Message from @NativeInterface
Discord ID: 476181592100831233
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
i kind of associate order with orderly performed executions of dissidents
order could be moral chaos
so maybe order and chaos are too vague terms
i posit that things are voluntary, mostly. That if there is nothing stopping you emigrating outside a lack of places to go you like, there is nothing keeping you here. That you were born here and opted not to move once you felt old enough to, and just because you do not like where you were borne, that does not make it illegitimate. Because private property is subjective, it is only your subjective belief that countries have no legitimate claim to land, because the society you were born in was just lazy, and rather than keeping infinite records of laws for each square inch of land, they made up a unified set of rules, long ago, that people liked, and that other people didn't disagree with enough to move. and as such, the rightful owners of different piece of land lend their land to a group of people that fall under the term state. And they agree that they need funding because they are providing various services and stuff.
ironically you can lose your passport if you engage in tax evasion
that doesn't stop you emigrating
no one is obligated to allow you entry, but that doesn't mean you are not allowed to leave.
yeah i respect your points, and i agree property rights are subjective, but i morally disagree with them, and most if not all countries have the same anti-freedom culture, but everything is relative of course