Violence is not inherent to personal ownership. In society with a concept of ownership, if I find that you stole from me, the consequence might simply be that I’m no longer your friend and won’t help you when you need it. Ownership is a concept that means I think you shouldn’t take what I own, but it does not specify any practical consequences to that “should not”. Indeed, there may be no tangible consequences - to say that there must be would be to deny the is/ought gap.
This is the problem with phrasing criticisms in such obtuse, “gotcha” ways as in the OP - the actual point of contention is buried so deep it takes a dozen comments and multiple accusations of bad faith to uncover it.
Obviously since everyone in the target audience knows what happens if you try to take something without paying the price the seller wants, this does not form a necessary part of an explanation to that audience. If you want to draw attention to alleged violence in the concept of ownership, you can just say that directly, and then people who disagree can directly see what you’re saying and present their disagreement, and have a more productive discussion. Hope this helps in the future.
if I find that you stole from me, the consequence might simply be that I’m no longer your friend and won’t help you when you need it.
But that isn’t capitalism, is it? Good luck hoarding capital if all you’re going to do to prevent someone from living in a building you own but don’t use is no longer be friends with them. Good luck preventing workers from using the means of production for their own ends if you’re just going to be angry that they’re not giving investors a cut.
More semantically, what you describe is called “belonging”, not ownership. Likewise ownership without any consequences for violation is called “association”. Generally speaking I am fine with using words broadly, but when you are weaseling your way out of the violence underlying capitalism then it is important to note that capital ownership is not merely capital belonging to someone or capital being associated with someone.
No, capitalism is what I already explained. That was an explanation of ownership.
I don’t know what situation you’re imagining where someone is forced to be violent to keep what they have. Presumably though it’s one where someone else is using violence to try and get it off them, because otherwise simply keeping your stuff in a locked box and not willingly giving anyone the key is sufficient to protect it.
Violence is not inherent to personal ownership. In society with a concept of ownership, if I find that you stole from me, the consequence might simply be that I’m no longer your friend and won’t help you when you need it. Ownership is a concept that means I think you shouldn’t take what I own, but it does not specify any practical consequences to that “should not”. Indeed, there may be no tangible consequences - to say that there must be would be to deny the is/ought gap.
This is the problem with phrasing criticisms in such obtuse, “gotcha” ways as in the OP - the actual point of contention is buried so deep it takes a dozen comments and multiple accusations of bad faith to uncover it.
Obviously since everyone in the target audience knows what happens if you try to take something without paying the price the seller wants, this does not form a necessary part of an explanation to that audience. If you want to draw attention to alleged violence in the concept of ownership, you can just say that directly, and then people who disagree can directly see what you’re saying and present their disagreement, and have a more productive discussion. Hope this helps in the future.
But that isn’t capitalism, is it? Good luck hoarding capital if all you’re going to do to prevent someone from living in a building you own but don’t use is no longer be friends with them. Good luck preventing workers from using the means of production for their own ends if you’re just going to be angry that they’re not giving investors a cut.
More semantically, what you describe is called “belonging”, not ownership. Likewise ownership without any consequences for violation is called “association”. Generally speaking I am fine with using words broadly, but when you are weaseling your way out of the violence underlying capitalism then it is important to note that capital ownership is not merely capital belonging to someone or capital being associated with someone.
No, capitalism is what I already explained. That was an explanation of ownership.
I don’t know what situation you’re imagining where someone is forced to be violent to keep what they have. Presumably though it’s one where someone else is using violence to try and get it off them, because otherwise simply keeping your stuff in a locked box and not willingly giving anyone the key is sufficient to protect it.