Ah... the classic argument that allows for the continuation of the aristocracy and the monarchy and the rest of the left-overs from our feudal history... Fly... .
OK, here's some more holes in arguments: You can argue that no-one has the right to own anything, but you can just as easily argue that no-one has the right to take it away. In the absence of ownership, what was property would be the property of everyone. This goes again meritocracy: a good person gets at most the same as a bad person, and more likely has what they are arbitrated taken from them by the bad. A lot of this stuff hinges on the idea that you shouldn't have anything you don't need. While it's an argument you can't fault, does anyone actually need the Internet? And now the killer, that someone really should've said by now: Only someone who owns nothing can argue that property is theft from a sound logical standpoint. Can anyone posting in this thread honestly say that?
i'm sorry to say this but this is another stupid debate... if you actually believe that property is theft then you either don't own anything or you are an idiot and should have starved to death by now... sorry if that sounds harsh but "property is theft" sounds like something a 12 year old would write on a toilet wall to look ace and anti establishment...
"Just a thought coz I really can't be arsed getting into this debate right now, but I'm surprised nobody has mentioned that "property is theft" is actually an oxymoron. The notion of theft presupposes the existence of property. Without property, how can there be theft?" If nobody owns property then everything, every piece of land, is owned by all.. For somebody to claim it as his own is to steal from everyone. Or something. What all of this boils down to is a choice between what is right and what is desired. Unfortunately, human nature dictates that we do as much for ourselves as possible, regardless of what that might mean for others. So sit back, loosen up, drink your starbucks and surf the web on your state of the art computer while Mexicans work for a very small fraction of our minimum wage, Southeast Asian children work for even less, and African's die from AIDS and starvation. How's the coffee?
Yes, I'm a hypocrite, talking to you on my expensive computer. The desk is littered with empty starbucks frappuccino bottles. I am, unfortunately, my own human nature's bitch.
See, if I had a conscience and drank Starbucks, I might feel guilty. It's be nice to live in an egalitarian Utopia where no-one coveted their neighbour's asses (or the asses of the state) and all wealth was aportioned fairly. But in the absence of that, I feel that the current system does a much better job at reigning in people's grasping avarice and destructive tendencies a lot better than people give it credit for. I'm not saying it's perfect, but when you consider how much damage a few assholes could do to yr peaceful communal caring, sharing existence, and realise that while there is free will there will forever be assholes, it's pretty impressive that it works as well as it does.
I own a few nice things, I've owned some very nice things in the past, what I have learned is that nothing is permanent and at some point we have to accept losses and welcome new gains. Maybe the phrase should be changed to something resembling St. Pauls famous quote, "The love of money is the root of all evil" How about "The love of property equals the willingness to see others go without" or something like that ... or is that too long winded to be profound?
One day I'm set to inherit (with my sisters) a share in a house from my grandfather. There might even be inheritance tax on it. I'm determined that the government get as little as possible from this. I somewhat agree with what you're saying but we're back to virtuallly unworkable utopian ideas again, to do away with inheritence would mean a complete rethink in human standards, losing the work ethic and all leaders. I started this thread after pondering about where land ownership originated ... I'll come back to this after I've slept.
But if everyone ows something, then there's still property, because you still have a notion of ownership. The more correct slogan would therefore be "All private property is theft". It seems like there are two issues getting confused here. General property ownership and land ownership. The fact that in Britain we have the remnants of a system dating back to the feudal enclosures, where the nobility own land that was stolen from the peasants, means that the issue is particularly complicated for us. Perhaps that's one for its own thread.
That seems to be the general history of the British though ... just look at all the countries we colonised.
The problem with that axiom is it doesn't allow people to squat in yr basement. How about "The slogan 'property is theft' is a perverse misuse of logic and should never be used by anyone ever again ever"?
it makes no sense...whats the point of working hard if you cant pass anything onto your kids? I dont want my kids to have to worry about expenses or if they are going to live in a gutter..
Its called a meritocracy... the idea that a person relies upon their own skills and abilities rather than simply inheriting a life of luxury... you see these rich kids around who only have the ability to spend daddy's money and would be completely unable to cope if the money was taken away from them... Rather than being obessed with the idea of working hard and passing material possessions onto our children, surely we should be obsessed with spending quality time with them and helping them to grow into adulthood?... Fly...
exactly. those who are most talented are rewarded, i see np with passing it down family by family. There is no way to completely remove influence from rich/powerful families. If i build a family estate, you want the state to take control of my house instead of my kids taking control of it?? thats insane! Its their house too. Yes there are those who inherit vast amounts of money and have never worked a day in there life, there are also those who have inherited a modest amount and made a great fortune out of it. Surely you arent arguing that a person cant work hard and be a good father(mother), or are you?
OK, but why do people push themselves to succeed? I work hard, save a bit and generally try to provide well for my family. If all that hard work is ultimately going to be wasted, and the proceeds grabbed by the government when I die - then why should I bother? You can't underestimate the effect of self interest. If there is no self interest in pushing myself that extra bit, then I wouldn't do it.
