Fail Quotes

[dallen68]

They differentiate between "personal property" and "private property." It's private property they're against, not personal property. As near as I can figure, "personal property" is defined as "stuff I want to keep."

Not quite. They define "personal property" pretty much like "shit you can carry" and private property as "stuff that's permanently fixed to that one spot". I guess cars and the like are a grey area.

[MrBogosity]

Not quite. They define "personal property" pretty much like "shit you can carry" and private property as "stuff that's permanently fixed to that one spot". I guess cars and the like are a grey area.

So you can own stuff, you just can't own anywhere to keep it.

[dallen68]

So you can own stuff, you just can't own anywhere to keep it.

Pretty much, yep.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

It's the same thing as any property.  If I spend time tending to a plot of land and making a thriving farm out of it, it really doesn't make sense to argue that I'm "stealing" that farm from everyone by claiming ownership of it because that argument presupposes that my time and labour has no value.
This is why you can't just point to land and say "Mine!", you have to actually do something with it.

[Travis Retriever]

It's the same thing as any property.  If I spend time tending to a plot of land and making a thriving farm out of it, it really doesn't make sense to argue that I'm "stealing" that farm from everyone by claiming ownership of it because that argument presupposes that my time and labour has no value.
This is why you can't just point to land and say "Mine!", you have to actually do something with it.

Indeed! Which is why the labor theory of value is a contradiction with the 'property is theft' mantra of communists. 

Personally, I will always adore James Ostrowski's rebuttal to the Labor Theory of Value (win quote):
"According to the labor theory of value, the workers could have gone to a vacant lot, and produced the same amount of wealth by replicating the same physical actions they undertook working for the greedy capitalist, this time without a building and without any equipment, management, customers or business plan. If we take away the greedy capitalist, these little details must go as well."-- https://mises.org/daily/1132/Chomskys-Economics

[Altimadark]

They differentiate between "personal property" and "private property." It's private property they're against, not personal property. As near as I can figure, "personal property" is defined as "stuff I want to keep."

Not quite. They define "personal property" pretty much like "shit you can carry" and private property as "stuff that's permanently fixed to that one spot". I guess cars and the like are a grey area.

Giving my two cents, having dealt with this sort of argument approximately two or three times before.

Broadly speaking, I think Shane has it right. People who are against private property and for personal property seem to do so because they think it gives them moral justification to steal from others while saying their own stuff is off-limits.

I say this mostly because I've heard several explanations as to what the difference is between "personal" and "private" properties. Near as I can tell, the only common theme (and, in fact, the reason it was brought up at all) is that it conveniently allows the apologist in question to keep their own stuff.

And now, for my own amusement (and hopefully yours, as well), I'd like to re-introduce you to the most bogus, most immoral explanation for the difference between personal and private properties I've ever seen, brought to you by former YouTube user antonkowalski.

antonkowalski
Personal property is part of your person and includes property from which you have the right to exclude others. Private property is a social relationship, not a relationship between person and thing.

Altimadark
So by your logic, if you own a house and use it just for you and your family, it's personal property, but if you rent out a room (social relationship), it's suddenly private property.

There is nothing to add. That is right. That's why we need to socialize private property to give it to people who need it as personal property.

[Skm1091]

It's been a while since I looked at this vid

[yt]LfEn3RLm_os[/yt]

I was bored so while scrolling through the comments I found this by c0nc0rdance

Ah, the gun utopia of Switzerland.  Let's take a closer look, though.

Most of the guns in Switzerland are in the hands of reservist soldiers.  Most of the non-military guns are match and hunting rifles.  Handguns make up less than 10% of private gun ownership.

90% of murders in Switzerland are committed with guns.  Though their rates of gun homicide are lower than the US, they are higher than most of Western Europe (0.2 gun homicides per 100,000 population in Germany vs. 3.5 gun homicides per 100,000 in Switzerland).

There's a universal registration process including mandatory background check.  Gun import/export is tightly regulated.  Non sporting rifle weapons require a justification and inspection by the local law enforcement.  Recent referenda to require all weapons to be stored in lockers at shooting ranges or armories were defeated by a narrow margin (54% voted against).

A February 27th, 2013 mass shooting outside a factory in Lucerne left four dead, six injured.
The Zug Massacre of September 27th, 2001 was a mass shooting in the canton's parliament building.  A sole gunman, Friedrich Leibacher, using civilian forms of military weapons, managed to shoot and kill 15, and injure another 18.

http://www.npr.org/2013/03/19/174758723/facing-switzerland-gun-culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/27/us-swiss-shooting-idUSBRE91Q0KB20130227
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zug_massacre
Show less

Heres my response

+C0nc0rdance Germany's overall murder rate 0.8/100000, Switzerlands overall murder rate- 0.7/100000.

Germany < Switzerland

C0nc0rdance looking at only gun murders is cherry picking. You have to look at the overall homicide rate. Picking on only gun murders in my opinion is also very selfish because you basically implying that people killed by other means are not as valuable those killed with firearms. See how repugnant that sounds?

BTW two of the worst school massacres (erfurt & winneden) were in Germany.

Yes the Swiss laws are stricter than the USA but they are one of the more lenient ones in Western Europe, at least compared to places like the UK and Germany.

Going on about Handguns, Handgun ownership in the UK (muzzle loaders, 1-2 shot break actions for the most part)  is not even one percent of the population yet their rate is 1.2 almost double the Swiss rate and gun control in the UK did not stop the Cumbria shooting in the 2010 either. 

[MrBogosity]

Broadly speaking, I think Shane has it right. People who are against private property and for personal property seem to do so because they think it gives them moral justification to steal from others while saying their own stuff is off-limits.

I say this mostly because I've heard several explanations as to what the difference is between "personal" and "private" properties. Near as I can tell, the only common theme (and, in fact, the reason it was brought up at all) is that it conveniently allows the apologist in question to keep their own stuff.

Usually after we give them the ol' "So it's all right if I come and take your TV?" argument.

[Travis Retriever]

https://mises.org/daily/6101/The-Molyneux-Problem
I'll be the first to admit that Stef's book was rather...poorly written and hard to parse (for me at least), but honestly? The criticisms here just strike me as hair-splitting and nit picking tbh.
I suspect the follow up:  https://mises.org/daily/6105/ isn't any better.

I found Hawkeye's description of UPB vastly better than Stef's (epic win quote):  http://lordthawkeye.deviantart.com/journal/Arguing-from-first-principles-morality-321855155

[Travis Retriever]

Can you homestead on the ocean or other body of water? I guess it's theoretically possible, but what would be considered yours would be the pier/land/dock that your houseboat is regularly anchored at, not the water.

And it's definitely possible practically speaking, if Fish Legal and the Canadian Fisheries prior to the government's takeover of them roughly 20-30 years ago would have been any indicator.

[Travis Retriever]

It's the same thing as any property.  If I spend time tending to a plot of land and making a thriving farm out of it, it really doesn't make sense to argue that I'm "stealing" that farm from everyone by claiming ownership of it because that argument presupposes that my time and labour has no value.
This is why you can't just point to land and say "Mine!", you have to actually do something with it.

Given the first sentence it sounds like communists aren't so much butthurt at us as they are reality--two people can hold the same idea, but two people can't eat the same orange or occupy the same space, etc, as that article "The Fight Against IP" on the Mises Institute website noted.  We're simply being descriptive in our descriptions of tangible property because of the inherent scarcity of it.  The first rule of economics after all is that wants are infinite, while wealth/resources/etc are all finite after all.

[AnCap Dave]

I don't know exactly how to qualify this, but I'm putting it in Fail Quotes because of either a massive blunder on their part, or their blatant removal of the source of the quote.

Either way, Being Liberal quoting Ayn Rand is fucking hilarious.

[R.E.H.W.R.]

I don't know exactly how to qualify this, but I'm putting it in Fail Quotes because of either a massive blunder on their part, or their blatant removal of the source of the quote.

Either way, Being Liberal quoting Ayn Rand is fucking hilarious.

Speaking of Being Liberal!

[Travis Retriever]

Speaking of Being Liberal!

@Being Liberal--"Yup, just like racial profiling, and needing to do that!"--an honest cop (aka no cop ever).

I remember back in the good 'ol days (lol) when they were talking big about personal liberty and against that kind of bullshit logic when the republicans used it for airport security...We see where you are when the shoe is on the other foot.  Fuck them.  Also, so...why do cops, the miltary, etc all get a free pass?

[Ibrahim90]

because they enjoy giving fellatio to the government.