Message from @NativeInterface
Discord ID: 476171146744692746
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
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