Re: Fighting the cybercensor. (fwd)

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

snow allegedly said:
> 
> Phill wrote:
> > I'm a philosophical anarchist and I don't consider the state to have
> > "rights" over its "subjects", nor do I believe in the pure ideology of
> > property you do.
> > 
> > Its worth noting that the origin of property is theft. In the case of the
> 
>     BULLSHIT. BULL FUCKING SHIT. The origin of property is labor. Claiming
> that _my_ property is the result of ME stealing, and hence what I OWN belongs
> to the community IS theft.

He was making a slightly more subtle point, I believe, though fallacious 
just the same.  It is clear that "ownership" or "property rights" are 
constructs of society.  That is, property rights are rights conferred 
on the individual by the society.  For example, if society determines 
that you don't own your house, then you don't own it.  Contrariwise, if 
you are alone on a desert island you "own" whatever you say you own, 
since at that point you are a society of one -- you want the Milky 
Way -- it's yours -- you just grant yourself full rights and title to 
it.  So the origin of property isn't theft, and it isn't labor -- 
it's whatever society says it is.

Of course, "society" is not a monolith, and it may be at odds with itself.

> I work, and as the result of that work something is
> created. That something is MINE to do with as I will. If I choose to sell that
> work for money, that money is mine. If I trade that money for shoes, those 
> shoes are mine. THere is no theft involved.

Possession of objects like shoes is of no consequence -- they 
aren't the kind of propert that is at issue.  Land is the fundamental 
property item.  Arguably every piece of land in the world has been 
stolen from someone at one time or another.

> > controllers of China literally so since they stole most of their "property"
> > from the previous rulers.
> 
>      They "won" it in combat. 

Therefore, if I beat you over the head with a crowbar and take your 
shoes, it is not theft, but merely the spoils of war.  That's 
convenient for those with big crowbars.

> The people of china obviously prefered new 
> government to the old one, or they would have prevented the takeover. 

What a crock.  Obviously, by your reasoning, every murder victim must 
secretly have preferred death, otherwise they would have prevented it.

> > I believe that the relationship between a state and individual is
> > a much more complex one than the slavish subjection model
> > you propose. In this I am in agreement with practically every
> > philosopher since Locke.
> 
>      Practically every philosopher since Locke has recieved their education
> at a Government or "Elite" sponsored school, and made their livings the same 
> way. I'm not claiming conspiracy here, but those that feed at the trough 
> aren't going to insult it overmuch.

Like you, for example?  You are feeding at the trough of society just 
as much as anyone else.  You wouldn't be on the net, otherwise.

But I agree, citing "every philosopher since Locke" is bogus.

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com,kc@llnl.gov		the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E  87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F