Human rights are property rights

Then why is he such a meme with leftists on this and other boards?

He also said private property was a spook and proposed a union of egoists aka a collective society. He was just as much of a anarchist as the rest he just thought they were justifying it in the wrong way

>anyone i dont like is a leftist
t. /pol/

It literally falls under the definition of extortionism

>everyone I don't like is /pol/
t. reddit

Only if you consider property natural right and not simply a social construct. Property is authoritarian in nature. It relies on the authority of the state or the owner to defend it by force.

>weekends
>minimum wage
>no child labour
>"overtime" even being a concept which exists

All things you have socialist movements in America to thank for desu senpai.

>everyone I don't like is reddit
t. /pol/

>Everyone I don't like is /pol/
T. reddit

>capital T
I think we can go ahead and call a definitive loser before the spam war begins.

Uh, shut up ok?

No I'm referring to the, "Give us your money or I take away all your shit" part of it. If the people actually there don't own the land why does the government?

what if you have no property

>go through many hoops and lengths to justify how most rights shouldn't matter and government should leave people alone
>oh but actually property rights they be good

haha well memed

Again, property is authoritarian in nature. I don't know why you act surprised when it turns out to be authoritarian in nature. Property is a matter of who can defend it. You make an implicit agreement with the government, you pay them taxes and be a good citizen, and they define what is yours and the government defends it if another individual goes against what the government has considered to be yours.

Property does not exist without authority. The problem in your thinking is that you assume you have a right to shit in the first place as a premise.

property literally is a natural right

>i am holding this phone
>i am in control of this phone thus it is my property

i dont think you actually understand anything at all

>Property does not exist without authority.
That's not true

Property can exist through community.
5 people in a village.
>"Hey don't take my shit and i won't take your shit. We both contribute to the community and you rely on me so dont fuck with me and i wont fuck with you"
>"ok dude cool"
If one person breaks that contract then the community exiles that person

You're spooked as fuck

>If one person breaks that contract then the community exiles that person
How is that not authority? What prevents the person you you exile from simply returning to his home, which is his property, by natural right? Who determines what is my shit and your shit?

It's only your property if you have control over it. You have the natural right to protect what you have control over. When you generally think of authority you think of a government (a ruling class) and the people (a subservient class). This example shows the people making the decision to exile someone from their community to protect every other member of their community

you're retarded

>It's only your property if you have control over it. You have the natural right to protect what you have control over.
In other words, you have authority over it.

>When you generally think of authority you think of a government (a ruling class) and the people (a subservient class).
You think of a village with more than 5 people.

>This example shows the people making the decision to exile someone from their community to protect every other member of their community
Based on the authority by force of 4 people to seize the property of 1 person, based on judgement of those 4 people.

Is your distinction between good authority and bad authority based on whether or not it is a minority versus a majority? What if it's a minority, depriving a smaller minority of property, with the support of the majority?

>Proletarii exist in massive droves and are given full citizenship
Nice "Republic" you got there, barbarus

the guy deprived of property broke the NAP and thus its ok to fuck his shit up

>NAP
No, the other 4 people determined he broke the NAP, based on the claims of 2 of the people, even when the one person says he didn't, but the 4 people combined posses more authority than the one person, so what they say goes, and now they are all richer.

Determination of whether NAP was violated relies on the authority of those making the judgement.

On the other hand, if the person that violated the NAP has 4 tactical nukes, it's quite likely that the other 4 villagers will agree the villager that stole and raped their daughters to use as child prostitutes did not violate NAP and they don't exile him.

Besides minimum wage being a plague for poor people, literally all the things you listed are about not working.

Stronk work ethics from socialists, as usual.

>le social construct, like le gender
If recognizing the existence of other people is social construct, okay.
I guess not going around raping everyone you see because the idea that they possess a body that is their property is a spook is pure "social" memery.

>Property is a matter of who can defend it.
The shit I have to read on this website.

I agree
but politics discussion go on

t. Works for 80 hours a week, sleeps under his machines

So you have something that was stolen from you. By what means is it your property?

If an individual does not have the means to build capital, capitalism isn't working, and you're just stratifying society into workers and capitalists. The only way to make capitalism work is to grant every individual the opportunity of accumulating capital.

>Implying workers don't have these things due to increased productivity due to capitalism

>Wages never increase
It's never been so good (or not bad) to not own capital in the capitalist countries.

I work 5 hours a day self employed. You know, if you live in a free country without 6 gorillonz regulations for every aspect of your business, setting up shop isn't that difficult after working only a few years as a "wageslave".

You have a way of amassing capital, and that is saving and investment. Don't get me wrong, our banking situation is such that is fucks the people that want to save but that is another problem.

Property is a moral notion. So indeed you can physically violate property. No need to play the edgy spookbuster.

Oh, so you're just retarded. Sorry, my bad.

>You have a way of amassing capital, and that is saving and investment. Don't get me wrong, our banking situation is such that is fucks the people that want to save but that is another problem.
And were you working at minimum wage or below?

My morals say you're my property

>implying productivity wouldn't increase by 1000% if all those things were abolished

Capitalists have no reason not to work people into the dust as long as there are people who can't provide for themselves outside of the capitalist system.

Once again,

No, not close to minimum wage.

Probably. I'm posting memes on a Finnish throat singing board after all.

hehehehe le meme

>No, not close to minimum wage.
Exactly. Minimum wage is not a wage at which a person can accumulate capital. A wage at which a laborer can not accumulate capital, but only sustenance, is little better than unemployment, as like unemployment they may still not be making enough to make ends meet. If an individual can not find work in which they can earn capital, they can not be a full an active participant in capitalism, but only a lower class sustenance, or sub-sustenance laborer.

>A wage at which a laborer can not accumulate capital, but only sustenance
I began accumulating money at age 23 working for minimum wage as an intern in my first year of work. It's not difficult at all to save more than one third of minimum wage a month if you live the bachelor life.

Besides, talking of "sustenance" to describe welfare leeches walking around with iphones is a big claim. Outside a few unfortunate cases of bad luck people got what they ask for. Yep, you will find a story about some girl being gangraped by her five brothers and forced into meth by her teachers but seriously non-self inflicted misery is rather rare in the western world.

And even assuming the contrary, what to do? On the excuse that not everyone will be self employed, we should centralize and turn collectivist? That will sure make more people self reliant.

Our societies productivity is such at the minimum wage is no longer sustinance level. That wages were sustinance level might have been true for 1840's Manchester but thanks to capitalists investing to increase productivity we are no longer there. Not to forget the amount of help people are given (and ought to be given) by the state.

>23
>first year of work
Which required a capital to pay for college in the first place. If you took on debt to pay for college, then it's harder to save money. The point of an internship it to accumulate capital in the form of work experience, yet it's usually restricted to educated people in many professions. If you don't go to college or an apprenticeship or such, then you don't end up with that personal capital, nor the internship, nor the work experience for a profession, you just flip burgers. You're not even gaining the capital in the form of specialized skills you would in a minimum wage internship.

>It's not difficult at all to save more than one third of minimum wage a month if you live the bachelor life.
If you live in a flyover state, then yes, the federal minimum wage may exceed sustenance, and if you live a shitty single childless life and nothing bad happens to you, you can save up a little money.

>Besides, talking of "sustenance" to describe welfare leeches walking around with iphones is a big claim.
I literally bought my iPhone from the carrier for $50 when it was only one generation behind, and am on a $30/mo plan. This is a reasonable expenditure as any workplace that is hiring expects you to have a phone. Having access to wifi has saved me in excess of $50 by being able to search for prices on the fly, get price matches, etc, making it a good economic investment over a flip phone.

>And even assuming the contrary, what to do? On the excuse that not everyone will be self employed, we should centralize and turn collectivist? That will sure make more people self reliant.
Nice false dichotomy and strawman there.

Borrow to go to college based on your future increase wage. This only works if you are smart though.

If you have potential why wouldn't someone else be willing to invest in your education for part of your later income?
You could have a whole market based on this. Or the state could support poorer students, whichever works better.

>Our societies productivity is such at the minimum wage is no longer sustinance level.
Just because my standard of living is higher because I have a refrigerator, running water, electricity, phone, internet and so on does not mean less than that is sustenance. Refrigerators and bulk buying are more economically viable than buying food every day. Running water is pretty much a requirement for having a job because no one is going to hire someone that doesn't shower. Things need electricity, and the economy is such that is is more economically viable to have light bulbs than kerosene lamps. If I want a job, I need a phone so they can contact me, same with internet making cheaper goods available and useful for collecting information and as a means of contact.

Pretty much every company doesn't hire hobos off the street. While a couple bucks a day might be enough to survive in such a state, to properly sustain yourself by seeking a job in the market and making use of long term cost savings requires certain amenities that also raise the standard of living. This doesn't mean because you have higher standards of living that it isn't sustenance.

>Not to forget the amount of help people are given (and ought to be given) by the state
That only points out the failures of capitalism that need to be fixed with non-capitalistic means, and they don't even do a good job.

>It's not difficult at all to save more than one third of minimum wage a month if you live the bachelor life.

MIT disagrees.
livingwage.mit.edu/
That link gives average cost of living by county. I've been clicking through it and have yet to find a single county with a "living wage" of less than $9. Including in Mississippi.

what, I said nothing about republics

I'm not American actually, but will still respond.

>If you live in a flyover state
Living in the center of town in some megapolis is expansive. And overrated. I go on some weekend long museum binges every three months or so in London but I don't even acknowledges the city's existence outside of museums.

> if you live a shitty single childless life and nothing bad happens to you
Don't get in trouble. Have insurance for health. What else? I get you are American and living in a big city so perhaps you have to ponder the possibility of being dindued.

>I literally bought my iPhone
I didn't accuse you personally of receiving your phone from welfare. It was a simple example of the incredible level of machinery even "poor" people have access to in your country.

> you don't end up with that personal capital, nor the internship, nor the work experience for a profession, you just flip burgers.
If you have no ambition and a complete aversion to risk, that might pass as an argument. My example is not universal and doesn't have to be. I have a friend that never bothered with college and became a plumber and it was only last year that I began earning more than him.

Not American. And very few people are paid minimum wage in America.

>Borrow to go to college based on your future increase wage. This only works if you are smart though.
Then you aren't able to save up capital at minimum wage. You're hoping that the education capital gives you a long term means to make back the investment.

>If you have potential why wouldn't someone else be willing to invest in your education for part of your later income?
Because it's a potentially life ruining risk for the loan taker if it turns out that by the time they graduate, the market is oversaturated, or some life changing event happens that means they can't achieve or make use of their degree and are saddled with debt.

>You could have a whole market based on this.
Sub-prime loans are not based on the idea of good investments, but either ripping off investors, or intentionally saddling loan takers with debt far in excess of the value of the original loan. If the risk was more manageable, even if you profit less when you are successful, this can promote positive behavior, which is the point of insurance. Although it can also produce negative behavior.

>Or the state could support poorer students, whichever works better.
This creates an artificial cost to wealthier people. Even though they can afford it, the opportunity cost and accordingly the cost-benefit analysis so it encourages poor people to go to college, as getting $10k worth of free capital is a no-brainer, even if you won't use it as well as a wealthier person. The wealthier person has to determine if the $10k opportunity cost is worth it. In this sense they should just tax rich people so it's a sunk cost, and rich people have the same choice. They can take the college, or they can give it up. There's no incurred cost when making the choice.

Also, very little of this fixes the ability of corporations to create barriers to entry that are not simply economies of scale and simply buy out the competition. A low minimum wage just encourages unproductive zombie companies.

Do you think any system won't have its failures?
Capitalism is the best of the bad bunch.

"In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front."

This is a quote from a letter to the president and congress signed by 600 economists, including 7 nobel prize laureates.

Vote Gary Johnson
youtu.be/HiRcj9flHrI

But just because unfettered capitalism is better than unfettered autocracy, anarchy, communism, etc., doesn't mean we can't improve it by adding some smart social programs.

>Loans are sub prime
Did I not mention that it only works for the smart and those who have potential?

Those problems with debt occur to all, even the capitalists. If they are completely broke with no chance of repayment we have bankruptcy laws. Sure there's moral hazard but it's better than nothing.

90% of the time a college degree is worth it. This article (ft.com/content/b49ab9ca-3412-11e4-b81c-00144feabdc0) says the average return is $300,000.

A higher minimum wage will increase productivity but decrease employment (well except in cases of monopsony) for examples of this see France and Spain.

>megaopolis
There's not many good jobs or opportunities at career advancement outside of big cities in the US. Some people wait tables hoping they can land a better job that will actually have a career.

>trouble
Literally, shit happens, and it could have absolutely nothing to do with dindus. Prior to the ACA, and even under the ACA, health insurance can be expensive. America is not your European welfare state.

>iphone
As I explained, a higher standard of living doesn't mean not sustenance. Requirements for sustenance vary from place to place, but it means your income roughly matches your basic expenditures. Even if you can cut back on expenditures, if it has a larger impact on reducing income, that means that level is not sustainable. Just because things are expensive doesn't mean things aren't good investments, every single business runs on the principle that it takes money to make money. Sustenance does not mean living like a starving child in Africa.

>plumber
Apprenticeships are virtually dead in America. You have to go to plumbing school to get credentials to become a plumber in America, which means you need enough money to take the time to learn to be a plumber. It's not even a safe bet to become a plumber in America, so there's still a risk going to plumbing school, and if you have ambition, who the fuck actually wants to be a plumber.

Did I not mention that people ought to be given help by the state? That implies smart social programs, whatever they may be.

>Capitalism creates freedom.
Except not at all.
Regulations stopped slavery
Regulations stopped forced child labour.
Deregulation let those people go to countries that use slavery.
Deregulation let those people go to countries that us child labour.
American capitalism relies on communist countries.
There by making it communist in nature.

>Implying that slaveryand forced labour isn't a violation of private property
>Implying that child labour didn't end due to increased productivity

>Deregulation boogeyman
>Implying that capitalist globalisation hasn't led to the great decline in poverty ever seen.

>American capitalism relies on communist countries
>American capitalism relies on Cuba and north Korea
>China and Vietnam
>Communist

>natural right
oxymoron

>Did I not mention that it only works for the smart and those who have potential?
I'm pointing out an actual and extant flaw in the current system of markets for such loans.

>Those problems with debt occur to all, even the capitalists. If they are completely broke with no chance of repayment we have bankruptcy laws.
No, this is the point of investors, to share your risk, although they also take a share of your success. Loans are a different kind of investment. If you take a loan, you get your debt whether or not you success or fail. You get to keep a bigger cut if you success, but you take a bigger loss if you fail. The bank only takes a loss if you fail so hard that you default.

>90% of the time a college degree is worth it. This article (ft.com/content/b49ab9ca-3412-11e4-b81c-00144feabdc0) says the average return is $300,000.
Which is why it's probably best if the government provides college degree benefits, and tax people that earn lots of money because they went to college.

>A higher minimum wage will increase productivity but decrease employment (well except in cases of monopsony) for examples of this see France and Spain.
Because unemployed people have no means of generating capital. The best thing to do is increase minimum wage, and try to school people into productive industries where they can be entrepreneurs and grow the economy. If it's a good investment, you don't need to make them bear the risk.

The thing is people who made it generally don't actually like elevating other people to be able to do their jobs. It's almost like a form of protectionism. There's often times a limited number of jobs that anyone with credentials can do, but you don't always get the best people because certain people will try to prevent others from competing for the job through exclusionary practices. I think on many levels, this might not even be conscious, it's naturally evolved from hierarchies.

Didn't you know that 80% of American mineral imports were from Laos?

Source?

The basis of redistribution and social programs is understanding that property is not a basic right, and not the most prime of basic rights.

You could have a system that acts very much like capitalism with the individual management of capital, but at the discretion of the government. This is in fact, how the world actually works. If the government deems something illegal, they can seize your property. Some people are under the illusion that property is the cause of social contract, and not the result of social contract.

An improved form of market economy comes with the understanding that property is a social construct, not an inherent and unalienable right.

One could just as easily say that socialist or communist nations rely on a relatively free global market to survive.

For example, the USSR imported food and consumer goods and sold oil and minerals.

China leverages its large population to make cheap consumer goods to sell to capitalist countries.

Without trading with capitalist countries, the USSR would have imploded much sooner, and China would fall back into hardline Mao-ism.

>china
>ussr
>communist

>socialism
>mutually exclusive with markets

Please educate yourself.

I wasn't arguing that property is an inherent right, I am a different person. I am okay with taxation to help the poorest.

>But muh abstract and unpragmatic theories

Please kill yourself

The idea of socialism in both the USSR and China was to "build communism". Since that is impossible, and because feeding the country and keeping it from falling apart is a more pressing issue, yes they engaged with markets.

Socialist countries need a free market to sell goods on, because the money for socialism has to come from somewhere else once you're done shooting all the bourgeoisie and taking their estates.

Then North Korea is the people's, democratic, and a republic, and quite possibly Korean as well.

If it doesn't fit the definition, then it isn't.

Welcome to communism my friend

You don't even seem to understand the fact that socialism does not mean command economy, making it pretty clear that you can't define what socialism is except USSR, PRC and satellite states.

I noted two command economies which required outside trade to survive because command economies are grossly inefficient.

For a more recent example look at Venezuela. They elected a socialist, nationalized the oil industry, handed out lots of free money in the form of social programs, and are currently collapsing into a terrifying police state. Their people are being forced into work camps to try to expand agriculture and keep the country from starving. The government is bankrupt and cannot provide even basic goods or medicine.

This is what socialism leads to, every single time. I understand what socialism is, probably better than you, considering you seem to view it as a viable and desirable system despite a century of evidence that it doesn't work and it kills people.

>But muh workers control of the means of production
>But muh that's state Capitalism

That's just terrible half-assed command economy.

There's such a thing as market socialism. The difference with capitalism being social versus private ownership of capital.

I can't help it if self-proclaimed socialist countries that don't meet the definition of socialist keep trying to abandon markets instead of trying to fix them.

Observe. Tankies doing anything they can to say that "real socialism" and "real communism" haven't been tried yet, and are therefore achievable and desirable alternatives to capitalism and free markets.

>But muh workers control of the means of production
...... But that's what socialism is

>tankies
Please don't use the word if you don't know what it means.

>Capitalism generally works well, a few failures
>Look at this failure, we must completely Change the whole system and replace it with this batshit insane system Chomsky dreamed up after lighting up a joint.

Tankies are literally the opposite of "real communism has never been tried"

>caps getting mad about market socialism because they know there is no moral ground to stand on against "to each according to his contribution"

But that's capitalism user.
What happened to socialism and equality?

Equality is not part of socialism, except for egalitarianism being extended somewhat to capital. Socialism is the concept that a person should be entitled to the fruits of their labor.

Equality is a meme of leftist capitalists who push for welfare capitalism in order to preserve a flawed system.

>i am holding this phone
>i am in control of this phone thus it is my property
Maybe it's your friend's phone that he lent you?

WRONG!! WRONG!!! WRONG!!!

human rights are the inherent expression of your will and the power of your resolve.

nothing more.

human rights are just abstract. and must be enforced. which means the inherent human right is your power and will to exercise them.

Yes, because the other 4 people in the village can overpower the one errant "thief" and enforce their authority. Until a tribe of 10 rolls up and decides that your shit is in fact their shit and you have to leave or die.

I'm concerned about you user. Huffing solvents is very bad for you.

>I guess not going around raping everyone you see because the idea that they possess a body that is their property is a spook is pure "social" memery.
Your bodily rights are enforced by authority too, you retard.

>ITT: morons thinking the USSR was socialist in anyway

It was state capitalism you retards.