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 large as America.
And yet the decision upon “legitimacy” of any of its laws will reside within a social context. Social, as in collective. So, regardless of anyone’s claim to property, or even if it feels natural to them, ultimately it is society who’s claim is legitimate. Therefore, pure “private” property is not only an absurdity, but an impossiblity!
What do you mean by “legitimate”? Do you mean “lawful” or “just”? If you take it to mean “lawful”, then obviously whatever the courts decide is legitimate. But if you mean “just”, then no, this would not necessarily be the case.
Obviously I don’t see what the courts decide as legitimate as always just. They do uphold the right to so-called “private” property.
Obviously, I believe that whatever I think about property is the right answer. But I also think that if there were customary law in America, that the result would be far closer to my ideas about property than yours. Look at the Somali Xeer. That’s a customary law system that has lasted for centuries, and the Somalis believe in private property.
I’m not so sure Somalia is such a great example to be using, but ok… I don’t want to debate that here.
Either way, obviously the “customary” law of a society under a property system will protect the property owners against the indigent.
Not only do I not see any logical reason to abandon private property, I don’t see any evidence of any society that has abandoned it lasting - or shall I say, those societies that have abandoned private property do not see a rise in the standard of living.
Have you ever seen a society abandon it?
Besides, humanity lived without the existence of property for 200k years, and with it for maybe 8k years if you’re being generous.
So what? We’re talking about social norms, or at least I was. I don’t really care much for what an infant or a toddler considers normal for himself.
What makes a theifs claim to property different than a toddler’s? Why don’t we prosecute toddler’s for stealing?
No, and I’ll say it again, what I’m really talking about is that people are born with the idea of owning things - that is, they claim certain things belong to them.
They claim possession over things. I mean we’re really just arguing semantics here but “ownership” is a specific legal title to something, not the claim to it. I’m not going to budge from that position, so it’s pointless to try and argue around it. It is far too confusing to consider ownership simply as “possession and control” as then the theif is the owner.
Property as a social status requires more than one person, but the idea of something belonging to someone is inherent to people
Yes and theifs feel like your things belong to them, yet they are not the owner.
Exactly how are you using inherent? The vast majority of people don’t run around raping and murdering, while the vast majority of people do make claims to ownership of property
I really wouldn’t use it often, because it’s a tricky situation for individualists. Eating meat is supposedly inherent to humans, yet I have friends that don’t do it… so really how far does inherent get us? You are about to mention how you don’t rape and murder so is it inhernent to you? Maybe, maybe not. But we both certainly have the capacity for it, and it has been used by other members of our species.
In short; I don’t like the word “inherent” because it offers no further explanation, nor explains anything on its own. It’s almost like saying “god did it.”
I don’t see how murder and rape is inherent to me. I certainly have never murdered and raped anyone, have you?
No
Furthermore, societies that truly reject private property aren’t long for this world. And until they are gone, they are doomed to a low standard of living.
Except for that, you know, 200k+ years of society without private property that by all accounts had shorter working hours for common labor, which means more leisure hours, and saw the development of art, music (probably), ritual, and spirit (or thought for thought’s sake; religion, science, philosophy, etc. I know spirit is a poor word for it, as it connotates some the religious definition of “spirit,” and if you have a better one let me know.)
Firstly, their property is wealth.
We’re defining things so differently it would take me an hour to respond to this… in short, their possessions are not wealth, but the enforced unequal access to those things (property) is wealth.
Secondly, yes they do use their property to create more wealth. Thirdly, yes, government did originate with people, obviously. But that doesn’t change the fact that the Powers That Be use government to take wealth from others so that they don’t have to use their own wealth.
How did government get created in the first place? Do you think it was by the poorer members of society, or the richer ones?
I’m not sure you know what a cost/benefit analysis is. It is just a different term for weighing the pros and cons of something. The people running banks and businesses do cost/benefit analyses of their actions. What are the costs of investing in such and such a business…okay, now what are the benefits…okay, do we think the benefits outweigh the costs…okay, then let’s invest.
Poor choice of words on my part, I guess. What I am saying is they are not weighing the costs and benefits to the people involved. What they are weighing is the costs and benefits to the ability to profit. If you don’t run your business to make a profit, and the highest profits you can, it will fail. This is business 101, I would think.
How exactly are you defining hierarchy? From the wiki on wasps:
I quoted from the wasp section since you originally brought up hornets, which is a wasp.
You first brought up nesting animals. Just because I was the first to say “hornet” doesn’t mean I brought it up. But fair enough. It is a heirarchy. I never denied as such.
I even pointed out that human nature arguments are lulzy arguments, and as such didn’t really care if hornets had a heirarchy… or if humans do for that matter.
So I’m glad we could put this little diversion to rest. You win. Wasps have a heirarchy.
Are you trolling me again? The act of murder is not abandonment. The murderer has not abandoned anything. The person who dies could be said to have “abandoned” his property, but that’s certainly a funny way of putting it.
Yes, so if murdered people cannot be said to have legitimately “abandoned” their property, why does “they can trade or abandon it” refute my claim that, under the posters metric, all property in the world is illigitimate? It could only refute that claim if you could find me one habitable tract of land that has not been gained through non-trade and non-abandonement. So is it, in fact, you who is trolling me? And why don’t I take the time to call you out on it?
Again, how are you using the word “legitimate”? If you are using it to mean “lawful”, then the fact that the law recognizes private property would be enough to say that it is legitimate. If you are using it to mean “just”, then I fail to see how this addresses the point I made.
If you don’t see it, there’s not much I can do. The fact that social norms can clean up after property doesn’t address why it is in fact legitimate to claim property in the first place. I can’t spell it out any more than that.
To be honest, I’m not sure what you are trying to say here. I can’t tell if you are being sarcastic or not. Sorry.
Yes, I was being sarcastic. Governments are a tool of the ruling class, not the ruling class itself. To claim the latter would imply that ideas can create reality.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
“For the glory of our lord we are taking the land of Bargaschlein!” is a social norm, which regulates property disputes.
On whose computer are you writing these posts? Whose clothes do you wear? Whose phone do you use? Whose house do you live in?
I am writing it on a compute of which I maintain possession and control of. I don’t have to claim it as “my” computer. I know you thought that was “axiomatic” or whatever, but sorry, it’s not.
There’s no need to label the sticks. It makes these more confusing. Anyway, all you have shown here is that there are some times where violence can be made in the initial claim to property. But I already stated that it is not necessary. In other words, that you have found a case violence has been used does not disprove my point at all. Do you understand the word “necessary”?
You can only claim “property” (as opposed to possession and control) legally, and legality necessarily implies violence or the threat thereof.
One could make the case that two people do in fact constitute a community, but it is certainly not the common way of using the term. Regardless, that is not how you were using it. If you had truly meant to say that dispute resolution is for the good of the people involved in the dispute, you would have said that, unless you like being vague, which actually seems to be the case with you. But then why be vague? Why not just say that dispute resolution is for the good of the people involved in the dispute? Hm…
In fact I think I did say that when I repeatedly said that property is a social affair, as is legality, and dispute resolution, etc etc etc. Ya, I feel quite safe in saying that it should have been clear that I involve social affairs as affairs of the community.
Regardless of how you were using the term, stating “It is for the good of the people involved in the disputes” is far more precise than what you said.
Perhaps. It’s not as if that changes anything.
I am not disputing that some property was acquired by force. I am merely stating that it is not a necessary condition of property. Something which you have yet to disprove.
-
All property on Earth (all landed property anyway, which was the original claim upon which all other property was built) was, at some point, acquired by force… not “some.”
-
Property is a legal status, legality requires violence or the threat thereof. Property requires violence or the threat thereof.
Exactly how are you using the word "economic power "? I’ve been under the impression that we were using it to refer to power that had to do with money
Is economics only about money? Or is it about all goods, services, and resources?
If you are using it to mean “making choices”,
I am not using it that way. I am using it in the context of the interplay of goods, services, and resources between humans.
I’m glad you see why your analogy was bad.
Sure, why not. I don’t, but no big deal.
Good luck with that.
Thank you… I guess? Are you saying that minorities with guns cannot conquer majorities without?
It’s true, not each and every animal behaves this way. Good thing I didn’t make that claim.
“This is how animals behave…” as if humans don’t, which could only leave me to believe you find it fundamental to being an “animal.”
Regardless, as said above, “human nature” arguments are lulzy at best.
How are you defining violence? I’ve been using the word as it is typically used, that is, “Behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.” That is taken from a google search “define violence”.
Threats are not violence, not unless they include physical force. Posturing does not include physical force, and therefore does not constitute violence. That is why it is referred to as a “threat of violence” and not as "violence.
This, on its face, sounds like a fair enough definition. But here is why it is not; if I stick a gun in your face and tell you to give me your money (and you do give it up), are you going to claim I acquired your money non-violently?
Well I guess you are just using a different definition of violence. I’ll need to know your definition if we pursue this point.
See above.
Could you show me where I have misrepresented your argument?
I was saying you misrepresented your own..
I did a search on “chemical status”. I could find no definition of it.
Do you really need a definition of the combination of two obvious words? Iron is the state of being the chemical iron.
You’ll have to define what you mean by chemical “status”.
The state of being a chemical.
I have the feeling that you are equivocating here. Regardless, what part of my argument do take issue with? You have been saying that property is a legal status. Are you disputing that law arises from dispute resolution? Like I said, you could just go read Clayton’s wonderful threads on that subject.
I’m disputing that property is the only type of dispute resolution. I am positing that property is a specific type of resolution to a dispute.
In addition, there is a flaw with your second statement. Chemicals may arise in many ways, but what are the other ways in which laws can arise? By definition, law has to do with dispute resolution.
Yes, and that resolution could be “I have a gun, what I say is law” which is not a “peaceful” dispute resolution.
What is the other way in which a law can arise?
See above
If you think that by “dispute resolution”, that I mean “mutually agreeable and completely voluntary resolution”, then you are very much mistaken.
Then I was mistaken. I thought when you said “property arises through peaceful dispute resolution” you meant that property arises from peaceful dispute resolution.
I’m sorry, what you actually said was; " Property arises from the peaceful resolution of disputes."
Customary law is not about “might makes right”. That’s what statutory law is.
Explain how any law can not be based on “if you disagree we will bring punishment upon you (because we have the might to do so).”
The sentence preceding the one that you bolded clearly states “It is peaceful resolution if there is no violence.” So, in your scenario, you include violence.
Take out the first part where I beat you up, and just take your things.
I must take the time out to admit that it gets quite confusing debating around here… which is why I often take breaks from doing it… as we just fundamentally define things differently. Sometimes I get out of line with my thinking, because again its not easy to be a fish in a shark tank. And when that happens, I apologize. We all make mistakes.
In what way does this counter my argument? Perhaps you should read what I write more carefully, instead of just cherrypicking and trying to make me wrong
Again, my apologies. I have explained my behavior. That does not justify it, but puts it in context. Regardless if you take out the part where I beat you up, and instead I just take your stuff and threaten to beat you up if you tell anyone, then according to your metric, I have acquired your property peacefully.
I meant that I do not personally know any person who has acquired property through violence. In fact, everyone that I know has acquired property through peaceful and voluntary means. I fail to see how you can make a statement of “most of the time” people acquire property through violence when it seems to be quite the opposite.
Because the original claim to property was violent, and the opening of new markets (where further progress is made) is usually by governments at the barrel of a gun; ie, the Chinese and American governments conspiring to bring about "free trade
(But what you’ve said here is you’ve never known a theif or anyone stolen from. Really? You expect me to believe that? You must have grown up pretty posh if this is the case.) I originally typed that. But then I put it in parenthesese for a reason. You guys say stuff like this, then I respond as I have. Then invariably I get accused of some type of trolling for responding to other people’s absurd and irrelevant posts. Again, it’s not easy to be a fish in a shark tank. So you can respond to the bracketed statement, or not. It’s not really important to the topic at hand, I don’t think.
This seems to be the “inherent” problem again. Do you run around raping people? Do you use this as a way to rationalize your actions?
Of course, if you don’t actually run around raping people, then I would question the truthfulness of that statement.
I have the capacity for doing so, and it is a behavior observed in other members of my species. I would say it is inherent to being human. But again, you’re right, most of the problems we are going to have in debate are going to be on how we fundamentally define many things completely different.