Yes, "the Brain," I do: "private property" is either something I have taken from nature and improved; something I have purchased; or something I have been given as a gift. I own right and title to it, and no one else does--unless I sell it to them, or give it to them. Using those resources (land, labor, property) to produce something is downstream from ownership. At that point whatever I own (tools and all) become means of production--and I can own them just as you can.

But all property rights are derived from the principle that (on the horizontal plane) I own myself and my time--that I am a unique individual with unique volition, unique purpose, and unique wants. The collectivism of Marx is downstream from his whacky monist ontology: that we were all primordially "one" and that individuality (with individual desires and property) was "the Fall" led to "alienation from Ourself" and that the only way to return was to "realize our Oneness." He was a gnostic. Just read his nonsense. There's a reason he ended up a madman beating at the air.

Your economic system (so far as it follows Marx's) rests on the fallacy of the "labor theory of value." Menger destroyed that theory. If the labor theory of value is correct then why does undeveloped land have any price at all? Why does the same glass of water have a higher price in the middle of the dessert than it does during a jungle rainstorm? Because value is not derived by its labor input: it's derived by subjective individuals employing means to achieve their desired ends.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

I tend to start to feel shit knowing here there are people like you

fucking nazi

...do you realize that "Nazi" was short for National Socialist? Admittedly, they were more fascist than socialist--their chief opponent was Communists.

I'm neither fascist nor communist--I'm a Classical Liberal / Libertarian -- so your epithets are mis-aimed.

ugly thoughts.

I don't like you.

I think people like you make this world a place full of shitcoiner who wants to become rich.

Get rich bro, think about yourself, and nothing else ..

but stay away from me

I agree these are "ugly thoughts" but they come from Marx, not me. I am for liberty, for charity, for peace--"for loving my neighbor as myself." Only when I own something can I freely share it with someone in need. Charity stops being charity when it is coerced--and Marx himself said that his system "must be brought about by violence." I am against violence except when used defensively.

Menger didn't destroy a shit. He just said things, and people like you, with a little brain, uphold other fuckers, while saying we are individuals!!

What Marx and Engels said that the price of something is the sum of what is the cost of production plus the labour, its reality, that is the cost.

You are talking about the price of what someone is willing to pay... which is nothing but something which follows the reason, it's something which is driven by emotion, notably FOMO and FUD.

Your visions are ugly, the world you have in your mind is not the world I would like to live in.

We are all individuals, we are all unique, but we shall take care of each other, rather that do what you capitalist monkeys want : MORE BANANAS

It was called "the marginal revolution" because he not only destroyed the labor theory of value (which was held not only by Marx and Engels, but by the Classical Economists too--like Adam Smith). You should give it a read--even if only to understand why people might disagree with you, so you can better persuade them to your cause. It's online for free at Mises.org.

"But all property rights are derived from the principle that (on the horizontal plane) I own myself and my time--that I am a unique individual with unique volition, unique purpose, and unique wants."

Self-ownership - and the idea of a unique, individual Self - is a #Gnostic premise, which is why #private property rights are inseparable from a Gnostic morality and worldview. This is also why it is fundamentally incompatible with Christianity, where you do not own yourself, your interests do not matter, and you have no right to your determine your own #fate - other than to submit to puppeteering or die, of course.

Ayn Rand misses this too. She is absolutely correct on the #Self being the highest moral entity, but cannot articulate a legitimate "why" due to due her anti-mysticism bias. The "why" is #spiritual.

Self-ownership and the rights derived of it are not permissions or responsibilities given to Selves by some higher power and, therefore, potentially subject to being suspended or taken away at some point. They are intrinsic to the #nature of Selves as emanations of the Alien God. They are properties of self-consciousnesses - which necessarily and inalterably has supremacy over matter. This is why the Self owns the body and not the other way around, which would be a perverse (and demiurgic) assertion.

Objectivism is Secular #Gnosticism. Similar to how Marxism is Secular Catholicism. It is a good look at the premises and logical conclusions of a Gnostic morality and worldview.

This misrepresents my argument and Christian theism as well.

Speaking "on the horizontal plane" means that, in dealings between man and man, God (the highest authority) has given me life and no one else (being of lesser authority than the giver) has the right to take it away. The basis of morality is the moral law of God--which presupposes both individuality as well as private property. The idea of civil rights and liberties are simply the flip side of all the "thou shalt nots" in the 'second table' of the law. This is simply the natural law that is written on our hearts (some call it 'conscience'), and revealed even more clearly in the 10 Commandments. It's precisely because our rights come from a higher authority that no one of lower authority can lawfully take them away.

Yes, "on the vertical plane" all are dependent on God for their very existence (would you claim absolute self-reliance? how are you keeping the sun in its course?), and it is true we have no rights before him--although we can (and do) plead his promises. And, our interests DO matter greatly: Christ came "that we may have life, and have it more abundantly." Psalm 16:11 reads, "In his presence is fullness of joy; at his right hand are pleasures forevermore." Further, classical Protestant teaching is that "The chief and highest end of man is to glorify God *and fully to enjoy him* forever." His glory; our joy.

Gnosticism does not teach the supremacy of each individual self, but of the One primordial Self from whom we all were alienated by becoming individuals in the first place; shards of divinity scattered into the many, and thus they call us to remember that "we together are God" and so we must be One again--by becoming Communist. Rothbard was relentless on this principle, so was Voegelin. (For an excellent survey read Rothbard's Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought--he does not shy away from the crucial part that religion has played. It's free online at Mises.org.) It's a worldview ultimately derived from a monist metaphysic - what Peter Jones has called "Oneism," fundamentally incompatible with the "Twoism" of Christianity: Creator and creation.

Before criticizing Christian theism further, I would urge you to gain a better understanding of it. It is not fatalism, there is no 'puppeteering,' nor could it ever be conflated with gnosticism (or Gnosticism either). Read the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Larger Catechism. You will understand a bit better what we actually believe. Of course, Scripture itself is always the primary source of understanding, and the final arbiter.

But even if you don't understand or agree with our "why" (and yes, it is religious) -- for a civil society to exist, we don't necessarily need to agree on the source of our individual rights, provided we protect them shoulder-to-shoulder against all who would seek to alienate us from them.