What political ideology are you and why?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Seli,

I believe the dispute would then be about the voluntary nature of those collectives. If moving to "place X" constitutes assent that's a tad less than voluntary, in my opinion, if that's where people need to be to obtain work and care for their families.

When I say voluntary collectives I mean a group of people who work together then who voluntarily agree to a set of collective rules as opposed to a government imposing those rules on a society top down without each person within that territory assenting to the new collectivised system on an individual basis.

[Seli]

Seli,

I believe the dispute would then be about the voluntary nature of those collectives. If moving to "place X" constitutes assent that's a tad less than voluntary, in my opinion, if that's where people need to be to obtain work and care for their families.

When I say voluntary collectives I mean a group of people who work together then who voluntarily agree to a set of collective rules as opposed to a government imposing those rules on a society top down without each person within that territory assenting to the new collectivised system on an individual basis.

I understand that is the complaint, but that isn't quite something that was available in most of the world in roughly the last 10 to 20 thousand years (barring some small islands). In all other cases that small collective group would have to either violate or live in the territory of pre-existing groups.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Seli,

Doesn't that presume "property" can be held exclusively by a group? The territory of that collective group being held exclusively by those who accede to the will of the collective?

If property can be held by a group why can't it be held by an individual or by a smaller group? Collectives being asserted to be superior to individuals is just as arbitrary as the inverse.

[Seli]

Seli,

Doesn't that presume "property" can be held exclusively by a group? The territory of that collective group being held exclusively by those who accede to the will of the collective?

If property can be held by a group why can't it be held by an individual or by a smaller group? Collectives being asserted to be superior to individuals is just as arbitrary as the inverse.

Almost, property can only be held by (reluctant as is might be) approval of the group . As you mentioned earlier you need the group, you need society, for property to have any meaning.

The collective will usually be backed by history as well. The value (and at times mere existence) of property tends to come from investments in society and infrastructure. Which means the situation is anything but symmetrical, the rights of the collective have deeper roots and more entanglement than the rights of an individual (to property).

Keeping in mind this is a hugely simplified approximation :)

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Seli,

But no collective can exist without the willing participation of individuals. Why should those individuals have the power to coerce participation in the collective from other individuals who do not choose to participate voluntarily?

Let me put it another way as we are dealing in abstraction: why should 10 people who happen upon what 2 people have built have the power to take what the smaller collective has built?

[Shryke]

Seli,

But no collective can exist without the willing participation of individuals. Why should those individuals have the power to coerce participation in the collective from other individuals who do not choose to participate voluntarily?

Let me put it another way as we are dealing in abstraction: why should 10 people who happen upon what 2 people have built have the power to take what the smaller collective has built?

Who's gonna stop them?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Shryke,

Argument to power. If they can take it, can't be stopped, their actions are proper? What does that say regarding the labor theory of value?

[Liffguard]

Shryke,

Argument to power. If they can take it, can't be stopped their actions are proper?

In a strictly academic sense, no. But surely it's a pertinent question for setting up a system that will actually function in the real world?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Liffguard,

That implies anything is proper so long as it is done by the party with the most power.

As I asked Shryke what does fhat say about the "labor theory of value"?

[Shryke]

Shryke,

Argument to power. If they can take it, can't be stopped, their actions are proper? What does that say regarding the labor theory of value?

How is proper relevant in this context?

Property is a social construct because it's society that enforces ownership.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Shryke,

Every abstract aspect of human society is a "social construct". Why does that matter?

[Athias]

Because he's presuming that "social construct" a priori legitimizes the subversion of individuality under his collectivist abstract.

EDIT: By the way, nice going Ser Scot. You've competently rebutted most, if not all, of the "collectivist" arguments levied your way. My hat's off to you, ser.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Property is a social construct because it's society that enforces ownership.

Society is a collection of individuals. It does not exist as a separate being

[Ramsay Gimp]

Shryke,

Every abstract aspect of human society is a "social construct". Why does that matter?

Boom. Headshot.

"Social construct" is meaningless claptrap

[Seli]

Seli,

But no collective can exist without the willing participation of individuals. Why should those individuals have the power to coerce participation in the collective from other individuals who do not choose to participate voluntarily?

Let me put it another way as we are dealing in abstraction: why should 10 people who happen upon what 2 people have built have the power to take what the smaller collective has built?

And that is why our species came up with the concept of rights :P

eta: rights protect the individual from the collective. But since they originate from society they can imho not be used to claim that individuals don't have duties towards the society that protects and shelters them. Which is where this line started, libertarians cannot unilaterally withdraw from the duties that come from living within the 'voluntary' collective that surrounds them claiming rights that only exist due to that collective. That would be an act of aggression.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Seli,

Libertarian =/= Anarchist. Just an FYI.

I'm not saying there are no duties to the larger society. I'm saying the larger society suddenly determining that the right to private property no longer exists because it is a "social construct" is completely arbitrary as everything abstract in human society is also a "social construct".

[Shryke]

Society is a collection of individuals. It does not exist as a separate being

It does in that society is not a collection of individuals who all believe the same thing. Society has rules that apply to everyone in it but does not depend on every person those rules apply to agreeing with them.

Society exists as a separate being from any one individual. A social construct is something that society enforces. The idea of social construct is very meaningful because these two ideas go together.

Shryke,

Every abstract aspect of human society is a "social construct". Why does that matter?

Because it means that it's not fully voluntary in any practical case.

To illustrate, we'll try this again and go back to what you said:

But no collective can exist without the willing participation of individuals. Why should those individuals have the power to coerce participation in the collective from other individuals who do not choose to participate voluntarily?

Let me put it another way as we are dealing in abstraction: why should 10 people who happen upon what 2 people have built have the power to take what the smaller collective has built?

You are not seeing how this situation in the second paragraph counters your point in the first. If these 10 people come upon these 2, they can take their stuff and there's nothing the 2 can do about it. The 2 have not voluntarily agreed to participate in the society the 10 are enforcing (wherein stuff that they want belongs to them) but they are anyway. Asking "why should they" doesn't make any sense. It's a meaningless question. They simply can. What should be done about that?

The only way property exists is through a society enforcing it whether a specific individual agrees with it or not. Property is inherently non-voluntary because to have property you must enforce ownership, even on those outside your society who potentially don't believe in that ownership or even in that concept itself.

To sum up:

Property is exists only in so much as it is enforced by a society and participation in the rules of that society are non-voluntary because they must be enforced on everyone in order for the concept to function. It is a non-voluntary social construct.

Now, further from this we can then work back to Seli's point from last page which sorta gets further at the heart of the entire silly libertarian idea of ownership. Specifically, society is 4 dimensional. It is not just here and now, it is past and future. The rules that exist in a society, including the specific concept of property in question and who owns that property, are not simply birthed from firmament but the result of the actions of many past individuals who's choices are enforced upon present individuals just as those around today make choices that will be enforced upon those that come after.

Property doesn't just depend on the consent of those around you today but on the consent of those that came before who created the current situation.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Society exists as a separate being from any one individual.

From any one individual, yes, because it includes other individuals. But it is not a higher body that transcends its individual parts.

In this thread I've noticed a lot of people standing on a pedestal and arguing on behalf of "society", as if they weren't just stating their individual views like the rest of us.

A social construct is something that society enforces. The idea of social construct is very meaningful because these two ideas go together.

So why are markets or individual rights continually denigrated as "social constructs" while "community" or "democracy" aren't? "Society" itself is a social construct. Pretty much any abstract human concept fits the bill, like Ser Scot said. Pointing it out for concepts you oppose isn't actually saying anything

[Ramsay Gimp]

The collective will usually be backed by history as well. The value (and at times mere existence) of property tends to come from investments in society and infrastructure.

This conveniently leaves out where those investments come from. Does the "collective" spontaneously produce new bridges and roads and hospitals? No, it funds them by taking the private earnings of individuals....and then you claims that the individuals owe it deference?

[Jo498]

The Remissness of our People in Paying Taxes is highly blameable; the Unwillingness to pay them is still more so. I see, in some Resolutions of Town Meetings, a Remonstrance against giving Congress a Power to take, as they call it, the People's Money out of their Pockets, tho' only to pay the Interest and Principal of Debts duly contracted. They seem to mistake the Point. Money, justly due from the People, is their Creditors' Money, and no longer the Money of the People, who, if they withold it, should be compell'd to pay by some Law.

All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.

Comrade Benjamin Franklin to Robert Morris

25 Dec. 1783

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s12.html