You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Capitalism: Good or Bad? (Part 1 of a Series)
you mean people not being able to take the labor of another worker requires a central authority?......how does having private property that allows you to control all others on it not an authority?
Socialism = central authority. If there is no private property, it necessarily follows that there has to be some method by which property use is designated that does not rely on private property. Any group that declares that a person can or cannot use a particular piece of property is thus a central authority; if individuals cannot use property without the consultation of this group, then it is, by definition, a central authority.
How can I control all others on my property if they're not on my property? If people aren't on my property, I can't do dick about anything. There are such things as legitimate authority (i.e. I am the sole authority over my body, as you are of yours). First appropriation and first use are logically consistent methods for determining initial ownership, and if you have a problem with voluntary consensual exchange, perhaps you need to re-examine your moral principles and see if there's any contradictions or conflicts.
personal property is not private property you retard
Socialism is social ownership of the means of production. I will not read beyond that first sentence. The first anarchists (Classical anarchists) were socialists...... how dare you call yourself an anarchist when you don't even understand the origins.
Good for them? What bearing does that have on the conversation?
More to the point, how can the means of production be commonly owned? Your body is a means of production. Are you really trying to claim that your body is commonly owned by the community?
Personal property is private property. If you exercise exclusive use and control over a given thing, you have privatized it. Thanks for the retard comment following your distinction without a difference.