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

therefore, person A's property is defined by what person B agrees to, as anything that person B does not agree to, is no one's property, it is simply an object in someone's possession.

and without person B, then there is no need for private property

the rightfulness doesnt depend on if you opponent agrees or not, it depends on what standards you apply as a spectator

just a person disagreeing with your ownership doesnt make it illegitimate

in the other person's eye it is

yeah if you choose to apply the other persons standards

but as we concluded, rightful is subjective

true, but even if those people share the same set of standards, rightful is still subjective

how do you figure?

at least, outside of rightful simply meaning current possession

if the standards are that the house should go to the next of kin, then someone who isnt next of kin claiming the property would be wrongful according to the standards

unless the person claiming to be next of kin, has not been proven to be next of kin

even if it is, infact next of kin

okay so a deeper gray zone

both sides can have distrust in their choice of judge, without an agreed upon judge, both sides are in the right and the wrong, using the same standard

then it could mean that they can't figure out who is actually in the right. that the truth is unknown.

ah, the objective truth is unknown. however, both sides have their subjective view of the truth. from one side, a man is in the wrong for moving into his dead mothers house after several months when it should belong to the son, on the other a stranger is in the wrong for claiming he is the rightful owner with no proof. Both sides believe the other wants a judge who will be bias towards them, and they cannot find a third party both trust.

both believe their version of the truth. one of them technically has the objective truth on their side, but without arbitration, they both believe the objective truth is on their side

now, should they both agree to arbitration, its possible that the son ends up not having enough actual evidence at the time to prove he is actually the son (maybe the mother was cremated before he got there and no DNA was filed before). So while he is has the objective version of the truth on his side, arbitration could end up where the man who moved in is now the owner. so, while by both peoples standards, technically the son has rightful ownership, due to the subjective versions of the truth, he no longer has ownership.

a judge may not rule in your favor. it's a harsh life.

so as i said, what is one person's private property is defined by what everyone around him agrees is his private property, even if everyone involved has the same standards

he may very well not

well yeah but it depends on the context

officially it has been ruled a certain way, and it's widely accepted. unofficially the truth might be different.

i guess it depends on how we define legitimate as well

unfortunately, life is subjective

no, it's just complicated

the closes thing you have to finding objective truth is what the most people agree on

even then, sometimes they are wrong

yeah basing your idea of objective truth on what the majority believes is not a good idea

thankfully morals are subjective so i dont have to worry about that

onto the majority no, but on a few people little by little, you stand a chance of changing the truth

if we were discussing black slavery, and you pointed out how unrealistic it would be to pick the cotton without them, and pointing out this or that logistical problem, and you made me see the light that the cotton manufacturing would just have to shut down or be left in chaos, and leave tons of people in poverty, it wouldn't do anything to change my abolitionist stance.

if we really cant figure out how to fund things voluntarily or organize things with a monopoly boss, then heck it, maybe chaos is the price we have to pay to live in a civilized society which isn't fundamentally based on things i consider human rights violations

what's the difference between chaos and freedom?

it depends, i guess