EPTOn December 09 2014 00:30 hoby2000 wrote:
No one ACTUALLY says that because it would be ridiculous, but it's exactly what they're doing.
Taxation and redistribution of wealth are not compromises. You are forcing people to play a certain part in a certain way without considering their own livelihood (though that involves having tons of money). What it means to "own" something is what Socrates and Plato and billions of other fucking philosophers have already talked about. The definition of "ownership" is less relevant if we understand the concept of coercion or oppression. "Owning" something means nothing if you didn't have a choice to own it or not own it to start with.
No one ACTUALLY says that because it would be ridiculous, but it's exactly what they're doing.
Taxation and redistribution of wealth are not compromises. You are forcing people to play a certain part in a certain way without considering their own livelihood (though that involves having tons of money). What it means to "own" something is what Socrates and Plato and billions of other fucking philosophers have already talked about. The definition of "ownership" is less relevant if we understand the concept of coercion or oppression. "Owning" something means nothing if you didn't have a choice to own it or not own it to start with.
On December 09 2014 00:38 hoby2000 wrote:
Ownership is not what's under discussion here. Other philosophers who are much smarter than I have discussed ownsership to a great length with no real outcome. I'm not here to discuss whether or not someone actually owns something, but the consequences of assuming we can tell people how to live, which includes what things they can or cannot own.
Ownership is not what's under discussion here. Other philosophers who are much smarter than I have discussed ownsership to a great length with no real outcome. I'm not here to discuss whether or not someone actually owns something, but the consequences of assuming we can tell people how to live, which includes what things they can or cannot own.
No, marvellosity was right. If your starting assumption is that the private property regime of western liberal democracy, a regime wherein the individual has absolute power against the world over his property, is obviously the best and most moral, then all of your conclusions trivially follow. This inane "oppression" argument you have tacked on top of the underlying issue of what it means to own something is superfluous.
You've gone from posting an open question and seeking discussion to Hayek-spewing, libertarian foaming-at-the-mouth. You clearly have no philosophical background, and are uninterested in talking about the real issues at stake. You cite Plato and a "billion other philosophers" as if they all concluded that the modern liberal democratic property regime was the best, yet Plato himself said that collective ownership of property was necessary to promote the common interest.
As you said, "[ownership] means nothing if you didn't have a choice to own it or not own it to start with." Exactly. That's what 99% of the world says in response to those who claim arbitrary ownership of most of the world's land and goods.
