From: Lee Daniel Crocker (lee@piclab.com)
Date: Thu Jun 13 2002 - 11:35:39 MDT
> (Mike Lorrey <mlorrey@datamann.com>):
>
> I think, though, that Lee's definition of property is the problem. What
> gives an item value is entirely a matter of its marginal utility to its
> user, while an item's status as property is matter of the fact that
> labor produced it (or improved it from raw resources).
The labor theory of value is completely and utterly discredited among
all economists, and no one who holds it is taken seriously. Property is
nothing more or less than the right to control how others may make use
of a resource. How one acquires that right is a separate topic.
> If we own ourselves, then we own our own raw, barehanded
> physical or mental labor.
Well, sort of--you own the /right/ to decide whether and when you will
work. Your work has no intrinsic value at all, unless someone else who
/desires/ your work is willing to pay you for it. Otherwise, all your
labor is just wasted energy. You have no entitlement to be compensated
for your labor; you have the right to choose not to labor unless you are
compensated, but in the absence of such an agreement made before the
labor is performed, any labor you might perform on your own volition you
are doing for free.
> To use another's labor without recompense is slavery,...
No, only /requiring/ someone to labor by force is slavery. If they
freely choose to work for your benefit, that's volunteerism.
-- Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:46 MST