that, in my opinion, is what makes the previous question about who is the aggressor so hard.

reality is hard, thats why we consult professionals

because to be an aggressor, you'd need to be in the wrong. If both sides believe the other does not have rightful ownership, then either is the aggressor and both is the aggressor.

agreed, this is usually why we go to a third party

but it doesn't always work, and this subjectivity is why

yeah, no system is perfect. good enough is usually good enough

good is good enough until it doesn't fit you.

life would be easier without humans

lol whats that? anarcho primitivism?

but anyway, so would you say your private property is something you "rightfully" have ownership of?

yeah i believe i rightfully have ownership to it because i acquired it peacefully

acquired it, or keep maintaining it peacefully

i mean, just moving into a dead persons house could be considered peaceful. doesn't make it yours unless you keep it through peaceful means

well if someone else had a morally higher claim and you fended them off through force, it wasnt very peaceful

well, through peaceful means would be arbitration

although, moral higher claim would be subjective still

its subjective but the question is if its consistent with a certain set of principles or not

a private court could rule something which is inconsistent to the philosophy, and it would have ruled "wrong". it would be settled but you could still make the case that the ownership is not legitimate

regardless it follows to say, that what is your private property is subjective, no? I mean, its whatever your "rightfully" own, by whatever means fit your definition of rightfully. And rightful ownership is subjective. Therefore, your private property is subjective.

the courts does not determine reality, they're just supposed to rule according to reality

well not quite

if a criminal comes in and takes the property by force, he is de facto owning it, objectively, since he has exclusive control over it

subjectively illegitimate ownership, but actual ownership nonetheless

i define ownership as the exclusive use and control over something

okay, can we redefine that as possession, and use ownership for rightful ownership?

sure ok

in that case the entire idea of ownership is a social construct

do you disagree?

i don't disagree with those definitions

so then, technically, i define what your private property is. as you define mine. Since if there is just one person in an area, then they can claim all the land to be their's. But once a second person shows up, that claim means nothing unless verified by the second person

what do you mean by it means nothing?

what is it supposed to mean?

well, i can say that something you have is mine. but if you don't agree and give it back, doesn't mean much does it?

yeah it does. one of us could have a more philosophically consistent argument than the other. one could be in the right and the other could be in the wrong, depending on what standards you apply

it could practically not make a difference to the consequences if one person is stronger than the other

if thats what you mean

but it could "mean" a lot about factual reality

what i mean, is just making a claim does not make something my property. either you agree, and give it to me. or you disagree and its yours unless i take it by force

right, the consequences depend on if property principles are respected by others or not

right, i just realized i missed a piece of information i should have clarified. If two people claim to have whole, singular ownership, i consider that object or land unowned until an agreement is reached, regardless of who has possession.

alright