That why we limit them

and use the government as an apparatus of organized force to do so

or of course overthrow the government and create a new one

@Baraban that why governments that treat communists like animals are the best

But that's a terribly fucking idea

Common

They just gonna take everything

We've seen that movie before

^^ Sorry, I don't understand you here

what don't you understand

All of it

Maybe it's my fault

idk how to rephrase it

basically you asked that without a belief in like some sort of right to property you are born with how could you justify owning a phone or whatever

i just said that you can justify legal property rights on grounds other than you are born with certain rights and the duty of the government is to protect them

So what are the conditions under which you are allowed to own property and why is it better than to let everyone own whatever they earn?

the "letting everyone own whatever they earn" thing is dependent upon legal property rights to exist

certain property rights are encoded in law and protected by a system of organized force

you earn within the bounds of these legal constructs

There are no "certain property rights", it's just one concept, and yes it's protected by organized force.
Exept that part, yes, this is what we now have in place, what exactly do you offer as replacement, and why is it better than the current system?

hold on, i wanna go back to what you originally said

you said that the law exists to keep us from infringing on other people's rights (in response to me saying that laws tell you how to live)

then when i asked you what these rights are, you ultimately conceded that, if we were to decide that you don't have a right to property for example, then it is not a right

you seemed to ultimately rely on collective agreement as being the basis of a right

I didn't concede, that was my origial position

But yes

so why don't laws tell you how to live

if the law says that, for example, the people of flint, michigan are not allowed to use the clean water source near them because it is owned by nestle

how is that not the law telling you how to live

Laws are supposed to only forbid you from certain actions that directly infringe on other people's eights. You can't use other people's water because this is theft

The law stops you from infringing on nestle's CEO's rights (or whoever it is that owns the water)

yeah but i don't get how this isn't telling people how to live

they can physically go to the water source and collect water and drink it

the law just makes it so if they do they will have force used against them

The law does limit your freedom to certain extent, but only if it's necessary to protect someone else's rights. I explained this in my first few comments

so what if we collectively decided that the ability to drink from whatever water source you like is a right

if we did so

and then people drank from nestle's water source

and nestle used force to defend their property