Your conscience says that property ownership makes one complicit in all the thefts and violence that came before; mine does not. Seeing as you have no problem threatening further theft and violence, it seems "a good conscience" is out of reach for you, but I'm doing just fine.
> if you simply measure ownership as possession
I do not. I measure ownership through the legal mechanisms under which I reside; "possession" hardly plays into it. I consider it appropriate to transfer ownership through those mechanisms, and not appropriate to worry about whatever violence may have happened prior to the establishment of those mechanisms generations ago. I also consider it appropriate to use the mechanisms provided by that legal system against those who attempt to illegally take possession of others' property; breaking in to my house and changing the locks makes you subject to arrest within this legal context.
Of course, as I said before, you can try to create your own context of communal ownership through voluntary donation and persuasive means. Or you can try to change that legal context through force of arms, and deal with my side shooting back at your band of violent assholes.
> you've failed to make the case for private ownership of resources.
I'm not interested in making the case for private ownership of resources. I'm just making the case that I'm OK with the context I live in (and I'm OK with you voluntarily living in some other context), and that you'll probably get shot if you try to violently overthrow my society.
> Seeing as you have no problem threatening further theft and violence, it seems "a good conscience" is out of reach for you
Not at all. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of standing there holding a blood-covered TV arguing that this is exactly where the violence needs to stop.
And yet you're not actually concerned at all about ongoing thefts that enrich your context, just that which would deprive it.
> I measure ownership through the legal mechanisms under which I reside; "possession" hardly plays into it.
You do not. Those laws make knowing possession of stolen property a crime, regardless of how many steps it's been laundered through.
But yes, the government itself ignores that. You should consider what it says about the illegitimacy of a government that thinks it can bless theft.
> I consider it appropriate to transfer ownership through those mechanisms, and not appropriate to worry about whatever violence may have happened prior to the establishment of those mechanisms generations ago.
Of course not, the law says you don't have to. Don't worry, The laws in A' would say the same things.
> Or you can try to change that legal context through force of arms, and deal with my side shooting back at your band of violent assholes.
If you saw someone carrying a blood-covered obviously stolen TV you'd try to (even if only indirectly by calling the police) violently (if necessary) change his context. Why the hypocritical attitude when it comes to the idea of someone correcting your context?
> Your conscience says that property ownership makes one complicit in all the thefts and violence that came before; mine does not.
No. If that were true you wouldn't justify the theft inherent in your situation with the circular logic of the law of the latest conqueror.
> if you simply measure ownership as possession
I do not. I measure ownership through the legal mechanisms under which I reside; "possession" hardly plays into it. I consider it appropriate to transfer ownership through those mechanisms, and not appropriate to worry about whatever violence may have happened prior to the establishment of those mechanisms generations ago. I also consider it appropriate to use the mechanisms provided by that legal system against those who attempt to illegally take possession of others' property; breaking in to my house and changing the locks makes you subject to arrest within this legal context.
Of course, as I said before, you can try to create your own context of communal ownership through voluntary donation and persuasive means. Or you can try to change that legal context through force of arms, and deal with my side shooting back at your band of violent assholes.
> you've failed to make the case for private ownership of resources.
I'm not interested in making the case for private ownership of resources. I'm just making the case that I'm OK with the context I live in (and I'm OK with you voluntarily living in some other context), and that you'll probably get shot if you try to violently overthrow my society.