property in that you have a piece of paper saying something is yours and you can prevent people from using that thing or extract value from it, while not using it yourself. That’s theft.
But possession, ie. having things that you use, a house you live in etc. that’s not theft unless other circumstances that lead to the possession are theft.
It’s all about terminology. I like the concept of usofruct where your right to own something is bound to either use it directly or collect its fruits (in a literal or figurative sense). So a landlord wouldn’t own a house but the people living there would. This has it’s roots in Roman law where ownership had three aspects: usus, fructus and abusus (misuse, destroy, …)
So you can never leave your house because as soon as you do you stop extracting value from it yet are preventing others from doing so themselves. So no one should be allowed homes or anything personal. As you can’t always be using something your entire life.
You’re making up a rule that isn’t a part of the definition of personal property.
Your home is still the place you live at even if you’re not currently in it. You address doesn’t change the moment you step out of your house does it? You use it by it being your place of residence, and that happens at all times.
I didn’t make anything up. There was no time component specified by which ownership is kept or lost. I would hazard a bet many of you strongly support squatters rights which are directly related to this yet not accounted for by the stated definitions. This is one of the prime cruxes of the private property argument is the ability for some to own property they don’t occupy all the time.
Because you have to literally force people on social media to look up what a phrase means. And if you link to Wikipedia, they will act as if they already knew, or tell you how Wikipedia is leftist drivel.
property is theft
Now you are under arrest, oh baby
Private property yes, personal property no
The way i distinguish:
property in that you have a piece of paper saying something is yours and you can prevent people from using that thing or extract value from it, while not using it yourself. That’s theft.
But possession, ie. having things that you use, a house you live in etc. that’s not theft unless other circumstances that lead to the possession are theft.
cars have paper attached to them, should people be forced to use cars to keep them?
So do houses!
summer home time?
We’re on the same page then.
It’s all about terminology. I like the concept of usofruct where your right to own something is bound to either use it directly or collect its fruits (in a literal or figurative sense). So a landlord wouldn’t own a house but the people living there would. This has it’s roots in Roman law where ownership had three aspects: usus, fructus and abusus (misuse, destroy, …)
That’s exactly what the comment you are replying to said.
So you can never leave your house because as soon as you do you stop extracting value from it yet are preventing others from doing so themselves. So no one should be allowed homes or anything personal. As you can’t always be using something your entire life.
You’re making up a rule that isn’t a part of the definition of personal property.
Your home is still the place you live at even if you’re not currently in it. You address doesn’t change the moment you step out of your house does it? You use it by it being your place of residence, and that happens at all times.
I didn’t make anything up. There was no time component specified by which ownership is kept or lost. I would hazard a bet many of you strongly support squatters rights which are directly related to this yet not accounted for by the stated definitions. This is one of the prime cruxes of the private property argument is the ability for some to own property they don’t occupy all the time.
Nor did I say there was.
The time has nothing to do with this.
This is so obvious I don’t understand why it needs highlighting. Nobody here is suggesting you cannot have stuff.
Because you have to literally force people on social media to look up what a phrase means. And if you link to Wikipedia, they will act as if they already knew, or tell you how Wikipedia is leftist drivel.
/u/[email protected] is doing so.
@[email protected] *