[anoncowherd]

There's no need for a law that says "don't take someone else's stuff" - it's common sense, and everyone intuitively understands that it's forbidden.

If you want an "academic" investigation into this idea, check out "natural rights": http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/four.asp

[jahaja]

That holds true for possessions, but not private-property. I think it's necessary to recognize the difference between private-property (e.g land, industry etc) and possesions (e.g one's house, car etc.).

I'm familiar with the concept of natural rights and it's claim to be some kind of objective rights, but I think it's fairly obvious that such a fought over topic is not even close to being objective.

[anoncowherd]

>> I think it's necessary to recognize the difference between private-property (e.g land, industry etc) and possesions (e.g one's house, car etc.).

There are several sensible ways to define "property". One is that it's a representation of value that you want exclusive control over. This value can be in the form of an apple in your hand, or a factory under your control, even if it's a building.

The bottom line is, people produce value in order to benefit from it, and the "right" to control that value is required - otherwise people wouldn't produce anything.

But there's no need for a government here. As I said, everyone knows you can't just take someone else's stuff.

>> I'm familiar with the concept of natural rights and it's claim to be some kind of objective rights, but I think it's fairly obvious that such a fought over topic is not even close to being objective

Here's something objective: Treat others as you'd like them to treat you. This includes not taking control of their property, no matter what form it's in. Rights are just an idea, and "natural rights" are a version of it that aligns perfectly with The Golden Rule, and people's intuitive "common sense morality". Typically, your conscience tells you when you're doing something you shouldn't do.

Oh, and as for "objective", do you think a group of sociopaths ruling over everyone else is objective?

[jahaja]

Why can't you come to terms with the obvious difference between those kinds of property? For some reasons it's basically impossible to get a straight answer from a property advocate on this.

It's not the same in any moral sense. That you seem to find it rational for one person to own vast amounts of land is what I would see as a pathological frame of mind. It's just aint just. I can't see how it's in any way morally more natural to uphold that persons property rights rather than abolishing such a concept and letting those who use the land own what they use.

"Treat others as you'd like them to treat you" for me is for example to not claim private-property rights of things that can be used to exploit others. You can't do that with your car, thus a possession. But in the case of land ownership you obviously can, thus property.