6 ms·

To be fair, most forms of property come from government-granted rights. The very idea that you can own land is kind of weird when you think about it.

jasonkostempski 10y ago
It's not really weird when you think about ownership just being a bunch of people agreeing to mess up anyone that tries to take something you've claimed. It takes a lot of work to maintain such an agreement, so people have to be compensated for it. If they aren't compensated to their liking, they'll take that thing and maybe other things you've claimed and maybe ruff you up for good measure.
- e12e 10y ago
  "A bunch of people agreeing" is what a government is?
  - Fargren 10y ago
    Almost. A governments is a bunch of people agreeing plus the power of those people to punish those who do not agree, without being punished back.
    - e12e 10y ago
      I'd argue the "power to punish without being punished back" stems from "being a bunch of people that agree" - ie: a bigger bunch of people than any one sub-group they might want to punish for being in disagreement. Then there's the shift in power that comes from control over weapons and infrastructure ... but AFAIK the coordinated masses still have power on their side - partly from the assumption that given enough "external" disagreement, some people on the inside are likely to cross over. Indeed, one could argue that the most terrifying part about the Snowden disclosures on mass surveillance, is that the current government is poised to deploy counter-measures long before any opposition consolidates and organizes. This might take the form of buying out individuals - or "dissappearing" or taking out individuals that are perceived to be in the process of becoming important.
cmurf 10y ago
Right. Or mineral extraction rights, and so on.
otakucode 10y ago
Of course. The only 'natural right' to property is the right to physical control over the things you are presently holding in your hands. As soon as you set them down, you lose every natural right over them and some social system has to step in.

jasonkostempski 10y ago

It's not really weird when you think about ownership just being a bunch of people agreeing to mess up anyone that tries to take something you've claimed. It takes a lot of work to maintain such an agreement, so people have to be compensated for it. If they aren't compensated to their liking, they'll take that thing and maybe other things you've claimed and maybe ruff you up for good measure.

e12e 10y ago
"A bunch of people agreeing" is what a government is?
- Fargren 10y ago
  Almost. A governments is a bunch of people agreeing plus the power of those people to punish those who do not agree, without being punished back.
  - e12e 10y ago
    I'd argue the "power to punish without being punished back" stems from "being a bunch of people that agree" - ie: a bigger bunch of people than any one sub-group they might want to punish for being in disagreement. Then there's the shift in power that comes from control over weapons and infrastructure ... but AFAIK the coordinated masses still have power on their side - partly from the assumption that given enough "external" disagreement, some people on the inside are likely to cross over. Indeed, one could argue that the most terrifying part about the Snowden disclosures on mass surveillance, is that the current government is poised to deploy counter-measures long before any opposition consolidates and organizes. This might take the form of buying out individuals - or "dissappearing" or taking out individuals that are perceived to be in the process of becoming important.

cmurf 10y ago

Right. Or mineral extraction rights, and so on.

otakucode 10y ago

Of course. The only 'natural right' to property is the right to physical control over the things you are presently holding in your hands. As soon as you set them down, you lose every natural right over them and some social system has to step in.