Never thought i had one in politics. I know i stand on the shoulder of previous giants (another non-original thought). Not sure why originality would be something to go after though.

Why do you think that's the case? why do you think that after centuries of trials by the finest men and women the planet had to offer there is a decent chance that something completly new and unique that has never been tried before is better than everything else we tried in social organization?

I'm not the one regurgitating all this noise. I honestly don't care. Bless your heart if you're optimistic.

It's total chaos out there, bro

a snarky comment on the internet. First time i saw one. Anything to say about what i wrote, especially about the parts you consider wrong?

I don't know what you mean by "strong property rights".

Property is basically two rights - the right to use, and its negation, the right to exclude. Uses and exclusions do not have to be absolute, they can be conditioned on whatever factors.

If the entire public is granted a right to use certain property, we aren't "giving up" property rights generally, only the right to exclude.

I envy your position if you truly don't care about politics. I have been physically suffering from politics since the brexit vote. But perhaps that's happened because i became a father and that changed my timeframe and increased my worryness a little.

What i mean with strong PRIVATE property rights is that the usual state of affairs for most productive capital is to be owned by the private sector, and that such ownership is well protected by law against all aggression.

We are giving up PRIVATE property rights if the law disallows, say, the current state of private house property rights.

If the law negates the possibility for a person to own a house, that is to use it as he/she sees fit, and to exclude others from entering into it as he/she sees fit, in perpetuity, then we are negating strong private property rights for houses.

That is true also if the laws, excluding the "normal" property rights we can have now on houses, still has some provision to give temporary exclusive use to some people over some others. That would be a weak private property right to houses.

Is my position on this more clear?

For many properties you can't meaningfully give its use to "all people". If the plane going from A to B has 200 seats, you have up to 200 seats to assign. If more than 200 people want to take that plane you need some mechanism to decide who gets the seat. We currently have a thing called "buying a ticket" which isn't perfect because for some insane reasons the law allows them to sell more than 200 tickets for that plane but i digress.

Strong property rights in that case would be clear cut rules without turnaround or not subjected to the temporary whim of an arbitrator about who gets to take that plane.

And so on.

brevity is the key to clarity

I do care, I guess, but I'm not preoccupied with it. I was more passionate about it when I was younger. All the philosophizing about how to best facilitate the most agreeable society is like a hobby, an experiment dreamed. It can be interesting, but doesn't much affect change imo.

not that change is needed

think about this for a minute

In many cases i find that these topics can't be treated with brevity. Because details matter a lot. And the whole thinking process has to be exposed (also to find eventual holes in it). Otherwise the conversation very rarely reaches a useful point. That's why i think forums are great for this kind of conversation, while twitter is beyond terrible.

Talking by slogans only exaggerate differences and doesn't allow real comprehension of complex topics imo.

Do you disagree?

Yeah. And it's very difficult to interact with essays on the forum.

Sure. Think of a public street. Obviously you can't have the entire city on the street at once, but that doesn't mean you are barring the entire city from using the street at all.

Remember where we started. I had a real objective in mind: understanding why communist conversations aren't banned in this forum. That because i disagree with it and at the same time i think there are many smart people in this place so i wanted to see if i was wrong and why, as a way of personal improvement.

In order to really deeply understand why they ban nazi threads/comments/users but not communist threads/comments/users i had to take the long route, after a mod immediatly replied as if it was obvious (at least for him) that nazism is incredibly worse for society than communism.

As i have a strong opinion on that it then became a matter of why do you intelligent people think that communism isn't close to nazism in terms of how damaging it is for society? for me it's clearcut worse than it so please explain.

And here we are talking about the relative importance of private property rights. Because it seems that the whole justification not to ban communist conversation stands upon the fact that proposing to abolish private property rights isn't so bad (even if most people here disagree with it). It is not bad enough of a proposal, not damaging enough to society, to justify banning propaganda in its favour.

So i am not trying to change the world here, tbh. I concur that that would be a waste of time. I am trying to understand what possible reasons could make an intelligent person think that private property rights aren't fundamental to human well being in the same way that personal safety or freedom of speech are.

To learn, either that i was wrong about personal property rights being so fundamental as i currently think they are, or about the capabilities of people here to discuss such matters.

So you answer about the fact that a lot of property can't be used without excluding others, with some example of other kinds of property that can?

lol good luck, brother

People wrote entire books to define private property rights , and i can't answer with 20 lines?

This isn't a book. It's a discussion. For the most part your points and justifications are better split into multiple posts if you expect a response. That's because it's hard to respond without chopping it up into pieces. Then if you reply to the chopped up post you lose the quoted parts from your first post and have to restate things and it continues to become more administration and less content. Sometimes people foresee this and number points so they can be referred to later.

There's a difference between "only 200 people can be on a plane at specific time" and "only 200 people can be on the plane in society".

Ok i'll try to follow these provisions

Let's stick to houses then. Was it clear what i mean with strong private property rights? do you agree that it is necessary for societal well being that houses can be owned in the current form of ownership typical of western societies by private entities?

If what you're after is still why Nazis are banned and commies aren't you're not getting warm in the property rights discussion. Nazi posting is banned, along with the rest of racist and anti-Semitic posting, because it's hateful and racist and contemporarily relevant for hate and racism. The body count is relevant, but it's not the main thing. Genghis Kahn is an allowable avatar. If hate groups widely adopted Genghis Khan as part of their identification that could change.

I understand why nazism is banned and i agree with it being banned.

But if we end up agreeing that property rights are fundamental for society well being and tantamount to a basic human right i don't see how that shouldn't automatically exclude all private property abolitionists from legitimate conversations (and this forum).

Unless for some reason you want to tell me that "hatred" is worse for society than advocating the abolition of a basic and fundamental human right.

In what's often considered the most free market country in the world most people get a 99 year lease on government built housing and the government does all kinds of social engineering in regards to mixing ethnic groups, trying to encourage people to have babies and to live near their elderly parents.

We will see what happens to that provision when it will come into force, because it appears that for now people think "as if" its ownership in perpetuity.

The first cases happened not so much time ago. IT was a shock for most people that heard about it. Effects on society in general, and wether this kind of setup will be changed to "normal" western ownership are something we will only know in a few decades.

It appears many people thought at the end it would become perpetual property.

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapo...-99-year-lease

Because it is worse. Nazis are marching in the street and their ideology is in the white house putting children in prison camps. Advocating the abolishment of private property isn't doing anything other than maybe getting people to think about the excesses of capitalism. It's about the real world as it is now.