Noor wrote:You assume that the whole renting is valid and moral. Yes, it might be a 'mutually voluntary' situation at first, but it ends up justifying authoritarian and aggressive situations.
Didn't say it was or wasn't. I just wouldn't make that decision for anyone else but me. it's true though, you probably wouldn't have put yourself in that situation.
The issue is because private 'sticky' property forms the very basis of capitalism.
Yeah, that's why I'm not a capitalist. So long as John Huebert isn't here to argue semantics with me I am not a capitalist for the simple fact that I do believe property is a subjective concept. Something, that is not a thing, that the individual decides on a case by case basis whether or not to respect. I don't know what that's called to anyone but it's the way I am.
Society (that is, other people) recognizes it as your possession, and a society that doesn't recognize any form of ownership will fail.
That last part is quite an assertion! Have you seen such a society and how do you mean fail?
Anyways, it doesn't stop ownership it simply makes the idea of ownership more complex and variate between individuals. As a concept, ownership will always exist one way or another. I mean it DID kinda catch on in the first place.
Inks! Minks! The old witch winks, that fat beings to fry! No body home but Jumping Joan, father, mother and I! Sticks! Stocks! Stone Dead! Blind men can't see! Every knave will have a slave, you or I must be he!