Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:57:20 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2013 14:42:06 GMT -5
How did something become your property? 1. Property is theft ~ Proudhon. All property therefore is taken. To take is to claim by the implicit or explicit threat of force, at least when the taking is done openly. The secret taking we commonly associate with the term theft is simply the exercise of cunning in negating the implicit threat of defensive force analogously associated with keeping.
2. Property is liberty ~ Proudhon. The foundation of property is the physical self. It belongs to us in that we can dispose of our physical self directly in accordance with our sovereign will. All our property is an extension of our physical self, and all our freedom is an extension of our sovereign will. The act of taking is a willed act; the state of keeping is a willed state. 3. Property is impossible ~ Proudhon. No taken property can be indefinitely kept. Our freedoms are hopelessly circumscribed, our ownership of everything subject to the unanswerable force implicit in eminent domain. Whatever is ours, remains so only on sufferance. We take only what we are permitted, directly or indirectly, to take; and we keep only what we are permitted, directly or indirectly, to keep. I hope that answers your question, because it's the truth.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:57:20 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2013 14:50:34 GMT -5
How did something become your property? Sept 18, 2013 19:51:27 GMT -4 billisonboard said: Sept 18, 2013 16:49:51 GMT -4 AtlanticCoastofFloridaPaul said: ... my property. ... How did something become your property? 1. Property is theft ~ Proudhon. All property therefore is taken. To take is to claim by the implicit or explicit threat of force, at least when the taking is done openly. The secret taking we commonly associate with the term theft is simply the exercise of cunning in negating the implicit threat of defensive force analogously associated with keeping. 2. Property is liberty ~ Proudhon. The foundation of property is the physical self. It belongs to us in that we can dispose of our physical self directly in accordance with our sovereign will. All our property is an extension of our physical self, and all our freedom is an extension of our sovereign will. The act of taking is a willed act; the state of keeping is a willed state. 3. Property is impossible ~ Proudhon. No taken property can be indefinitely kept. Our freedoms are hopelessly circumscribed, our ownership of everything subject to the unanswerable force implicit in eminent domain. Whatever is ours, remains so only on sufferance. We take only what we are permitted, directly or indirectly, to take; and we keep only what we are permitted, directly or indirectly, to keep. I hope that answers your question, because it's the truth.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 19, 2013 15:15:44 GMT -5
This thread has become pataphysical now. oh man. don't tell me you are an Alfred Jarry fan. shit. and i thought i only liked you a LITTLE BIT.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 19, 2013 15:17:42 GMT -5
This thread has become pataphysical now.
We are no longer debating the meaning of "freedom," or "right," or "worth."
We are now debating the meaning of "is." Bill Clinton nods his approval.
Freedom and slavery are, in the sense Paul describes, what Paul says they are, and not because of any solipsistic bent on his part: he's actually correct.
Freedom and slavery are also what laterbloomer says they are, because she's considering the terms in a different sense.
They're also what djpolldancer claims, because he's talking in yet a third paradigm of 'is.'
When virgil supports my notion that there are no rights, he's taking my point that merely bleating "you took my rights away" does nothing - the cosmos says "what rights?" and goes on. When paul disagrees, he's making the valid point that we all understand what the claimed rights are and would choose, in a Kantian ideal, to operate as if the cosmos cared.
Similarly, when dj takes issue with my scandalous lack of gratitude for the enormous infringements my government places on my free will in exchange for a great many services generations of humanity never missed, it's in the context of presupposing the social contract in Rousseau's terms rather than considering it, as I do, the least worst option. HAHAHAHA. this is gorgeous. yes. and yet, behind all of this, it is not really a relativistic argument. there are absolute principles at play. we agree on the shape of the building, but argue about the furnishings.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 19, 2013 15:20:49 GMT -5
It is manifestly the case that the current dynamic is unsustainable. Any student of post-Hegelian dialecticism should have little difficulty accepting the hypothesis that all sociodynamic equilibria are unsustainable. There is no power relation - that is to say, there is no system of resource distribution - that can avoid creating a dissatisfied class. It is this dissatisfied class that are the drivers of all progress, the architects of Schumpeter's "creative destruction," the Hegelian antithesis of Veblen's "leisure classes." There will be haves and have nots, and there will be tensions within and between these groups. Were it possible to so reduce the intelligence of Man that he were unaware of what either he or his neighbor possessed or lacked, then this wheel might be broken. But, as Proudhon observed, property is theft - we have only what we take, and the taking is a willed act (a praxeological act). Even the potlatches of the Native Americans take as their Rawlsian original position the ownership of the goods given away; they view the instrumental value of that property through a unique cultural prism, but this is not more absurd than the diamond-water paradox. It is inevitable that there will be slaves, in whatever paradigm we define slavery. It is inevitable that there will be 'scut work,' in whatever paradigm we define scut work. This whole thread is comparing unpalatable inevitables to no worthwhile purpose - it is a profoundly bourgeois affectation, which is either a kinder or more snobbish echo of Paul's indictment a couple of pages ago. " The cucumber is bitter. Put it aside. There are briars in the path. Avoid them. Do not ask, 'And why were such things made in the world?' " ~ Marcus Aurelius i think that the strength of a debate is in the ability to extract from it importances, as well as the strength of the debaters. in this particular case, i think there is much to distinguish it over mere affectation. but suit yourself. i had fun with it.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 19, 2013 17:49:41 GMT -5
It is sufficient that the dissatisfied class lack the capacity to subvert an equilibrium. The issue then migrates to whether one group of men can permanently suppress the ability of another to revolt. Who knows what post-Hegelian dialecticists have to day about that, and more importantly, what possible reason we would have to value their conclusions one way or another. If we want to make this thread pataphysically absurd, why not simply redefine "society" to include dead people. Then, supposing a pandemic wiped out everyone on Earth, we could trivially prove the existence of a sustainable sociodynamic equilibrium, thus invalidating the post-Hegelian dialectic (PHD) hypothesis by counterexample. Or alternatively we might respect the usual "living and breathing" precondition for membership in a society but maintain our "wiped out by pandemic" hypothetical. It's then a simple matter to show that a human-free universe would admit infinitely many sustainable sociodynamic equilibria, each one provable through the time invariance of the empty set. Then we might move on to imagining whether a society may comprise only a single man, and if so, whether proving the PHD hypothesis would also prove that the last man on Earth must suffer from dissociative identity disorder or alien hand syndrome. Then we would come up with other expressions that fit the acronym "DID". Then we would talk about how much we all hated snow leopards. At the end of the day, DJ and I would go to bed extremely happy that we chose engineering rather than philosophy as a profession.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 19, 2013 18:12:49 GMT -5
It is sufficient that the dissatisfied class lack the capacity to subvert an equilibrium. The issue then migrates to whether one group of men can permanently suppress the ability of another to revolt. Who knows what post-Hegelian dialecticists have to day about that, and more importantly, what possible reason we would have to value their conclusions one way or another. If we want to make this thread pataphysically absurd, why not simply redefine "society" to include dead people. Then, supposing a pandemic wiped out everyone on Earth, we could trivially prove the existence of a sustainable sociodynamic equilibrium, thus invalidating the post-Hegelian dialectic (PHD) hypothesis by counterexample. Or alternatively we might respect the usual "living and breathing" precondition for membership in a society but maintain our "wiped out by pandemic" hypothetical. It's then a simple matter to show that a human-free universe would admit infinitely many sustainable sociodynamic equilibria, each one provable through the time invariance of the empty set. Then we might move on to imagining whether a society may comprise only a single man, and if so, whether proving the PHD hypothesis would also prove that the last man on Earth must suffer from dissociative identity disorder or alien hand syndrome. Then we would come up with other expressions that fit the acronym "DID". Then we would talk about how much we all hated snow leopards. At the end of the day, DJ and I would go to bed extremely happy that we chose engineering rather than philosophy as a profession. yeah, i would rather work in the hard sciences than the social sciences ANY day.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 19, 2013 18:53:59 GMT -5
It is sufficient that the dissatisfied class lack the capacity to subvert an equilibrium. The issue then migrates to whether one group of men can permanently suppress the ability of another to revolt. Who knows what post-Hegelian dialecticists have to day about that, and more importantly, what possible reason we would have to value their conclusions one way or another. If we want to make this thread pataphysically absurd, why not simply redefine "society" to include dead people. Then, supposing a pandemic wiped out everyone on Earth, we could trivially prove the existence of a sustainable sociodynamic equilibrium, thus invalidating the post-Hegelian dialectic (PHD) hypothesis by counterexample. Or alternatively we might respect the usual "living and breathing" precondition for membership in a society but maintain our "wiped out by pandemic" hypothetical. It's then a simple matter to show that a human-free universe would admit infinitely many sustainable sociodynamic equilibria, each one provable through the time invariance of the empty set. Then we might move on to imagining whether a society may comprise only a single man, and if so, whether proving the PHD hypothesis would also prove that the last man on Earth must suffer from dissociative identity disorder or alien hand syndrome. Then we would come up with other expressions that fit the acronym "DID". Then we would talk about how much we all hated snow leopards. At the end of the day, DJ and I would go to bed extremely happy that we chose engineering rather than philosophy as a profession. yeah, i would rather work in the hard sciences than the social sciences ANY day. And philosophy isn't even considered a science. It's a... *shudder*... liberal art. Paper or plastic bags for your groceries, sir? *snicker*
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:57:20 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2013 7:25:58 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:57:20 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2013 8:00:51 GMT -5
An eminently metaphysicotheologocosmonigological position to adopt, to be sure Personally, I don't mind being bourgeois. As an irrealist, I readily join any class; although I spend most of my time outside the principal's office, but that's secondary.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:57:20 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2013 8:05:42 GMT -5
I assert, by commodius Vicus, that this cannot happen. O'Brien may differ, but for me the fact of this conversation refutes him and the Party both.
As with many parasimplices, what it means has nothing whatever to do with what it says, and the relative tautology of the latter in no wise diminishes the value of the former.
|
|