Very cool... I did get a little hung up on "Theft is taking something without the owner's consent, intending not to give it back." because technically, it's the first part "taking something without the owner's consent" ... even if you are planning on giving it back. I believe, technically speaking, borrowing requires consent as well.
Thanks! > even if you are planning on giving it back. I believe, technically speaking, borrowing requires consent as well. It's certainly not cool to borrow without consent, but based on what I've read, if there's an intent to return it it's not necessarily considered theft. I'll give it some more thought, perhaps it'd be okay to omit that qualifier anyway.
You guys may want to consider that theft may be described or defined as "Preventing a property owner the use of his property." Sure, in most cases theft may involve removing property from someone's possession, but let's assume that ownership may be defined as "having exclusive use" of some object or land or whatever. If you prevent an owner from exercising his "exclusive use" then it's has the effect of dispossessing him of his property rights over that object. If you deliberately park your car in front of your neighbour's driveway such that he cannot use his car to get to work, then it could be argued that you are guilty of theft, since you have intentionally deprived the owner the use of his property. Just an idea. :)
borrowing should certainly require consent, unless there is a dire need for whatever it is, especially if it is not being utilized by the owner or the owner has no use for it.
bitbutter It is ABSOLUTELY THEFT. And do you plan on giving in back in the same form??? You steal my money in order to give me a road in California, or an M16 rifle to a soldier in Syria??? What if I wanted neither one of those Damn things. Taxation IS THEFT, no matter how you try to frame it otherwise.
After you click "Yes, I feel as though the food I stored is my property.", I feel "[more]" should instead say "[continue]". "More" to me gives the impression you want to see more of the quote, and people may just exit the page.
Great idea, this is like what Larken Rose is doing without the fancy CGI. It would be cool if you could use text to speech and maybe voice recognition on the site. If you need help doing that let me know.
already ran into 3 dead ends without much effort. I understand that you can't address every viewpoint, but I can't help but feel that someone isn't going to be swayed when treading off the beaten path leads to what effectively says "you're nuts, goodbye".
Thanks for the feedback. Were you testing the script to see what would happen with different answers or entering responses that you authentically stand behind? Not everyone will be swayed. That's for sure. I believe that people who reach the dead ends that you mention, as a result of following their sincere feelings on the questions, are not reachable by libertarian arguments. If you feel differently you're welcome to send suggestions for additions to the script that I'll consider for future revisions. > treading off the beaten path leads to what effectively says "you're nuts, goodbye". No. It doesn't say anything of the sort. But if you can think of a more civil way to say the following please suggest it: "We might be at a dead end. If you really feel that way we don't share enough common ground for the conversation to continue."
I already agree with a fair amount of the viewpoints you suggest, including taxation being theft, so I decided to try putting in answers from my friends' perspectives along with being curious what you might suggest to someone with a more extreme viewpoint. It just seemed that a lot of the answers, at least early on, would lead to a rather abrupt cut-off from the program. I guess what I'm trying to say is that this program doesn't seem to do much that your earlier video/s doesn't explain already. If that was the goal, it did a fine job of it, but I feel that using a plain text format means you can usually go into further detail than in a video format. I enjoy a lot of the content you make and your explanation of your rationale to people in the comments and was looking for that in the website, but it feels a bit too much on rails to really get in depth explanation of this, although the links you provide to more detailed sources are appreciated.
Yes I understand. It doesn't do anything very different from my previous videos - just a different format which might speak to a different demographic. In any case I'll be looking again at the script and will make changes when I think I know how to improve parts of it. The 'dead ends' are one of the more likely targets for parts to improve. Thanks.
Great work! I've never seen an interactive conversation before, and it seems like a great way to present ideas. I think this could be a great way to teach basic praxeology as well. Your videos are amazing by the way. Best of luck with the website! : )
the most poignant argument is that *not a single government (at least to my knowledge) is consensual. you are never presented with a choice as to whether or not you wish to be governed. you will be governed whether or not you wish to be a part of the system. government is the epitome of coercion.* on a side note, i am a programmer and i would love to help you build things like this. it would be cool to collect as much data as possible regarding whether or not people wish to be governed or agree with governance.
Asking if taxation is theft is like asking if murder is unsolicited touching. ... well, ok, technically it is, but the question is weird. If someone tries to tax me against my will, threatening violence if I resist, I'd call that a robbery and seek to have them punished for robbery, not mere theft. To clarify things, the main reason why I consider tax to be robbery comes from the fact that governments fight against black market. I'm ok with tax being paid if I make an agreement with someone, and we call the government as a third party in the agreement. The government guarantees that if either of the sides of the agreement break the agreement, the government will intervene. Paying the government for that service is ok with me. Same if I willingly make a direct agreement with the government. What I'm NOT ok with is that if I make an agreement that DOES NOT call the government as a third party, the government still would like to tax the deal. If I make a deal with my neighbor that I'll mow his lawn, and he'll pay me, we don't need a third party to guarantee the deal. I trust my neighbor, and I accept that if my neighbor refuses to pay me, I won't be able to call the government to intervene, because we did not pay the government to guarantee the deal. So we don't get anything from the government in this case, so there's no reason for us to pay the government for their service. And if I'm making a deal with someone I don't trust, but I also don't trust the government, I might want to insist on calling on a non-governmental third party to ensure the deal. Say, a private security agency. If either side of the deal fails to comply with the agreement after it is signed, then the private security agency would intervene. And because I and the other person consider this private security to offer a better service in this regard than the government, we should be able to choose this agency rather than the government. In this case, again, the government would have no reason to intervene, so there should be no reason to pay the government. The security agency would set the tax on the deal. And to anyone claiming that income tax isn't about paying the government to guarantee a deal, but rather it is payment for the access to public services. No, no it isn't. People who (legally!) don't pay income tax, including people with no income, can still use public services. People who do not use public services (or at least don't want to, but are forced to due to no alternatives - because the government BLOCKS alternatives), still are expected to pay income tax. This argument used income tax as an example, because that's what I'm most familiar with, but I think similar arguments could be made for other forms of taxation. I'd be ok with government taxing deals where I willingly call the government as a third party. I'm not ok with them taxing deals where I don't. And I'm DEFINITELY NOT ok with them using violence and other threats to try and stop me from making such deals.
...and going to this site right now. I'll run through it - from both points of view, and recommend it if it's solid. Good job. Got to get the word out.
You should change the dialogue where it says "Ownership is fiction." from the bot's response: "I don't think we will agree but anyway etc..." to "Did you say 'Ownership is fiction'?" with choices being "Yes" and "No" ... if you click Yes, bot response: "You own the words when you said 'Ownership is fiction'" ... if you click No, bot response: the disagreement ending
"if you click Yes, bot response: "You own the words when you said 'Ownership is fiction'"" On my view of property and ownership this isn't true. If by 'the words' you mean a pattern of words arranged in a certain way, this in not a scarce resource, and cannot be property for that reason (no pattern can be property). If you mean the compression and expansion of air molecules as the sound of words travels, I don't know of anyone who believes that this phenomena can be owned. You might be conflating different senses of 'your words'. They are 'your words' in the very specific sense that you were the one who wrote/uttered them (that's not a claim about property). There are other senses in which 'your/my' is used without referring to ownership too, e.g. 'your wife'.
BitButter owns his actions. BitButter owns the arguments that he makes. Because it's intellectual property, it can be copied and used elsewhere, which isn't stealing. To test this, try arguing at a dinner table with your dad about property rights. If he denies that you own your actions and their effects, respond to your mother instead. If you do not own your actions and their effects then it's rational to not blame anyone for anything, or blame another person for someone else's actions.
"BitButter owns his actions." Unintelligible. "Because it's intellectual property" No such thing. Only scarce things can be property. The non-tangible patterns/recipes that minds can formulate can't be property. mises.org/library/against-intellectual-property-0 "If you do not own your actions and their effects then it's rational to not blame anyone for anything," Non sequitur. Whether assigning blame makes sense or not has nothing to do with whether or not words are property (which they aren't).
Dude I'm obviously not saying you have a right to words once you say them, or that the soundwaves are "yours" so repetition of them can be enforced. I mean the argument is made by you -- it is your execution of that action, and you "own" the consequences of that action. People ask you a question because YOU made an argument, they don't ask someone else about why you made an argument. And I was specifically denying the existence of IP in the first place. But I realize this isn't really gonna get anywhere so thanks for the reply.
"it is your execution of that action, and you "own" the consequences of that action" No i don't. Not on my definition of own. (ie. i don't have the exclusive right to determine who may use those consequences, because that doesn't make sense).
My most relevant ones are probably George Ought to Help, You can always leave, and Machinery of Freedom : illustrated summary. Googling those terms should get you to the right URLs.
Nice website! I personally would like to be a libertarian, because the ground rules are supposedly very simple. Taxation is obviously theft *if* property right are absolute. And I'm struggling a little bit with that last part. The idea is that we need some kind of property rules, because resources are scarce and therefor a potential source for violent conflict. Why is violent conflict bad? Because we value human life. We want humanity to be healthy, happy and prosper. And that also means that people suffering and dying is a bad thing. Am I right so far? Now, it may well be the case that free market libertarianism is the best system for people to flourish, but that's a utilitarian argument. What if a situation did arise where 95% of the people owned everything and 5% had nothing. This 5% will die from starvation. Maybe in the end they will be saved through charity, but based on absolute property rights, this doesn't have to be the case. Now my question is: If for some reason a situation would occur where people are bound to suffer and die, doesn't that violate the basic reason we initially needed property rights in the first place? And if that is true, shouldn't property rights in some way be conditional?
John Anonymous The purpose of property rights are, in an economic sense, to resolve disputes over scarce resources by describing how these resources should be allocated. In a deontological sense, property rights are just an extension of the right to self-ownership; if one owns oneself, then one owns one's labor and therefore the products of one's labor. Another justification is that if we are to exist, then we must be able to sustain ourselves by grappling onto resources around us, which implies property rights. However you want to think about it, property rights are a must. You ask about situations where people are bound to suffer. Of course these situations will exist; however, it would be a perfect solution fallacy to say that property rights are flawed because of that (property rights have never been purported to be a solution to all human problems). Unless you can propose how making property rights conditional will improve this, I don't see why property rights should be conditional. My proposition is that, on the whole, human suffering is minimized when libertarians property rights are upheld.
Hi Benjamin, I agree with your conclusion in the first paragraph, that at least some form of property rights are a must. Although I do have a problem with this part: " ...then one owns one's labor and therefore the products of one's labor". I don't think labor is an ownable thing. Labor is just something a body can do, so it's not a thing, it's a process (an action in time and space). What does it mean to say that you own a hour of work that you did yesterday? IMO, only material things/objects can be property. It also doesn't follow that you automatically own the product of your labor, because if you make a chair form wood and nails that I own, it does not become your chair. So you already need to own the resources, in which case it doesn't matter what you do with it. Transforming something that you own doesn't change anything. With regard to the second paragraph: First of all, there are already issues with property rights. It is not clear cut how much of land you can homestead. This is dependent upon how much land the rest of the population will let you homestead. Because simply drawing a circle and declare all the land outside the circle your property won't do, right? A proposal for improvement could be, that if it can be shown that you do not use/need certain property while others suffer, it will become available to them.
John Anonymous You're correct; labor is nonphysical, so you cannot have a property right in your labor per se. Here's what I mean though: Since you own yourself, you get to control your body (and its faculties) and determine how its used. So, effectively, you're entitled to determine how you use your labor. If I force you to use your labor for something you don't want, that's called involuntary servitude. Hopefully you can understand the intuition for why we say that one "owns" one's own labor. If you're using my resources to build a chair, then one of two things happened. If you stole them from me, I'm entitled to take it back obviously. If I made a contract with you to make me a chair (i.e., I only gave you my resources on the condition that you build me a chair and give it back to me), then you have an obligation to satisfy the conditions of the contract. That's the gist of it, but if it still doesn't make sense or you're interested in the philosophy behind it, you should read up on libertarian contract theory (cf. title-transfer theory of contract). Homesteading isn't just drawing a circle and declaring some land to be your property. Homesteading is using your labor to modify or improve and unowned resource (or as Locke called it, mixing your labor with nature). Your proposed condition is known as the Lockean proviso. You can read up on it, and there are arguments for and against it. However, most libertarians reject the proviso: mises.org/blog/down-lockean-proviso
"Here's what I mean though: Since you own yourself, you get to control your body (and its faculties) and determine how its used." Great, we are in full agreement here! "Hopefully you can understand the intuition for why we say that one "owns" one's own labor." Sure, but I've had conversations with people that stick to the notion that you can actually own actions. They didn't make the distinction you just did. We also agree with regard to mixing labor with other people's resources. I just wanted to point out that "mixing labor" doesn't really do anything with regard to ownership. Either you already own the resources or you don't (in which case you'll have to ask permission/make a contract). "Homesteading is using your labor to modify or improve and unowned resource (or as Locke called it, mixing your labor with nature)." What if I just like the way a certain piece of land is? I believe Hoppe says that homesteading is about being the first one to claim something, not about "mixing labor". I'll look at the link you gave. Thanks!
John Anonymous If you don't own a resource, you don't necessarily have to get permission or make a contract. The resource could be _unowned_. You are however correct that you cannot just homestead something already owned and then claim it to be yours. There are different views about how homesteading works with regard to preserving a piece of land. I believe that doing something to preserve the land (such as fencing it in or doing plant conservation efforts) is sufficient to count as homesteading. I haven't read any Hoppe, so I'm not sure what he said, but I imagine you misunderstood him, because libertarians generally agree about the basics of how one comes to be the owner of something. Do a search for the homestead principle if you want to learn more. This channel also has a video called "You Can Always Leave", which has a part describing the homestead principle.
Thanks. I'd like to make at least one other on whether the state is good/necessary. But the scope of that conversation is much broader. I don't know when it'll happen.
doesn't cover the argument that you get something back to it's not theft. also doesn't cover the argument that it's voluntary because you can move elsewhere. Both bs arguments, but still, this needs work before I will share
> doesn't cover the argument that you get something back to it's not theft It does. The response that the user can select is "Taxation isn't theft, it's a fee for all the services that government provides". > also doesn't cover the argument that it's voluntary because you can move elsewhere. It does. The wording is "The citizens have agreed to be taxed." -> "By living in a country you implicitly agree to abide by the rules of the state, including taxation."
Looking through your website I just realized that the entire argument is one big herring. It doesn't matter if taxation if theft, all you're doing is to play a word game where you try to connect our opposition to tax and bad feelings about it to taxes. When in fact not all theft are created equal.
> It doesn't matter if taxation if theft If you don't think it matters then it's puzzling why you'd bother to engage with the site at all, given its title. > When in fact not all theft are created equal. Are you acknowledging that taxation is theft?
> If you don't think it matters then it's puzzling why you'd bother to engage with the site at all, given its title. Your site changed my mind about the subject. And I was curious about how your site tried to convince people. > Are you acknowledging that taxation is theft? I just said it doesn't matter. Theft or not, I support taxation. Because that's where you site fails, it doesn't try me to stop supporting taxes, just make me label is at theft.
> Because that's where you site fails, it doesn't try me to stop supporting taxes, just make me label is at theft. This site won't persuade all statists that they're making a mistake. Naturally. Given enough visitors, some will be convinced that taxation is theft, and discomfort with this idea will lead them to look carefully at the broader case against taxation. I'm glad you acknowlege that taxation is theft. That's rare among supporters of the state. Demonstrates a higher degree of intellectual honesty than I'm used to seeing.
sevret313 is saying that one would be committing the non-central fallacy (lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_noncentral_fallacy_the_worst_argument_in_the/) by arguing that taxation is bad *merely* because taxation falls in the category of theft. I agree. And I can understand why this website can be seen as a red herring ("a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument") since after all what people really care about (the original argument) is whether taxation is good or bad, not whether it counts as being "theft" or not. However, knowing bitbutter, I know the website is not an attempt to diverge attention from that question. Rather, the site is the way it is (merely arguing that taxation is theft) because it's a big project that takes a lot of work to provide a complete argument against taxation, so presumably bitbutter thought that arguing that taxation is theft first would just be easier. As someone who thinks that taxation is bad as well as theft though, I do think it would be nice to have a response to that objection at the end. Perhaps the easiest way to do it would be to allow participants to select something like "Okay, I can see how taxation is theft, but [you're committing the non-central fallacy [link];] taxation still has many features that make it different than typical examples of theft and I think these differences makes taxation permissible generally unlike theft committed by nongovernmental actors." Then your response to this answer can be something like "Great, we've made progress with you agreeing that taxation is theft. I acknowledge and agree with your point that it's possible that differences between taxation and more typical examples of theft committed by nongovernmental actors could make taxation generally permissible in principle unlike typical acts of theft, however I disagree that this is the case in reality. To see why [take Michael Huemer's approach], imagine a scenario in which a non-state thief behaves like a state by spending the money he steals on projects meant to help the people he steals from, etc. If in these situations your intuition is the same as mine--that it's still not permissible for this private person to commit the theft--then the conclusion that you must draw is that the differences between taxation and the more typical examples of theft that private actors generally perform are not sufficient to make taxation generally permissible. And if your intuition is different than mine, please feel free to email me which state-mimicking behaviors you do believe are sufficient to make a private actor's act of theft permissible. For a more detailed analysis of these differences and why they aren't sufficient to justify taxation generally, see Michael Huemer's book 'The Problem of Political Authority'."
Sorry mate. I followed through a strawman labyrinth to reach 'If you really feel that way we probably won't come to agreement. But we can continue anyway if you like.' Let me lay out the problem with the logic (and as argued by Proudhon in his day). So-called 'property rights' exist solely through violence, whether implicit or explicit. In 'nature', I can either defend this so-claimed right with might myself or by proxy vis-a-vis a sovereign or state. With state, we've just transferred this implication of violence to arm's length. In the beginning (let's call this person Adam), all land belonged to no one, and there was no basis for property or ownership or taxes for that matter. In fact, there was not language even to describe these concepts. Property and rights are artefacts in language and nothing more, but I'll continue adopting commonly (though not universally) accepted definitions (in English). As the sole occupant, I have no rights, but I may possess what is at my disposal (provided I can wrest control from any other non-human adversaries). Then Eve came along. Still no property and no ownership, yet we could share the bounties of the earth (fruits and apples and such, so long as we could outwit the snakes). But let's fast-forward a bit. Surely, without a substantive population, there is little need to declare property, and let's add language and fundamental jurisprudent concepts. At this some point someone (channelling JJ Rousseau here) fences off an area and declares it as his own property. How did this happen? What was the primary cause that transferred this land to this person? (Answer: Nothing. It was just his proclamation.) At the moment the concept of property was conceived (read: made up), it should have accrued to all people-and not just people then-present, but for all people perpetually. (And all life, of course, but let's ignore that minor inconvenience). Therefore, this person would owe for perpetuity for the use of this land 'borrowed' from society. Perhaps this person could argue that the fruits of any labour should accrue to 'him', but that still does not qualify this person to ''own' the land-just the product of his labour. (I won't bog down my position by arguing that there is little basis for this either.) In any case, these 'usage fees' (AKA taxes) are indeed the justest recompense for this 'stolen' property. The entire Libertarian foundation is a built on shifting sand (and quicksand at that). That it would be inconvenient not to have property and ownership is no basis for argument, especially insomuch as non-property owners would be concerned. I have nothing substantial to add to Pierre-JosephProudhon's 'Property is Theft', circa 1840 (ref: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/360). I suggest you read it to at least gain perspective that property is an illusion meant to justify privilege for some at the expense of others. “The first person who, having enclosed a plot of land, took it into his head to say this is mine and found people simple enough to believe him was the true founder of civil society. What crimes, wars, murders, what miseries and horrors would the human race have been spared, had some one pulled up the stakes or filled in the ditch and cried out to his fellow men: "Do not listen to this imposter. You are lost if you forget that the fruits of the earth belong to all and the earth to no one!” ― Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract and The Discourses
> I followed through a strawman labyrinth Specifically, which of the choice points was lacking a response you would have liked to make? What would that response have been? > In 'nature', I can either defend this so-claimed right with might myself or by proxy vis-a-vis a sovereign or state. fwiw this is a false dichotomy. You can also employ the service of any other person you make an agreement with. > What was the primary cause that transferred this land to this person? (Answer: Nothing. It was just his proclamation.) Homesteading either agrees with your intuitions about justice or it doesn't. If it doesn't then we won't reach agreement. As the script already told you. > At the moment the concept of property was conceived (read: made up), it should have accrued to all people-and not just people then-present, but for all people perpetually. You offer no reason to support this assumption. It doesn't resonate with me.
"Then Eve came along. Still no property and no ownership, yet we could share the bounties of the earth" No you can't. You can't share anything you don't own. Also, sharing something is saying: "Here, this is mine, but I'm giving it to you, and now it's yours". We may have to talk about how we obtain property, but imo you can't argue against property rights altogether. In your Adam and Eve example, if Adam takes a bite out of an apple, he implicitly says that that bite is his property and not Eve's.
It may not seem so, but I love the idea of the site. It just felt contrived. The intractable end-points (where the result is that we won't likely find agreement) are indicative of not having a position to defend. These points need to be thought through with an understanding of why they fail. By the way, I find my position that 'property is theft' irreconcilable. Just because I see a problem, it does not follow that I have a solution. >- Which choice points?: At many junctures, the choices felt forced. I'll return with more substantive feedback. The feedback I gave was a quick reaction to the video and site. > False dichotomy. Not really. The operative here is one of violence. All you are doing is saying that if I can get two or more people to defend your property right, it makes it OK. My point is that this is still under threat of violence. Whether one labels it as 'state' is irrelevant and was just a language shortcut I employed. > Homesteading: I never got to that question branch, but I don't agree, and this is a point where the burden of proof falls on you. I am arguing that land just exists. You are claiming somehow you have a right to it. Where does this right derive? The argument is that you (arguably) may own the fruits of your labour, say, picking an apple from a tree, but this does not afford you right of property; it simply signifies that you now have possession of an apple. You have a right to this apple so long as you can defend it (as outlined above). > No reason to support: I am making no claim here. Again, the burden falls on you. In the beginning, there was just land. You make the claim that it somehow becomes property, so it doesn't matter that it doesn't resonate. That's just a euphemism to say: I don't agree, and I have no defence. This is parallel to the ontological argument of God. An atheist is making no claim. He simply declares that there is nothing. The theist' has the burden of proving the 'positive' claim that something does exist. In the case: property rights. I am not here to troll or argue. I just feel that the Libertarian (or even Humanistic) position has never been defended. It just deflects or masks the inherent violence used to defend either rights ir property. Locke had much to say on this in his Second Treatise on Government. He simply argued the Social Contract cedes the exclusive right to violence (and murder) to the state, I will go back and provide you a more directed critique of the question-response option flow. Thanks.
Alas, I can share something I don't own. I share the air. I share the water. I share the sunshine. I share parks and roadways. There is no need to own something to share it. In the case of an apple on a tree in the woods on no particular property, I may pick the apple and take a bite. I may also share the apple. At no point do I need to own the property, the tree, or the apple, and yet I can share it. This apple may be on what you deem to be your property, and you can defend your right to the apple through violence or some threat of violence (as sovereigns did in the case of wild game back in the day), but property exists ONLY through this implied or expressed violence. However, my argument is that no one can own property. Period. But if property were ownable, then it would necessarily need to be divided equally among all (and I would argue that plants and animals are among the shareholders). As a new human was born, the land would need to be subdivided to accommodate thsi new shareholder. In the state of nature, all is shareable. Not to channel Hobbes, but just look at animals in the wild. They live and coexist without property. Thought experiment: Think Planet of the Apes. Imagine if non-human animals had language and concepts of rights and property. How do you think that would play out?
"Alas, I can share something I don't own. I share the air." That's a different of the use of the word sharing. Air at the moment is virtually abundant. There is enough for everybody, so we all just take what we need (breath). With respect to compressed air, it's a whole different ballgame. "There is no need to own something to share it." Of course there is. That's what sharing means: to part with something that is your own. To share something, automatically means you didn't have to share (for the same reason). "In the case of an apple on a tree in the woods on no particular property,..." I thought you said property didn't exist? "... I may pick the apple and take a bite." Yes, because in this case you're talking about yet unowned resources. The moment you pick the apple and take a bite, you *claim* it as your own. You are making an entitlement claim, which is what ownership means. "I may also share the apple." Yes, because now it's yours. It has become your property. Question: say you want to save half the apple for later. Are you allowed to do that? "At no point do I need to own the property, the tree, or the apple,..." It's not a question of needing, it is simply a matter of fact. Picking a previously unowned apple entitles you to use it, which of course means you can also share it. "This apple may be on what you deem to be your property, and you can defend your right to the apple through violence or some threat of violence (as sovereigns did in the case of wild game back in the day), but property exists ONLY through this implied or expressed violence." No, the right to exclusively control resources that you have appropriated by homesteading, trade or by gift is fundamental. People who are unwilling to respect that and violate it are the ones that use implied or expressed violence. And look, I understand there may be limits about how much you can homestead and gray area, but my main point is that you can't do anything without making entitlement claims. Taking a bite out of an apple is claiming that bite as your property. "However, my argument is that no one can own property." Of course not, because property already is *that which is owned*, by definition. They're synonyms. "As a new human was born, the land would need to be subdivided to accommodate this new shareholder." Why are they automatically shareholders? Did I create that new human? If you and your partner have a baby, it's your responsibility, and yes, that baby is entitled to some of your resources (food, shelter, etc.). But not mine. "In the state of nature, all is shareable. Not to channel Hobbes, but just look at animals in the wild. They live and coexist without property." Nonsense. Animals are territorial. Animals claim things for themselves: food to eat, twigs to build *their* nest, etc. They are not able to talk about it, but they sure claim and rightfully defend stuff that they have appropriated. "Thought experiment: Think Planet of the Apes. Imagine if non-human animals had language and concepts of rights and property. How do you think that would play out?" Same as it does now.
