3 ms·

> No, property is literally a social construct that humans use to denote who has exclusive rights over the disposition of a thing. Coercion comes afterwards, wh

> No, property is literally a social construct that humans use to denote who has exclusive rights over the disposition of a thing. Coercion comes afterwards, when people seek to enforce this norm on people who dispute it. Me: "Water is wet" You: "No, water is a type of matter. Wetness comes afterwards, when people touch it." You are being so pedantic and incoherent that you're "not even wrong". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong You're wasting both your and my time here if you cannot accept basic, obvious realities like the fact that property requires enforcement.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> Me: "Water is wet" You: "No, water is a type of matter. Wetness comes afterwards, when people touch it." You: “water is hot because boiling it requires heating it up” Me: “there is water at many temperatures and not all of it is boiling” > You are being so pedantic and incoherent that you're "not even wrong". I’m sorry you think its pedantry to examine the literal facts of the issue under discussion. However there is a big difference between the idea of property and the means one chooses to enforce property norms on people who do not subscribe to them, and if you don’t see this (or fail to comprehend the significance) then I can understand why you’re confused. > You're wasting both your and my time here if you cannot accept basic, obvious realities like the fact that property requires enforcement. You’re wasting both your and my time here if you’re unable to question things you have taken for granted. If it’s so basic and obvious then demonstrate it, rather than arguing by assertion.
- djrobstep 6y ago
  Name a property right that meaningfully exists absent enforcement or threats thereof. Give a single concrete example.
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    Name a water molecule that can’t be boiled. Give me a single example.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago

> Me: "Water is wet" You: "No, water is a type of matter. Wetness comes afterwards, when people touch it." You: “water is hot because boiling it requires heating it up” Me: “there is water at many temperatures and not all of it is boiling” > You are being so pedantic and incoherent that you're "not even wrong". I’m sorry you think its pedantry to examine the literal facts of the issue under discussion. However there is a big difference between the idea of property and the means one chooses to enforce property norms on people who do not subscribe to them, and if you don’t see this (or fail to comprehend the significance) then I can understand why you’re confused. > You're wasting both your and my time here if you cannot accept basic, obvious realities like the fact that property requires enforcement. You’re wasting both your and my time here if you’re unable to question things you have taken for granted. If it’s so basic and obvious then demonstrate it, rather than arguing by assertion.

djrobstep 6y ago
Name a property right that meaningfully exists absent enforcement or threats thereof. Give a single concrete example.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  Name a water molecule that can’t be boiled. Give me a single example.