Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Rest of Us Always Knew Churchill Was a Villain

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 151 posts

Re: The Rest of Us Always Knew Churchill Was a Villain

#131

Post by claudiawerner »

ColanR wrote: post #119
claudiawerner wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A key idea here is the distinction between what many consider to be personal property (one's toothbrush and probably bank account and house) and private property, which is used to the ends of profit or production otherwise, in older terms, production of surplus value. Land is an interesting case that cannot be compared to bank accounts also because it's a finite natural resource, in some sense still only given only b…

Interesting source. I should read the book in its entirety. And yet, in applying Proudhon's above paragraphs here, I think you've overstated your case. "prohibit[ion] from walking in the highways, from resting in the fields, from taking shelter in caves, from lighting fires, from picking berries, from gathering herbs and boiling them in a bit of baked clay" is a much broader principle and restriction than what is at…

The context here is that Proudhon was an anarchist; he'd have been equally critical of the state as he was landlords if this work was being critical of that, but this was about property in general, something he sees as common both in the land owned by the state and the land owned by private persons. The argument is that if property can be owned and appropriated, taken to its logical conclusion this would mean that any and all property can be owned and appropriated, including these common areas more guaranteed in Europe than they are in the US. Proudhon writing in 1840, at least, saw this was the case all over the world - the enclosure of the commons in Britain, for instance, which disenfranchised many from exactly those kind of activities. He doesn't argue it should be free from restriction, he says it should be regulated because it's scarce, but in the interest of all, not for profit. How this works in an anarchist society is up to him and his idea of mutualism, which is fairly niche as far as anarchism goes.

The situation he's pointing out is that you shouldn't have to be going to homeless shelters or camping in a natural park. The fact these are named as options is even rather farcical, reminding me of the quote that the rich and poor are equally barred from stealing loaves of bread and camping outside buildings. It goes beyond preference into a totally different qualitative state of living.

Re: The Rest of Us Always Knew Churchill Was a Villain

#132

Post by ben_w »

pjc50 wrote: post #58
kbutler wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Property taxes? At least where I live, land values are assessed annually, and the owner is obligated to pay a percentage of that value. Those tax funds are used for the very improvements mentioned, as well as usage-based utility fees for the services.

Not in the UK. We have a system that's vaguely related to the value of the house, banded so that expensive property is under-taxed, and usually capped by central government. It's quite a mess.

And worse, it’s occipier based, not owner based. I own a flat in the UK and it’s my tenant, not me, who pays council tax.

Re: The Rest of Us Always Knew Churchill Was a Villain

#133

Post by Udik »

Teever wrote: post #100
whack wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the use of gas is so reasonable, one wonders why he only supports using it against "uncivilized tribes".

Well to be honest I'm sure Churchill would not have any qualms of using gas against the Irish or the Welsh.

He probably didn't think much of them either.

Re: The Rest of Us Always Knew Churchill Was a Villain

#134

Post by ColanR »

claudiawerner wrote: post #131
ColanR wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting source. I should read the book in its entirety. And yet, in applying Proudhon's above paragraphs here, I think you've overstated your case. "prohibit[ion] from walking in the highways, from resting in the fields, from taking shelter in caves, from lighting fires, from picking berries, from gathering herbs and boiling them in a bit of baked clay" is a much broader principle and restriction than what is at…

The context here is that Proudhon was an anarchist; he'd have been equally critical of the state as he was landlords if this work was being critical of that, but this was about property in general, something he sees as common both in the land owned by the state and the land owned by private persons. The argument is that if property can be owned and appropriated, taken to its logical conclusion this would mean that an…

Yeah, I noticed the context. This is the guy who coined the phrase, "property is theft".

And actually, he is exactly talking about 'camping in a natural park':

> Let us complete the argument of M. Ch. Comte. A man who should be prohibited from walking in the highways, from resting in the fields, from taking shelter in caves, from lighting fires, from picking berries, from gathering herbs and boiling them in a bit of baked clay, — such a man could not live.

If 'a man' is free to do what he describes above, the ultimate basic human life, then he is free. You're adding onto that, somehow claiming Proudhon is also advocating for a free life with creature comforts. Proudhon is describing the basic freedom that someone without money and without assets should be able to exercise in the world - they can move about, they can sleep in a field, gather naturally growing wild food, and cook over a fire. He is absolutely not talking about some 'minimum level of comfort' that the rest of the world owes them.

Re: The Rest of Us Always Knew Churchill Was a Villain

#135

Post by claudiawerner »

ColanR wrote: post #134
claudiawerner wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The context here is that Proudhon was an anarchist; he'd have been equally critical of the state as he was landlords if this work was being critical of that, but this was about property in general, something he sees as common both in the land owned by the state and the land owned by private persons. The argument is that if property can be owned and appropriated, taken to its logical conclusion this would mean that an…

Yeah, I noticed the context. This is the guy who coined the phrase, "property is theft". And actually, he is exactly talking about 'camping in a natural park': > Let us complete the argument of M. Ch. Comte. A man who should be prohibited from walking in the highways, from resting in the fields, from taking shelter in caves, from lighting fires, from picking berries, from gathering herbs and boiling them in a bit of…

The confusion here is that you're interpreting him as intending to say that man should only have those rights, but Proudhon already knows about those rights, those rights existed in his time too - yet he clearly thought there was some issue with property. So to him, and many others in that tradition, the question of freedom is not simply answered by the ability to camp in natural parks and walk on roads. Both the title of the work and its argument against property in general, not to mention the second paragraph I quoted shows that he clearly has an issue with property, not merely private appropriation of the public goods he mentioned.

Proudhon's theory of mutualism entails only usufructary use of property, that is to say, only property in possession rather than a title to land in perpetuity to do what you want with it. The theory doesn't see it as a good way to run society to profit from loans and rent.

If you had any more doubt about Proudhon's direction:

>But property, in its derivative sense, and by the definitions of law, is a right outside of society; for it is clear that, if the wealth of each was social wealth, the conditions would be equal for all, and it would be a contradiction to say: Property is a man’s right to dispose at will of social property. Then if we are associated for the sake of liberty, equality, and security, we are not associated for the sake of property; then if property is a natural right, this natural right is not social, but anti-social. Property and society are utterly irreconcilable institutions. It is as impossible to associate two proprietors as to join two magnets by their opposite poles. Either society must perish, or it must destroy property.

Re: The Rest of Us Always Knew Churchill Was a Villain

#136

Post by ColanR »

landryraccoon wrote: post #124
ColanR wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're advocating for the landlord to lose ownership of their property? If so, question of my own. The landlord worked and spent resources (time, money) to increase his assets (develop the property). You, at your job, worked and spent resources (time, etc.) to increase your assets (e.g. size of your bank account). Do you think you should have indefinite ownership of your bank accou…

> If so, question of my own. The landlord worked and spent resources (time, money) to increase his assets (develop the property). You, at your job, worked and spent resources (time, etc.) to increase your assets (e.g. size of your bank account). Do you think you should have indefinite ownership of your bank account? The landlord earns rent from his property. I earn a salary from my job. The landlord and I are on equa…

You've distilled your claim: the right to ownership of an asset is dependent on whether or not you keep improving it ("my employment at my job depends on me continually adding value to society").

There are a lot of people on here who built their own SaaS businesses. In a lot of cases, those are just websites that provide some simple service. And, in a lot of cases, once its built there isn't really much to do except "collect forever with no labor".

I do consider it a "grievous evil" if you look over at one of those entrepreneurs, see the money they're making -- with no current labor expenditure from themselves -- and decide that you want some of what they earned for themselves, that their ownership should not be perpetual.

Re: The Rest of Us Always Knew Churchill Was a Villain

#138

Post by rcpt »

ColanR wrote: post #74
landryraccoon wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What about the benefit of actual living quarters for the tenants? Would you argue that patents and copyright should last infinitely long because the world is richer forever due to the one solitary act of the inventor? Landlords hold a monopoly over the land they own as much as copyright holders own a monopoly on the IP they own. I think it's quite reasonable to ask if that monopoly deserves to be forever. I agree w…

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're advocating for the landlord to lose ownership of their property? If so, question of my own. The landlord worked and spent resources (time, money) to increase his assets (develop the property). You, at your job, worked and spent resources (time, etc.) to increase your assets (e.g. size of your bank account). Do you think you should have indefinite ownership of your bank accou…

Churchill goes into the comparison between land ownership and labor if you read the full speech.

Re: The Rest of Us Always Knew Churchill Was a Villain

#139

Post by lucas_membrane »

darkpuma wrote: post #21
nickysielicki wrote: post #7

> “History,” Churchill himself said, “will judge me kindly, because I intend to write it myself.” He did, penning a multi-volume history of World War Two, and won the Nobel Prize for Literature for his self-serving fictions. One of my favorite conspiracy theories is the idea that Churchill and Roosevelt conspired to allow the attack at Pearl Harbor to occur. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor_advance-knowledg…

It's an interesting hypothesis. Isolationism was a popular position in America before Pearl Harbor, to the extent that in his 1940 campaign FDR promised he wouldn't enter into a foreign war if he was reelected. And true to his word, after he was reelected America did not declare war on Germany despite many in the press demanding it. Eventually, after Pearl Harbor, it was Germany who declared war on America, not the o…

>> flew combat missions as a civilian (which is a bit strange.)

While a civilian, he flew solo missions as a fighter pilot and engaged the enemy. We have a term for this nowadays, "illegal combatant."

Re: The Rest of Us Always Knew Churchill Was a Villain

#140

Post by landryraccoon »

ColanR wrote: post #136
landryraccoon wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If so, question of my own. The landlord worked and spent resources (time, money) to increase his assets (develop the property). You, at your job, worked and spent resources (time, etc.) to increase your assets (e.g. size of your bank account). Do you think you should have indefinite ownership of your bank account? The landlord earns rent from his property. I earn a salary from my job. The landlord and I are on equa…

You've distilled your claim: the right to ownership of an asset is dependent on whether or not you keep improving it ("my employment at my job depends on me continually adding value to society"). There are a lot of people on here who built their own SaaS businesses. In a lot of cases, those are just websites that provide some simple service. And, in a lot of cases, once its built there isn't really much to do except…

> There are a lot of people on here who built their own SaaS businesses. In a lot of cases, those are just websites that provide some simple service. And, in a lot of cases, once its built there isn't really much to do except "collect forever with no labor".

The Government usually doesn't stop other people from making websites with similar functionality via threat of violence. SaaS website owners don't have a meaningful monopoly in most cases.

> I do consider it a "grievous evil" if you look over at one of those entrepreneurs, see the money they're making -- with no current labor expenditure from themselves -- and decide that you want some of what they earned for themselves, that their ownership should not be perpetual.

Then sleep easy, for I have no such desire. Software Engineers have no monopoly. We're really just highly paid tradesmen, kind of like how blacksmiths were in the 1800s.

Monopoly ownership over land only exists by government decree. If man actually has any kind of "natural state" aside from government, land ownership doesn't exist in that world just as it doesn't exist for animals. On Earth in the 21st century, no human being ever creates land. So it's really just us collectively deciding who gets to use it. It seems perfectly fair if society decides that land ownership rules should be changed.

Post reply on HN