The New Appeal Of Communism

[Uncensored2008]

Is it safe to conclude that you oppose antitrust laws and eminent domain? If so, what is your position on the Fifth Amendment?

I oppose neither.

I oppose eminent domain if there is no public interest - such as taking private property on behalf of private concerns, i.e. looters.

I'm not a democrat, so I support the Bill of Rights.

 

[Uncensored2008]

r > g

"Communism" was a Utopian fantasy popularized by Marx. Piketty's book is about economics.

I accept the fact that you've never read Marx.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

And property rights only exist because of the state. The state defines and enforces property rights.

Do you think there are human rights that exist independently of property rights?

His is a statement of abject stupidity.

A man puts up a fence around land in the wilds of Greenland, a thousand miles from the nearest human or government. He declares the land to be his,

Does he have a right to his property? Is anyone taking his land or possessions from him? This illustrates a natural right - the right of property exists absent government or the state - with no state, property rights are axiomatic. The state can only INFRINGE rights, not grant them. Kimura thinks that since men with guns can kill a property owner and take by force what is his, then they are the giver of rights - which is the opposite of reality - they are the taker of rights and can give nothing.

A just society is founded on the recognition and support of natural rights, as this nation was. A tyrant is formed on the basis that the ruled are the property of the rulers, to do with as they please, as Kimura suggests.

That's not enough. Your analysis is far too simplistic.

Let's say that man in your hypothetical who laid claim to otherwise uninhabited land has a son. The man dies, and bequeaths the land to his son. His son sails off from Greenland to Iceland for many years because, you know, those names are really reversed.

Another completely unrelated man comes to the land, where there is no one for many miles around, finds the land uninhabited and claims the otherwise uninhabited land as his own.

The son returns to Greenland, finds this new man on the land his father bequeathed, and says "Hey Squatter, get off my land!"
The second man says "I claimed this land, and I demand you recognize my natural right to it!"

Who owns the land? Is the newcomer a squatter or rightful owner?

How does the son enforce his right to inheritance, and who is to say the second man who has lived on the land for many years has no right to that land?

 

[georgephillip]

And property rights only exist because of the state. The state defines and enforces property rights.

Do you think there are human rights that exist independently of property rights?

His is a statement of abject stupidity.

A man puts up a fence around land in the wilds of Greenland, a thousand miles from the nearest human or government. He declares the land to be his,

Does he have a right to his property? Is anyone taking his land or possessions from him? This illustrates a natural right - the right of property exists absent government or the state - with no state, property rights are axiomatic. The state can only INFRINGE rights, not grant them. Kimura thinks that since men with guns can kill a property owner and take by force what is his, then they are the giver of rights - which is the opposite of reality - they are the taker of rights and can give nothing.

A just society is founded on the recognition and support of natural rights, as this nation was. A tyrant is formed on the basis that the ruled are the property of the rulers, to do with as they please, as Kimura suggests.

What if two men in the wilds of Greenland claim the same property at the same time?

I'm arguing property rights represent the interests of legal persons with respect to things and human rights protect human interests with respect to themselves; property rights govern what may be done by persons with things, and human rights govern how humans may be treated by other humans.

Human rights exist in the absence of property.
(And vice-versa?)

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

Because we are speaking of human rights, by extension we are speaking of individual property rights.

Property rights are simply the acknowledgement by the state or civil rulers of the right of individuals to hold legal title to assets or land.

The ability to own assets is the recognition of sovereignty of the individual. Example, a 1 year old child may have a favorite toy, but the mother seeing the toy dirty can take the toy away at a whim. The baby does not own the toy, because the baby is not sovereign.

ALL civil rights are predicated upon the notion of the sovereignty of the individual, if the state has ultimate title to lands or assets, then the individual has no actual rights, even if the state grants occasional privilege, IF a subject cannot own property, then the subject is actually property of the state, a slave. A slave has no rights.

It is the sovereignty conferred by the right to own property that forms the foundation of all civil rights. Civil rights cannot exist absent property rights.

Is it safe to conclude that you oppose antitrust laws and eminent domain? If so, what is your position on the Fifth Amendment?

I oppose neither.

I oppose eminent domain if there is no public interest - such as taking private property on behalf of private concerns, i.e. looters.

I'm not a democrat, so I support the Bill of Rights.

So you are saying that for the sake of "public interest" a private owner may be compelled to sell his land to the government, by force if necessary?

 

[Uncensored2008]

So you are saying that for the sake of "public interest" a private owner may be compelled to sell his land to the government, by force if necessary?

Of course, provided just compensation is given.

 

[Uncensored2008]

That's not enough. Your analysis is far too simplistic.

Let's say that man in your hypothetical who laid claim to otherwise uninhabited land has a son. The man dies, and bequeaths the land to his son. His son sails off from Greenland to Iceland for many years because, you know, those names are really reversed.

Another completely unrelated man comes to the land, where there is no one for many miles around, finds the land uninhabited and claims the otherwise uninhabited land as his own.

The son returns to Greenland, finds this new man on the land his father bequeathed, and says "Hey Squatter, get off my land!"
The second man says "I claimed this land, and I demand you recognize my natural right to it!"

Who owns the land? Is the newcomer a squatter or rightful owner?

How does the son enforce his right to inheritance, and who is to say the second man who has lived on the land for many years has no right to that land?

Of course it was simplistic, illustrations usually are.

Remember that in the simple scenario, the original man put up a fence, denoted ownership of the land. Thus the squatter would know that the land is claimed.

Clearly, as more people inhabit an area, the need for a resolution of disputes arises, which is why people develop laws and courts to adjudicate said disputes.

That we have laws and courts does not mean that rights are derived from them - quite the opposite, the courts are there to protect rights by providing a peaceful means to resolve disputes.

Joe has a goat, Fred gets a spear and holds it to the throat of Joe and takes the goat. Joe goes to court and the court rules that the goat belongs to Joe.

Did the court give the goat to Joe?

No, the court merely acknowledge the existing possession. This is the reality of rights, a just society acknowledges that we have natural rights, to life, liberty, and property. They do not grant these rights, but acknowledge and protect them. Locke said these rights rights came from God, Madison stated our creator, either way, the reality is that the rights are independent of rulers and governments.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

So you are saying that for the sake of "public interest" a private owner may be compelled to sell his land to the government, by force if necessary?

Of course, provided just compensation is given.

Thank you for clarifying that. I don't see how you can reconcile what you say above with what you said below...

...
ALL civil rights are predicated upon the notion of the sovereignty of the individual, if the state has ultimate title to lands or assets, then the individual has no actual rights,...

...given the fact that eminent domain does seem an affront to the sovereignty of the individual, especially considering that eminent domain is a sovereign power, but I can afford you some relevant rhetoric when making your points.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

That's not enough. Your analysis is far too simplistic.

Let's say that man in your hypothetical who laid claim to otherwise uninhabited land has a son. The man dies, and bequeaths the land to his son. His son sails off from Greenland to Iceland for many years because, you know, those names are really reversed.

Another completely unrelated man comes to the land, where there is no one for many miles around, finds the land uninhabited and claims the otherwise uninhabited land as his own.

The son returns to Greenland, finds this new man on the land his father bequeathed, and says "Hey Squatter, get off my land!"
The second man says "I claimed this land, and I demand you recognize my natural right to it!"

Who owns the land? Is the newcomer a squatter or rightful owner?

How does the son enforce his right to inheritance, and who is to say the second man who has lived on the land for many years has no right to that land?

Of course it was simplistic, illustrations usually are.

Remember that in the simple scenario, the original man put up a fence, denoted ownership of the land. Thus the squatter would know that the land is claimed.

Clearly, as more people inhabit an area, the need for a resolution of disputes arises, which is why people develop laws and courts to adjudicate said disputes.

That we have laws and courts does not mean that rights are derived from them - quite the opposite, the courts are there to protect rights by providing a peaceful means to resolve disputes.

Joe has a goat, Fred gets a spear and holds it to the throat of Joe and takes the goat. Joe goes to court and the court rules that the goat belongs to Joe.

Did the court give the goat to Joe?

No, the court merely acknowledge the existing possession. This is the reality of rights, a just society acknowledges that we have natural rights, to life, liberty, and property. They do not grant these rights, but acknowledge and protect them. Locke said these rights rights came from God, Madison stated our creator, either way, the reality is that the rights are independent of rulers and governments.

What if the negligent son did not work the land and that fence fell into terrible disrepair? In that scenario, the fence would not exist and would the second man then be free to claim the land as uninhabited?

Among nations of hunters, as there is scarce any property, or at least none that exceeds the value of two or three days labour, so there is seldom any established magistrate or any regular administration of justice.​

-Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

Civil government supposes a certain subordination. But as the necessity of civil government gradually grows up with the acquisition of valuable property, so the principal causes which naturally introduce subordination gradually grow up with the growth of that valuable property.​

-Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

When I read Book V Chapter 1, it seems to me that Smith is discussing the necessity of an increasingly complex and sovereign civil government in order for things like "inheriting land" to exist.

With out the existence of a sufficient civil government, inheritance of land does not exist.

 

[Kimura]

And property rights only exist because of the state. The state defines and enforces property rights.

Do you think there are human rights that exist independently of property rights?

His is a statement of abject stupidity.

A man puts up a fence around land in the wilds of Greenland, a thousand miles from the nearest human or government. He declares the land to be his,

Does he have a right to his property? Is anyone taking his land or possessions from him? This illustrates a natural right - the right of property exists absent government or the state - with no state, property rights are axiomatic. The state can only INFRINGE rights, not grant them. Kimura thinks that since men with guns can kill a property owner and take by force what is his, then they are the giver of rights - which is the opposite of reality - they are the taker of rights and can give nothing.

A just society is founded on the recognition and support of natural rights, as this nation was. A tyrant is formed on the basis that the ruled are the property of the rulers, to do with as they please, as Kimura suggests.

Let's get back to property, we'll deal with "natural rights" later minus a thread hijack.

We can define property as anything whose ultimate use is controlled, mostly through the threat of initiation of force. We can include land, ideas, humans (slaves) and even objects. Groups are more effective in defending property than individuals. These groups utilize military force, for example, to defend property from eternal threats. Internal threats require the use of police forces to defend property. Governments represent the ultimate owners since they exercise force which protects property. Governments create a property system for their citizens to use. A good portion of governments have granted citizens very liberal leeway for them to use property to a large degree, but they can still place limits on use through zoning, property taxes, etc. If we went the libertarian route, and gave citizens 100% ownership and direct control of their property, we would recreate an anarchic systems of rump states and micro-states, with business and land owners acting as defacto monarchs of their own fiefdoms. This would result in war, instability and outright pillaging.

 

[bripat9643]

Do you think there are human rights that exist independently of property rights?

His is a statement of abject stupidity.

A man puts up a fence around land in the wilds of Greenland, a thousand miles from the nearest human or government. He declares the land to be his,

Does he have a right to his property? Is anyone taking his land or possessions from him? This illustrates a natural right - the right of property exists absent government or the state - with no state, property rights are axiomatic. The state can only INFRINGE rights, not grant them. Kimura thinks that since men with guns can kill a property owner and take by force what is his, then they are the giver of rights - which is the opposite of reality - they are the taker of rights and can give nothing.

A just society is founded on the recognition and support of natural rights, as this nation was. A tyrant is formed on the basis that the ruled are the property of the rulers, to do with as they please, as Kimura suggests.

What if two men in the wilds of Greenland claim the same property at the same time?

I'm arguing property rights represent the interests of legal persons with respect to things and human rights protect human interests with respect to themselves; property rights govern what may be done by persons with things, and human rights govern how humans may be treated by other humans.

Human rights exist in the absence of property.
(And vice-versa?)

So taking a corn crop away from a man who worked an entire year to produce it isn't a violation of his human rights?

 

[bripat9643]

Do you think there are human rights that exist independently of property rights?

His is a statement of abject stupidity.

A man puts up a fence around land in the wilds of Greenland, a thousand miles from the nearest human or government. He declares the land to be his,

Does he have a right to his property? Is anyone taking his land or possessions from him? This illustrates a natural right - the right of property exists absent government or the state - with no state, property rights are axiomatic. The state can only INFRINGE rights, not grant them. Kimura thinks that since men with guns can kill a property owner and take by force what is his, then they are the giver of rights - which is the opposite of reality - they are the taker of rights and can give nothing.

A just society is founded on the recognition and support of natural rights, as this nation was. A tyrant is formed on the basis that the ruled are the property of the rulers, to do with as they please, as Kimura suggests.

Let's get back to property, we'll deal with "natural rights" later minus a thread hijack.

We can define property as anything whose ultimate use is controlled, mostly through the threat of initiation of force.

No we can't define it that way. The person who trespasses on private property is the one who initiates force. Trespassing is initiating the use of force. Since your premise is bullshit, so is the rest of your argument.

We can include land, ideas, humans (slaves) and even objects. Groups are more effective in defending property than individuals. These groups utilize military force, for example, to defend property from eternal threats.

There, you just admitted it. The property owner does not initiate force if he is defending his property.

Internal threats require the use of police forces to defend property. Governments represent the ultimate owners since they exercise force which protects property.

another bullshit premise. The entity that defends the property isn't necessarily the owner. If I hire private security to defend my property, does the security become the owner? I don't know anyone who would agree.

Governments create a property system for their citizens to use.

wrong again. Private property existed prior to government. The later simply recognizes the former and either respects and defends it or trespasses on it.

A good portion of governments have granted citizens very liberal leeway for them to use property to a large degree, but they can still place limits on use through zoning, property taxes, etc.

the fact that government does impose limits in property use doesn't mean it has any moral authority to do so.

If we went the libertarian route, and gave citizens 100% ownership and direct control of their property, we would recreate an anarchic systems of rump states and micro-states, with business and land owners acting as defacto monarchs of their own fiefdoms. This would result in war, instability and outright pillaging.

a claim lacking any visible means of support.

 

[georgephillip]

His is a statement of abject stupidity.

A man puts up a fence around land in the wilds of Greenland, a thousand miles from the nearest human or government. He declares the land to be his,

Does he have a right to his property? Is anyone taking his land or possessions from him? This illustrates a natural right - the right of property exists absent government or the state - with no state, property rights are axiomatic. The state can only INFRINGE rights, not grant them. Kimura thinks that since men with guns can kill a property owner and take by force what is his, then they are the giver of rights - which is the opposite of reality - they are the taker of rights and can give nothing.

A just society is founded on the recognition and support of natural rights, as this nation was. A tyrant is formed on the basis that the ruled are the property of the rulers, to do with as they please, as Kimura suggests.

What if two men in the wilds of Greenland claim the same property at the same time?

I'm arguing property rights represent the interests of legal persons with respect to things and human rights protect human interests with respect to themselves; property rights govern what may be done by persons with things, and human rights govern how humans may be treated by other humans.

Human rights exist in the absence of property.
(And vice-versa?)

So taking a corn crop away from a man who worked an entire year to produce it isn't a violation of his human rights?

It would be a violation of his property and humanity, wouldn't it?

 

[Kimura]

No we can't define it that way. The person who trespasses on private property is the one who initiates force. Trespassing is initiating the use of force. Since your premise is bullshit, so is the rest of your argument.

There, you just admitted it. The property owner does not initiate force if he is defending his property.

another bullshit premise. The entity that defends the property isn't necessarily the owner. If I hire private security to defend my property, does the security become the owner? I don't know anyone who would agree.

I just gave you the generally accepted definition of property.

Societies have competed with each other for property since time immemorial, even going to war to conquer it. The ability to remain sovereign exists only to the extent that they can defend themselves against other actors. Purchasing land and other types of property have no legal basis in the court of law if such an impartial body doesn’t exist in an anarchic system of nation states. These things are token symbols, and can only work if they are implemented with force. For example, Hitler simply LOL’d at the Treaty of Versailles and wiped his ass with it as he descended into the Rhineland.

This principle is applicable to domestic and local property. Your property is only safe and secure to the extent that the local constabulary can stop thieves, etc. In the case of our society, and the social contract, these laws are a manifestation of our collective agreement to defend and allocate property.

wrong again. Private property existed prior to government. The later simply recognizes the former and either respects and defends it or trespasses on it.


the fact that government does impose limits in property use doesn't mean it has any moral authority to do so.

You have a piece of property, you believe you're the only owner. Someone else, maybe a of groups of individuals, believe otherwise and have their own ideas. Without the government (its laws, courts and ability to use force), there's no other way to decide who's ultimately right, with the exception of might and numerical superiority.

a claim lacking any visible means of support.

Yeah, you're right, except for history.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So you are saying that for the sake of "public interest" a private owner may be compelled to sell his land to the government, by force if necessary?

Of course, provided just compensation is given.

Thank you for clarifying that. I don't see how you can reconcile what you say above with what you said below...

...
ALL civil rights are predicated upon the notion of the sovereignty of the individual, if the state has ultimate title to lands or assets, then the individual has no actual rights,...

...given the fact that eminent domain does seem an affront to the sovereignty of the individual, especially considering that eminent domain is a sovereign power, but I can afford you some relevant rhetoric when making your points.

I think you have confused me with an anarchist.

I recognize that humans will have conflicts. To deal with these conflicts there must be a system of arbitration. Societies must have the means to deal with conflict in a peaceful manner, or the law of the jungle will prevail.

Throughout history there have been only two methods by which men are governed, the reign of rulers, and the rule of law. The concept of the rule of law is that of the social contract, we cede a small portion of our sovereignty to the recognition of codified law. When a society agrees that roads and easements are needed to facilitate trade, the movement of people and goods, then the concept of eminent domain becomes obvious. There is no contradiction between recognition of sovereignty and the idea of eminent domain.

At this point in American history, the clash between the rule of law, subscribed to be a sovereign people, and the rule of men, where the word of kings and dictators is the only real law, is at a breaking point. The left seeks an authoritarian system where a dictator has the authority to rule, call it presidential edicts, or what you like. But the idea that men are invested with the authority that their word is law, clashes with the republican ideals that this nation was built on, where codified law alone dictates the rules of society.

Whether we speak of a dictatorship of the proletariat, or simply Obama ignoring obstacles, the concept is the same, rulers unconstrained by codified laws created by representatives of the people. Here we return to the concept of property rights, the rulers and dictators promoted by the left assume the power they wield because they hold that the state owns all - all lands, all assets, all people. Without the right of people to own land, to own goods, and most importantly, to own themselves, there can be no civil rights of any kind.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Let's get back to property, we'll deal with "natural rights" later minus a thread hijack.

We can define property as anything whose ultimate use is controlled, mostly through the threat of initiation of force. We can include land, ideas, humans (slaves) and even objects. Groups are more effective in defending property than individuals. These groups utilize military force, for example, to defend property from eternal threats. Internal threats require the use of police forces to defend property. Governments represent the ultimate owners since they exercise force which protects property. Governments create a property system for their citizens to use. A good portion of governments have granted citizens very liberal leeway for them to use property to a large degree, but they can still place limits on use through zoning, property taxes, etc. If we went the libertarian route, and gave citizens 100% ownership and direct control of their property, we would recreate an anarchic systems of rump states and micro-states, with business and land owners acting as defacto monarchs of their own fiefdoms. This would result in war, instability and outright pillaging.

Here we get to the crux of the argument. The left holds that all things, including people, are the property of our rulers - call it the state, king, dictatorship of the proletarians, et al - the basic belief is that man is property of his betters. This is what the left works to move us back to. For a brief time, the notion of man as his own master arose, that government was simply a cooperative effort to resolve disputes.

Property is the foundation upon which the concept of man as his own master arises, the man who owns the land he works, thus entitled to the rewards returned, is a free man, which is in conflict with the notion of the left that we are property of our rulers, to be disposed of as our rulers see fit - for the good of the kingdom, of course.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What if two men in the wilds of Greenland claim the same property at the same time?

I'm arguing property rights represent the interests of legal persons with respect to things and human rights protect human interests with respect to themselves; property rights govern what may be done by persons with things, and human rights govern how humans may be treated by other humans.

Human rights exist in the absence of property.
(And vice-versa?)

So taking a corn crop away from a man who worked an entire year to produce it isn't a violation of his human rights?

It would be a violation of his property and humanity, wouldn't it?

Thus illustrating the link between property and rights.

 

[bripat9643]

What if two men in the wilds of Greenland claim the same property at the same time?

I'm arguing property rights represent the interests of legal persons with respect to things and human rights protect human interests with respect to themselves; property rights govern what may be done by persons with things, and human rights govern how humans may be treated by other humans.

Human rights exist in the absence of property.
(And vice-versa?)

So taking a corn crop away from a man who worked an entire year to produce it isn't a violation of his human rights?

It would be a violation of his property and humanity, wouldn't it?

According to you it doesn't violate his rights since corn is mere property.

 

[Kimura]

Let's get back to property, we'll deal with "natural rights" later minus a thread hijack.

We can define property as anything whose ultimate use is controlled, mostly through the threat of initiation of force. We can include land, ideas, humans (slaves) and even objects. Groups are more effective in defending property than individuals. These groups utilize military force, for example, to defend property from eternal threats. Internal threats require the use of police forces to defend property. Governments represent the ultimate owners since they exercise force which protects property. Governments create a property system for their citizens to use. A good portion of governments have granted citizens very liberal leeway for them to use property to a large degree, but they can still place limits on use through zoning, property taxes, etc. If we went the libertarian route, and gave citizens 100% ownership and direct control of their property, we would recreate an anarchic systems of rump states and micro-states, with business and land owners acting as defacto monarchs of their own fiefdoms. This would result in war, instability and outright pillaging.

Here we get to the crux of the argument. The left holds that all things, including people, are the property of our rulers - call it the state, king, dictatorship of the proletarians, et al - the basic belief is that man is property of his betters. This is what the left works to move us back to. For a brief time, the notion of man as his own master arose, that government was simply a cooperative effort to resolve disputes.

Property is the foundation upon which the concept of man as his own master arises, the man who owns the land he works, thus entitled to the rewards returned, is a free man, which is in conflict with the notion of the left that we are property of our rulers, to be disposed of as our rulers see fit - for the good of the kingdom, of course.

It’s not about left or right, it’s about historical realities and civilization.

The purpose of territorial groups is multifaceted. First and foremost, it must defend against external threats, such as invasion through the threat or use of credible military force. It then creates a subordinate system of property for its members on an individual basis, and defends them from internal threats, such as robbery, for example, through the exercise or threat of police or private forces. Historically, this has resulted in the most stable system of property ownership, despite the ahistorical nonsense put forth by anarcho-capitalists.

The government (which is simply a representative of the entire group) is the country’s final owner of all property, because it’s the only entity with the force that can control it. This is the reality. If other groups had the force, they’d be the penultimate owners. As the controller of the country’s property, it creates and manages the subordinate property system.

 

[bripat9643]

No we can't define it that way. The person who trespasses on private property is the one who initiates force. Trespassing is initiating the use of force. Since your premise is bullshit, so is the rest of your argument.

There, you just admitted it. The property owner does not initiate force if he is defending his property.

I just gave you the generally accepted definition of property.

wrong. You gave me your own personal idiosyncratic statist collectivist definition of property, and then you promptly discredited it.

Societies have competed with each other for property since time immemorial, even going to war to conquer it.

You mean nation states have done that, and you are confusing property with territory. The state of Florida is U.S. territory, but it's not the property of the federal government.

The ability to remain sovereign exists only to the extent that they can defend themselves against other actors.

That's true enough. So what?

Purchasing land and other types of property have no legal basis in the court of law if such an impartial body doesn’t exist in an anarchic system of nation states.

In the first place, your belief that such bodies are "impartial" is seriously flawed. In the second, what you have said is a tautology. You said there is no state enforcement of property rights if there is no state enforcement of property rights.

These things are token symbols, and can only work if they are implemented with force. For example, Hitler simply LOL’d at the Treaty of Versailles and wiped his ass with it as he descended into the Rhineland.

I have no idea what you mean by "token symbols," but property rights are a matter of law. They aren't "symbols" of any kind. It's true that property rights have to be defended, you it's erroneous to believe that only nation states can perform the task. The Treaty of Versailles and the occupation of the Rhineland had nothing to do with property rights. They had to do with control over territory.

This principle is applicable to domestic and local property.

You mean actual property as opposed to territory.

[/quote]Your property is only safe and secure to the extent that the local constabulary can stop thieves, etc.[/quote]

Not true. In fact, the local constabulary does little to prevent the violation of property rights other than show up after the fact and take down the details of what occured. Most private property is defended through private means such as gated communities, private security and alarm systems.

In the case of our society, and the social contract, these laws are a manifestation of our collective agreement to defend and allocate property.

The social contract is a myth. I certainly never agreed to it, and neither has anyone living today.

You have a piece of property, you believe you're the only owner. Someone else, maybe a of groups of individuals, believe otherwise and have their own ideas. Without the government (its laws, courts and ability to use force), there's no other way to decide who's ultimately right, with the exception of might and numerical superiority.

Having government and its laws only means that if someone disputes your property rights and can get some government officials to support your claims, you're still out of your property. As lawyers will often tell you, possession is nine tenths of the law. Pre-state societies had means of settling disputes, and there's no reason to believe that post-state societies could devise a means of settling disputes. Your belief that only states can perform this function lacks any visible means of support.

Yeah, you're right, except for history.

Nope. History doesn't support anything you've claimed