Saturday, August 27, 2016


In order to examine my contention that property and ownership do not exist and why such are illusions, it is imperative that I begin by defining terms. When I say that property and ownership do not exist, I do not mean that physical possession of a thing and occupation of land or space doesn't exist. In fact, in my experience when most people use such terms they are not just referring to these physical realities (possession, occupation) but are instead making prescriptions concerning who has the 'moral right' to have exclusive control or access of an object and or a piece of land. After all, to argue that 'one has physical possession of X, therefore they ought have possession of X' is to transgress the is-ought gap.
People say 'That's my car!' which means only he or she should have access and control over it unless he or she consents to allow another to have access and control.
People say 'HEY! Those are my personal belongings. HANDS OFF!' Or 'that guy just stole my watch!' I find that these are often emotive uses of such propertarian language.
Libertarians have been known to argue 'that the principle of 'Self-ownership' is the basis of liberty. And that anyone asserting otherwise is arguing for slavery, as slaves are the property of their owners and that If you don't own yourself, someone else does etc. however this is a false dichotomy as there of course is a 3rd option, that says ownership, the owned, and the owner do not exist. They are mental spooks.
When we use propertarian and ownership language we are often (if not always) expressing our subjective expectations. We are expressing an emotion about X. We say that X 'belongs to me' or 'This is mine!' which means (as I have already stated above) that I and only those I grant permission ought have access to, control of, and use of, X. That anyone who separates me from X, uses and or accesses X without my consent is doing something inappropriate (something I don't like). 
Now whether such language is used to express emotions, mistaken cognitive beliefs or both, is not the subject we are now undertaking. Regardless which of these positions are true, it still follows that such expressions are not true.
Example: If I say the ocean exists, this is a true proposition. If I say the ocean is immoral this proposition is either false and expression of negative emotion about the ocean, or both. But it is not true either way. Either because it is a erred belief or just not propositional or truth apt. The ocean just is, in spite of your feelings about it. 
The point in examining this prescriptive moral usage of ownership-language is not to refute yet more moral claims made by moralists but to point out the implications of moral nihilism in the realm of such prescriptive concepts as property and ownership. For if objective morality is illusion and moral truths do not exist it follows ownership, property, belongings, etc are illusory as well. While I am saying that concepts such as property and ownership do not correspond to reality, that doesn't mean that I think such concepts aren't useful. 
Objective morality, property, religion, authority, these are all illusions and effective implements of control. Nature does what works. What doesn't takes a dirt nap, and sometimes what works is un-truth or just straight up fiction...
It is a fact of our existence that we possess what we do until a greater force than ourselves or death pries it from your cold dead hands. You possess what you do because you have the means (power/ability) to fend off those who would take it by force (either by your own power, the state, or alliances with other powers.) There is no such thing as a legitimate right to control and possess, but legitimacy is a bed time story for gullible 'grown ups'.  You may think that you 'own a house' and or 'land' but you are only renting these things from the tax-man. You may gullibly believe that you have a right to own a thing, but there is no such thing as 'right'— only might.