Nostr Web Client

Replying to

inpc

Property rights and a non violence. Cool.

On stolen property taken through violence.

Whoopsie!

Low Information Voter 1y ago

Other people's needs do not trump your rights.

But if you sell water, I'm your neighbour, we're in a disaster zone, and a mob of what were our fellow citizens are desperate, can't pay your asking price for water and might try to take it any minute...

I'm gonna be "Bro, make a deal man, let them clear rubble or something if they don't have $$$. I don't want today to be the day I shoot an inadequately-prepared suburban dad trying to steal water for his crying kids..."

Is looting ever good? No, it isn't. But I'd rather see looting intermittently in extremis, rather than every day as part of normal government business.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

inpc 1y ago

It’s more a cheeky reference to the USA (and other former colonies) being built on stolen land. I’m not planning on looting anywhere, well not at the moment at least.

Laeserin 1y ago

Property belongs to whoever can defend their right to it. That's why it can exchange hands, without being sold.

We call this "theft". Most cultures condemn it and many societies have developed (usually coordinated, martial) means for retrieving it, but that doesn't change the facts on the ground that someone else now has it in their possession and might be able to defend their right to hold it.

Tristan Brice Velloza Kildaire 1y ago

Posession versus ownership have an important distinction. You did hint at it but it is better to make it clear

Laeserin 1y ago

It's a whole thing. We had to learn about it during my apprenticeship because various laws apply in one case or another.

Possession is "having actual control over something", whereas ownership is "having a legitimate right to control something". "Legitimate" defined as "conforming to the law".

So a person who rents a house is in possession of the house. The person they rent it from owns it. An eviction is when the landlord wields violence or the threat of violence to dislodge the renter from the house.

Without legal enforcement, possession and ownership quickly collapse into one, such as in more primitive societies.

inpc 1y ago

So take a modern day scenario. The IDF kick in the door of a Palestinian’s house and use their weapons to force the land owners out the house.

The land has been owned by the Palestinian family for many generations.

Now the Israeli government, defend it.

Whose land is it?

In libertarian world surely that breaks the non aggression principle, even if the Israeli government defend that land and rewrite law to benefit themselves?

Laeserin 1y ago

It doesn't actually matter what anyone thinks about it or what principle it breaks. Principles and rules you can't enforce are just blah blah.

The house is now possessed by Israel and they can just legalize that state and become full owners. That's how lots of people gained land as property, historically, after all, and squatters still do this in Europe. Just occupy a house for long enough that you gain a legal claim and can't be evicted.

Same thing with women and children and cows and silver candlesticks. Go on a raid. Drag beings and objects home. Beings and objects now yours. Winning. Congrats on your new property. 🤷‍♀️

inpc 1y ago

That's my point... Then maintain 'libertarian non aggressive principles' because it's now their land and they don't want the same to happen to them.

The concept of property rights seems somewhat flawed.

Laeserin 1y ago

Yeah, humans tend to hypocrisy.

It's not merely a concept. It's simply humans describing what they see.

Vermeil_Kisser 1y ago

One principle that can be enforced is Total Kike Death, as in, you kill all who belong to one of those ethnicities+all who practice talmudic judaism.