photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/52491576_10157003298252264_642453036

photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/52491576_10157003298252264_6424530364756131840_o_10157003298247264.jpg PROPERTY IN TOTO IS DEAD SIMPLEMartin ŠtěpánThe way I was trying to explain this to people asking if leftists can have properties such multiculti, equality etc. is that just because we recognize something as property doesn’t automatically mean we also recognize your right to having it. But I guess that might just cause more confusion.Feb 21, 2019, 3:49 PMSimon Ström2) is merely justification for 1) and 3) describes a situation of mutually assured warranty, ultimately rooted in 1) applied to institutions of legal practiceFeb 21, 2019, 4:06 PMCurt DoolittleGod i love it when you are around. …. thank youFeb 21, 2019, 4:17 PMJosh King4) something that a government may not seize or search without a proper warrant, because it was not earned by the state.Feb 21, 2019, 5:26 PMEthan TriceMight pretty much does make right. We may not like it, but that’s a far more valid theory than social contractsFeb 21, 2019, 5:45 PMJimmy KnowlesWhen you consider it as a nation it makes sense as well. Willing to defend, invest tax money for infrastructure mutual defense and retirement, without imposing cost on others as a parasite, you can have a clear definition of citizen via that route.Feb 21, 2019, 5:50 PMStephen ThomasInvestment (accountable resources)

Honest Acquisition (without impositions or fraud)

Defense (forceful/violent protection)

Will you invest in it? Have you honestly acquired it? Will you fight or die to secure it?

If so, how can anyone rightfully claim it is not yours?Feb 21, 2019, 6:11 PMJim CatreHalf of this conflates defense of property with the acquisition of property.Feb 21, 2019, 7:18 PMJim CatreAre there any economists in this group other than myself?Feb 21, 2019, 7:20 PMCurt Doolittle—“Jim Catre Half of this conflates defense of property with the acquisition of property.”—

Explain???Feb 21, 2019, 7:25 PMJim Catre>Men are willing to defend with violence.

Suggests that someone who is unable to defend said property doesn’t actually own it. Furthermore, it doesn’t address whether the defense of said property has to be performed by the owner of the property. In either case, it does not describe a method by which one acquires authority over said property.

>Have a provable investment.

This can be open to interpretation. For example, if I purchase a large plot of real-estate and have the contract to prove as much, it doesn’t mean that the person who sold the real estate had the authority to sell to begin with.

The other interpretation, and the one that 99% of ideologies seem to follow, implies something akin to Lockean methods of property acquisition.

>Acquired property without imposing costs on other parties.

Absolutely asinine statement. Due to scarcity and opportunity costs, virtually any kind of transaction can impose an external cost on others.Feb 22, 2019, 12:47 PMCurt DoolittleLearn something.

—“Suggests that someone who is unable to defend said property doesn’t actually own it.”–

He may in fact possess it. He may have invested in it. Under reciprocal conditions others may choose not to use it. But in physical reality ‘ownership’ is determined by an insurer who decides disputes (in most cases, the court, the police, the military, etc).

You can demonstrate investment. you can hold possession. you can agree with others that you will respect possessions (property), and you can construct an insurer that insures your possessions are not involuntarily transferred.

End the insurer and you don’t ‘own’ anything.

End the normative agreement and you don’t have ‘property’ only possession.

End your sufficiency of self defense against an aggressor and you don’t have possession.

Ergo. no. absent sufficient defense you don’t ‘own’ anything.Feb 22, 2019, 1:35 PMJim Catre>But in physical reality ‘ownership’ is determined by an insurer who decides disputes (in most cases, the court, the police, the military, etc).

Again, you’re not answering the question of acquisition. How did the court, police, etc. gain ownership over the real estate or natural resources?

>absent sufficient defense you don’t ‘own’ anything.

But you completely contradict this statement when you bring up property norms and the individual and social benefit gained from having property rights. Market failure occurs when property rights cannot be defined.Feb 22, 2019, 1:40 PMCurt Doolittle—“>Have a provable investment. “…. This can be open to interpretation. For example, if I purchase a large plot of real-estate and have the contract to prove as much, it doesn’t mean that the person who sold the real estate had the authority to sell to begin with. The other interpretation, and the one that 99% of ideologies seem to follow, implies something akin to Lockean methods of property acquisition.”—

Which claim are you making?

1. you failed due diligence and must appeal to the court despite having done so in order obtain restitution or title.

2. the other party engaged in fraud or error, and you must appeal to the court for his having done so, in order to obtain restitution or title.

3. you have demonstrated investment (performed) some investment even if you cannot demonstrate (provide evidence) that you have done so, and therefore have some moral right to either restitution or the property regardless of the court if you can find someone who can enforce it, or if you are able to physically enforce it yourself.Feb 22, 2019, 1:41 PMJim CatreSee? That’s my point. It definitely seems as though your entire argument is “might makes right” and, if that’s the case, you need to stop beating around the bush and fucking own it.Feb 22, 2019, 1:41 PMJim Catre4. None of the above. I’m looking for what gives someone the right to initially claim authority and ownership over capital.Feb 22, 2019, 1:42 PMCurt DoolittleJim Catre

—“might makes right”—

No, we are correcting you’re use of moralisms, idealism, and special pleading. Might MAKES EVERYTHING, PERIOD. The question of whether it makes reciprocity (right), parasitism (wrong), or predation (very wrong).

—“4. None of the above. I’m looking for what gives someone the right to initially claim authority and ownership over capital.”—

Claim to whom?, How can one have ‘authority’ or ‘ownership?

—“claim”—

Under test of reciprocity: demonstrated interests (cost in time, effort, resources) in acting to obtain that interest, or forgoing opportunity to take interest, by limiting one’s actions to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of imposition of the same by externality upon others.”

(In case the deduction is not obvious, that includes homesteading.)

But again… claim before whom?

HERE (“property for the 1000’th time”)

https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10157003524812264Feb 22, 2019, 1:48 PMCurt Doolittle(I am not beating around the bush. I am falsifying your priors in order to disambiguate your language such that it is no longer pop philosophy sophism. It’s not like you’re alone man. we do this every day.)Feb 22, 2019, 1:52 PMJim Catre> How can one have ‘authority’ or ‘ownership?

It’s axiomatic, and is a natural result of self-ownership and the social and economic need for organization. Ownership, after all, is just a derivative of authority. No one can exert higher authority over my mind and body than myself. If I own my body, I own and am responsible for it and its actions. Since I own my actions, I own and am responsible for the result of said actions.Feb 22, 2019, 1:52 PMJim CatreI think we’re coming from the same place, with the same conclusions. Violence is the supreme authority from which all authority derives. However, you can’t ignore the fact that, individually and socially, we get more utility through peace and non-violence.Feb 22, 2019, 1:54 PMJim CatreThat’s WHY we’ve developed property norms.Feb 22, 2019, 1:54 PMCurt DoolittleJim Catre there we go. that’s right.Feb 22, 2019, 1:54 PMOliver CrokeMichael WitcoffFeb 22, 2019, 2:09 PMSteve PenderProperty is that which has such benefit that people are willing to bear the cost of defending it to continue deriving that benefit.Feb 22, 2019, 2:32 PMPROPERTY IN TOTO IS DEAD SIMPLE