5 ms·

Property ownership doesn't exist without threat of violence. What's to stop me taking the phone you're holding? It's the threat of violence from you or society

by flukus 5y ago

Property ownership doesn't exist without threat of violence. What's to stop me taking the phone you're holding? It's the threat of violence from you or society in general. Money and taxes are just abstractions on top of the property ownership one, if you want to get rid of taxes you'll need to get rid of property ownership. Many cultures were this way.

syshum 5y ago
Rofl... Sorry no you are completely off base. First off I hope the only that keep you from being a thief is not that someone would defend themselves from your attempt. Personally I steal from people as much as I desire to. Which is none at all However self defense is not in viewed philosophy as a threat of violence. Violence that we are talking about here is the itiation of violence for which governments alone have taken the unethical position they have the lawful and exclusive right to said it itiation of violence in service 'of the greater good' Finally you in no way need to git rid of property ownership to get rid of taxation. Especially income based taxation like we are talking about here. Income based taxation being the most unethical of all forms of taxation.
- flukus 5y ago
  It's not self defense because you aren't defending yourself in this scenario, you're defending your property. It's only your property because you can defend it, but most of the time you won't have to because we all agree that you own it. The same goes for money, you're money is your property because we all agree it is, especially in the modern world where their is no physical item and inherent value. All the money you have is worthless if we decide it no longer has value. One of the trade offs for us deciding that your money has value is that we tax it. > Personally I steal from people as much as I desire to. Which is none at all That would be great in a universe that never has bad actors, that is not this universe.
  - CryptoPunk 5y ago
    >>It's only your property because you can defend it, but most of the time you won't have to because we all agree that you own it. No, it's your property because you created it, or were willed it by someone who did. The basis of a right to property is the same basis as a right to your person: the inherently moral right for one to make exclusive use of unclaimed matter that they appropriated and reconfigured into more valuable matter.
    - flukus 5y ago
      > the inherently moral right for one to make exclusive use of unclaimed matter that they appropriated and reconfigured into more valuable matter. And what gave them the right to appropriate it in the first place? What is inherently moral about claiming something that was previously unclaimed?
      - CryptoPunk 5y ago
        If we don't have a moral right to appropriate unclaimed and abundant natural resources, then we don't have a moral right to our body. Our common sense, which favors functional societies, sees the granting of a right to appropriate unclaimed and abundant natural resources to reconfigure it into higher value economic resources for our own exclusive use, as just.
        flukus 5y ago
        > Our common sense, which favors functional societies, sees the granting of a right to appropriate unclaimed and abundant natural resources to reconfigure it into higher value economic resources for our own exclusive use, as just. Just as our common sense, which favors functional societies, sees taxation as just. But just because we see something as useful and just doesn't mean there is an inherent moral underpinning to it. > if we don't have a moral right to appropriate unclaimed and abundant natural resources, then we don't have a moral right to our body. Maybe we don't have this inherent right? It is a fairly recent development for most humans. That's not to say that we shouldn't uphold this right, just that it's not inherent.
  - syshum 5y ago
    >>It's not self defense because you aren't defending yourself in this scenario, you're defending your property. Based on the rest of your comments I then assume you reject all Enlightenment based philosophy, Locke, Adam Smith, etc etc The core of enlightenment based philosophy, aka the foundation of our modern society, is that you do have natural rights. Governments are instituted to secure these natural rights. if you are going to now reject those bedrock principles then you have to completely reject society as we know it as well, and the founding documents of most nations including the US Constitution for the USA, Charter of Rights for Canada, etc etc Inherent in that foundation is the concept of property, as property is an extension of your self, your labor. If you have no right to property, you have no right to your labor, thus you have no right to your self.

by flukus 5y ago

syshum 5y ago

Rofl... Sorry no you are completely off base. First off I hope the only that keep you from being a thief is not that someone would defend themselves from your attempt. Personally I steal from people as much as I desire to. Which is none at all However self defense is not in viewed philosophy as a threat of violence. Violence that we are talking about here is the itiation of violence for which governments alone have taken the unethical position they have the lawful and exclusive right to said it itiation of violence in service 'of the greater good' Finally you in no way need to git rid of property ownership to get rid of taxation. Especially income based taxation like we are talking about here. Income based taxation being the most unethical of all forms of taxation.

flukus 5y ago
It's not self defense because you aren't defending yourself in this scenario, you're defending your property. It's only your property because you can defend it, but most of the time you won't have to because we all agree that you own it. The same goes for money, you're money is your property because we all agree it is, especially in the modern world where their is no physical item and inherent value. All the money you have is worthless if we decide it no longer has value. One of the trade offs for us deciding that your money has value is that we tax it. > Personally I steal from people as much as I desire to. Which is none at all That would be great in a universe that never has bad actors, that is not this universe.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  >>It's only your property because you can defend it, but most of the time you won't have to because we all agree that you own it. No, it's your property because you created it, or were willed it by someone who did. The basis of a right to property is the same basis as a right to your person: the inherently moral right for one to make exclusive use of unclaimed matter that they appropriated and reconfigured into more valuable matter.
  - flukus 5y ago
    > the inherently moral right for one to make exclusive use of unclaimed matter that they appropriated and reconfigured into more valuable matter. And what gave them the right to appropriate it in the first place? What is inherently moral about claiming something that was previously unclaimed?
    - CryptoPunk 5y ago
      If we don't have a moral right to appropriate unclaimed and abundant natural resources, then we don't have a moral right to our body. Our common sense, which favors functional societies, sees the granting of a right to appropriate unclaimed and abundant natural resources to reconfigure it into higher value economic resources for our own exclusive use, as just.
      - flukus 5y ago
        > Our common sense, which favors functional societies, sees the granting of a right to appropriate unclaimed and abundant natural resources to reconfigure it into higher value economic resources for our own exclusive use, as just. Just as our common sense, which favors functional societies, sees taxation as just. But just because we see something as useful and just doesn't mean there is an inherent moral underpinning to it. > if we don't have a moral right to appropriate unclaimed and abundant natural resources, then we don't have a moral right to our body. Maybe we don't have this inherent right? It is a fairly recent development for most humans. That's not to say that we shouldn't uphold this right, just that it's not inherent.
- syshum 5y ago
  >>It's not self defense because you aren't defending yourself in this scenario, you're defending your property. Based on the rest of your comments I then assume you reject all Enlightenment based philosophy, Locke, Adam Smith, etc etc The core of enlightenment based philosophy, aka the foundation of our modern society, is that you do have natural rights. Governments are instituted to secure these natural rights. if you are going to now reject those bedrock principles then you have to completely reject society as we know it as well, and the founding documents of most nations including the US Constitution for the USA, Charter of Rights for Canada, etc etc Inherent in that foundation is the concept of property, as property is an extension of your self, your labor. If you have no right to property, you have no right to your labor, thus you have no right to your self.