3 ms·

No. People had possessions long before the state ever arose. It was just that they could only possess that which they could defend themselves. The state allows

by pcstl 8y ago

No. People had possessions long before the state ever arose. It was just that they could only possess that which they could defend themselves. The state allows for people to possess material things without needing to provide for the defense of those possessions. It is incredibly naive to assume that anything ever belonged to "the commons". "The commons" are a spook. At best, some material possessions would have collectively belonged to a tribe - which would brutally massacre anyone who tried to take it from them or get brutally massacred in turn - and others would be unclaimed.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> People had possessions long before the state ever arose. Having a possession isn't the same as having property. Property is the legal right to deny other people some set of actions regarding a thing. That people did things before the state arose also, in any case, doesn't establish a right to those things. People were, after all, deliberately killing each other without provocation (often to secure possessions) before the state arose, too (by any definition where “before the state arose” is a coherent concept, which it arguably is not under one of the more common ones used), but virtually no one argues on that basis that theft and murder are natural rights. > It is incredibly naive to assume that anything ever belonged to "the commons". No, it's not: the commons consist of everything in which no one is vested exclusive proprietary rights (and if there was no commons, then instead of alienation from the commons property—which unquestionably often involves conversion of something in which the property holder did not ab initio have a property interest—would generally involve theft from someone in particular rather than alienation from the commons; that property involves state-licensed alienation from the commons is the only alternative to “property is theft”.)
- pcstl 8y ago
  "Property is the legal right to deny other people some set of actions regarding a thing." People often denied other people some set of actions regarding things even without the state-enforced legal right to do so. As I said, the only thing the state changes is that people do not need to defend their property themselves. If, for instance, I raise a sheep for a few years expecting to be able to use its wool and milk, it is in my best interest to stop other people from using its wool and milk, as they have not participated in the raising of the sheep. Therefore, I would declare myself proprietor of the sheep, and would obviously stop other people from taking its milk and wool, in order not to deprive myself from the benefits I have acquired through my own work and effort. This is not "state-licensed alienation".

by pcstl 8y ago

dragonwriter 8y ago

> People had possessions long before the state ever arose. Having a possession isn't the same as having property. Property is the legal right to deny other people some set of actions regarding a thing. That people did things before the state arose also, in any case, doesn't establish a right to those things. People were, after all, deliberately killing each other without provocation (often to secure possessions) before the state arose, too (by any definition where “before the state arose” is a coherent concept, which it arguably is not under one of the more common ones used), but virtually no one argues on that basis that theft and murder are natural rights. > It is incredibly naive to assume that anything ever belonged to "the commons". No, it's not: the commons consist of everything in which no one is vested exclusive proprietary rights (and if there was no commons, then instead of alienation from the commons property—which unquestionably often involves conversion of something in which the property holder did not ab initio have a property interest—would generally involve theft from someone in particular rather than alienation from the commons; that property involves state-licensed alienation from the commons is the only alternative to “property is theft”.)

pcstl 8y ago
"Property is the legal right to deny other people some set of actions regarding a thing." People often denied other people some set of actions regarding things even without the state-enforced legal right to do so. As I said, the only thing the state changes is that people do not need to defend their property themselves. If, for instance, I raise a sheep for a few years expecting to be able to use its wool and milk, it is in my best interest to stop other people from using its wool and milk, as they have not participated in the raising of the sheep. Therefore, I would declare myself proprietor of the sheep, and would obviously stop other people from taking its milk and wool, in order not to deprive myself from the benefits I have acquired through my own work and effort. This is not "state-licensed alienation".