guarantees that the court will make a decision uninfluenced by private interests, I don't care whether the court is officially privately owned. So I guess, I partially agree with that one, except based on my assumption that the mentioned case is highly improbable, I shortened the argument to only include the case of a socialized justice system.

>Government policies are directed by laws that the government creates, and laws are ultimately an expression of ethical beliefs, so to suggest that the government's hands are tied by some ambiguous objective authority preventing it from engaging in empathy is simply wrong.
We choose the legislative body, the legislative body creates laws, the executive body creates policies that are strictly designed to enforce the law created by the people we chose.It's hands might not be tied preventing it from engaging in empathy, but they should be. Now to what extent is the law itself based on empathy is a matter of the lawmakers' choice and to some degree our influence. But ultimately there is a difference between Justice and empathy, and I think that the law, that is not itself justice by the way, should be based on the former, rather than the latter.

Source

>hoard wealth
The wealth is all in his company that provides cheap goods to people delivered directly to their homes. He doesn't have all that money in cash sitting in a vault somewhere. You are a fool.

>Imply this many people subscribe to an ideology that can't logically exist

share some ancap memes please

>Someone should not have 100 billion dollars while there are children going to bed hungry every night
why should person B have access to the fruits of person A's labour?
a hungry child is the responsibility of its parents. they are at fault for not feeding it, not Bezos.

Lots of luck with that. It's all be hidden or expunged.

>why should person B have access to the fruits of person A's labour?
Because person B is hungry and Person A has more than enough to eat for himself.

What the fuck good is a "should"? "Should" never gets anything done. If you want something to happen, make it happen.

I saw some sort of source two years ago. I believe you but I just wanted to find something on those kikes.

I'm thinking you might have completely misunderstood what I said. I am warning that eliminating financial incentives from becoming a doctor, would cause an increase in the shortage of doctors...this could in no way increase doctors' salary IF YOU HAVE REMOVED THE FINANCIAL INCENTIVES TO BECOME A DOCTOR IN THE FIRST PLACE.

>But seriously, does an economic system that requires a shortage of doctors, ie not enough doctors to care for the population, actually sound like a good economic system to you?
Nope, it doesn't.

>Except financial incentives are not taken away.
IF financial incentives are taken away. I assume he argues that private property should be removed, because people are just gonna do what they wanna do and you just don't need financial incentives.

>You know what that creates? Incentive to ensure that there are always impoverished people who will do the least desirable jobs purely out of desperation.
No it doesn't. Even if not a single person in a society is poor, you could pose an incentive for working an undesirable job, if you just raised the payment for doing that job, high enough. I can live comfortably with 200k a year, but if someone offers me 5 million to clean shit in a gas station for a year, they got me.

And if person A is humane enough to share some of what he has, than lucky B! But if the govt just decides to follow its motherly instinct to care for the poor, and just takes from person A and gives to person B, that's empathetic, but it's not Justice.

social constructs are a social construct

What the fuck? Explain how that political compass chart came to be.

>gross inequality should not exist
Why?

has there ever been an effort to study how viable social clout is in motivating people to pursue difficult careers in medicine, engineering, etc?

Private property is an innate right, not only a social construct.
A man needs food, shelter and clothing, unfortunately some people decided it was better to make these necessities, commodities.
Stop fake gommies from using words like social construct.
You have no idea what it really means.
Also, don't argue with libertarians they are retarded, short sighted and selfish

consent is a social construct
rape is a social construct
jeff bezos is a dirty kike

It makes no sence, relative proverty is sky high.

What's it like up in there

You have no idea the autism you started, ancaps will write books one 2000 character post at a time.

I don't know. What are you getting at?

I'm just curious if there is a way to get more people in these careers without the draw of $.
Maybe the culture would elevate them enough where it is a desirable career on that alone.

It's just a though.

Again... why is this bad? It makes no sense? In what way?

I'm sure we could find alternatives to money to draw people to these careers. I just think that anything else has been tried prior to the invention of money.Money emerged as an objective unit of measurement for cost that is also practical to use (you know, paper bills and credit cards are easy to carry in your wallet). I think anything else, might just complicate life more, without really making much improvement to society. As long as people tend to look out for themselves, if you want something from them, you're gonna have to give something they want in return, so the problem doesn't go away with removing money as an incentive.

What are we defining as poverty here? Income inequality is not poverty, just disparity.

>Someone should not have 100 billion dollars while there are children going to bed hungry every night.

Language is a social construct.

Just because something is a social construct doesn't mean that it's bad or that it needs to be removed.
Unless the language is Turkish which is by far the ugliest language on the planet.

Relative poverty is too high.
Just because poor people in rich countries have multiple TVs and a car doesn't mean they enjoy living next to people whose garage is the house of their house, when their monday car is more expensive than what the guy makes in a year.
You get the idea.

My point was never that there shouldn't be financial incentive, only that the incentive shouldn't be and doesn't have to be based on people not wanting to die from hunger.

My claim is that people don't only desire the bare necessities. People desire things, status, self-fulfillment, and wealth unto itself, which doesn't disappear in a hypothetical economy where people have access to the bare necessities. Remember, we're not talking about a post-scarcity utopia. We're talking about the world as it is today except an economy that prioritizes access to needs in such a way to prevent gross inequality.

House of their house, price* of their house.
Sry

oh wow it's almost like the y axis should stop at 2 billion, then nobody lives in poverty

>but gross inequalities should not exist
Faggot the world isn't like all the video games you've grown up on. There is no written "good ending" where everything works out completely fine. Inequality is an absolute inevitability. And in an economic sense you have no idea how much is balanced by a structure like this. No it's not perfect at all but there's no amount of "bruh just like redistribute the wealth lol" that will fix it.

>It exists precisely to PREVENT a person from hoarding all the resources to themselves and having an inordinate amount of power over people.
If all the other people come to kick his ass, what is he going to do then?

Welcome to the third industrial revolution. It's the same unregulated capitalism as 100-140 years ago, only on a larger, global scale.