5 ms·

> That is an ahistorical perspective. For most of human history, you could be killed for putting a yurt or hut in someone else's land. Even chimps will kill oth

> That is an ahistorical perspective. For most of human history, you could be killed for putting a yurt or hut in someone else's land. Even chimps will kill others for infringing on territory. I don't agree with you, there are books such as The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity that counter your rhetoric. Private property norms did not exist for most of human history. > Even chimps will kill others for infringing on territory. On the other hand Bonobo is not so territorial and is too one of the species that is the closest to us. >This is reverse reasoning. people lacking resources doesn't imply it was stolen from them. The alternative is that they simply didn't start with any. Why then some people usurp land and natural resources and not let others use them? > Rights don't derive from wants or needs. From what they derive? If you agree that there is no natural rights, then how do you justify private property rights? > The zapititistas did not acquire all their land, people, and resources through free choice, nor were people free to stop collaborating if they chose. Please share your sources for this statement.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
Bonobos are not pacifist. There is less violence within the troop, but they will still kill and maim, especially in the case of territorial disputes. Groups of humans have always organized for Mutual Aid, but it has never been unilateral or not subject to the approval of the group. Norms around private property are different across time and depend on the level of abundance. At no point could a strange human come and take your possessions huts, or food without permission.
its_ethan 2y ago
In general, I'm getting the impression from your comment that you have some overly idealistic beliefs, and that you're perhaps unwilling to engage honestly with ideas that are counter to your own, but in any case.. Re: The Dawn of Everything You're saying you don't agree with him because of a book you read - but that book has legitimate historians making some pretty bold criticisms: "cherry-picked and selectively presented examples", "perilously close to scholarly malpractice." There is some positive feedback as well, but in general, if a book claiming to be historical elicits this kind polarization, it's probably not something to base a strong belief on. I'm also not quite sure why you would find it hard to agree with the notion that, throughout history, humans have been protective of their territory. The list of examples you could point to for this is unending. > Why then some people usurp land and natural resources and not let others use them? You're question here doesn't really do accomplish anything re: property somehow being theft. I would suggest that "the reason" some people aquire land and don't let others use it can simply be because they don't want to. Sometimes the answer is that it's not financially viable to share it. Sometimes the answer is that they fear the destruction of the land or resource if they just open it up to anyone. Any of these reasons is sufficient, because they don't actually need a reason. > If you agree that there is no natural rights, then how do you justify private property rights? To start, the other guy never claimed private property was a natural right. The rights we have emerged from people wanting to self organize for their mutual benefit. They needed to agree on some fundamental protections that enable an actual net benefit of their organized society, and giving people rights to own and protect their property is generally needed for people to feel confident that effort they put in to improve the land is effort they will be rewarded for. It's a nice idea that people will improve land for the good of humanity, but in reality, people are not motivated by that enough to overcome the people who would abuse that system by "free-loading". It should tell you something that private property + property rights have consistently emerged, whenever people have tried to put together a society. > Please share your sources for this statement I admittedly didn't know much about this, but on some cursory research, it seems pretty obvious to me that this was not an entirely "free choice" based movement.. "Rebels wore ski masks and used furniture and other office materials to barricade themselves inside of buildings once they had taken them over.[11] During the occupation of the city, rebels also painted pro-Zapatista statements on the walls of buildings.[12] While raiding San Cristóbal de las Casas, the Zapatistas released 230 predominantly Indigenous prisoners from jail and also demolished land records in protest" And the source you're asking for: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_uprising#Events https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_uprising#Events
- TotalCrackpot 2y ago
  > In general, I'm getting the impression from your comment that you have some overly idealistic beliefs, and that you're perhaps unwilling to engage honestly with ideas that are counter to your own, but in any case.. I like precise logical argumentation, that's not idealism, I don't make any unnecessary assumptions > I'm also not quite sure why you would find it hard to agree with the notion that, throughout history, humans have been protective of their territory. The list of examples you could point to for this is unending. Oh, that's very simple, for most of human history humans lived as hunter gatherers and they did not have private property or rent relations. >To start, the other guy never claimed private property was a natural right. The rights we have emerged from people wanting to self organize for their mutual benefit. No, there was an enclosure of commons that happened to exploit farmers as factory workers. Those rights were always about naturalizing oppressive human relations. >It should tell you something that private property + property rights have consistently emerged, whenever people have tried to put together a society. This is not true, many civilizations were against private property rights and private property rights were never universal, they are even not universal in this worlds, even if they exist in most places around the world. >I admittedly didn't know much about this, but on some cursory research, it seems pretty obvious to me that this was not an entirely "free choice" based movement.. No one is coerced to join those rebels. And rebels are rebelling against unjust genocide of Indigenous Americans among others.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    Those hunter gatherers still had territory. Sometimes it was claimed and defended by a tribe and not individuals, but still the same. Only in places of complete abundance did people not make claims.
    - TotalCrackpot 2y ago
      They did not have private property with landlord and employers. They had common property and usually some kind of gift economy.
  - its_ethan 2y ago

s1artibartfast 2y ago

Bonobos are not pacifist. There is less violence within the troop, but they will still kill and maim, especially in the case of territorial disputes. Groups of humans have always organized for Mutual Aid, but it has never been unilateral or not subject to the approval of the group. Norms around private property are different across time and depend on the level of abundance. At no point could a strange human come and take your possessions huts, or food without permission.

its_ethan 2y ago

In general, I'm getting the impression from your comment that you have some overly idealistic beliefs, and that you're perhaps unwilling to engage honestly with ideas that are counter to your own, but in any case.. Re: The Dawn of Everything You're saying you don't agree with him because of a book you read - but that book has legitimate historians making some pretty bold criticisms: "cherry-picked and selectively presented examples", "perilously close to scholarly malpractice." There is some positive feedback as well, but in general, if a book claiming to be historical elicits this kind polarization, it's probably not something to base a strong belief on. I'm also not quite sure why you would find it hard to agree with the notion that, throughout history, humans have been protective of their territory. The list of examples you could point to for this is unending. > Why then some people usurp land and natural resources and not let others use them? You're question here doesn't really do accomplish anything re: property somehow being theft. I would suggest that "the reason" some people aquire land and don't let others use it can simply be because they don't want to. Sometimes the answer is that it's not financially viable to share it. Sometimes the answer is that they fear the destruction of the land or resource if they just open it up to anyone. Any of these reasons is sufficient, because they don't actually need a reason. > If you agree that there is no natural rights, then how do you justify private property rights? To start, the other guy never claimed private property was a natural right. The rights we have emerged from people wanting to self organize for their mutual benefit. They needed to agree on some fundamental protections that enable an actual net benefit of their organized society, and giving people rights to own and protect their property is generally needed for people to feel confident that effort they put in to improve the land is effort they will be rewarded for. It's a nice idea that people will improve land for the good of humanity, but in reality, people are not motivated by that enough to overcome the people who would abuse that system by "free-loading". It should tell you something that private property + property rights have consistently emerged, whenever people have tried to put together a society. > Please share your sources for this statement I admittedly didn't know much about this, but on some cursory research, it seems pretty obvious to me that this was not an entirely "free choice" based movement.. "Rebels wore ski masks and used furniture and other office materials to barricade themselves inside of buildings once they had taken them over.[11] During the occupation of the city, rebels also painted pro-Zapatista statements on the walls of buildings.[12] While raiding San Cristóbal de las Casas, the Zapatistas released 230 predominantly Indigenous prisoners from jail and also demolished land records in protest" And the source you're asking for: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_uprising#Events https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_uprising#Events

TotalCrackpot 2y ago
> In general, I'm getting the impression from your comment that you have some overly idealistic beliefs, and that you're perhaps unwilling to engage honestly with ideas that are counter to your own, but in any case.. I like precise logical argumentation, that's not idealism, I don't make any unnecessary assumptions > I'm also not quite sure why you would find it hard to agree with the notion that, throughout history, humans have been protective of their territory. The list of examples you could point to for this is unending. Oh, that's very simple, for most of human history humans lived as hunter gatherers and they did not have private property or rent relations. >To start, the other guy never claimed private property was a natural right. The rights we have emerged from people wanting to self organize for their mutual benefit. No, there was an enclosure of commons that happened to exploit farmers as factory workers. Those rights were always about naturalizing oppressive human relations. >It should tell you something that private property + property rights have consistently emerged, whenever people have tried to put together a society. This is not true, many civilizations were against private property rights and private property rights were never universal, they are even not universal in this worlds, even if they exist in most places around the world. >I admittedly didn't know much about this, but on some cursory research, it seems pretty obvious to me that this was not an entirely "free choice" based movement.. No one is coerced to join those rebels. And rebels are rebelling against unjust genocide of Indigenous Americans among others.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  Those hunter gatherers still had territory. Sometimes it was claimed and defended by a tribe and not individuals, but still the same. Only in places of complete abundance did people not make claims.
  - TotalCrackpot 2y ago
    They did not have private property with landlord and employers. They had common property and usually some kind of gift economy.
- its_ethan 2y ago