Gabranth

As a society that is always creating new language for tools in our use, we need to recognize new fallacies. Such new tools will make it more efficient and easier to combat bad logic and ideas. It takes so much time to dispel statist and socialist myths, yet people need to be explained to why these ideas are wrong. This is where a simple, short use of fallacy come in to just point out to people when the need arises. I think this would be invaluable in the culture and idea war. Egalitarian fallacy: belief that egalitarianism is good and something society should strive for. contradicted by itself, in that it takes inegalitarian means to achieve it. is subjective, so is often tyrannical. similar to the naturalistic fallacy. Taxation fallacy: belief that taxation is voluntary. despite being forced on everyone via statist law. Social contract or will of the people fallacy: Similar to the taxation fallacy. belief that society spontaneously create governments and allow themselves to be governed. Despite history not backing this up. Monopoly fallacy: belief that we need a monopoly to prevent monopolies. That market monopolies arise via having the most capital or money, despite economic theory and history disproving this. I think these fallacies should start to be put to use in debates. and allow them to catch on the way language naturally does in society. This sort of bad logic can be simply dismissed as fallacy, the way other improper logic is.

So people would violate your property possession? Im not sure you can violate possession? Granted it all comes down to theft, murder, rape, assault etc. but why cant we tie all those acts into a bigger arch of universal rule called property rights? The use of the word right not being overly important. I mean we could call it anything. we just need some word to fill in the idea that embodies it. The same way we use law, or rule, principle etc. we all know what a scientific law is, and people universally agree on it, im not sure why the word right cant be the same way. People just arent being properly educated on it. Another thing too, the masses are already familiar with rights. Just seems easier to teach them about property rights rather than UPB. Granted that's just an opinion of course. Cant really be proven either way until we actually teach it to people in mass. <I>"Unfortunately the concept is yet another victim to colloquial hijacking."</I> True but im not sure we should give up words or concepts because they can or have been hijacked. The word morality has been hijacked and used for evil ends, or used incorrectly too, but we dont give up on that. Once the statist system of information is overthrown, the better ideas and use of these words and concepts will come forth.

Its kind of hard to talk about certain things without using the concept of rights though. Which is why I think Stef inadvertently used the word many times in his career. Doesnt that mean there is a need for the word and its concept, even if we haven't come up with a satisfactory definition yet? we observed the natural reality of our universe, and we called them universal laws. We observed the natural reality of humans, and we called them universal rights.

Just a bit confused on his video on rights. Why did Stefan use the term "property rights" for much of his career, (even after UPB) if he thought the term "rights" was invalid? If he doesnt agree with the word, what would he call the concept of property rights, if not by that name than by what?

Well I dont think left and right is relative. It had a very real meaning and set of ideals when it started out. Its just that sophists and shill "academics" started to change the meanings of them without giving a proper explanation as to why. Of course they did this for their own nefarious purposes. For their own power. Socialists even declared classical liberals the enemy. Therefore the current uses of left and right are not legitimate. Most people are not aware of their illegitimacy of course b/c the state largely teaches them. I think a lot of people have it all wrong when calling govt schooling institutions left wing as well. Its right wing. The status quo is there to support and prop up crony capitalism, as much as the state. And so called "left wing" ideals like SJWism, immigration, and regulating business, are all things the crony capitalists support. Its always struck me as odd that the crony capitalist system has such a fetish with degrees as well. I think higher education degrees are actually a litmus test for showing you are brainwashed into supporting the current crony capitalist status quo. Rothbard touched on this as well in one of his articles. Ill try to find it. I think its problematic and inconsistent to define left and right by traditional and progressive values. First of all we all have traditional values. I think its rather inevitable, b/c life requires we are taught and raised by our previous generation. Even Noam Chomsky describes himself as a traditionalist in values, yet under your definition we wouldnt consider him a rightist would we? Second of all you can have values such as traditional and progressive apart from govt allocation of resources. Rothbards view of the political spectrum tends to solve the dilemma of calling socialism and fascism polar opposites, even though in practice they look a lot alike.

"Where did you learn to get these associations for "left" and "right"?" https://mises.org/library/left-and-right-prospects-liberty Rothbard wrote a lengthy and detailed article about it. He points it out a lot in his books as well. Before I read that, I always considered the political spectrums to be inconsistent and didnt make much sense. Which was a sure sign of untruth. That article cleared it all up. I think as libertarians, we need to take back our title as true leftists. And point out that these so called "rightists" movements, actually have a bit of confused leftism in them b/c they are fighting against the status quo and establishment.

Given the history of what left and right actually mean historically. The left (liberalism) historically has meant liberating people from systemic systems of oppression. Its revolutionary. The right (conservatism) has historically meant propping up a status quo that objectively makes peoples lives worse. Statism, state cronyism, state enforced privilege. regulations, crony capitalism, feudalism, castes, forced hierarchy, state religion, wars, slavery, etc. The so called "alt-right" of today, along with the tea party, at least in part, seeks to eliminate what they think are oppressive and harmful status quo statist systems. The so called establishment left of today seeks to keep these systems. What actually happened was our intellectuals and elites started to shift these words around as a propaganda technique. The true conservatives in this country started to call themselves liberals and progressives to fool people into thinking what they were doing is good. In europe today the word liberal actually means libertarian b/c that's what radical liberals were historically. libertarians. Libertarians are the true heirs of liberalism and progressivism. The people that call themselves this in America today are the imposters. The so called left in America is actually the status quo right and they have fooled a lot of people with their propaganda and brainwashing thanks to public schools and statist controlled higher education.

"Ownership requires more than the assertion of a claim and a basis for such a claim. An exclusive claim must be justifiable to all potential claimants according to universally applicable standards of ownership recognized by the majority of members of a society" -Eclecticidealist This kind of ties into what i was getting at in my first post. How would we actually do this, and is this not essentially a government? On a related question as well. If someone were to die and have no transfer of property, who would get the persons property?

I would ask them to point to any one person that actually owns this land in is entirety. It's not like renting at all, because you may still have to pay taxes even if you do not live in the country taxing you. Imagine if a private land owner tried that! Also, getting things in return is irrelevant to the definition of theft. As long as the definition is met, anything extra is irrelevant and does not magically change the fact that its still theft. If I steal a persons purse or wallet and give them back a nickel. According to their logic, its not theft anymore.

So i was reading through the article again. And was hung up on this part in particular. "The reason it makes no sense is because it does what philosophers call begging the question. Why is taxing you aggression rather than defense? Well it’s aggression because you are entitled to what is being taxed from you (you claim). Fine, I hear that you believe it belongs to you. But I don’t believe it belongs to you. So really when you say it is aggression, you are just assuming as an unstated premise exactly what we are disagreeing about: whether the thing actually belongs to you or not. If I am right about the thing not belonging to you, it’s not aggression. If you are right about it belonging to you, it is." He seems to be saying its aggression because you claim it belongs to you. But isnt it aggression because its the initiation of force as defined? So its not begging the question? Also, he seems to be saying who owns what is all relative to each person. Which would create a bunch of logical inconsistencies. We do know who owns what, and I think we can all agree that if a person mixes their labor with land, they own it. But do we not need some singular official list of who owns it? What if a person murders a farmer, and claims this land as his or her own? How might we go about proving the murderer does not own the land to private arbitrators? I've been casually perusing some Rothbard articles about it, and I didnt seem to read anything specific on it. Did he write about it? Or do any of you have any specific online reading sources that goes into theories about this? Or perhaps its not a problem at all, and im going about this whole thing wrong?

http://mattbruenig.com/2013/10/03/non-aggression-never-does-any-argumentative-work-at-any-time/ Does this guy have a point? How would a libertarian society acknowledge who actually owns what land? Or who is entitled to the land? Doesnt this need to be established before we can decide who is the aggressor and the defender?

Appreciate the replies people. Will have to read up on Stef's book. And maybe some more Rothbardian views on private courts, The lawyer also kept trying to tell me that property cant really exist without it being expressly defined by a government. Or that money, contracts, debt, personal property etc cant really exist without a regulatory system defined by law. Maybe I'm not reproducing his views all they well. as they didnt seem to make much sense to me. Perhaps like religion, law isn't supposed to make sense.

Yes, but i was just curious if anyone had the answers before I looked more into it. Not that im lazy just saves me time and energy. But if laws are universally agreed upon by society isnt that a system of government?

Well Im tending to think a universal system of governance and law was created because these kinds of issues plagued the past world. Because violence was used a lot of the time for disputes. Lets take one specific example as to why this may be necessary. Say a store owner takes your money for a service thats to be fulfilled at a later time. The owner or business falls on money troubles for whatever reason and goes out of business leaving debts to various people and groups. Let's say this failed business owes a bank money but now it also owes you money back because it never fulfilled its service. The bank and you are separate contracted parties that never agreed before hand on what arbitration measures to use. But now you find yourselves in a situation where all 3 parties must agree on an arbitration service and in what order the parties are to be arbitrated first. Both parties want their money but only a limited amount of money is available to repay the debts. Does this situation not raise concerns over an individual system of law versus a universal system of law?

So, I was chatting with a lawyer about stateless societies, and non-governmental order. He pointed out, what i think, is a major dilemma regarding stateless societies, that has been bugging me. Basically it comes down to the problems that are created when an individual or a company goes bankrupt. For example, If you're in debt to someone (usually multiple people) the debter usually does not have enough money or property to repay all the debt to all the people. So how do you decide who gets paid first, with what limited money or property the debter has? The lawyer argues: only a central authority of governance and universal law can solve this peacefully. If you say they can just bring the case to a private arbitrator. Then more problems arise. How do all the people involved agree on the arbitrator? How do you decide which person gets arbitrated first? How do you enforce the decision? He pointed out as well, that a society needs a universally agreed upon system of property law, or external rule everyone agrees upon, so that violence doesnt erupt from disputes. Thoughts? Opinions? How might a stateless society tackle this problem?