One small dose of bullshit can make a stain that takes ages to clean up
##(Defining stuff can sometimes be useful).##
A problem that sometimes occurs when trying to discover,describe and share objective reality via argumentation or debate with a statist, is, when one party spouts some short, irrational or illogical bullshit claim, or statement, on some topic of conversation....(economics is a good example of a subject where this occurs... over and over again), it can often take paragraphs and paragraphs of text to present reasoned argumentation to refute the nonsense being claimed.
Oh.... the claim or statement may just be the regurgitation of some mainstream media garbage that has been repeatedly spewed across the airwaves, or it may be a deliberate tactic employed by one debater in the attempt to bog down or muddy the waters in an attempt to obscure the reasoning of the opposing debater.
Here's a random example........(Let's see how long this takes....)
###Most people will be familiar with the old commie rant... “.....Property is theft...”###
While it doesn't take a genius to show (by empirical evidence) how this claim cannot honestly be held (believed) by the person making the claim, it's quite unlikely that mere evidence is sufficient to persuade the guy making this claim to abandon his belief in the validity of the phrase.
###(The same type of “thinking” that got him to accept this position – that property is theft – is unlikely to help in getting him to abandon his position.
i.e. He had the empirical evidence available to him to refute the claim the first time he heard it, so it's unlikely that, presenting that same empirical evidence to him this time around is going to make much difference (in his belief)).
###So, maybe it could be fun to look at the language and (generally accepted) definitions of the words contained in the statement.
(After all, it's reasonable for both parties to assume that the words they use to communicate ideas have the same meaning for both parties..... right?...........Well.......... maybe.....it depends......sort of...)
“Property is theft” is a sort of self-detonating statement.
####I'll try to explain.....####
The subject of the phrase is “property” A generally acceptable definition of the word “property” would be, e.g. Usually..........
###Property - a material/physical thing “owned” by someone.###
####(The idea of property, implies ownership).####
####For completeness, lets define “ownership”
###(Ownership) – Having exclusive control of that “material thing.”###
###The word “Is” can be defined as "the state of being, in the present tense."###
That should be simple enough for most people to understand and accept, unless they have a leaning more towards the clintonian school of slimey-pretzel-sematics, within which, that particular “is” seems to be undefinable in the normal sense, in that apparently its meaning can do a fair bit of shape-shifting, depending on the particular shit-hole out of which you're attempting to climb. (That particular is, is not is, but is....... obviously)
A couple of definitions of "Theft"
####1st - A generally accepted definition of theft is the “taking away of some property, without expressed permission from the owner.”####
####2nd - However it could be argued that a better or more complete definition would be ............“the deliberate deprivation of the owner of the exclusive use of his property.”
####Here's why I'd argue that the 2nd definition may be a better one......
A simple example
could be – You ask a garage mechanic to change the oil in your car and adjust the brakes. When you return to collect your car, you receive a huge bill because the brake discs have been replaced and you have a new carburettor fitted. Obviously you don't want to pay for this as you hadn't previously agreed to this particular work being done, As a result of the disagreement, the garage owner refuses to give you your car keys until you cough up.....
The garage owner is obviously trying to screw you ….. of course.
We can all understand that.
####Now, since he hasn't removed your car from your possession – remember you drove your car to his garage and gave him your car, - then he hasn't actually taken your car away from you without your permission.
####So the 1st definition doesn't really describe the mechanic's actions adequately.
However:
an argument can be made that that since he isn't allowing you to remove your car from his garage forecourt, thereby preventing you from exercising your right to use your property
###by the 2nd definition of theft,he is guilty of the theft of your car (property).
###Ok. So now we understand, and can hopefully agree on the meanings of the 3 words in the phrase “property is theft”
####So how is the phrase self-contradictory?
####Well....... Property as previously mentioned is a thing owned by someone.
####Theft is the force-able deprivation of the owner of the use of that thing.
####The phrase is a claim that “property” is illegitimate, but at the same time, seems to accept the notion that “theft” has a legitimate meaning. i.e. It is possible to steal something.
###But, since one cannot have “theft” unless there is a legitimate owner from whom the thing (property) can be stolen, the claim simultaneously accepts and rejects the notion of property.
Now, as I'm sure people reading this will be aware, there are lots of claims and arguments presented by people who don't believe the idea of property rights to be legitimate. While, it is true that the idea of property rights is just that, an idea, a human social construct,
###property rights exist in order to solve a problem. That is, to reduce the likelihood of conflict in human societies.
While we live on a fairly big planet, with lots of useful resources that we can employ to enable us to survive, and even raise our living standards and so on, these resources are limited in quantity.
If there were, say, only a few thousand people on the planet, it would be true to say that natural resources are limited, i.e. finite, but it wouldn't likely occur to people to say that natural resources were “scarce.” (Scarcity implies that it's possible to run out of stuff if used uneconomically).
However, although many natural resources are plentiful, they are not evenly distributed around the planet, Therefore, even small populations of
###people can experience scarcity of natural resources.
e.g. desert-living people may consider water to be a scarce resource, even though the planet surface is 60% or 70% covered by the stuff.
People in high mountainous areas may experience scarcity of trees, and so, lack wood to burn for heating, so they may have to use less efficient animal dung for burning, to heat their houses.... and so on.
Since at least some resources can be scarce, how are people to manage to agree to the usage of them?. Well, there are several ways they could try. A couple of which may be.........
1 - Might makes right!
- They can all fight over the resource and the last man standing gets ownership of the resource. …................... This isn't very efficient for many reasons, of which one is …......“there's always a bigger tougher guy gonna come around the corner tomorrow and try to take your stuff.” So the owner has to spend some of his scarce time and energy just to repel legitimate challengers to his property rights.
2 - If Everybody gets to own the resource, simultaneously
......... Well........ Since ownership by definition means “exclusive control of..” then you end up with the effective equivalent of no-one owning it, since it would take forever for one person to attain permission from all the other owners to do something with the resource.
What you end up with is a situation known as “The tragedy of the commons” where everyone has the incentive to use as much as the resource as possible as quickly as possible, since he doesn't really have much ownership of it. (or much of a stake invested in it). And he knows that everyone else is thinking along the same lines. This usually results in the resource becoming depleted very quickly, and so everyone is ultimately worse off.
3 - The first guy
...............who homesteads the resource is recognised as having the most valid/legitimate claim to the resource. This guy can invest his efforts into maximising output from the resource and also has the incentive to make the resource last as long as possible so it will help sustain him and his family for many years. He has a disincentive to “eat it all at once.”
Since his claim is legitimate and no-one else can come along with a more valid claim, he doesn't have to "keep looking over his shoulder", not knowing when he may be challenged to fight to retain his property. He can make long term investments in his property with the confidence that he will see returns on his long term investments.
To own property, means that you have a right of ownership. i.e. everyone accepts that you have the most valid claim of ownership and therefore it is agreed that you have a right to exercise exclusive control over that object. (This is what "legitimate" means - i.e. everyone agrees that something is valid)
How you came by that right legitimately can be any one of 3 ways....
1 – You homesteaded the property
which was previously not claimed by anyone else. (Homesteading usually means improving a bit of e.g. land, such that it is made more useful to fulfil a certain purpose... e.g. farming)
2 – You buy the property
from a previous owner in a voluntary exchange of (perceived) value for (perceived) value.
3 – The property is inherited by you
, or bequeathed to you in a will from a previous legitimate owner.
Nb -
Nb (It should be obvious here that the word property is here being used as a pronoun to label a physical object, and not some attribute of a physical object. e.g. The metal called mercury has the “property” of existing in a liquid state at room temperature. (This is not the “property” under discussion)).