[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 127 KB, 336x336, Picture 4.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2459529 No.2459529 [Reply] [Original]

Hey /sci/

Defend or criticize this claim: The enforcement of private property laws by governments makes poor people unfree to do things that rich people are free to do.

>> No.2459538

Criticism: sentence contains "unfree" which is probably not a word but whatever

>> No.2459549

Criticism: Shit ain't magic. They only suffer penalties when caught.

>> No.2459562

for example, if someone is homeless, or poor, do you think they're more "unfree" than the rich. an example may be that a homeless person has a hard time to apply for a job because they dont have a private place to change into nice clothes, they dont even have nice clothes, or they dont have an address their potential employer can contact them after the interview, or even process checks to after the work week

>> No.2459581

>>2459529
Criticism: There is an unsupported underlying claim: Wealth inequality is a direct result of the enforcement of private property laws, and this inequality would be lesser or nonexistent of such laws were not enforced by government.

I think you can see why that's shaky claim.

>> No.2459595

>>2459581
Not OP but I'm curious how there can be wealth inequality without property being enforced now that you bring it up actually.

>> No.2459596

Defense-
Observing the obvious, it's no difficult task to discover who created the laws. In that perspective, it's quite easy to see that rich men create laws to work in their interests, and quite surprising when some express shock that rich men are not the most altruistic or humanitarian bunch.

>> No.2459617

Somebody needs a sociology paper

>> No.2459630

>>2459562
In a capitalist society, none of those things are denied to anyone. Poor are not an enforced class dis-allowed from buildings and stores. They simply have produced nothing for trade yet. There are ways they can gather clothes, sleep in shelter, and provide address for employers. If you're on the internet you're a google search away from "helping the poor" and finding ways in which you can tell the poor where they can go for a hot shower and mediocre but presentable dress clothes with tie. If you're on the internet you are well cared for compared to most humans on earth and it is understandable if you do not know these things.

And man I have been on both sides of the soup line, giving and receiving. If someone needs help they need to get over themselves and ask. That is the only way out of the hole and most people will help. No, asking for change on a street corner is not asking for help, nor are the people that do it wanting help. Asking for a place to crash and a mailing address while you search for a job is seeking help.

>> No.2459642
File: 90 KB, 490x591, ayn_rand.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2459642

'sup

>> No.2459656

>>2459529

Criticism: Private property naturally stems from the right to self-ownership, no private property would mean no property over your time, your labor and your life. Whit out private property, both rich and poor people would be massively unfree, losing all economic freedom.

Defense: Private property does cause inequality. Really no way around it.

Strong defender of private property rights. Whit out them society collapses.

But it is a fact that inequality will exist as long as property does. Just don't see why inequality of material conditions is seen as inherently immoral by some.

>> No.2459674

>>2459656
>With out them our current society collapses.

FTFY

>> No.2459677

>>2459630

Boomer, you said you were trying to get to me?

>> No.2459697

>>2459529
You want me to attack the logic?

As long as the government isn't forcing poor people to be poor, I don't see a problem with that.

Poor is not a permanent attribute.

>> No.2459696

>>2459674

>Our current society collapses into a much much worse society.

FTFY again.

There's this thing called "Economic Calculation Problem", which makes lack of private property a nightmare. Read about it.

>> No.2459707

>>2459595
Wealth inequality does not necessarily require enforcement by a central government. Look at Somalia. Warlords are richer than beggars, just by use of force.

>> No.2459723

>>2459707
Hell, even in the total absence of any coercion or deceit, lazy people would become poorer than industrious people.

>> No.2459734

>implying some freedoms don't have to be earned

>> No.2459745
File: 11 KB, 268x433, starving-child-sudan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2459745

>>2459656

>Just don't see why inequality of material conditions is seen as inherently immoral by some.

>> No.2459754

>>2459697
Stunning how some people (most often American republicans) still prattle on with the lines of "social mobility" wherein, under the american dream, any industrial person can pull himself up by the boot straps. While this appeals on the emotional level, studies have shown over and over that social mobility in terms of economic status has a success rate of a pathetic percentage.
Self reliance must be a personal challenge, not a societal imposition.

>> No.2459793

Private Property protects the status quo.

If you were to start a new society/government for each generation, and wipe out the "gains" made by the previous generation (so that all land was freely available for settlement and improvement), then you would have a true meritocracy.

Private property laws that only existed for a generation would simply allow someone to exert control over land that they themselves claim and improve.

But, because private property laws don't reset after each generation, the wealthy are able to pass their hard work onto people who haven't necessarily done anything to improve the property. This handing down of property based on a previous generation's work does limit the total amount of private property that is available (in terms of real property).

While it is hard to pull yourself out of poverty and become fabulously wealthy when the status quo limits your access to real property, with the way that business works, you can use non-tangible (hence, non-limited) property (intellect, labor, and creativity) to become wealthy.

And if you do pull yourself up, you want to maintain the status quo and your improvements/innovations.

So, private property does limit access to real property and a true meritocracy, it doesn't inherently make someone "unfree" to do things. Just much, much more difficult.

>> No.2459832

>>2459754
Look it's quite simple. Who do you blame that poor people are poor? If the government isn't holding them back who is?

Am I conservative or a republican? Not in a million years, I believe we should help people get back on their feet, I like higher taxes on the rich as well. I do not for a second, however, believe you can start blaming the government for the poor people within the society, unless you can point to specifically how they are causing poverty.

Is the government over taxing them? Is it stealing their land with adequate compensation? Is it barring them from acquiring an education? Are their laws preventing them from getting jobs? No? Then STFU and take some personal responsibility. If no one is holding you back then don't complain you are behind.

>> No.2459836

>>2459793
bullshit, you would be having an anarchy every generation
>pretending merit has nothing to do with how your kids are raised

>> No.2459841

>>2459707
But that is enforcement of property, the warlords are enforcing that it's their property.

>> No.2459858

>>2459832
>insisting the government has no fault thus nothing is wrong
>failing to see the government is part of a bigger system

>> No.2459886

>>2459836
bullshit what? all i did was describe what private property laws do, which is maintain the status quo. i didn't argue that they are net-good or net-bad. only that they are, and what they do. also, your "anarchy every generation" is what thomas jefferson proposed as a way to create effective government. he ultimately back down from that idea. i don't blame him, and i don't support it.

the key though, is that merit is relative.

if you are born into poverty, and don't receive good nutrition from womb to adolescence, your brain won't be as developed as someone who did. that is just a physiological difference.

now imagine you're born poor, and i'm born with $100m in wealth. who do you think has a better chance of "making something" of his/herself?

you can start a business or improve land a lot more efficiently and effectively with $100m. you can also fail more and still recover with $100m. the starting point is important in any race, or description of merit.

meritocracy is relative. if you're using someone who started out wealthy, their "merit" could only be compared to someone else who started out wealthy.

e.g. if two people are racing, and one gets to use a bicycle and the other has to run, do you think that the person on a bicycle has an easier time accomplishing the same thing as the runner?

>> No.2459891

>>2459858
>still fails to point out what/who's holding poor people back

>> No.2459911

>>2459891
>can't read

This guy's got the idea
>>2459886

>> No.2459949

>>2459911
>implying "the bigger system" is a legitimate answer

>>2459886
Yeah you could start with millions, start a company, squander it all in your failed company because you are an idiot and be just as poor as the next fellow.

Rich people can move down the social latter with bad choices (or just terribly bad luck) just as poor people can move up with good choices (or just terribly good luck). All your example does it show there is a different starting line for people with money, than those without.

>> No.2459972

Social Democracy is the answer anyway. A capitalistic economy, but with progressive taxes and social support in the form of universal healthcare, free education, and unemployment benefits. Prosperity without gross inequality or crushing poverty. And everyone (ostensibly) has equal access to what's needed for success.

>> No.2459980

>private property
>the State steals around half your income
Enjoy your "private property".

>> No.2459986
File: 17 KB, 238x217, AHAHAH.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2459986

>>2459972
>>2459972

>> No.2459998

>>2459986
Who's laughing now?
http://www.ifitweremyhome.com/compare/US/NO

>> No.2460000

>find: defend
>not found
>happyfrog.jpg

>> No.2460013

>>2459998
I'm still laughing. Everyone know's in the future we will be trans-human libertarian socialists, trans-human anarchists, or trans-human fascists.

>> No.2460102

>>2460013
I assume that trans-human solo expedition (fuck you all) around space is the anarchist one.

>> No.2460119
File: 39 KB, 600x600, 816223-gentlemen_bender_super.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2460119

the homeless, yes. but then they don't deserve the same priviledges as everyone else because they're fucking homeless.

inb4 bla bla product of upbringing/society - bullshit. anyone, regardless of where they started has the potenetial to atleast scrape together the money to pay rent in a shitbox in shitville.

also i doubt the poor are worrying about what less freedoms they have more than "oh shit im hungry need some food".

tldr: shutup OP

>> No.2460130

>>2459949
yeah, and the fact that there is a different starting line stems from private property law. congratulations on understanding my argument.

>> No.2460155

>>2460119
>the homeless, yes. but then they don't deserve the same priviledges as everyone else because they're fucking homeless.

You don't really deserve to be breathing my oxygen but I'm not executing you am I?

>> No.2460205

government is self-rule

ie. the distinction between public and private is illusory

private property enforces its own defence (in this case thru govt)

in other cases thru knights and castles

the law does not enforce itself; it is the projection of self-enforcement

>> No.2460235
File: 3 KB, 203x219, shyeah.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2460235

>>2460102
Mostly..

>> No.2460302

>>2460155
>your oxygen
>implying you did anything to claim ownership of said oxygen

>> No.2460320

>>2460205

this. fucking this.

>> No.2460326

I metabolized it it's mine.

>> No.2460343

>>2460130
You have no argument, you have yet to state one thing that's HOLDING THEM BACK.

My argument is as long as the government isn't keeping the poor poor, then it's not a problem.

>> No.2460393

>>2460343
you're also not taking into account the fact that the poorer you are, the less likely you are to access expensive and elitist education avaliable to people who are already rich.
you're also less likely to be encouraged to embark on your own business endeavours by family and friends, since they are likely all poor as well.
saying that class is ultimately a choice is kind of bullshit, because even if everyone was capable of becoming rich, not everyone COULD be rich.
just because capitalism is the current system doesn't mean it works. it's bound to get swapped for something else eventually.

>> No.2460408

>>2460343
i never said there was anything holding them back.

who do you think you're arguing "against", because it isn't me.

>> No.2460409

>>2460393
and before you say 'you can still be rich if you go to a poor school', look at the amount of people from elite schools who go on to earn large sums of money vs those from poor schools and tell me that there isn't some sort of flaw in your arguement.
if the poor were actually just poor because they were lazy, then what you're suggesting is that poor people are more likely to be born lazy since the amount of rich people who stay rich and become more wealthy far exceeds the amount of poor people who become rich.

>> No.2460429

>>2460409
and i'll go ahead and say what holds poor people back - society is run by people with money, for people with money.
poor people are introduced to society as poor people and they are taught to act like poor people. rich people are introduced to society as rich people and act like rich people.
i'm not saying that the individual can't see through this and manage to break in to several million through a few years hard work, but if you look at something like this statistically then you have to admit that the system, despite being relatively free, still holds the poorer classes back.

>> No.2460478
File: 12 KB, 287x350, adam_smith.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2460478

>>2459529

characteristics of free society are: protection of life, protection of liberty and protection of property.

rich people who earned their money without killing, stealing or enslaving have a right to keep their rightly earned property.

if poor people are still enslaved due to such just property laws, that means that there is something wrong with the monetary system