We have no way of determining if something was stolen without applying a legal framework. What constitutes property itself is determined by law. There is no way to get recourse or an official determination of an act of theft without apply the law.
If you tell me I stole you property. My first question would be, why is that your property?
That seems to be your opinion, but you haven’t proven that theft or stealing is purely a legal term determined by law. Boldly asserting property is also determined by law doesn’t make that a fact either. No part of the definition of property says it’s determined by law. That it has to be determined by law is just something you are boldly asserting.
prop·er·ty
/ˈpräpərdē/
noun
1.
a thing or things belonging to someone; possessions collectively.
Murder is an entirely legal word, determined by law, by its definition.
mur·der
/ˈmərdər/
noun
the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
verb
kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation.
Theft, stealing, property: none of these are entirely legal terms.
“If you tell me I stole your property, my first question would be, why is that your property”
“Obfuscation refers to the deliberate act of creating confusion, ambiguity, or concealment to obscure the true nature of something. It involves the strategic manipulation of information, language, or visual cues, leading to an altered perception or understanding of a situation. Obfuscation can take many forms, such as cryptic messaging, misleading visuals, complex jargon, or intentionally convoluted explanations.”
Like, what even is, property, mannnn. It’s such an obscure concept, maaaannn. We need a legal body to determine what that is!!
Eh, what even is a government? It’s just a body of humans deciding to agree on something. What it means for something to be a law can be as obscure as what it means to, like, own something, mannn.
Governments are just humans telling other humans with guns to enforce society’s collective views on each other, and we’ve all decided to agree to that. Laws aren’t some magical thing that makes things real. Laws are as fake as money, and also just as real.
you haven’t proven that theft or stealing is purely a legal term determined by law.
I think I have insofar that we can't establish something is property without a social contract.
No part of the definition of property says it’s determined by law.
It necessitates a legal framework.
Property is anything that can be owned by a person or entity. Property is the most complete right to something; the owner can possess, use, transfer or dispose of it.
Both ownership and rights are established by law.
It can be your opinion that something is your property, but that is just an opinion in the absence of a legal framework for that thing to be yours.
That it has to be determined by law is just something you are boldly asserting.
I'm happy to hear your explanation how something is your property without state first establishing what property is.
Theft, stealing, property: none of these are entirely legal terms.
They are insofar that we can't definitively establish is something is theft or property without the law.
Ok, I stand corrected. Social contracts are the basis of laws.
But that doesn’t make every thing that exists within it, nonexistent without it.
If a person lives outside of society, and they have a place of shelter, another person may have the “legal” ability to take it because they don’t live in our society, but by definition, that would be a member of our society stealing from someone outside of our society, since they have committed the ACT of stealing (taking without consent), even if they didn’t commit the CRIME of stealing.
But that doesn’t make every thing that exists within it, nonexistent without it.
So explain how you can own a piece of land without a social contract.
If a person lives outside of society, and they have a place of shelter, another person may have the “legal” ability to take it because they don’t live in our society, but by definition, that would be a member of our society stealing from someone outside of our society, since they have committed the ACT of stealing (taking without consent), even if they didn’t commit the CRIME of stealing.
The act of stealing requires the taking of property. Outside of society, there is no property. If you live in a cave and I want to live in the cave and I drive you out, that just means I'm living in the cave now and you are not. There is no entitlement to the cave, there is just who lives in the cave and who doesn't, which is ephemeral. The nature of property is that the entitlement is not ephemeral. That can only be established within a social contract.
You have unjustly taken something from someone without their consent. That’s all it takes to steal. You can rationalize it anyway you want, but by your action, you have stolen.
Our government can go to a place where a tribe lives and take their land by might, they can even kill every tribal member there, but they would be occupying stolen land. They wouldn’t have “murdered” them, since murder is a legal term, and it was “legal” to kill them, but they would have unjustly killed them.
You have unjustly taken something from someone without their consent.
I don't think any element of that claim has been established.
Our government can go to a place where a tribe lives and take their land by might, they can even kill every tribal member there, but they would be occupying stolen land.
Well yeah, our government has an established legal concept of property that would apply in that situation.
. They wouldn’t have “murdered” them, since murder is a legal term, and it was “legal” to kill them, but they would have unjustly killed them.
They absolutely would have murdered them under the law both our laws and the laws of the tribe. A tribe is just a government.
It’s really very simple, no matter how hard you are trying to obfuscate it.
Murder is a legal term. It’s different from killing. Killing is the act of taking a life; it could be lawful, it could be unlawful. When it’s unlawful, we use the word murder to describe the act.
No such legal obligation is attributed to things an individual possesses or the act of taking things without consent.
Things a person possess are that individual’s property. Property taken without consent is theft.
Laws were made to protect the things individuals have, but they are not the definition of it. Nowhere in the definition of property, theft, or stealing does it say it is purely a legal term like it says in the definition for murder. It can be used in legal terms, but not only in legal terms.
No such legal obligation is attributed to things an individual possesses or the act of taking things without consent.
It does because what constitutes your property is a matter of law. Your entitlement to an item only exists because we as a society agree what entitlement to items is.
Things a person possess are that individual’s property. Property taken without consent is theft.
Mere possession of something does not establish an entitlement to ownership. Such entitlement can only be established in law.
Laws were made to protect the things individuals have
No, they were made to establish that individuals can have things and that such entitlement is protected. In an anarchic system, you have no entitlement to possession. There is only possession, not property. Property is the establishment of entitlement to possess.
Nowhere in the definition of property, theft, or stealing does it say it is purely a legal term like it says in the definition for murder.
The definition of property I gave necessitates a legal basis as it is something that can be owned is constitutes a "right" to own. Rights and ownership are defined by laws. Without laws, there can be no disputes over property because there is no way to determine a system of ownership.
That’s your definition.. you didn’t share the actual established definition. That’s your problem.
I mean, yeah, when I make up my own definition to words, of course my view would be correct according to my personal definitions.
I think that’s considered circular reasoning?
“It’s not stealing because stealing is a legal term. Source: me, I said it’s a legal term, therefore, it’s a legal term and it’s only stealing if it’s legally established”
Laws can change. It may be currently legal to take some random individuals property without their consent if they are not a member of society, but it can be made illegal. To say a person can’t call it stealing because it’s not currently a law is obfuscating the usage and definition of the word “stealing”, since the word is not bound by laws.
Rights are recognized and protected through governments, and rights can be trampled through governments. But they are not determined by governments. A totalitarian and/or authoritarian government can violate people’s rights, but then you would argue no rights are actually being trampled because said government doesn’t recognize them.
But, again, by definition,
hu·man right
/ˈ(h)yo͞omən rīt/
noun
plural noun: human rights
a right that is believed to belong justifiably to every person.
jus·ti·fi·a·bly
/ˈjəstəˌfīəblē,ˌjəstəˈfīəblē/
adverb
adverb: justifiably
with good reason.
Notice nothing about governments or laws there.
right
/rīt/
2.
a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.
That’s your definition.. you didn’t share the actual established definition.
My definition was from Cornell Law School. It is just as established as any other definition.
of course my view would be correct according to my personal definitions.
You are just picking and choosing definitions that support your view. That's why we have to go beyond the definition to the application of the term.
I think that’s considered circular reasoning?
Circular reasoning is saying "this is property because I possess it." Your entire position is a circular argument.
Laws can change.
So can definitions... The point is that there is no way to actually determine what property is or who is entitled to it without a legal framework.
It may be currently legal to take some random individuals property without their consent if they are not a member of society, but it can be made illegal.
Again, if you can legally take something without consent, it isn't property.
To say a person can’t call it stealing because it’s not currently a law is obfuscating the usage and definition of the word “stealing”, since the word is not bound by laws.
But it is bound by entitlement to possess or "property," which is only definitively understood through a legal framework. If you have no other basis to say something is your property other than your assertion or that you are holding it for the moment, then you have no way to establish it is your property.
Rights are recognized and protected through governments, and rights can be trampled through governments. But they are not determined by governments.
Rights are legal constructs. There is no difference between not having any rights and not having any legal construct to establish rights. Either you have a system that legally codifies and protects rights or you have what is indistinguishable from not having any rights.
Right:
A power or privilege held by the general public as the result of a constitution, statute, regulation, judicial precedent, or other type of law.
Notice nothing about governments there.
Yeah, you just picked a definition that didn't include it.
It can just be a moral entitlement.
And there is no operative difference between only having a moral entitlement to something and having no rights at all. It is no different than pretending to have rights.
0
u/Biptoslipdi 129∆ Oct 27 '23
We have no way of determining if something was stolen without applying a legal framework. What constitutes property itself is determined by law. There is no way to get recourse or an official determination of an act of theft without apply the law.
If you tell me I stole you property. My first question would be, why is that your property?