or else the abiding law must be seen as merely arbitrary and the whole concept of property, whether communal or private, becomes ultimately arbitrary. — Janus

Exactly. The assignment of ownership, besides the one necessary ownership of one’s own body, is entirely a contingent social fact. A person owns whatever the political-economic community agrees they own. It’s like the assignment of meaning to words: no word necessarily means anything, the meaning is just a contingent social fact of agreement by the linguistic community. In both cases there need to be procedures to handle disagreement within the community, and I don’t think a simple majority vote is good enough procedure, but that doesn’t mean there is anything more to it than community agreement.

And that is the point that I am disagreeing with. It is only valid in a communist or fantasy world. Not one that I inhabit. — A Seagull

So you think the world was created with particular parts of it pre-assigned to particular people, rather than initially belonging to everyone equally before getting divided up and privatized? That sounds like the real fantasy to me.

Not really: you can mutilate and destroy your hammer if you like, but you cannot legally, or ethically, mutilate and destroy your dog. — Janus

Well you can't legally or ethically spray your hydrogen cyanide round the shopping mall either. But you might get away with walking the dog there. As I said at the outset, ownership is always subject to limitations and responsibilities.

I don't agree that everything privately owned is stolen from the community, and I think if pressed David and those like him won't either, making a distinction between "personal" and "private" property, where "personal" is rightfully owned by an individual and "private" is something that rightfully belongs to the community but from which most of said community are wrongly excluded. That's just a terminological thing though. Some things owned by individuals ("private property") are rightfully so, others aren't. If the community takes the latter, that's not theft but justice, and an individual taking it back again is just theft again. — Pfhorrest

It's hypothetical. But everything I keep for my own exclusive use, I am depriving others of the use of. This is not to say that I need to compensate everyone in the world for the pair of socks that they cannot use. But perhaps it does mean that I shouldn't be wasting food when people are starving. Perhaps it even means I should stop eating so much meat when arable land is in short supply. Maybe I shouldn't be entitled to my forty room mansion and hundreds of acres while down the road people are sleeping in doorways. Or maybe I should pay some land tax at least, and maybe My kids should pay some inheritance tax. After all, I already pay purchase tax on my socks. And maybe that tax is owed to those people who have no property.

We could discuss things like this, if we were not religiously committed to the sacredness of property ownership.

The assignment of ownership, besides the one necessary ownership of one’s own body, is entirely a contingent social fact. — Pfhorrest

This is a bit picky, but since this is philosophy, I'll just come out and say it. You don't necessarily own your body at least until you are dead. Because you cannot dispose of it, you cannot sell it or at least, arguably you didn't ought to be able to. I think Shakespeare had something to say about this.

You don't necessarily own your body at least until you are dead. Because you cannot dispose of it, you cannot sell it or at least, arguably you didn't ought to be able to — unenlightened

Disposal and sale are not necessary conditions of ownership. Lack of ability to do so just means you can’t stop owning it.

Perhaps your body owns you.

Either property (and theft) are inalienable rights (in which case the original acquisition of land was almost certainly theft), or property (and theft) are just pragmatic legal definitions of the current community, in which case a government stepping in to change them is nothing bu democracy in action and should be supported. — Isaac

Looking at it simply from the point of view of law, I agree. I do think the appropriation of lands from aboriginal peoples was theft, though, from an ethical perspective. The aboriginal people of Australia apparently did not think in terms of owning land. But understanding the ways of, and ranging across, "country" was their only means of livelihood, and that was for the most part taken from them and if peoples don't somehow own their own lives, and the means of sustaining them, then how much less is any notion of private property justifiable?

Maybe I shouldn't be entitled to my forty room mansion and hundreds of acres while down the road people are sleeping in doorways. Or maybe I should pay some land tax at least, and maybe My kids should pay some inheritance tax. After all, I already pay purchase tax on my socks. And maybe that tax is owed to those people who have no property.

We could discuss things like this, if we were not religiously committed to the sacredness of property ownership. — unenlightened

Yes, I agree; it always a matter of degree. Where should the line be drawn regarding individual accumulation of wealth? I would say it should be drawn at a far lower point than where it currently sits.

Perhaps your body owns you — unenlightened

I think we own ourselves, just as we are ourselves; there is no duality here. But that doesn't mean we can do what we like to ourselves, and expect society to pick up the cost of future health care. We can do what we like to ourselves if we don't expect that, I suppose, but it would seem we would always be imposing some burden on others.

All property is borrowed from the commons — unenlightened

Stealing that.

With you top of the pile. — Professor Death

"Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven" -- Milton, the stapler guy in Office Space.

This is a bit picky, but since this is philosophy, I'll just come out and say it. You don't necessarily own your body at least until you are dead. Because you cannot dispose of it, you cannot sell it or at least, arguably you didn't ought to be able to. I think Shakespeare had something to say about this. — unenlightened

The problem with this line of thinking is that it justifies society telling you what you can and can't do with your own body, depending on what society thinks is appropriate. It has certainly been used against abortion, drug use, prostitution, drinking, tattoos, makeup, jewelry, certain hair styles or clothing and so on.

So where to draw the line? Should we outlaw obesity because it's a health cost? Mandate every able bodied citizen to exercise and eat healthy, and not participate in risky activities like rock climbing or hang gliding?

That this is mine seems to be inevitable, as much a part of being human as having hands.

Entertaining prose.

The problem with this line of thinking is that it justifies society telling you what you can and can't do with your own body, — Marchesk

Well not necessarily. Your argument seems to be that everything must belong to an individual or to society. Whereas I deny that. Being and having are not the same kind of affair, except grammatically. Rather, you're not the boss of me, and neither am I. Apart from the fact that it just intuitively feels that my relation to my body is not a property relation, there are indeed implications for society and morality. One would for example be able to remove body parts from the economy, forbidding trade in blood, sale of kidneys and so on.

That this is mine seems to be inevitable, as much a part of being human as having hands. — Banno

Ships have hands; humans are hands.

As I said at the outset, the property relation is one of identification and NOT one of identity. ME and mine have to be different in order to be in relation.

it just intuitively feels that my relation to my body is not a property relation — unenlightened

I think that is perhaps because of what you take a property relation to be.

People like me who say our bodies are our own property take ownership of property to be identical to having claim rights to a thing. To say that one’s body is one’s own property is thus to say exactly that one has claim rights to one’s body; in other words, that what it is permissible for anyone to do to one’s body is a matter of one’s choice, and everyone is obliged to heed those choices and not violate them. To say the one necessarily owns one’s body is just to say that those rights one has over their own body are inalienable.

I think that is perhaps because of what you take a property relation to be.

People like me who say our bodies are our own property take ownership of property to be identical to having claim rights to a thing. — Pfhorrest

Yes I understand. I point out though what this entails philosophically. A relation requires a division. My relation to my armchair is that I'm sitting in it, and my relation to my laptop is that it is on my lap and I am typing on it. So I suppose your relation to your body would be that you inhabit it, or haunt it in some way. whereas I prefer to say that I inhabit or haunt my armchair, but I am my body. There are not two things in a relation - of ownership or of anything else. I am not a Cartesian dualist.

I am not a Cartesian dualist. — unenlightened

Neither am I, but even without that there is a division like of software and hardware between mind and body. In the future that analogy might become literal, if we become able to upload our minds into other hardware, including possibly new artificial bodies.

To say the one necessarily owns one’s body is just to say that those rights one has over their own body are inalienable. — Pfhorrest

Thing is, this isn't true. If I donate a kidney, or some blood, then whatever rights I may have had cease forthwith, and are transferred to whoever they become part of. The hair I leave on the barber's floor is not my inalienable property. Alien is what it immediately becomes.

there is a division like of software and hardware — Pfhorrest

So you are software that owns hardware? A dreadful analogy, and, incidentally right out of the Cartesian songbook, but it's a police state, you can think what you like, as the saying goes.

Imagine the catastrophe if I persuaded you to change your mind; someone else would possess your body.

Right now it takes the destruction of property for the powers that be to pay attention to human lives.

Burglary is experienced as a violation almost like an assault - almost like rape. Entering my home without my permission is like entering me — unenlightened

I think this is less about property, though, and more the way we personalise space as extensions of ourselves. It is because the burglar was in my home that I feel violated, whatever home that might be, not because he took the TV.

Ships have hands; humans are hands.

As I said at the outset, the property relation is one of identification and NOT one of identity. ME and mine have to be different in order to be in relation. — unenlightened

...and I think this a mischaracterisation. Who one is extends out from one's body. Even if you claim your stone tools are not part of you, you were still the one who knaps. You ceded possession of your tools for mutual benefit.

Yes ultimately you are right, the distinction breaks down, the self dissolves and we belong to each other. But that's rather a long way from shooting trespassers and rioters.

But that's rather a long way from shooting trespassers and rioters. — unenlightened

Oh, yeah, There's a whole lot that has to go wrong before we get to 'merica. It shows how important the myths we share are in setting up what we do.

I'll just come out and say it. You don't necessarily own your body at least until you are dead. — unenlightened

Ownership comes down to what you can defend or control, whether it be your body, possessions or land. Sometimes you can defend it on your own and sometimes it requires assistance from others through community or law. And if you can't defend it, you cannot claim ownership.

Ownership comes down to what you can defend or control, — A Seagull

That's a bit odd. So if I pick your pocket and take your wallet, your credit card is mine, as long as I can keep control of it? That solves the problem of the rioters, doesn't it. I f you can stop them you keep your shop, and if not, you lose it. Nothing more to be said.