how do you cope with the fact that no one can really justifiably own anything since everything was stolen/forced/tricked into at once point
>>85833745Yes that is true the log cabin my grandpa bought and built with his own two hands and brother was actually stolen/forced/tricked. yes all of the houses my father built with his own two hands were actually stolen/forced/tricked. yes everything that i have built and maintained was actually just stolen/forced/tricked. in fact, nobody ever made anything, everything just dropped from the fucking sky one day and european/east asian people claimed it was all theirs and actually they built everything and now everybody has to work for them. this is truth. never think anything different.
i mean i'm native to the land i'm living on, if that's what you mean. otherwise, it doesn't really matter. ownership is not a moral thing, it's just a description of reality. it's not very relevant to try to justify anything about it. at least that's how it seems to me.
>>85833762>boughtfrom who? follow the property chain of transfer>built with his own two handson some land, how did it become his, was it unowned? was it under a country/control of someone? how did they make it theirs before transferring the right to him?>yes everything that i have built and maintained was actually just stolen/forced/trickeda cartel can hire a janitor who works hard to get money but the money he receives working can't be justly owned by him>everything just dropped from the fucking sky one dayI'm talking about inability to separate property claim from what is unjust. the janitor is a hard worker who worked on promise of getting money but that promise was created by cartel at the first place
>>85833745It being stolen or forcibly taken does not mean I don't own it. If I shoot you and take your car and also shoot anyone who tries to take the car away from me afterward, then I am objectively the owner of the car.
>>85833745How do the original owners of objects justify their ownership?
>>85833794how exactly did you come to be native of some land? idk what you mean by not needing to justify, I think you'd object if someone ran off with 'your' phone or started building shit on 'your' property>>85833820presumably by making use of unowned things without inconveniencing others unreasonably to make something, but it's philosophically wishy washy>>85833805very few use ownership that way, people would say you have the car, not that you own it. you are just agreeing with me that property can't really make sense but prefer to define word instead
>>85833868>how nativepeople moved here and settled it when there wasn't really anyone around. yeah i don't want you to take my phone but that's because i want to keep my phone, not because i have some morally justified claim to the phone that i want to enforce. if you were to talk about right or wrong there it'd simply be practical considerations to make our society function, which is what's done in law.
>>85833906practical considerations that are arbitrary, so I think we think we agree property doesn't really separably be assigned>people moved here and settled it when there wasn't really anyone aroundthat'd make them rightful, I don't think that'd reach you if we are still talking about justification here
>>85833745No one can justify anything other than through convention anyway. At some point you just have to accept some things as true (axioms) and those are either conventions or just personally held beliefs which may or may not align with the majority. i.e. truth is le relative o algo
>>85833803bought from a corporation started in Europe that followed every moral rule presented to them. no slavery, no conquering, just capitalism.he bought the land with money he earned from working>cartelnot reading, thats meaningless dribble>property claim from what is unjustexplain in detail what property claims you think are unjust and i will verbally eviscerate you like the dirty lazy retarded communist cocksucking faggot you are.
>>85833981>so I think we think we agree property doesn't really separably be assignedI think communists don't have a right to "their" blood so I'm gonna just kill them how's that sound?
>>85834033communists claim labor based property and collective property, which are both unjustifiable by the same reasons
>>85833745>how do you cope with the fact that no one can really justifiably own anythingPretty easily. The law asserts that I actually do own my financial holdings, and the law provides good protection for my financial holdings -- so I have a strong confidence that I will always have control over my money and investments. So really, no cope is required.A bigger issue would be if stuff in my house got stolen -- but that wouldn't really be a big deal, because the value of my financial holdings is far larger than the value of the stuff in my house. I would just replace the stolen items and have a more secure alarm system installed.
>>85833745Were niggers based all along? Oh wait, no, that's not how it works you retard. When living in a corrupt world and corrupt system, conducting yourself with honest intentions does not make you complicit in that system... unless you become aware of the corruption, at which point you either have to compromise on your idealism while preserving your integrity and morals elsewhere or kill yourself (either metaphorically and remove yourself from society, or literally).
>>85834004>>85834301Pragmatic. History's most effective reformers, abolitionists, and organizers lived squarely inside deeply compromised, exploitative systems. They didn't retreat into a cave or die to preserve moral purity, they used their position inside the machinery to dismantle parts of it. Acknowledging and compromising with the broken system that we all inherit gives you the opportunity to impose your own morality and ethic within your sphere of influence. Don't buy into the binary bullshit that's black and white. Often times you must use the system's own corruption and tools against it to make meaningful change.
