so we need an even more corruptible monopoly that settles it with an iron fist?

need? no. but then again, my argument is never that we need the state... its always that it will come back, and does for a reason. so why repeat history and instead do our best to fix this

but so we have an impasse

so, if one side wants to press, we have conflict

who is the aggressor?

well i agree in one sense

the person who laid claim to the dead person's house? or the one who is from out of town claiming its theirs? arbitration failed., either side could agree on a judge.

i believe that if there is a challenge or an impasse, people will always strive to solve the issues in one way or another

but i dont believe that people will just run into an impasse, and there will be a giant hole in the system, and people will just sit on their hands and do nothing

no, either they give up, or they press.

it reminds me of the who would build the roads argument

so, what happens if they press

who is the aggressor?

i believe that there are peaceful solutions to impasses

only if both sides agree to peace, in which case arbitration would have worked or settled

but one side didn't budge

both think they have rightful claim

so, who is the aggressor if one side presses

the out of towner with a story, or the guy who moved into a dead persons house.

can't really prove the out of towner is lying

i don't know

can't really prove he isn't the owner

am i supposed to know this?

its perfectly fine to admit you don't know, its a rough question. with, perhaps, no right answer.

do you think ownership is objective?

hmm

maybe ownership is objective, but "rightful ownership" is subjective

good distinction. I was more curious about rightful ownership. Since i think most people can believe current ownership is objective in terms of whoever can defend something currently owns it.

so, rightful ownership is subjective

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