[quote author=“arildno”]Which basically proves my point.
Unless a person* can see that it is in his own rational self-interest to limit his behaviour in a particular manner, then it exists no reasons why he should limit himself thusly.
You mean that it doesn’t apply to a person that can’t see past the immediate future? Your original example makes me think thats you.
[quote author=“arildno”]However, this is to obscure the distinction between POSSESSIONS and PROPERTY.
It is possessions we need to live, the property concept is something quite other.
To see this clearly, I’ll get the same nutritional value out of an orange I steal as out of one I own.
This is valid for a person who can’t think rationally past seeing the orange and its value in satisfying his hunger. Its not valid for a person who realizes that the orange tree had to be planted in an orchard, tended to keep it from being eaten by insects, and picked, packaged, and shipped up to Oslo, Norway so he can enjoy it. How many orange trees do you have up there in Norway? If there are any, I bet they aren’t growing wild, but kept in greenhouses. In order for the orange to even exist, at least the sweet, juicy ones you are used to, some breeder had to do a lot of artificial selecting. If its seedless, someone had to do some genetic manipulation to get a tree with an odd number of chromosomes so that meiotic cell division doesn’t work and seeds don’t form.
If you steal an orange you are acting as if none of this was necessary. You want the product of another person’s labor without that other person.
This is a BI-lateral situation, i.e, a form of consensus. And remember, a “consensus” that is not open to future debate is no consensus, only a dictate.
OK, then private property is a dictate. Maybe. I’m not sure what you mean in this context.
It is important to realize that although we may show that SOME property division is, indeed, amenable to such an analysis, it by no means follows that ALL property divisions can thereby be defended. Nor does it follow there will exist only one such defensible system.
If you can show me another system that respects a person’s right to the product of his own labor, fine.
In particular, a DEFENSIBLE system should be defensible at any particular time for any particular person given any one status within that system.
It is defensible in any time and place where the human need for food, clothing and shelter has to be provided by human labor. Or do you mean it should be defensible even in some magical time long ago in a magical galaxy far, far away on a magical planet where our needs for food, clothing and shelter are magically provided for us with no need to do any work?