Heh. Yes, instead of the government confiscating for its own purpose what belongs to individuals, the government would be confiscating for its own purpose what belongs to everyone and therefore basically no one, and the government would still get away with it. If anything changed in effect, it would probably be a patriotic defense of this type of seizure as for the greater good.
I don't recall mentioning any government.
Would it? You say there would still be laws, but how can one claim privacy in one's dwelling if one's house is not privately owned? If the people own everything, and the government is/represents the people, then the government will be free to do with house it so pleases, will it not?
Of course it would. Simply having common ownership does not suddenly remove all legal boundaries. One would think that monasteries and convents must be horrible places of violent chaos and constant intrusion upon any possible privacy. Of course that isn't the case and is not a necessity on any communal society. The right to privacy would still exist and in fact, I'd argue that because socialism is more directly democratic and concerned with the needs of the people - privacy would be far more important a right than it is in the current capitalist states that exist right now where wiretaps and domestic spying are defended through the ideology of the bourgeoisie.
I'm sure you did ask sincerely, however, you also attempted to mix materialism in with ownership. Materialism is a preoccupation with physical goods as value to a degree that dismisses interest in other values such as cultural, intellectual or spiritual. One does not have to be, and were I a betting man I'd bet most are not, materialistic to defend the concept of property. So let's leave materialism aside since no one, as best I can tell, is interested in defending it.
Ownership, property is important because in the sense of natural rights it is the right that is the foundation for all other rights. You can call self-ownership "bizarre", but it is not. You said, "The fact that you can own a 2008 Mercedes SUV or a 1963 Opel Cadet has absolutely no bearing on your existence as a human being. This is logic bent in the worst way." Yes, and you bent it. The argument is not that owning a car has a bearing on one's existence as a human being. The argument is that existence as a human being has bearing on one's right to own property.
You can argue whether or not an individual actually owns himself, particularly from a Christian theological standpoint, however, I think the concept of self-ownership (or perhaps self-regency if you prefer, Catholic), is fundamental to human society. If each individual owns himself, then no one else can own him. No one's interests or desires can be claimed to be above that of any other human. Without this, seems to me, then we lose basis for opposition to slavery, murder and abuse of other human beings, because then anything society claims to be more important than the individual becomes a basis for enslavement, murder and abuse. This is, in (extreme) brief, why the right of property is important.
First, let me say that I appreciate your sincere reply Prince. I had a feeling that if anyone would discuss this issue in earnest it would be you. Let me clarify one definition so that it is not a stumbling block.
Materialism: in this case I refer to economic materialism which is the placing of the collection or consumption of material goods as a high priority. I was trying to be careful in my initial question to not place a value judgment on materialism. And it
is important in modern economics. Look at calls from economists and people in different parties on the consumers to spend money on material items (in theory as a method of increasing spending on consumer items and therefore driving the economy). I admit that later I might have referred to it in a negative manner, but my initial question is meant to view both it and ownership as neutral.
I realize that you think the concept of self-ownership is fundamental to human society and therefore to your concept of private ownership, yet that does not make it true either from a practical standpoint or from an ideological standpoint. If self-ownership is merely a right (if natural rights truly exist is a debatable issue of its own) then is it not transferable? Can one not simply transfer their self-ownership to another actor? That action alone would defeat the entire concept of self-onwership and take private ownership (if it truly depends upon self-ownership) right along with it. That is one reason I used the term "bizarre." I did not mean it as an attack or swipe on libertarians, whom I find much more agreeable than those on the right-wing, as much as a philosophical point.
What we do is always a measure, at least in part, of who we are. Human action is not always labor in the form of a job. But when a man works, possibly sacrifices, to provide for his family, this says something about him, does it not? If a person is a good person, we judge this by their actions, do we not? And if individuals own themselves, they also then own their labor and their time. If a person devotes himself to spiritual endeavors, a priest, a nun, a pastor, this is human action by choice. Their actions, effort, labor is their own to give, is it not? Also, "An individual is simply the sum of their labour" is not quite what Amianthus initially said. He said, "Then perhaps you'll have to explain what a person's life is beyond the sum of their personal works." Suggesting that a person's life is the sum of his personal works is not really the same as suggesting an individual is simply the sum of his labor. An individual may be quite spiritual, but his life is made up of actions nonetheless. I doubt you deny this. Do you?
I might quibble with the difference between "action" and "thought" but on the whole, I'd mostly agree.
It is actually quite remarkable the level at which you all and Marx agree. It is primarily a difference in conclusions and not premises on which you disagree. That is quite possible one reason why I have much less difficulty discussing these things with both you and Ami as opposed to our more right-wing brethren.
The thing is of course that capitalist labour is a paradox: it takes something that is intimately valuable to us, our personal determined activity, and then monetises and regulates it, dividing us from our work and from our fellow workers in the race to monetise our labour and regulate each other. It?s called alienation.
