Property is freedom. Property is the result of human action to achieve ends. Only when property is acquired through plunder rather than economic production and exchange can it be theft.
Property is freedom for the haves , not for the have-nots. Property might be the result of human action to receive ends, or it might just be that your rich parents gave it to you, and their forefathers robbed it from someone, for instance native americans. Property has no moral value in itself. It is not a right. We have the right to our share of the accumulated wealth on this planet,as this was created by our forefathers. I have a right to have personal property, if not in excess,but I do not have the right to own a river, and deny you the right to drink if you are thirsty, because you have no money. THis is oppression, and this is what property is in most cases, a tool of oppression.
What is your distinction between "private" and "personal" property, specifically?
Why do you seem to be arguing that property itself is responsible for the "haves" vs "have nots"?
Who has a superior claim to the production of another, absent a voluntary agreement? Remember that wage labor is not the worker's ownership of the produced good, but exchanging his capacity to produce for an agreed wage instead of the investment costs and risk of speculative production which is assumed by the employer.
Property is theft.
Property is freedom. Property is the result of human action to achieve ends. Only when property is acquired through plunder rather than economic production and exchange can it be theft.
Property is freedom for the haves , not for the have-nots. Property might be the result of human action to receive ends, or it might just be that your rich parents gave it to you, and their forefathers robbed it from someone, for instance native americans. Property has no moral value in itself. It is not a right. We have the right to our share of the accumulated wealth on this planet,as this was created by our forefathers. I have a right to have personal property, if not in excess,but I do not have the right to own a river, and deny you the right to drink if you are thirsty, because you have no money. THis is oppression, and this is what property is in most cases, a tool of oppression.
What is your distinction between "private" and "personal" property, specifically?
Why do you seem to be arguing that property itself is responsible for the "haves" vs "have nots"?
Who has a superior claim to the production of another, absent a voluntary agreement? Remember that wage labor is not the worker's ownership of the produced good, but exchanging his capacity to produce for an agreed wage instead of the investment costs and risk of speculative production which is assumed by the employer.