yo mamas ass be a legal construct, hoe

BOMILCAR!

if rights arent given out by government then where do they come from?

yo... MAMA!

BOMILCAR!

good one

ill let myself out.... 😭

Property rights aren't just legal construct, it's the right to own property. I don't need the government to grant me that. I can be born on an empty island, find a piece of wood and call it my own

Those are property rights

Property rights also include self ownership

you can call it whatever you like

yeah but in that senario you are the governement

Meaning ownership of my own body

No

rights are given out and enforced by people

In that sceniario there's no government, that why I gave it as an example

@Baraban i think its only technically your private property if its recognised as such by a state, otherwise someone more powerful could always just come and it take it from yo ass

exactly

rights dont just come out of no where

and they need to be backed by something

something being your property just means that you excercise power over it

you have no "right" to property, you only either have power over something or you do not

usually, this power is upheld by legal rights, not some sort of weird notion of natural rights that transcends law

Rights are there out nowhere, governments only exist to protect them, not grant them

i think you dont have that right

governemts grant and protect rights

You mean you think I SHOULD'NT have that right, because right now I do have it

i think rights like freedom of speech are differnt to private property rights

thats why rights arent the same everywhere

No government don't grant rights

Only protect them or take them away

That's the whole concept of rights

you have property rights that are given to you by the government sure

Human rights at least

whats the difference between not taking away rights and granting them?

Protected by the government, not given by it

There’s a big difference

but your idea of rights that exist outside of law seems so arbitrary

why do you have some sort of right, existing outside of laws, to excercise power over things

and what is the character of this right and why

What's the diffrence between giving you a couch and protecting a couch you already have from being stolen?

please eleborate cause i cant tell if my rights are given to me or are just not being taken away

like do you believe you have some sort of natural right that transcends law to own land?

@Muffin Man

yes

It's not natural, it's a principal. It's simply the most practical and efficent to run a society

wait so do you think land ownership is different from other kinds of ownership or do you think this for all forms of ownership

Why do you think it should be diffrent?

Expecting logic from a commie

Have fun wasting your time

so is your argument that these "rights" that transcend law are just principles that are the most efficient way to run a society

@Fulcrum010 yep

They don't "transcend" law. The reason laws exist in the first place in to protect these rights

but what is the basis for these rights

you can't give me a straight answer

Again, rights are just concept we agreed that everyone deserves. Basically any form of freedom that doesn't hurt anyone else

dae workers seize the means of production

Rights are things we are born with and government is there to protect

so what makes the concept of us agreeing that the ability to own land is a right different from us agreeing to the right for employees to excercise workplace democracy

one is theft

circular logic

The company is privately owned. If the ones who owns it wants to run it as a democracy, I have no objections

yeah but what if we don't agree that firms should be privately owned

cry harder then

They will be privately owned, get over it

If it already belongs to someone, the state has no authority to take it away. That's why

why

The one who owns it either built it himself or bought it

we don't agree that owning firms is a right

Well it is

but you just said that rights are a concept we agreed everyone deserves

We agreed on it as a society. Just because one individual disagrees doesn't make the concept null. And there are really good reason for the existence of that right

yeah but i'm saying what if we didn't agree

is it no longer a right

True. If we all agree that right of ownership isn't a thing than it's not. But that also means you don't get to own the phone or computer you are corrently using

So would you really want that?

i dont care if i dont own my stuff as long as i can use it when i want and for what i want

yes probably

no you could have legal property rights without having to justify those laws on the basis of protecting this weird notion of natural rights

off to the gulags with you then

No you can't. You have to have some sort of standart, if you don't why can the government take google away but not your phone?

because google being privately owned has an effect on society that greatly outstrips that of me owning a phone

Oh I see. So government can take away whatever the fuck they want, but only if they think it will make society better

pretty much

anyone can take whatever they have the power to

but if you're talking about what ought to be done

Execty ^^

That's the fucking point

The government can take whtever they want

then we could say, perhaps we should change our laws regarding property rights to improve society

That why we limit them

and use the government as an apparatus of organized force to do so

or of course overthrow the government and create a new one

@Baraban that why governments that treat communists like animals are the best

But that's a terribly fucking idea

Common

They just gonna take everything