OK, sorry I was unclear. The idea that you gain property entitlements to something by laboring on it and creating it is controversial. Far from being the basis of socialism, most right wingers think it is the basis of capitalism unfettered. Holes can be poked in the argument, but it is a tough row to hoe. There are other better arguments for socialism:
1) It will promote freedom and self-realization better than capitalism by reducing coercion, domination, and alienation. This was Marx's argument. He rejected the idea that the worker owns what he produces because he produces it.
2) Socialim will be moree just because it will provide a more egalitarian distribution of wealth, enhancing democracy and equality itself as a value.
3) Socialism will produce more happiness for the greater number than capitalism. (Mill's idea)
None of these arguments depend on the naive Lockean notion that I own what I create.
The question begging in the statement comes in when it's said that it;s not theft to keep what I own. Yes, but in virtue of what do I own whatever I make?
jks
--- Michael Dawson <MDawson at pdx.edu> wrote:
> > I hear the sound of questions being begged. There
> is
> > nothing in the second proposition that Locke,
> Nozick,
> > Hospers, and Hayek -- the libertarians -- would
> > findany problem with. The question is: who's the
> > "owner" and what's involved in "creating
> somerthing by
> > one's labor." Btw, Locke and Nozick, big fans of
> the
> > labor theory of property (not to be confused with
> the
> > labor theory of value), gave up on trying to make
> > sense of the notion. Though not on the notion.
> >
> > --- Michael Dawson <MDawson at pdx.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > > Intellectual property is theft.
> > > >
> > > > Chuck
> > >
> > > Tell that to Little Richard, who never got a
> nickel
> > > from Pat Boone, who
> > > stole his songs outright before copyright was
> > > extended to music.
> > >
> > > If it's created by the labor of its owner,
> property
> > > is not theft.
>
>
> Speaking of begging questions, what the heck are you
> trying to say? Hayek
> thinks big capital is a product of entrepreneurial
> labor, end of story,
> right? That's not what I'm saying. In fact, it's
> the opposite of what I'm
> saying. There's a difference between using money to
> exploit people and
> having the right to get paid for (and have a say
> over) what you make or help
> make. That's kind of the whole socialist point.
> Sheesh.
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail