Arbitrary Catergorization: Personal Property vs. Private Property

A challenge for Holla Forums: give me a non-arbitrary distinction between personal property and private property. As I'm sure you know, Marx considered value-adding assets used in the production process private property/means of production.

The issue is that this is a completely arbitrary categorization.

To illustrate this, I'll use the example of a chef's knife (an example I have used once before).

The chef uses his knife at home to prepare his food. It's a nice knife that he likes to use whenever he is cooking, but surely when he is using it at home and not being used in a value-adding process you wouldn't consider it private property that is requiring collectivization.

If he takes it to his place of work, does it become private property as soon as he's gotten out of bed in the morning, as soon as he had made the decision to bring it to work the preceding afternoon, assuming he places it in the back seat of his car, is it a mean of production as soon as his body crosses the threshhold onto the lot his business is on, or as soon as the knife crosses that threshhold, or as soon as he begins to prepare a dish that he believes he will be using the knife in, as soon as he picks up the knife to prepare that dish after gathering the ingredients- or what if he picks it up but puts it down near what is going to be cut up and then finally uses it two minutes later, is it private property as soon as the first atom of the knife has made contact with the first atom of the raw material being processed- but what if he just taps the food with the back of the knife but doesn't technically begin using it in the value-adding production process of cutting? When exactly does this transition between "personal" and "private" property occur; if you were preparing a revolution and you did not want to violate the sanctity of personal property at what point exactly would you be justified in taking the chef's knife (please consider both if he did and did not own his place of work)?

Another example, what if he sometimes prepared food at his home which he would, in rare cases, bring to his place of work to be sold as a product? Would the knife retroactively shift from "personal property that was used to produce his own food" to "private property that produced consumer goods" for the whole duration of him cooking, or only the portion of cooking that involved the knife? If he consistently used it as a means of production from his home, that is he produced goods which he frequently (but not on a scheduled basis) brought to work instead of consuming himself, could he avoid ever having his knife collectivized, even though it's used as private property, because it's impossible for an outside observer to know when the knife is being used in a value-adding production process? Is this a case of Schrödinger's private property, if he decides on a truly random basis would that mean that if you wanted to collectivize the knife you would always be at risk of seizing it for being used as private property? Is something just considered private property instead of personal property for eternity if it is used in value-adding processes in business? If that is the case, that would mean if you used your phone at work for a work-related task once it should be collectivized.

Suppose a laborer is penned up in a steel chamber, along with the following device (which must be secured against direct interference by the laborer): in a Geiger counter, there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small, that perhaps in the course of the hour one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges and through a relay releases a hammer that rings a bell to signal the laborer to begin working with the machine on the raw materials in the chamber. If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the machine is still personal property if meanwhile no atom has decayed. The first atomic decay would have signaled it to work. The psi-function of the entire system would express this by having in it the personal and private property (pardon the expression) mixed or smeared out in equal parts.

If you can't tell me exactly where the line between personal property and private property is it's just an arbitrary distinction :^). In the same way there's an arbitrary distinction between a milquetoast leftist's idea of "too much wealth" e.g. when exactly do you reach a higher marginal tax rate.

Pic unrelated, connoisseur of of California French™ Champagne.

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch27.htm
ls.poly.edu/~jbain/socphil/socphillectures/J.Marx2.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_property
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggression
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

personal property is what you need private property is what you steal

He brought his personal property to work.
Simple.
It's not any different than uber drivers who own the vehicle.

Normally, you can't extract rent from a knife.

how is the distinction between the government a proprietor has over his land and a government a state has over its land not just an arbitrary distinction?

This. If you can extract rent from it, it's private property.

So does the vehicle magically become private property as soon as the driver gets in the car as the start of their work day, opens the Uber App, as soon as they are paired with a customer, as soon as they leave to meet said customer, as soon as the customer enters the car, is it the first atom of the customer, the first atom attached to the customer (e.g. loose clothes), or the complete containment of the customer in the car that signifies the beginning of the production process?

That's not the definition of private property, dweeb. Private property includes any instruments that are value-adding in a production process in gapitalism.


Because individuals don't acquire their property by using threats of the initiation of violence or imprisonment, fine, etc.; even if my answer is wrong this doesn't mean that your theory is valid. Worst case scenario, from your perspective, we're both incorrect, best case, it's just me.

"Marx's definition of private property referred to ownership of productive (value-producing) assets"
Anything tool used to produce a product in a production process is value-producing/adding.

No, it's still their personal property, they just brought it to work.
Why is this so hard to understand?

then what are police or private security for? do you think the poor actually made some contractual agreement to be poor?
you should try to focus more on honing your critical thinking skills than just looking like you won an argument

Why would you bring that up? Do you think Marx is some infallible prophet figure or something?

I'm giving you a practical definition that would work in a socialist society.

If it's being used in the production process it's by definition private property. Where does the transition occur?


No, but the property they don't have wasn't taken from them by force. If you have a hunter-gatherer society in proximity to an industrialized society, the logical conclusion is not that "le industry was builb off da bags off da boor D:!" Because the hunter-gatherers could easily have been left alone.
Not an argument that saves you from the fact that you rely on arbitrary distinctions in your ethical framework.

You're the one asking for a definition, ya dip.

You can extract rent from everything under the right, albeit sometimes bizarre circumstances, so you don't believe such a thing as personal property exists at all then?

Fine, I was assuming that Marx's definition was considered the norm still, nonetheless, see
I can propose a hypothetical under which any object can have rent extracted from it, the "can" is so generous as to describe all objects as private property.

what did he mean by this? obviously at some point property was created, somebody took land and then defended it against other people using violence
why do they own it? liberals can't explain this without using some alchemy or weird idea of self-ownership that only applies selectively based on morals and not just whatever you can take
i'm not a marxist, but marxists tend not to make ethical arguments

No you can't. We're talking in practical terms, not hypothetical homo economicus' magical land of wonders. Go out and try to extract rent from someone by having them produce stuff with the knife you own. It is literally not possible in the material world we occupy.

been browsing Holla Forums :o?
Because homesteading and first use? In practice, no property has the ideal peaceful case of first appropriation all the way back through tens of thousands of years of human history, best case scenario is that the land was abandoned until recent history and then peacefully appropriated from an unowned state.


Yeah, that's why it's literally impossible to rent out a jackhammer, right? L I T ' R A L Y XD

How do you extract rent from a knife?

no but how does homesteading and first use make something your property but just rocking up and taking it doesn't?
sounds abit like an arbitrary distinction fam

Okay, let's imagine:
O wow, much difficult, so litrally impossible!

Maybe it is, even if I concede that it doesn't make your ideas any less retarded.

but im not a marxist

Who the hell wants to rent a knife?

I do. Checkmate, commie.

Well, presumably, you're here attempting to defend their distinction between personal and private property instead of just shitting up my thread with your weabshit. Why else would you be posting xd?

We're talking about knives, not jackhammers. You can't rent out a knife. Are you slow?

Yes you can. I will ask to rent out a knife for 5 minutes for the cutting of an onion to prove the principle if you'd like, but if I do, you have to admit you have a totally arbitrary distinction between personal and private property :^).

no, all i'm doing is arguing against homesteading rights
to argue against homesteading rights

But that's not why I'm here. I'm perfectly happy to admit, for the sake of debate, that homesteading rights are- again, for the sake of debate- arbitrary bullshit, if that means you'll stop asking me about it. (▰˘◡˘▰)

ok

The difference between private and personal property is the difference in (what's known in Anglo-American law) realty and personalty.

Read a fucking book

Is that a book made for the purpose of fucking or only on the subject of it? Sounds pretty lewd.

If you need to borrow a knife for 5 minutes someone can just lend you one. I know ancaps have an irrational fear of sharing because it goes against their rugged freewheeling entrepreneurial free market principles but this is ridiculous.

A judge making a distinction in a socialist court would have no problem pointing out that your knife example is bullshit and refuse to collectivize all knives across the commune because your autistic mind refuses to grasp the practical meaning of the means of production. A Marxist takeover and redistribution of your anime figs and cargo shorts will never happen.

It's still his personal property, he's just using it in the production process. Essentially, the worker is renting out his personal property as well as his labor to the capitalist.
Seems like this is simple still.

Bingo. But not because the person/private distinction is "arbitrary". All philosophies are based on things that are arbitrary if you zoom in close enough.

Maybe I live in a community with a shortage of knvies, ever think of that, asshole?!


How is it personal property, assuming he owns the business, if it's being used in a production process?


k

...

(checked)

This can't realistically happen. If it did, for some absurd reason, it would be reasonable to collectivize the remaining knives if there was some pressing need for knives within said community, until such time as new ones could be acquired, at which point the appropriated knives would be returned to their original owners.

But you're disregarding the fact that anything could, feasibly, be rented out. If you're in a private property society and you're in immediate need of some specific object, perhaps just for your own satisfaction of having it temporarily, and no one wants to lend it to you because they think you're an asshole because you can't give a non-arbitrary definition of private property, you could then rent it out any given portable property temporarily. Again, if I wanted to impress a girl that was coming to my residence, I could rent out a nicer couch, does this mean couches are also private property :^)?

Sounds like your definition is bullshit and has to be tempered with "b-b-but people p-probably wouldn't behave that way under most circumstances as they exist presently!" But they could.

"Arbitrary" is not a bug, it is a feature. It allows for flexibility based on changing context. The purpose of our philosophy is to create the best society we can, not see who can filter questions though the most ideologically rigid decision making process.

People should be allotted personal possessions when there is a collective good that warrants it. Toothbrushes, for example. It is in the collective interest for people not to use eachother's toothbrushes, so you can say that it is your "personal property" it in that sense. But if the day came where people harms done by the private allocation outweighed the gains, then things could be changed. "Personal property" is really nothing like property as capitalist's understand it.

I'm not a primitivist, by the way.

Why wouldn't it be any different?

What happens if an entrepreneur creates an elaborate production process out of his personal property?

Dear AnCap,
I'd say that private property is anything that worker's councils or a large democratic body would resolve to turn into social property. Does this help?

This guy rather gets it

No it couldn't. Case in point, you can't rent out a knife unless the material circumstances of the world change.


Look here. Being able to recategorize things from private to personal property is a benefit.

Say you have 3D printer. If there are few of them, they would be treated like the means of production. If they become plentiful enough that anyone who wants one would be able to own or borrow one, they would be treated like personal property.

You don't extract rent from the object in real world use more than p percent of the time, generically speaking. How about that?

...

Sounds legit as long as he doesn't exploit anyone. He could operate the process himself if he desired. But if he wants it, just to let it sit idle, and it so happens we need more of what the process produces, but he won't let us use it because muh propertah, then we string him up. Realistically, society would have large scale production apparatuses, relegating the individual small process to worthlessness. See?

That doesn't mean it isn't a useful example to consider when does personal property actually become private property? If your only response is "it dont matter" then you've got an arbitrary distinction at the core of whether or not you're willing to kill someone to take their stuff.


So basically you're just utilitarians who use arbitrary distinctions to justify your actions :3?

According to whom?
What if it makes 60% of people extremely happy to be using a different person's toothbrush every day? Time to collectivize toothbrushes for the greater good.
You're only primitive yourself? What's it like to carry around those H. erectus alleles?


Because it's being used in a value-adding process :o?


I'm not asking "how would you guys try to make a practical system based off this distinction" I'm driving at my own point that "you have arbitrarily made this distinction and you can't accurately distinguish personal from private property in a world where a computer is used for browsing cuckporn one minute and writing Buzzfeed articles the next."

Not really, if someone really needs a knife next door and I won't give it to him unless he pays me, and he doesn't have the time to ask someone else, voila I have an opportunity to rent my knife.


You're not rebutting my point, you're just saying "sure, everything meets the definition of private property based on its ability to be rented out, but a lot of stuff isn't frequently used for that purpose." So what? That doesn't invalidate the principle.

Wouldn't he be valuable because of his knowledge of this new production process? Even if seized, it's likely he'd know best how to operate or direct it.

...

Well, that's sort of the point of a reductio ad absurdum, you fucking peasant.

Not trying to invalidate anything. Proposing a new autistic definition for you.

Then propose it instead of trying to do a Socratic dialogue to walk me to defining it myself.

Actually, I take that back.
He actually does have to exploit himself assuming he's running a business and contributing to the production process.
I was thinking he was using it for personal use for some reason.
But yeah, he brought his personal property into work.

I don't remember saying that.
I just seems like this is simple and it's not really getting through to you for some reason.

...

My point is that when you look at the fringe cases the distinction between personal and private property is totally arbitrary, as is exemplified with a laptop used at home and work, but I used a chef's knife given that its a much more ancient aspect of human life/less complicated.

Oh, so you're arbitrarily deciding that if "you" (who, the general public?) doesn't rent out a specific class of property more than 1% of the time, it's personal property? Why not 0.9999012852399534120% of the time? How did you come to 1% exactly? Why not 1.000003125%? Is there a good, non-arbitrary reason you chose that number?

The problem with your libertarian anarcho-capitalism is that it is completely divorced from the historical record. Peasants WERE forced off the land and into cities by the authorities in England where Capitalism as such was first developed.

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch27.htm

I will sound like a dick right now, but this is a common problem with libertarian theories. Libertarians love to isolate processes of the political economy like with the classic two dudes on a deserted island and to to analyze the individual pieces as a static model, as if they were program subroutines. They make a categorical error; economies are not models, or finite programs: they are dynamic political systems. There is the reason why they are called *political economies*. It goes back to the debate between Bohm-Bawerk and Bukharin. Bukharin demonstrated in his Economic Theory of the Leisure Class why the idea that value is discovered on the market is a political, not scientific idea, and the Austrian economists and Neoclassical economists could never live it down.

Fix p such that the definition precludes private property.

Can you extract rent from the computer under the current circumstances? No? It's personal property.

The purpose of seizing the means of production is to keep people from exploiting the labour of others.

You keep saying that, but I'm still not seeing how.
Just sounds like it gets blurry for you.

Well, *I* am a utilitarian who recognizes that all distinctions are necessarily arbitrary. Why do we call this mass of atoms "human" and this mass of atoms "toothbrush"? Who decided where we draw the line? And what is YOUR non-arbitrary philosophy?


If something comes out ahead in a harm-benefit analysis, and would end up making the world a better place on average, we shouldn't do it because…?

But that was a violation of property rights. The fact that people violate my system of ethics every day is in no way an argument against it. The fact that failure to abide by my set of ethics has dirtied the entire existing by my standards into a gray area is not an argument against my ideals. I am not trying to make the case for anarcho-capitalism, I am not trying to convert anyone here to libertarianism, I'm just trying to address a specific point about leftism so please stop changing the subject :3

If I own the whole fucking earth is it ethical if I force you to suck my dick in exchange for getting to breathe my air?

I am
private property is first and foremost a relation between people.


Therefore the line between private and personal property will vary geographically and temporally.


We have ways of making people talk ;D
I just don't feel like entertaining your hypothetical game

Oh and by "force" I mean you voluntarily agree to do it unless you actually just feel like no longer breathing.

Lol, idiot. Not to mention, you can rent out good computers to play video games at an arcade.

Well, yes, that would be a reductio ad absurdum against that standard, except it doesn't really make sense unless the standard is "maximize the % of happy people at a time" because "maximize happiness" would also imply minimize severe suffering. The logical conclusion would be some variant of anti-natalism, I think.

People have the right to not have what they've earned taken by force if they're surrounded by a bunch of retards with irrational preferences.


The whole Earth isn't homesteaded, and you can't homestead the entire atmosphere, so no

So it's arbitrary bullshit? Couldn't you have just stated that from the onset?

You are not exploiting anyone's labour by charging a fee to use a computer, so that is not extracting rent as I mean it. I am talking simply about using your ownership over an object to take the surplus value generated by the labour of another person in exchange for a flat fee you provide them for their ability to labour, and other relationships of that nature.

When you cannot do this, as with a computer in the present circumstances, that object is personal property.

You can rent out a computer in that way as well. If someone really needs to write an email for his work right away, I can demand payment for temporary use of my computer.

We're talking hypotheticals. Once people homestead all the earth and all the atmosphere, and I use my money to buy it all, are my actions then ethical?

As I said, property is a social relation which changes, based on the mode of production of society's needs. It is a relation of production of immediate needs and reproduction of the whole society. Just because the boiling point of a liquid varies based on dissolved solutes or atmospheric pressure does not make the physical act of boiling "bullshit"

It's not hypothetical, it's the present case. People create in unexpected ways. They find loopholes in laws, cheaper more efficient processes, or unseen solutions to unknown problems.

That's not how surplus value works, you dumb bitch.

There would have to be no abandoned or undeveloped land, which is impossible. The carrying capacity of the Earth is not high enough that all of the land on Earth could be developed/not abandoned. It's a literal physical impossibility, like postulating if hunter-gatherers were caged in a 100 square mile area how long would it be until they reached 1 million people, literally never because they have a limited supply of food.

I am extracting the surplus value from the value of the email ★~(◡﹏◕✿)

Assuming that the masses surrounding them had rational preferences, I would think that it would be terribly unjust for the person to hoard the thing for themselves.

I would steal food from a rich man to feed starving people any day. To NOT do so when given a clean opportunity would be terribly irrational.

No reply means I won the debate. Yes?

An email is not a marketable commodity that you are seizing because you own the computer.

You are an idiot.

I just said the opposite in my proposed case… Also, people are irrational, the idea that they know what's best for society is laughable, the idea that they know what's best for themselves in the short-term is at least plausible if you add in the caveat "by their own standards", but yeah, giving the masses "a say" in shit they have no comprehension of is just pandering bullshit.

Not if those poor people were inclined to violent crime, low-IQ, ungrateful assholes. If they were a bunch of children who literally din du nuffin, or some responsible and nice person who was at need due to their own fault, I agree that they should be helped, although I don't see how that requires property theft.

wut didn't i reply to

Okay, so he was a chink mining bitcoins by doing math and I seized 1/100th of a bitcoin. Checkmate, commie.

...

due to no fault of their own*

Oops. Forgot hat.

Posts like these are why anyone who makes a post with that flag should be automatically banned.

Or perhaps it means that extremely autistic people is simply not worth anyone's time.

Mark it down on your wall if you, you won a very important argument against the commies by ridiculously pushing a distinction because 'lol its arbitrary XDDD'.

Is this English?
P is this the percent or whatever, but you've just produced a tautology
Tbh, I am not even sure what you're getting at. ┐(‘～`；)┌Could you try talking like a normal fucking person?

Fix as in choose.

The only thing you're missing is that the 'choice' and the act of expropriation are both objective. Certainly you must grant that the carrying out of the act is objective. Back to the water analogy, what I meant was the temperature of boiling varies with all these other physical variables. Imagine temperature as a 'subjective variable' which is influenced of course, more or less lucidly, by external objective factors (adding enthalpy or free energy to the water as analogous to increasing exploitation or flagrant state repression).

People riot and revolt after particularly violent state measures. Don't you see how the objectivity and subjectivity of the rioters are inextricably linked? inb4 you'd say the rioters are niggers who need to take it lying down, learn white values, or some arrogant nonsense

Present your definition in one post and not in this 4 part hodgepodge bullshit.


Remind me how this proves your definition isn't arbitrary bullshit o(╥﹏╥)o?

Having fun here tbh

How about no ヾ(〃^∇^)ﾉ?

Seriously, anyone who wastes their times with this shit should kill themselves. And I say it for real, you're the cancer killing this board.

>>>/cuckshed/

why

For someone who despises cuckoldry so much you sure show interest on it.

Again, property is a relation between humans. This does not mean it's not real. I'm out, peace.

I just see no imperative to accept your definition as valid and non-arbitrary ◄.►.

looool ≧◡≦

Definitions are arbitrary, by definition. But why is it not valid?

Not an argument (●´ω｀●)

No, I think arbitrary is the only word that is arbitrary by definition.

It can require theft because resources are scarce. I don't see how it *wouldn't* require theft if property holdings got expansive enough.


It doesn't have to be all-or-nothing. If my friends or family are hungry, I can know that it is in their best interest. I can imagine what might be in my communities best interest as well. We can even envision, in generalities, what might be best for humanity itself (not dying of involuntary starvation seems to be a pretty universal-agreed upon preference for example).

Didn't answer the question.

don't even bother

You can always go become a subsistence farmer in the middle of nowhere ✌.ʕʘ‿ʘʔ.✌


Because it revolves around an arbitrarily picked % to distinguish two supposedly immutable categories?

I assumed your "retards with irrational preferences" were people who were not going to use the resource for the collective good, because that would be the most irrational thing a person could do ;^)

Nobody here but you is suggesting that the categories are immutable, you colossal retard. Half the people are arguing that the definition of private and personal property should be changed according to circumstances under the guiding principle of avoiding economic exploitation.

You've discovered a +5 Question of Begging, +50% to assuming to initial point..

So it's just an arbitrary distinction to avert an arbitrarily defined deleterious result ◎[▪‿▪]◎?

alright thanks for your time Holla Forums I've had enough semantic debate for one day, it was somewhat interesting to see what you guys think about it.

All definitions are arbitrary.

Just going to leave this here


ls.poly.edu/~jbain/socphil/socphillectures/J.Marx2.pdf

Stumped you, eh?

toothbrush
factory, land

[/thread]

Read this

Might help

Land is a finite resource, even in ancapistan.


Ah, now we are getting to the meat and potatoes of this. So you say the collective well-being of humanity is not "of value". What then, would you say is "of value"?

argue, in your own words, or fuck off

le read this meme

Thanks, that really helped!

That doesn't ring true at all?

antithesis
between labor and capital. (In Hegelian terms, think of labor
and capital as the Thesis. Then private property is the Antithesis, and communism is the Synthesis.

Into the trash it goes.

Yes. All human constructs and distinctions are arbitrary. You act like us saying this is some great victory for you.

Well, whatever makes you happy I guess…

what are you even trying to say, you complete moron?

Who determines what the collective good is, is of value. If there are many different land owners and production processes each failing or succeeding you get a better overall outcome for the collective well-being of humanity.

it took an ancrap to call you out on this bull distinction lol
good job fam

private/personal property distinction isn't bullshit

under capitalism, and under a transitionary period it is completely legit

no one is questioning its superfluousness under communism

I'm saying the knives are not in an active relationship with capital in this instance.
They wouldn't be considered private property.
I'm not sure what toothbrushes have to do with anything.
I just thought that would clarify some things, but maybe not.

The point is homesteads are pointless. Do you think the Indians who were here before the white settlers cared about said settlers' homesteading rights? They gave two shits and burned everything to the ground once they figured what was happening. Who really wants to change their way of life when they are accustomed to it? The government made it a point to exterminate the buffalo herds that were the Indians' main food supply, on General Sherman's recommendations after the Civil War in order o force them onto the reservations and stop attacking the settlers.

The point is, you guys are fucking hypocrites. For your code of ethics and "libertarianism" and property rights to be established, you have to either enclose any free common lands or destroy any free, that is, un-enclosable means of production else your political economy will die. You will not tolerate ANY competition to your system since it must continually create sellable commodities/services and you will take ANY raw materials from tangible ores and land to biometric and search data and feed it to the Moloch that is Capitalism.

We don't want that. We will not subject ourselves to your Capitalist logic. We don't want its overproduction and its waste and its politically enforced scarcity. The real truth is, you are water-carriers for the Capitalists, and what they have taught you is only their own logic. Through their capture of the means of production and indirectly, the means of force, they wish to dispense with the governmental system and become laws unto themselves like Pompey the Great was. You want to do whatever, without any regard for any man; so long as he does not bother you, you are fine. The point is you will be bothered and you must be bothered if you are to survive in this society. You will have to develop your empathy. You may choose not to. If so, you will continue down that path, unless you change your logic, until we will be forced to kill you and your masters for the sake of humanity and the freedom you claim to profess. I don't know who you are, you probably don't know who I am, but that is what will happen sometime. God help you, and us all.

...

I'm not disagreeing with you here, I hope you know that.

It's all based on arbitrary preferences, obviously. But there are shared goals that seem to be present in 99.99% of humanity that we can use as the groundwork. Enjoying food and shelter, for example, seems to run pretty deep.

Better outcomes compared to what? I'm not arguing for centralization for centralization's sake. There is an optimal level of production centralization that benefits humanity most. Capitalism doesn't even ask what this level is, it just assumes that privatization is 100% best all the time.

...

Nice post altogether, but is that killing stuff really necessary? I'm all for revolution, but I really think that killing should be relegated to self-defense and achieving objectives. Ancaps are just harmless dorks in the grand scheme of things. Plus it doesn't seem very Christian.

Killing should be done only as a matter of necessity, never for pleasure. Moral indignation is the greatest evil in the world, in these terms, because it leads to killing for pleasure when ran to its conclusion.

private property = land, factory
personal property = muh golden wedding ring, which has a great "individual" value to me
(


)

we do everything to make the material conditions change so that property as such can be abolished in the future, in the mean time on an ideological level we make you understand that property is ridiculous, m'kay, and that it is in our interest to abolish it as such, which leads us to

What is "gold" if not just one of the series of resources of Earth? We are long past the time when we preferred resources (or "valued more" than other resources based on) the market. What is a marriage if not a legitimization by a third party (state/church)? It already doesn't make sense to us that we should put anything above the inherent use-value of resources, we already distribute and process resources on a global scale, as a species. We already don't understand what a "wedding is", because we stay faithful or not due to the work of love between individuals.

Unreal

No, you see, it is only the random folly of history that the establishment of private property (through force) and so called rights to them (upheld by force) coincide.

The man owns the knife.

The community owns the factory that made the knives.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_property

Marx also used another term that's a bit more specific, "bourgeois property" that should give you the idea.

Private property, or bourgeois property, is property used specifically to exploit labor to produce profit.

That is, the property owned by the bourgeois, but intended for use by his laborers is private property. Typically because the employer has access to property that the employees need to function, but can't create or afford themselves.

They're the same exact thing you bourgeois piece of shit.

a chef's knife is not his personal property, it belongs to the workplace. you may be the primary user, but not the primary owner.

Muh toothbrush

...

you missed a bit, friend:

"Marx's definition of private property referred to ownership of productive (value-producing) assets - termed the "means of production" - by a small class of owners who appropriate, and thus live off of, the value produced by mental and material labor operating the means of production."

The chef's knife becomes private property when he gives his knife to a fellow worker to make a dish, and then takes the dish from the worker, sells the dish, and gives the other worker only a portion of the money earned.

Leftypol is worse than i remember

Private property is something that is used to produce commodities for exchange. Personal property is property used for self-use.

A chef using his knife both at home and at work (which doesnt really happen, but whatever) doesn't matter. It is according to this anecdote only used by the chef both at home and at work. When it does become important is if the chef owns all of the knives in the kitchen, even the ones others use, and charges rent / extracts surplus value from the others working there for "using his knives" which he makes a profit off.

Personal and private property are concepts, not material things. The socialist police is not going to go around checking if you use work-related products at home, they are going to go around to make sure noone has absentee property.

Stop being autistic, its not a fucking legal term, private property won't even exist in socialism. And nobody is going to care about people using work or home stuff in the other environment as long as it has no negative effects. A programmer can take his laptop home and play games on it, a carpenter can take his special personal tool to work. Nobody is going to care.

Its holiday.

Actually, most chefs own their own set of knives and bring them to work with them.

I'll sum this up:

The ancap thinks tools one works with aren't their personal property.
The ancap demands that we care about "sanctity of personal property" when we're preparing the revolution.
Then the ancap demands we solve a chain of increasingly more contrived and unrealistic mental exercises, starting with a retarded version of Zeno's paradox.

It's funny because he apparently thinks he's made a point.

There's the stuff I want, and there's the stuff I'm content to let others have.

And? Someone entering your land without sucking your dick, despite the fact your bought the property rights (which no governing body exists to recognize the rights) would violate the NAP, yes? It being abandoned doesn't matter, as you own the rights, and your magical not-a-government that recognizes the property rights should allow you to fire a SCUD missile into the camp of squatters on your abandoned property and murder them all for violating your property rights. Abandoned or not, if you owned it, it would be yours.

Incorrect, I said you are assuming that a given, specific collective is of value. Given that they could all be a bunch of assholes, that's quit the assumption to make. I don't see how a collective of ex-convicts for particularly sadistic crimes would have any moral claim to any of my resources, but I don't live in Leftist Cognitive Dissonance Land.

No they're not. The history of private property is that no one is going to clear a forest if they don't have the right to keep what plants they harvest on the cleared land, or if they are forced to clear it with someone they don't like and operate the farm with someone they don't like and share the results with someone they now fucking despise because you've forced them to be into proximity when they already didn't like each other. This is not relevant when production does not require lengthy processes, e.g. in hunter-gatherer societies.
Much logic, wow.
Not a violation of the NAP, and privatization of buffalo herds is what finally returned their numbers in recent decades.
Not exactly ideal from a libertarian perspective given that I don't believe in collective guilt, however the issue is that hunter-gatherers "need" way more land, and the land they use they never develop, if you never develop land (at the bare minimum, fence it in) but you just hunt on it, I fail to see how that qualifies as homesteading land. If an Indian tribe sowed/harvested crops in area A, they own land in area A, not on the land they frequently kill deer on.
You've failed to demonstrate that, let's see if you prove your point. As I've said, I don't believe in collective guilt, so a solution like "we don't know exactly which Indians had their property taken where" isn't solved by arbitrarily taking an arbitrary amount of property away from white people; I would only see it as legitimate to take the direct descendants of the Indians and return them land that was homesteaded if we knew exactly where and to what minimum extent that land was owned. Boohoo, this hurts the Indians, but it also hurts every white family that was dispossessed by other whites in Europe (read: tens of millions at the minimum), the fact that I say it was wrong to essentially cage all the Indians because the ones that were not guilty of any crimes should have been allowed to roam free, because I'm not utilitarian, is the same reason I don't believe in utilitarian solutions to historical grievances like the dispossession of Indians. Not to mention the fact that every Indian tribe that engaged in warfare consistently is essentially morally obligated, for the sake of moral consistency, not to complain when they are conquered- if they claim that such conquering is evil, they have made the case for their own punishment, given their past actions (again, those who did not support such wars would not be captured under this proverbial net.)
(1/2)

(2/2)
If you care about opportunity cost, no "human-friendly" philosophy can tolerate un-enclosable lifestyles. What you're basically saying is "200 people should have the right to have hundreds of square miles all to themselves so they can live a primitive lifestyle on land they haven't enclosed, homesteaded, or improved, and if anyone else wants to actually use the land for something that is genuinely productive (for example, actually feeding a non-negligible number of people), they can get fucked. Take an extreme example, suppose you're the only farmers 12,000 years ago. Everyone else is a hunter-gatherer, and some leftist faggot convinces your tribe not to expand or enclose any more land because that would be like totally treading on their super important way of life. What a shame it is that this didn't happen indefinitely, isn't it?
It's so much more humane to say that the vast majority of humanity should suffer so a couple of people in tarps can roam across hundreds of square miles of productive land that isn't being used because… uh… they like totally deserve it and stuff by virtue of… them killing and eating stuff on it? If I kill a deer on top of you, butcher it on top of you, and eat it while I'm sitting on top of you, does that mean I own you and you're my chattel slave? Also, nobody has to produce sellable commodities or services, you're free to enclose a bunch of land and create a commune at any time, you just can't expand onto legitimately owned land or expropriate legitimately owned property, your leftist philosophies will have to stand on their own merits and not by stealing (that is to say, they won't.)
And by "we" you mean the negligible number of leftists on Holla Forums 😂
top kek
Yeah, it's not wasteful to have tractors rusting in the fields because nobody has any incentive to farm more than they need to eat.
Yeah bro, human desires are finite and resources are infinite, scarcity is like totally a le human construct, right?
Not an argument. I know leftists like to substitute psychoanalysis for an argument, but again, not an argument ;^).
What a funny way to word this.
>HAHA I'VE CAPTURED THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION twirls evil mustache, adjusts evil monocle

What I want to do and what I think it is my right to do are two totally different things. While I think I should always have the freedom not to help someone who was just shot and is bleeding to death on the street, I can't imagine myself exercising that freedom unless I had prior knowledge that that person was an asshole.
I already have empathy, I just don't use it as my guide for ethical decisions, and given that empathy is the opposite of irrationality that's a good thing; when people hear a sad story about 1 sick child and that 1,000 people are starving, empathy tells them to focusing on helping the former. Nice job, empathy!
How'd that work out for you in Spain? Oh right, you got killed, kek.
God is a spook.

>I already have empathy, I just don't use it as my guide for ethical decisions, and given that empathy is the opposite of rationality * that's a good thing; when people hear a sad story about 1 sick child and that 1,000 people are starving, empathy tells them to focusing on helping the former. Nice job, empathy!

No, homesteading principles mean that abandoned land is unowned land.

Then we better remove your computer from your place of residence since it can produce commodities for exchange. If you say "b-but I don't even use it for that purpose", then a capitalist can just say "my factory wasn't being used in the past 24 hours so it's not being used to produce commodities for exchange so it's not private property, it's personal property." Checkmate.

I said "is used", not "can possibly be used". Learn to read, I know things with mental load are not your strong suit, but please try.

Sure, but then he can't use it anymore. And sitting on masses of things without using them makes it absentee property, and will probably be taken from you.
Also
You won't be much of a capitalist anymore if your property is useless due to your own "checkmates".

>not aggression

He has dinner parties and uses the machines as chairs, so it's not absentee property.
He gets to spite the commies due to their own retarded definitions, sounds good to me.


So if I go to a leftist commune and kill a few of the commies roaming around I get to own the rest as chattel slaves? Neato.

Ancappy, not sure if you have realized it, since your ideology implies you don't, but laws and rules made by men are not laws of nature.

They are guidelines. If something occurs, like one man occupying a factory full of necessary equipment, which is in conflict with law, the law will be changed or ignored.

So basically it's all bullshit and you're making it up as you go along to justify ex post facto whatever you arbitrarily decided to do. Sounds like a wonderful system XD

Everytime

Thats exactly what happens already in capitalism.

Stephen Kinsella is a prominent libertarian and believes that children are a voluntarily-incurred liability that parents are obligated to provide for. Other prominent libertarians would agree with him, others wouldn't. Rothbard is not the prophet of anarcho-capitalism.

And the idea that you can transfer or sell a liability is not that radical, if someone would rather take on the debt of raising a child, that's fine. There are also libertarians that don't believe in abortion, even though Rothbard just called a fetus a parasite that is taking nourishment from the mother, and if the woman does not wish to provide nutrition she has no positive obligation to do so. Again, not all libertarians agree, so I hardly see how this is an indictment of "libertarianism."

...

Before some pedant says "they don't think abortion exists?" No, they don't think abortion is morally permissible. Hoppe would say that the issue should be handled in a decentralized basis in family courts, and hasn't presented evidence that he favors one option significantly more than the other.

Ayn Rand leave

Ye, you got a problem with that? Jesus fucking christ what is your argument?

Your argument also litterally is "its okay when we do it".

...

Yes, I have a problem with arbitrary and inconsistent enforcement of supposedly objective standards.
No, my philosophy doesn't rely on arbitrary rules that are revoked as soon as that's to my benefit. If I wanted to create as self-serving an ethic as possible, I'd just say "lol, will to power bitch."

Ye, you got a problem with that? Jesus fucking christ what is your argument?

Your argument also litterally is "its okay when we do it".>>895108
Nice idealism, idiot. People are not going to act like you want them to just because you say they have to. Will to power is the only law there is, all other "ethics" and laws are abstractions upon abstractions of the will to power of individuals organised into groups.

Ignore first part, Holla Forums is acting up

Really, is that why you raped your 6 year-old niece and then blew her mother's brains out and raped her corpse because morality is just subjective and nothing is really good or bad?

also pic related

No, its because I dont feel a desire to rape anyone, and raping or murdering people causes people who have an interest in those people to go after me, as well as society as a whole since I posses a threat to anyone as long as I am not neutralized. Its not in my interest to do these things both from a gaining perspective and from a losing perspective.

also also pic related.

As I said, laws and ethics are just abstractions upon abstractions of the will to power. The fact that I cant steal has everything to do with the fact that as society organises into groups, it is in the interest of the members of that group to act in certain ways, being it acting or punishing. A thief that stole from my neighbour must be punished before he steals from me.
The morals that result from this, the things that are thought as "good" or "bad" are a result of this.

That is why it was thought that it was ok to kill negro slaves. Your group had the power and they did not. That is why it is okay to kill enemy soldiers, even though "killing is wrong", because it is in your groups interest to kill the others soldiers, but not in your groups interest to kill its own members.

When did I imply that? Are you retarded?

Giving a historical explanation of how moral standards arise isn't an argument as to all moral standards are invalid.

Personal property: that which I actively occupy and utilize.

Private property: that which I own by virtue of an agency or a state mandating me the ownership, and I own only to have others pay to use or occupy temporarily for the purpose of accumulating more value from what they produce than what I give them in return.

What if you actively occupy and utilize that property at the same time ;)?????????????????

Right here

If your system does not rely on any rules then it is simply will to power. If it does rely on rules, they are arbitrary and can be revoked. If your system relies on everyone keeping the same rules without a way of enforcement, simply because
then it implies everyone must share your worldview in order for it to work.

Yes it is. Moral standards can only continue existing as long as it is in the interest of the ruling group for it to be so. A moral standard can't exist on its own, even religion, which claims to do just that, picks and chooses from the gigantic list of rules and morals it has in its "eternal books". Culture can't exist without the material conditions supporting it.

...

I don't know about every Ancap in existence, but that picture was relevant to what YOU posted.

Practice your reading comprehension you fuck, at no point did I suggest that the majority of people ascribe to the same philosophy that I do, I'm well aware that's not the case.

Arbitrary
Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.
adj. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference:
If my standard is "societal norms are rules that exist to minimize violent conflict," any rules I propose to meet that standard are by definition non-arbitrary.

That's the point, what if you keep the property to accumulate value from what others produce at the same time that you utilize it yourself. If you own a kitchen not only to employ chefs in a restaurant but also to cook your own food in, yourself, as you occupy and utilize it.

At no point did I allude to my opinion on whether or not children are a positive obligation incurred by parents or if I held Rothbard's view.

If "societal norms are rules that exist to minimize violent conflict," rules that I propose to meet that standard are by definition non-arbitrary, they not be the ideal rules to uphold that standard, but they are nonetheless non-arbitrary if they are produced to maintain that objective standard.

No, but its required for your system to work.

So if my standard is "Maximising the welfare of all the people" then our decision to disregard our guideline of what is and is not personal property to kick you out of the factory where you use million dollar machines as furniture for dinner parties is also not arbitrary.

You can't occupy and utilize something while at the same time letting someone else occupy and utilize it. No two people can type on the same keyboard at the same time.

Again, refer to the several passages of something like "don't be autistic or try to play shite lawyer, we dont give a fuck about your word tricks when we hold the sceptre".

But how is your standard not arbitrary?

You wrote destroyin food supply of other people doesn't violate the NAP.
The pic is about how not feeding children is OK.
In both case indirect killing via starvation is OK
Are you really that autistic? Can't you draw parrallels between situations?

No, the power of a community to deter outside aggressors from attacking them and enforce the NAP is all that is required. The whole world doesn't have to abide by the NAP for an anarcho-capitalist society to exist, nor would the possibility for crimes within such a society mean it is not a private property society.

Actually, "welfare" is extremely subjective, so yes it is arbitrary (subject to personal whim.)

No, but they can be cooking in the same kitchen at the same moment.


Because it's sort of like if the goal is "maximize potato production" the standard "all fertile, productive farm land must be used for potatoes" is not arbitrary, the part subject to personal whim is the first leap that minimizing violent conflict is the ideal for social norms.

If the food supply is unowned because it's not homesteaded or even enclosed, ye.
You don't have an obligation to provide for strangers, children are different, I don't create the deficit called "needing to eat and the inability to provide for themselves" in strangers, if I had children, I would have created that deficit.
You said it yourself, the goal was to force them onto reservations, not starve them.

Actually, "violence" is extremely subjective, so yes it is arbitrary (subject to personal whim.)
Because it's sort of like if the goal is "maximize potato production" the standard "all fertile, productive farm land must be used for potatoes" is not arbitrary, the part subject to personal whim is the first leap that maximizing people welfare is the ideal for social norms.
See how that works?

There seems to be some confusion between an arbitrary standard and inconsistent ("arbitrary") application of that standard.

You, Mr. Capitalist, have arbitrary standards, as do we all. Surely you realize this. The difference is you think you are successfully showing that us Leftists are applying our standards in an inconsistent way, but really you have just failed to understand what our standards are.

What about inside aggressors? Why would all members of society enforce it when it is clearly in the interest of those without private property to not respect the NAP if they banded together?

"minimize violence" is also subjective. I would say establishing socialism with violence would minimize violence, because capitalism is build upon violence exerted by those with private property against those who don't. Or to give you an example similar to the picture you posted (which is a left wing game), if you give an AI the objective to reduce human suffering to a minimum, it may decide to kill all humans as to prevent any future suffering.

Yes, and? You still can't occupy the same knived at the same time and as such you can't claim rent on the personal property you don't use. (Which makes it not personal property)

Private property violates the NAP.

What is subjective about physical force or the threat of physical force?

I don't think you understand the NAP, my dude.

Physical force is a spectrum. You get to choose, by your own arbitrary standards, where to draw the line.

You've also made the arbitrary choice to deem physical force "bad".

Every single object can be either. Private property means that you can extract rent on something someone else use, personal property isn't. Yes it is arbitrary, big deal, we aren't perfect beings so some degree of arbitrary will fatally occur.

You mean between touching and violence? No, unwanted touching isn't just "not-violence" it's sexual assault, unless you're in a place the standard is you have no expectation of personal space (e.g. a night club, or a train.)


Proof commies want to collectivize everything.

Lel, some people consider violence is not only physical. It's almost like it's… an arbitrary notion.

We're coming for your toothbrush, piggo

Threats of physical force are also violence by definition.

Not if I collectivize your asshole first, faggot.

Oh? Explain how maintaining the integrity of private property doesn't necessitate the initiation of violence against a physical bodies.

But I'm not a commie :^).

Also, even the communiest communist only want to collectivize private property.

Thats agains NAP

So capitalism is violence. If I don't want my surplus value extracted you use violence to force me to.

Initiation of physical force isn't necessarily the initiation of violence, e.g. a man is about to shoot someone across the street for no reason, I shoot him first, though I've initiated physical force I did not initiate violence (violence includes the threat of physical force, he initiated violence by initiating the threat of physical force.)

So everything? "Every single object can be either."

No, you can always choose to be self-employed, subsistence farmer, starve etc.

No, the threat is that physical force will be used against you if you initiate violence by violating property rights.

I guess ancaps ar against guns, since you can break the NAP with them.

Cant be self employed or a farmer if all the land is owned by someone
Thanks for finally admitting what you think. This is the exact situation we are in now, so I think Im not going to starve, im just going to steal your shit together with my comrades.

Breaking contracts is not violence.

Lol, you and your categories. How do you define "violence"? An action that reduces the well-being of another person's body? If that's the case, there's a lot of violence that doesn't involve direct touching.

The difference between a bullet and cancer is only in timespan. And what about actions that have multiple moving parts? For instance, I unleash a cage of wolves that just happen to attack you. Or maybe they just ate your only food source causing you to starve. You see? You think the world is so black and white. You think you are above it all by determining the objective reality of the universe. You are just regurgitating dogma.

But what if i take some apples on your land and i'm not hitting you? Is that violence?

oh i forgot, are death threats on the internet actual violence?

You are using the term "violence" in a completely non-standard way here. Violence is a synonym of physical force. Please stop making up your own language.

Private property requires the initiation of violence, force, aggression, harm, and bloodshed. I don't know what word I can use to make the concept stick for you. The NAP, if you are using the word "aggression" in any sort of non-snowflake sort of way, necessitates the abolition of private property.

Not an accurate analogy. The possibilities as to what people can do with an object is not akin to the distinctions made about an object based on its properties.

It isn't, so keep crying.
How's that leftist revolution working out for you? Oh right, it hasn't, it isn't, and it won't.
Breaking contracts is fraud, violating property rights is aggression.

The threat or use of the initiation of physical force.

It's aggression, a violation of my property rights, and it's trespassing, but it's not violence.
Making credible threats of violence is aggression, making non-credible threats is just asinine and rude, either way no popular platform is going to permit you to make threats of violence and not be banned in practice.

I bet you live in america, you fucking idiot.

How is violating property right aggression? Why do I have to agree to a contract I did not sign?

Gilldee as chargged :DDD
Because you're not entitled to walk on owned land that you don't have permission to walk on DDD:
You don't have to agree to it, you just have to prepared for me to do a strafing run on you with my A10 if you ignore it.

You just defined aggression to be "things that go against my property norms". So in that case, the "NAP" is just saying we shouldn't do things you don't like? You do realize if you redefine "aggression" in this way, you can't use the NAP to actually argue in favor of your particular property norms anymore, right?

And this is your non-arbitrary super-logical system? Oh lord.

Well, to clarify, it's just physical force used against persons or property.
Yes, I am, bow down you plebeian.

But the personal/private property distinction is based on the relationship people have with it, not the object itself. Every object can be private property, some are, some aren't. Every gun can break the NAP, some are breaking it, and some aren't.

Even if guns were being used to break the NAP the problem would be the people using them. So the idea that libertarians want to ban guns because they can be used for violence is retarded and not analogous to commies wanting to collectivize everything because they can be used as private property, because commies do want to act against the existence of private property.

There it is. You sneak your own property norms into the definition of "aggression" and then justify you property norms by calling them "non-aggressive". This is circular logic at its most basic.

How would homesteading something be considered an aggressive action?

According to whom? And why? And why is it aggression?

The same post on the same site can have you charged according to you the "victim". I'll brush off a stupid post on Facebook, a SJW will try to get you prosecuted.


SJW tier tbh

And libertarians do want to act against the breaking of the NAP. In both cases, it's replacing a "can" with a "is".

That land is mine faggot. I already claimed ownership over all of the un-owned land.

How would homesteading something be considered an aggressive action?

Well, I'm sure your special-snowflake definition of "aggression" has already excluded homesteading. :^)

But for the rest of us, we understand that the creation of private property inevitably involves the exclusion of others through initiation of physical force, which we call "aggression" for short. Drawing a line in the sand and saying "do not cross or I will hurt you" is where the violence comes in.

me
Because in the same way that a person has the right to use their body and exclude others from accessing it because they have direct control and the best claim to it, the property holder has the best claim to the land based on the principle of first-use and appropriation
cuz that's wut aggression means :u


porchspeak tier tbh my nigga


Canis? Like the genus that dogs are in…?


no i did first


It's more like "I developed everything within this line in the sand, you have no moral claim to what I have produced and I will defend it." It's actually quite common even among animals, so it's not even a le human construct ;)

>first-use and original appropriation*

Sounds like an argument for socialism to me.

Nope. "Dont enter or I will kill you" is aggression.

This is no more convincing than quoting scripture. "Natural Rights" is literally a religion.

Do you believe this based on empirical evidence, or because your Bible told you so?

U didn't deny what i said tho fam.

wrong
no
Not as it is defined for the purposes of the NAP.

Utilitarianism is literally a homosexual death cult, you suicidal faggot.
I divined it out of the entrails of a communist

not an argument I mean I don't care if you call somewith SJW-tier, the point about "who interprets what a credible threat," well that relies on the whole legal "reasonable person" thing…

The question comes in as to whether he does have a moral claim to it. And you can't say "muh NAP" anymore, since apparently you've given up trying to pretend that property is non-aggressive.

Maybe if you have autism
I still think property is non-aggressive given the aggression is defined, for the sake of the NAP, as using physical force against persons or property. Not "having property." It's not the colloquial meaning of aggression, famalam.

What about the trespassing, user? Do you believe in walk agression?

ye

So in other words, your property norms are good because they are your property norms.

Just repeating this in case anyone missed it.

...

never said that
correct
No, it's using physical force against persons or property, dweeb.

A principle about avoiding X is useful if that principle doesn't clearly delineate "what is X."

isn't useful if that principle doesn't*…

So if i buy all the property around your property so that you can't get in or out of there it's not violence and instead a legit bussiness move to aquire cheaper land?

People have homesteaded easement rights to nearby roads/paths in their community.

Idk let's take a look:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggression
>Aggression is overt, often harmful, social interaction with the intention of inflicting damage or other unpleasantness upon another individual.

So, which one of us is using non-standard definitions here?

When did I claim the definition of aggression used for the sake of explaining the NAP was standard?

No you had it right the first time

So you would communally owned paths to devalue the road builders work?

rude tbh

you a verb that sentence

So you would communally own paths to devalue the road builders work?
Can you answer the question now you fucking pinko.

WHAT DID HE MEAN BY THIS?

The principle against X is not what define X. You're not defining X for the well being of of a notion against it. You're against X because you already know what X is and it's not something desirable.
Or do "for the sake of… "means something else? English is not my native langage.

Alright. Let's back up then. Why *shouldn't* people violate your private property norms? And please be careful not to say that doing so is violating the NAP, since you admit are using a non-standard definition that we don't give a fuck about anyway.

No, paths could be privately owned but people who were living there would naturally have homesteaded easement rights. The best system to create good incentives would to have the community members own shares of the private roads corporations to create an incentive to discourage excess pollution/traffic but not make using the roads too expensive.

you have to go back

because I'll shoot them

When did I claim the definition of aggression used for the sake of explaining the NAP was standard?
Wait… So the NAP is based on arbitrary notions?

No, it's based on moisturizing lotions.

...

America owns the internet, at least until Barobo Obongo gives away the fucking whatever key to the U.N.

Not before i shoot you haha *pew*

1v1 me warband napoleonic wars, faggot

KEK

plebe

Ok, the show is over, pack up your personal property and abandon thread

You'll shoot the IRS? Please go ahead and try.

I'm glad to see that you have given up trying to form convincing logical arguments.


I've you've got a built-in justification for your system in your terminology, then you can't use that terminology to anymore as a justification for your system. So no more "but that's aggression!" from you.

We are against your property norms and if you insist on calling that inherently "aggressive" then fine, let's humor you on this. Why shouldn't we be "aggressive" and continue to violate the fuck out of your property norms, like we have been doing for centuries now?

It's a violation of legitimately earned property rights which are a logical extension of the principle of self-ownership (homesteading is the combination of the time/skill/labor of an owned body into undeveloped resources)
Besides the above justification, using the NAP as a social norm would prohibit violent conflict as a legitimate means of resolving disputes, which is nice c:

...

The contradiction here is that private property and the NAP inherently clash as the defense of private property can easily be used to affecively assault others which leads to arbitrary anarchist "laws" for communaly owned property.

I don't see the contradiction tbh, not shitposting, I don't see it.

You could literally cut off the entire continental Americas from the rest of the world and we would still be able to use the internet.
The DNS servers are not all located in the USA and the internet can still function without any DNS servers.

The only function of the IANA is setting protocol standards and giving top level IP blocks to sub-providers/countries.

Your supposedly anarchist system have a whole lot of laws and is inconsistent when it comes to property. It's also supposedly a good system because of the profit motive is great but the profit motive is directly affected by these laws(?) and what used to be legit business moves are now illegal(?).

Why would we want to give more control over the internet to governments with a track record for censorship worse than the United States'?

Don't use physical force against persons or property (rape, theft), uphold your contracts (fraud), the end. Any other laws you need can be agreed to on a decentralized basis as a condition for associating with a community.

So, we're back at

Your government doesn't have control over the internet mate.

Don't you see you have to scrap private property rights to ensure the NAP? You're allowing people circled by my roads to use them wether i'm allowing it or not. That's agression!


Are you advocating socialism? I thought collective ownership was bad?

Don't you see you have to scrap private property rights to ensure the NAP? You're allowing people circled by my roads to use them wether i'm allowing it or not. That's agression!
Nah bro, they homesteaded an easement right to the roads before you even owned them.
It's not socialism, it's privately owned by some members in the community.

The "Principle of Self-Ownership" is more Natural Rights religious-fantasy shit that hardly anyone believes.

But even if we can say that it is best for people to have a right to their body, that doesn't logically make things you work on "yours" in the same sense that a body is "yours". You are not other things. We have been making distinctions between a person and non-person thing a person has worked on for centuries. What purpose does blurring such a distinction serve?

So it's syndicalism where the workers privately own the means of production as long as they use them but you call it capitalism

If you develop unowned raw materials it stands to reason that you have the best moral claim to the result because you produced it.

I proposed one way that it would work, it's feasible it could be owned by a few individuals as well.

the point

you


Claiming the result of your work is not the same thing as this result being part of yourself tard.

Your whole schtick has been using words that sounds agreeable on the surface, but when pressed it turns out you are using them in a completely non-standard way. Yes, most people are against aggression as it is commonly understood, but hardly anyone is against "aggression" the special way you've defined it that mandates anarcho-catpialism. It's such an obvious bait-and-switch that I'm surprised you don't express just a little shame for it.

I'm sure the same thing is going to apply to the "Principle of Self-Ownership". Another term that sounds universally agreeable, but when pressed it turns out has built-in mandates for anarcho-capitalism that basically no one would agree to.

Absolutely disagree, as do most people. Why would anyone support such a rigid standard? We have all sorts of legal restrictions on the absolute authority of first-use because it produces disastrous results.

But the result embodies the effort of your owned body ;)

Basically, you have the moral right to use your body as property however you choose (liberty), so long as it is not violating the person or property of another. When you homestead unowned materials, you are imbuing the labor/skill/time of your owned body with it, and it logically follows you own that result of your actions, in the same way that if I murdered someone I would own the debt of that crime (not that it would necessarily be repaid in economic terms).


you mean "not communism"

What if i do that with owned material? Am i not imbuing the labor/skill/time of my owned body with it? Wouldn't that thing become mine?

No it does not. This is your leap too far. There is no logical bridge from "I made this thing" to "I own this thing". You talk like this conclusion is self-evident, but the vast majority of the world disagrees with you, seeing how we have things like taxes and restrictions on property rights.
We have these because absolute ownership produces bad outcomes.

So we don't allow, have never allowed, and it is not the logical conclusion that we should allow, people to "own what they produce".

Clearly I should have a right to steal part of what you produce if I build a SAM site 100 miles away, pay up for your national defense, eh goy?

You already can do that with wage labor, and it's cheaper.

ayy llamo

...

Um. Pretty simple really. Anything is private property if someone other than the person using it has authority with what is done with it.

Chef buddy over here is choosing to use his personal property to do work within a process that includes a bunch of private property, and what he produces is stolen from him in virtue of his lack of ownership of the private property involved in the process and becasue of that his lack of a say in what is done with the products. The knife is what the labourer brings to the table. Its just an aspect of his labour power. If the knife is private property then all workers are also private property

But the knife is personal property cuz he fuckin takes it home after. And can use it for anything. Like for example slicing up pork

Why not just homestead the river

Some tried that but curiously when we said no the first time, thugs beat us down… go figure.

no to the capitalist who wanted to buy the river, if that wasn't clear.

...

...

What if you steal to get what you need?

What if the kitchen knife is from work and he takes it home to cook with?

then you haven't met my landlord

ayy lmao

Nah, the government does that for them by enforcing private property.

kek

You act like this is somehow surprising

If the government enforces private property then the private properties belong to the government, not anyone else.

Forgive my ignorance, but I feel like in these circumstances ancaps are being pedantic (this is coming from a law student). People who own cars worked hard to get them
, correct? So they either payed for it or they got a loan from some banker, correct? But why, does the car A) Belong to them via ownership or
b) is a useful commodity at this point in time? Colour me ridiculous but in a society that has cars that are going UNSOLD then clearly they aren't of any objective value. But they are so long as they can get someone from point A to point B.