". It is simply a fact derived from the situation"
that's not what logic is m8.
It comes from your control over the rock
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
". It is simply a fact derived from the situation"
that's not what logic is m8.
It comes from your control over the rock
my control was not brokered though interaction with others.
stopping others requires force
Only if others do not agree that I should possess the rock.
But since the rock was possessed before interaction, I have the natural right to continue to possess it, even if others think I should not. Force is only required if force is used to pry it from my possession.
agreement allowing you to possess the rock is required for you to possess it as well
or does it count as interaction only one way?
and that is still personal property, not private property
And the point still stands. I do not require force to hold my land unless force is used to remove me from that land.
private property is something one person owns but another produces with. If you hold the land you use yourself to survive nobody cares. The problem is that you need force to hold onto land others use, you can not exercise control without the threat of removal through that.
I tricked you into making statements against private property lmao
You're wrong in both statements.
"The problem is that you need force to hold onto land others use,"
On the contrary, that is your problem. I have the land. You would make the claim that I shouldn't have it. I disagree. I have no need for violence unless it is in reaction to violence perpetrated by you. If you remain non-violent, perhaps I will give you an apple from my tree as a sign of good will. Then again, I may trade with you in exchange for goods or services.
Never made any statement against private property. I'm good with it.