4 ms·

Fine, it's tautological, if not circular. The point remains it's useless on its own, i.e. in the context of this conversation. And yes, we get into the differ

Fine, it's tautological, if not circular. The point remains it's useless on its own, i.e. in the context of this conversation. And yes, we get into the difference between ownership and licensure in... another comment somewhere, I don't recall specifically where. And can you say more about the introduction of artificial scarcity predating capitalism? I'm sure you're right now that you say it, but I'm curious what you think is most relevant.

fluoridation 3y ago
Again, it's neither tautological nor circular. It would be tautological to say "stolen goods are stolen goods". It would be circular to say "stolen goods are stolen. Something is stolen if it's a stolen good". What I said was >"Stolen goods" are stolen because someone stole them There's nothing tautological about that. I'm laying out the relationships between the words "stolen" and "steal", and between "stolen" and "stolen good". The sentence isn't void of information, particularly in a discussion where you were arguing that something could become stolen retroactively regardless of the manner in which it was acquired. You can't have in your possession a good that nobody stole, that is also a stolen good because of actions you took after it came into your possession. That's nonsense. If you have such a confusion of ideas, I have no option but to state the obvious: something is stolen if someone stole it.
- WendyTheWillow 3y ago
  Stolen goods being stolen because they're stolen is tautological. Not sure why this is a point of contention? And you absolutely can have in possession something that was stolen that you did not steal, as the nature of your relationship with a good can change in ways other than possession.
  - fluoridation 3y ago
    You're not reading carefully enough. >"Stolen goods" are stolen because someone stole them is not the same as >"Stolen goods" are stolen because they're stolen Nor is it the same as >"Stolen goods" are stolen because you stole them If you have in your possession an item, either it's stolen or it's not stolen. If it's not stolen then it can't become stolen without leaving your possession. What makes it stolen or not stolen is not anything you do with it from now, but how it was acquired. That's what my statement was meant to emphasize. Is it obvious that something is stolen because someone stole it? Yes, but it's what I'm forced to state by the topic of this discussion.
    - WendyTheWillow 3y ago
      Oh, then it's not correct to claim that something in your possession that isn't stolen can't become stolen without leaving your possession. You can easily possess an item that hasn't been stolen, but upon some eventuality, no longer belongs to you that you still possess. An expired library book, for example, or a rented car. Perhaps you've entered into an agreement involving collateral that you've violated. An item you've maintained possession of will no longer be yours when the collateral becomes the property of the person you've entered into the agreement with.

fluoridation 3y ago

Again, it's neither tautological nor circular. It would be tautological to say "stolen goods are stolen goods". It would be circular to say "stolen goods are stolen. Something is stolen if it's a stolen good". What I said was >"Stolen goods" are stolen because someone stole them There's nothing tautological about that. I'm laying out the relationships between the words "stolen" and "steal", and between "stolen" and "stolen good". The sentence isn't void of information, particularly in a discussion where you were arguing that something could become stolen retroactively regardless of the manner in which it was acquired. You can't have in your possession a good that nobody stole, that is also a stolen good because of actions you took after it came into your possession. That's nonsense. If you have such a confusion of ideas, I have no option but to state the obvious: something is stolen if someone stole it.

WendyTheWillow 3y ago
Stolen goods being stolen because they're stolen is tautological. Not sure why this is a point of contention? And you absolutely can have in possession something that was stolen that you did not steal, as the nature of your relationship with a good can change in ways other than possession.
- fluoridation 3y ago
  You're not reading carefully enough. >"Stolen goods" are stolen because someone stole them is not the same as >"Stolen goods" are stolen because they're stolen Nor is it the same as >"Stolen goods" are stolen because you stole them If you have in your possession an item, either it's stolen or it's not stolen. If it's not stolen then it can't become stolen without leaving your possession. What makes it stolen or not stolen is not anything you do with it from now, but how it was acquired. That's what my statement was meant to emphasize. Is it obvious that something is stolen because someone stole it? Yes, but it's what I'm forced to state by the topic of this discussion.
  - WendyTheWillow 3y ago
    Oh, then it's not correct to claim that something in your possession that isn't stolen can't become stolen without leaving your possession. You can easily possess an item that hasn't been stolen, but upon some eventuality, no longer belongs to you that you still possess. An expired library book, for example, or a rented car. Perhaps you've entered into an agreement involving collateral that you've violated. An item you've maintained possession of will no longer be yours when the collateral becomes the property of the person you've entered into the agreement with.