4 ms·

This doesn't mean property exists in the same way that objects exist. A piece of property is just a protected object.

• alexanderstears 9y ago
  Go try to wrestle a caveman for his fur pelt and see if he considers it to be a protected object. Force protects the object, sometimes the government exerts the force sometimes not.
  • hacking_again 9y ago
    Eh, I don't disagree, I was just trying to distinguish between property existing and objects existing. But maybe force defines existence all the way down.
  • tormeh 9y ago
    >Go try to wrestle a caveman for his fur pelt and see if he considers it to be a protected object. But if I show up with a better club then all his stuff is now mine. A third party enforcing certain resource allocations with overwhelming force is different to everyone defending their own stuff. Government is the difference between property rights and might-makes-right.
    • hacking_again 9y ago
      In theory yes, if you have an impartial third-party monopoly, but in practice it's still might-makes-right, where might = money, lawyers, political connections, ethnicity, etc. It's probably still better, but it's less transparently obvious what's going than with my club vs. yours.
    • alexanderstears 9y ago
      But if I show up with a better club then all his stuff is now mine. Bingo. Ownership exists without government - ownership exists to the extent others respect the claim. Government is the difference between property rights and might-makes-right. Governments are legitimate because of their might. Why do you think the basic social contract between authorities and the governed is "obedience for protection"?