Stoller : ..[T]here is no such thing as 'laws aside'...
: I was pointing out that if a government made something legal that is against the rights of its citizens than it does not automatically mean that those rights no longer exist. It may be considered "legal" in the eyes of the courts, but it is not right in the eyes of man.Well... how about telling that to the Native Americans. Are you prepared to return to them the North American continent? Or do you only wish to respect property relations AS THEY STAND NOW?
After all, you say:
: Well, since it is their property, than they should be able to dictate the terms of the usage of the property. If they acquired the property through force than it is not rightfull theirs.
Eh?
: Ayn Rand advocated people getting what they deserved.
WHICH people? She left out WHICH people! You continue to assert that ALL people have the same perspective. Can property owners and non-property owners have the same perspective? NO WAY.
: ... I would say that in order to live, a person must have a means of sustaining their life. This could be in the form of working on a farm or working in a factory.
But why ' the form of working on a farm or working in a factory' and not the (collective) ownership of that farm or factory? I agree a person must have 'a means of sustaining their life.' And the PUBLIC ownership of the means of production would provide that means to EVERYONE instead of a minority who can thendictate their terms to every one excluded!
: I am not sure what you mean by "property relations of an epoch." Maybe I am too idealistic, but I believe that no matter the epoch, if you own the property you own the property.
Again: tell that to the Native Americans. In their epoch, they owned the North Amercian continent; in our epoch, we did. Which brings us back to the freedom to or freedom from issue, doesn't it?
: I guess it relies on your point of view.
Yes!
: I see increased production and global industrailization as perpetuating life. As a result, we are able to sustain 6 billion people with better living conditions than there were when the population only consisted of 40 million.
But the relative affluence of capitalism holds back a great deal of affluence from the majority in order to create profit for a minority. Although capitalism has created more relative abundance than feudalism, that doesn't mean socialism couldn't improve upon its performance.
: This may be a trivial point, but if a class that owns all the property is defined as the Bourgeoise (loose definition, I know...)than once all the proletariats take back the means of production, won't they become the bourgeoise?
Not if the MAJORITY owned the means of production. The entire concept of 'bourgeois' is predicated upon MINORITY privilege. MAJORITY privilege is an oxymoron.
