rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property, and equality before the law.
One of those things is not like the others, and that’s the fundamental problem with liberalism. Private property is antithetical to liberty, equality, and consent of the governed because it enables the exploitation of labor and creates a class hierarchy. By defending the individual’s “right” to private property liberals betray every other value they claim to uphold.
I’m only replying because I think this is a situation of conflicting definitions.
In terms of liberalism, private property is the legally recognized right of individuals or non-governmental groups to own, control, use, and transfer land, goods, and assets to the exclusion of others.
I think folks should be working off the same definitions in a conversation, or at least clarify their working definitions and identify differences. E.g. private vs personal property. If you believe in your right to own a toothbrush, or a painting, or a mattress, and have control over its use or exclusion of use by others, then whether you call it private property or personal property rights, I think you are on the same page, in principle, with most folks. After that, the difference is a matter of extent to common societal infrastructure.
But not clarifying the words we use and what we mean them to be makes everyone feel further apart on these issues.
The definition you gave - and that liberals use - makes no distinction between private and personal property, and therefore encompasses both. Because of that it becomes a matter of interpretation whether limits to what a person can own infringe on their right, and when the power in society lies with those who own the means of production and use it to exploit labor there is an incentive to interpret the right as being without limits. That’s why I believe that establishing a “right” to property is fundamentally problematic. It would be better instead to cover the things a person ought to have with other rights such as a right to shelter, a right to basic needs such as food and water, a right to be secure in their personal effects, etc.
The only comment I’ll make, is that being clear with definitions and which part of a definition you disagree with is helpful to discussions. I agree that private property is a superset of personal property. But in your response you didn’t introduce the distinction nor explain the part of the definition you find antithetical to liberty. I think most people wouldn’t know the different definitions and would have a knee jerk reaction to what you are saying, potentially interpreting your statement more strongly than you intend. Unless you intend to say you find individual ownership of toothbrushes antithetical to liberty.
I get where you’re coming from and I agree that it’s important to speak in a way that gets your meaning across clearly to your audience, but in this case since I’m commenting in a political memes community on a platform used mostly by leftists I expect people to have some familiarity with the concept of private vs. personal property. I would communicate differently - and I do - when talking to people in other settings.
One of those things is not like the others, and that’s the fundamental problem with liberalism. Private property is antithetical to liberty, equality, and consent of the governed because it enables the exploitation of labor and creates a class hierarchy. By defending the individual’s “right” to private property liberals betray every other value they claim to uphold.
I’m only replying because I think this is a situation of conflicting definitions.
I think folks should be working off the same definitions in a conversation, or at least clarify their working definitions and identify differences. E.g. private vs personal property. If you believe in your right to own a toothbrush, or a painting, or a mattress, and have control over its use or exclusion of use by others, then whether you call it private property or personal property rights, I think you are on the same page, in principle, with most folks. After that, the difference is a matter of extent to common societal infrastructure.
But not clarifying the words we use and what we mean them to be makes everyone feel further apart on these issues.
Just my two cents.
The definition you gave - and that liberals use - makes no distinction between private and personal property, and therefore encompasses both. Because of that it becomes a matter of interpretation whether limits to what a person can own infringe on their right, and when the power in society lies with those who own the means of production and use it to exploit labor there is an incentive to interpret the right as being without limits. That’s why I believe that establishing a “right” to property is fundamentally problematic. It would be better instead to cover the things a person ought to have with other rights such as a right to shelter, a right to basic needs such as food and water, a right to be secure in their personal effects, etc.
The only comment I’ll make, is that being clear with definitions and which part of a definition you disagree with is helpful to discussions. I agree that private property is a superset of personal property. But in your response you didn’t introduce the distinction nor explain the part of the definition you find antithetical to liberty. I think most people wouldn’t know the different definitions and would have a knee jerk reaction to what you are saying, potentially interpreting your statement more strongly than you intend. Unless you intend to say you find individual ownership of toothbrushes antithetical to liberty.
That’s all. Have a great day!
I get where you’re coming from and I agree that it’s important to speak in a way that gets your meaning across clearly to your audience, but in this case since I’m commenting in a political memes community on a platform used mostly by leftists I expect people to have some familiarity with the concept of private vs. personal property. I would communicate differently - and I do - when talking to people in other settings.