You know not to be needlessly pedantic, and it's been a minute since I did took philosophy 101, but I'm really not sure it does follow, so lets just see here:
People who have a job, get an allowance or rely on charity are free only to the extent that someone else does not fire them or otherwise withhold that money
People who have property are free to use their resources without relying on others
People who have property must be protected
Therefore rules to protect property are necessary for true freedom
But this is clearly not a good argument - if people require protection of their property to be free, then how are they more free than people who rely on others to protect their income?
I wasn't agreeing, I was just saying that the point I think it's trying to make is that true freedom is owning land, so you need to protect property rights to protect that freedom. Without property rights, you can't own land, so you can't be truly free.
Like everything in capitalism, only commodity matters, so non-land owners do not exist beyond their acknowledgement by individual landowners through charity. Their freedom isn't even a question of import because non-land owners aren't real (in the capitalist sense).
I think the subsumed argument here is that freedom is given by someone more powerful, that the natural state of non-ownership is equivalent to slavery, and that the ultimate power is the state.
For property owners, that freedom is given to them by the state in the form of property protections.
For workers, that freedom is given to them by capital in the form of a paycheck.
A worker without a paycheck is equivalent to a landlord without property, which is equivalent to slavery. Therefore all freedom springs from property protection, because if the state didn't guarantee freedom to the capital class then nobody would be free.
You know not to be needlessly pedantic, and it's been a minute since I did took philosophy 101, but I'm really not sure it does follow, so lets just see here:
But this is clearly not a good argument - if people require protection of their property to be free, then how are they more free than people who rely on others to protect their income?
I wasn't agreeing, I was just saying that the point I think it's trying to make is that true freedom is owning land, so you need to protect property rights to protect that freedom. Without property rights, you can't own land, so you can't be truly free.
Like everything in capitalism, only commodity matters, so non-land owners do not exist beyond their acknowledgement by individual landowners through charity. Their freedom isn't even a question of import because non-land owners aren't real (in the capitalist sense).
Meanwhile Mao says political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Let's ask Chinese landlords who is right!
Hearing this in Brace's voice for some reason
Yeah for sure I don't think anyone on chapo dot chat agrees with the textbook on the merits here
I think the subsumed argument here is that freedom is given by someone more powerful, that the natural state of non-ownership is equivalent to slavery, and that the ultimate power is the state.
For property owners, that freedom is given to them by the state in the form of property protections.
For workers, that freedom is given to them by capital in the form of a paycheck.
A worker without a paycheck is equivalent to a landlord without property, which is equivalent to slavery. Therefore all freedom springs from property protection, because if the state didn't guarantee freedom to the capital class then nobody would be free.
Which is beyond batshit.
Philosophytube put put a video very similar to the concept you used.