I have an economics teacher that made this claim in class yesterday. I wanted to know other people’s thoughts about it.

  • rational_lib@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    All property is a social construct and is defined by law. So if the law says debt is no longer valid, then the loan agreements cease to be property and there is no stealing it.

    • shastaxc@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      That’s like saying if there was no law against theft I could drive away with your car, and that’s not stealing. I don’t think your argument is very convincing.

      • rational_lib@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        4 days ago

        If the law said my car is no longer my property, then driving away with it would cease to be stealing, correct. What is property without legal, government-backed title? There’s no way to formulate a definition, because without government and laws property has no meaning.

        • shastaxc@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 days ago

          Property has existed before laws existed to enforce it. It was enforced with violence. Stealing is still stealing even if there’s no law against it.

          • rational_lib@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 days ago

            And if there was a disagreement about whose property was who’s? With no laws to settle it, it would just be determined by who grabs said property and runs off with it first. That’s indistinguishable from a free-for-all.