Topic: Private school is child slavery!!! - page 6. (Read 8717 times)

Indeed you are wrong again. I'm glad you're coming to realize this. You cannot possess property at the same time someone else does. If two people can possess something at the same time, neither owns it, because it is not property.

No, you can't. Data isn't property.

I dispute that.

I see. We both know the meaning of the word "air." Someone copied that data into our brains. The transfer of that data into your brain occurred without my permission. The transfer of that data into my brain happened without your permission. Have you stolen from me? Have I stolen from you?

one-line refutation: lets say i have the intention to return the key i memorized... 

[/quote]

Myrkul didn't really state that well.  The private possesion of the private keys does, indeed, indicate ownership of the value that those coins represent.  However, this is only assumed to be legitimate because there is no way to determine who minght be the legitimate owner of those coins from within the system itself.  Thus, possession of the private keys must be presumed to have been aquired honestly.  Either way, the coping of the private keys, which are simply numbers, isn't theft of property; it's theft of the access to that property.  In this particular case, that property isn't tangible, but nor is it digital; it's simply a concept that, by using this system, we have implicitly agreed to.  That the transaction entries in the blockchain represent the (presumed legtimate) transfer of value.  This is no different than the tranfer of value that occurs within banking computers daily.  It's entirely abstract.  IT comes down to agreements.  You own what you own because you have a honest claim to it that I do not, and I can coose to honor that claim or not, but society at large develops a consensus upon ownership.  While I do agree with Cunicula that what is property is a social convention, I don't agree that those social conventions would not occur in the absence of governments, nor that governments are the natural body to define them.  We have many examples of primitive societies that didn't ever develop anything like what we would consider a government, and yet there are consistent patterns to how these societies view personal property.  Generally speaking, if you killed it and cooked it, it's yours to give away or not; and since most such societes are based upon gift economies, this is usually what happens.  Not because it was community property, but because it's in the interest of one hunter/gatherer to share his surplus with others like himself for the times that he fails to bag the game and another skilled hunter did not fail.  Now real estate is something more complicated, and a very modern & western idea.  But that does not mean that it belongs to everyone via the state, or to the state/king; while that has often been a convient fiction to the peaceful allocation of real estate property.  What libertarain societies would or should do when a significant minority of people within it's own realm should decide that they don't agree with the dominant consensus about property has never really been settled.  Even modern attempts at creating a real libertarian state all but depend upon land that is 'owned' in the tranditional sense by the city-state, and leased for lifetime long periods per agreements.

Wrong again...

If two people posses something, both people OWNS the thing.


Yes, I can own data. I am right know owning countless quantity of data in my brain.

Moreover, if the copy happens without prior permission of the owner of the object copied, it is theft.

Nope, you must possess the key. If two people can possess the same thing at the same time, neither owns it.

You can't own data, and copying isn't stealing.

Not in accordance with this paper from Satoshi Nakamoto:

http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf


You are proposing that the ownership of object A does not exist because it cannot determine the ownership of object B.

The ownership of object A is still valid if such ownership does not determine the ownership of object B.


http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf


You are contradicting your initial statement. To "change the record for that particular address" it is necessary first to own the private key.


Yes, you have stolen from me:


It is theft:

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/theft?q=theft

I think you're starting to get the idea.

I believe sale of stolen goods is illegal in your country, as well? (Unless, of course, the government does it.)

If a legitimate owner can be found, stolen State property should be returned to them. If a legitimate owner cannot be found, then the only ways to establish legitimate ownership would be homesteading or syndicalism. In other words, open the ownership to first comers, and those who are currently using the state property are automatically "first comers."

Yeah, that's what I'm trying to figure out. Everything has passed through the state's hands and therefore there is no legitimate ownership? (e.g. as a state employee I cannot legitimate own anything. My salary comes from taxes, which is theft.) Or every time the state privatizes something it establishes a legitimate ownership? Or there is a statute of limitations so that if you own something long enough, then it is rightfully yours? Hmm all the options seem to go in the state's favor.

Can you explain?

Like I said, they mostly just got out of the way.


Yeah, seems like the same concept to me. The only difference is "in which rulers were influenced by the Enlightenment"

So, care to explain how each person being their own benevolent, absolute ruler does not meet your "self-similar" qualification?

Yup. Most of what they did was get out of the way.


I did indeed look at that link. And applied the concept. At the lowest level, something that is self-similar resembles the whole. In other words, each individual would resemble the whole. The whole is "benevolent absolutism." Each individual being their own benevolent dictator would indeed resemble, at the lowest level, the whole of benevolent absolutism.

HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAHAHAA!

Yeah, right. That will work.

Tell you what, you want self-similar benevolent absolutism? Sure, no problem. Every person is his or her own benevolent dictator. None can gainsay their word when it comes to their own persons, or the products thereof. Happy?

Sole possession of private keys approximates ownership, but it's not. Having keys to a safe doesn't mean I own the contents of the safe.
Bitcoins aren't even digital "things" (like, say, an mp3 is) they're just transactions in a record that everyone has. Sole possession of the private keys just means you're the only one who can change the record for that particular address. If I get your private keys, I haven't stolen from you. I may have trespassed, if I had to access your computer to get them, but it's not theft. Sorry.

"Enforce"? Do me a favor, and read your posts out loud before you hit "Post." It will save you from moments like this. What's the root word of "enforce"?

Most likely, yes. States aren't known for making deals without the gun on the table.

If I steal a car, and then sell the car, does the car rightfully belong to the guy I sold it to, or to the guy I stole it from?