Search the Community

I've been uploading videos fairly regularly. I recently did a small mini-series aimed at people who might be new to anarchism. I talk about self-ownership and the other basic principles underlying stateless societies. I also do random stuff too. I've put three links below: My ambidexterity: On Consistency: The State Owns your Death:

“This action puts the wider interests of the community of npm users at odds with the wishes of one author; we picked the needs of the many.” SOURCE: http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/5YpkNm/:1ToVke+U:iL!paN0y/qz.com/646467/how-one-programmer-broke-the-internet-by-deleting-a-tiny-piece-of-code So these guys recognize the fake property rights of a "trademark" but then ignore the property rights of the programmer who took his property and went home. Seems kind of inconsistent, IMHO. Also, an interesting write-up of the philosophy behind the "needs of the many" Spock quote here: https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2013/09/spocks-illogic-the-needs-of-the-many-outweigh-the-needs-of-the-few/

Something to consider if you are thinking of voting for Donald Trump: http://reason.com/blog/2015/10/06/donald-trump-thinks-kelo-style-eminent-d And if you're not familiar with the Kelo v The City of New London, it's a landmark property rights case that I think all Americans should be outraged about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

Question: How high is your IQ Mr. Wolf? Answer: High enough to survive the Winter you Silly Wabbit / Ravishing Rabbit / Great Grasshopper Can someone please walk me through the origin or share data points on how and why Classical (Greek/Roman) civilization was able to come up with and value ideas and principles like Self Defense, Property Rights, and Freedom of Speech? How about voluntary exchange aka Capitalism, when exactly did that originate, rather than just warfare or self-sufficiency. Or do these ideas come from a mix of ancient tribes and groups, and which groups specifically how and why?

Stefan's arguments against the likes of Peter Joseph and others held up to scrutiny, particularly the pragmatic arguments come to mind. Later I read the excellent book Anarchy, State, and Utopia. In it is an elegant pragmatic argument for voluntarism. Here's a thought that occurred to me a very long time ago, that I hadn't given consideration since before my Libertarian leanings: We are animals born into a world and we claim we "own" things...that there is some magic property that makes things well...property. We flap our mouths and scuttle about on the surface of a planet, rearranging the furniture.The fact of the matter is, we simply borrow everything for a time and then we die. Ownership isn't anything we actually point to, but a method of organizing goods efficiently so as to say who can do what with what, and get on with our lives. That being said, the Sun will extinguish and our solar system will go cold, with all the ownership on this little blue planet having counted for nothing. Even if by some miracle the species escapes our local galactic neighborhood, over the course of time, our likelihood of survival in asymptotic fashion approaches zero. Everything anyone has ever borrowed during their life span will return to the melting pot that is the observable universe. The very atoms that make us up will be churned back into the cosmic stew. What then could be said of ownership? Sentience bound by our biological shells, has our minds isolated requiring we resort to the pragmatism of property rights. Don't know that I feel much different about all this. Perhaps these kinds of thoughts use to lean me elsewhere on the political spectrum. If this isn't convincing that's ok. I just don't think property matters in a few billion years.

Ok so, I'll ask where does property come from and I'm under the impression that the answer is "from the exercise of self-ownership." So external property rights come from the exercise of internal self-ownership. Ok, I say, where does self-ownership come from? I'll get responses mirroring these ideas on page 76 of UPB. "Now the first “property” that must be dealt with is the body. “Ownership” must first and foremost consist of control over one’s own body, because if that control does not exist, or is not considered valid, then the whole question of morality – let alone property – goes out the window" This denotes the nature of all other property rights stemming from self-ownership. "Thus the very act of controlling my body to produce speech demands the acceptance of my ability to control my speech – an implicit affirmation of my ownership over my own body." This reflects the factual ability to control, and the exercise of that control somehow implying self-ownership. <that implication is the part that needs explanation. Stefan seeks to do this in surrounding statements: "Clearly, the body cannot entirely control itself, but rather must be to some degree under the direction of the conscious mind.. What this means is that a man is responsible for the actions of his body, and therefore he is responsible for the effects of those actions" "responsible" is used here not in the way that we say that the drought was responsible for the lower yield of crops this year. That's fine, but notice by doing this, Stefan smuggles the morality into the conversation. Before that we have a-moral facts: conscious minds exist, bodies exist, and consciousness sends electric impulses to extremities resulting in motor control. No problem. Which of those is a "moral" fact? Once you use "responsibility" in the way that Stefan does here...: "If I say to you: “Men are not responsible for the actions of their bodies,” it would be eminently fair for you to ask me who is working my vocal chords and mouth. If I say that I have no control over my speech – which is an effect of the body – then I have “sustained” my thesis at the cost of invalidating it completely" ...the argument has been concluded before being made. Stefan then moves the argument to say that if you deny the action or the causal link, you are denying the as of yet unexplained underlying moral premise. Since the former part of that sentence is contradictory, so would the second part. The problem is the unexplained underlying morality of the situation. One day we may be able to relinquish motor and speech control. These events at the level of the brain are being better understood every day. How then, is absolute slavery not possible? Even if, after a while, you were screaming in your head "no! no!! no!!!" What would that mean for your self-ownership? What is free-will worth if it affects nothing? This might seem really simple for all of you, but for some reason it's like Greek to me. ( .) (. )

We own our bodies, we own our actions and the consequences of them, so do we own something that we steal? After a lengthy discussion with my flatmates and still no conclusion I am putting this forward to the FDR community to hopefully come to a definitive answer.

Is voting the initiation of force through proxy? If voting makes you complicit to the governments immoral actions, (taxation at the point of a gun for example), then does an individual who votes have any 'right' to property rights. As an example, a lifetime government employee who votes has a savings account. The source of this accounts value is made entirely through the support and subsequent payment of and from government, a gang with a monopoly on violence. Does this person have property rights over the money or does it belong to the tax payers that it was stolen from (impossible to redistribute back). I guess the question follows, if you flipped the anarchy switch tomorrow, would this person have any moral claim over their cash?

The Non-Aggression Principle presents a problem when applied to environmental pollution (damn, that's some alliteration there). Taking air pollution as an example, the idea is that if you pollute the air with cancer-causing particles and other people consume that air then you are exposing their bodies to danger without their consent, therefore you have committed an aggressive action. I think a lot of libertarians are familiar with this, and they either accept polluting acts as aggressive or they have an argument to say that it is okay. These arguments are normally along the lines of "If you don't like it, you can get out" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fZZqDJXOVg - South Park clip to demonstrate), which I hate to see coming from libertarians, or they say that your life is better and safer in a polluted world, which just disregards the NAP. There's an obvious alternative which is to say that the act of breathing is also pollution, because you reduce the oxygen content and increase the content of particles that cannot be used in respiration and of particles that your body has rejected because they are harmful. That of course makes breathing an act of pollution => aggressive, so I search with hope for an alternative. My response is to say that people have no ownership of the air being polluted, until they breathe the air in. Nothing can be owned until someone takes control of it (I'm talking about how the property rights over yet-unowned things are created, not about the philosophical origin of property rights in general). For example, you could not own some piece of wilderness just by looking at it; you would have to do something to that land (eg. build on it) in order to associate it with you for it to become someone's (your) property. You could not own an apple from a wild apple tree just by seeing it on the ground; you would have to take it in your hand for it to be yours. A body cannot be owned by anyone until the mind within it takes neurological control. Likewise, the air on the planet does not belong to anyone just by knowing that it is there; people need to collect the air in one way or another, breathing for example. It is not aggressive for Bob to pollute the air because Bill does not own that air until Bill breathes it in. Pollution is aggressive if it is done on something that is already owned. So, your thoughts on the whole problem and on my solution?

My Thoughts: I was wondering if anyone has gone through this study provided below and what their thoughts were on it. My interpretation is that property rights (thus a sense of self and thus a sense of morality) is a naturally emerging phenomenon as spacial awareness is developed, i.e. it's all an extention of spacial awareness. From the study: Abstract: From the moment children say “ mine!” by 2 years of age , objects of possession change progressively from being experienced as primarily un-alienable property (i.e., something that is absolute or non negotiable), to being alienable (i.e., something that is negotiable in reciprocal exchanges). As possession begin s to be expe rienced as alienable, the child enters “moral space”, a socially normative and evaluative space made of perceived values that are either good or less good, and where accountability and reputation begin to play a prominent role. The aim of the article is to show the close developmental link between possession and morality . Source: http://www.psychology.emory.edu/cognition/rochat/lab/Possession%20and%20morality%20in%20early%20development%5B1%5D.pdf

So I understand that communism makes no sense because a person owns the effects of his or her own actions. Woman owns her own vagina, means of production of more humans as Stefan said. This sounds perfectly fair and reasonable when a person cultivates and puts energy into something, making it theirs. So I took this into account when arguing against communism and its attempts to universalize, which it doesn't, *its attempt at egalitarianism when there is still a minority who controls all the guns and means of production. What about children? Do I own my child? Do parent(s) own their children if that child was an effect of their energies? Sorry if Stefan has already blown over this topic.

When people produce something, they mix their labor with resources. If we go back in time far enough, these resources were initially unowned. natural resource + labor ==> modified resource The modified resource has been produced by a laborer. If someone else takes control over it (steals it), then the laborer would have worked for nothing. We don't want that, because we want to be fair towards the laborer. On the other hand, the laborer has not created the resource. The unmodified resource would have been there also without him. Natural resources, even when still in their unmodified form and location, often have significant value to people. An unmodified natural resource, such as an unimproved plot of land, cannot be legally owned in an anarcho-capitalist society, but suppose it could, then it would have a considerable market value. For most things that are owned, the market value added by labor is much higher than the market value of the unmodified natural resource would be. For example, a car has a much higher market value than the unmodified resources from which it is built. In these cases, it is not difficult to accept that the laborer who has worked on an unowned resource, becomes the owner. Determining ownership is more challenging when one or more of the following conditions apply: 1.- the labor is mostly unmixed from the resource Example: the produced crop of a field is harvested and sold Example: someone improves a yet unowned tree, resulting in a higher quantity of fruits, with the quality staying roughly the same. Not all fruits, but only the extra fruits bear significantly the effects of his labor. 2.- the labor applied to the resource did not result in an improvement For example, after heavy production, the soil is getting depleted, even to the point where the market value has become less than that of an uncleared unmodified plot of land. 3.- the resource is abandoned temporarily Even if someone has not done enough with a resource to acquire ownership, the fact that he uses it, would give him sort of temporal ownership to the part of the resource that he uses (personal space). If the resource is abandoned, this does not apply. 4.- the value of the natural resource is very high This can happen because land is needed for essential food production, and the population increases. Suppose someone has modified a very valuable plot of land. Other people might want to access this resource too, not because of the modification done by the first laborer, but because of the value of the resource, regardless of the modification. This means they do not try to steal the fruits of the labor, but want to access the resource that the laborer has not created. They want to work on it with their own hands, just as the first laborer has done. Based on which right, from an ethical point of view, could the first laborer forbid others from using the same natural resource that he has used, when he has added only comparatively little to it? A property rights theory should be able to handle these situations accurately, in order to be valid and complete. None of the approaches I have read about so far from both left and right are satisfactory to me. My question is: Would your property rights theory be able to handle these situations in a fair and ethical way, and if so, how? Related threads: Land ownership, Is homesteading UPB? Geolibertarianism.

Recently, a co-worker of mine was arrested, charged with 4 felonies and a pile of lesser charges, and released on bail. His situation is one involving multiple drug charges. I do want to state that I do not agree with the terms of his arrest, nor do I feel that he did anything wrong. But, being as the state sees his actions as a crime, and that he was also involved with others who were also committing crimes, for the sake of argument, I will refer to him as a criminal. People who commit drug related crimes are often involved with people who many of us would find undesirable to associate with. I'm not going to bother to further clarify my feelings on his character of that of his circle of friends. I don't trust him, or them. Period.So now that he somehow, amazingly made it out of jail, albeit temporarily at this point, there are a few of us here at my work that feel unsafe around him. We're not really worried about him personally, but more so the people he associated with. He somehow made bail of $250,000 cash. We are sure he didn't have the money. And we know there is no one out there who footed a quarter-million dollars just to get him out of lock-up. So, the common assumption is that he is helping the authorities locate and arrest other dealers and suppliers. This, in turn, will create a very hostile response from former associates of his.Our employer has decided to allow him to return to work. Obviously, it's his business and he can hire who he wants. But, he has introduced a person into our working environment who may bring danger to all of us. Upon voicing the concerns of myself, and others I had spoken to, to the vice-president, I was reassured that nothing will happen here. He stated that we have daylight and the deterrence of CCTV cameras all over the premises, on our side. He went as far as to say that were were perfectly safe due the fact that "no one is dumb enough to come after him here". His reassurances obviously did nothing to quell my fears, nor the concerns of others I have spoken to.In reality, our employer has placed us in a potentially dangerous situation. If someone would come looking for him, find him here, and attempt to commit violence in retaliation for his possible involvement in snitching on others, the employees here are now between him and his assailants. Most of us arrive when it's still dark in the morning. So my boss' statement about having daylight on our side means nothing to me. As for the cameras, well desperate people do things that get caught on camera constantly. There are reality television shows based on an hour's worth of footage of "stupid criminals" doing things that were caught on tape. The cameras don't seem like much of a safety net when were dealing with desperate people attempting to quiet a former associate who may very well be leading authorities to them. Their freedom is at stake. Not only their physical freedom, but their tax-free, constant flow of illegal drug money that supports their lifestyle is at stake.The employee handbook states that weapons of any kind, including but not limited to firearms and ammunition, are not permitted on the property. As an employee I worry that carrying my pistol during work would get me fired and jeopardize my family's well being and financial security. As a libertarian I feel the ethical pull of property rights and a philosophical need to follow the rules of the property owner, As a realist I feel threatened by the presence of someone who has made possible enemies with desperate drug dealers.When I acquired my concealed carry license a few years back, I asked the vice-president, of the company I work for, if he had a problem with me keeping my pistol locked in my vehicle during my shift. He stated that it was no issue, and asked if I would keep it quiet as to scare any of the other employees. After this new situation, I have chosen to carry my weapon without asking for permission. I feel that if I inquire about carrying my pistol, I will bring attention to the situation, cause a rift between my employer and I, and possibly damage our working relationship. Our employers (father and son) are not gun guys in any way. They feel relatively safe as they go about their days. They don't have a problem with guns, but they don't quite understand the need for them in a self-defense situation.My issue here is purely ethical... do my rights to self defense supersede their rights to private property? Am I in the wrong for violating their rules? Are they wrong for violating my right to defense? Any input is greatly appreciated.

Hi people, This post is about an aspect of the the book “Universally Preferable Behaviour , A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics ” (online here) written by our host Stefan. In the UPB book, it is argued that, since we own our bodies, we own our actions, so also the effects of actions, and therefore we own whatever we produce, such as a bow or a book. A homesteading theory or a theory of just acquisition is regarded as unnecessary to establish property rights. It would be preferable if it would indeed be that simple. But after thinking about it, it seems to me that there are some problems with it, which I will explain below. On page 75 of the UPB book, the ethical problem of theft is examined. I understand the argumentation as follows: I control my body I should control my body morally well (responsibility) I am allowed to control my body (ownership) I think the argumentation needs one extra qualification in order to be logically sound: I inherently control my body I should control my body morally well (responsibility) I am allowed to control my body (ownership) The responsibility to control something cannot be inferred from only the fact that we control something. For example, the government controls the economy, but it should not do so. But if we unavoidably (inherently) control something, then it can be inferred we should do so morally well. The reasoning is now valid because: 1. is obviously true 1.->2. is valid, assuming there is morality at all 2.->3. is valid, otherwise there would be an impossible moral obligation What has been said for our bodies, can also be said for our actions, and the effects of our actions, as far as we can predict them. Let us examine further what this actually means. We have control over what we will do next, because we can decide it. We control our future actions and the effects of those actions. Once we have acted, the effects of our actions materialize, and become a fixed part of history that we cannot control anymore. We are still responsible for past actions, because we have controlled it in the past. Responsibility can refer to both past and future moral obligations. But the right to control something now, cannot be automatically deduced from past obligations to control it. Besides, even if we had the right to control the effects of our past actions, it would be impossible to exercise it. We cannot control the effects of our past actions, any more than we can change history. We can only control the effects of our future actions. In the reasoning of the UPB book, the right to control the effects of our actions is based on our ability to control it. Theft, on the other hand, implies that we have lost control over it. To argue that we are allowed to control something, after we lost control over it, therefore needs another type of reasoning. Secondly, in the theory under study, the right to control something is based on our obligation to control it well (responsibility). If someone would let any of this type of possession be stolen, it would create the impossible moral obligation upon him to control that which he cannot control, which is of course absurd. In fact, stealing of this type of possession is logically impossible, because we have control over it by definition. For the reasons stated above, it seems to me that this type of reasoning is insufficient to establish property rights and handle the subject of theft. By the way, my argumentation is not intended to justify theft, but to get to a better theory of property rights. I think we need some type of homesteading theory to effectively proof property rights, or at least make them plausible. Looking forward to your comments. Best regards.