7 ms·

Regardless of whether a state exists or not, the only meaningful definition of "property" includes a threat of violence. It is not meaningful to say "this is mi

Regardless of whether a state exists or not, the only meaningful definition of "property" includes a threat of violence. It is not meaningful to say "this is mine" without the implied threat of violence against those who would take it - whether carried out by the individual themselves or outsourced to the local emperor. Without property there is not commerce, there is not agriculture, no civil growth and development to speak of.

georgeorwell 14y ago
As for your first paragraph, of course. I was just pointing out how things are with states, but you're right that for property it extends to individuals. As for your second, communism begs to differ, but it hasn't done so admirably in the world... http://dbzer0.com/blog/private-property-vs-possession http://dbzer0.com/blog/private-property-vs-possession It would be nice if a society could exist that wasn't reliant on violence and also not suck, but I'm not sure if it's really possible. Oh and "this is mine" has meaning in the context of a relationship where one party will simply be upset if the object is taken and the other party cares enough about them not to take it for that reason, even though there is no threat of violence if they do. This is how many couples and families work.
jamoes 14y ago
There is a difference between defensive violence and offensive violence. For example, do you believe that you own your body? I do, and I would defend myself if necessary. I would only use violence against those that are threatening me though. If you hold that you own your body, then by extension you own the output of the things you create with your body. There has been much thought on this line of philosophy, it's called the non-aggression principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle)

georgeorwell 14y ago

As for your first paragraph, of course. I was just pointing out how things are with states, but you're right that for property it extends to individuals. As for your second, communism begs to differ, but it hasn't done so admirably in the world... http://dbzer0.com/blog/private-property-vs-possession http://dbzer0.com/blog/private-property-vs-possession It would be nice if a society could exist that wasn't reliant on violence and also not suck, but I'm not sure if it's really possible. Oh and "this is mine" has meaning in the context of a relationship where one party will simply be upset if the object is taken and the other party cares enough about them not to take it for that reason, even though there is no threat of violence if they do. This is how many couples and families work.

jamoes 14y ago

There is a difference between defensive violence and offensive violence. For example, do you believe that you own your body? I do, and I would defend myself if necessary. I would only use violence against those that are threatening me though. If you hold that you own your body, then by extension you own the output of the things you create with your body. There has been much thought on this line of philosophy, it's called the non-aggression principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle)