On Property

[eynon81]

[eynon81]

[exploited]

Terry stops would apply regardless of private property... As is clear by the fact they they already exist. It isn't relevant IMO.

It is somewhat similar to feudalism... Except for the presence of democratic control, rather than authorities embodiment in a living person.

And yes, whoever made that ruling must have pocketed a pretty penny to make such a stupid decision.

[Hyperion]

This is why I'm a mutualist. It's not entirely logically consistent, but I think it's the most logical and consistent position.

[exploited]

[The Comrade]

To me, the only reason to discuss property as a significant political concept, is to bury conservatives in their f**k moronic connection to taxation. It's truly pathetic that they need some vague philosophical possibility to keep a fingernail's grasp on the idea that they shouldn't be taxed. Fiat currency insures that you must be taxed. If you were living in a commune, you would be expected to contribute something to the success of the commune. If you are part of a human community, you are expected to do something that works not to inhibit the progress of that community, which usually manifests it's self as an act of contribution. In a society that runs on fiat currency, your baseline contribution is some of your fiat currency. f**k deal with it.

[PoS]

Pfft, anyone who is against the concept of private property has never owned anything and just wants to get into the action without working for it. Typical lazy bum mentality- wants something for nothing.

[exploited]

[Professor]

[exploited]

Yeah, he is correct in a very broad sense. However, even if the cops didn't show up in time or whatever, and the property was stolen, it would still be yours even if someone else bought it in good faith from the local pawn shop. So I think Hobbes forms the basis but that the argument has been extended far beyond might equals right.