5 ms·

> But within the context of faction A, I am the legitimate owner of certain items Yes, and within the context of A' I'm also the owner of your stuff. I see no

by wnight 15y ago

> But within the context of faction A, I am the legitimate owner of certain items Yes, and within the context of A' I'm also the owner of your stuff. I see no reason except your force of arms for staying in context A, especially after how you legitimized the theft from B and C. > Since we have to start somewhere, "I am the present owner, and I paid for this in a legally binding manner" is as good a starting point as any We already did start somewhere, this is umpteen thefts later. I see no reason to stop before umpteen plus one. > Trying to account for whether my ancestors paid for your share, or even how many shares we're entitled to based on the size of our family trees, is a waste of time. Exactly, and that's why private ownership of limited resources is ridiculous. If you own that land it's by depriving someone else, if you rent it from the collective your rent compensates others for the lost opportunity cost. All ownership comes down to force of arms. When picking someone to legitimize your claims of possession instead of picking a strongman, pick everyone.

lotharbot 15y ago
> within the context of A' I'm also the owner of your stuff. But I don't live in context A'. I live in context A (which I was born into). If you want to transition to A', you're going to need force of arms sufficient to overcome those of us who'll shoot back in defense of A. Good luck with that. > this is umpteen thefts later. I see no reason to stop Because theft is bad. I didn't participate in any of the umpteen previous thefts. I can't untangle them or reverse them, but I see no reason to add to the mess. > if you rent it from the collective If I use any "rivalrous" good, my use deprives someone else. Whether it's land or food, if I'm using it you're not. If that's your criteria for determining that something belongs to the collective, then I can never acquire the means by which to pay rent to the collective. Even my labor is rivalrous and therefore falls under the same objection -- if I choose to use it for one purpose, I deprive you of the ability to use my labor for another purpose. It seems to me that "use deprives someone else" is a poor choice counterargument to private ownership. > When picking someone to legitimize your claims of possession ... pick everyone You mean everyone you didn't kill with force of arms when trying to transition to A', right? Why not actually include a true "everyone", by allowing people to voluntarily live under whatever system they choose? If you want to be a collectivist, go find or start a collective and donate all your stuff to it, and join with others who voluntarily agree to it. It can be done without using force of arms offensively. Whatever force of arms was used to steal in the past, leave that in the past.
- wnight 15y ago
  > Because theft is bad. Says the holder of a stolen TV. > I didn't participate in any of the umpteen previous thefts. Except to buy the stolen goods, thus making the thefts profitable. And to legitimize the thieves. > I can't untangle them or reverse them, but I see no reason to add to the mess. Strange, I see the TV as a reason to "add to the mess". My TV to be. > If you want to transition to A', you're going to need force of arms sufficient to overcome those of us who'll shoot back in defense of A. Good luck with that. Ahhh yes, legitimize the situation with force. That'll convince me of your rights. > You mean everyone you didn't kill with force of arms when trying to transition to A', right? I see. I'd be a dirty thief for trying to get me a piece of that stolen loot and you'd be heroic for defending it against me. You'd shoot B and C too if they showed up and wanted their stuff back. > If I use any "rivalrous" good, my use deprives someone else. [...] Even my labor is rivalrous and therefore falls under the same objection -- if I choose to use it for one purpose, I deprive you of the ability to use my labor for another purpose. It could be seen that way. That's why we shoot slavers. They're insidious and dangerous. > Whether it's land or food, if I'm using it you're not. If that's your criteria for determining that something belongs to the collective, then I can never acquire the means by which to pay rent to the collective. No, you could use your labor. Or, if you were willing to farm the land (for instance) you could share a portion of the results. If you picked an uncontested piece of land the 'rent' could be pretty low, just enough to ensure it could be cleaned up after you left. > Why not actually include a true "everyone", by allowing people to voluntarily live under whatever system they choose? The biggest factor in their decision would be if they owned a lot of resources from previous thefts. Of course they'd never be willing to give up their loot. > It can be done without using force of arms offensively. But why should it? I could work my whole life (in your salt mine) to afford a piece of what you lucked into, or I could "luck into it" myself... > If you want to be a collectivist, go find or start a collective and donate all your stuff to it [...] Or, I could donate all your stuff to it. > Whatever force of arms was used to steal in the past, leave that in the past. Says the guy left holding the TV... You can't come up with anything that justifies the current distribution of stuff without justifying how we got here, and that justifies someone else coming and doing to you what you (collectively) did to others. This is how it is but it's not somehow 'right' despite having been grandfathered in.

by wnight 15y ago

lotharbot 15y ago

> within the context of A' I'm also the owner of your stuff. But I don't live in context A'. I live in context A (which I was born into). If you want to transition to A', you're going to need force of arms sufficient to overcome those of us who'll shoot back in defense of A. Good luck with that. > this is umpteen thefts later. I see no reason to stop Because theft is bad. I didn't participate in any of the umpteen previous thefts. I can't untangle them or reverse them, but I see no reason to add to the mess. > if you rent it from the collective If I use any "rivalrous" good, my use deprives someone else. Whether it's land or food, if I'm using it you're not. If that's your criteria for determining that something belongs to the collective, then I can never acquire the means by which to pay rent to the collective. Even my labor is rivalrous and therefore falls under the same objection -- if I choose to use it for one purpose, I deprive you of the ability to use my labor for another purpose. It seems to me that "use deprives someone else" is a poor choice counterargument to private ownership. > When picking someone to legitimize your claims of possession ... pick everyone You mean everyone you didn't kill with force of arms when trying to transition to A', right? Why not actually include a true "everyone", by allowing people to voluntarily live under whatever system they choose? If you want to be a collectivist, go find or start a collective and donate all your stuff to it, and join with others who voluntarily agree to it. It can be done without using force of arms offensively. Whatever force of arms was used to steal in the past, leave that in the past.

wnight 15y ago
> Because theft is bad. Says the holder of a stolen TV. > I didn't participate in any of the umpteen previous thefts. Except to buy the stolen goods, thus making the thefts profitable. And to legitimize the thieves. > I can't untangle them or reverse them, but I see no reason to add to the mess. Strange, I see the TV as a reason to "add to the mess". My TV to be. > If you want to transition to A', you're going to need force of arms sufficient to overcome those of us who'll shoot back in defense of A. Good luck with that. Ahhh yes, legitimize the situation with force. That'll convince me of your rights. > You mean everyone you didn't kill with force of arms when trying to transition to A', right? I see. I'd be a dirty thief for trying to get me a piece of that stolen loot and you'd be heroic for defending it against me. You'd shoot B and C too if they showed up and wanted their stuff back. > If I use any "rivalrous" good, my use deprives someone else. [...] Even my labor is rivalrous and therefore falls under the same objection -- if I choose to use it for one purpose, I deprive you of the ability to use my labor for another purpose. It could be seen that way. That's why we shoot slavers. They're insidious and dangerous. > Whether it's land or food, if I'm using it you're not. If that's your criteria for determining that something belongs to the collective, then I can never acquire the means by which to pay rent to the collective. No, you could use your labor. Or, if you were willing to farm the land (for instance) you could share a portion of the results. If you picked an uncontested piece of land the 'rent' could be pretty low, just enough to ensure it could be cleaned up after you left. > Why not actually include a true "everyone", by allowing people to voluntarily live under whatever system they choose? The biggest factor in their decision would be if they owned a lot of resources from previous thefts. Of course they'd never be willing to give up their loot. > It can be done without using force of arms offensively. But why should it? I could work my whole life (in your salt mine) to afford a piece of what you lucked into, or I could "luck into it" myself... > If you want to be a collectivist, go find or start a collective and donate all your stuff to it [...] Or, I could donate all your stuff to it. > Whatever force of arms was used to steal in the past, leave that in the past. Says the guy left holding the TV... You can't come up with anything that justifies the current distribution of stuff without justifying how we got here, and that justifies someone else coming and doing to you what you (collectively) did to others. This is how it is but it's not somehow 'right' despite having been grandfathered in.