property in that you have a piece of paper saying something is yours and you can prevent people from using that thing or extract value from it, while not using it yourself. That’s theft.
But possession, ie. having things that you use, a house you live in etc. that’s not theft unless other circumstances that lead to the possession are theft.
It’s all about terminology. I like the concept of usofruct where your right to own something is bound to either use it directly or collect its fruits (in a literal or figurative sense). So a landlord wouldn’t own a house but the people living there would. This has it’s roots in Roman law where ownership had three aspects: usus, fructus and abusus (misuse, destroy, …)
So you can never leave your house because as soon as you do you stop extracting value from it yet are preventing others from doing so themselves. So no one should be allowed homes or anything personal. As you can’t always be using something your entire life.
You’re making up a rule that isn’t a part of the definition of personal property.
Your home is still the place you live at even if you’re not currently in it. You address doesn’t change the moment you step out of your house does it? You use it by it being your place of residence, and that happens at all times.
I didn’t make anything up. There was no time component specified by which ownership is kept or lost. I would hazard a bet many of you strongly support squatters rights which are directly related to this yet not accounted for by the stated definitions. This is one of the prime cruxes of the private property argument is the ability for some to own property they don’t occupy all the time.
It absolutely does. Can I just own a home and go off around the world and lock it down preventing all others from drawing value from it for years even decades of time. If not how much time must pass before it’s too much time. You want to say a day is fine so someone can go to work. What about 2 or 3 days. What about a week, a couple of months. Can I own one under my own name and my wife under hers and my kids separately under each of their own. What about a trust or some other financial vehicle, what exactly constitutes ownership.
Thats a very propertarian view of a non-propertarian issue. You have what you use. What you don’t, you don’t. If you leave your house vacant for too long a period of time, then somebody might take up residence. But if people don’t just move into your home while you’re on vacation now, why would they in a hypothetical system where the concept of property is radically different and presumably everybody has a home? Unless you’re talking about second homes? Because that’s a non starter. Nobody needs more than one home.
The way i distinguish:
property in that you have a piece of paper saying something is yours and you can prevent people from using that thing or extract value from it, while not using it yourself. That’s theft.
But possession, ie. having things that you use, a house you live in etc. that’s not theft unless other circumstances that lead to the possession are theft.
We’re on the same page then.
It’s all about terminology. I like the concept of usofruct where your right to own something is bound to either use it directly or collect its fruits (in a literal or figurative sense). So a landlord wouldn’t own a house but the people living there would. This has it’s roots in Roman law where ownership had three aspects: usus, fructus and abusus (misuse, destroy, …)
cars have paper attached to them, should people be forced to use cars to keep them?
So do houses!
summer home time?
So you can never leave your house because as soon as you do you stop extracting value from it yet are preventing others from doing so themselves. So no one should be allowed homes or anything personal. As you can’t always be using something your entire life.
You’re making up a rule that isn’t a part of the definition of personal property.
Your home is still the place you live at even if you’re not currently in it. You address doesn’t change the moment you step out of your house does it? You use it by it being your place of residence, and that happens at all times.
I didn’t make anything up. There was no time component specified by which ownership is kept or lost. I would hazard a bet many of you strongly support squatters rights which are directly related to this yet not accounted for by the stated definitions. This is one of the prime cruxes of the private property argument is the ability for some to own property they don’t occupy all the time.
Nor did I say there was.
The time has nothing to do with this.
It absolutely does. Can I just own a home and go off around the world and lock it down preventing all others from drawing value from it for years even decades of time. If not how much time must pass before it’s too much time. You want to say a day is fine so someone can go to work. What about 2 or 3 days. What about a week, a couple of months. Can I own one under my own name and my wife under hers and my kids separately under each of their own. What about a trust or some other financial vehicle, what exactly constitutes ownership.
Thats a very propertarian view of a non-propertarian issue. You have what you use. What you don’t, you don’t. If you leave your house vacant for too long a period of time, then somebody might take up residence. But if people don’t just move into your home while you’re on vacation now, why would they in a hypothetical system where the concept of property is radically different and presumably everybody has a home? Unless you’re talking about second homes? Because that’s a non starter. Nobody needs more than one home.
That’s exactly what the comment you are replying to said.