The problem is that the argument is circular.
What we have both done, is utilize air, our vocal cords, and our brains
Already in this sentence, you presupose that your brain is your property. Also, in this example, you used a public good - air in your manufacture of words, yet they are somehow completely yours.
The fish example gets even more problematic. At which point does the fish become yours? You are saying that the fish belongs to you because you caught it, but what gave you the right to catch it? So, simply by removing it from its natural habitat, you somehow transform it into your property?
The idea of property is an abstraction. A very useful one, but it has inherent limitations. Property is not theft, but theft becomes impossible without the concept of property. After all, property is immeasurable. If I am wondering on he island, and I find a rock with a word carved on it, there is no way of telling whether it is "property" or not. It is a concept that only exists as a social construct.
Going back to the fish example, while the fish is swimming in the water, it does not belong to anyone. So, you claim it for your own, and catch it. You are saying that the effort involved in catching it has somehow made it your property, without you asking anybody else. But what if I wanted to let the fish swim?
Some good food for thought, Nenad. As before, I will do my best to think your points through and will respond in time. I want to make sure I don't react and respond out of emotion, so I will take my time to communicate back as best I can. Thanks for reading and commenting!
Mmm, at first your argument hinted that we would have to consider earth and mother nature an individual as well. Although you do end with a valid point. The fact is the fish is swimming you worked hard to catch it..you deserve to eat that fish. According to you.. we have to consider everything property.. he didn't say that. I like how he started off by describing how 2 strangers meet.. it shows where and how his examples including how the strangers relationship evolves. Because he forgot to mention whether they ever negotiated use of the of the large body of water.. i think it's safe to assume they already negotiated the terms of fishing.
If I go out fishing on my boat and @jbouchard12 rolls up next to me on the SS Minnow, do I get mad when he catches a fish? No I'd high five the dude and ask him what bait he's using. If I'm really hungry I could ask him for a filet, and maybe he'd give it to me. He may ask for something else he values more in return. He may even wish me luck and go about his day. My only recourse after failed negotiations would be violence...if I'm a violent thief. That's his fish, we didn't have to negotiate anything.
Now, if he caught the fish in my fish farm pond in my backyard, well then he would be stealing fish that I own. I have a clear claim on the fish, since they are on my property, and I paid money to build the farm and stock it. He may disagree, but he would have to argue with my .45 if he refuses to leave my property. Again, I doubt it would ever come to that since the vast majority of people are relatively sane, but of course violence is the ultimate tool to defend yourself and your claims to your property.
another good example... great stuff, thumbs up. I agree and would also be giving high fives and trying negotiate for some fish to eat plus advice to improve my fishing skills.
I would probably try to negotiate myself into helping/working on that SS Minnow so I can simplify the task of actually catching fish.
Not to mention I love seafood and because of this... would be busting/kissing ass just to get a decent cut of any and all seafood that the SS Minnow was bringing in. I'm just saying... I love seafood.
So, your fish farm is on your property? Can you please explain how apart of the ocean acquires this "property" attribute. Is there some sort of chemical change? Or did you simply say one day two-year old style: "Mine!", and decided to kill people who dispute that?
It seems that replies have a limited depth...
Anyway, I was only addressing the second example. And if the fish farm is on "his" backyard, that does not actually change the question, what makes a particular patch of ground somebody's property?
there was 2 examples he made..
I'm replying to your post below, as I can't reply to it directly:
That patch of land is the mine, the same way that the fish is mine, or my words are mine. We take the same principles in how we understand those to be my property and apply them to the land that I own as well.
As far as the example above, could a two year old say "mine" and kill people who dispute it? I suppose so, but what kinda world do you think we live in? This stuff is extremely rare, most people don't act that way and understand property implicitly with all of the actions they take on a day to day basis. Violence is very rarely ever needed to defend property or claim property (unless you're a government) ^^
The only way they could really negotiate fishing terms is if they assume that they are the only two people that could possibly want to have a claim on the fish.
How can we account for all the fish in the sea for everyone on the planet? I'm sure plenty of people would like to claim a lot of fish for themselves right now. Unfortunately it requires work to get a fish. This is why we pay money for other people to do that work.
Fisherman can also certainly come to voluntary terms on where to fish, what to fish, and how many they cap themselves at, but these would all be voluntary negotiations as I outlined above. It's in their best interest to see their industry thrive, afterall, so overfishing would lead to additional costs for their businesses. Disputes would be mediated before violence as I don't see cod fishermen turning into pirates against one another. That would burden their businesses with additional, unsustainable costs, that their competitors would exploit by behaving rationally.