Capitalism has very few ethics, hence ideas like the systems in Hegel's days seemed to have worked ethically. Philosophy is currently a mess due to the ideas of capitalism etc.

Here's the use of the word the American Dream: — René Descartes

What does the verticle axis represent?

1. Add a rule: You're not allowed to transfer ownership to the State. That in itself is a limitation to property rights so seems a bad choice given the framework. — Benkei

TO provide the sort of infrastructure capital needs to work it is vitally necessary to run most services at cost through the public sector taxation. Without this capitalism would not thrive. Think roads, police fire, schools. The state preserves the power to seize what land it needs for these activities.

2. Add a rule: A duty on the State to minimise public ownership. That could work (and raises practical issues but let's leave that for now).

That would be absurd. It's recipe for fall and decline.

3. Amend the ideology: it's not about private ownership but about respect of ownership in itself regardless of whether this is public or private. This could work too.

What is property? Property is theft.

What is property? Property is theft. — charleton

"Theft" implies taking someone else's property. If property is theft, then who is being stolen from?

1. Add a rule: You're not allowed to transfer ownership to the State. That in itself is a limitation to property rights so seems a bad choice given the framework.
2. Add a rule: A duty on the State to minimise public ownership. That could work (and raises practical issues but let's leave that for now).
3. Amend the ideology: it's not about private ownership but about respect of ownership in itself regardless of whether this is public or private. This could work too. — Benkei

1. Dedication of private lands to the state occurs regularly when homes are developed and the developer then deeds the roadways to the state for upkeep and traffic enforcement. If that weren't the case, you'd burden each neighborhood with road and rain drainage upkeep and you'd limit access only to those who owned the roads. So, Rule 1 pretty much fucks up neighborhood development. Good job.

Another reason you might want to give your land to the state is when they have significantly devalued it by their development of adjacent land, like when they run an interstate through your back yard. You would have the right to seek inverse condemnation, arguing they have taken your land by devaluing it, and you'd force the state to compensate you for it. That's a basic Constitution right under the "takings" clause. So, you have now violated the Constitution with Rule 1. You are really fucking shit up.

There's also another issue you're not considering, which is that just because one has the right to give their land to the state doesn't mean that the state must keep it. They could resell it and make it public again, so we don't need to prohibit dedicating land to the state in order to protect capitalism for fear everyone will do it. We must assume that the state would be able to find a buyer when all these folks start giving up their land.

2. State ownership of public land is limited by public policy, based upon what the good folks in our thriving democracy want. Nevada, for example, has massive portions owned by the federal government, and there are many national, state, county, and city parks owned by the government. The US is a huge country with plenty of land for all, and we love our parks and natural preserves. Stop fucking that up. I just got back from Glacier National Park with my kids. Why do you want to deprive future generations of that and the memories of seeing nature and wildlife? Do you hate families and nature?

3. I agree with this, which is what I was alluding to before. Where "ownership" begins and other less expansive possessory rights begin is not a crystal clear distinction.

No, I don't think marxists are the truly religious ones. Some marxists are good people, some capitalists are good people. — Bitter Crank

Are you making an association between "religious" and "good people"?

What is property? Property is theft.
— charleton
"Theft" implies taking someone else's property. If property is theft, then who is being stolen from? — Arkady

Private property is stolen from the commons.

We have examples in Russia of how aversion to the concept of private property undermines industry. Since the workers think they own the factory, we can't just fire all of them and bring in cheaper immigrants. Atrocities like this beset the Russian capitalist.

I know it cause I've had this conversation before. — René Descartes

Are you experiencing deja vu? It's odd that the only way to say that in English is in French. ?

So it was the property of the commons prior to being stolen? If not, then it's not theft (as no unlawful seizure of property has occurred). If so, then the commons stole it (because property is theft). (Recall that the post to which I initially responded said that "property is theft." You have tacked on the qualifier "private".)

Sure, it was. Earth belongs to life, and life belongs to Earth in a reciprocal relation. I fence off my garden and dispossess you the people and also the rabbits, without your or their permission. As long as you also have your garden, and the rabbits have theirs, no one will make a big fuss. But once we greedy buggers have fenced off the whole world, there is likely to be some trouble. But not, unfortunately, from the white rhino.

[Delete] @Baden

Sure, it was. — unenlightened

Then the commons stole it, if we accept the premise that "property is theft."

Ok dude.Goal scored. Congratulations.

Don't get snippy with me if you can't follow an argument with 2 premises to its logical conclusion.

I'm just not interested in the point you have so convincingly demonstrated.

that makes a lot of sense

Isn't anyone I posted a remark to their post going to bother honoring it with at least a reply back?

"Well that is a good point. It's basic supply and demand. As population increases and resources decrease we will have scarcity, and with the rich having control over the resources the people at the bottom end will have decreasing living standards. Also, there are finite resources and people don't seem to realise that you can't eat money."
- René Descartes

I more or less agree. However this isn't a new issue as it has many of it's root back to the being of the industrial age when the robber barons of those time would ruthlessly seek to obtain any asset that would enable them to make money and would only leave enough scraps for other people to survive.

If you can either take American History II at a local college or read up on the time period from about the American Civil War to modern time. In it there should be some discussion about how and why workers started forming into unions in order to have some leverage against robber barons, corporations, etc. . I also recommend watching the following video:

Poor Us: an animated history - Why Poverty?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxbmjDngois

"Then the commons stole it, if we accept the premise that "property is theft." ? "
-Arkady
The point of unenlightened's I think you missed is that commons can not steal whatever "it" is because the commons is neither owned by ANYONE nor a entity in and of itself like a corporation is, so it isn't really owned by anyone/anything including itself.

Think of a wild animal somewhere out in the jungle somewhere just living it's life and doing it's thing. In theory it owns itself in some way but because it is just part of nature and has no idea of property such ideas and rules are not really applicable to it in it's natural state. However if someone comes along using a tranquilizer dart to knock it out, burns a bar code into it's backside, and then throw it into a cage, it is no longer in it's natural setting and it is now the "property" of whomever did it to them and trying to sell the animal to someone else or keep it for themselves for whatever reasons.

Isn't anyone I posted a remark to their post going to bother honoring it with at least a reply back? — dclements

I just noticed you were talking to me. If you select text from a post, a quote button will appear. Push the quote button. That will make it easier for people you address to notice your post.

I think you misunderstood my post as personal admonition or something. I was expressing what I believe to be capitalist morality. It's along the lines of master morality, but actually less brutal.

It's interesting to observe otherwise leftist, possibly pacifist people operating by master morality. :)

"We have examples in Russia of how aversion to the concept of private property undermines industry. Since the workers think they own the factory, we can't just fire all of them and bring in cheaper immigrants. Atrocities like this beset the Russian capitalist."
-frank

While it might be a crime in some places for workers and protesters to occupy a factory or some other area without proper permission, to use the word "atrocity" to describe such actions is an exaggeration since it is reserved for things like mass murder, genocide, etc. or at the very least violence and physical injury to one or more people.

Also since the Putin and/or the Russia state can seize entire oil companies and/or other corporate entities merely because they are being accused of working with Western organizations to undermine the current administration, I somehow doubt that the threat of workers merely interfering with operations worry Russian capitalists that much if ALL of one's assets can be seized as well they themselves being arrested on whatever charges and thrown into the gulag at the drop of a hat if the rub the powers that be in the existing regime if you happen to rub them the wrong way.

Mere angry workers may be threatening to some, but they can't do that much as groups that have the power or threat of those who have tanks, armies, ships, fighter jets, etc. behind them.

Ok, I'll try to do that although I kind of don't like posting something without the context of what it is arguing with nearby.

When you say "master morality" are you talking about master–slave morality from Nietzsche or in reference o something else?

Nietzsche, yes. I'm saying that the capitalist mindset is similar to master morality, but not identical to it.

Ok, I'll try to do that although I kind of don't like posting something without the context of what it is arguing with nearby. — dclements

You can do that too.

The point of unenlightened's I think you missed is that commons can not steal whatever "it" is because the commons is neither owned by ANYONE nor a entity in and of itself like a corporation is, so it isn't really owned by anyone/anything including itself. — dclements

Then appropriating it for personal use isn't theft, as theft is the unlawful appropriation of someone else's property. If it's not "owned by anyone/anything including itself," then it's not property, and if it's not property, then its appropriation for private use does not constitute theft, contra the thesis that "[all] property is theft."

Ok, I'll have to read up on that in order to understand it better but for the sake of speed assume it isn't that different for thing like Machiavellianism and/or Ayn Rand's Objectivism, but will be careful not to assume they are the same and/or creating straw-men with such assumptions.

Just so you know where I'm coming from it might be helpful to know that a lot of my arguments (for economies at least) are based of the works of Martin Heidegger or at least the morality that I interpret from his works. If you have a chance I would recommend either getting a pdf copy or book from Amazon called "Heidegger For Beginners", since it is a decent way to get a crash course into some of his beliefs and thoughts.

As a person who is Nihilist/Machiavellian I can accept that "morality" is merely a social construct and may not apply when push comes to shove, BUT one needs a certain...finesse when dealing with complex situations such as one of Machiavellian's princes might be required to handle. Robber barons and/or capitalists who raid and plunder without regard to those who are their lesser might think risk inciting riots and rebellions even if the end does justify the means in some way.

Also what I wonder with Nietzsche's master-slave morality is what happens if we end up with everyone wanting to be the 'chief' and nobody wanting to be an just an indian since it would require them to serve under a tyrant? For what little I know of such situations where an organization employs too many competitive individuals is that it risks tearing itself apart with endless infighting. And although it is possible for a place to exist where "everyone is their own master" (because they are artistically, mathematically, etc. gifted) in most places this doesn't happen ever, nor is there any assurances that such places could effectively govern themselves. In the video game Bioshock, an eccentric billionaire named Andrew Ryan creates an underwater city named Atlas in which he hopes to escape much of the "slave" mentality of the world around him and in the process of him mishandling much of the social upheaval that occurs when everyone is down there for while the entire place dissolves into anarchy with nearly everyone trying to kill each other. Although the story of Atlas may not be exactly what would happen in a society populated and ruled by those who had a "master" mentality, I believe it is effective commentary of many of the potential problems of what such a society would have to deal with.

No. You are misreading what I said..

In the social context theft can only occur when someone else's property is stolen but in theory if something isn't someone else's then it isn't technically theft. However the problem with this is that it is only in the legal context of things as doesn't account for the issue of "thing in and of itself" having rights (property or otherwise) which need to be respected. For example, hundreds of years ago (and maybe even in some places now) when human rights where no so universal one person could be bought and sold to someone else much like any other property.

Since certain societies of the time respected the individual who owned the paperwork detailing such ownership over the claims of such individual without any paperwork detailing themselves as a citizen or free person in anyway; it was a given that person didn't even own their own body and/or life and was subjugated to the will of the one that did. However today in most societies we would recognize such behavior as theft (as well as several other crimes) since it is a given that everyone has rights to their own body and mind even if they don't have the documentation to prove they are a free citizen or whatever. If you extend some of the rights of human beings to other "things in and of themselves" you get some of the general idea behind why all property is theft of one form or another.

Thanks for the reference. You brought up a number of issues definitely worth a reply, but I'm not in a position to do the topic justice right now.

In the meantime, I'll just say that every social arrangement carries the seeds of its own undoing.
Nietzsche points out how the practice of master morality comes to a bitter end.