trele_morele t1_j9h4tg9 wrote
What's the philosophical answer to the question of (land) entitlement? Who deserves to live on particular land? Historically, conquest has served as a non-philosophical assertion. Any other perspectives?
failure_of_a_cow t1_j9h9xjs wrote
> Any other perspectives?
Well the two that we're discussing here are money and birthright. I doubt that this question has an answer though, it probably has many.
trele_morele t1_j9hcbw2 wrote
Money I would think qualifies as financial conquest. A modern alternative to pure violence. Birthright is an interesting one.
failure_of_a_cow t1_j9hdbwo wrote
That's an interesting idea... it raises some new questions though. Usually, we condemn conquest as something that one person (or group) inflicts on another. Without their consent.
Money, and our economic system in general, could probably be characterized the same way for some people, but an awful lot of people who are financially conquered are willing participants in our economy and monetary system. They like money too, they just don't have enough of it. That's not really the same as an invasion.
[deleted] t1_j9huvdq wrote
[deleted]
failure_of_a_cow t1_j9i1u9s wrote
You're suggesting that some people seem willing, just because they know no alternative? Sure. I'll grant there are some of those too.
Regardless of indoctrination though, an enthusiastic defender of property rights is still an enthusiastic defender of property rights. And there are a lot of people like this. And so many of those are poor.
[deleted] t1_j9i48h4 wrote
[deleted]
Koraguz t1_j9hvk1z wrote
there are a lot of people that are unwilling participants and fucked over.
I don't think price gauging companies causing necessities to become expensive is willing, nor hedge funds helping skyrocket the cost of housing is willing either. and then there are the disabled who HAVE to push themselves past their limits to be able to afford to eat and live under a roof. also homeless and many that trip up in life and never manage to get back up because either a loan requires good credit, or there isn't housing low enough cost to get a single rung up, or jobs that don't want to have you because they want their graduate beginner positions to have more than 3 years experience.
If the option of not participating is homelessness and starvation, I'd argue most of us are doing it for survival, not because we are revelling in how nice it is can get an overprices coffee because every cafe wants to be Starbucks...
whornography t1_j9ineh1 wrote
Money is either a necessity or a luxury, depending on the amount.
People of lower SES don't "like money", they need it. They don't have an alternative but to participate in the economic system.
The wealthy like money. It benefits them and can be used to acquire desired objects and experiences. But even they are bound to the economic system, just in a less stringent capacity.
Tugalord t1_j9jji2b wrote
> an awful lot of people who are financially conquered are willing participants in our economy and monetary system
Lol... what a non-sequitur. You need to participate in money economy to not starve.
failure_of_a_cow t1_j9kt8b3 wrote
It's not a non-sequitur, I spelled out why that applies to the issue. I was clear on this point, I don't know how you could have possibly missed it. And merely participating does not make them willing.
Coconutman3000 t1_j9mpy7a wrote
While i get where you are coming from I fundamentally disagree with your last paragraph about how a lot of people are " willing citizens" . Unfortuantly it can not be said that many people are actually " willing" in fact it can be said said many people are coerced into participating or more specifically has coercive violence( specifically financial coercive violence) where many citizens feel like if they dont participate then they are worthless to said society and could lose their livilhood( ex. A young mother having to work for full time jobs to support her family and pay rent or else she and her family will be kicked out. ).
Plus it need to be considered that in our society we have been ideologically conditioned to believe that this reality is the only reality to fully satisfy us internally and that a lack of participath is equivalent to death of self. Even though ironically one might find ones self if one distances themselves from this monetary system if its possible.
failure_of_a_cow t1_j9n3k1l wrote
I had another reply very much like this, but it looks like it was deleted for some reason. This was my response. It seems applicable to your comment.
Coconutman3000 t1_j9q06oa wrote
I 've recently read your reply. While you could say that, while you do have a point that their are some people among the working-class that are willing participates, that is based on the framework of. Many who are " willingly participating" unfortunately still buys into the notion that they are " temporarily poor millionaire's." and that someday they will be the property owners themselves if they simply work hard and game the system. Which still pretty much based on the framework of Capitalistic Realism with the implication that the only way to have any gain within the current system is to play the game and play by the rules of the current system and embracing the ideological framework. Not Solidarity nor Community action but pure individual property rights. Combined this with the individualistic nature of Capitalism and yes you will get defenders of property.
Usually these individuals hope to gain(weather they know it or not) negative freedom( in which the article discusses) from property ownership in which they see themselves as being someday. Such as autonomy and personal egoist freedom. That's been the framework taught from a young age for many decades, especially with the Protestant Work ethics and other social phenomenon. Capitalism (especially Late Stage Capitalism), supports an individualistic framework where one must become the user of (as the article discussed) arbitrary power( by become a business/property owner) in order to gain " freedom." and independence. At the end though it simply makes you an active participant of said system. The defenders of property are also(which represents the sad state of our education to be frank) either unaware of how Class consciousness is essential to creating the nondominance culture and society that is discussed in the article. How it will help in terms of using the understanding how to develop and maintain an economic and social democracy that takes consideration for everyone and not mainly the property owner class.
The dream of being an entrepreneur is part of that ideological framework that in turn creates these types of people who would defend property. So I suggest not dismiss the influence of many years of ideological manufacturing of the masses and making many be either accepters and/or active participants of the system.
evolvaer t1_j9ii2ey wrote
Financial conquest is violence.
Mparker15 t1_j9jkubc wrote
I don't know how you are getting down voted for this. Pricing people out of their homes into unknown and probably worse living situations is definitely a violent act. And if you stay in your home or apartment after eviction the state will physically and violently remove you.
evolvaer t1_j9l730f wrote
Life long propaganda from living within the imperial core will give people automatic negative reactions to socialist teachings.
Its interesting when you reframe the violence of protests burning down institutions as in fact an act of self defense against the harm and violence perpetrated by institutions to the detriment of people.
Food and shelter insecurity is violence, as surely as an act of physical aggression.
Mparker15 t1_j9l7rmb wrote
All these misguided comments caused me to reflect about how the world's 3 biggest industries are financial services, construction, and real estate, which all use housing as one of their main commodities. The monetary interests of these industries are so prevalent that many people cannot see them for the scam they are and immediately shut down any discussion of any alternative.
ValyrianJedi t1_j9jjny5 wrote
What definition are you using?
evolvaer t1_j9l7c16 wrote
A good question, answered by another question.
When you define violence, what are you defining it as?
Food and shelter insecurity is how I define violence, as it leads to unwarranted suffering.
ValyrianJedi t1_j9lbig4 wrote
I've never seen a definition of violence that didn't involve a physical act of harming someone
evolvaer t1_j9mqw1v wrote
Is hunger not a physical act of harming some one?
cloake t1_j9j03c4 wrote
> conquest has served as a non-philosophical assertion.
It's not the most complicated philosophy but still one, through monopoly of force do we dictate who lives where.
IlllIllIllIllIlllllI t1_j9jkwjs wrote
The most fair answer civilized society has some up with in the modern era is money. Which seems a lot more impartial than racist ideals about keeping certain people out to preserve “culture” or whatever
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments