Only an agreement between me and another person with which I am trading things I own for things that they own. No one else gets to have a say in what we own. They can try to take it, but then that doesn't mean that I never owned it.Ownership also depends on the agreement of others. — Brett
It's really easy to grasp. You just have to take in everything that I have said, which really isn't all that much. The state would only decide to not defend my ownership of something if I acquired it by infringing on the rights of others.But what determines what others own, if “ability to defend it” determines ownership and all defense is done collectively through the state? If the state (with your input, but not your exclusive input) decides not to defend your ownership of something and instead to defend someone else’s ownership of it, doesn’t that make it then rightfully theirs on this account of might makes right? — Pfhorrest
The state doesn't own anything except the power to defend what others own. — Harry Hindu
The state would only decide to not defend my ownership of something if I acquired it by infringing on the rights of others. — Harry Hindu
Arguing over what some given law dictates doesn’t seem to do a great deal if we’re to get to the heart of what ‘ownership’ means. — I like sushi
Prior to the existence of written law. That is why I mentioned ‘origin of inequality’ - a long running anthropological question. — I like sushi
In this, as in so much else, the Law rules. What is the difference between "I have" and "I own"? Merely the difference between having something and having the legal right to something. — Ciceronianus the White
Prior to all written law there was still some concept of ‘ownership — I like sushi
in day-to-day speech, what it means to ‘own your thoughts/actions’. — I like sushi
Prior to socially decreed laws people still have a sense of ‘having’ and ‘not having’. — I like sushi
I only ‘own’ you in such a sense as you’re willing/able to play along dependent upon your own sense of ‘control’ under the influence of some law. — I like sushi
The ‘laws’/‘rules’ merely fit around our sense of limited control, which are effectively where a sense of ownership lays in part. I’m not suggesting this is all there is to it, but it seems hard to deny it is a significant point right? — I like sushi
But where do those others get those rights to it? Initially you said by being able to defend it. Then you’re saying that that defense is by the state. So if the state chooses not to defend their property, by this logic they have no rights to it; if the state just lets you take it then that’s perfectly okay for you to do, on this account.
Now it sounds like you think there are some other reasons why the state should or should not defend someone’s preexisting rights to things. Which is a fine position, but it’s counter to the “ability to defend it makes it yours” principle you started with. — Pfhorrest
So you're saying that the limits of our powers must constrain what we can make law and so examining those limits tells us something about those laws?(1) OK, I can see that being a useful exercise.
I agree, in that respect, the extent to which we can 'control' something is the maximum extent to which we can make a law conferring ownership. Is there any more fine-grained constraint than that? The extent to which others in our community are prepared to allow the exercise of such control perhaps?(2) Maybe that's why we no longer have slavery. — Isaac
But where do those others get those rights to it? Initially you said by being able to defend it. Then you’re saying that that defense is by the state. So if the state chooses not to defend their property, by this logic they have no rights to it; if the state just lets you take it then that’s perfectly okay for you to do, on this account.
Now it sounds like you think there are some other reasons why the state should or should not defend someone’s preexisting rights to things. Which is a fine position, but it’s counter to the “ability to defend it makes it yours” principle you started with. — Pfhorrest
If you never owned it, then how does it even make sense to say that someone is taking it by force? — Harry Hindu
An impossible scenario. How does someone walk into a house and start living there? Who owns the keys to the house? Alice's dog doesn't like Bob and bites him everyday he tries to come into the house. Is it the dog's house?There is some house that Alice is living in. Bob walks into it and starts living there too — Pfhorrest
So owning something entails having something and defending your having it. If your defense makes it not worth trying to take what you have from you, then you own it by default.Who owns them, or who has them? — Pfhorrest
If your defense makes it not worth trying to take what you have from you, then you own it by default. — Harry Hindu
The state is going to want something in return, and the state isnt going to do something that would cause its members to lose faith in the fairness of the system. How are you going to convince others that what I worked hard for is yours and how will that be consistent with how the state makes others decisions in regards to ownership? I think you're just making up unrealistic scenarios with taking into consideration the implications of your thought experiments.So if I can convince the state to help me keep you out of the house you live in, and keep anyone else besides me from living there, then it's my house, totally legit? (Or, if the state doing it is somehow wrong: if they just don't stop me from driving you out of the house myself?) — Pfhorrest
The state is going to want something in return, and the state isnt going to do something that would cause its members to lose faith in the fairness of the system. How are you going to convince others that what I worked hard for is yours and how will that be consistent with how the state makes others decisions in regards to ownership? I think you're just making up unrealistic scenarios with taking into consideration the implications of your thought experiments. — Harry Hindu
Under what circumstances should the state decide in Alice's favor or Bob's favor? What makes the house really Alice's or really Bob's? Is it just whoever the state happens to decide to favor? Or are there independent reasons that the state should consider in deciding whose rights are legitimate and deserve defending? If the latter, are those reasons simply "whoever succeeds at forcing the other out themselves gets to stay"? If not that (or the "whoever the state decides for whatever reason to force out" answer), then the "whoever can defend it owns it" principle is not being adhered to, but instead something else determines ownership, and the state just enforces (or ought to enforce) those independent rights.
Should the state defend your possession of something because it's yours, or is it yours because the state defends your possession of it?
Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.
Not only are there many words that defy a clear definition, most words do. (Even very simple words. What’s the exact difference between a shoe and a boot, for example)There are many words that defy a clear definition, eg species, yet this does not mean that they are not useful terms. — A Seagull
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.