Is property truly theft?

>Lets use an example wherein that's the only way that argument can work.

Meanwhile in a 21st century hyper-capitalist economy, nobody is deprived of their ability to use a flat-screen TV, just because I buy one myself.

...

I was just explaining the basic idea, not advocating it, no need to be bothered in the booty. Typically property as theft is only applied to land anyway. People also overlook the other half of Proudhon's view on property, in which he said "property is liberty" or something to that effect, in which he viewed property as a vital institution of personal freedom. He just didn't favour the particular form property had taken under the state, preferring a use/occupancy theory of ownership.

>Is property truly theft?
it is exemption

You're forgetting about the Lockean proviso

I've heard the name, but my memory is a bit fuzzy. Again, I was just explaining the basic idea behind the concept.

>nobody is deprived of their ability to use a flat-screen TV, just because I buy one myself.
>nobody is deprived of their ability to use a flat-screen TV
Have you just never met anybody living below the poverty line? Or are you just so classcucked you actually think they could get it if they just "worked harder"?

Eh, bad example, as they tend to have them, here in the US at least. Granted, they are fairly cheap here, and that's the only sort of TV you can buy, really. Plus they don't tend to have good ones, and tend to be second hand.

They also tend to have refrigerators, because it's actually more expensive to live without one.

At the same time, they often have such things used, or financed, and unlike the middle class, they represent a significant investment, on par with a luxury car. And meals tend to be primarily cycle of beans, rice, chicken, and ramen.

t. formally poor as fuck college student living in 10'x10' room.

in the state of nature, "the earth is the common property of the earthbound entities including all of humanity"; the concept of private ownership arose as a artificial result of the development of agriculture, since it was required to exploit land and labor. Thus, private property steals from humanity's common property. The basic needs of all humanity must be compensated for and provided for by those with property, who have originally taken it from the general public. This in some sense is their "payment" to non-property holders for the right to hold private property. The payment is 80% of profit attained from the allocation of public property to the privateer.

Its contrary to nature. We don't like to share with strangers 1. Because resources are scarce 2. Because we don't trust them and think they might steal it from us.

Animals in their own way have property. They mark the boundaries of their territory, claim exclusive rights of use, and defend them with violence. In the real rather than hypothetical state of nature, tribes and clans fight over resources that they have laid a claim to.

>animals in their own way have property
can one animal/person physically use an entire lake?
can one animal/person drink an entire lake?
can one animal/person eat all the fish of the baikal?

can one animal/person physically use an entire oil pit?

CAN ONE ANIMAL CLAIM AN ENTIRE OCEAN?

but one person can use mental fallacies to claim ownership of resources that are physically not theirs
.
which permits ridiculously disproportionate power misallocation based on the fallacy of private ownership

thus enslaving others into supporting his power over others

>Its contrary to nature.
Property rights are contrary to nature, but property itself is not.

You own whetever you can enforce your will on while preventing others from enforcing their own will on it. If you can enforce your will on an entire lake and prevent others from doing so, then yes, you do own it.

Can you prove that your house is your house?

If animals are capable of art, then you may say that property rights do not in nature. They assert rights of ownership all the time, they just don't have laws which allows then to settle the disputes without violence. Law is art, but the claim of right has its origins in instinct and natural necessarity.

>can one animal/person physically use an entire lake?
Predators have territory ranges in the tens of km, so yeah...

Come inside and you'll be thrown out by force. QED.

One animal doesn't use an entire lake, but a lake can only support a population of only a certain size. Among megafauna issues of resource scarcity are likely to arise so it is typical for large animals to claim large amounts of territory, mark the boundaries with scents, etc. and then to defend against intruders because a plot of land can only support so many large animals.

problem is property/territory are social constructs aka figments of imagination

there will always be a bee, eagle, fire ants, wasps, rattle snakes, pirannhas living in the territory of the apex predator property owner, which will threaten and dissolve all claims of property

even home "owners" are no match to termites, mold, cockroaches, rats, snakes, ants etc....

and the owner of a lake is a mere tool, since all the fauna in the lake are living rent free since before the owner was even a stain of shit on a goats ass

>ants, roaches, rats, mold rightful owners of your "property"

and they dont harass you with rent collection

I understand property to be "generated" by the assertion of a right in disclosure and defense of the thing owned against foreign parties. The fact that I say I own something and successfully defended my claim means that I own that thing. This is a real, not imaginary occurrence. It is a real injury that would be inflicted against those who do not respect my claim.

If I am indifferent to the entry of invaders, they occupy MY property merely and are not the true owners of it. They do not have the right to use it in any way they wish. I reserve the right to eject them if they become a nuisancesas, is the case with termites, mice, and cockroaches. If they become too bothersome we assert our power over the property to have them eradicated or ejected from the premises.

Yes, it's very rare for anyone to be the only living being who enforces his will on an object, let alone on something as large and amorphous as a piece of land, but that doesn't invalidate the concept of property, it just means they're not the sole owner of that piece of property.

I already admitted that you cockshitter.
>but that doesn't invalidate the concept of property, it just means they're not the sole owner of that piece of property.

Post more Spurdos like this

> there is no rational basis of property ownership

Right. Its instinctal.

>Your body is occupied by bacteria and fungi

Yes and when the become a bother I go to the doctor to have them removed.

b-but user "property" is pluralistic, not absolute, and non-atomic

even the "private parts" you claim as "yours" is home to bacteria, yeast, mold, mites, worms etc

and now expand that to your whole body which you claim as "yours". it is actually occupied by foreign entities including bacteria, mites, viruses, mold, and microscopic organisms. a major part of you is just flora...

your claims of sole ownership of anything are false and irrational

there is no rational basis of property ownership

and purging "occupying" elements would be detrimental to your "self" since everything is part of an ecosystem

the ecosystem/community owns all

the ecosystem has no will you dimwit. It can't own anything because it has no will to enforce on anything.

the ecosystem supports the survival of the organic community of entities within it. there is no one entity or one will or one property owner it is the collective effort to survive that creates the ecosystem. thus all members of the ecosystem have access to the ecosystem's resources to survive

And yet I can't let a stray dog eat my dinner or else it will be sated and I will be hungry. When I shoo it away from my food I am asserting a right.

Without property, possession is equivalent to ownership so whichever person or group is strong enough to maintain possession is effectively the owner. This would be a brutal system that replaces rule of law with rule by force.

Possession only exists in the context of law.

maybe not a dog, but ants, flies, bacteria, worms have paid their dues and earned the right to be superior consumers of a human's dinner

Property exists in positive law because armed men enforce the legal rights of property. The law provides an orderly means of notice and disposal and the overwhelming force of a government acts as a deterrent against infringement of lawful rights. The law of man is an improvement of the law of nature, but it exists only as a consequence of the law of nature.

Not if they can't take it from me.