Property rights are an act of aggression.

[Libertus]

Of course, there will always be thieves and other criminals who don't respect property rights. Socialists. The best way to deal with them is to physically remove them, so to speak.

[dsayers]

As long as you universalize your theory of property should others have to take you up on your version of property?

"YOUR version of property" is poisoning the well. A person engaging in theft, assault, rape, or murder are telling you that property rights are valid and invalid simultaneously. It doesn't matter what I say or what you say; THEY are telling you that their behavior is wrong.

 

Still. This is not the first time you've heard this.

[labmath2]

"YOUR version of property" is poisoning the well. A person engaging in theft, assault, rape, or murder are telling you that property rights are valid and invalid simultaneously. It doesn't matter what I say or what you say; THEY are telling you that their behavior is wrong.

 

Still. This is not the first time you've heard this.

Its not the first time I have heard this and there is a refutation. Theft, assault, rape and murder pressupose a set conditions. Particularly it presupposes the existence of a set of facts. For an act to be theft, property rights must exist and the item must belong to someone else. If property rights are factually accurate or logically derived from facts, then they cannot be violated. Since theft implies they can be violated, this makes them institutional facts (facts thst exist by virtue of human institutions). The more difficult part is understanding how actions can assert the validity or invalidity of institutional facts. Here you are positing actions represent assertions and that an action can represent both the assertion of the validity and invalidity of the same proposition. I can say for a fact that theft cannot both represent the assertion of the validity and invalidity of property rights. That would make theft itself a contradiction. Contradictions do not exist, only contradictory statements do. Its the reason why i cannot draw a circle that is also a non circle (a square circle).

 

Why did i do the work of going through the lengthy explanation, because there are two possible resolutions. I can accept the invalidity of property rights (as defined by the current property rights institution) and therefore my action is not theft. Or i can accept the validity of property rights and use it to decieve others through theft.

[ThomasTheIdealist]

A person engaging in theft, assault, rape, or murder are telling you that property rights are valid and invalid simultaneously.

No, they aren't. Complete non sequitur.

 

Just because someone doesn't want you taking food from them doesn't mean they're asserting a property claim.

 

And he said "your version of property" because it's a completely subjective term. Your version could include intellectual property, human trafficking, etc. Or it could consider all those forms of property unacceptable. It could consider the ownership of the means of production likewise unacceptable.

[ValueOfBrevity]

Do you realize that by saying this, you're asserting property rights? Not just by way of using YOUR body, YOUR computer, etc to type it up. But also because you're putting forth "happiness" as a standard for determining property rights. It's YOUR computer because you invested YOUR body, time, and labor to voluntarily trade for it. Not because the people who made it thought it would make you happy.

 

"I seen it first!" is really quite juvenile.

I found my computer in a dumpster, therefore your argument is invalid.

[dsayers]

I found my computer in a dumpster, therefore your argument is invalid.

Don't tell me, show me how.

 

Computers do not exist in nature. Therefore to see one is to know that it is owned.

Property which is discarded is indication of the former owner's relinquishment of ownership.

You invested the labor (your property) of extracting the computer that no longer belonged to anybody. It is now your computer.

 

This WAS my argument, not contradicting it.

[Des]

I am a staunch socialist who believes in the theory of use. One can only use violence to defend that which one is immediately using. The only thing every living person is always using is their bodies (because its what is keeping them alive). I walk into your yard and set up tent. When you come home to find me on your lawn you demand i remove myself, i refuse. I am willing to universalize my propositions and be judged on them, but i refuse to be judged by yours. Would my position be valid?

 

As long as you universalize your theory of property should others have to take you up on your version of property? If you are under no obligation to indulge them, then are others obligated to indulge your notion of property? Is there only one valid theory of property?

I say property is a matter for treaty. Practicality comes into it. If two neighbours have a treaty about where their common boundary lies, that is the treaty between them. If you want a space near that boundary, try make a treaty with one or both of them.

Ethics is also a matter for treaty, but failure to prohibit murder, theft, assault and fraud in the treaty would make the treaty worthless, which is why some (those 4) categories of action are objectively immoral.

If you do not have a treaty with a person, and you move to where he does not want you to be, why should he not kill you?

[labmath2]

I say property is a matter for treaty. Practicality comes into it. If two neighbours have a treaty about where their common boundary lies, that is the treaty between them. If you want a space near that boundary, try make a treaty with one or both of them.

Ethics is also a matter for treaty, but failure to prohibit murder, theft, assault and fraud in the treaty would make the treaty worthless, which is why some (those 4) categories of action are objectively immoral.

If you do not have a treaty with a person, and you move to where he does not want you to be, why should he not kill you?

 

In my yet to be cleared response to dsayers, i pointed this out, If ownership and property are not empirical facts and in fact institutional facts, then no theory of property is more  valid than another. Property rights are really a scheme to solve the problem of scarcity.

[ValueOfBrevity]

Don't tell me, show me how.

 

Computers do not exist in nature. Therefore to see one is to know that it is owned.

Property which is discarded is indication of the former owner's relinquishment of ownership.

You invested the labor (your property) of extracting the computer that no longer belonged to anybody. It is now your computer.

 

This WAS my argument, not contradicting it.

I was just kidding, actually. Sorry 

[Des]

In my yet to be cleared response to dsayers, i pointed this out, If ownership and property are not empirical facts and in fact institutional facts, then no theory of property is more  valid than another. Property rights are really a scheme to solve the problem of scarcity.

Ownership and property are institutions. I would have said human institutions, but I can't (can you) imagine space aliens coming here and telling us their space vehicle is not subject to any institution of property.

 

"Every thing is both owned and unowned" is an example of a theory of property less valid than other theories of property (because it is contradictory).

 

The functional value of the institution of property is the resolution of conflict between those capable of resolving conflicts by argumentation (rather than physical intimidation), with the result that I don't die in some avoidable physical conflict.

 

Let's say you camp on my lawn as suggested above (and there is no government). I call my security provider to remove you. You publicise to the world, your complaint that their action at my instruction, is an aggression against you. I publish my response that you have no treaty with me, and there is therefore no institution we can use to resolve this conflict by argumentation (physical conflict is unavoidable), so my use of force is reasonable. What will your response be?

[labmath2]

Ownership and property are institutions. I would have said human institutions, but I can't (can you) imagine space aliens coming here and telling us their space vehicle is not subject to any institution of property.

 

"Every thing is both owned and unowned" is an example of a theory of property less valid than other theories of property (because it is contradictory).

 

The functional value of the institution of property is the resolution of conflict between those capable of resolving conflicts by argumentation (rather than physical intimidation), with the result that I don't die in some avoidable physical conflict.

 

Let's say you camp on my lawn as suggested above (and there is no government). I call my security provider to remove you. You publicise to the world, your complaint that their action at my instruction, is an aggression against you. I publish my response that you have no treaty with me, and there is therefore no institution we can use to resolve this conflict by argumentation (physical conflict is unavoidable), so my use of force is reasonable. What will your response be?

You caught me on the contradiction. I will rephrase, no theory of property that passes conforms to the laws of logic is superior to any other theory of property that conforms to the laws of logic.

 

As for the lawn example, it was merely to illustrate that precise problem. There is no property righys that exist in some objective sense with which we can resolve the disgreement. Which is why we need istitutions that define and enforce particular property schemes.

[Des]

You caught me on the contradiction. I will rephrase, no theory of property that passes conforms to the laws of logic is superior to any other theory of property that conforms to the laws of logic.

 

As for the lawn example, it was merely to illustrate that precise problem. There is no property righys that exist in some objective sense with which we can resolve the disgreement. Which is why we need istitutions that define and enforce particular property schemes.

Wait, let's be sure which meaning of the word institution we are referring to. Meaning 1 is an organisation, that is not the meaning I intended.

Meaning 2 is an established social practice or rule (put in place [instituted] by people).

There is an institution(2), by which property scheme conflict may be resolved. This is the institution of the treaty. Because it has already become an established practice, you are in the wrong if you fail to apply it in seeking to establish a definition of property to ensure that you and I do not come in conflict over property.

 

I have started a new topic:

 

Is this contradiction going to emerge from every possible implementation of communism?

 

My description of the contradiction is set out below, as applicable to the Soviet Union, but is there any escape from this contradiction?

 

The soviet man has, and can therefore delegate to his elected representatives, the authority to make treaty with neighbours, thereby defining the borders of the Soviet Union.

 

The soviet man does not have, and therefore may not delegate to an attorney, the authority to make treaty with neighbours, thereby defining the border of his front lawn.