Steve Verdon wrote a while ago:
> Whiskey tango foxtrot?  John you were the one that brought up Hammurabi's
> law not me.  I don't hold the 'eye for an eye' or 'life for a life' view.
> Further I am trying to point out in a sarcastic manner that Tony's view
> that violence against property is good is something that technically he'd
> object to if applied to him.

Property referred to here is an intellectual concept. Property therefore may
be a form of violence because the fundamental feature of the concept is to
assign at least one quality to the object possessing some desireable
quality;  and in the attribution of that quality may exclude that quality
from other objects. However in a narrow materialistic sense the concept of
property is meant to convey an 'attribute', 'feature' or some other other
qualifier based on the essential form of the object that is desired.

The kinds of property which can be assigned to an object (corporate,
personal, state, etc.) are potentially forms of property which violate such
essential rights as rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
For instance water may be a form of property that is owned and excluded from
others who possess no rights to the water; the rights to that property
(water), which universally bestow life, is upheld through the principle of
exclusion, and to exclude the right of underprivileged persons to the use
that property is a form of violence based on the notion of universal human
rights.

To support the argument that Tony is forwarding which stated that property
is bad, I would maintain that this is correct based on the fact that all
persons should have a right to basic necessities such as drinking water, and
a place to live. By assigning the sole rights of useage to the legal owner
of the water, is therefore an act of violence toward the unpropertied class
of folks that require water necessary for life versus the violating
privilege of taking a profit from the sale of the water. The person who
through no fault of their own is left in a position forcing them to take
water from a dirty, contaminated ditch, then the concept of property is a
form of violence.

Life is universally recognized as good in itself. Slavery, women as chattel
property, and forced child labour are forms of violence against the basic
and universal rights of persons.

Property is not universally recognized as a good in itself, but rather as an
evil fact associated with relative scarcity of the property. Because basic
human rights are held to be universally good, the concept of property is a
concept which is in essential tension with the universally held belief that
Life is Good. Property is Bad when it infringes basic human rights such as
the right to safe drinking water, right to an education, right to vote in a
democracy, etc.

From a strictly humanitarian standpoint even child possession is a form of
violence. Bad parents should be separated from their children whom they are
entrusted with legally and morally; in these special forms of violence, the
state often has the power and means to intervene and become wards of the
absolute children.

It is often better for children to not have parents and be entrusted to
other older children when the parents abuse their children. There is no
absolute condition supporting that children must have parents. Mozart I
believe was raised in an orphanage....

Some argue of course that property is a good, but this is a fallacy because
property, as a principle, is synonymous with exclusive ownership of the
benefits of the property.

Perhaps another good example is basic accommodation. If the concept of
private property was ignored, then housing would be a form of commonwealth.
By this I mean that houses could not be bought nor sold, but rather would
form the commonwealth of a community. Examples of this arrangement are
numerous: religious and some indiginous communities, corporate;public
housing for employees & wards of the state (military, industrial, welfare),
and various other forms of common wealth property. The idea that housing is
a basic necessity is never guaranteed for those homeless in the world that
lack the means to purchase or  rent a home; thus many democratic nations
offer free housing to the homeless. There are no constitutions in existence
that I am aware of that entrench the right to own property as a basic
universal human right. This would actually prevent the state from
expropriation of property for good purposes; but it does not also mean that
the state can expropriate the property without compensating the owner for
the fair market value of the property. If  a house could never go on the
market, like some forms of property that are commonwealth, then there would
be no speculation, no profit, only wages paid out, and more people would be
able to live in adequate housing.