/lit/ - Literature

>>22086340
Locke's premise is that nature is owned by no-one. Your statement is an axiomatic statement that nature is owned by everyone. That's not an argument, it's just a different axiom. btw I'm vetoing your use of the atmosphere, tough luck kiddo.

>>22086356
I've been applying Locke's views on property consistently throughout this thread. Only one poster has even attempted to apply Rousseau, however poorly.

>>22086350
>>22086381
So if you buy a car, how long do you get to "own" it before it gets confiscated by the government? (Because to implement your stupid idea, the government would have to confiscate property from property owners). Cars are property, no? How about houses? You get to own a house for a certain number of years, then the government kicks you out and you have to buy a new one? Is that just?

You are motivated by a spirit of resentment. Seek help.