#swingingjudgehorsething

[urupotter]

Hi! I made a tumblr just for this because I'm just a lurker in the Snapedom, but I was genuinely interested in discussing your philosophic takes with you. I'm going to preface this by saying I'm not a libertarian, so I have no weight in this (and I'm sorry you're getting insulted over your post).

This being, I agree that metaphysically property makes no sense, because it's not something that has an "essential" quality. But then, the whole concept of reality or of sense of self is also not that clear metaphysically. Can you prove that you exist? Or that I exist? That's why I don't think discussing the metaphysical concept of property is really important or fruitful, because it's too far removed from the reality (or at least the reality we think we experience). A sense of private property has always been seen everywhere both in humans and animals (yeah, I know, call to nature, but it makes sense in my argument). Try to take a toy or a collar from a dog and it'll want it back, because he thinks it is. Same when under the URSS, farmers who had to work in the collective farm prefered to take care of their own small private crops because it was theirs, rather than a vague concept of common property.

And I agree enforcing property means coercion, because it means deciding that this thing or land is mine and you can't have it. But it's a "natural" thing coming to every being around and they will all defend what's theirs. Like I'm pretty that if someone would burst into your flat and take everything, you would try to prevent them to. You would have the instinct to do it, because you consider them yours. Sure we can debate about the metaphysics of properties (and of a lot of other things), but in the end, you can't fully be against private property as a real thing. Or it would mean that everybody can come in and kill you if they want to. You raised the point that murder would decrease well-being and that's why it's illegal. But maybe killing you would be beneficial to the global level of well-being and then, it would be our duty to do it in an utilitarian point of view (I'm not threatening you or anything, I mean a figurative you, not you you).

The cogito is proof to me that something exists. As for wether my perception of reality actually corresponds to some objective reality and it’s not just part of the matrix, that I can’t prove, but I take it as an axiom, as I have nothing to lose if I’m wrong. Also, just because we don’t have proof of something doesn’t mean we shouldn’t believe it. Proof is an extremely high standard, and basically only applies in fields like mathematics.

I actually agree that there’s no point to discussing property metaphysically. That doesn’t mean that there’s no point to discussing property at all though. It still exists as a legal construct and in the real world.

My main point is that property before taxation has no real moral significance. Post taxation property doesn’t either. We should distribute property on consequentialist grounds And I’m not against private property. It’s an extremely useful concept.

While rights exist, natural rights really don’t. Rights are inherently normative claims. If you say X right exists and I say it doesn’t, all that matters is whether you have more pointy sticks or I do, or if somehow there existed a monopoly of the usage of pointy sticks to enforce either of our claims. As it stands, the state creates rights, and thats a good thing. We should compel it to create more.