> The people who want to abolish private property are interested in removing the ability for you to exercise power over others because you are holding a public good in private. For instance, by purchasing land and renting it to others, or by using private water rights and making a profit from them.
I declare your house a public good, it is now mine.
> This is always the response of someone who doesn't understand the difference between "private property" and "personal property".
This is the response of someone who does not make a distinction between these because there is no distinction. Only to people who think there is a distinction believe that there is a meaningful difference. No one is obligated to believe in your belief, nor are they going to on purpose dumb themselves down to your level so that people can argue on your field. You are trying to force your definition of words so that you can appear as if you have something meaningful to say, but you don't.
My property is my property. Not yours.
> If we can talk about this stuff without resorting to strawmen, I think there's an interesting and useful exchange of perspectives that can happen.
Of course you do, you're a commie. You absolutely believe in this despite how many holes your ideology has, because if you don't you won't be able to win. Every single bad aspect is nothing compared to the defects in your opponent's world view.
> I declare your house a public good, it is now mine.
Private houses, when used as a primary residence, are typically closer to the personal property rather than private property realm. There's a very real discussion about how the land should be allocated, but it's more likely that land use becomes addressed via land value taxes rather than by appropriation.
> [Rude remarks re: definitions]. My property is my property. Not yours.
Private property, real property, personal property, public property -- these are all types of property in the discourse. Liberalism, conservatism, socialism, and many other economic theories use these terms, and choose (or choose not to) differentiate between them. Plenty of conservative thinkers recognize the difference between private and personal property, and choose not to treat them differently.
> You're not here for discussion.
I think you'll find I'm very much interested in a discussion, if there is discussion to be had. Despite your hostility, I don't believe I've resorted to any 'punching down', as it were.
> Of course you do, you're a commie.
My personal beliefs are on that side of things, yes, though that's not the language I would use. (FWIW, I would also describe myself as opposed to Soviet style communism. I am not, for instance, a fan of Lenin's authoritarian "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", and I find many authoritarian communists absolutely vile.)
> I declare your house a public good, it is now mine.
No, it's not. Collective ownership is not "hippity hoppity, your stuff is now my property". It's about the management of goods -- land, rivers, buildings, etc. -- for the good of all, not just the one person designated owner.
You are still thinking in terms of ownership, which should absolutely not be a thing for public goods like land. Come back when you've actually read Marx and not some far-right exegesis of Marx.
I declare your house a public good, it is now mine.
> This is always the response of someone who doesn't understand the difference between "private property" and "personal property".
This is the response of someone who does not make a distinction between these because there is no distinction. Only to people who think there is a distinction believe that there is a meaningful difference. No one is obligated to believe in your belief, nor are they going to on purpose dumb themselves down to your level so that people can argue on your field. You are trying to force your definition of words so that you can appear as if you have something meaningful to say, but you don't.
My property is my property. Not yours.
> If we can talk about this stuff without resorting to strawmen, I think there's an interesting and useful exchange of perspectives that can happen.
Of course you do, you're a commie. You absolutely believe in this despite how many holes your ideology has, because if you don't you won't be able to win. Every single bad aspect is nothing compared to the defects in your opponent's world view.
You're not here for discussion.