thank you, price 'gougers'

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
explain how this ownership is not different given that an outsider can forcably take control of one, but cannot take control of the other.

[/ QUOTE ]

So in your mind ability to direct force is more important than actual investment in a particular piece of property when determining ownership of that property? A right doesn't exist because it's *capable* of being violated?

Of course rights can be violated; if they couldn't, there wouldn't be much to debate.

[Jdanz]

no my point is that the concept of ownership you purport is illogical, as self-ownership doesn't logically neccessitate ownership over anything you put labor into.

That in no way flows logically.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
no my point is that the concept of ownership you purport is illogical, as self-ownership doesn't logically neccessitate ownership over anything you put labor into.

That in no way flows logically.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no other alternative. If you don't own the product of your labor, you don't really own your labor, and if you don't own your labor, you don't own yourself. But you've already agreed that you do own yourself.

Locke explains it pretty well:

[ QUOTE ]
...every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined it to something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it that excludes the common right of other men. For this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to...

[/ QUOTE ]