Quote from: gibson042 on September 02, 2011, 05:06:56 PM

Like I said, these are the problems of large-scale aggression. You seem to be defending the concept by stating that "society" are justified in imposing their will upon peaceful people.

My possessions were not given to me by "society", they were given to me by individuals, some of whom offered them as gifts, some of whom I traded with directly, and some of whom I traded with as representatives of voluntarily-joined organizations. Possessions have been also taken from me, some by individuals acting alone and some by individuals representing organizations claiming the power to unilaterally demand things of me, their implicit serf.

The reality is that force (or more specifically, the threat thereof) is frequently used to distort the chain of ownership that would otherwise exist. Intellectual property is the description given to one such distortion, by which force is threatened often and used occasionally against people who would use their own resources to implement ideas copied or derived from others. It is both a bad idea and a rejection of the principle that possessions ought only be acquired by homesteading or voluntary transfer.

With respect, you are avoiding answering the question. I didn't ask about your possessions. I asked about the nature of ownership. Where do you believe that property rights come from somewhere other than society? If property rights don't come from society, then who owns the farms in Eastern Turkey, Israel and Northern Cyprus that were taken by force when once society destroyed another?