Negative Manifestations
Property as intergenerationally founded on theft
Property as a legal title in the absence of use
Property as a claim of dominion over the occupant
Property as exclusivity
Property as a tool of murder
Property as a keystone of the state
Positive Manifestations
Property as the product of labor
Property as qualified by use
Property as intertwined with liberty
Property as a social lubricant
Property as necessary for life
Property as a bulwark against the state
Proposition
Despite what superficially appears to be a bunch of contradictions, all of these manifestations are simultaneously true and useful or functional as contextual definitions of property. They represent different functions and types of property. A good deal of the political conflict over property is partially based on the problem of taking too narrow of a viewpoint in which one only aknowledges a portion of the different manifestations of property, as well as a tendency to fail to adequately distinguish between positive and negative types.
Posts
Letter #16 from Kurt in Jail
2 hours ago
7 comments:
Interesting Brainpolice. Could you please remind me again what the difference is - or what you mean - between positive and negative. Just so I'm not confused. Thanks!
In the common sense of the terms: good and bad. Of course, one confusion might be that I placed exclusivity in the "negative" section. I'd like to clarify that I'm not opposed to all exclusivity in property (who in their right mind would question one's home and basic personal possessions?), but I think that too much exclusivity over too large portions leads to negative consequences.
In short, what I'm calling "positive manifestations" of property is what I support, and what I'm calling "negative manifestations" of property is what I oppose. On a meta-level, the point is that one has to aknowledge the multi-faceted spectrum of property in the first place, so to speak.
Cool, just making sure. Thanks for clarifying. I was thinking that it might be similar to positive and negative rights, which sometimes I get confused.
Yea, that's a separate question, as well as "positive vs. negative liberty". My view on that is that negative rights are primary, while so-called positive rights are contractual in the context of negative rights. I would say that the dichotomy is often used as a false dillema.
Great. Thanks for helping me out Brainpolice.
I wish you success in saving this ideology (libertarianism), but I think that this is hopeless. Too much shit is going on in "our" community... I wish you to not stop at the egoistic deconstuction of secual humanism. We have to make the logical conclusion and reject "natural order", "natural laws" and whole stupid deontology, wich ignores the consequences of self-evident axioms.
"Natural order" is just another name for a geist. Fuck it! Join Stirnerites!
Post a Comment