3 ms·

Property rights do not exist in nature, they are just stories people tell each other. A house is just a pile of bricks. There is no objective concept of ownersh

Property rights do not exist in nature, they are just stories people tell each other. A house is just a pile of bricks. There is no objective concept of ownership. Ownership only appears when people tell each other consistent stories, and it becomes a social norm in some society that if you follow some rituals then you can do things like having a say on how a particular pile of bricks is used that others may respect. On occasion, different people will tell different stories about things and there will be disagreement. Here it seems the islanders do not consider such an outsider can "buy" and "own" a house according to the law and rituals of the mainland. The mainland is like a colonial power they resist. They just have they own laws in effect, that they can enforce (to a degree, someone still got a fine) through the community united in not collaborating with mainland agents. It's neat. Social norms vary, and elevating your norms above everyone else's is very ugly indeed. The islanders are as human as you, they just have a moral code that's not the same as yours.

ornornor 5y ago
By that token, there is no life and just a collection of specifically arranged atoms. There is no murder, just metabolism alterations by a third party.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  You're certainly right about murder. You wouldn't say that a cat "murdered" a mouse, you would say a cat killed a mouse. Just as when a dog has a bone, you wouldn't say the dog "owned" the bone. There's a difference between material reality (such as life, killing, and physical possession) and the moral framework you attach to it (like murder and ownership.) Ownership is something a government does for you, and encompasses whatever arbitrary rules that government imposes and is willing to enforce. That's why this is a discussion about what courts should do.
  - bagacrap 5y ago
    I would say a cat murdered a mouse, in particular because cats seem to kill a lot of small animals for no practical reason (as opposed to hunger, for example). If you're suggesting there's a valid moral code where murder is ok (for humans), well, I guess that's a matter of opinion, but I expect many people will disagree with you.

ornornor 5y ago

By that token, there is no life and just a collection of specifically arranged atoms. There is no murder, just metabolism alterations by a third party.

pessimizer 5y ago
You're certainly right about murder. You wouldn't say that a cat "murdered" a mouse, you would say a cat killed a mouse. Just as when a dog has a bone, you wouldn't say the dog "owned" the bone. There's a difference between material reality (such as life, killing, and physical possession) and the moral framework you attach to it (like murder and ownership.) Ownership is something a government does for you, and encompasses whatever arbitrary rules that government imposes and is willing to enforce. That's why this is a discussion about what courts should do.
- bagacrap 5y ago
  I would say a cat murdered a mouse, in particular because cats seem to kill a lot of small animals for no practical reason (as opposed to hunger, for example). If you're suggesting there's a valid moral code where murder is ok (for humans), well, I guess that's a matter of opinion, but I expect many people will disagree with you.