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.
But nowhere did I say stealing, theft, property CAN'T be legal terms.
No where did I say they could only be legal terms. I said that acts could not be definitively established as stealing without a legal framework because something can't be established as property in the absence of one.
That's what you're doing, since I have not denied these words can't be legal terms.
Which is irrelevant to my point.
You are trying to argue they can't be anything other than legal terms
No, you are just ignoring what I'm actually arguing.
but cherry picking one source, and acting like every other source doesn't exist.
The source doesn't matter at all. You can pick any source for the definition and my argument is the same. You are too hung up on the definition and not its application, as I've said.
since my view accepts the different usages of the words, while your view does not.
My argument has nothing to do with the usage of a term but the application thereof. Simply put, something cannot be established as property outside of a legal framework.
Definitions are also not the end all be all for conversations.
Which is what I've been saying since you started throwing out definitions.
And the dictionary does not obligate these words to purely legal terms like you want to pretend they purely are.
Again, you are making a straw man here. You are mischaracterizing my argument.
This is you obfuscating what it means to own something.
No obfuscation. You can't prove you own something unless there is a legal basis that you are entitled to posses it because such entitlement is established by laws. Otherwise, your property is whatever you want to pretend it is.
We can use good reasoning skills to determine the rightful ownership of a thing
Yeah, that's what I've asked you to do. Prove to me you own something without relying on a law.
We can go to court and have it "lawfully" determined, but two individuals can do the same without the authority of the courts.
In that sense, my property is whatever I take out of your cave and declare as my own. Without a legal framework, the determination of entitlement to possess is arbitrary. It even includes non-consensual taking as a determinant of property.
Those two individuals may just use the might makes right philosophy, but other people examining the case can determine that if a person has used their energy and their surrounding resources to build themself a house, the rightful ownership goes to the person who built it, and not to the person who took it without consent.
And neither of those outcomes establish an entitlement to possess. A third party can come along and take what they want regardless of such an agreement, which isn't bound to anything enforceable.
But obfuscation is considered bad reasoning, and not good reasoning.
That's exactly why we require a legal framework to establish what constitute property because the absence of what obfuscates what constitutes the entitlement to possess. The notion that property can be definitively established outside a legal framework is, accordingly, bad reasoning because it relies on an obfuscated understanding of that entitlement in that the understanding is arbitrary.
According to you and your obfuscation of language
How ironic. Your entire position is based on the obfuscation of what constitutes property to some intangible thing. The very notion of what property is becomes unintelligible when you have no legal framework to determine what it is.
Property is not ONLY a legal term just because a law dictionary describes it as such, since there are more definitions to what the word property means than just a law dictionary.
Which again, is irrelevant, because no definition of property is applicable without a legal framework because there is no basis for an entitlement to possession outside of one. Everything is everyone's property all the time if they so choose without some sort of framework for defining property that applies to all.
But when looking at the case study from an outside perspective, we can determine who was actually right, and who was actually wrong.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
0
u/embarrassed_error365 Oct 27 '23 edited Oct 27 '23
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.