NoTreason

I'm the son of a drunken, drugged up, abusive, rapist jazz musician and his enabling wife who pretended (and still pretends) to be a victim. Yesterday was my 30th birthday, I consistently find myself in unbelievably abusive relationships. Why? This is a look back at the life I've lived, the abuse I've taken, and the mental block to emotions I've built. I was born May 11th, 1984 in New Haven, ct, my parents were poor. We moved to Newington 4 years after my birth when my parents were left a home by a deceased relative. I don't remember much from this age other than my father taking me to the local smoke filled jazz club in Hartford while him and his buddies got fucked up, then driving me home while drunk. School was miserable for me, I had no friends at all until high school. My fathers priorities were alcohol and drugs, because of this I was barely clothed for school and food in our home was rationed. My parents depended on town charity for Christmas presents. Birthdays were the worst, there was no charity. I developed severe anxiety, soon after I developed speech difficulties. My parents had two more kids, my brother and sister. Middle school was hell, I don't many memories of the physical and emotional abuse. I remember my dad filling out paperwork for my school and asking what my birthdate and age was, he didn't know. I remember being beaten with a belt on multiple occasions, although I don't remember why. I remember not being able to sleep at night because of fighting, and going to school tired and unable to do any school work. I remember one night my father so drunk he thought my sister sleeping on her bed was the toilet in the bathroom and peed all over her. Freshman year is when things actually get bad. My father starts drunkenly raping my sister. My mom knows, but she chooses to work 2nd shift until about 2-3am anyway. I am home to defend her. My choices are a) sit in the hallway near her door and take beatings, or b) do nothing. I choose A. While sitting in the hall waiting for my beating I would just count in my head, when I knew the beating would come I would start rubbing my thumbnails on the top of my fingers rubbing the skin off raw, I guess this was my way of self-inflicted pain. I never cried, I never said anything, I just let him beat me. I spent a lot of time in detention and suspension. Teachers couldn't understand what was wrong with me, I had a much higher than average IQ but did not school work at all, I was put into the program for the problem children, things got worse with fighting in school. Teachers would wonder why I wasn't living up to my 'potential', it frustrated them, which only made things still worse. This continued for awhile. Not sleeping at night to defend my sister leaves me late to school and failing school. Truancy officers get involved, I go to work and am sentenced to a juvenile detention center in Hartford. When I got back from Juvenile detention (PRISON), my father told me he was 'proud of me' and that I did something good for the family by going there and not saying anything. This is the only time I really remember him saying he was proud of me. Everything goes back to the same, raping and beating. He ends up leaving the home for months at a time while touring the world with his jazz band, you'd think this meant peace but it didn't, things remained hellish with my mother, she was manipulative and emotionally abusive. She started cheating on my father with various men, including his brother. I remember my father walking into my room one night with two dildos asking what my mother was up to. I didn't know. Their relationship got worse, I started having nightmares. They eventually divorced, and my father eventually went to prison for 10 years. I haven't spoken to him in 5 years. The last time I talked to him he still said none of it was his fault and he did the best he could to raise us. My mom also says she did the best she could. People tell me I am wrong, immoral, and should be ashamed of myself for not talking to my father. There's plenty more to say. Since the 10 years of my adult life I have been in several physically and mentally abusive relationships with women. This is what I want to change in my life. They tell me I am cold, and unable to feel emotion. I had one girlfriend that would hit me multiple times then would blame me, her hitting me was my fault, because I am 'cold', or something. When I know a women is going to beat me, I do the same thing I did when I knew my father was going to beat me, I would count to avoid thinking and feeling emotion and rub my thumb nail on my finger inflicting pain to block the emotion. I would seek it, I was always thinking, just hit me and get it over with. I recently broke up with my most recent girlfriend, we were engaged several times to be married. She would repeatedly cheat on me, break up with me, hit me, etc. She controlled everything, I handed over my paychecks to her, I lost all my friends, I wasn't allowed to have a car, etc. She would put me in lose/lose situations, For example, 'you don't have to do the dishes tonight babe', followed by 'you're so fucking lazy, you don't do shit around here, there's still dishes you piece of shit' then hit me, things like that. She would regularly flirt with other men and cheat, and then call me a sleaze and tell me I was the one that couldn't be trusted. She once beat me on my birthday, so I got the nerve to call the police, she smashed my phone mid 911 call, officers arrived and she told them I beat her, they arrested us both. I could continue here forever. When I started listening to the FDR show things got much worse, as I was starting to awaken and get a clue. She told me that I was being 'brainwashed'. I feel emotion, I just don't show it. I am now covered in tattoos, everything except for my head. I work a decent job, I manage a distribution center but am unable to move up any further in the company because of the social speech problem I developed during my abuse as a child. I went through a period of alcohol abuse in my early 20's, I then abused pain pills and cocaine, as well as being very promiscuous. I am now completely clean. I haven't drank alcohol in several years. I took up riding motorcycles and got into an accident where I nearly lost my life, I broke my neck, I don't know why I lived. Most people told me how lucky I was, I still don't think I was lucky to be alive. I could probably continue this for much longer. I don't know what is wrong with me. I am a good looking guy and don't have a problem meeting women, but I don't know how to get in to a normal/non-abusive relationship. help me.

Libertarians use aggression and force to defend/maintain their ownership of private property. So it is incorrect to say that non-aggression is a principle of libertarianism...

"If somebody is willing to use aggression to impose something on people, they're not libertarians." Libertarians use aggression to impose their ownership of land and resources on other people...other people that had an equal right to the use of that land before the libertarian stuck a flag in the ground and started using force and initiating violence against anyone that would walk across their arbitrary borders of 'private land'

They state it's not theft, and that the initial force is with the property owner implying force to defend a right to this 'private' property.Goods are scarse and before you came along and planted a flag in the ground saying property was yours everyone had an equal right to the use of that property, you took it without the permission of anyone else, and will initiate force to prevent everyone else from using it. That's the argument anyway.The NAP fails because the property owner took ownership of land with the use or threat of force against anyone else. The act of owning/claiming property alone initiates the use of or threat of force.My personal opinion is that the NAP IS a circular argument and does beg the question.I think NAP should be dropped from libertarian discussion.We argue not against aggression as a principle, but instead of when aggression is justified...which isn't NAP.

and if so why do we use it in philosophical debate of ownership rights??? http://mattbruenig.com/2014/01/29/how-a-reductio-ad-absurdum-works/

Before land is homesteaded we all have an equal right to use it. But out of no where one guy just randomly shows up and declares it is his own and uses force to keep every one else off of it. He starts claiming he and only he has the right to exclusively control and use that land, and if we don't give up our right to it, that it's use that is initiating the force against him!!! But, we all just moments before had an equal right to it right? when did we all give up our right to walk on that land to this one guy, and why should it be acceptable for him to initiate the threat or use of force against all of us to maintain his arbitrary borders?

Environmental nonsense. iHe I turned the video off as soon as I heard the claim that humans are enslaving plants. "It's genocide to remove trees" haha

I can't tell if the original post was serious or not. I hope it was not...

If you hire somebody to write a song and have them teach it to you, you are paying them for the knowledge. The song is property, its not rivalrous, and he can play the song whenever they, or anyone else, wants to, without infringing on your ability to play it. You have a right to the knowledge because its in your head and you have a property right in your body so you can control that knowledge. But, you want to control other peoples knowledge so youre claiming a property right in their body. A body is rivalrous property. IP is always about rivalrous property.

'private property is theft' Literally makes no sense. You have to make the case that you have the better claim to someone elses property than they themselves have to it. I don't know how you can make that claim without just declaring it and using force. And, even when you do this, youre only claiming that you have the private property right to it. So it's still private property, but i bet it's not theft when that stolen private property is finally your private property, it's only theft when it's other peoples private property, am i right? You claim there is no private property while making a claim to private property...

"You're making lots of assertions, but you're not supporting them. If labor isn't property, then why are contracts valid? Let's say that I hire you to build my fence, and I supply the tools and lumber. Then after you build the fence, I refuse to pay on the grounds that you don't own your labor? Here, you're claiming that a contract is somehow valid, when the terms outlined in the contract are not owned by the parties of the contract. A contract is valid only when it's viewed as an exchange of property. Otherwise, there's no argument to make it any more valid than a simple promise." You said it yourself, 'a contract is valid only when it's viewed as an exhange of propety' Using your own example, you're trade someone money (a rivalrous good) for the building of a fence (a rivalrous good). It has nothing to do with labor, the trade is of rivalrous goods. It doesn't matter that he already owned the raw materials and tools, he's paying to rearrange those raw materials into a fence, it's a rivalrous good. He's not paying you for the movement of your body but for the rearranging of his raw materials. As i've said before, IP and labor disputes are always over rivalrous goods. "But a key point that's being overlooked is: what's the purpose of property? If you don't believe that property should be protected as the product of labor, then why should it be protected at all? How do you view the causes that give rise to the need for property in your model for the NAP?" NAP is based on individual property and contract rights, labor and IP arn't property. Labor is an action not a 'good' or property that can be 'owned', it is the rearranging of raw materials into other more preferrable goods, that's what is a good and can actually be owned. Stephan Kinsella talks about this alot, check it his work on the topic. He does a much better job explaining it than i can.

"Okay, so a novel, or movie, or musical composition is not property?" No, it's not property because it is not a rivalrous good or resource. "Try recreating one from scratch. Having never read, seen, or heard the original." Exactly, same goes to you. Everything any one creates is with knowledge that they learned previously from someone else. Knowledge isn't rivalrous, we can all use the same knowledge at the same time without infringing on the other individuals ability to use that knowledge with his own resources to create something. For example, we can both play the same notes on our own guitars at the same time without infringing on eachothers ability to play those notes with our guitars. BUT, we both can't play the same notes on the same guitar, because the guitar is a rivalrous good and can only be used by one person at a time. If you claim that you have a right to the song then you're claiming that you have a right to my body and my guitar to prevent me from using my body to play my guitar. The guitar makes the music, not the knowledge in my brain, so it's a dispute over who has the right to control what's done with the guitar, not who has the right to control what's done with the knowledge. I can think about the same all day long, you're not disputing that I know the song, only that I play it with a guitar. It's my use of the guitar that you claiming a property right in. If you paint a picture of a fish you need to own your own paint, easel, paper, paintbrush, etc.. if I see your painting and paint a picture of the same fish I need my own paint, easel, paper, and paintbrush. I didn't steal anything, you still have all your supplies and your painting a property right in them both. If you turn to me and tell me I have no right to use my paint, easel, paper, and paintbrush then you are claiming a property right in them. If I sell it and you sue for my profit then you are claiming a property in the money. It's never anything but the rivalrous good there is property claim to. You want scarcity, you want to prevent more paintings of fish so that you can sell yours for more, you have to initiate the use of force to control how other people use their property so it's both immoral AND bad for the economy.

I only bring this up because Mises was all over the map when using the distinctions of analytic and synthetic a priori, using them correctly and incorrectly, and then later claiming the distinctions made no difference to praxeology at all... I'm with you guys, I also believe that the distinctions between analytic and synthetic don't apply to praxeology at all. but why then did Mises continue to use them at times and use them incorrectly as well? I've read nearly everything Mises and have no answers...I guess It doesn't matter much either way but it was just something I was thinking about at the moment...

Everyone agrees that Mises praxeology is a priori, but is it analytic or synthetic?

Hoppe's argumentation ethics is amazing to use while calling these people out. The fact that they'll even attempt to argue or reason with you over property rights presupposes that both individuals in thr arguement are respecting the other individuals right to property in their body or whatever other property is being argued over (if there wasnt a presupposed acknowledgement for individual property rights it wouldnt be an arguement it would be an assault or a theft). So the simple fact theyre even engaging in a peaceful argument completely contradicts their argument. People have a hard time defining private property. It means the individual with the best claim to the control of a rivalrous good or resource. I'm using my phone to type this, by doing so i claim i have the best claim to it, otherwise it'd be theft. This is a philosophical fact rather i realize i am making that claim to it while using it or not, the claim to private property still exists regardless of my realization or denial of it. I also want to add, that even if i did steal my phone to write this, i would still be making a claim to it as my property. However, i wouldn't have the moral and best claim to it as private property because i did not aquire it through voluntary trade with the origional owner.The claim to it as private property is still there though. Point being, every peice of property you touch or use you are making a claim to as private property, you literally can't touch or use anything without making the claim to it. It's the dispute of who has the rightful claim to property that the arguement should be over, not if there's property at all." That was from a seperate post of my mine on a different thread but i feel it applies here as well. Marxist anarchists falsely believe there is no individual property rights but they are mistaken. They are just claiming that they, as individuals, have the individual right to other peoples rivalrous property against their voluntary will. They are still making an individual claim to the right to control rivalrous property and they don't have to admit it for that to be true. It's not an equalizer as if every individual has an equal amount of property. It's equal as an every individual has the equal right to property. marxism requires the use of force to allocate resources, libertarianism requires voluntary trade and contract with no force. BOTH are based on individual property rights. In marxism the majority of peoples each as individuals claim they have the individual right to the property of all other individuals, individuals that did not voluntarily trade or contract with them to give them that right. The fact that they believe they had a prior right to it and therefor the current owner of the property in dispute is using force to prevent them from having it is laughable. This is no different than a theif saying he didnt commit a crime because he had a right to the property and the current owner was using force to prevent him from having it, he would be laughed out of civil court with an argument like this. Where did his individual right to that property in dispute come from? he just made it up. It's all individial property rights, the arguement is over if individual property rights exist or not, it's over what individial has the best and moral claim to that property.

A ring is a rivalrous good, only one person can use it at a time, and it can actually be returned. Two people can use the same idea at the same time with their own resources and without either infringing the others ability to do the same. It's not rivalrous. Like i said before, what your claiming to have a property right in isn't the idea, it's the rivalrous property. When you say someone has no right to use an idea, you are claiming you have the individual right to control their body and their resources. You're making a claim to rivalrous property, not intellectual property. If that person has already made a profit with their resources and product you are making a claim to the income they received, a rivalrous good. NAP is to protect rivalrous resources. Labor and ideas arnt property because they are not rivalrous. IP actually isnt compatible with NAP at all because the only way for you to enforce that others don't use your ideas is to claim a right to their body and property against their will with the use of force.

I agree with all of that. The important thing to remember is that when someone in the majority to tax other people, that each individual person within that majority of people is claiming an individual property right to the money (property) that other individuals are in the possession of. They are claiming that they have a better right to it that the current owner, as illogical as that is. All property rights are individual rights no matter how people frame their arguments to make it seem as though that is not so. Democracy is nothing more a property claim. People thinks they can get social change from democracy but that's impossible as nothing can be done with democracy but the immoral claim of a right to other people's bodies and properties with the use of force.

Scarcity is not the basis for property. rivalrous is. If you make a movie, what is the rivalrous property, the idea or the cd's it's printed on? If i make a movie with the same plot, the same script written on my own paper, the same actors hired and paid be me, the same equipment purchased or rented by me, and printed to dvd's that i owned...what property has been stolen? you still have your paper with the script on it, your money, your equipment, and your dvd's. The plot is not a rivalrous because two people can both use the same idea that the same exact time without infrining on the others ability to use it. The IP dispute is never over the idea though, it's always over rivalrous property. You claim that youhave an individual right to control the use of my property (cameras, money, and paper with the script on it) and ultimately to control my body to prevent me from doing something. You're claiming the right to control my body and property. Scarcity is not the basis for property. rivalrous is. If you make a movie, what is the rivalrous property, the idea or the cd's it's printed on? If i make a movie with the same plot, the same script written on my own paper, the same actors hired and paid be me, the same equipment purchased or rented by me, and printed to dvd's that i owned...what property has been stolen? you still have your paper with the script on it, your money, your equipment, and your dvd's. The plot is not a rivalrous because two people can both use the same idea that the same exact time without infrining on the others ability to use it. The IP dispute is never over the idea though, it's always over rivalrous property. You claim that youhave an individual right to control the use of my property (cameras, money, and paper with the script on it) and ultimately to control my body to prevent me from doing something. You're claiming the right to control my body and property. Labor is also not property.

Wesley is mostly right. One thing i wanted to add... Hoppe's argumentation ethics is amazing to use while calling these people out. Tha fact that they'll even attempt to argue or reason with you over property rights presupposes that both individuals in thr arguement are respecting the other individuals right to property in their body or whatever other property is being argued over (if there wasnt a presupposrd respect for individual property rights it wouldnt be an arguement it would be an assault or a theft). So the simple fact theyre even engaging in a peaceful argument completely contradicts their argument. People have a hard time defining private property. It means the individual with the best claim to the control of a rivalrous good or resource. I'm using my phone to type this, by doing so i claim i have the best claim to it, otherwise it'd be theft. This is a philosophical fact rather i realize i am making that claim to it while using it or not, the claim to private property still exists regardless of my realization or denial of it. I also want to add, that even if i did steal my phone to write this, i would still be making a claim to it as my property. However, i wouldn't have the moral and best claim to it as private property because i did not aquire it through voluntary trade with the origional owner. The claim to it as private property is still there though. Point being, every peice of property you touch or use you are making a claim to as private property, you literally can't touch or use anything without making the claim to it. It's the dispute of who has the rightful claim to property that the arguement should be over, not if there's property at all.