You might find this enlightening, https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/pierre-joseph-proudhon-what-is-property-an-inquiry-into-the-principle-of-right-and-of-governmen
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
You might find this enlightening, https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/pierre-joseph-proudhon-what-is-property-an-inquiry-into-the-principle-of-right-and-of-governmen
Without property, where do you end and I begin?
You should carefully examine a philosophy that causes you to think of people in terms of property.
People are not things.
Crapitalism causes us to separate ourselves into yours and mine.
This makes war and crime business as usual.
When we think of ourselves as one big blue marble we tend to be nicer to each other.
It took me well over a decade to get my head untwisted from crapitalism.
I'm much more pleasant to be around, now.
Proudhon isn't saying that we shouldn't respect each other's space and things, he is pointing out that crapitalism has caused you to fall victim to doublethink.
It is the crapitalust that doesn't respect the right to life.
Be exploited for your poverty, or starve.
Create profits for the boss, or live under a bridge.
Hardly the behavior of a loving, caring system.
Under my proposal war, crime, poverty, economic slavery, and scarcity, all come to an end.
In their place are cooperation, abundance, and mutual respect.
But don't expect to get that idea from the lamestream sources of information.
In a mind controlled world freedom is never presented as an option that is viable.
I disagree. People are things, are material objects, and whomever has control over that thing is the owner. It is in my opinion imperative to give those ownership rights to the individual person who resides within that body.
Technologically speaking, in the near future it will be possible for a government or for a spy agency to involuntarily chip the brains of people and violate self ownership rights technologically. If self ownership does not exist as a human right, then there simply will be no human rights and you will not have any legal means to defend yourself from being communally owned. Trying to say under your proposal war, crime, economic slavery, all could come to an end?
It is true, if every brain on earth is chipped and connected to a giant computer running artificial intelligence, then free will can be completely wiped out and all those problems you mention could come to an end based on the fact that no one would own themselves, but instead their bodies would be remotely controlled by an AI.
But in that future we will have sacrificed 100% of our liberty in order to get absolute security and my point is that the ideal is to have both, not one or the other. And in my opinion it's not possible to have the utopia you speak. I do think we can have a better world, but there will always be a struggle to defend rights, and to keep whatever gains which we manage to establish.
And no, I don't look to old philosophers with outdated ideas. Show me an idea from Proudhon which applies well into the technologically enhanced future, where there is AI, where there could be a technological singularity, where free will might cease to exist, where personal responsibility might cease to exist, where the individual might cease to exist, and how do his ideas apply?
I don't think capitalism is the problem. Blaming capitalism is like blaming the accounting system for all the theft and exploitation of people operating under it. The problem is that some people are psychopathic and greedy, and this problem isn't going to go away under communism or socialism.
I share your concerns, but you got some doublethinc going when you say people are property and expect them not to be treated like property as currently envisioned by the population.
The definitions we use are not always identical.
If you reduce life to property you are making a thing out of a life.
A thing to be manipulated and used.
A slave.
People are free, only the ideas we accept are there to enslave us, by design.
You are a soul, you have a body.
Of course only you have authority over it.
If you accept that others having authority over you can be legitimate, as in an owner/wageslave relationship, then you accept that some people should be slaves.
It is only natural that the rulers would make rules to 'safeguard' their property, just as natural as your accepting it as the only solution possible, by design.
Because the last thing your social programming is going to feed you is the difference between what you think is freedom and what real freedom is.
The choice between starving and living under a bridge, or agreeing to let somebody take a portion of your labor's value as a premium for letting you work, not to mention attendance and deportment pressures, is not a choice freely made, who chooses to live under a bridge if there are other options?
People that have had enough, that's who, and those dependent on them.
In my utopia we work because we want to replace what we consume.
We excel because that is how you find suitable mates.
Reputation is everything.
I think you prefer what you have for the same reasons people accept the religion forced on them as children, you just don't know any better.
Not a slight to you, but to the matrix that made this situation possible.