Why “Your” House Is Yours in a Way That “Your” Country Is Not

[axiomata]

https://fee.org/articles/why-your-house-is-yours-in-a-way-that-your-country-is-not/


Possessive Pronouns Aren’t Always about Possession

Possessive pronouns (like “mine” or “yours”) have two uses in English. The first is about ownership. It denotes who has property rights over what. “This is my computer.” “This is my body.” The second is about association. It denotes how people are connected to other people or things. “This is my son.” “This is my wife.”

Ownership is always also association. Owning my computer means I also have a connection to it. But association is not always ownership. I don’t own my son. I don’t own my wife.

This is an important distinction because ownership comes with a bundle of rights that mere association lacks. I can use my computer whenever I want. I have veto power over who can use my computer. I can make alterations to my computer. I can sell my computer.

Owners can also transfer some of their rights to others. A renter purchases the right to use an apartment but doesn’t get the right to sell it. They can put up pictures even if they can’t knock down walls.

You own yourself. Your body is truly yours because you can do with it as you wish as long as you don’t hurt others. You can love and trade with whom you want; saying otherwise would be a violation of your personal sovereignty.

The same can’t be said of mere association. I don’t have the right to make alterations to my son, and I can’t sell him. I can’t tell my wife whom she can associate with.

It’s important not to confuse possessive pronouns involving association with possessive pronouns involving ownership. But that confusion happens a lot when people talk about policy, especially concerning immigration and jobs.

[Swordsmyth]

:rolleyes:

People band together to defend themselves against those who would violate their rights and in order to do that they must control territory and prevent those who would violate their rights from entering it.

It is not the same as personal property but it does exist and must exist.

[CCTelander]

:rolleyes:

People band together to defend themselves against those who would violate their rights and in order to do that they must control territory and prevent those who would violate their rights from entering it.

It is not the same as personal property but it does exist and must exist.


In other words: "I refuse to alter my pre-conceived ideas in order to conform to actual reality. Therefore I must create an exception to allow for them."

"It does exist and must exist"? Collectivist.

[Swordsmyth]

In other words: "I refuse to alter my pre-conceived ideas in order to conform to actual reality. Therefore I must create an exception to allow for them."
That is what you anarchists do.


"It does exist and must exist"? Collectivist.
It does exist and must exist, if it didn't exist there would be no defense against those who wished to set up a tyranny.

[CCTelander]

That is what you anarchists do.


It does exist and must exist, if it didn't exist there would be no defense against those who wished to set up a tyranny.


:rolleyes:

[Swordsmyth]

:rolleyes:
:rolleyes::rolleyes:

[bv3]

:rolleyes::rolleyes:
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Swordsmyth]

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[bv3]

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes:

+1 not x2. Chrissakes I thought that was obvious.

[CCTelander]

+1 not x2. Chrissakes I thought that was obvious.


Some people just don't "get it."

[brushfire]

:rolleyes:

People band together to defend themselves against those who would violate their rights and in order to do that they must control territory and prevent those who would violate their rights from entering it.

It is not the same as personal property but it does exist and must exist.


Its probably not how you intended to come off, but I immediately pictured this after reading your post:

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQKi10lxhnCWbhQeL8nsdbq7YvF8MHn3 aNjAGD-VuK5X7DZdhiG

Having said that, the question I have for the OP is how does one defend against masses that don't respect your individual property rights? I agree with the OP in premise, but I think the issue comes into play when there are those who do not share the same values, and pose a legitimate threat.

As with any complex issue, there's no binary answer. I personally think the current immigration system is horrible, but I also dont see open borders as a solution. We're already being plundered by our own government, which has demonstrated its desire to use our property/wealth to pander to these illegals.

I stand by the big picture approach, and that is to eliminate the welfare state - that is the priority. I personally believe that with the government in check, we can then have the discussion about open borders. Before then, I would liken the open border discussion as planning for a dinner party while the house is a blaze.

...another opinion from the interwebs

[Swordsmyth]

Its probably not how you intended to come off, but I immediately pictured this after reading your post:

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQKi10lxhnCWbhQeL8nsdbq7YvF8MHn3 aNjAGD-VuK5X7DZdhiG


That is actually the basic idea and exactly what many anarchists claim is the ideal.
The important question is not how it looks but how well does it serve the purpose of defending the members' rights.
If you try to not have one then someone who forms one will move in on you and impose theirs on you and they will be less likely to respect your rights for many generations.

[UWDude]

In other words....

https://i.imgflip.com/232t8w.jpghttps://i.imgflip.com/232t8w.jpg

[Ender]

https://fee.org/articles/why-your-house-is-yours-in-a-way-that-your-country-is-not/


Possessive Pronouns Aren’t Always about Possession

Possessive pronouns (like “mine” or “yours”) have two uses in English. The first is about ownership. It denotes who has property rights over what. “This is my computer.” “This is my body.” The second is about association. It denotes how people are connected to other people or things. “This is my son.” “This is my wife.”

Ownership is always also association. Owning my computer means I also have a connection to it. But association is not always ownership. I don’t own my son. I don’t own my wife.

This is an important distinction because ownership comes with a bundle of rights that mere association lacks. I can use my computer whenever I want. I have veto power over who can use my computer. I can make alterations to my computer. I can sell my computer.

Owners can also transfer some of their rights to others. A renter purchases the right to use an apartment but doesn’t get the right to sell it. They can put up pictures even if they can’t knock down walls.

You own yourself. Your body is truly yours because you can do with it as you wish as long as you don’t hurt others. You can love and trade with whom you want; saying otherwise would be a violation of your personal sovereignty.

The same can’t be said of mere association. I don’t have the right to make alterations to my son, and I can’t sell him. I can’t tell my wife whom she can associate with.

It’s important not to confuse possessive pronouns involving association with possessive pronouns involving ownership. But that confusion happens a lot when people talk about policy, especially concerning immigration and jobs.

Actually in the current system you do NOT own your house. Stop paying property taxes & the real owner will show up & take "your" house.

[Origanalist]

https://i.imgflip.com/232t8w.jpghttps://i.imgflip.com/232t8w.jpg

You're kinda pretty, for a dude.

[Origanalist]

Actually in the current system you do NOT own your house. Stop paying property taxes & the real owner will show up & take "your" house.

It's like rent, but with a mortgage.

[brushfire]

That is actually the basic idea and exactly what many anarchists claim is the ideal.
The important question is not how it looks but how well does it serve the purpose of defending the members' rights.
If you try to not have one then someone who forms one will move in on you and impose theirs on you and they will be less likely to respect your rights for many generations.

There is a unifying aspect to the "end the welfare state" argument. I find more common ground on that than the open border, or limit immigration debate. I question whether it even makes sense to debate it, with the presence of a welfare state. Any advocates for the welfare state? Anyone? Bueller..? Bueller..? Zippy? :)

[brushfire]

You're kinda pretty, for a dude.

So you're calling him a trans, and for the oppression of women and infants, while promoting slavery in america? When did you quit beating your wife?

[Ender]

It's like rent, but with a mortgage.

Yerp.

[Origanalist]

So you're calling him a trans, and for the oppression of women and infants, while promoting slavery in america? When did you quit beating your wife?

Did I say I quit beating my wife?

[UWDude]

Did I say I quit beating my wife?

So what you are saying is you didn't stop beating your wife?

[Origanalist]

So what you are saying is you didn't stop beating your wife?

Looking....looking...nope, never said that.

[brushfire]

Looking....looking...nope, never said that.

We MUST find a way to get Originalist an interview with Cathy Newman!

[Superfluous Man]

:rolleyes:

People band together to defend themselves against those who would violate their rights and in order to do that they must control territory and prevent those who would violate their rights from entering it.

It is not the same as personal property but it does exist and must exist.

But it is immoral to expand this beyond the personal properties of those involved or to coerce others to participate without their consent.

[Swordsmyth]

But it is immoral to expand this beyond the personal properties of those involved or to coerce others to participate without their consent.
It is not immoral to expand it large enough to prevent outsiders from violating the rights of the members as long as the rights of everyone encompassed are equally protected.

[Superfluous Man]

It is not immoral to expand it large enough to prevent outsiders from violating the rights of the members as long as the rights of everyone encompassed are equally protected.

I agree. The problem is when it is used against people who are not violating anyone else's rights, either by limiting their movement or limiting their use of their own property.

[Swordsmyth]

I agree. The problem is when it is used against people who are not violating anyone else's rights, either by limiting their movement or limiting their use of their own property.
Those who enter the territory (and thereby the group) without permission are violating the rights of the group members, the group exists to preserve the rights of its members and it therefore has a right to exclude those who may not share the commitment of the members to honor and protect eachother's rights.