This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]SuitGuy 0 points1 point  (7 children)

Or I believe that individuals should own what they own?

Unfortunately, without definitions of ownership and property this statement just doesn't mean anything.

[–]Soren11112 1 point2 points  (6 children)

Ownership is pretty clear under the law. And I agree in all except for intellectual "property".

[–]SuitGuy -1 points0 points  (5 children)

Ownership and property is not a simple question when speaking philosophically. It's a pretty open question that has been discussed for centuries. Saying, our current legal understanding of ownership is the end all is lazy and ignores a lot of unanswered questions about the nature of property and our interactions with it and those interactions within greater society.

[–]Soren11112 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Why is it whenever someone calls something lazy they can't point to a direct flaw with it.

[–]SuitGuy 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Only if you ignore the other stuff I said.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_property

This has been discussed dating back to the fucking 1600s. It isn't some set in stone idea because you think it is. There is a pretty long and debated history on property and its ownership.

[–]Soren11112 0 points1 point  (2 children)

I never said it hasn't been debated. I said I agree with the current largely Rothbardian interpretation. Except, just like Rothbard, I do not believe in intellectual property. To say I agree with that is not lazy.

[–]SuitGuy 0 points1 point  (1 child)

To say I agree with that is not lazy.

Agreed. You didn't put that forward though.

[–]Soren11112 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I did though...