Is private property a negative or positive right?

Hippity hoppity get off my property!

>>2555345
>rights to private property
There are no "rights" to property, only those who possess areas and those who don't.

And if all hell breaks loose, there won't be police protecting you, so it pretty much makes this situation as real as possible.

>>2555360
Do you understand the difference between private and negative rights, do you?

>>2555345
It's a negative right. I don't even know how you could possibly construe it as a positive one.

>>2555362
Um

Fuck you nigger

File: 1486279707282.jpg (50KB, 644x598px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 644x598px

>>2555345
fuck off statist

It's not a right, bc rights are not real. There's nothing wrong with owning property though.

>>2555345
You do own something, if they allow you to or you don't, if they don't.

>negative right

Hmmmmm

>Ariana Grande looking at the camera with disgust with a minecraft background
I'm intrigued by this image, what's the context?

>>2555345
It's a feudalist meme

>>2555345
Traditional private property rights are in some way negative, as a space of your own in which to exercise them is a prerequisite of all other rights.

>>2556450
It isn't tho. Even the ancient greeks considered land private property and it was inalienable. However, your personal freedom...

>The love of possessions is a disease in them. These people have made many rules that the rich may break, but the poor may not! They have a religion in which the poor worship, but the rich will not! They even take tithes from the poor and weak to support the rich and those who rule. They claim this mother of ours, the earth, for their own use, and fence their neighbor away. ... If America had been twice the size it is, there still would not have been enough.

It's theft

>>2557780
Then it's a capitalist meme that mutated from territoriality

>>2558067
>>2557797
>>2557787
>>2556450
>>2555460
Communists belong in the incinerator.

>>2558067
That is also wrong as humans have always differentiated between "mine" and "yours" with sharing predominantly occurring within family groups. Even the supposed "propertyless" nomadic Native Americans of the Great Plains had "their land" which they defended vigorously from incursion by other tribes.

>>2555345
Depends on how its utilized. Inherently it's neither.

>>2558074
Or the gas chambers need to be filled up again

>>2558092
Property implies it belongs to you, were territoriality is defending your space without the concept of ownership and is seen in invertebrates aswell as humans.
Many native Americans land was only yours as you were occupying it.
Which lead to a great deal of conflict with settlers when they found out that they couldn't use the unoccupied land they no longer owned according to treaty.
Sorry for the bad composition

>>2558127
>>2558127
If it didn't belong to them, there would be no purpose in defending it. You used the key phrase that implies ownership: "Your space." The common retort to this by collectivists is that because it can be taken away there is an implied non-ownership, but again taking the property of an individual implies that they owned it in the first place and the new ownership has no bearing on that fact. Simple fact of the matter is that ownership is the natural order of things and preaching non-ownership is futile. Even your own example adds the truth of this. The Native Americans sought to reoccupy THEIR land which, again, implies a prior ownership. There's just no getting away from a situation where ownership is implied upon SOMEBODY.

>>2558175
>>2558127
Also this plays into the idea of property being a negative right: you simply have to not have interference with your ownership to retain it.

>>2558175
Ownership implies it belongs to you, which is not metaphysical truth, the fact is you belong to it, and that is what many of the American Indians got.
When an African cichlid chases off intruders, does it imply the fish has conceptualized property ownership?
Property ownership is an illogical reduction.

>>2558425
You can not belong to inanimacy. The inanimate can not take me places. The inanimate can not exert its will upon me. It merely is. I can do all of those to the inanimate and I can ensure that other animates cannot thus ensuring my continued will and my will alone upon the inanimate thus implying ownership. Property ownership does not need conceptualization. It's the status quo of the animate.

>>2558466
>>2558466
>property is inanimate
This is why I say ecological illiteracy is our biggest social issue.
Seriously though if you just got that we do not exist independently of life and life is connected through ecological interactions over earth, this wouldn't be a problem.
another huge problem with the property dogma is that colonial powers, that now control the worlds "property" were founded on ideaology that justified taking the "property" away from the natives being displaced. An example in America is the traditional ecological knowledge of the Indians and the Eminent domain of the settlers.

>>2558681
You keep using Native American like it means something, but the noble savage that knows nothing of property myth is dead and you need to accept that.

>>2559745
>noble savage knows nothing of property meme is dead
The savage meme is dead.
Provide reasoning for that statement as in light of the post you replied to >>2558681 with an unrelated non-argument

>>2555345
>Have a property
>Defend it
>It's yours

>Have a property
>Pay government taxes to defend it
>It's yours
>stop paying taxes
>Instead of not defending it, they take it

States have a monopoly on land, and if you challenge them, they take land and imprison you. It's essentially an unfair system.

>>2555345
There are no natural rights, expect for mine because I said so.

negative rights are things that you would have in the absence of other people.

if you are alone on an island. that's your island.

>>2556215
some autist on /v/ with a grande fetish did it shortly before getting banned. Fucker kept shitting up the board for weeks. It was legendary.

>>2560340
amazing

>>2555345
no, but everything should belong to me

>>2555360
Always nice to see people out of their environment talking out of their ass

>>2555478
Christ

Most people from classical authors to the founding fathers knew that being an independent person was tied to owning property

If you don't own property than you basically are not free, or anything resembling it.

>>2555345
Yes, it is a right.

>>2560207
Because states are sovereign entities with superior title on land within their borders.

>>2555362
>>2562103
ironically anyone who thinks the OP question makes any sense is "out of their environment".

there is no way to remotely argue that property ownership is a positive right. sounds to me like OP learned a fancy new principle and wanted to make a thread.

People who are against the ownership of land are 100% of the time poor city folk who live in cramped commieblocks.

>>2555345
It's a privilege. A limited one

Property ownership is a metaphysical illusion
How many times do I have to explain, Wake up sheeple

>>2555345

A positive right, in order to hold any property that you can't physically hold yourself with violence then you require some form of governance.

>>2555392
Property rights restrict usage. If I "own" something, then I am depriving others of the option of using it. Realistically, there are some cases where the mere act of usage deprives others of being able to use it - if I'm sitting on the chair, no one else can sit on it. But if I decide that I "own" this chair, and thus others are forbidden from using it even when I am not making use of it - that "right" is depriving others of the option of using the chair. The only reason property rights are considered a negative right is because we consider ownership of property an inherent, natural right. But it really isn't, that's just the framework that most societies have chosen in order for their legal and economic systems to function.

>>2557756
That's only true if you assume rights "don't apply" in spaces you don't have exclusive rights to. But if we totally eliminated property rights, NO ONE would have exclusive rights to ANY space, and anyone could exercise their rights anywhere. Property rights are the only thing which allow an individual to forbid another individual from exercising their rights.

>>2563426
I'm actually a lower-middle class person who lives in a single-family residence, nice spooks though.

>>2555345
I dont speak intro law anymore

If you own land you can exert tour dominion to the maximun available un tour legal codes

If you die and you haven't payed the mortgage, the banks take your property. If you don't pay your taxes, the banks take your property.

logically, you don't really own your property because the government lets you have it in exchange for money that you must continually provide.

No such thing as private property when you have to pay taxes. More like 'rented property'.

>>2563426
I am in possession of a 10 acre farm and plan on obtaining legal ownership of as much land as I possibly can.
This is me
>>2563621

>>2564888
On the other hand, ownership lets me do more with it. I' can't develop land I don't own.

>>2564888
Do you own your anus?
If not, I am going to make good use of it.

>>2555345

Why are negative rights not called lefts?