Yeah yeah, it's easy to select the definition one wants. I could easily choose the definition that Atheism means the lack of belief in a deity, which makes it compatible with Agnosticism in the form of Agnostic Atheism.

Heh, yeah. At the moment he's like a hobby of mine. Whenever he makes any such stupifying bad argument, he just gives me something to write about :)

You're equivocating between the use of "sticky" so as to denote someone being able to own something regardless of occupancy and use and "sticky" denoting an ownership claim (regardless of the system) which is currently in dispute. When I oppose sticky property (i.e. private property) I oppose the first definition and all the bad stuff that follow from it. The second one is irrelevant as it simply has to do with the way we talk about ownership disputes.

Wut?

A commune that must defend itself against some foreign entity, is absolutely defending property, but that property is sticky.

No. A sticky property simply explains that an ownership claim "sticks" to the current claimant, regardless of his occupancy or use of the item. A commune defending some land or capital it is currently occupying or using, is not claiming sticky property but rather a possessive claim. The owner is still not defined by violence for any external party. Anyone violently forcing the commune out of the possessive claims would rightly have their ownership claim challenged as it was based on a violation of possessive rights.

If a claim is made against your ability to possess a toothbrush, it is whoever has the power that determines who is the owner. This is to say that this becomes sticky property the instant it becomes challenged.

Not really. A possession simply signifies a claim of ownership that is grounded on occupancy or use. What comprises occupancy or use and the time limits that are set before something is considered to be abandoned are set by social norms in society. For example, nobody in their right mind would consider a personal possession like a toothbrush to have been abandoned if it's in your house and not currently being used.

As such, this argument is a strawman of possession.

I'm in Frankfurt/Main. How about you?

Science may have some scientists who don't agree on the particulars of a theory, but all scientists agree on the basics. There's no competing schools of science. Alchemy VS Chemistry or Astrology VS Astronomy etc. And that is because on school has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they have it right. In economics though there's not just two but 5 more different ways to interpret them and none of them agree with the other. Sure the reality is always the same but to discover who has the truth about how this reality is, is the million dollar question. Is economic reality as Marx described it or as Keynes? Is value only subjective or does it have an objective basis?

Yep. I don't consider them Tools for nothing

Cheers. Feel free to spread around the ideas ;)