What is Property?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Justin
 
Reply Thu 31 Dec, 2009 02:08 pm
@Fido,
Fido;115912 wrote:
The essential verbs in English and French, which modify all other verbs are to be, and to have.

You are correct fido. However, the essential part of satisfying the ego is to have, then do, then be.
 
Fido
 
Reply Thu 31 Dec, 2009 08:20 pm
@Pyrrho,
Quote:

Pyrrho;115915 wrote:
Rights are a social construct, and as such, could vary from place to place. I think that is what Hume would say about this, but it has been a while since I read enough relevant passages from Hume on this idea, so if you are very interested in Hume, you might want to do some reading on your own. If I am not mistaken, if one were put in a Hobbesian "state of nature", talk of "rights" would be meaningless. Rights are not, for Hume, eternal Platonic Forms.





Rights are a social form... So is property, common, public, personal and private...We relate through all manor of social forms...But property as a form has changed in our conceptions, time and again...

Here is the thing...When you sell your labor power, you sell all that your produce with that labor power in the time you labor...
Quote:

I do not recall Hume saying anything about this, but the question you are asking is one of classification. Off the top of my head, I do not see any reason to classify labor as property. Although some intangible things, such as copyrights, are classified as property, I don't think that most intangible things are classified as property. But whatever manner of classification one chooses should be based upon how useful it is to classify things that way.


Marx might have said that we do not sell our labor, but our labor power... The fact is, that what people often sell, and cheaply is their time... It is painful to think of how little anyone has of it, and how it is wasted as nothing because some one can afford it, and afford to pess it away...

---------- Post added 12-31-2009 at 09:22 PM ----------

Justin;115885 wrote:
I think property is a possession... an illusion. Some men think of their wives or their homes as their property which is ultimately an illusion. To think we can possess property or own property is also an illusion.

Property is something that is needed to satisfy the ego. The ego that becomes us is identified through properties. That property can be in the form of a spouse, a car, a house, a church, a forum, anything and everything that is external to ourselves including our body. The ego identifies with property and builds upon it. Property clothes the ego, disguises it and dresses it. We use property to describe ourselves and our ego and to fill in the blanks or empty spaces.

Property is the illusion we live in. Thinking that we own and posses and these things are our property and in that property we seek and find identification. Property is used to describe who we are and our status quo. The more property we have the more powerful we feel and the more we identify with it.

Property is an illusion of our ego. We live in this illusion and die with it. After we die, that property is no longer ours is it? Our possessions our ego all that we thought we were dies with it and we go on realizing that we are not our ego and we are not our property and that we cannot really possess any property.

There are many ways of looking at. I've chosen one. Ultimately though, property is used to describe something possessed and owned by an ego or a group of egos because in the divine, there is no such thing as property. It's a word.

Property = Ego = Identification = Who I am = What I am = Detachment = Faith = Ego = Illusion

We make the mistake of saying my children, or your children; and what it often amounts to is people having society's children, which is a thankless, miserable, frustrating job, and bearing the cost alone... Ask the children who they belong to...Most of them think they belong to themselves...
 
TheSingingSword
 
Reply Sat 2 Jan, 2010 08:27 am
@Fido,
The introduction of property rights in any society is the beginning of the end of cooperation. It serves to separate people, to create winners and losers. There is no virtue in this. The idea that the hardest workers end up with the most property is an absurd lie.
 
Fido
 
Reply Sat 2 Jan, 2010 09:11 am
@TheSingingSword,
TheSingingSword;116287 wrote:
The introduction of property rights in any society is the beginning of the end of cooperation. It serves to separate people, to create winners and losers. There is no virtue in this. The idea that the hardest workers end up with the most property is an absurd lie.

Agreed...The ownership of government as a privilage of wealth adds to the problem...
If you look at Europe, the Franks beat the Muslims of Spain with an essentially free force... When they got the stirrup, one man on horse back became the equal of ten on foot, but then horse and rider needed support, and there began Feudalism...The point is that long before Frank and Muslim could meet on anything resembling equal terms the Franks had turned their might against their own people, and made them serfs, and gradually removed them from all rights excepting those which tied them to their labors...And what good did it do them???If the Mongols had wanted to roll over Europe they could have... As it was, the Vikings nearly did, taking parts of North Africa, and Italy and the bulk of Northern Europe...They could not, with their divided societies offer a cerditable defense... They were good only at controlling their serfs, and having that control all need for progress ended...In England there is a clear history of nobles, King, and church forming the constitution of the land... The took the wealth of the peasants, and commercial classes, and provide the moral argument for their position in society; but no different from any other place and time, it is what what one can keep that is owned, and the bulk of our property law comes out of the deep distrust between kings, and lords, and church and their needs to check and balance out the power of the other...

There was a time during the reign of James the 2nd, when poverty was considered no less than a crime, as bankruptcy once was; and yet much of the income of the crown came from an excise (sales) tax which weighed most heavily on the poor....All the time that labor and commerce were adding to the technology and knowledge of society the backward thinking nobility placed impediments before their progress... Who knows where we ould be of the wealth of the few were always becoming part of the common wealth as an incentive for invention and innovation... People talk about progress, but wealth in few hands is a positive brake on progress...
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 05/23/2024 at 06:55:46