How do you know you're a person open to reason?

[wufwugy]

Law codifies theft. Law defines theft. Law makes theft.

If law codifies something, it means the idea exists without codification.

The tomato seeds are doing much more work than you are.

Well I don't think that's an accurate way of putting it, but okay. An ingredient for the argument that it is reasonable to claim that there is some measure of natural ownership of something is that there are many things that would literally not exist except for the efforts and purpose of somebody. Given that our interpretation of ownership derives deeply from this, it is reasonable to claim that a natural ownership, so to speak, is existent.

The guy that punched you and took the tomatoes did nothing wrong. He was able to do it and he got tomatoes for it.

If I kill you in cold blood yet a jury finds me not guilty due to mishandling of evidence by police, did I do nothing wrong?

[wufwugy]

Why are you talking about morality?

Because you posited that morality is created by law.

[wufwugy]

Law creates theft because without law, one cannot take something "unlawfully".

I'm not talking about taking something unlawfully; I'm talking about taking something wrongfully. Do you agree with the logic that morality is created by law?

[Savy]

The guy that punched you and took the tomatoes did nothing wrong. He was able to do it and he got tomatoes for it.

To call it wrong is to try to control the behavior of others.

This is true.

Although clearly if you are growing tomatoes and someone keeps taking them you stop wasting your time growing tomatoes leading to neither party having tomatoes hence leaving both parties worse off.

Pretty simple really.

[OngBonga]

I'm not talking about taking something unlawfully; I'm talking about taking something wrongfully. Do you agree with the logic that morality is created by law?

No, law is created from morality.

The word "wrongfully" is not how "theft" is defined. It is "unlawful". "Wrongful" is subjective. "Unlawful" is not. That is the critical difference which seemingly eludes you.

[a500lbgorilla]

If law codifies something, it means the idea exists without codification.

A lot of ideas exist, more than you could ever imagine. Not all of them mean anything.

Theft didn't become a thing til law gave it the scaffolding. Where the inspiration for law came from, well, that's for the artists to play with.

[a500lbgorilla]

This is true.

Although clearly if you are growing tomatoes and someone keeps taking them you stop wasting your time growing tomatoes leading to neither party having tomatoes hence leaving both parties worse off.

Pretty simple really.

One of those parties worse off is you.

When have you chosen personal suffering to make a grander point and how has that worked out for you?

[OngBonga]

This is true.

Although clearly if you are growing tomatoes and someone keeps taking them you stop wasting your time growing tomatoes leading to neither party having tomatoes hence leaving both parties worse off.

Pretty simple really.

Yeah I'm not gonna stop growing tomatoes, I'm just going to be prepared for the next time he comes. If there's no law to protect my ownership of tomatoes, there's no law to protect him from being beaten with a rock.

[Savy]

One of those parties worse off is you.

When have you chosen personal suffering to make a grander point and how has that worked out for you?

It isn't personal suffering though you only grow the tomatoes if it is of a net benefit for you to do that, if that scenario doesn't exist you aren't worse off because the potential for what you wanted to do didn't exist in the first place.

It's also worth mentioning that rather than losing all your tomatoes you put more effort into making it less easy for your tomatoes to be taken. All sorts itself out into a nice equilibrium.

[a500lbgorilla]

Well I don't think that's an accurate way of putting it, but okay. An ingredient for the argument that it is reasonable to claim that there is some measure of natural ownership of something is that there are many things that would literally not exist except for the efforts and purpose of somebody. Given that our interpretation of ownership derives deeply from this, it is reasonable to claim that a natural ownership, so to speak, is existent.

Tomatoes wouldn't exist without your efforts?

Look at you computer. How many people alive and dead did it take to make it? Did the oilmen who pumped the hydrocarbons that become the plastic of the keys own your computer? Do the early theorists of computation own your processor/own your computer? Did that guy that killed himself at Dell/Apple/Lonovo that worked on the design of specifically your machine own it?

Be careful with what you consider ownership.

[wufwugy]

A lot of ideas exist, more than you could ever imagine. Not all of them mean anything.

Theft didn't become a thing til law gave it the scaffolding. Where the inspiration for law came from, well, that's for the artists to play with.

Was the idea behind theft created by the law?

[a500lbgorilla]

It isn't personal suffering though you only grow the tomatoes if it is of a net benefit for you to do that, if that scenario doesn't exist you aren't worse off because the potential for what you wanted to do didn't exist in the first place.

It's also worth mentioning that rather than losing all your tomatoes you put more effort into making it less easy for your tomatoes to be taken. All sorts itself out into a nice equilibrium.

Glad the world is and has always enjoyed a nice equilibrium.

[wufwugy]

No, law is created from morality.

The word "wrongfully" is not how "theft" is defined. It is "unlawful". "Wrongful" is subjective. "Unlawful" is not. That is the critical difference which seemingly eludes you.

The difference eludes nobody. Why do you say something is the way it is because the law says so?

[a500lbgorilla]

Was the idea behind theft created by the law?

Theft didn't exist until law made it so. Hints, whispers, shadows on the wall do not make a thing.

[a500lbgorilla]

Yeah I'm not gonna stop growing tomatoes, I'm just going to be prepared for the next time he comes. If there's no law to protect my ownership of tomatoes, there's no law to protect him from being beaten with a rock.

Me too. Hey, let's flip this script and just go fuck up these tomatoe thieves.

[Savy]

Glad the world is and has always enjoyed a nice equilibrium.

Not implied by what I said but ok.

[a500lbgorilla]

"all sorts itself into a nice equilibrium"

[a500lbgorilla]

If the conflict between tomatoe farmer and these hooligans sorts itself into a nice equilibrium, then I'd expect the world to have sorted itself into a nice equilibrium. Yet still, something upsets our plans, something churns, something misspells tomatoe, something pulls us from equilibrium to rather ratchet us up higher.

[OngBonga]

The difference eludes nobody. Why do you say something is the way it is because the law says so?

I'm saying theft is a legal creation. Theft didn't exist until the law defined and protected an individual's ownership rights.

Theft is taking someone else's stuff against their will, right? Define "someone else's stuff" in a world without law.

[Savy]

"all sorts itself into a nice equilibrium"

If we want to be tedious.

Glad the world is and has always enjoyed a nice equilibrium.

For a start sorting itself into directly implies that it doesn't start off that way so to say that it's ALWAYS enjoyed that state is incorrect. Not only does my post not imply this but it actually implies that what you said is false.

On top of that I gave no time frame as to how long the sorting takes.

edit - This was before you made this post

If the conflict between tomatoe farmer and these hooligans sorts itself into a nice equilibrium, then I'd expect the world to have sorted itself into a nice equilibrium. Yet still, something upsets our plans, something churns, something misspells tomatoe, something pulls us from equilibrium to rather ratchet us up higher.

See the bit about time frame. To assume that we know the variables before hand is false.

[wufwugy]

Tomatoes wouldn't exist without your efforts?

These ones wouldn't.

***

I'll take one example here, since the logic regarding one applies to them all

Look at you computer. How many people alive and dead did it take to make it? Did the oilmen who pumped the hydrocarbons that become the plastic of the keys own your computer? Do the early theorists of computation own your processor/own your computer? Did that guy that killed himself at Dell/Apple/Lonovo that worked on the design of specifically your machine own it?

Be careful with what you consider ownership.

Did the oilmen who pumped the hydrocarbons that become the plastic of the keys own your computer?

The oilmen produced the oil in the ways that they produced it. They did not produce the keyboard. The oil that was used for the keyboard was acquired, one way or another. If the oilmen gifted or sold the oil, they would have no ownership of what came after. If the oilmen were wrongfully taken from, they would have a case.

If your post represents the logical path you want to take, be prepared to claim that the first biological organism on Earth, billions of years ago, is responsible for you debating on the internet. Do you think this equivocation of causality at every step in the chain is sensible?

[wufwugy]

Theft didn't exist until law made it so. Hints, whispers, shadows on the wall do not make a thing.

I'm not asking about that.

I'm asking why morals and customs exist only when law codifies them.

[a500lbgorilla]

If we want to be tedious.



For a start sorting itself into directly implies that it doesn't start off that way so to say that it's ALWAYS enjoyed that state is incorrect. Not only does my post not imply this but it actually implies that what you said is false.

On top of that I gave no time frame as to how long the sorting takes.

edit - This was before you made this post



See the bit about time frame. To assume that we know the variables before hand is false.

How do you know an equilibrium then?

What makes you say it all settles into a nice balance?

[OngBonga]

I'm not asking about that.

I'm asking why morals and customs exist only when law codifies them.

Morals exist outside of law.

I don't need to be bound by law to hold the opinion that rape is "immoral".

[a500lbgorilla]

I'm not asking about that.

I'm asking why morals and customs exist only when law codifies them.

Customs, to me, exist based on the early successful decisions of society's executives. They commanded, people followed, it worked, and so customs were born.

Morals, to me, are a thing to be resisted. I don't understand them and I sense that they're methods for controlling my behavior. So on this front, I really can't say anything worth hearing.

[wufwugy]

I'm saying theft is a legal creation. Theft didn't exist until the law defined and protected an individual's ownership rights.

Theft is taking someone else's stuff against their will, right? Define "someone else's stuff" in a world without law.

Do you think theft is wrong?

[OngBonga]

Furthermore, there is a great deal with is perfectly legal which I find "immoral".

[wufwugy]

Morals exist outside of law.

I don't need to be bound by law to hold the opinion that rape is "immoral".

Why then must the morality of taking be bound by law?

[OngBonga]

Do you think theft is wrong?

Yes, I believe the unlawful taking of another person's property is immoral.

This is besides the point. If there is no law, then the concept of theft becomes redundant, because both "unlawful" and "another person's property" no longer means anything.

[OngBonga]

Why then must the morality of taking be bound by law?

To define and protect ownership rights in an effort to avoid violent confrontation.

[OngBonga]

wuf, imagine you are about to take a nice bite out of your tomato, when i take it off you.

As far as you are concerned, I have just thieved it from you, because as far as you were concerned, it was yours.

Now I have it. Now it's mine. You can only have it if you thieve it back off me, right?

But is it theft when you take it back?

[OngBonga]

It isn't theft if the law says that even though I hold the tomato in my hand, it remains your property. You can't be guilty of "theft" if you take back what is legally yours.

With no law, you taking the tomato back off me is every bit as much theft as me taking it off you in the first place.

Law makes one theft and not the other.

Law is what created theft, because it defined ownership.

[a500lbgorilla]

wuf, imagine you are about to take a nice bite out of your tomato, when i take it off you.

As far as you are concerned, I have just thieved it from you, because as far as you were concerned, it was yours.

Now I have it. Now it's mine. You can only have it if you thieve it back off me, right?

But is it theft when you take it back?

v nice

[a500lbgorilla]

If we want to be tedious.

Who coulda thunk that we'd have to parse through some thick ideas?

Wouldn't it be great if we just all agreed that everything settles into a nice equilibrium? Why even become multi-celled organisms when we can just be a nonproductive soup?

Nonproductive soup sounds like balance to me.

[JKDS]

Let me make myself clear. I did NOT posit that morality is created by law ITT. Morality comes from many places. However, the origin of morality is a non-issue in this question. We dont need to debate something so subjective, when the problem begins with two opposing moralities. Regardless of where it comes from, here we stand with two different ideas of right and wrong. Law can help settle disputes when such differences arise, but alas, we've taken that away in the problem.

Im giving the farmer the name Fred, and the taker the name Tom for simplicity.

In its simplest terms, Tom took something from Fred. Now, you cannot say Tom is wrong without invoking law. Sure, Fred thinks Tom is wrong. Sure, many people agree with Fred. But many people also believe women should still be stoned to death for minor infractions. Tom never agreed to Fred's belief. Tom may not even know what Fred's beliefs are, nor how they may differ from his own. Without law, Fred's belief is non-binding on Tom. Tom abides by his own beliefs, and his own beliefs say hes in the right.

I'll make my previous argument clearer too. You've said before that the social contract theory is bogus because no one ever really "agreed". Apply that standard here. Tom is absolutely free to take whatever he wants from Fred, even kill him if he so desires, because he's never agreed to any rules or standards saying otherwise. For the same reason you say Taxation is theft, I say Tom has done nothing wrong.

How can you say otherwise without appealing to some higher standard that is binding on all persons?

[a500lbgorilla]

The oilmen produced the oil in the ways that they produced it. They did not produce the keyboard. The oil that was used for the keyboard was acquired, one way or another. If the oilmen gifted or sold the oil, they would have no ownership of what came after. If the oilmen were wrongfully taken from, they would have a case.

If your post represents the logical path you want to take, be prepared to claim that the first biological organism on Earth, billions of years ago, is responsible for you debating on the internet. Do you think this equivocation of causality at every step in the chain is sensible?

I was trying to put those words in your mouth. Ownership becomes a funny thing when people 'touch' the product of your efforts. Does the tomato farmer have any claim to the capriese salad you're eating? Legally, no, but still, by your own words, those tomatoes were his.

edit: PS, I will go there.

PPS, everything you say about the oilman makes the case of the necessity of law.

[Savy]

Who coulda thunk that we'd have to parse through some thick ideas?

Wouldn't it be great if we just all agreed that everything settles into a nice equilibrium? Why even become multi-celled organisms when we can just be a nonproductive soup?

Nonproductive soup sounds like balance to me.

Someone growing tomatoes and someone taking tomatoes can quite easily be modelled into a two player non-cooperative game.

You came out with some crap based on what I said that wasn't true at all and your later response was to just ignore it and pick up elsewhere. If you want to question something go ahead if you just want to be a dick I'll probably just slowly stop replying.

[wufwugy]

Yes, I believe the unlawful taking of another person's property is immoral.

Do you believe it is immoral because it is unlawful?

[OngBonga]

Now, you cannot say Tom is wrong without invoking law.

I would argue with this minor point. I would instead say...

You cannot say Tom is acting unlawfully without invoking law.

Morality is independant of law. You can say something is immoral without the need for a legal framework.

Having a means of recourse though, well now we need to invoke law.

Wuf will argue that theft is the "wrongul" taking of another person's property. By "wrongful" he means "immoral". This is where his problem is. He's giving "theft" a subjective definition, when theft is not subjective.

Theft is the unlawful taking of property. It has little to do with morality, other than to say that law attempts to reflect common morality.

[a500lbgorilla]

Someone growing tomatoes and someone taking tomatoes can quite easily be modelled into a two player non-cooperative game.

It can be modeled. But the model doesn't mean a damn thing.

You came out with some crap based on what I said that wasn't true at all and your later response was to just ignore it and pick up elsewhere. If you want to question something go ahead if you just want to be a dick I'll probably just slowly stop replying.

What? I read your words and responded to them. Stop being a bitch.

[wufwugy]

I was trying to put those words in your mouth. Ownership becomes a funny thing when people 'touch' the product of your efforts. Does the tomato farmer have any claim to the capriese salad you're eating? Legally, no, but still, by your own words, those tomatoes were his.

It's only funny if a prerequisite is taken by force. If it's voluntary, it's not funny because it means the oilmen placed a value on their product and them receiving that value from the keyboard maker (usually by payment) represents their contribution. This means the person who uses the oil to create the keyboard has accounted for the ingredient of oil.

PPS, everything you say about the oilman makes the case of the necessity of law.

I haven't argue against effectiveness or even necessity of law.

[OngBonga]

Do you believe it is immoral because it is unlawful?

No, I believe it's immoral because I respect private ownership. I understand that an item belongs to someone, and I understand that to take that item off them is to act immorally. It has nothing to do with law, and everything to do with my character. I am civilised.

I don't think smoking weed is immoral.

[a500lbgorilla]

It's only funny if a prerequisite is taken by force. If it's voluntary, it's not funny because it means the oilmen placed a value on their product and them receiving that value from the keyboard maker (usually by payment) represents their contribution. This means the person who uses the oil to create the keyboard has accounted for the ingredient of oil.



I haven't argue against effectiveness or even necessity of law.

How do you place a value on something? What are the mechanics of doing that?

[wufwugy]

To define and protect ownership rights in an effort to avoid violent confrontation.

I'm not asking why the practice has utility. I'm asking why you claim on one hand that something can be immoral regardless of the law but then claim that something else can be immoral only within the confines of law.

[Savy]

It can be modeled. But the model doesn't mean a damn thing.



What? I read your words and responded to them. Stop being a bitch.

How does it not mean a thing?

And I'm not being a bitch I'm being bored.

[a500lbgorilla]

You can model anything. Put down some rules, iterate those rules, see what comes. Just because you can make a model and convince your friends that it means something doesn't make it mean a damn thing.

[wufwugy]

wuf, imagine you are about to take a nice bite out of your tomato, when i take it off you.

As far as you are concerned, I have just thieved it from you, because as far as you were concerned, it was yours.

Now I have it. Now it's mine. You can only have it if you thieve it back off me, right?

But is it theft when you take it back?

If you would like to make the argument that your taking of the tomato could give you moral right, you certainly can. But if you do, it's an implicit acknowledgment that morality regarding the issue exists regardless of the law.

[OngBonga]

I'm not asking why the practice has utility. I'm asking why you claim on one hand that something can be immoral regardless of the law but then claim that something else can be immoral only within the confines of law.

How can theft be immoral outside the confides of law when theft doesn't exist outside the confides of law?

We could have this very same argument about murder. If you kill someone who is going to kill you, is it murder? The law says no, because the law says muder is the unlawful killing of someone, and you are within your legal rights to protect yourself. Take away law, and muder no longer exists, because one can no longer kill someone unlawfully.

The law does not reflect morality for one critical reason... morality is subjective. What I find immoral, another person might not. There is no such subjectiveness in law. Something is either unlawful or it is not.

[wufwugy]

Law is what created theft, because it defined ownership.

Let's say the law says I own something. Then aliens invade and topple my government and make new laws. These new laws say that all previous laws were never valid. Does this mean I did not have ownership in the first place?

[a500lbgorilla]

Let's say the law says I own something. Then aliens invade and topple my government and make new laws. These new laws say that all previous laws were never valid. Does this mean I did not have ownership in the first place?

Great question.

You had ownership. Now you don't.

You wish to dispute it? Take it up with those almond eyed aliens with dis-integrator rays.

[OngBonga]

If you would like to make the argument that your taking of the tomato could give you moral right, you certainly can. But if you do, it's an implicit acknowledgment that morality regarding the issue exists regardless of the law.

I can acknowledge morality plays a role without acknowledging that theft took place.

I can even say that I know I am acting immoraly by taking your tomato, but I'm till not committing "theft". To commit theft I have to acknowledge law, not morality.

[OngBonga]

Let's say the law says I own something. Then aliens invade and topple my government and make new laws. These new laws say that all previous laws were never valid. Does this mean I did not have ownership in the first place?

It means that ownership is a concept. A legal concept.

[JKDS]

These new laws say that all previous laws were never valid.

Well, the previous laws clearly used to be valid. You cant rewrite history.

But no, you wouldnt own anything because the aliens own it now. Kinda like how our countries took land way back when.

[wufwugy]

Let me make myself clear. I did NOT posit that morality is created by law ITT. Morality comes from many places. However, the origin of morality is a non-issue in this question. We dont need to debate something so subjective, when the problem begins with two opposing moralities. Regardless of where it comes from, here we stand with two different ideas of right and wrong. Law can help settle disputes when such differences arise, but alas, we've taken that away in the problem.

Im giving the farmer the name Fred, and the taker the name Tom for simplicity.

In its simplest terms, Tom took something from Fred. Now, you cannot say Tom is wrong without invoking law. Sure, Fred thinks Tom is wrong. Sure, many people agree with Fred. But many people also believe women should still be stoned to death for minor infractions. Tom never agreed to Fred's belief. Tom may not even know what Fred's beliefs are, nor how they may differ from his own. Without law, Fred's belief is non-binding on Tom. Tom abides by his own beliefs, and his own beliefs say hes in the right.

I'll make my previous argument clearer too. You've said before that the social contract theory is bogus because no one ever really "agreed". Apply that standard here. Tom is absolutely free to take whatever he wants from Fred, even kill him if he so desires, because he's never agreed to any rules or standards saying otherwise. For the same reason you say Taxation is theft, I say Tom has done nothing wrong.

How can you say otherwise without appealing to some higher standard that is binding on all persons?

I don't disagree with any of this.

These are the final terms I wanted the debate to come to. Your presentation shows that without law, Fred has a particular stance and Tom has a particular stance. Most people would agree with Fred's stance.T his is probably why so many theft laws tend to reflect Fred's stance in the first place. Given that the majority of us would call what Tom did some definition equivalent to theft even without a law to codify it, I feel it appropriate to argue it is theft. It may not be theft according to the law, but it is theft according to the value held by those who agree with Fred.

[wufwugy]

No

Does this mean you believe theft exists without codification by law?

[wufwugy]

How do you place a value on something? What are the mechanics of doing that?

There are theories. Since value is ultimately subjective, one theory is that value can be placed by choice. World economies have performed masterfully when using this theory.

[OngBonga]

Given that the majority of us would call what Tom did some definition equivalent to theft...

But it's not theft where there's no legal framework. It's simply your idea of theft, which happens to be subjective when it shouldn't be.

[OngBonga]

Does this mean you believe theft exists without codification by law?

Of course not. Theft is a legal creation, it can't exist without law.

Taking stuff off other people exists outside of law, but the morality of it, and the ownership status, are both subjective outside of law.

[JKDS]

I don't disagree with any of this.

These are the final terms I wanted the debate to come to. Your presentation shows that without law, Fred has a particular stance and Tom has a particular stance. Most people would agree with Fred's stance.T his is probably why so many theft laws tend to reflect Fred's stance in the first place. Given that the majority of us would call what Tom did some definition equivalent to theft even without a law to codify it, I feel it appropriate to argue it is theft. It may not be theft according to the law, but it is theft according to the value held by those who agree with Fred.

Ah, I see. Alright then!

To the bolded: most of us would indeed say it is theft. But all of us have grown up with a law against theft; or a religious law against theft. Note that when we were kids, the 5yo bully saw no issues with taking another kids toy.

[wufwugy]

How can theft be immoral outside the confides of law when theft doesn't exist outside the confides of law?

You're holding two opposed positions. One is that you believe it can be immoral to engage in an act that resembles theft except in that it is not called so by the law. The other is that you're appealing to definition, i.e., saying that something described by the law is only that way because the law describes it as such.

The law does not reflect morality for one critical reason... morality is subjective. What I find immoral, another person might not. There is no such subjectiveness in law. Something is either unlawful or it is not.

Exactly. Which means that you believe the difference between something you believe to be wrongful taking and the same taking when codified as theft is not a moral one, but a legal one. This is where the idea that taxation is theft comes from, because if the only distinction is a legal one, it's a technicality.

So how about I'll rephrase my original statement: taxation and theft are different by technicality; by the logic commonly used to justify why theft is wrong, the technical difference between taxation and theft is that one the law calls theft and one the law calls taxation. By this I derive that it is reasonable to say that taxation is theft, just a legal theft.

[wufwugy]

It means that ownership is a concept. A legal concept.

And if instead of "ownership," it's "gender?" If the law says you're a girl, are you a girl? I assume you must be since you just said that codification by law turns a thing into that thing.

[OngBonga]

And if instead of "ownership," it's "gender?" If the law says you're a girl, are you a girl? I assume you must be since you just said that codification by law turns a thing into that thing.

I assume we're not getting into "gender identification" here and all that nonsense.

I'm male because I have a penis. It's really that simple. If the law wants to call me a girl, I can prove the law wrong.

Gender is not legal fiction, gender is biology.

Ownership is not biology unless we're talking about ownership of one's penis.

[wufwugy]

Well, the previous laws clearly used to be valid. You cant rewrite history.

So if there's no law, that means Fred indeed did own the tomato (if he so wished to claim it). And Tom did too (likewise if he claimed it). By this logic, doesn't it mean that ownership does exist without law? I mean, if aliens can't rewrite the laws that governed me and you, our government can't rewrite the laws that governed Fred (even if he's a nation of one).

[OngBonga]

You're holding two opposed positions. One is that you believe it can be immoral to engage in an act that resembles theft except in that it is not called so by the law. The other is that you're appealing to definition, i.e., saying that something described by the law is only that way because the law describes it as such.

The law defines ownership. I think this is more critical to me than the act of taking. It's not just that one is taking something off another person, there's the question of what it means to own something.

I'm appealing to definition because theft is well defined in law. You're taking the word theft and moulding it into something else, something subjective.

I might even agree with you that theft took place, but deep down I know that without law, it is not a fact that theft took place, just an opinion.

Taxation isn't legal theft because again you're mouling "theft" into whatever you want it to mean, which I assume taking something which you deem to be yours. That's not what theft is.

[wufwugy]

Gender is not legal fiction, gender is biology.

You're cherry picking what you want to be considered a known truth.

Regarding your last few posts, you're playing with the fire of appeal to definition. Your fallback is the claim that because something is defined as such, it is truly that thing; and when that thing is questioned, the questions are not valid because they do not conform to the definition.

[OngBonga]

So if there's no law, that means Fred indeed did own the tomato (if he so wished to claim it). And Tom did too (likewise if he claimed it). By this logic, doesn't it mean that ownership does exist without law? I mean, if aliens can't rewrite the laws that governed me and you, our government can't rewrite the laws that governed Fred (even if he's a nation of one).

Without law, you can say neither own the tomato, or both own the tomato, and neither make a blind bit of difference.

The concept of "ownsership" is redundant, because he who holds it owns it.

[OngBonga]

You're cherry picking what you want to be considered a known truth.

Regarding your last few posts, you're playing with the fire of appeal to definition. Your fallback is the claim that because something is defined as such, it is truly that thing; and when that thing is questioned, the questions are not valid because they do not conform to the definition.

You're wrong. You're pointing at definition like I'm being nitpicky about this. This isn't me being pedantic. This is me acknowledging that ownership only exists within a legal framework.

[wufwugy]

Taxation isn't legal theft because again you're mouling "theft" into whatever you want it to mean, which I assume taking something which you deem to be yours. That's not what theft is.

I'm not molding it to mean what I want. I'm letting it mean what it means right now except for the legal stance that it is so.

[OngBonga]

Without law, one is only the custodian of an object, one does not own it.

[wufwugy]

Without law, you can say neither own the tomato, or both own the tomato, and neither make a blind bit of difference.

The concept of "ownsership" is redundant, because he who holds it owns it.

Read the discussion with JKDS.

[OngBonga]

I'm not molding it to mean what I want. I'm letting it mean what it means right now except for the legal stance that it is so.

But the legal stance is critical. Without the legal stance, it means nothing.

[wufwugy]

This is me acknowledging that ownership only exists within a legal framework.

In the post right before this you said that ownership exists outside a legal framework.

[OngBonga]

In the post right before this you said that ownership exists outside a legal framework.

What, when I say he who holds it owns it? That's not ownership, that's possession.

Ownership is legal fiction. This idea that something "belongs" to you, it's nothing more than a concept that you have when you look at the tomato in your hand. This is mine because I hold it. But without law, that is literally the only reason you "own" it, because you hold it.

[wufwugy]

You called it ownership. Literally.

[OngBonga]

wuf's problem isn't that he has an issue with the difference between "unlawful" and "immoral", it's that he doesn't realise that the concept of ownership evaporates outside of law.

And yes I literally said "owns". Why don't you focus on my sloppy language and totally miss the point. "He who holds it possesses it" doesn't have a ring to it. I was trying to get the point across that the only ownership that exists outside of law is de facto ownership, ie you own what you have in your possession.