This conversation stemed from a something I wrote on my StumbleUpon page.
http://thatgirl83.stumbleupon.com/"Liberty, the essence of Life. The prerequsite of Love. Property, the evidence of Freedom. The companion of Liberty."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lost-ChildSep 24, 6:48pm →
ReplyI was just thinking. I would'nt agree that property is necessarily evidence of freedom. Not only are people restrained by their property, but there are also cultures where all property is shared and everyone is free.
Lost-ChildSep 24, 6:48pm →
ReplyLets debate!!
>> Stumble Upon deleted this message I wrote back. :-(
Lost-ChildSep 25, 10:56pm →
ReplyI dont mean communist countries per se. More like the egalitarian way of life of the... crap i cant recall what they're called, but its near papua new guinea. Anyway, both men and women have equal status and men tend to the children more so than the women. Its pretty neat. Ill try to remember what they're called and let you know.Property is the by product of our time spent working for other people when we could be enjoying that time doing other things. Also our property is bought with money earned while working. The money we use to purchase goods is actually not our property but property of our respective governments. The only thing one has that cannot be taken from them is their life. Once one learns to live without property one is truly free to live. Property binds us to one place, to our jobs, and to compete with others for bigger better property. Instead of being able to do anything we want whenever we want we have to work, so that we can buy property, pay taxes, feed ourselves, pay for medical treatment, pay to use highways and to travel etc. I like some of the stuff on that presentation though.Have a good night... well your probably already asleep... I should get to bed I have to go to school in the morning. But Im still sitting here... typing... why cant I stop? whats wrong with me? GOSH!
thatgirl83Sep 26, 5:03pm Thank you for the response.. I totally disagree.
> You said "Property is the by product of our time spent working for other people when we could be enjoying that time doing other things."
When we work, we work utimately for ourselves. Weather a person is self-employed, as I am, or works for an employer he works ultimately for himself because it is his desire to do so. Working is not giving our time and talent to someone else, it is exchanging our time and talant for something we desire more. It is not required. It is not manditory. It is voluntary. It is something that we do because doing it benefits us more than not doing it. If our time and talant is ours, then what we choose to exchange it for is also ours.
> You said: "The money we use to purchase goods is actually not our property but property of our respective governments."
Money is "Anything which has or is assigned value and is used as a medium of exchange." -Websters. Money is symbolic of wealth and property and is exchanged for other (more tangible) forms of wealth and property. Money is used only to make fair trade more convienient.
> You said: "The only thing one has that cannot be taken from them is their life."
One's life can be taken. It's called murder, and it's actually quite common. "To take ones property is theft. To take one's liberty is slavery. To take one's life is murder."
> You said: "Property binds us to one place, to our jobs, and to compete with others for bigger better property.... Instead of being able to do anything we want whenever we want we have to work, so that we can buy property, pay taxes, feed ourselves, pay for medical treatment, pay to use highways and to travel etc."
Actually, it is your attachment to things that binds a person to what he is bound, and not actually that thing itself. I have a friend that is very nomadic and not "bound" by much property, however, even if he were rich I do not believe that he would be bound by his possesions. In fact it is possible for people to use their wealth, or posessions, to free them up to do what they really desire. It is the person himself who voluntarily chooses to be bound to any thing.
As I said earlier: If our time and talant is ours, then what we choose to exchange it for is also ours. The property you own is therefore the evidence of your freedom and past use of free trade. It is the very root of Capitalism.
Lost-Child7:01pm →
ReplySorry Ive been really busy with school work and what not.But dont worry Ill have something good.
Lost-ChildSep 30, 10:02pm →
ReplyOK, here we go again.Perhaps you and the people within your social circle work because they want to, but I am certain that is not a sentiment felt by many of the working class. Perhaps in an ideal society it would be that way but there is strong evidence that proves otherwise, although I dont happen to have the statistics with me... actually maybe I do (Ill try and find them). But countless work hours are spent by employees playing games or surfing the internet at work instead of working. A lot of money is lost to industry every year as a result of complacent workers not doing their jobs properly and from people using sick days when they are not in fact sick. Theft is a huge issue in the modern day work place, particularly in retail. Majority of loss due to theft from businesses is actually employee theft, not from customers or outside parties. (Once again I think I have stats in one of my books somewhere but Im not sure where.).Back to the issue of property. Property may be evidence of freedom to the extent that one can freely acquire any item and as many items as one wants in order to accumulate property. However, one can be free to accumulate property without having freedom to enjoy other experiences in life. Example: People in communist russia were free to keep personal property, although their personal freedoms of speech, travel etc, were very limited. Example: People in Nazi Germany were free to possess private property, however the threat of seizure of that property was great particularly if under suspicion of being a sympathizer of jews or anti-nazi movements. These are just the quickest examples I can think of but they illustrate my point.Also, with the first beginnings of people accumulating private property came the first marriages or monogomous relationships, resulting in women being kept in bondage by men for thousands of years. Women were mens property and they had their own property as well.Ones life can be taken, but then one is free from life. Even if you dont believe in a god, God, god(s). (Im agnostic).Captialism, has created the largest slave society of all time. A large number of people across the globe work in jobs that allow tham to meet subsistence levels, many cant even make that. Once again without the actual statistics it will be hard for me to make my point but Ill try. (This is actually something I hope to do research on some day). Studies have been done making comparisons with past slave societies and modern slave societies. The difference is that in modern slave societies (the result of capitalism) people are paid for their work. However, they are denied basic human rights, such as a freedom to use the toilet when they need to. They are paid meagre wages that do not cover the costs of living and result in starvation and conditions of extreme poverty. Im sure you've heard of sweat shops, the result of capitalist ideology leading capitalists to seek the lowest possible costs of operation, which includes labour costs. Its actually been illustrated that people living in past slave societies (particularly greek and roman) had better lives than many people working in the modern world, as all the basic needs of slaves were provided for them. The exception is American slavery, which has been refered to by some as the harshest slave society in history. (this is debateable as well.) The only stas I have right now are for Canada, "In 1997 17.5% of all Canadians were living below the low-income line. In 1994, in low-income families whose family heads were under 65 years old, 20% of thefaily heads were working full-time, 35% had either partyear or parttime jobs, and only 45% were not employed. In short, the working poor, those employed in low-wage jobs, make up a sizable proportion of the poor..." "1997 data, Statistics Canda set the low income cut-off line for a single person living in a city with more than half a million residents at $17,409... The low-income line for a family of three in a large city was $27, 063." (The low income line is set as, anyone spending more than 55% of gross income on the basic necessities is considered poor) This is relative poverty not absolute poverty, unfortunatly i dont have stats for that at this time.The Buddah said: "All life is suffering. This suffering has a cause; ignorance, ego, desire. Liberation from suffering is possible by renouncing desire, attachment, illusion of self." Im not Buddhist so don't think Im just spewing rehtoric or ideology. However I believe Buddhism is full of wisdom, as are many other religous philosophies.I think thats all for now.
thatgirl8312:38am This seems to be getting away from our origional topic, and I think I covered all this in my last message. But, just to make sure...
> You said: "Perhaps you and the people within your social circle work because they want to..."
EVERYONE (that is not a slave), works because they want to. It is a free trade of your time for their property. It is freely and voluntarily agreed to by both parties before hand. As I said before. "It is something that we do because doing it benefits us more than not doing it." It is ultimately our choice weather we work or not.
> You continued: "...but I am certain that is not a sentiment felt by many of the working class."
It does not matter weather we "feel" that way or not. Our feelings do not change the facts. ... and "the working class"... as opposed to?? The non-working class??
>You said: "But countless work hours are spent by employees playing games or surfing the internet at work instead of working. .... Theft is a huge issue in the modern day work place..."
And how does this relate? Theft, or embezelment by someone in no way relates to this issue. The issue is weather property is evidence of freedom or not.
> You said: "Property may be evidence of freedom to the extent that one can freely acquire any item and as many items as one wants in order to accumulate property."
I am not reffering to property as the accumulation of things. I am reffering to the physical evidence of compensation (previously agreed to free-trade) for your time, which is part of your freedom and therefore yours to do with as you will.
> You continued: "...However, one can be free to accumulate property without having freedom to enjoy other experiences in life. Example: People in communist russia were free to keep personal property, although their personal freedoms of speech, travel etc, were very limited. Example: People in Nazi Germany were free to possess private property, however the threat of seizure of that property was great particularly if under suspicion of being a sympathizer of jews or anti-nazi movements...."
Thank you for your examples. They are inaccurate and better suite my point than yours. What you called "personal" or "private" property is by the very definition of communism not "personal" or "private" at all. It does not belong to a specific person. It belongs to the government or to the collective people thereof (to be controlled by the goverment and therefore still the property of the government to do with as they will.)
Communism is:
"An economic system in which capital is owned by private government. Contrasts with capitalism."
www.personal.umich.edu/~alandear/glossary/c.html"
An economic or political system based on the sharing of all work and property by the whole community."
www.bl.uk/services/learning/curriculum/voices/refglos.html"...an economic system in which the government owns all property and in which it is responsible for most economic decision making."
wellspring.isinj.com/sample/econ/macro/glossc.htm
"An economic system first developed in Russia during the 19th century that believes all means of production should be owned and run by a government on behalf of the public good. Compare with socialism. Contrast with capitalism."
www.canadiana.org/citm/glossaire/glossaire1_e.html"A governmental system that encourages the elimination of private property and the equitable distribution of goods to the public. A Communist government maintains central control over banking, business, housing, education, industry, medical care, the military, and regional security forces."
www.whitneystewart.com/DXP/Glossary.htm"It is characterized by state control of the economy, and restriction on personal freedoms."
regentsprep.org/Regents/global/vocab/topic_alpha.cfm
"... a form of socialism that abolishes private ownership ."
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
"The theory of communism may be summed up in one sentince: Abolish all private property."
-Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels
People in a communist sosciety technichly don't own their own property. I think that makes my point. I regress. After all... "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need." (It is the principle of Communism)
> You said: "Also, with the first beginnings of people accumulating private property came the first marriages or monogomous relationships..."
I disagree based on religious and historical background. Marriages were, and are still not, always monogomous.
> You continued: "...resulting in women being kept in bondage by men for thousands of years. Women were mens property and they had their own property as well."
Even granting this, which again I disagree with... Making somone a slave, or keeping them in bondage, does not mean that they do not have a right to freedom... it mearly means that they are robbed of the ability to exercize that right. And indeed, I they are considered property themselves, then "their" property is ultimately under the control (or [also] belonging to) their master or owner and cannot be used as evidence of their freedom. (Which, again, they have a right to but are deprived of their ability to exercize.)
> You said: "Ones life can be taken, but then one is free from life."
What, what, what!? You gotta be kidding me! No crap. You previously said that "The only thing one has that cannot be taken from them is their life." Can it or not then?? Obviously one would be free from whatever would be taken...
Exept that once your life is taken (speaking from an agnostic point of view) you would have nothing left. You cannot be free of life even, because you cannot be free. Freedom is a state of being.
Freedom:
"refers, in a very general sense, to the state of being free (unrestricted, unconfined or unfettered)."
encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Underground%20Railroad
"the condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
"Freedom is the right, or the capacity, of self-determination,as an expression of the individual will."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_(political)
". . . that which has its centre in itself . . . . exists in and with itself . . . . self-contained existence . . . . I am free . . . when my existence depends upon myself."
www.class.uidaho.edu/mickelsen/texts/Hegel%20Glossary.htmYou do not have will when you are dead, therefore you cannot express it. You cannot be free. You cannot be. You cease to exist.
> You said: "Captialism, has created the largest slave society of all time."
Just... wow... I mean... I'm sure you would rather live in communist Russia, or nazi Germany than in a slave sociey like the US or Canada. They would love you there... But before you book a plane ticket, let's just review what Capitalism is real quick...
Captalism:
"A form of economic order characterized by private ownership of the means of production and the freedom of private owners to use, buy and sell their property or services on the market at voluntarily agreed prices and terms, with only minimal interference with such transactions by the state or other authoritative third parties."
www.jezuici.pl/iss/politdic/c.html"An economic concept of civilization that is based on the private ownership (and control) of the means of production. Such an institutional situation permits and inevitably encourages the division of labor, economic calculation, capital accumulation, technological improvement and the voluntary social cooperation of a market economy in which mass production is designed for the consumption of the sovereign masses. Capitalism is the antithesis of statism, socialism and communism which are based on government ownership (or control) of the means of production."
https://www.mises.org/easier/C.asp"Economic system in which property is privately owned and goods are privately produced.It is sometimes referred to as the private enterprise system."
www.mcwdn.org/ECONOMICS/EcoGlossary.html"An economic system in which capital is mostly owned by private individuals and corporations. Contrasts with communism."
www-personal.umich.edu/~alandear/glossary/c.html
"An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods depend on invested private capital and profit-making. Politically, this means the dominance of private owners of capital and production for profit. By extension, 'capitalism' has also taken in the belief that government should have nothing to do with the economy."
www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/browse/glossary.html"A socio-economic system characterized by private initiative and the private ownership of factors of production. In such a system individuals have the right to own and use wealth to earn income and to sell and purchase labor for wages. Furthermore, capitalism is predicated on a relative absence of governmental control of the economy. The function of regulating the economy is achieved largely through the operation of market forces, whereby the price mechanism acts as a signalling system which determines the allocation of resources and their uses."
www.indiana.edu/~ipe/glossry.html"Capitalism is an economic system characterized by private ownership of property and well-developed financial institutions. Capitalism allows individual initiation, business competition, inheritance, and profit earning."
www.whitneystewart.com/DXP/Glossary.htm"An economic system in which goods and services are produced, exchanged and owned by individuals with little or no government interference. Contrast with communism and socialism."
www.canadiana.org/citm/glossaire/glossaire1_e.htmlDid you say "slave society"?? We just covered that slaves don't really own or have control of their own property. Communism is the same way. So what is the polar opposite of Communism?? ..... Thank you.
> You said: "A large number of people across the globe work in jobs that allow tham to meet subsistence levels, many cant even make that."
Like what?? My 16 year old nephew who works at a fast food restraunt so he can buy a pimpin sterio system for the new car that his parents just gave him, because they're (of course) way below "subsistence levels"??
> You said: "Studies have been done making comparisons with past slave societies and modern slave societies. The difference is that in modern slave societies (the result of capitalism) people are paid for their work..."
Sorry hun, wrong again. Slaves are deprived of their ability to exercize the right to freedom and liberty. (Which is why they're a slave.) Allow me to define.
Slave:
"A person who is the legal property of another or others and is bound to absolute obedience."
cybermuse.gallery.ca/cybermuse/teachers/plans/gloss_e.jsp
"a person who is owned by someone"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
"A person who is considered to be the personal property of his owner. In some societies, such as Ancient Greece and Ancient Persia, the treatment of slaves was strictly controlled by law. In most cases, however, a slave was considered as an object and his owner could treat him as he wanted."
www.saburchill.com/history/hist003.html"A man or woman who owed personal service to another, and who was un-free, and unable to move home or work or change allegiance, to buy or to sell, without permission."
www.domesdaybook.co.uk/glossary.html"A person forced to work for another with no payment or freedom to seek work elsewhere. A slave can be bought and sold."
regentsprep.org/Regents/global/vocab/topic.cfm
Oh, now that we have defined slavery as "A person forced to work for another with no payment or freedom to seek work elsewhere." Ouch! That IS the epitimy of Capitalism, is it not?? After all, Capitalism is "...an economic system in which the government owns all property" and "is characterized by state control of the economy, and restriction on personal freedoms." isn't it?? That sounds similar.
Oh, wait.. my bad, that's Communism.Capitalism is "A form of economic order characterized by private ownership... and the freedom of private owners to use, buy and sell their property or services on the market at voluntarily agreed prices and terms" ... there, that's better. But I still couldn't possibly imagine that the people of a capitalist sosciety would be paid for their work and have the freedom to quit their job or find a different and better job if they so desired. Could you? I mean, that's just bizarre!
> You continued: "... However, they are denied basic human rights, such as a freedom to use the toilet when they need to."
You gotta be kidding me! I have never worked at a place where I was denied "basic human rights" especially the freedom to use the toilet if I need to... Just in case you come across that situation though, I would strongly advise you to quit. Find a different job if you're not satisfied... That is after all... *gasp*... your right.
> You continued: "They are paid meagre wages that do not cover the costs of living and result in starvation and conditions of extreme poverty."
Oh yea... Like my nephew and his family that just bought him a new car. Did you happen to think that most of the people that work for minimum wage are adolescents who just want extra poket change? And, once again, they are working there because working there benefits them more than not doing working there. And, once again, there is no one keeping them there. They are free to work wherever anyone is willing to employ them, for as much or as little as anyone is willing to pay them, and they agree to work for, under mutually agreed conditions.
And extreme poverty? People starving? That's news to me... I don't seem to remember a single person dying from starvation in the US within at least the last 10 or 15 years.
"It is common knowledge that the U.S. is the world leader in food production, that the food prices, in relation to the wages, are the lowest, that the food stamps program combined with free distribution of basic nutritional products from the state reserves for the low-income families provides a safeguard against any threat of hunger in America. Nobody is starving in this country, and, moreover, nobody is dying from starvation. "
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r105:S16OC8-83Allow me to quote Raul R. de Sales:
"The capitalist system does not gaurentee that everybody will become rich, but it gaurentees that anybody can become rich."
> You said: "Im sure you've heard of sweat shops..."
Yea, in China... which of course embodies the ideal of Capitalism... uh, I mean Communism.
> You continued: "... the result of capitalist ideology leading capitalists to seek the lowest possible costs of operation, which includes labour costs."
Yes, and it also leads capitalist to seek the highest possible comensation, or wages. Ah, competition! Capitalism. A thriving economy based on freedom. Your point?
> You said: "Its actually been illustrated that people living in past slave societies (particularly greek and roman) had better lives than many people working in the modern world, as all the basic needs of slaves were provided for them."
Did you know that a television is considered a necessity? (http://www.g21.net/mem27.html) I didn't know that they had tv's in ancient Greece.. Well, I am sure at any rate, that the majority of our poor (excluding the Katrina catastrophe) have more luxury, and live better lives, then the great kings of ancient Greece.
> You continued: "The exception is American slavery, which has been refered to by some as the harshest slave society in history."
Now you're not even making sence. If "people living in past slave societies (particularly greek and roman) had better lives than many people working in the modern world" and the US is indeed the "harshest slave society in history" than it would certainly be logical to conclude that the slave citizens of the US (which I have discounted) are by FAR the worst off (which, again, I have discounted) and certainly not "the exception." Which is of course why my nephew just got a new car.
> You said: "The only stas I have right now are for Canada, "In 1997 17.5% of all Canadians were living below the low-income line. In 1994, in low-income families whose family heads were under 65 years old, 20% of thefaily heads were working full-time, 35% had either partyear or parttime jobs, and only 45% were not employed. In short, the working poor, those employed in low-wage jobs, make up a sizable proportion of the poor..." "1997 data, Statistics Canda set the low income cut-off line for a single person living in a city with more than half a million residents at $17,409... The low-income line for a family of three in a large city was $27, 063." (The low income line is set as, anyone spending more than 55% of gross income on the basic necessities is considered poor)This is relative poverty..."
Again, point? Find a different job. Get a second job. Work somewhere else. Open your own buisness... It's your own damn fault.
The government decides what is poverty level. It's not a hard and fast rule. Compare with the people who are "starving" in Africa, Etheopia or any third world country for that matter.
"Poverty does not necessarily mean hunger. In the U.S. the poverty lines is set up fairly high. Suffice it to say that a family living at the poverty level in America has a higher in-come than the median income of the same size family in 150 other countries throughout the world including Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union."
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r105:S16OC8-83> You continued: "...not absolute poverty, unfortunatly i dont have stats for that at this time."
That's because there are none.
"Most commentators will tell you that “poverty” should be defined and measured relative to the living standards of specific societies. This means that “poverty” in Africa is very different from “poverty” in Australia. To be poor in Africa means you are starving: to be poor in Australia means you cannot afford to eat out at a restaurant."
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3737>You quoted Buddah: "The Buddah said: "All life is suffering. This suffering has a cause; ignorance, ego, desire. Liberation from suffering is possible by renouncing desire, attachment, illusion of self." "
"All life is suffering?" Not to be coarse or anyting, but this guy obviously never had sex!" "Liberation from desire?" Desire is what makes life worth living. Without desire there is no passion, no will to survive. "The illusion of self?" So I'm an illusion now? That's great. And I thought I was a real person. Man, just blew my day.
To quote Edward Bulwer-Lytton:
"Personal liberty is paramount essentiol to human dignity and human happiness."
To quote Ernest Benn:
"Liberty is being free from the things we don't like in order to be slaves of the things we do like."
Use this analogy for example: Imagine that we were to barter. I have a banana and you have an apple. I want your apple and you want my banana. So we decide to trade. If I don't want your apple I can find someone who wants to trade their orange. Fair enough, right? Now, imagine, just for a minute, that your apple is your money, and my banana is my time. If I don't like your terms, I can work for someone else... or use my time in other ways. It is mine to do with as I please... What you are essentially claiming, however, is that even though we both made a voluntary agreement to trade, I am now your slave. This is not even logical.
Weather with fruit, or time and money. We both have the freedom to choose other options.
You seem to be operating off of the premise that a person cannot choose where they work, or how much they earn. Which they can and do to a certain point. It would be just as unfair to obligate an employer to pay somone an unreasonable amount as it would be to forse a person to work for megar wages.
Beyond that you seem to think that a person cannot change their occupation if they so desire. Not only can they, but they often do. And not only can and do people change jobs, they change income brackets. It is their freedom to do so. And it is their right to keep what they have voluntarily agreed to exchange their time for.
Therefore, I re-state, that property is evidence of freedom. It is the product of the use of our freedom to do as we will with our time, and our labor. Property is aquired evidence. Communist property, however distributed among the people, is (wrongfully) owned by the government, and is evidence of their freedom to do as they will. Just because we do not have property does not mean that we do not have freedom, or the right to it, just as lack of evidence does not nessecarily proove that a crime was not committed. Just because a person is not permitted something, does not mean that he dosen't have a right to it. But the property that a person has exchanged his time for, that he privately owns (or encorperates) is evidence of his freedom to do with what he has as he wills.
"Liberty, the essence of Life. The prerequsite of Love. Property, the evidence of Freedom. The companion of Liberty."
thatgirl831:07am Just in case you had any questions...
Property:
"Anything that may be the subject of ownership, real and personal, tangible and intangible. It is that which belongs exclusively to a person, with full rights to enjoy and dispose of it." (
www.pcafoundation.com/main/glossary.htm)
The:
"An article is
a word that is put next to a noun to indicate the type of reference being made to the noun." (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The)
Evidence:
"an indication that makes something evident" (wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn)
Of:
"In grammar, a preposition is a type of adposition, a grammatical particle that establishes a relationship between an object (usually a noun phrase) and some other part of the sentence, often expressing a location in place or time." (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of)
Freedom:
"the condition of being free" ... "the right, or the capacity, of self-determination,as an expression of the individual will." (wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn) ... (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_(political))
