4 ms·

I don't understand the downvotes. Rent is just theft based on the monopolization of land. Forcing the poor to pay to live in government approved ghettos is mor

I don't understand the downvotes. Rent is just theft based on the monopolization of land. Forcing the poor to pay to live in government approved ghettos is more extortion of their limited resources by those who monopolize the commons.

thrownblown 10y ago
Downvote me too. It's ok. All property is theft.
- thrownblown 10y ago
  Private property "rights" can only exist if the state violently enforces it. Not just that, but all property claims are backed by threats of force, state or not. The universe doesn't anoint anyone Legitimate Property Owner, and if you can't convince others to leave you with your object of claim, then your claim has to be backed by force. Otherwise, it's just hot air.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  So, where did you steal that computer that you're composing your messages on? Where did you steal your phone? Your car? You sound like you want a world where cars and computers are free. In practice, that would be a world without cars and computers. Or are you only talking about "property" in the sense of real estate? But if the land doesn't (enforceably) belong to me, I'm not going to build anything substantial on it - not a skyscraper, not even a decent suburban home. I'm not going to build anything but what I absolutely need, because I can lose it. And I can't get a loan on it, either. This matters. In parts of the world without secure property rights, a family can't take a loan on their property so that the wife can buy a sewing machine and develop an income. It makes it harder for people to climb out of subsistence. So your position makes a nice soundbite, but it doesn't actually work very well in the real world. (Your post parallel to this one is correct - property rights can exist only if the state enforces them. The thing is, it is good that the state does so.)
  - thrownblown 10y ago
    >In practice, that would be a world without cars and computers. I'd gladly trade my computer and phone for a world without private property. > not even a decent suburban home. I'm not going to build anything but what I absolutely need, because I can lose it. Maybe if what you built actually contibuted to your community, the community would protect your contributions. >And I can't get a loan on it, either. This matters. There is no money to loan to anyone without private property. I don't think this matters in a state of nature. >So your position makes a nice soundbite, but it doesn't actually work very well in the real world. This "real world" you speak of isn't working either. Climate change, arguably the worst unintended consequence of private property, is going to end our civilization in the next century. I only say it's the worst, since slavery only really effects humans, climate change impacts all species, not just one race. Too bad it's our children and grandchildren that are the ones that will realize how selfish we are being.
    - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
      > I'd gladly trade my computer and phone for a world without private property. Really? Don't expect very many of us to agree with you... > There is no money to loan to anyone without private property. I don't think this matters in a state of nature. Most of us don't want to live in a state of nature, either. I think, if you actually had to do so, even you might decide you don't like it.

thrownblown 10y ago

Downvote me too. It's ok. All property is theft.

thrownblown 10y ago
Private property "rights" can only exist if the state violently enforces it. Not just that, but all property claims are backed by threats of force, state or not. The universe doesn't anoint anyone Legitimate Property Owner, and if you can't convince others to leave you with your object of claim, then your claim has to be backed by force. Otherwise, it's just hot air.
AnimalMuppet 10y ago
So, where did you steal that computer that you're composing your messages on? Where did you steal your phone? Your car? You sound like you want a world where cars and computers are free. In practice, that would be a world without cars and computers. Or are you only talking about "property" in the sense of real estate? But if the land doesn't (enforceably) belong to me, I'm not going to build anything substantial on it - not a skyscraper, not even a decent suburban home. I'm not going to build anything but what I absolutely need, because I can lose it. And I can't get a loan on it, either. This matters. In parts of the world without secure property rights, a family can't take a loan on their property so that the wife can buy a sewing machine and develop an income. It makes it harder for people to climb out of subsistence. So your position makes a nice soundbite, but it doesn't actually work very well in the real world. (Your post parallel to this one is correct - property rights can exist only if the state enforces them. The thing is, it is good that the state does so.)
- thrownblown 10y ago
  >In practice, that would be a world without cars and computers. I'd gladly trade my computer and phone for a world without private property. > not even a decent suburban home. I'm not going to build anything but what I absolutely need, because I can lose it. Maybe if what you built actually contibuted to your community, the community would protect your contributions. >And I can't get a loan on it, either. This matters. There is no money to loan to anyone without private property. I don't think this matters in a state of nature. >So your position makes a nice soundbite, but it doesn't actually work very well in the real world. This "real world" you speak of isn't working either. Climate change, arguably the worst unintended consequence of private property, is going to end our civilization in the next century. I only say it's the worst, since slavery only really effects humans, climate change impacts all species, not just one race. Too bad it's our children and grandchildren that are the ones that will realize how selfish we are being.
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    > I'd gladly trade my computer and phone for a world without private property. Really? Don't expect very many of us to agree with you... > There is no money to loan to anyone without private property. I don't think this matters in a state of nature. Most of us don't want to live in a state of nature, either. I think, if you actually had to do so, even you might decide you don't like it.