| > But you're trying to reach some kind of value judgement from this point - as if "artifical construction" means it's bad in some way. I'm not saying property is bad nor am I making a value judgement about it. I'm saying is that it's a concept created by the state. > So, pay off the potential looters and thieves to sooth them? You do understand that this is basically "might makes right" moral imperative and nothing more? You're begging the question. There's no such thing as "looters" prior to the concept of property. > First of all, the artificially constructed right of private property is given to all, equally. Sure, just as basic necessities like education, food and housing should be. > And second of all, while both of these rights are artificially constructed, one is moral, while the other is not. Again, not at all clear how you're making a moral judgement about this issue prior to the creation of the concept of property. Yes, stealing is wrong, but in order to steal something it has to belong to someone first. If we're trying to figure out what should belong to who, it's silly to come into the discussion by simply insisting that stealing is wrong. I could just as easily say that the wealth of a society belongs to everyone prior to it's distribution. Why then should rich people be entitled to steal it from poor people? Stealing is wrong, remember. |