Small but smell like a big one ! <| sep |> Oooohhh is it my turn to blow Elon on Friday ? ! Thanks man I ' ve been waiting and waiting I almost forgot <| sep |> Central Coast 12 PerthWSW 11 BrisbaneVictory 31 JetsSydney 30 AdelaideCity 30 PhoenixNearly missed it this weekScore pls uSerTahu <| sep |> Socratic dialogueOk . Thrasymachus I claim , Socrates , that there is no discernible difference between what you mention as ' personal ' property and ' private ' property , for what you claim as private property is created , and justified , through the same means as what you call private property , through the labor theory of property . Socrates Ah , what a most interesting claim . However , I still find it to be fatally flawed . The philosophy of John Locke of Wrington is admirable , yet he ignores much of the reality of a capitalist system . For there is indeed a very fundamental difference between ' private ' and ' personal ' property , of which I find that the labor theory of property cannot justify ' private ' property . You see , Thrasymachus , private property produces a very unique social relationship between two parties . This is exemplified when someone is working in a workplace that is owned by another person . The worker , because he is using anothers property , now is subject to the authority of the property owner ! Hence , a very unique social relationship which we do not see with personal property . Do you agree with this , Thrasymachus ? Thrasymachus Why yes of course Socrates , any rational man can see some kind of a difference being made , yet I fail to see how your difference actually makes any difference in terms of justifying property . You see , Socrates , people own themselves and consequently their labor . The world initially is completely unowned and by working on unowned resources , people turn it into their property as their own our labor . And , of course , one can aquire absolute rights over a larger than average share in the world , if you do not worsen the conditions of others . Once people have appropriated private property , a free marked in capital is morally required . Your distinction between personal and private property is meaningless in this context , and both kinds are justified through the same method . Tell me then , Socrates , in face of this justification of private property , how does your difference stand up ? Socrates You give me a very strong argument , Thrasymachus ! I cannot argue with the deductive nature of the argument you give me , though I believe you are making a very fatal mistake in your assumptions . Thrasymachus , would you mind answering a series of questions for me ? Thrasymachus Certainly , Socrates . Socrates You would agree with ' let the labourer have the fruits of his labor ' correct ? Thrasymachus You would be correct in saying so . Socrates Does the skill of the fisherman , who on the same coast can catch more fish than his fellows , make him proprietor of the fishinggrounds ? Thrasymachus To be consistent , I must say so . Socrates Can the expertness of a hunter ever be regarded as a propertytitle to a gameforest ? Thrasymachus I must say so , Socrates . Socrates Ah , yes , if someone has made improvements in the soil , he has the possessor ' s right of preference , you claim , correct ? Thrasymachus That is exactly what I am claiming , Socrates . Socrates However , now my problem arises . To change personal property into private property , something is needed that is not labor ! Something that without it , a man would cease to be proprietor as soon as he ceased to be a laborer . Labor is , certainly , the obvious sign by which you can tell one is occupying some land . However , if this laborer who was once improving the land , and thus became its proprietor , remains its proprietor after he has stopped laboring , as is observable from any capitalist society , this is only allowed through civil law ! Thrasymachus Certainly you have a good reason for your claim ? I could not believe something like that ! Socrates Ah , Thrasymachus , it is an argument from historical validity . Common ownership of land along with personal use , as I describe , has been the dominant form of property rights for thousands of years , whilst your theory dates back only to the seventeenth century . Your argument only appears valid because we currently live in a society where the dominant property rights are capitalist ! A society where this specific form of organization that only exists because of a civil law that has been imposed upon all . Thus , I claim you are begging the question , you are assuming what you are trying to prove !