pull down to refresh
30 sats \ 4 replies \ @unschooled OP 3 Apr \ parent \ on: Re-broaching an old question: private property - 'natural' or 'acquired' right? BooksAndArticles
You've provided an interesting framing. Reminds me of how money is unjustly debated by the powers of the state apparatus.
I like what was said here #932907 about rights being somewhat problematic a term. In any case, I guess the fundamental most important right is that of being able to own and use one's own property without that property being unjustly infringed on.
Importantly, what I think lots of bitcoiners have in common (probably most people if you really got to know them) is that they dont believe the enforcement of their right to their money is 'aquired' by being party to a civilization that can protect you if that right becomes threatened.
In other words, my right to own bitcoin is 'natural' in the sense it doesn't require the state to intervene except (maybe) in edge cases.
Hobbes, Locke et al. didn't yet know about programmatically enforced property rights.
Hm... Do these "edge cases" include getting scammed for example?
reply
Being scammed is just another word for fraud, which is a type of theft. The scammer essentially entered into a contract in bad faith, which nullifies the validity of the contract in the first place.
reply
Probably not. Maybe if someone robs you of your bitcoin by force, but I don't think we're a the point where you have much legal recourse in either case.
reply
Practice has proven that today scamming someone is easier and more profitable than using force. This is amplified by the fact that almost no victim believes in advance that is vulnerable to scams. But nevertheless you have legal recource should you know who the offender is. The offender can be sentenced to return the money at least and made to do so by using the state's violence apparatus actually.
reply