Somali Freedom Fighters

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
Someone can't come into my house, start asking for receipts for all my stuff, and take whatever I can't prove that I bought for themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if you stole it from them?

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The point of all these arguments and interaction between anarchists and statists is to get more people to become anarchists.

If enough people can become anarchists, then the chances of ending statism are very good. But, there are no guarantees.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, what I am saying is that even after you get "enough" people to become anarchists, and the states are all disbanded, what we end up with is not necessarily an anarcho-capitalist world if no one can make a legitimate claim to the property they've currently got. Is it possibly that ACism in unnattainable - not because the statists object, but because no legitimate starting point is possible? pvn has stated that we may just have to "bite the bullet and move on" but that begs the question: What will we be moving on to? Can it possibly be an anarchocapitalist world if no one can make a bullet proof claim to any property that they obtained that may have been illegitimately obtained in the past?

Of course, anarchy is always obtainable. But what my "feel" like anarchocapitalism to some because they can defend their claims to their property may not be so legitimate to others.

[/ QUOTE ]

If these others think they have a legitimate claim of having been disinherited from some property, then they can make that claim. Other that that, you don't have to prove to anyone that you bullet-proof-legitimately own all your property in order to keep it. Someone who wants to take it from you is the one that has to prove that THEY legitimately own it.

Someone can't come into my house, start asking for receipts for all my stuff, and take whatever I can't prove that I bought for themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

An extension on this trail of thought is:

Think about TODAY.

Think about property ownership today.

Think about how little things of you are actually stored centrally or decentrally to be yours. It's basically your land, your house and your car. The rest is all up in the air. The reason we don't label and keep track of everything is because it's not needed. And it's not economically profitable. Although you could make an argument that in a free society there would be much more work for precentive solutions (chip-labeling your computer, etc, etc).

But the idea here is: property claims right NOW are extremely loosely defined. For the largest part of society, arbitration isn't even usable. It's just too damn expensive and risky.

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Someone can't come into my house, start asking for receipts for all my stuff, and take whatever I can't prove that I bought for themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if you stole it from them?

[/ QUOTE ]

If they can establish probable cause that I stole it from them, then they have reason to enter my property, and if they can prove that I stole it from them (not just that I can't prove where I got it) THEN they can take it back.

I don't have to prove where I got it (in the default. Proving where I got it would be a great way to invalidate their claim that I stole it from them). They have to prove that it belongs to them.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even if you stole it from them?

[/ QUOTE ]

If they can establish probable cause that I stole it from them, then they have reason to enter my property, and if they can prove that I stole it from them (not just that I can't prove where I got it) THEN they can take it back.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if I kill you, take all your belongings, and destroy all evidence that they ever belonged to you, they "rightfully" become mine? You won't be there to make a claim, and anyone that wants to make a claim on your behalf won't have any evidence.

This doesn't seem like a very moral property rights basis for society.

[Dane S]

There is no way to resolve that situation under any system of property rights. You are describing the perfect crime.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no way to resolve that situation under any system of property rights. You are describing the perfect crime.

[/ QUOTE ]

So are you agreeing that it remains a "crime", and the act of theft is not washed clean in the absence of any means of retaliation?

[Dane S]

If a tree falls in an empty forest, does it make a sound? No, the theft isn't "washed clean" if it actually happened, but if there's absolutely no evidence that there was a theft, on what basis can you even say it happened? You are talking metaphysics.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
If a tree falls in an empty forest, does it make a sound? No, the theft isn't "washed clean" if it actually happened, but if there's absolutely no evidence that there was a theft, on what basis can you even say it happened? You are talking metaphysics.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am slightly talking metaphysics, but the ACists definitely like to claim the moral high ground as it pertains to property, without actually pointing out that all kinds of their property was obtained through non-voluntary transactions in the past. If we're willing to say "those old involuntary transactions don't count" then it opens the door for future involuntary transactions to also be "okay". To me, this seems to invalidate the "morality" argument. Morality shouldn't be conditional on a proof of purchase receipt.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If a tree falls in an empty forest, does it make a sound? No, the theft isn't "washed clean" if it actually happened, but if there's absolutely no evidence that there was a theft, on what basis can you even say it happened? You are talking metaphysics.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am slightly talking metaphysics, but the ACists definitely like to claim the moral high ground as it pertains to property, without actually pointing out that all kinds of their property was obtained through non-voluntary transactions in the past. If we're willing to say "those old involuntary transactions don't count" then it opens the door for future involuntary transactions to also be "okay". To me, this seems to invalidate the "morality" argument. Morality shouldn't be conditional on a proof of purchase receipt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it possible that the property I'm sitting on was once owned by someone who was wronged? Yes. Does that invalidate *all* property claims on that property in eternity? No. It can't, because unless you can present a specific person who was wronged, we can't even prove that there *is* a defect in a chain of title to begin with. Further, we cannot assume that every piece of property will have a single, continuous chain of title. Parcels are combined, subdivided, recombined. Is it *possible* that someone can make a claim to this property? Sure. If he can, let him make it. I'm prepared to deal with such instances (I have title insurance!). In the meantime, if nobody can make a stronger claim than I can, STFU.

Did someone get away with a crime long ago? Probably. Oh well, I'm not going to stop everything I'm doing to investigate crimes that occured hundreds or thousands of years ago. Sorry. If you want to, feel free.

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even if you stole it from them?

[/ QUOTE ]

If they can establish probable cause that I stole it from them, then they have reason to enter my property, and if they can prove that I stole it from them (not just that I can't prove where I got it) THEN they can take it back.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if I kill you, take all your belongings, and destroy all evidence that they ever belonged to you, they "rightfully" become mine? You won't be there to make a claim, and anyone that wants to make a claim on your behalf won't have any evidence.

This doesn't seem like a very moral property rights basis for society.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, if you kill me and steal my property that doesn't make it rightfully yours. But if there's no evidence of it (perfect crime) then there's no way to restore the property to any rightful owner (under any system). And, without evidence that a crime has even been committed, there's no basis to assume the rightful owner is anyone but whoever currently has possession.