If ownership just means having control over property, then wouldn’t the State be justified in owning everything? Unless ownership can be defined properly.
There’s still the question of just ownership. A thief may ‘own’ something he just stole, in the sense that it’s in his possession and control. However his ownership is unjust.
As for the state, they have not gained control of anything via voluntary trade or homesteading, thus their control of any territory is not just but completely illegitimate. They neither own nor can own the territories they claim jurisdiction over, and they certainly cannot to own the people whom they claim jurisdiction over.
Each man is a sovereign over himself and should be able to secede from any ruling authority with simply the decision to do so, because rule is by consent of the governed, right? Withdraw your consent and the ruler must respect that, or else they are claiming to own you.
However, in the US, the right to secede was abolished long ago, and the government claims the right to tax you even if you are outside the country.
The US has begun to treat citizens as if they are owned by the US.
No, I want you to define “ownership” epistemically. Otherwise you concede that theft is justified.
That’s de-facto ownership, yes. Just like slaveowners were de-facto owners of slaves.
They say possession is 9/10ths of the law.
For larger things like houses, they use title to track who owns what.
In terms of the state we need only look at history. The state was founded illegitimately, by conquest, war, or deceit.
As for theft, I don’t think you can justify theft epistemically. You would have to make a moral case for that, and you’d certainly fail to do so.
As for ownership, he whom produces it owns it. The first to take a thing out of a state of nature is the owner. The evidence of this is his possesion of it. He has thereby the highest claim on it, and legitimately so.
How exactly do you suggest theft could be justified if ownership is not epistemically defined?
If that’s the case, how can taxation, the execution of de-facto ownership, qualify as theft?
I treat ownership as a normative concept, not a descriptive one. Otherwise, whoever controls something at a given moment therefore owns it at that moment, and ownership therefore has no distinction from control. So ownership to me denotes the right to control something, not controlling it per se.
And what, epistemically, gives someone the right to control something?
Before I try to answer that, could you first please explain what you mean by “epistemically”?
Forget it. Just, what grants a man the right to control something?
Why is the above post italized?
Nothing objectively gives anyone the right to control anything. Rights exist only within the mind.
Why is the the word “epistemically” in that sentence? o.O
Clayton -
How can slavery qualify as abuse?
So theft isn’t wrong.
Ownership doesn’t mean just having control over a thing. Ownership is established by first use or acquisition through voluntary contractual exchange. The state can never “own” any portion of the possessions, income, or selves of any person. That kind of relationship just isn’t possible under the definition of ownership.
That kind of relationship is a violent one. It is coercive use of others’ property. It violates NAP. This is why the state and taxation are not ethical constructs.
Should have been “philosophically.”
http://againstpolitics.com/2008/12/09/the-presumption-of-liberty/
I recommend you investigate De Jasays work on the presumption of freedom.
Stealing/theft is a violation thereof
I would say ownership is exactly that, control. And the thief does indeed own that which he controls, though his ownership is not just, it is illegitimate. What problem can you root out from that in real world consequences, if any?
That’s as clear as mud. The point in using an adjective is to specify “this” rather than “that” kind of something. What is the difference between “philosophically wrong” and just plain old wrong?
Clayton -