Comment

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

Sort:hotnew top

Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ 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
- Zexks@lemmy.world ⁨17⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  It absolutely does. Can I just own a home and go off around the world and lock it down preventing all others rom drawing value from it for years even decades of time.
  
  source
  - MnemonicBump@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨14⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    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.
    
    source