Private property rights are unnatural.
>need a government to tell you your property is "private">need society to pay taxes to fund the government to support your "private" property>your "private" property wouldn't exist without a social legal system to uphold itYeah, it's a joke.
>>489091503>"Chimpanzees are extremely territorial. They undertake regular border patrols, where individuals roam in the periphery of their territory in a very coordinated and cohesive way," Lemoine said."They engage in inter-group encounters that are violent, dangerous and stressful. Inter-group encounters can be vocal exchanges from a distance, visual contacts or physical contacts with fights, bites and chases. Killings are common, and victims can be from all age classes," Lemoine added.
>>489091503God gave it to me as a gift Heathens stole it.
>>489091759*>"Chimpanzees are extremely territorial. They undertake regular border patrols, where individuals roam in the periphery of their territory in a very coordinated and cohesive way," Lemoine said."They engage in inter-group encounters that are violent, dangerous and stressful. Inter-group encounters can be vocal exchanges from a distance, visual contacts or physical contacts with fights, bites and chases. Killings are common, and victims can be from all age classes," Lemoine added.
>>489091503
>>489091503I don't see them as "unnatural", but in the world of the 5-finger-discount, it IS good for one to have a, "flexible" approach to property rights.
>>489091503here's a more pressing issue:multiculturalism is destructive in nature. IF you believe that diversity is a good thing, and you enjoy diversity THEN you have a duty to preserve diversity for future generations -- WHERE multiculturalism/multiracialism exists THERE will be an inexorable synthesis of cultures and racial types over time until only 1 product remains. That is just synthesis basics, and applies readily to cultural/racial types. AND throughout said synthesis the formulae will apply: diversity + proximity = conflict -- THUS - multiculturalism destroys diversity - multiculturalism generates conflict, endless blame games, malicious leaderships, unfair policies and governance, inequities, wasteful noise, and necessitative hostility toward outgroups for the benefit of the righteous and natural defense of diversity itself. AND FINALLY separating via culture and race is in all humanity's best interests.
>>489091759>Chimpanzees are extremely territorialWell then go be with the monkeys you filthy nigger.
>>489091503>t. disgusting kike tyrant who wants the world for himself
>>489091759The chimpanzees are engaging in personal property, not private property.
>property rights are unnatural.This is the Bears home and they defend it with deadly force. This is nature.
>>489092030That is personal property, not private property.
>>489091503Rights are whatever a significant plurality of a population agrees to be willing to overthrow their government over.
>>489092025Read the article dum dum
>>489091503So, no land or homes should be sold?Okay. Just take whatever.
>>489092090A bear isn't a person.
>>489091678Not true at all.Im an expert marksman.
>>489092030So go be a brainless animal with the bears fag. We humans have a thing called morality which makes animals noncomparable to us.
>>489092264It's sad you had to point that out.
>>489091503Your grift will never work. Please waitpatiently for your destruction.
>>489092301>animals noncomparable to us.Animals are just different life forms. Read a book.
>>489091503it's just advanced territorialism
>>489092174The article doesn't invalidate my point, dum dum. Personal property is property that you use and defend on your own. Private property is property that you use that the state defends for you through legalism. Personal property is naturalistic, private property is not. >>489092264And?
A society with no hierarchy cannot exist.
>>489091503>what is land value>what’s the difference between land value and improvement valueSure. If you want to live in a bush or a cave. That house you live in (assuming of course you’re not homeless); who paid for it? I swear lazy cunts just want to make up reasons to steal everyone else’s shit. Jews have perfected this to such an extent that most will comply, and then apologise for not giving it to them sooner! The audacity!
>>489092025Please, define the difference for me.
>>489092288No, it makes it more true. Property that use and defend yourself is personal, not private property. Private property is when you have a legal deed (from society) saying that something is yours by way of legalism.
>>489091503Did you make the internet?No you didn't, so why the fuck do you think you have any right to post shit on it?
>>489092288Checked and kek’d
>>489091503Private property is a right that is enforced via the government's monopoly on violence, the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived. Whether it's natural or not is completely irrelevant, might makes right, you can't violate someone's right to private property without the use of violence.
>>489092749No, I think the>trespassers will be shot on siteSign would do that for me.
>>489091503>everyone should own nothing and just piddle around wherever they roam. >whoever squats on an area first keeps it until they leave, then another squatter moves in>no one can own shit cause it is stolen constantly and you have to travel light.Rancid idea you fucking superretard jew. Bros the fact that kikes can't stop lying is not even the worst thing about them. They're just fucking STUPID. Every lie they tell is groanworthy fucking bullshit.
>>489091503You come in my cave uninvited and you're gunna get bit. Simple as, Bootlicker.
>>489092798>the government's monopoly on violenceTHe greatest trick a government ever came up with is convincing people they hold a monopoly on violence. Particularly laughable nowadays when niggers kill each other in the streets with automatics without repercussion over 5 dollar debts and scuffed shoesThere IS no monopoly on violence
>>489091503No, they're biological you dumb fucking cunt. Even lobsters have properties you fat, big, jewish meganigger.
>>489092736Let's say I build a house on some land and there is no government to recognize it as my "private" property and it is only mine so long as I maintain and hold it - that is personal property. If I pay to legally buy land and build a house on some land with permission from the state and have a deed saying that it's mine and own it, that is private property. Private property requires a government in every case because it is inherently legalistic. Now, you can have a socialist state that allows you to build a house and for all intents and purposes, that is your house (personal property), but the state ultimately owns the property. It is your house and you functionally own it, but if you were to abandon it, it would no longer be yours, unlike if it was private property which you would still legally own, which is enforced by the state. Make sense?
>>489092749You are shaking the cage of the slaves. We fucking know that retard, are you just discovering these concepts in college or something? Everyone fucking knows.If you don't have a solution to the problem, shut the fuck up
>>489092749Oh, and the PRIVATE PROPERTY signs too.I dont need the govt to tell me whats mine.
>>489091503Good. You can by giving me your property.
>>489091805Ty for the white pill
>>489091503i made that>>489092030the bear’s name is private>>489092025that chimpanzee tribe is called privatesorry btfo kikes, you lose again. you’re lucky it’s not an oven this time
>>489093052Niggers are prison food. The cops absolutely have control, and nigger killing in their neighborhoods is just acceptable loss What you're identifying is the current limit of their influence. There are more of us than them. This is true. But the fact is there are more of them actually organized than there are of us, and they are *extremely* effective at disrupting our ability to organize.
>>489091503not if I have a gun and a fence
>>489091503God gave me my land and I won't betray him by letting some pinko commie fuck steal it. From my cold dead hands, nigger.
>>489091503black people tend to agree. from living around them for years, I have observed that they seem to believe that something only belongs to you if you are using it at that moment.
>>489092979>>489093215Again, that's more about personal property. In fact, that exemplifies it. Personal property is about self-reliance and immediate usage. Private property is about legalism. >I dont need the govt to tell me whats mine.In the case of private property, you literally do. Private property is upheld through legalism. Personal property is upheld through usage. >>489093017Again, this is an example of personal property. >>489093127You guys clearly don't seem to understand the difference. >>489093251>that chimpanzee tribe is called privateIt's not. They are engaging in collective personal property. The only property that they have is what they can hold. There is no government to legally grant them territory.
>>489093052It's easy to convince people because it's true in practical terms. In order to depose a government, you must bring to bear an equal or greater amount of force, which would require mass uprising which most people aren't willing to join. Incidentally this is why communism never works in western nations, people like owning shit, the closest they get is despotic socialism, which is just a smaller number of people owning everything.>But uhhh niggers kill each other on the streetsAnd the government lets them because they don't give a fuck unless their enforcers see it happening. You go try forming a compound in the middle of bumfuck nowhere though, the feds will roll a fucking tank in on you. Not saying it's a good or a bad thing, it's just the way this works. Get a javelin, show those feds who's boss.>verification not required
>>489093448>having so much trouble explaining the concept to people on /pol/And you think 90 iq normies aren't just gonna take your shit when you're gone?Bro the indians already tried this in America before we got here... they scalped eachother.
>>489093124Dumbest hippie nonsense I've ever read. Go play on the highway fat fucking faggot
>>489093275>The cops absolutely have controlYes, I'm aware normies are quite fixated by the myth of hypercompetence.What YOU'RE witnessing is the mental gymnastics of people desperately fighting to hold on to the things they still have to lose which is an inherently faulty position. Lots of people shackled to their comfy lives
>>489091503bro literal animals fight over territory. they literally mark land with their piss.
>>489093658It's not a debate. Niggers fill the prisons. Like 50% of them have charges. Go join em if you ain't afraid of the cops, dumbass.
>>489093554>And you think 90 iq normies aren't just gonna take your shit when you're gone?Gone where? Like dead or to the grocery store? >Bro the indians already tried this in America before we got here... they scalped eachother.I'm aware. You can have personal property and a government. >>489093584Defending your own property and not relying on the government is hippie shit? You are definitely fatter than I am.
>>489093448Fucking wardrobes are unnatural! You may only own the clothes you are wearing right now. If you take them off, they belong to the government!
>>489091805its healing...
>>489093781You the blackest, dumbest gorilla nigger I have ever seen.
>>489093781You clearly aren't aware, because their entire civilization was nomadic since they were constantly displaced. The few tribes that exist now finally have land they don't have to move from. Know why that is? They TEAMED UP with the American government to kill the more savage tribes.You want to have property at all? You need to kill people. I don't want to fucking do that, and neither did the people that lived like that.
>>489093863>You may only own the clothes you are wearing right now.Isn't that true? If I leave my shirt at a park bench, I don't own it anymore. >If you take them off, they belong to the government!No, they belong to your closet......
>>489091503>>489091678>>489092030All property rights(private, public, personal, whatever) are just violence. No system from anarcho-capitalism to communism is intrinsically more justified, some systems of just better at mobilizing violence than others.
>>489091503no, they aren't.they're the very basis of civilizationterritory is resources, resources is energy, energy is the basic unit over which all life forms contestto form an agreement against our own individual interests (that you can have a property uncontested) because the group sees the value in preventing those contests as much as possible is the cornerstone, the lynchpin, the foundation of individuals agreeing to get along
>>489093977>The few tribes that exist now finally have land they don't have to move from. Know why that is? They TEAMED UP with the American government to kill the more savage tribes......and what is your point? I never said there had to be no government. Personal property can exist with or without one. Private property can only exist with one. Let's say you live in a Commieblock apartment. That apartment is your personal property, but there is still a government. >You want to have property at all? You need to kill people. I don't want to fucking do that, and neither did the people that lived like that.Dude, calm down, lol.
>>489092023He may be a communist but not owning things doesn’t sound very jewish, does it.
>>489091503I’ll just take your shit and jizz on your face
>>489094292they don't mean everyone doesn't own things, so yes, it really does
>>489091503They’re natural for me. But I’m not a penniless hippy.
>>489091503An actual asian..
>>489093448I tell ya what champ.How about you come over for a visit, late at night. Don't worry about telling me. Make it a surprise. And while I say >this is private property Feel free to correct me out of the extra hole Ill give you. For free, no charge.
>>489094250>no, they aren't.They are. If you have a business and that business goes under, yet the building that housed it sits unoccupied and goes to waste just because someone has a piece of paper saying it can't be used by anyone else is unnatural. The natural thing would be for the building to be claimed by someone else (government or people) and turned into something productive again. >to form an agreement against our own individual interests (that you can have a property uncontested) because the group sees the value in preventing those contests as much as possible is the cornerstone, the lynchpin, the foundation of individuals agreeing to get alongThis works without private property, too.
Ownership is a very strange and arbitrary concept. It is intuitive for homes but not for roads
>>489094566You so fucking dumb this isn't even debatable. You're literally at the same level of intelligence as my 3 year old. Your parents, gorillas, must be ashamed.
>>489094469Why are you being so fucking stupid? Is nothing I'm saying to you registering in the area between your ears? Property doesn't need to be "private" for you to defend it. I hope you are drinking or something.
>>489094658Why not? Government claims ownership over public spaces, like roads, thus the government owns the roads. Roads are then permitted public use under a set of rules set forth by the owning polity, the government.
>>489093495>you must bring to bear an equal or greater amount of forceForce multiplication is surprisingly easy, particularly when YOU (in the hypothetical, of course) get to choose the ground of engagement. Like I said, everyone is mentally fighting a DEFENSIVE battle and that cannot win a war
>>489091503I made shit in it you noodle armed bitch. Repent for being weak.
You are not entitled to someone else's stuff.
>>489094801>You so fucking dumb this isn't even debatable.You're the person that can't understand simplistic concepts. >You're literally at the same level of intelligence as my 3 year old.I'm sure your kid is going to grow up and throw tantrums just like you and blame others for his shortcomings just like his pop.
>>489091503Your right not to be punched in the face is unnatural
>>489091503I don't have to make it, faggot. I just have to take it.
So /pol/ thinks the only kind of property that exists is private property.
>>489094884Sure, but that's straying from the point, which is that violence is the supreme authority, and whoever controls the greatest capacity for violence makes the rules, said rules may entail rights such as private property. No amount of semantics and pilpulling on OP's part is gonna change that, because talking isn't violence.
>>489094961I'm not gonna debate this retardation.
>>489091503if it is unnatural why are most animals territorial ?they didn't made that land so why defend it with their lives
>>489093124Make sense. Thanks for the clarification. Does this then apply to say indigenous ownership of land then, in the personal property status, only if there is no government or social construct to say that it is privately yours? Whereas, if a government or social construct determines the land to be owned by indigenous as private property, then the fact they’re not on the land, makes it confiscatable by the government because personal property terms do not apply? Interesting topic of conversation given what occurred here (nz) on Tuesday (nzt). For context, I’m Maori btw.
>>489091503States are unnatural including a communist state
>>489095139For your own sake, don't engage with thos gorilla nigger jew
>>489092090A communist, retarded distinctionYou know how many years communists have come here trying that argument? stop being a retard.
>>489091503It's a requirement to advance as a civilization.
>>489094292>not owning things doesn’t sound very jewish, does itIt's explicitly jewish, you dumb fuck. The entire point of communism is that jews think they can trick gentiles into giving up their property. However, jews themselves will never do this. That's the entire purpose of communism. >kikes demand an ethnostate while opening everyone else's bordersInterdasting...
>>489094875Government ownership is a direct contradiction of private property. If the government was good it would be seen as ours collectively
>>489091503BECAUSEITMAKES(YOU)SEETHE!
>>489091503Rights - including property rights - are a social construct, anon. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?
>>489095338I might have listened but your too neurotic and homosexual.
>>489094277>Let's say you live in a Commieblock apartment. That apartment is your personal property, but there is still a government.So the "government" would solve disputes over who is currently using the land. Presumably by issuing an deed enforced under threat of violence. No difference than today... except...Essentially you want to get rid of renters and landlords. Your government will be your landlord. I don't like that for a simple reason. You are limiting what I can build. Under the current system, money does that, and they keep money out of our hands by design. But in your world, you just decide I can't have 2 homes. I dont know what to say except : fuck you, nigger. Come try it.
>>489095361>it would be seen as ours collectivelyIt is on paper, citizenry has control over its government and thus its policy through elected representatives. If it doesn't work that way in practice, then that is still by the people's consent as a plurality because the government isn't being overthrown despite the existence of an enshrined constitutional mandate to do so.
>>489091503True, only God's chosen Monarchs can own land.
>>489091503Kill yourselves, commie kike faggots
>>489095426That's cool but have you considered applying for MAID?
>>489091503https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8510965/>Does Autism Affect Children’s Identification of Ownership and Defence of Ownership Rights?tl;dr ur on the silly spectrum sorry buddy
>>489095108You won't debate because you can't debate. Actually, there isn't even any debate because you never even made any point, just started name calling like a childish sperg. >Make sense. Thanks for the clarification.Thank you for listening. >Does this then apply to say indigenous ownership of land then, in the personal property status, only if there is no government or social construct to say that it is privately yours?>Whereas, if a government or social construct determines the land to be owned by indigenous as private property, then the fact they’re not on the land, makes it confiscatable by the government because personal property terms do not apply? So, if there were no government and the Maori claimed it collectively, that would be personal property. It'd be like a form of nationalization. If the Maori own the land as private property, then theoretically the government cannot confiscate it under any condition, unless they have eminent domain. So, let's say the Maori had a socialist government and they had a factory. The factory is recognized as their personal property because they are using and being productive with it, but their business fails and they abandon it, to which the government comes and takes the factory rather than let it sit unoccupied. That would be personal property. If they abandoned it, but have a piece of paper saying it's still theirs, then it will stay, unused by anyone, because no one else is legally allowed to use it, unless the government has a law saying they can take it. Does that make sense?
>>489095798>Does that make sense?No it doesn't you dumb faggot
>>489095078OP is a faggot to be sure
>>489095249It's not communist. It's literally how humanity existed until the advent of the legal system and mercantilism. >>489095361>Government ownership is a direct contradiction of private property.No, it's not. "Private property" can't exist without a government. >Essentially you want to get rid of renters and landlords. Your government will be your landlord.Which means you would pay less money. >I don't like that for a simple reason. You are limiting what I can build. Under the current system, money does that, and they keep money out of our hands by design. But in your world, you just decide I can't have 2 homes.The government already limits what you can build. There are zoning laws. There are property laws. You can't walk into a National Park and decide you want to build a McMansion next to the Grand Canyon. There's really not much difference, other than you would actually pay less taxes in the first system because you don't have support a bloated legal system and all the funding it requires.
>>489095169>>489095798
>>489095578>>489096129
>>489092599So then everything is private property because you would give up everything at the point of a gun. Leftshit academic pedantry. Your fuckin categories aren't "naturalistic".
>>489095751Your not helping your case. Also I don’t care, which your gonna pretend doesn’t phase you cute little twink attention whore.
>>489096448>So then everything is private property because you would give up everything at the point of a gun.No, anon, that's not private property. I have no idea why you people can't understand this basic shit. If you hold a gun to say that a house if yours, that is personal property. If the government forces you to pay taxes to a legal system to say that someone has a piece paper saying it's their house is private property. Personal property can exist with or without a government. Private property can only exist with a government, tax payers and a legal system. Both are inherently collectivist, but the first is objectively more natural and requires less taxes and bureaucracy.
>>489096749>If the government forces you to pay taxes to a legal system to say that someone has a piece paper saying it's their house is private property.Ignoring the fact that that is a totally incoherent sentence, your description means that the distinction between personal and private property is entirely a function of the disposition and capability for force of the owner. It's not in fact a property of an ownable item, it's a relational property between the owner and the item and the relative capacity for force of the owner relative to any hypothetical thief. Seems pretty incoherent and meaningless, i.e., leftishit academic pedantry that identifies meaningless nonexistent categories.
>>489094060>No, they belong to your closet......Psychosis.
>>489097040>Ignoring the fact that that is a totally incoherent sentenceIt's not. If you say you own something, that's personal property. If the government says you own something, that's private property.There's also cooperative ownership, SOE's and other more nuanced things, but I won't confuse with those. >your description means that the distinction between personal and private property is entirely a function of the disposition and capability for force of the owner.No, not entirely. The government can recognize your personal property in a non-private system and arrest someone trying to take it from you. Personal property =/= anarchy. You can still have property rights with personal property. >Seems pretty incoherent and meaningless, i.e., leftishit academic pedantry that identifies meaningless nonexistent categories.Because you're not making an effort to understand the difference. If I live in Vietnam and have a factory that produces shoes and it goes under, the government comes in and seizes that factory and gives it to someone who can make it productive. If I have a factory in the US that does the same thing, the property sits in disuse because I have a piece of paper saying I own it in perpetuity. This shit isn't hard, anon, just use your head.
>>489091503You're just ridiculous at this point. Even Marx didn't say that. He said people need to co-own the means of production. You're just fucking nut case.
Up.
>>489096129>The government already limits what you can build.Yeah and I don't fucking like it, retard. But I'm not racing to codify the abject denial of it. Fuck off. NOW I'M MADYOU ANGERED GOD.
>>489091503By this argument neither does a government
>>489091503this applies to all humans on earth.so that means u shouldnt have the right to defend yourself from anyone or any animal trying to eat you.>inb4 you dont understand how its related and need spoonfed
>>489091503then i'll take your computer and phone bitch
>>489095798Ok. The distinction there then is occupancy. And then of course, “might is right” and the ability to enforce or rather, protect what is yours. Where is this legal logic written? Does it have any basis in some sort of foundational law?
>>489100074>Ok. The distinction there then is occupancy. And then of course, “might is right” and the ability to enforce or rather, protect what is yours.Yes and no, it depends on the context. If we had anarchy that would be the case. In places with a government, it is not. >Where is this legal logic written? Does it have any basis in some sort of foundational law?It's basically the difference between what is defined as capitalism and socialism. Capitalism="private" property. Socialism="collective" property. Things can get more complex than that and are, but that is the bare bones of it. The quotation marks are there because neither are entirely individualistic or collectivist. Private property is inherently collectivist. If there were no government everything would be personal property, no exceptions, because private property by design requires legalism. Personal property exists with or without government. In the context of having a government, both private and personal property are owned by the government at the end of the day, but private property has more rights and grants more of the illusion of "ownership". Socialistic personal property is more collectivized, but is cheaper and requires less government because less taxes are required for a smaller legal system.
>>489101141*The quotation marks are there because neither are entirely individualistic or collectivist, but private property is inherently collectivist, just slightly less than socialism.
>>489101141Oh, but I will add that in the capitalistic system, "personal property" is different and describes things that can be physically moved, but I don't care much for this definition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_property
>>489101141This is great. Thanks for the conversation/perspective/information.
>>489091503I don’t need to make something to own it.
>>489091503>Private property rights are unnatural.Sue me, commie nigger.American Economic History.QED.
>>489103561No problem, thanks for the patience.
>>489091678>need a government to tell you your property is "private"No, faggot. Grug and his bros would just murder you with no gubment. Don't try to lolbertarian me.
Yeah. It's only Ego, or Pride that make you think you own things. You live on borrow times, in a vessel with expiration date.
>>489091503Kant makes the fundamentally false assertion that apart from the state there would be no complete right of property. Even in a state of nature there is property with complete natural, i.e., moral right, which cannot be injured without wrong, but may without wrong be defended to the uttermost. All true, i.e., moral, right of property is based simply and solely on work, as was pretty generally assumed before Kant, and is distinctly and beautifully expressed in the oldest of all codes of law: >Wise men who know the past explain that a cultured field is the property of him who cut down the wood and cleared and ploughed it, as an antelope belongs to the first hunter who mortally wounds it-Laws of Manu, ix. 44Kant's philosophy of law is an extraordinary concatenation of errors all leading to each other, and he bases the right of property upon first occupation. To me this is only explicable on the supposition that his powers were failing through old age. For how should the mere avowal of my will to exclude others from the use of a thing at once give me a right to it? Clearly such an avowal itself requires a foundation of right, instead of being one, as Kant assumes.
>>489091503>Private property rights are unnatural.Agreed.Nature is cruel as shit. (Essentially extreme poverty)
>>489091503>everyone agrees property rights exist, except communistsGentlemen, I have a solution.
>>489091503>Private property rights are unnatural.If I can take it and defend it, I can own it.
>>489104845>No, faggot. Grug and his bros would just murder you with no gubment. Well, no shit. I never said or implied they wouldn't. Just pointing out how "private" property is a self-contradiction. >Don't try to lolbertarian me.I'm anti-libertarian.
>>489091503You ever tried to steal a lion cub from its mother? They don't like it.
>>489091503No, giving companies private property rights is completely disgusting and anti-human.
>>489105239Stop using things made by companies then>no-no I rather KMS!!wew
>>489091503>rights are unnaturalO RLYabortion rights are unnaturalhealthcare rights are unnaturalhousing rights are unnaturalvoting rights are unnaturalwhat did i forget?
