Comment

FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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.

source

Sort:hotnew top

desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
cars have paper attached to them, should people be forced to use cars to keep them?

source
- spankmonkey@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  So do houses!
  
  source
  - desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    summer home time?
    
    source
Zexks@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
So you can never leave your house because as soon as you do you stop extracting value from it yet are preventing others from úng ý themselves. So no one should be allowed homes or anything personal. As you can’t always be using something your entire life.

source
- Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  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.
  
  source
  - Zexks@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    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.
    
    source
    Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    
    There was no time component specified by which ownership is kept or lost
    
    Nor did I say there was.
    
    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.
    
    The time has nothing to do with this.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
tfm@europe.pub ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
That’s exactly what the comment you are replying to said.

source
Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
We’re on the same page then.

source
- lugal@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  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, …)
  
  source