Essay talk:Property is Theft

History
Code of Hammurabi, circa 1754 BC: “39. He may, however, assign a field, garden, or house which he has bought, and holds as property, to his wife or daughter or give it for debt.” Private ownership of land (which seems to be your topic here, rather than property in general) is at least as old as the oldest written records, and it has been the norm in non-nomadic societies throughout history, including pre-Columbian indigenous Americans. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 01:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And yet even then the commons were not enclosed upon, meaning your point is moot. To quote Kevin Carson:

— Oxyaena Harass  01:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * To quote the Code of Hammurabi again, “41. If any one fence in the field, garden, and house of a chieftain, man, or one subject to quit-rent, furnishing the palings therefor; if the chieftain, man, or one subject to quit-rent return to field, garden, and house, the palings which were given to him become his property.” Both common areas and demarcated, private land have generally been included in the land practices of non-nomadic groups for as long as there has been record, with the balance between public and private ownership being a recurrent political issue. The conflicts between colonial common grazing land and private Native American farmland were a cause of strife between the groups. To quote Mattagund, “Let us have no quarrels for killing hogs no more than for the cows eating the Indians corn” The resolution of that particular conflict involved constructing fences around the private Algonquin fields to keep the Marylanders’ animals loose in the grazing commons out of them.
 * You have formulated your essay’s opening argument as “Private property was invented in the enclosure of the English commons, therefore…” and while what follows is spurious, the premise being incorrect is an obvious and easily-verifiable historic fact. So where do you go from here? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 03:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You haven't proven anything, that "private Native American farmland" was still communally owned by the Native Americans, and my point is that the Lockean metanarrative commonly cited to justify property is based off of the act of theft of the enclosure of the commons. These older forms of property had a very different rooting than modern property theory does, and they still involved appropriation of land held in commons. Perhaps you missed the part of Carson's quote where it says "individal, fee-simple title to land has, for the most part, been imposed from above by state violence and involved the violation or nullification of preexisting collective title." I also refer you to my newly updated article to show just how wrong you are. — Oxyaena Harass  08:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Land ownership is a bit older than that.
You state: The invention of modern private property theory literally took place as the result of an act of theft: the enclosure of the commons in early modern England.

I guess that this may depend on how you define "modern private property theory", but the concept of land ownership goes back to at least Roman times in the UK.

And that's just in the UK. I would be surprised if historically other cultures did not have the concept of land ownership.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 11:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I refer you to the "Myths" section of my essay for relevant quotes on the subject. — Oxyaena Harass  11:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And I, in turn, refer you to the Wikipedia article which describes the long history of the development of land ownership in England.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I quoted actually scholarly sources, not that drivel on Wikipedia. Did you even read them? — Oxyaena Harass  21:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

How does this extend to other forms of property?
Does the statement "property is theft" also extend to other forms of property? Such as crafted goods or intellectual property/ideas? If someone crafts a stone axe by hand from public property, is the axe therefore public property, or does their labor give them "first claim" to the object? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 13:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

A self refuting idea
"Property is theft" implies that there is something criminal, as in theft, with the idea of owning property. Theft is the idea that there is something criminal in taking an object from another person who can rightfully claim it as their property. If the statement "property is theft" is not self refuting, it is certainly incoherent.Ariel31459 (talk) 06:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)