That is an ahistorical perspective. For most of human history, you could be killed for putting a yurt or hut in someone else's land. Even chimps will kill others for infringing on territory.

There were breif periods where humans entered virgin land, but these people migrated because other land and resources were spoken for.

>Private property is just a legitimized theft, because it leaves some people without access to land or natural resources that is required for survival.

This is reverse reasoning. people lacking resources doesn't imply it was stolen from them. The alternative is that they simply didn't start with any.

Rights don't derive from wants or needs.

My wanting a pony does not give me a natural right to a pony. My hunger does not give me a natural right to food

>It's not true that without private property you get state slavery or a strongman situation, you may check Zapatistas

The zapititistas did not acquire all their land, people, and resources through free choice, nor were people free to stop collaborating if they chose.

> That is an ahistorical perspective. For most of human history, you could be killed for putting a yurt or hut in someone else's land. Even chimps will kill others for infringing on territory.

I don't agree with you, there are books such as The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity that counter your rhetoric. Private property norms did not exist for most of human history.

> Even chimps will kill others for infringing on territory.

On the other hand Bonobo is not so territorial and is too one of the species that is the closest to us.

>This is reverse reasoning. people lacking resources doesn't imply it was stolen from them. The alternative is that they simply didn't start with any.

Why then some people usurp land and natural resources and not let others use them?

> Rights don't derive from wants or needs.

From what they derive? If you agree that there is no natural rights, then how do you justify private property rights?

> The zapititistas did not acquire all their land, people, and resources through free choice, nor were people free to stop collaborating if they chose.

Please share your sources for this statement.

Bonobos are not pacifist. There is less violence within the troop, but they will still kill and maim, especially in the case of territorial disputes.

Groups of humans have always organized for Mutual Aid, but it has never been unilateral or not subject to the approval of the group.

Norms around private property are different across time and depend on the level of abundance. At no point could a strange human come and take your possessions huts, or food without permission.

In general, I'm getting the impression from your comment that you have some overly idealistic beliefs, and that you're perhaps unwilling to engage honestly with ideas that are counter to your own, but in any case..

Re: The Dawn of Everything

You're saying you don't agree with him because of a book you read - but that book has legitimate historians making some pretty bold criticisms: "cherry-picked and selectively presented examples", "perilously close to scholarly malpractice."

There is some positive feedback as well, but in general, if a book claiming to be historical elicits this kind polarization, it's probably not something to base a strong belief on.

I'm also not quite sure why you would find it hard to agree with the notion that, throughout history, humans have been protective of their territory. The list of examples you could point to for this is unending.

> Why then some people usurp land and natural resources and not let others use them?

You're question here doesn't really do accomplish anything re: property somehow being theft. I would suggest that "the reason" some people aquire land and don't let others use it can simply be because they don't want to. Sometimes the answer is that it's not financially viable to share it. Sometimes the answer is that they fear the destruction of the land or resource if they just open it up to anyone. Any of these reasons is sufficient, because they don't actually need a reason.

> If you agree that there is no natural rights, then how do you justify private property rights?

To start, the other guy never claimed private property was a natural right. The rights we have emerged from people wanting to self organize for their mutual benefit. They needed to agree on some fundamental protections that enable an actual net benefit of their organized society, and giving people rights to own and protect their property is generally needed for people to feel confident that effort they put in to improve the land is effort they will be rewarded for. It's a nice idea that people will improve land for the good of humanity, but in reality, people are not motivated by that enough to overcome the people who would abuse that system by "free-loading". It should tell you something that private property + property rights have consistently emerged, whenever people have tried to put together a society.

> Please share your sources for this statement

I admittedly didn't know much about this, but on some cursory research, it seems pretty obvious to me that this was not an entirely "free choice" based movement..

"Rebels wore ski masks and used furniture and other office materials to barricade themselves inside of buildings once they had taken them over.[11] During the occupation of the city, rebels also painted pro-Zapatista statements on the walls of buildings.[12] While raiding San Cristóbal de las Casas, the Zapatistas released 230 predominantly Indigenous prisoners from jail and also demolished land records in protest"

And the source you're asking for: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_uprising#Events

> In general, I'm getting the impression from your comment that you have some overly idealistic beliefs, and that you're perhaps unwilling to engage honestly with ideas that are counter to your own, but in any case..

I like precise logical argumentation, that's not idealism, I don't make any unnecessary assumptions

> I'm also not quite sure why you would find it hard to agree with the notion that, throughout history, humans have been protective of their territory. The list of examples you could point to for this is unending.

Oh, that's very simple, for most of human history humans lived as hunter gatherers and they did not have private property or rent relations.

>To start, the other guy never claimed private property was a natural right. The rights we have emerged from people wanting to self organize for their mutual benefit.

No, there was an enclosure of commons that happened to exploit farmers as factory workers. Those rights were always about naturalizing oppressive human relations.

>It should tell you something that private property + property rights have consistently emerged, whenever people have tried to put together a society.

This is not true, many civilizations were against private property rights and private property rights were never universal, they are even not universal in this worlds, even if they exist in most places around the world.

>I admittedly didn't know much about this, but on some cursory research, it seems pretty obvious to me that this was not an entirely "free choice" based movement..

No one is coerced to join those rebels. And rebels are rebelling against unjust genocide of Indigenous Americans among others.

Those hunter gatherers still had territory. Sometimes it was claimed and defended by a tribe and not individuals, but still the same.

Only in places of complete abundance did people not make claims.

They did not have private property with landlord and employers. They had common property and usually some kind of gift economy.

> I like precise logical argumentation

That's not quite how your comments elsewhere in this thread read lol

> This is not true, many civilizations were against private property rights and private property rights were never universal

Wanna name a couple of those civilizations that didn't have property rights that managed to thrive and grow beyond a population of like 10,000? If you're going to point towards something like Greenland or China where land is owned exclusively by the state and leased out.. that's the same thing as private property rights, the people who lease that land out have rights with respect to that land. Countries literally can not exist without property rights, and if you're gonna say "yea and countries shouldn't exist it's all just made up borders anyway, mann..." then you're username is incredibly fitting lmao

I also never said that these rights were universal, just that they show up. A lot. And if you want to claim that reason is because of some oppression, go for it. I happen to think this is wrong, and the fact that basically every time these rights are revoked things go to shit tells me that's because they exist for a reason. See

> No one is coerced to join those rebels.

Brother, they showed up with guns and took over buildings by force; they destroyed the land records for everyone, not just their specific "members" - if that's not coercion, what is? Please recognize that you may just be enamored with the ideals of what the group said on paper, and are therefore rationalizing their extremist actions that end up being counterproductive to any positive goals.

It seems like you don't discuss in a good faith to be honest.

> That's not quite how your comments elsewhere in this thread read lol

What do you don't understand? I can try to explain in more elementarily if you have problems with understanding something.

> Wanna name a couple of those civilizations that didn't have property rights that managed to thrive and grow beyond a population of like 10,000?

This list can be quite relevant, some of those project existed for a short time, some for longer: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1W1wWjWNXhvHjMzzyxT5z5Es_...

>Brother, they showed up with guns and took over buildings by force; they destroyed the land records for everyone, not just their specific "members" - if that's not coercion, what is?

What do you think about genocide of Indigenous Americans? Is it okay? Or can they defend themselves?

I’m meeting you where you are, my friend.

Hope you have a nice rest of your day.

> people lacking resources doesn't imply it was stolen from them. The alternative is that they simply didn't start with any.

So basically, you're saying that if you were born into resources, you have a right to them? And if not, sucks to be you?

What about complete sociopathic lack of empathy? Were you born into that, too? Or was your empathy stolen from you?

> Rights don't derive from wants or needs.

Quoting so you can't retract.

> For most of our history humans did not have to pay for a piece of land to put up some yurt or hut and live there.

In those same times, anyone that wandered by who was stronger could simply kill them and take over the yurt, until someone stronger showed and killed them in turn.

Not a great way to live, and not a very long life.

How is that different to the current society, except that now if you put up a yurt somewhere you will get harassed by police?

For most of human history, people fought over the right for members of their group to put up a hut or yurt on a piece of land. And/Or some other, more powerful group would come and take whatever they wanted, including sex and slaves, from other, weaker groups of humans.

Yeah, so indeed it's important to organize self-defense groups that can help you not get hurt or enslaved.

Now you have a group (or multiple groups) of people that will use violence to prevent people from doing the things that they feel are wrong. Probably they'll decide on what those things that are worth using violence to prevent are, and probably they'll write them down so that everyone is on the same page. If they don't do that, then they are using violence for arbitrary and undefined reasons, which most people don't want. I think I see where this is going...

What is the vision for this scenario that doesn't just turn into new groups taking power and enforcing their rules?

The most important difference is everyone could create such a group without main authority monopolizing violence. Some would try to recreate current authoritarian relations, while others would oppose them.

It's a nice thought, many small bands of people each doing their own thing. But I don't see why people think it would turn out differently than it has turned out before, which is some groups becoming large and powerful enough that they push out, destroy, or absorb other groups, until they become large and powerful enough that they're just called government.

> Yeah, so indeed it's important to organize self-defense groups that can help you not get hurt or enslaved.

Did you realize you just came up with the system you were opposing?

We can organize into some groups, let's call them countries, with an organized self-defense groups, we can call them police and military, to prevent our yurts from being stolen.

Chiapas is the poorest and most backward state in Mexico [1]. There's nothing worth emulating in it.

1- https://growthlab.hks.harvard.edu/publications/why-chiapas-p...

Yeah, Zapatistas have much higher standard of living than other people that live in Chiapas, which is impressive. You have to always consider local conditions and if you can see that certain ideas help some part of some territory develop better then alternatives then it's a strong argument for them. Especially considering that rebels are fighting against colonially motivated genocide.

> Yeah, Zapatistas have much higher standard of living than other people that live in Chiapas, which is impressive.

Of course, the corrupt ruling bandits always enjoy a higher standard of living than their subjects. The same story in every anarchist and communist society.

Zapatistas are organized Indigenous Americans, they are fighting against genocide. Why for you people who fight for their own survival are bandits? Do you think that people who were committing the genocide are fine? Do you approve of genocide of Indigenous Americans? If so, then that's disgusting.

"For most of our history humans did not have to pay for a piece of land to put up some yurt or hut and live there."

You can still put up your yurt or hut in many places of the Earth, probably including Chiapas, but it seems that more people want to live in London, Munich, Tokio or Barcelona.

Show me a place with a stateless society and without private property that actually attracts nontrivial amounts of people. You speak of such places highly and reverently, but for all their highest level of freethought, they don't seem to compete well with traditional urban centers of the capitalist world.

When voting with their feet, people mostly move to wealthy countries that protect personal property, not away from them.