Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew H.
No. You're still not getting it. Property law defines what *your* property is in the first place. The ability to defend a particular piece of land doesn't make that land yours; it doesn't mean you own it. *Anyone* can use force. All you need is a gun or knife or lock or pointy stick. This isn't even limited to physical property - you could use force to beat up or threaten people who copy your intellectual property. Or to take the intellectual property of others. The ability to use force doesn't define what property is.
Some one could steal something from me, sure. But that doesn't mean that they own what they've stolen.
|
Force absolutely defines what is owned. The fact that most societies communally delegate that force to the police and the army doesn't make it any less the use of force. It just means the robber barons have to work within different rules from their ancestors who gained/held the land by force in the first place. Lawyers might like to think they define property, but they're just the peripheral minions who codify rules under which force, if necessary, is applied. Try evicting some of the foreclosures now taking place in the US without the backup of the police if someone decides to start shooting the bailiffs. Or, more on topic, try imprisoning or fining copyright offenders without a police
force to back up a court judgement.