Leftist Riot Du Jour - UC Berkeley

[JimC]

Nuke them from orbit. It's the only safe way...

[Forty Two]

Exclusion is the critical point. Legal property rights is exclusive use. Using the land for recreation or personal food gathering isn't excluding anyone else from doing to same (in theory, anyway; at some point physical/biological constraints will occur). So yes, you CAN 'steal' (under Proudhon's notion) what isn't property in the first place.

So, having a house on a piece of property to sleep in and let your kids play is not "excluding anyone else from doing the same...?" -- well, it is, both in theory and in fact, excluding people who you don't let sleep there or come onto your yard. That's property, at the heart of it. It's "I live here, and you don't." And, this is my kids' food, so as much as you may be hungry, you don't get any. That's property.

[pErvinalia]

Again, exclusion is the critical point. If someone is physically excluding someone else from being on there, then it's the same effect as if it were legal property. But if there is no exclusion (within physical constraints), then nothing is being restricted.

[Forty Two]

I'm not sure what you're arguing. I you own a house, you own real estate.

But, exclusion doesn't mean you own the property. You can pay rent and lease property. You don't own it, but you buy the exclusive use of it from someone else.

The socialist idea is that real property is abolished, for individuals. Rents get paid to the State. So, even though "nobody owns the property" rents get paid.... because, even withotu a private property right, there is exclusion of others. It's just the State that tells you when you can exclude, and you pay your rent to Landlord State. The State can then solve homeless problems by filling extra bedrooms with people who need housing. Idyllic.

[pErvinalia]

The point I'm making is to support Proudhun's notion of "theft" and refute your statement made at some point that it can't be theft if there wasn't legal property rights first. The first time land was taken as exclusive, it was "stolen" from others. It doesn't matter if there were officially legal property rights or not. It's the exclusion that matters, not the form of that exclusion.

[Forty Two]

The point I'm making is to support Proudhun's notion of "theft" and refute your statement made at some point that it can't be theft if there wasn't legal property rights first. The first time land was taken as exclusive, it was "stolen" from others. It doesn't matter if there were officially legal property rights or not. It's the exclusion that matters, not the form of that exclusion.

If the first time land was taken it was stolen from others, then that means those people had a right to the land too. If they don't have a property right, then what right do they have? Proudhon did not say that all people have property rights. He said nobody did. By the definition you're working with, if I pick a stick up in the woods and keep is a walking stick, I'm stealing it from everyone else in the world who might likewise have picked it up. It's an absurdity, because nobody owns the stick. The property right comes from the work invested to pick it up, use it and protect it.

Had the native Americans stolen the land? Were European settlers just liberating stolen land, then?

[pErvinalia]

God you are tedious.

[rainbow]

God you are tedious.

Not only God, but Farty Twat is getting to be a bit of a bore.

[Forty Two]

[Forty Two]

Proudhon also said "Property is Freedom!" But, that never became a socialist rallying cry....

[pErvinalia]

He wasn't a socialist. That's probably why...

[Forty Two]

Indeed he was, he was probably the first libertarian socialist. Since you've often cited Wikipedia as your reliable source -- here's a quick citation - "School Socialism, anarchism, mutualism" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon

And, why socialists would not adopt the phrase is about the kind of quip socialists find persuasive, and not really a matter of what he was or wasn't. Socialists like the notion of "property is theft" whereas "property is freedom" kinda goes against everything a socialist stands for.

[JimC]

He certainly wasn't a mainstream socialist, just as Seth isn't a mainstream libertarian...

[pErvinalia]

Indeed he was, he was probably the first libertarian socialist. Since you've often cited Wikipedia as your reliable source -- here's a quick citation - "School Socialism, anarchism, mutualism" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon

The second and third sentences of your link: "He was the first person to declare himself an anarchist[1][2] and is widely regarded as one of the ideology's most influential theorists. Proudhon is even considered by many to be the "father of anarchism".[3] "

And, why socialists would not adopt the phrase is about the kind of quip socialists find persuasive, and not really a matter of what he was or wasn't. Socialists like the notion of "property is theft" whereas "property is freedom" kinda goes against everything a socialist stands for.

Not necessarily. Socialism doesn't necessarily eschew private property. And I was pointing out that it's a fairly weak argument to expect socialists to adopt a saying from someone who wasn't a socialist. Ordinarily something as obvious as that wouldn't need explaining. But with some posters the obvious isn't obvious...

[Forty Two]

Indeed he was, he was probably the first libertarian socialist. Since you've often cited Wikipedia as your reliable source -- here's a quick citation - "School Socialism, anarchism, mutualism" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon

The second and third sentences of your link: "He was the first person to declare himself an anarchist[1][2] and is widely regarded as one of the ideology's most influential theorists. Proudhon is even considered by many to be the "father of anarchism".[3] "

Libertarian socialism is also mentioned, which is very related to anarchism of the time.

And, why socialists would not adopt the phrase is about the kind of quip socialists find persuasive, and not really a matter of what he was or wasn't. Socialists like the notion of "property is theft" whereas "property is freedom" kinda goes against everything a socialist stands for.

Not necessarily. Socialism doesn't necessarily eschew private property. And I was pointing out that it's a fairly weak argument to expect socialists to adopt a saying from someone who wasn't a socialist. Ordinarily something as obvious as that wouldn't need explaining. But with some posters the obvious isn't obvious...

Yes, it does eschew private property, although some socialists will try to allow for "personal property" as distinct from private property. Personal property would include the necessaries of life and such, maybe transportation. And, he was a socialist. Proudhon called himself a socialist, and advocated the proletariat workers own the means of production in associations. Per the Encyclopedia Brittanica "Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, (born January 15, 1809, Besançon, France—died January 19, 1865, Paris), French libertarian socialist and journalist whose doctrines became the basis for later radical and anarchist theory." https://www.britannica.com/biography/Pi ... h-Proudhon