To label something as property implies ownership. If that ownership is acquired in keeping with the laws of the land then it can not be theft even though the methods used to obtain the purchase price may well be criminal.
"The laws of the land" is a touchy phrase because different groups might have different laws. The indigenous peoples who owned the land in places like Australia and the Americas might have very different ideas about ownership and, for them, ownership by new settlers (aka invaders) may well be a form of theft.
This is the kind of anomaly that keeps the hatred levels so high in the Middle East. The Israelis have created something out of what was mostly desert. Not only property but a nation! Much of that hatred is fuelled by envy.
No. If a person owns their own body, it stands to reason that they own the fruits of their labor.
What is someone who doesn't own their own body? A slave. A slave is owned by someone. It is property. There is no getting away from the concept of property. Ironically the communist ****s that make that kind of argument think that everything and everyone is their property. They feel entitled to other people's labor. They're just lazy, weak, envious people who have too much pride to admit their sin, so they double down and try to claim the moral high ground.
"I guess it depends on the way you look at things."
Crocodile Dundee scene ...
Sue: Well, what about the aborigines claim to own the land? Mick: Ah well ... aborigines don't own the land. Ya see it's like ... See those rocks over there? Been there for 600,000,000 years and they'll still be there when you and I are gone. It's like two fleas arguing over who owns the dog they live on.
You need to get the definitions straight, in the sentence quoted "property" means 'real estate' and it is mostly aimed at 'absentee landlords'.
There is a pattern of events that follow when ownership of land becomes legally absolute and irrevocable. It happens because the owners of such land can only become richer, never poorer and that have some very unfortunate side effects. It is a cycle that have repeated itself many times throughout the middle ages, the case we know best is in Ireland where British nobles owned everything and rented it to tenants who then farmed the land and paid rent, while the owners lived elsewhere and just raked in the money. In such a setup the rich automatically grow richer without having to do anything at all. when farming methods improve it just means the rent can be raised higher so the rich grow even richer. When the population rise it is the same: more people to pay rent, and still the same few rich people raking in all the extra money generated.
It was no fun being a pheasant in such a setup. For a peasant there is no alternative to a lifetime of poverty and squalor. The French revolution was directly sparked by the French version of the same thing. In some nations it was handled by 'Land reforms' Though that did not really happen until America was colonized and started offering an alternative to all those pheasants: "immigrate to the US and we will give you a plot of land as a welcome present". Now that the Americas are pretty much built up it looks like the cycle is starting up again there.
And Didge is right in pointing out that it is about "What is fair". Something that will forever be a matter of opinion rather than a matter of logic and reason. We want free competition, but once some small group win that competition then 'the loosers' start grumbling about unfair and 'theft' ;-))
Right, and you're wrong about being about absentee landlords. It's just about owing property AKA land period and barring someone from entry or charging them to use your property. It's about landlords and land owners period. So don't tell me I need to get my definitions straight when I know it means real estate and that's why I asked if anyone can form a tangible argument why laying a personal claim to property is theft when it's how the entire animal kingdom works and is the natural state. It's the idea that profiting off ownership is theft.
This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at February 17, 2017 5:05 PM MST
Point being I have read his works and have more background on what I am referring to then a silly wikipedia article. Maybe you would like to add something useful from your own mind instead of just making accusations of ignorance. Then again you think he was referring to just absentee landlords. As if that really matters anyways.
Even Proudhon couldn't make up his mind and later started saying property is liberating.
It is completely reasonable to own land and prohibit others from entry. Land, just like anything else, needs to be maintained. It's not something that just naturally exists. Humans constantly transform land to make it suitable for its purpose and prevent it reverting to its natural state. That takes work.
People who object to the concept of property feel entitled to use the land, but expect someone else to be responsible for the land. Ownership is only way to ensure that power over something and responsibility for something go together.
If everything is collectively owned then everyone is collectively responsible. This can be very oppressive because people end up paying taxes for things they don't care about and don't benefit from.
This post was edited by Zeitgeist at February 18, 2017 1:23 AM MST
Benedict Arnold 