| > In general, I'm getting the impression from your comment that you have some overly idealistic beliefs, and that you're perhaps unwilling to engage honestly with ideas that are counter to your own, but in any case.. I like precise logical argumentation, that's not idealism, I don't make any unnecessary assumptions > I'm also not quite sure why you would find it hard to agree with the notion that, throughout history, humans have been protective of their territory. The list of examples you could point to for this is unending. Oh, that's very simple, for most of human history humans lived as hunter gatherers and they did not have private property or rent relations. >To start, the other guy never claimed private property was a natural right. The rights we have emerged from people wanting to self organize for their mutual benefit. No, there was an enclosure of commons that happened to exploit farmers as factory workers. Those rights were always about naturalizing oppressive human relations. >It should tell you something that private property + property rights have consistently emerged, whenever people have tried to put together a society. This is not true, many civilizations were against private property rights and private property rights were never universal, they are even not universal in this worlds, even if they exist in most places around the world. >I admittedly didn't know much about this, but on some cursory research, it seems pretty obvious to me that this was not an entirely "free choice" based movement.. No one is coerced to join those rebels. And rebels are rebelling against unjust genocide of Indigenous Americans among others. |
Only in places of complete abundance did people not make claims.