Message from @NativeInterface
Discord ID: 476173059288465439
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
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
so, in the two party system, if person A has a chair, and person B claims it his chair, and person A disagrees, then there is no owner, as its "rightful" owner is currently in dispute by all involved parties, and still has no owner until agreement is reached and there is no longer a conflict.
hence why i say a claim has no meaning without the other parties endorsement