I got into an argument about guns and my reasoning is guns, cars, and houses can be either personal and private property. For example, someone in a communist militia who owns a gun for the benefit of the militia would be owning that gun personally, while someone who is in a reactionary militia or hordes guns for their value would own those guns privately. Same thing for a house or car. If you own either of those out of necessity it's personal property while if you own either of these things not because you need them then it's private property. I think the intent of ownership is very important, I think a toothbrush could be private property if your hoarding them to sell. Does anyone get what I'm saying? Can we keep the discussion related to guns since that's where this question came up.

  • usurp [none/use name]
    ·
    4 years ago

    So peasants are tied to land by a pinky promise and chattel slavery is just awful. Well neither exist in modern society, slavery changed with the times, much like how I think property is a fluid concept then so must be slavery. There's us prison style slavery, sex slavery, wage slavery, there's the slavery that happens to migrants, and you got a few backwaters that still practice serfdom and chattel slavery that we just don't know about. Is that right or was that a bad take?