-
[quote user="gotlucky"] [quote user="Laotzu del Zinn"] I keep seeing people claiming homesteading unowned/unused land is legitimate... but why? [/quote] Don't worry, we don't have to get into a flame war, but seeing as you haven't defined what you mean by "legitimate", there really is no way for anyone to know
-
I keep seeing people claiming homesteading unowned/unused land is legitimate... but why? And where is this land that is unowned, unused, or can be traced through a succession of abandonement and/or trade, without conquestive claims to "property" in the middle? We can go on all day about guys in the desert, or Cicero the slum lord, etc. But
-
[quote user="Autolykos"] [quote user="Laotzu del Zinn"]I think "property" ie "legitimized possession and control" (if we're going to define it that way) should remain firmly in the hands of the community at large, mostly resting with the people actually engaged in productivity. I don't support capitalist
-
No. That's not a ploy -- it's logic . How exactly do you steal something that is not owned and who do you steal it from? How do you steal a non -property? Because legitimate possession and control is not private property. I mean if you want to call it property, fine. It's just semantics at that point. Everyone believes there should be some
-
[quote user="Buzz Killington"] [quote user="Laotzu Del Zinn"] That's a pretty tiny gun. You sure you want to go down this road? [/quote] Do you have a bigger one? [/quote] Are you sure you want to find out?
-
[quote user="Buzz Killington"] Laotzu, I want your computer (mine is slow and crappy). [/quote] That's a pretty tiny gun. You sure you want to go down this road?
-
[quote user="tunk"] [quote user="Laotzu del Zinn"]The existence of social controls against theft does not make something property[/quote] Yes it does. The people who enforce this rule, and/or the people on whose behalf they enforce it, claim the right to exclude thieves from the use of the resource. Again, I ask for evidence for
-
[quote user="tunk"] [quote user="Laotzu del Zinn"]200k+ years of society without private property[/quote] For 200,000 years theft was not considered immoral or treated as a crime? I'm gonna need some evidence for this. [/quote] The existence of social controls against theft does not make something property, let alone private
-
What do you mean by "society at large"? Do I think that if we had customary law in America, that there would be top down rules? No. I think that it would be from the ground up. In other words, social norms would stem from smaller communities, and if these norms were found to be particularly effective, then they may spread across an area as
-
This still need not result in any sort of conflict, But it does. If we're assuming one is "owner" of the means to produce, and the other hired by him, we have to assume the "worker" will try to better his situation (as will the owner, or anyone for that matter). He may do this by trying to "change his stars." This would