Political Crossfire Forums

[Classically Liberal]

Iriemon wrote: Classically Liberal wrote: I support a flat tax in a round about way...

TAX SOCIALISM. I support a 40% tax on corporate gross income coupled with a 0% flat tax on all individuals of all classes.

If you mean gross revenues -- ie a national sales tax, there are some arguments in favor of that, and most European countries use that form of tax. I could support that if there were some progressive tax structures coupled with it. Though a 40% tax on that would be way too high.

If you mean income = revenues - expenditures, a 40% tax on that doesn't come close to meeting current Govt expenditures. Gross corporate income is in the $1 trillion range; a 40% tax would yield $400 billion -- not a 1/6 of what the Govt needs.

I mean income. :wink: I am using the gross income terminology as opposed to profits, because I understand how easy profits are to hide or exploit. Plus, I do not want this to get into semantics.

[Classically Liberal]

gavnook wrote: Classically Liberal wrote: Quicksurf wrote: Classically Liberal wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: Classically Liberal wrote: I support a flat tax in a round about way...

TAX SOCIALISM. I support a 40% tax on corporate gross income coupled with a 0% flat tax on all individuals of all classes.

So everyone has all their money and nothing to spend it on. :?

I really do not see how this would cause any deflation or put any healthy company under.

Because they have to give 40% of their profits to the government.

Correction; I said 40% of corporate gross income. If there is some restructuring of the socialist monstrosities that will only be a good thing. Keep in mind, I am advocating 0% taxes on individual businesses and partnerships.

What about joint stock companies, trusts, and other business arrangements?

I am mostly thinking large scale social ownership, but I am not going to throw out any arbitrary number on ownership limits.

[Iriemon]

Classically Liberal wrote: Iriemon wrote: Classically Liberal wrote: I support a flat tax in a round about way...

TAX SOCIALISM. I support a 40% tax on corporate gross income coupled with a 0% flat tax on all individuals of all classes.

If you mean gross revenues -- ie a national sales tax, there are some arguments in favor of that, and most European countries use that form of tax. I could support that if there were some progressive tax structures coupled with it. Though a 40% tax on that would be way too high.

If you mean income = revenues - expenditures, a 40% tax on that doesn't come close to meeting current Govt expenditures. Gross corporate income is in the $1 trillion range; a 40% tax would yield $400 billion -- not a 1/6 of what the Govt needs.

I mean income. :wink: I am using the gross income terminology as opposed to profits, because I understand how easy profits are to hide or exploit. Plus, I do not want this to get into semantics.

Hard not to get into semantics with a term a vague as "income," but in the way I understand you mean it, a 40% tax on corporate income isn't going to come close to cutting it. The current corporate income tax already approaches 40% (in the high 30s) and produces about $300 billion, just over 10% of what the Govt spends.

[Classically Liberal]

Iriemon wrote: Classically Liberal wrote: Iriemon wrote: Classically Liberal wrote: I support a flat tax in a round about way...

TAX SOCIALISM. I support a 40% tax on corporate gross income coupled with a 0% flat tax on all individuals of all classes.

If you mean gross revenues -- ie a national sales tax, there are some arguments in favor of that, and most European countries use that form of tax. I could support that if there were some progressive tax structures coupled with it. Though a 40% tax on that would be way too high.

If you mean income = revenues - expenditures, a 40% tax on that doesn't come close to meeting current Govt expenditures. Gross corporate income is in the $1 trillion range; a 40% tax would yield $400 billion -- not a 1/6 of what the Govt needs.

I mean income. :wink: I am using the gross income terminology as opposed to profits, because I understand how easy profits are to hide or exploit. Plus, I do not want this to get into semantics.

Hard not to get into semantics with a term a vague as "income," but in the way I understand you mean it, a 40% tax on corporate income isn't going to come close to cutting it. The current corporate income tax already approaches 40% (in the high 30s) and produces about $300 billion, just over 10% of what the Govt spends.

It's better than profits. Reducing government to 10% of what is is now sounds good to me. And you are right, c corporation taxes do approach 40%, but a flat tax removes deductions. And, I am not suggesting abolishing the corporation; just placing the individual before them.

[Kindred]

cap'n queasy wrote: Kindred wrote: LeopardPM wrote: humans ARE property - self-owned and homesteaded.

Humans are property insofar as it serves the utility of a particular ideology. You believe humans are property because it establishes a foundation that the rest of your political philosophy rests upon, but I do not agree with the Lockean belief that humans are property per se.

Private property is an idea, a notion, a convention, a social construction prevalent in western societies, but certainly not common among all, nor even most throughout documented history. In saying that 'humans are property' you are actually saying very little. What you are essentially saying is that you believe in the idea of property, and within that epistemological realm, you place humans within the category of 'property'. You saying 'I am property' is not something I would contend to be inherently wrong, but equally, it is not something I find to be inherently correct, nor even convincingly so. It is correct according to a set of assumption which are relative to societies.

Calling yourself property seems to be the beginning of the moral philosophy of ownership etc. but it rests upon several assumptions which precede it, such as the assumption that property its self is absolute, which it is not; or the assumption that property is not a distinctly human idea i.e. it’s a ‘natural law’ . If I believe property is a socially mediated and invented convention or institution, then the belief that I am property is also simply the extension of that institution.

Animals have territory.
Is that an "invented convention"? Is it "socially meditated"?

Monetary exchange for property rights is merely a civilized and intelligent way to adjudicate something that exists naturally.

I guess we could just fight for territory and mates, like animals do, eh?

You’re actually talking about something quite different. The ‘natural law’ I referred to earlier is characteristic of classic liberal circles in which the ‘law’ is simply a common and consistent process of reason.

What you’re essentially saying is that private property is ‘natural’ because it is what humans would naturally do in the absence of a state etc. (I believe this is what you’re saying) as evidenced by other animal behaviour. First of all, this pays no attention to the nature of property (i.e. what is it [what are its defining features] and how do we get it i.e. [how does the original appropriation of natural resources occur justifiably]?), nor the much discussed difference between what is and what ought to be; see Hume for more.

Even taking for granted those things, however, you’re still left with a very unconvincing, and rigid philosophy, which does very little to justify ‘private’ property. The best anthropological material available suggests that early hominid and Australopithecus species were social animals; living within groups,. Often of hierarchal ordinations. In these groups, territory was common (i.e. a common piece of land between a group or tribe), but ‘private property’ was much less so. Even in communities which have been discovered this century (such as those in Papua New Guinea), private property has not been observed. Much the same can be said of aboriginal Australians and Native Americans (simply read the Cherokee Nations constitution for an illustration of this). We were not, as Roseau contended, ‘noble savages’ rummaging through the savannah in isolation, with our own specific ‘property’.

So, even taking for granted 'naturalness', you are left with an unconvincing argument indeed.

[Iriemon]

Classically Liberal wrote: Iriemon wrote: Classically Liberal wrote: Iriemon wrote: Classically Liberal wrote: I support a flat tax in a round about way...

TAX SOCIALISM. I support a 40% tax on corporate gross income coupled with a 0% flat tax on all individuals of all classes.

If you mean gross revenues -- ie a national sales tax, there are some arguments in favor of that, and most European countries use that form of tax. I could support that if there were some progressive tax structures coupled with it. Though a 40% tax on that would be way too high.

If you mean income = revenues - expenditures, a 40% tax on that doesn't come close to meeting current Govt expenditures. Gross corporate income is in the $1 trillion range; a 40% tax would yield $400 billion -- not a 1/6 of what the Govt needs.

I mean income. :wink: I am using the gross income terminology as opposed to profits, because I understand how easy profits are to hide or exploit. Plus, I do not want this to get into semantics.

Hard not to get into semantics with a term a vague as "income," but in the way I understand you mean it, a 40% tax on corporate income isn't going to come close to cutting it. The current corporate income tax already approaches 40% (in the high 30s) and produces about $300 billion, just over 10% of what the Govt spends.

It's better than profits. Reducing government to 10% of what is is now sounds good to me. And you are right, c corporation taxes do approach 40%, but a flat tax removes deductions. And, I am not suggesting abolishing the corporation; just placing the individual before them.

Well when someone manages to cut Govt spending by 90% I'll give your proposal a real serious consideration.

[Classically Liberal]

Iriemon wrote: Classically Liberal wrote: Iriemon wrote: Classically Liberal wrote: Iriemon wrote: Classically Liberal wrote: I support a flat tax in a round about way...

TAX SOCIALISM. I support a 40% tax on corporate gross income coupled with a 0% flat tax on all individuals of all classes.

If you mean gross revenues -- ie a national sales tax, there are some arguments in favor of that, and most European countries use that form of tax. I could support that if there were some progressive tax structures coupled with it. Though a 40% tax on that would be way too high.

If you mean income = revenues - expenditures, a 40% tax on that doesn't come close to meeting current Govt expenditures. Gross corporate income is in the $1 trillion range; a 40% tax would yield $400 billion -- not a 1/6 of what the Govt needs.

I mean income. :wink: I am using the gross income terminology as opposed to profits, because I understand how easy profits are to hide or exploit. Plus, I do not want this to get into semantics.

Hard not to get into semantics with a term a vague as "income," but in the way I understand you mean it, a 40% tax on corporate income isn't going to come close to cutting it. The current corporate income tax already approaches 40% (in the high 30s) and produces about $300 billion, just over 10% of what the Govt spends.

It's better than profits. Reducing government to 10% of what is is now sounds good to me. And you are right, c corporation taxes do approach 40%, but a flat tax removes deductions. And, I am not suggesting abolishing the corporation; just placing the individual before them.

Well when someone manages to cut Govt spending by 90% I'll give your proposal a real serious consideration.

Sounds good. 8:)

[LeopardPM]

Kindred wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Kindred wrote: LeopardPM wrote: humans ARE property - self-owned and homesteaded.

Humans are property insofar as it serves the utility of a particular ideology. You believe humans are property because it establishes a foundation that the rest of your political philosophy rests upon, but I do not agree with the Lockean belief that humans are property per se.

Private property is an idea, a notion, a convention, a social construction prevalent in western societies, but certainly not common among all, nor even most throughout documented history. In saying that 'humans are property' you are actually saying very little. What you are essentially saying is that you believe in the idea of property, and within that epistemological realm, you place humans within the category of 'property'. You saying 'I am property' is not something I would contend to be inherently wrong, but equally, it is not something I find to be inherently correct, nor even convincingly so. It is correct according to a set of assumption which are relative to societies.

Calling yourself property seems to be the beginning of the moral philosophy of ownership etc. but it rests upon several assumptions which precede it, such as the assumption that property its self is absolute, which it is not; or the assumption that property is not a distinctly human idea i.e. it’s a ‘natural law’ . If I believe property is a socially mediated and invented convention or institution, then the belief that I am property is also simply the extension of that institution.

Animals have territory.
Is that an "invented convention"? Is it "socially meditated"?

Monetary exchange for property rights is merely a civilized and intelligent way to adjudicate something that exists naturally.

I guess we could just fight for territory and mates, like animals do, eh?

You’re actually talking about something quite different. The ‘natural law’ I referred to earlier is characteristic of classic liberal circles in which the ‘law’ is simply a common and consistent process of reason.

What you’re essentially saying is that private property is ‘natural’ because it is what humans would naturally do in the absence of a state etc. (I believe this is what you’re saying) as evidenced by other animal behaviour. First of all, this pays no attention to the nature of property (i.e. what is it [what are its defining features] and how do we get it i.e. [how does the original appropriation of natural resources occur justifiably]?), nor the much discussed difference between what is and what ought to be; see Hume for more.

Even taking for granted those things, however, you’re still left with a very unconvincing, and rigid philosophy, which does very little to justify ‘private’ property. The best anthropological material available suggests that early hominid and Australopithecus species were social animals; living within groups,. Often of hierarchal ordinations.
The fact that we are 'social' animals does not imply that we are herd animals. Assuming that we are each individual, without having some kind of 'group mind', and we each choose to act as we see fit - then it follows that we CHOOSE to be social which then implies that we derive a benefit from social interaction (or humans generally expect benefit from group participation). This is also the case of hierarchal social structures. So the fact that humans often choose to interact with others, be 'social', speaks nothing against private property though, as you suppose.

Quote: In these groups, territory was common (i.e. a common piece of land between a group or tribe), but ‘private property’ was much less so.
There was indeed private property - I assume at least in the form of clothing and/or tools and perhaps sleeping materials and housing. The 'common' property wasn't so common, as you suggest. You have labeled it common, yet it was not 'the group' which made decisions over use or restriction such property, usually this was the venue of the elites or the chieftain... so, instead of being common, it was moreso 'private'.

Quote: Even in communities which have been discovered this century (such as those in Papua New Guinea), private property has not been observed.
really? not even clothing or tools or housing?

Quote: Much the same can be said of aboriginal Australians and Native Americans (simply read the Cherokee Nations constitution for an illustration of this).
They most certainly did have private property - weapons have always been considered owned by individuals due to their significance and personal nature.

Quote: We were not, as Roseau contended, ‘noble savages’ rummaging through the savannah in isolation, with our own specific ‘property’.
I agree, Roseau was misinformed. But we do each travel through life individually, choosing our own directions and amassing property in our efforts.

Quote: So, even taking for granted 'naturalness', you are left with an unconvincing argument indeed.
how about now?

[ubikk]

I think perhaps we could consider a modified flat tax that has an adjustable floor based on the number of dependents. So, say the flat tax would be 25% of all income above $ X amount of dollars based on your family size.

I think the biggest misconception about flat taxes is the rate that would be necessary to fund the federal budget. Many proponents toss around numbers like 15% when the actual rate would need to approach double that.

It also means no more deductions. No deductions for home mortgages, for home energy improvements, for charity, etc. It would radically change our culture. I'm not saying we shouldn't do it, but people need to really think it through.

[Kindred]

Quote: The fact that we are 'social' animals does not imply that we are herd animals. Assuming that we are each individual, without having some kind of 'group mind', and we each choose to act as we see fit - then it follows that we CHOOSE to be social which then implies that we derive a benefit from social interaction (or humans generally expect benefit from group participation). This is also the case of hierarchal social structures. So the fact that humans often choose to interact with others, be 'social', speaks nothing against private property though, as you suppose.

We are social animals because of an evolutionary trait; not by choice.

Quote: There was indeed private property - I assume at least in the form of clothing and/or tools and perhaps sleeping materials and housing. The 'common' property wasn't so common, as you suggest. You have labeled it common, yet it was not 'the group' which made decisions over use or restriction such property, usually this was the venue of the elites or the chieftain... so, instead of being common, it was moreso 'private'.

You know, in Soviet Russia , the ‘elites’ made primary decisions about the use and restriction of property; was that a form of private property? I don’t think you understand what private property is.

At any rate, the argument you’re making here, working on the premise I’m dismissing currently, is that societies resources should be managed by elites, because that’s what occurred naturally in certain societies according to you. Why would you make an argument against your own premise?

Quote: They most certainly did have private property - weapons have always been considered owned by individuals due to their significance and personal nature.

Once again, according to this argument we should have some private property, as did the Cherokees, but most resources should be communally owned, as that is what the Cherokees did naturally. Once again, you’re arguing against your own premise.

Let me help you out

1. I’m arguing that societies based on private ownership of all resource are incredibly rare
2. This rarity implies that private ownership of all resources (i.e. what you advocate) is not a ‘natural’ product of the human condition
3. According to my argument, a diversity of relations to property and theories concerning its use abound from anthropological records, and the presence of such heterogeneity strengthens my contention that there is not a single structure to human societies and how they response and utilise their environment, and hence societies based on private property are no more ‘natural’ than societies which are not based on private property
4. You contend that even societies that were more communal than individual, some private property existed
4. I ask you; does this mean that we should model our society on those structures?

[LeopardPM]

Kindred wrote: Quote: The fact that we are 'social' animals does not imply that we are herd animals. Assuming that we are each individual, without having some kind of 'group mind', and we each choose to act as we see fit - then it follows that we CHOOSE to be social which then implies that we derive a benefit from social interaction (or humans generally expect benefit from group participation). This is also the case of hierarchal social structures. So the fact that humans often choose to interact with others, be 'social', speaks nothing against private property though, as you suppose.

We are social animals because of an evolutionary trait; not by choice.
so it is not a choice for people to become recluses, for most folks to hibernate in their isolated houses 90% of the time and they venture out to interact socially, by choice, to trade with others most of the remaining 10%? If you would look at the percent of time spent in a 'social' setting compared to alone or with family/relationship of the average person (american/european/asian/etc) it would seem to dispute your contention that we are 'social' animals - there and many instances of animals who exhibit much greater social contact than we do.

Evolution has provided two opposing paths: 1) social interaction improves our ability to combat nature, 2) social interaction increases our risk from other people (assault, disease, accident, etc)

Quote: You know, in Soviet Russia , the ‘elites’ made primary decisions about the use and restriction of property; was that a form of private property? I don’t think you understand what private property is.
Private property, or rather 'ownership', implies control and determination of the use over some matter. If no one can direct how I use my brick (without infringing on the property rights of others), then I am exerting compete ownership rights over it. If I can do everything BUT paint it, and that ability to paint it is owned by another, then my property rights over the brick are not complete. The more rights the 'other' has to the brick, the less I own it and the less it is my private property. If the elites in Russia, ultimately, could fully determine the use of any and all property, then they completely owned it and the rest of the population were allowed to use it at the whim of the owners. The same with Property tax in the US - if the government can demand payment for the use of property, and ultimately evict people and confiscate (legally) said property, then the government IS the ultimate owner.


Quote: At any rate, the argument you’re making here, working on the premise I’m dismissing currently, is that societies resources should be managed by elites, because that’s what occurred naturally in certain societies according to you. Why would you make an argument against your own premise?
I am not making an argument that elites should direct the use or ownership of property.

[quote]Let me help you out

1. I’m arguing that societies based on private ownership of all resource are incredibly rare
perhaps, but that doesn't mean that is the way things should always be, nor does it mean that is the most just or moral method

2. This rarity implies that private ownership of all resources (i.e. what you advocate) is not a ‘natural’ product of the human condition
quite a jump! It implies no such thing, it could imply that small groups of humans can enslave larger groups to their will, it could imply that the human race has recently(last 200 hundred years) become aware that such situations are not necessary nor desired and based on this newly discovered information, has the ability to change its social structure if desired - we, as people, DO determine our governance - be it dictator, or democracy, or anarchy, or communism - the governed ALWAYS vastly outnumbers the governing.

3. According to my argument, a diversity of relations to property and theories concerning its use abound from anthropological records, and the presence of such heterogeneity strengthens my contention that there is not a single structure to human societies and how they response and utilise their environment, and hence societies based on private property are no more ‘natural’ than societies which are not based on private property
Anthropological records do not account for new information

Quote: 4. You contend that even societies that were more communal than individual, some private property existed
sure, man could not exist but for the ability to own property - we own the food we eat - things we consume - its the ultimate act of ownership

Quote: 5. I ask you; does this mean that we should model our society on those structures?
I would like to see people become aware of liberty and that the oppression that is all around them in the form of government is completely voluntary on their part. That, not only is it possible to figure out different ways to interact besides the use of force, it is also 'better' for them in enhancing their ability to achieve their own personal goals, whatever they may be.

[Kindred]

Quote:
so it is not a choice for people to become recluses, for most folks to hibernate in their isolated houses 90% of the time and they venture out to interact socially, by choice, to trade with others most of the remaining 10%? If you would look at the percent of time spent in a 'social' setting compared to alone or with family/relationship of the average person (american/european/asian/etc) it would seem to dispute your contention that we are 'social' animals - there and many instances of animals who exhibit much greater social contact than we do.


From a biological perspective, we are social animals.


Quote:
perhaps, but that doesn't mean that is the way things should always be, nor does it mean that is the most just or moral method

Yes, a fact I highlighted much earlier. It is the ought/is conflict discussed at considerable length and depth by such famous philosophers as Hume, Rand and Singer. You are essentially agreeing with my contention here which is as follows; the fact that things are ‘natural’ does not make them in any way moral or just. I have also been disproving the very idea that private property occurs naturally as a matter of interest, but still contend (as I always have) that whether it does or not is of little consequence in/of itself in a debate about justice, fairness or morality.

Quote:
quite a jump!

Actually it’s not. It is a logical conclusion.

Quote: It implies no such thing, it could imply that small groups of humans can enslave larger groups to their will, it could imply that the human race has recently(last 200 hundred years) become aware that such situations are not necessary nor desired and based on this newly discovered information, has the ability to change its social structure if desired - we, as people, DO determine our governance - be it dictator, or democracy, or anarchy, or communism - the governed ALWAYS vastly outnumbers the governing.

Now you seem to be arguing with yourself again. Now you seem to be convinced that whether or not something is natural does ‘mean that is the way things should always be, and that is the most just or moral method’. I have been humouring you for long enough now, and would prefer a simple answer on this particular topic so that we can move on:

When debating the morality of private property, does it matter whether or not ‘private property’ is a natural phenomenon?

[LeopardPM]

Kindred wrote:
From a biological perspective, we are social animals.
from a 'biological' perspective? what, because we require another to mate with? what biological perspective?

Quote: When debating the morality of private property, does it matter whether or not ‘private property’ is a natural phenomenon?
what matters is that the concept of individual, private ownership is the only concept regarding the relationship between people, the universe at large, and other people which is built upon an idea of each person having an equal say in their lives, which allows people to thrive without necessitating conflict or violence against one another. The concept of property is a realization that there is no logical or pragmatic way for every human to own something at once, nothing can be owned 'in common', and it is not correct for one group of people (the government) to be assumed to have more 'right' than others to property ownership. The only way that jointly owned property works is if it is through a voluntary contract or agreement, like a partnership. The rights of a 'majority' do not trounce the rights of a minority.

So, is it 'natural'? Yes, it is in that consumption implies complete ownership and consumption is natural and a fact of life. Is property moral because of this 'naturalness'? No, it is moral because morality must be universal, rights equal to each human - we each have a right to acquire and own property, either through voluntary transaction or through homesteading unowned property. My ownership of property does not infringe on your ability to own other property, my ownership of property is a condition of circumstance in your universe, not an infringement of your rights.

[Kindred]

Quote: from a 'biological' perspective? what, because we require another to mate with? what biological perspective?

All diurnal primates, including the human species, live in permanent social groups. That is the way we evolved; this is evidenced by the fossil record and certain morphological traits that Homo sapiens possess in common with other social primates. This is what I mean by ‘biological perspective’; it is the opinion of most academics involved in biological anthropology. See, for example, biological anthropologist-popularists such as Jarred Diamond and Robert Winston.

Quote: what matters is that the concept of individual, private ownership is the only concept regarding the relationship between people, the universe at large, and other people which is built upon an idea of each person having an equal say in their lives, which allows people to thrive without necessitating conflict or violence against one another.

Spoken like a true dogmatist. ‘The only system’. In what way does a system of private property prevent people from ‘necessitating conflict or violence’? Conflict and violence is characterised by the presence of a lack of resources of one kind or another. A system which ignores distributive justice, such as that of the propertarian, actually compounds this problem, whilst doing nothing to negate it. People generally resort to violence when they have nothing to lose; how does the dominionistic-property-based-system, which you advocate, prevent people from living in abstract poverty etc? It doesn’t, in fact, it exacerbates it in many cases.


But I digress, I need to quickly highlight another of your characteristic ‘self arguments’. In the quotation above you used both consequences and rights based theory to justify your idiologism; by doing so you highlight an implicit belief of yours that outcomes are of moral weight or value; that is a consequentialist stance, which runs contrary to the deontological stance you normally seem to take. It is odd, because you are actually undermining yourself as a matter of routine in this debate, seemingly unwittingly.


Quote: The concept of property is a realization that there is no logical or pragmatic way for every human to own something at once nothing can be owned 'in common'

Um, if everyone owned something at once, that would be a hyper-inflated private system. The idea with regards to common property is not that we all own it at once, but rather that no one owns it at once.

Do you believe that we should privatize the air we breath?

Quote: and it is not correct for one group of people (the government) to be assumed to have more 'right' than others to property ownership. The only way that jointly owned property works is if it is through a voluntary contract or agreement, like a partnership. The rights of a 'majority' do not trounce the rights of a minority.

Government defines and enforces property rights through a legal system. Government, in modern society, is conceptually prior to property rights as without the former you do not have the latter.

Quote: So, is it 'natural'? Yes, it is in that consumption implies complete ownership and consumption is natural and a fact of life.

Consumption implies no such thing. You’re obsessed with a recent, western, anthropomorphic ideology foreign to many people throughout history. The fact that you can’t even conceptualise something as not being ‘property’ illuminates this; property exists in your mind; it’s a figment of our imaginations that we used semantically to distribute scarce resources.

Quote: Is property moral because of this 'naturalness'? No, it is moral because morality must be universal, rights equal to each human - we each have a right to acquire and own property, either through voluntary transaction or through homesteading unowned property. My ownership of property does not infringe on your ability to own other property, my ownership of property is a condition of circumstance in your universe, not an infringement of your rights.

Hmmm, that bolded sentence is particularly interesting to me. Can I take from that that if were to show you how your ownership of property does infringe on my ability to own property, you would then cede that a system based on private property is unjust?