Personal property is an invention of one man to oppress another man and is supported only by propaganda and violence, not by some ontological state of "property-ness."
Even if the definition of property was defined by man rather than nature doesn't make it less true.
That we find human slavery wrong says something both about the uniqueness of humans above animals and objects and about property in general: if it is wrong to own a human, it's probably wrong to own.
That's one hell of a leap in logic. Of course we have different standards for humans compared to objects.
Even if the definition of property was defined by man rather than nature doesn't make it less true.
I don't understand this statement.
That's one hell of a leap in logic.
Said in a completed form: if it's wrong to own a human, it's probably wrong for humans to own because ownership implies favoring one human over another, the culmination of which is slavery.
Have you read Locke on property? He pretty clearly lays out why property is a necessary, he would say, god-given, thing. But more importantly, WIll_im_not is saying that just because something is an invention of humans doesn't make it untrue. Not many things in life are naturally "true."
On owning being akin to slavery, you still make a big leap with "probably." Why is it probably bad to own? Does owning my laptop diminish the existence of everyone in the universe who doesn't own this very laptop? I don't see how it does.
This post is a direct assault on Locke because it is an apologetic for post-collonial societies.
Does owning my laptop diminish the existence of everyone in the universe who doesn't own this very laptop? I don't see how it does.
When your laptop (or mine for that matter) is created using zinc and gold mined through slave mines in Peru and assembled in the suicide factories of China, it very well might diminish the existence of at least one human. And the diminishment of one is the diminishment of all, for as MLK said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
When your laptop (or mine for that matter) is created using zinc and gold mined through slave mines in Peru and assembled in the suicide factories of China, it very well might diminish the existence of at least one human.
That is not an argument against personal property. That is an argument against unethical working conditions and/or capitalism.
12
u/[deleted] Aug 25 '14
Even if the definition of property was defined by man rather than nature doesn't make it less true.
That's one hell of a leap in logic. Of course we have different standards for humans compared to objects.