ProfessionalTeabagger

You gotta tell me what the black hole thing was about. I'm going to take a guess that it was something about sucking.

OMFG!

Refute WHAT? Refute your opinion? You made no valid argument. You just stated what you think. Arguments have premises supported by evidence and conclusions that logically follow from them. You might as well have said "The homesteading principle is immoral because there's no evidence that it can always happen and people may die at some point and what if there's bad land and thunder storms that kill livestock and some 27 year 'may not understand it. Now please, refute away". You just lazily point forward your opinion and expect everyone else yo chase up what you mean by everything. What's the god-damn argument?

This post requires so much unpacking just to even find out if there's some argument or claim that CAN be rebutted. It's a confused mess of undefined terms, sweeping moral claims, unproven assumptions and goal-post moving. It's like you just throw a big bundle of Gordian knots at us and expect us to do all the work you should have done before posting. It's lazy. There's nothing immoral about homesteading.

Are you kidding?

Yes and life is also an illusion. There is no life. There are simply self-replicating machines. At no point in evolution did some magical property called "life" get beamed into self-replicating matter. We are simply a more complex version of rocks and should shed this superstition called life and accept the truth that we are non-living. You can't get life from non-life and you can't get free-will from cause and effect. Where did it say that?

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/2071/1/Causality_and_Determinism.pdf

I don't know what happened on the night of the killing but there's insufficient evidence to support a murder charge. It would be good if everyone would just admit the truth; you don't know what happened and you never will and you can't arrive at a valid conclusion by filling in the blanks with whatever narrative you have in your head. I doubt George even knows what happened. This new event has little or no bearing on the original event. We do not even know what happened HERE yet everyone is just filling in the blanks based on their prejudice.

You mean oil rich countries like Norway?

It does not use determinism as an assumption when dealing with human consciousness or free will necessarily. If a scientist starts with the assumption that free-will is determined (and thus an illusion) then they are begging the question because they assume a conclusion that there is no free will in study of what free-will is and whether it's actually just determined or something different. Determinism is not the basic premise of science. If it is then why do scientists have theories that are non-deterministic? You fail to define determinism and that's a common problem that drops up when people makes these kinds of claims. I'm going to guess by "determinism" you mean some common understanding of cause and effect. The last paragraph irritates me because you start of with "It's also interesting to me...", and then you proceed to make no concrete point. I find that kind of "nudge, nudge, - wink, wink", isn't that interesting...? thing a little bit snarky. You call premises used to prove philosophical precepts "basic" and "limited" so I'm willing to guess you are an RBE advocate? Am I right?

That would mean the government owns all Stef's arguments. The government produced those arguments and Stef rents them.

Coercion is the initiation of force and if someone initiates force through economic means then that would be coercion too. But you are not demonstrating how that is the case with the free market. You are just asserting it and alluding to to "structural violence". I have asked you how one would falsify the claim that the structure of the free market is violence and you refuse to do that. Any theory that can not be falsified is not a valid theory. There is no point at which people trading without coercion morphs into an act of violence. The arguments against structural violence have been made repeatedly and people like you are refusing to deal with them other than to make the same claims over and over. If you say my free trade with others leads to a structure of violent coercion then you need to prove it. I will not stand for being accused of violence by people who refuse to back the claim up with anything other than propaganda. If you see an alternative then fine, go do it. Who the hell is stopping you? Stop preaching and make a god-damn argument.

Okay then so using reasoning about this would insult my intelligence (and you're not insulting my intelligence by avoiding reasoning on a philosophy forum) and there is nothing to reason about. No argument is required and your claims are self-evident facts. The market/ money/ capitalism /competition harms society and thus it is coercion. There's no need for you to define coercion or argue why harm is the same as coercion or to argue how these things are coercion or to distinguish between the state market and the free-market or to prove technology is sophisticated enough to forgo all these things? It's just true because you say you say it's true and that's that?

No they're not a mangling of concepts. They have specific arguments reasoned form first principles. That you you imply arguments don't work here when this is a philosophy forum is astonishing. You are essentially preaching. I asked how one would falsify your theory. Can you answer or not?

Go talk to him on the call in show. That would be best because there are so many things wrong with what you're saying it's hard to know were to begin. Most of it is opinions stated as if they were facts and I can't actually find one valid argument; at least not one that hasn't mangled the concepts of free-trade to the point were it would take a small novel to unpack everything. You are firing so many claims that it has become non-falsifiable. How would one begin to falsify any of your claims?

Another RBEer proving nothing. I wish you would just go make your RBE. Who's stopping you? If you have any proof that a certain emergent property exists then fucking prove it and stop alluding to it. Before you assert that violence comes out of peaceful interactions (or whatever you're trying to say) then show how that happens. Prove that An-caps don't like the implications of emergent properties. Prove it or concede you can't.

Well it's your job to find out in what way they're valid. Someone had to homestead all the land so if these people somehow paid for it just to let it go to waste then that seems like a crappy investment. I think you'd better go check. That's strange. The land isn't worth anything until you do something with it. Maybe they ARE trying to behave like the old state. I'm not sure all the rest of what you're saying is true. It sounds like the old paranoia and resentment statists used to project onto concepts of a free society. I remember arguing with people who would concoct the most ridiculous scenarios were there was no land and somehow people were still behaving like a state without any negative consequences for themselves. Oh well, if you're really THAT keen to farm then I'd go start farming the land of one of those jokers. Sounds to me like they've abandoned the land and so given up any rights to it. Sorry to hear that. Perhaps you should consider getting a job and saving up some money in order to buy the equipment you'll need to farm land. If you are desperate then you have little or no money and will not be able to farm the land anyway.

Why are you afraid they'll say that?

I think those people are having you on good sir. There's no state and it seems odd that someone would BUY land and let it go to waste, never mind buy ALL the land and let it go to waste. I've never heard of such a thing. People just waving receipts? Sounds far-fetched to me. I suggest you be more skeptical. All the other folk around here seem to have no problem finding land. I found this land a few years ago no problem and turned it into property. If you really can't find any land, anywhere at any time ever you can always work at something else and buy my produce. It's basically like owning a bit of my land. After all the only reason it has value is because everyone else will pay to own a piece of what I produce.

You should be able to find one yourself.

Okay so I'll play the part of the land-owner and you play the land-ownership skeptic. So I homesteaded a number of acres to farm and have been growing crops for a few years in order to sell locally. I claim because I homesteaded the land and am using it productively I have ownership of the land. As such I have exclusive right to use the land and control access to it. I have invested my time and labor into the land to create the property of the produce and anyone else claiming this land would be initiating force upon me by stealing my time and labor (retroactively enslaving me). Your response?

I would tell them that their argument is not really an argument but actually a grouping of individual letters. Certainly the letters could be included within the concept of your argument, but when talking about the validity of your argument the only thing we can look at is the validity of the letters which the concept of "argument" is used to describe. Your argument exists as a concept and doesn't exist in reality, only individual letters do. Then give them the finger. If they complain about you giving them the finger then explain that it's not really the finger but actually a grouping of individual cells. Certainly the cells could be included within the concept of the finger, but ... I'd be careful with that. A necessary property of emergence is that the thing is irreducible. In principle a pencil could be made by a single person, it's just incredibly hard and humans have practical limitations. The pencil among other things is reducible and therefore not strictly emergent.

It doesn't matter if there's been an anarchist society. There doesn't need to to have in order for you to give me a scenario. You posit an anarchist society (without rulers) and then put forward a scenario were this thing becomes a problem. For example you posit something like a guy comes up to your farm and claims "your ownership of this land cannot be justified because you did not create the land". If you do something like that and play it out logically I can show how it's not a problem and how the person's claim is not valid. No one is saying some have a right to homestead and others don't. If the bizarre situation comes up were there's literally no place left to homestead then that's just a matter of scarcity. What makes a DRO moral is that it is not based on the initiation of force. The state IS.

It's not Stefan's theory. The DRO's can use force if someone is aggressing against another's person or property. I don't know what a "sovereign equal" is. The person destroying your property and having sex outside your daughter's room is subject to the same moral rules as you. The property is not the "spoils" of nature. Most property is created. The "squatter" will suffer the effects of his vandalism and harassment. He's obviously just being a cunt. The effort this squatter is making just to get some truffles far exceeds the rewards and as I said the DRO CAN use violence if the squatter has initiated violence. The squatter's pleas of persecution will have no credibility. Who cares if the guy complains that he feels it's like "the holocaust". It's not. If you think "might makes right" then why are you bothering to use argument? You think it's right to rape someone if you have the might? You think you have property rights over vagina's if you're big enough? Wealth comes from people who use the land and resources. Why are you bringing up access to the world's resources in this context? It's not like anarchists are arguing people should not have access. It's states who prevent access. You then talk about being prevented from having food and water. WTF are you talking about? I suggest you go study the arguments for a few months and don't bother us with this kind of exhaustively refuted silliness.