@NeptunesOrgit@Deathdestroy300@LobisomemZZZ Here you have an example of the positive. What about the negative?
What did the state do to the business owners who didn't willingly and happily cooperate?
@SamsonCorwell@MichaelSteidel@ColdEmpanadas Personally, I find it fascinating. As an ideology, it's a rhetorical masterpiece. And that was part of what I was talking about.
Theft of actual property is justified through the rhetorical "my labour value is being stolen."
@MichaelSteidel@ColdEmpanadas Not to someone who wants raw materials and doesn't want a car.
If it's objective it would be true regardless of the individual.
@MichaelSteidel@ColdEmpanadas I'm not disagreeing that goods and/or services are a product of labour.
I'm disagreeing that value can be created.
We can objectively see a good be produced or a service be rendered. We can't objectively see value being created.
@SamsonCorwell@MichaelSteidel@ColdEmpanadas Distinctions can surely be drawn, are they meaningful in practice though?
Does the nature of property change because of how it's used? Or is it just a rhetorical device used to justify theft?
@SamsonCorwell@MichaelSteidel@ColdEmpanadas I think the rhetorical is worth exploring.
Specifically because this word is so frequently used in relation to a property crime (theft).
Interestingly enough by people who want to abolish property. (In before; personal/private - there is no distinction).
@MichaelSteidel@ColdEmpanadas All of the inputs also have value before labor touches them. A decision (e.g., collect water vs forage food) also has value before labor is applied.