[jampekka]

I have thought on the matter for millions of seconds.

Politics and economics don't have anything to do with morality. It's about power. The moral fairytailes are there to justify whatever the state of affairs are. When these change, new fairytales justifying them will be adopted.

If right to property is a God given right, why the hell I as a atheist should give a damn?

[kriops]

Examine your definitions of politics and morality. Morality encompasses all actions made by actors with (presumed) free will.

"God given" means "natural". [Natural rights does not require a god](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_right...)

And if your argument ("... god given ... atheist ... etc.) can be copy-pasted into a valid defence of arbitrary evil (I like to use Hitler for a concrete example, but avoid it in public because some subset of people erroneously thinks that is an automatic fallacy), then it is trivial in the sense that it doesn't add anything to the discussion, regardless of your opinion or pov.

[jampekka]

"Natural" rights are clearly a social construction, and indeed largely the same thing that was theologically justified with God.

They were literally just invented few hundred years ago. And have even changed since then (owning another human being was somehow a natural/god given right). Humans have organized (and keep on organizing) without any such conception for at least tens of thousands of years, but suddenly its natural?

Who is the absolute arbiter of "evil"? USA of course holds itself as a force for good, and e.g. islamism as evil. Islamists do the opposite. Very rarely anybody thinks themselves as evil, but readily point out evil in others.

This is in no way to support islamism, or USA. Just that morality is just mostly an arbtrary justification for whatever somebody wants to or doesn't want to get done.

We can discuss the merits and shortcomings of e.g. ownership based on its societal consequences just fine without conjuring metaphysics.

[spacebanana7]

> If right to property is a God given right, why the hell I as a atheist should give a damn?

You can argue it from political necessity.

Some kind of property rights are necessary for the operation of any social group. Even in a communist society you can't have the air force stealing land from the navy, or the transport department taking electricity from hospitals, or neighbours taking each others food allocations.

There needs to be some kind of organised transfer of property or you get chaos.

[jampekka]

You can argue divine right of kings or white supremacy from political necessity.

Some kind of systems to allocate scarce resources is needed. This doesn't have to be property. Access to e.g. the moon and earth's orbits and international waters and polar regions have systems of allocation, but they are not property.

[spacebanana7]

> You can argue divine right of kings or white supremacy from political necessity.

Those arguments can be incorrect without entailing all arguments from political necessity are false.

I can incorrectly argue a justification of the flat earth theory from physics - but that would discredit my own intellect rather than the subject of physics.

> Some kind of systems to allocate scarce resources is needed. This doesn't have to be property.

I agree not everything has to be property, but some things must. Essentially anything that's both important and "stealable" needs to be protected by property rights of some kind.

Regardless of how your food and water come into your possession (trade, charity, gov allocation), it's necessary that some of it remains in your possession for you to consume.

[jampekka]

> Those arguments can be incorrect without entailing all arguments from political necessity are false.

> I can incorrectly argue a justification of the flat earth theory from physics - but that would discredit my own intellect rather than the subject of physics.

Do you mean the right to (certain very specific form of) property is somehow an empirically shown fact like the geometry of the earth?

Am I right in guessing that you have inclination towards praxeology?

> I agree not everything has to be property, but some things must.

Why do some things must? Because it leads to more desirable consequences than other options, or because it is some metaphysical truth you're somehow privy to?

The first kind of argument is fine, the latter is just blunt rhetorics. I don't see why the former should be spoiled with the latter.

[spacebanana7]

> Do you mean the right to (certain very specific form of) property is somehow an empirically shown fact like the geometry of the earth?

> Am I right in guessing that you have inclination towards praxeology?

Yes for both. I’ve not formalised it but I suspect we can a draw a line from philosophy -> game theory -> evolutionary dynamics -> socially stable systems of “rights”

[jampekka]

I'm all for socially stable systems of "rights". And deriving theories from assumptions is all good. Where I depart from praxeology is that I think the assumptions must be changed when they lead to empirically invalid conclusions.

Also, I don't believe ownership rights like we have currently lead to stable societies. This is kind of core of Marx's critique of capitalism.

[andsoitis]

> Some kind of systems to allocate scarce resources is needed. This doesn't have to be property.

I should not be coerced to give output of my labor (whether physical or mental) to others based on some burocrat’s allocation system or my neighbor’s wishes. That would be immoral.

[jampekka]

Per your morality perhaps. But morality is just an opinion, and one that can't be justified otherwise.

I should not be coerced not to enter a piece of land just because somebody made a contract with somebody who killed or evicted by force the people (and other animals) who previously inhabited the land. That would be immoral, right?