The Private Landed Property Delusion

YoungLiberal

Well-known member
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
2,048
The labour mixing metaphor is not unproblematic. I think it was Nozick (not exactly a skeptic when it comes to private property rights) who came up with the tomato soup example (if I pour my can of tomato soup into the ocean, do I lose the soup or gain an ocean?).

There's also the matter of the so-called 'Lockean proviso', whereby you must leave 'as much and as good' for everyone else. Locke was writing at a time where if you didn't have any land, you were more or less free to go out and claim some. It's more problematic now that every territory is claimed by someone or something.
I'm not saying it is unproblematic. I brought up Locke, not to advocate his theory, but to point out that Cael and Marx's argument is based on a false premise; namely, that natural rights land theory is based solely on conquest.
 


Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
89,717
In reality, every territory was claimed in Locke's day also, it's just that Locke didnt seem to realise that native peoples were human too.
There does seem to have been a bias on Locke's part in assuming that one had to 'improve' upon the land in order to properly claim it- since native tribes weren't using their land in a way he seemed to think was improving it, presumably it didn't properly count as theirs, if one adopts too narrow a view.

There's also this to consider:
There have been a steady stream of articles over the last forty years arguing that given Locke's involvement with trade and colonial government, the theory of slavery in the Second Treatise was intended to justify the institutions and practices of Afro-American slavery. This seems quite unlikely. Had he intended to do so, Locke would have done much better with a vastly more inclusive definition of legitimate slavery than the one he gives. It is sometimes suggested that Locke's account of ”just war“ is so vague that it could easily be twisted to justify the institutions and practices of Afro-American slavery. This, however, is also not the case. In the Chapter ”Of Conquest“ Locke explicitly lists the limits of the legitimate power of conquerors. These limits on who can become a legitimate slave and what the powers of a just conqueror are ensure that this theory of conquest and slavery would condemn the institutions and practices of Afro-American slavery in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/
 

Cael

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
13,304
I'm not saying it is unproblematic. I brought up Locke, not to advocate his theory, but to point out that Cael and Marx's argument is based on a false premise; namely, that natural rights land theory is based solely on conquest.
Neither I nor Marx said that. Please read the OP.
 

Cael

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
13,304
I see the right wing extremist mods have been at it again. While they post ridiculous trolling threads that should be in the zoo, they merge serious threads. What a disgraceful crew.
 

YoungLiberal

Well-known member
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
2,048
Neither I nor Marx said that. Please read the OP.
"While not intending to discuss here all the argument put forward by the advocates of private property in land — jurists, philosophers, and political economists — we shall only state firstly that they disguise the original fact of conquest under the cloak of "natural right". If conquest constitutes a natural right on the part of the few, the many have only to gather sufficient strength in order to acquire the natural right of reconquering what has been taken from them."
Apologies. I see know that I wrongly interpreted the bit in bold. In that case, you would accept that there are natural right theories of land which are not cloaks for the 'original fact of conquest'?
 

Cael

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
13,304
Apologies. I see know that I wrongly interpreted the bit in bold. In that case, you would accept that there are natural right theories of land which are not cloaks for the 'original fact of conquest'?
A chara, this thread has been tampered with by a politically motivated moderator. He has merged three seperate threads, and destroyed the integrity of each of them. Therefore I think its as well we abandon this discussion. It seems like the question of land ownership is too hot to handle for p.ie
 

LondonGael

Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2011
Messages
64
A chara, this thread has been tampered with by a

politically motivated moderator. He has merged three seperate threads, and destroyed the integrity of each of them. Therefore I think its as well we abandon this discussion. It seems like the question of land ownership is too hot to handle for p.ie
In other words, he removed the libelous rubbish that people like you post!

Moderators have to moderate yer know! Doh!

Cael, communist countries moderate/control to the extreme - I thought you Stalin Sisters approved of that thing!
 

Smarty Pants

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
125
the 30 years war in medival Europe was clearly fought over religous reasons,

The Crusades for Gods sake! All fought over religon,

Cael read a book would ya
 

Mcbernie

Active member
Joined
Feb 28, 2011
Messages
109
Hi Cael,

Where do you see the best place to make some serious money over the next 2 - 5 years ?

Richard Dawkins made a fortune with a book called the God Delusion. The ironic thing is that this fortune is the result of another delusion that Richard keeps very quiet about - the delusion of private property. Needless to say, private property has no objective existence - its entirely made up. Private property is not a property of nature. It takes violent men to enforce the belief in it on a population that mostly has no private property. Now, you may say that owning a toothbrush is private property, so it is, but owning a tooth brush has no disasterous effect on the human race. Private property in the means of production is the basis of slavery, war and genocide.

Dawkins condemns belief in God for causing wars and the deaths of millions of people. But, in reality, no war has ever been fought about religion. War is fought because of the delusion of private landed property. That Dawkins has not mentioned this fact, marks him down as a charlatan. Im sure he is living under the delusion of private landed property himself. All the millions of people sold into slavery, were kidnapped, tortured and sold, because of the delusion of private landed property.

Is it not time that we woke up from this genocidal delusion?
 

Cael

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
13,304
the 30 years war in medival Europe was clearly fought over religous reasons,

The Crusades for Gods sake! All fought over religon,

Cael read a book would ya
Im sorry, a chara, some fool mod merged a thread on Dawkins and religion with one on Marx's arguments against private landed property. Its best not to try and use this thread any more. David dosnt choose mods for their intelligence, but only for their super right wing ideology.


This is the OP that we have been dealing with:

The Argument against Private Landed Property

On another thread I was asked to give some of the arguments for collective ownership of the land of our Nation. It was too far off topic in that thread, so I decided to open a new thread here.

Marx writes in his Memorandum for Robert Applegarth, December 3 1869:

"While not intending to discuss here all the argument put forward by the advocates of private property in land — jurists, philosophers, and political economists — we shall only state firstly that they disguise the original fact of conquest under the cloak of "natural right". If conquest constitutes a natural right on the part of the few, the many have only to gather sufficient strength in order to acquire the natural right of reconquering what has been taken from them."


In these few words, Marx completely demolishes any question of their being any "natural right" to landed property. Clearly if the few have the "natural right" to expropriate land by force, so do the many.

Marx continues:

"In the progress of history, the conquerors attempt to give a sort of social sanction to their original title derived from brute force, through the instrumentality of laws imposed by themselves. At last comes the philosopher who declares those laws to imply the universal consent of society. If indeed private property in land is based upon such a universal consent, it evidently becomes extinct from the moment the majority of a society dissent from warranting it."

And yet, we have idiots trying to claim that democratic governments dont have any authority to nationalise the land. As if "consent" once given, could never be removed. Of course, in reality, the " consent" was never given.

Marx continues:

"However, leaving aside the so-called "rights" of property, we affirm that the economical development of society, the increase and concentration of people, the necessity to agriculture of collective and organized labor as well as of machinery and similar contrivances, render the nationalization of land a "social necessity", against which no amount of talk about the rights of property will avail."

And we see that clearly in Ireland today. Farmers cant make a living from farming, but get 75% of their income in handouts from the landless worker. The property developers and bankers, who based their wealth on private landed property are now bankrupt, and depending on massive hand outs from the landless worker. This insanity has to stop.

Marx sums up the benefits to society of collective land ownership as follows:

"The future will decide that the land cannot be owned but nationally. To give up the soil to the hands of associated rural laborers would be to surrender all society to one exclusive class of producers. The nationalization of land will work a complete change in the relations between labor and capital and finally do away altogether with capitalist production, whether industrial or rural. Only then the class distinctions and privileges will disappear together with the economical basis from which they originate and society will be transformed into an association of 'producers'. To live upon other people's labor will become a thing of the past. There will no longer exist a government nor a state distinct from society itself."
 

Cael

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
13,304
And this was another OP from another thread the right wing fool threw in with this thread:


Private Property breaks the relationship between Humanity and the Earth
On another thread, which went off topic somewhat, YoungLiberal (I hope he doesnt mind me quoting him) and I had the following conversation:

YoungLiberal:
Private property has existed for thousands of years. It came to exist, sometimes through violence, sometimes not, some came to own their land through exploration, work. The fact that something comes about through violence does not shed any light on the value of the system or the thing itself. You, of all people, ought to agree on that point.

Cael:
Private property cannot exist without a violent state power to grant deeds of ownership and to back up those deeds with armed force. A animal may mark out some territory for himself, but it is not private property. He must defend it by his own strength every single hour of the day and night. And so it was with humans for most of the thousands of years you mention.

Private property is brought into existence by the armed violence of the state, and must be maintained by the armed violence of the state. Needless to say, secondary methods are also used, such as the psychological violence of brainwashing the children of landless workers into believing that the status quo is "Godgiven," or the natural order of things, and the constant violence of media advertising and "property porn" TV shows.


Now, an important point I wanted to make, but would have gone totally off topic in the other thread, is the difference between the relationship an owner (under the regime of private property) has to the land, and the relationship that existed before the institution of private property.

Take for example, a Gaelic clan in the 10th century. They certainly were connected with a particular piece of land, and certainly would have fought to the death to defend it. But, does this imply a relation of private property? Not at all. The Gaelic clan had a direct relationship with the particular piece of land in itself. The Taoiseach was considered to be married to that land. There was even a marriage ceremony for the new Taoiseach with the clan land. The clan might even have taken its name from that land. Clan traditions, songs, poems and festivals will have been directly connected with this land. You might say that the clan itself was defined and codified by this relationship with this land. This land, in making a relationship with the people, made a relationship between the people themselves, i.e. made them into a community.

Private property is utterly different. In private property, there is no direct relationship between the owner and what is owned. The land becomes perfectly tradable. (Of course, some landowners do love their land, but they are actually relating according to the older system, not the system of private property.) One piece of land can be swapped for another, or swapped for a commodity such as money. In capitalist society, the landowner has his position and power in society, not because of which land he owns, but the quantity or exchange value of the land he owns. Which land it is, is really of no importance. Land becomes only an abstract store of wealth - often its value has absolutely nothing to do with its ability to produce, but only on future expectations. The relationship is now between the landowner and the state, which takes on the function of protecting the landowners wealth, and increasing the value of his land, through corrupt legislation, etc.

So we see that the relationship between the landowner and the land is broken, and needless to say, the great majority of the population have no connection with the land whatsoever, and little or no connection between each other. The likes of Margret Thatcher can safely claim that there is no society. There are only atomised individuals under the suspicious gaze of the state. This must be so, as the state is closest to the landowner, and shares the landowners suspicion of a landless majority. Atomised deference is the attitude of the population, when looking up to the landowners state, and, as long as the connection of the population to the land remains broken, the connection of the people to each other is likely to remain broken.
__________________
 

YoungLiberal

Well-known member
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
2,048
A chara, this thread has been tampered with by a politically motivated moderator. He has merged three seperate threads, and destroyed the integrity of each of them. Therefore I think its as well we abandon this discussion. It seems like the question of land ownership is too hot to handle for p.ie
Pity, it's an interesting topic.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top