Property rights are an act of aggression.

[pperrin]

In a perfect world,... nothing... In a perfect world everything is perfect so there is nothing to be said about it (and it would likely be very, very boring).

 

However, we live in an imperfect world and many of us pursue happiness by seeking to cater for its imperfections, and so allow more people to pursue their happiness too...

 

Property rights can be used to prevent others pursuing their happiness, while seeming to offer the supposed 'owners' nothing much more than the 'pleasure' of exerting control over others.

 

I could go with a made up example, but I think the Indian caste system with its untouchables is probably a good real example.

 

The 'untouchables' effectively have a conspiracy against them to prevent them owning, or having access to the resources, to ever become anything other than an untouchable (even where those resources are abundant but owned by others) - they cannot pursue happiness outside of what others choose to allow.

 

To assert that property rights are absolute, is an assertion that this is an acceptable state of affairs - that by dint of birth your future is under the control of others.

 

In early discussions of 'homesteading' it included consideration of whether a resource was limited/scarce - and that ownership of limited and unlimited resources could/should be considered separately.

 

I expect some reflex responses attacking any suggestion that this mainstay of libertarianism has been outgrown now that the world is such a small place - but there it is!

[Anuojat]

You know you didnt actually make an arguement againts property rights and merely asserted that iw ould mkae people happy anf then referanced the indian caste system which was anything BUT related or applicable with self ornwership and property rights form rational principles.

 

It sounds to me as if you dont even know what property rights are. Since you didnt even give a defination to critique.

[RichardY]

So if Property Rights are Aggression, maybe I could go live in Jennifer Lawrence's Bedroom? (Kind of pervey I know but I use as an example). Or maybe go around your place and help myself to some beers (I only drink alcohol socially) or other stuff of value?  

 

If Property Rights are Aggression there is no Property, only stuff to take as you will. 

[dsayers]

Property rights can be used to prevent others pursuing their happiness

Do you realize that by saying this, you're asserting property rights? Not just by way of using YOUR body, YOUR computer, etc to type it up. But also because you're putting forth "happiness" as a standard for determining property rights. It's YOUR computer because you invested YOUR body, time, and labor to voluntarily trade for it. Not because the people who made it thought it would make you happy.

 

"I seen it first!" is really quite juvenile.

[Kikker]

In a perfect world,... nothing... In a perfect world everything is perfect so there is nothing to be said about it (and it would likely be very, very boring).

 

However, we live in an imperfect world and many of us pursue happiness by seeking to cater for its imperfections, and so allow more people to pursue their happiness too...

 

 

 

A perfect world would be boring? If a world is boring it wouldn't be perfect as a perfect world wouldn't have any negative traits.

 

Secondly if a perfect world constitutes a world which is boring, logically, any industry or activity that prevents boredom is actively preventing a perfect world, which we all should strive for according to you. Your very first sentence is already utterly flawed.

 

 

Property rights can be used to prevent others pursuing their happiness, while seeming to offer the supposed 'owners' nothing much more than the 'pleasure' of exerting control over others.

 

I could go with a made up example, but I think the Indian caste system with its untouchables is probably a good real example.

 

The 'untouchables' effectively have a conspiracy against them to prevent them owning, or having access to the resources, to ever become anything other than an untouchable (even where those resources are abundant but owned by others) - they cannot pursue happiness outside of what others choose to allow.

 

To assert that property rights are absolute, is an assertion that this is an acceptable state of affairs - that by dint of birth your future is under the control of others.

 

In early discussions of 'homesteading' it included consideration of whether a resource was limited/scarce - and that ownership of limited and unlimited resources could/should be considered separately.

 

I expect some reflex responses attacking any suggestion that this mainstay of libertarianism has been outgrown now that the world is such a small place - but there it is!

 

 

So you reasoning is as follows:

1: Our world is imperfect,

2: We should strive for a perfect world,

3: In a perfect world happiness is optimized,

4: People with property make other people feel unhappy by actively preventing them property rights,

5: Supporting absolute property rights is the same as supporting people preventing others to attain property,

6: Thus property rights should be abolished

 

I mean should people even bother to argue about such a flawed argument? I'll do it anyway.

The first three statements are begging the question, a world is perfect because happiness is optimized and happiness should be optimized because then we are closer to a perfect world. The fifth statement is a contradiction as supporting property rights means that you support everyone having property rights, if people prevent other people from having property due to personal believes then they don't support full property rights.

 

There are no unlimited resources, only renewable ones, which require limited resources to produce.

[EclecticIdealist]

In a perfect world,... nothing... In a perfect world everything is perfect so there is nothing to be said about it (and it would likely be very, very boring).

A perfect world by definition would not be very, very boring unless boring is your idea of a perfect world. If your idea of a perfect world is boredom, then your ideal world is one in which every desire is immediately and effortlessly fulfilled. This is not my idea of a perfect world, and not the ideal world of most freedom-minded people, it is the ideal world of the unproductive moocher.

 

However, we live in an imperfect world and many of us pursue happiness by seeking to cater for its imperfections, and so allow more people to pursue their happiness too...

If by catering to the imperfections of the world, you mean catering to the needs and desires of others, that's how wealth and abundance is created in a free society.

 

Property rights can be used to prevent others pursuing their happiness, while seeming to offer the supposed 'owners' nothing much more than the 'pleasure' of exerting control over others.

By property rights, I gather you mean physical property and the means of production. You are no doubt ignoring the economic opportunity afforded virtually anyone in a free society to exchange their labor freely on the open market, to improve their productivity through study and application of effort and practice, and the ability to conspire with other like-minded individuals to compete on the open market with such abilities, You are likewise ignoring the ability of such individuals to accumulate capital by not consuming as much as they earn, thereby affording themselves the ability to purchase land and other means of production. Instead, you focus on those who have already accomplished such feats or inherited such wealth from others.

 

I could go with a made up example, but I think the Indian caste system with its untouchables is probably a good real example.

 

The 'untouchables' effectively have a conspiracy against them to prevent them owning, or having access to the resources, to ever become anything other than an untouchable (even where those resources are abundant but owned by others) - they cannot pursue happiness outside of what others choose to allow.

 

To assert that property rights are absolute, is an assertion that this is an acceptable state of affairs - that by dint of birth your future is under the control of others.

The Indian caste system of untouchables, while not entirely unique, is nevertheless an example of a non-egalitarian system wherein certain members of society are regarded by law, but perhaps more importantly, by custom or cultural tradition as not equal to others. Such prejudice is certainly a fundamental cause of a socially unjust system which oppresses a marginalized class in favor of other classes including possible privileged classes. The solution, however, is not to deprive all of rights and treat everyone equally poorly, but rather, to extend rights to all, and to deprive all of their undeserved privileges which come at the expense of others. In short, you don't correct the injustices of a prejudicial caste system by denying everyone rights, but by extending rights to those who are currently being denied them.

 

In early discussions of 'homesteading' it included consideration of whether a resource was limited/scarce - and that ownership of limited and unlimited resources could/should be considered separately.

Yes, this is certainly true in many respects of homesteading; for example, the idea of water rights wherein a person with a creek on his land is forbidden from damming it up to effectively prevent others further down-stream from benefitting form its usage. But this is very different from the idea of eliminating the right of the homesteader to any water rights, i.e., the right to divert at least a portion of the stream in order to irrigate his crops and obtain potable water for livestock and human consumption.

 

I expect some reflex responses attacking any suggestion that this mainstay of libertarianism has been outgrown now that the world is such a small place - but there it is!

Private property is not merely a mainstay of libertarianism, but of liberty and freedom to any degree. What the world is gradually outgrowing is the notion that unproductive marxist moochers and bureaucrats have a better idea of how to run the world or execute social justice than those who are committed to libertarian principles and free-market capitalism. 

[NocPat]

What are your definitions of  "property", "property rights", and "perfect world"?

 

I don't understand what you're trying to say.

[Will Torbald]

Nobody owes you happiness. You have no case to mandate it from others.

[ThomasTheIdealist]

A property claim is indirectly a threat of violence. If you use the things I claim as property, I will bring violence against you. This is typically done because the usage of the property is considered aggression by the person making the property claim.

 

However, if the person using the property doesn't consider the property claim valid (e.g. they make a copy of a DVD, violating the intellectual property claim they don't consider valid), then from that persons perspective, the one protecting "their property" is the aggressor.

Do you realize that by saying this, you're asserting property rights? Not just by way of using YOUR body, YOUR computer, etc to type it up. But also because you're putting forth "happiness" as a standard for determining property rights. It's YOUR computer because you invested YOUR body, time, and labor to voluntarily trade for it. Not because the people who made it thought it would make you happy.

 

"I seen it first!" is really quite juvenile.

So when I make reference to MY mother and MY country, I'm making a property claim? You can have a relative relationship to something without having property.

By property rights, I gather you mean physical property and the means of production. You are no doubt ignoring the economic opportunity afforded virtually anyone in a free society to exchange their labor freely on the open market, to improve their productivity through study and application of effort and practice, and the ability to conspire with other like-minded individuals to compete on the open market with such abilities, You are likewise ignoring the ability of such individuals to accumulate capital by not consuming as much as they earn, thereby affording themselves the ability to purchase land and other means of production. Instead, you focus on those who have already accomplished such feats or inherited such wealth from others.

Perhaps he ignored the existence of the opportunity, but you're ignoring the massive disparity of opportunity. Slaves had the opportunity to attain freedom/wealth just like everyone else, but they weren't born with it like others were.

 

How does property accumulation not inherently reduce opportunity of others? That accumulation limiting that which can be possessed and used by others who aren't even using it themselves. What's the libertarian justification for permitting people to make a property claim on scarce resources they don't plan on using themselves?

[dsayers]

So when I make reference to MY mother and MY country, I'm making a property claim?

How would I know? Was anybody talking about your mother? What has this to do with what you quoted?

[AncapFTW]

A property claim is indirectly a threat of violence. If you use the things I claim as property, I will bring violence against you. This is typically done because the usage of the property is considered aggression by the person making the property claim.

 

However, if the person using the property doesn't consider the property claim valid (e.g. they make a copy of a DVD, violating the intellectual property claim they don't consider valid), then from that persons perspective, the one protecting "their property" is the aggressor.

So when I make reference to MY mother and MY country, I'm making a property claim? You can have a relative relationship to something without having property.

Perhaps he ignored the existence of the opportunity, but you're ignoring the massive disparity of opportunity. Slaves had the opportunity to attain freedom/wealth just like everyone else, but they weren't born with it like others were.

 

How does property accumulation not inherently reduce opportunity of others? That accumulation limiting that which can be possessed and used by others who aren't even using it themselves. What's the libertarian justification for permitting people to make a property claim on scarce resources they don't plan on using themselves?

Assuming we haven't done anything to affect each other up to this point, if I break your arm, did I violate your rights?  What if I put you in a cage?  If I take the food you gathered?  If I take your car?

 

Every one of those things is property rights, only the first two are self-ownership, and the last two are property ownership.

 

What if it's ownership of one's ass, and they don't consider it valid because you are preventing their sexual pleasure by refusing to let them use it?  Are you committing violence against them when you try to prevent your own rape?

 

The claim to something is justified by how much you put into it and what you've done with it, ie, the amount of your time, labor, and resources put into it.  If I claim an oil deposit and then do nothing with it or the surrounding land, then I could easily be challenged on my claim of it.

[ThomasTheIdealist]

How would I know? Was anybody talking about your mother? What has this to do with what you quoted?

You implied he was making a property claim by making use of his body and his computer, did you not? Perhaps I jumped to the wrong conclusion because you didn't explain why you felt he was making a property claim. So it would help if you did explain.

[dsayers]

You implied he was making a property claim by making use of his body and his computer, did you not?

His body is your mother? Or is it that his computer is your mother?

[ThomasTheIdealist]

His body is your mother? Or is it that his computer is your mother?

Neither, I hope. Though that's equally a logical non-sequitur. So explain how he was making a property claim by making use of something (his body or otherwise).

[pperrin]

You know you didnt actually make an arguement againts property rights and merely asserted that iw ould mkae people happy anf then referanced the indian caste system which was anything BUT related or applicable with self ornwership and property rights form rational principles.

 

It sounds to me as if you dont even know what property rights are. Since you didnt even give a defination to critique.

 

Given the other responses to the post, I think many people got the idea of what I was saying. Sorry if it went over your head.

So if Property Rights are Aggression, maybe I could go live in Jennifer Lawrence's Bedroom?

 

If the option is for you to freeze to death on the streets then yes, maybe you should.

 

If Property Rights are Aggression there is no Property, only stuff to take as you will. 

 

No, a 'right' is absolute - I distinguish between 'abundant' resources (where your ownership denies no one) and 'scarce' resrouces where your onwership may deny others - if ownership of a specific resource gives you 'joy of ownership' but denies someone else the 'right to life', then there is an issue to be considered/discussed...

"I seen it first!" is really quite juvenile.

 

I agree that homesteading is a pretty lame concept.

A perfect world would be boring? If a world is boring it wouldn't be perfect as a perfect world wouldn't have any negative traits.

 

Secondly if a perfect world constitutes a world which is boring, logically, any industry or activity that prevents boredom is actively preventing a perfect world, which we all should strive for according to you. Your very first sentence is already utterly flawed.

 

 

 

I don't want to get into disputes on word definitions (just use a different word!) - but consider how people spend their leisure time, especially in video games... they seek challenge, disputes, and obstacles to overcome. The 'joy' often/generally comes from *finding* solutions, not by actually living in the 'perfect world' that they (supposedly) create.

 

On a side issue - western civilisation seems to be crumbling because youngsters have too *few* real imperfections to challenge them, so make stuff up... like 'micro agressions' and so love their made up issues, they ignore real ones. (They are so busy with intellectual masturbation the are not interested in real world intellectual sex).

So you reasoning is as follows:

1: Our world is imperfect,

2: We should strive for a perfect world,

3: In a perfect world happiness is optimized,

4: People with property make other people feel unhappy by actively preventing them property rights,

5: Supporting absolute property rights is the same as supporting people preventing others to attain property,

6: Thus property rights should be abolished

Kikker, on 06 Jun 2016 - 4:53 PM, said:

 

No that is pretty wide of the mark.

1) yes.

2) 'should'? at most I observed that people do, I didn't say they should.

3) ?

4) I'd suggest 'feeling unhappy' and having your pursuit of happiness arbitrarily blocked are different things.

5) ok, that looks closer...

6) No, there is nothing to abolish if they were always bogus...

 

 

I mean should people even bother to argue about such a flawed argument? I'll do it anyway.

The first three statements are begging the question, a world is perfect because happiness is optimized and happiness should be optimized because then we are closer to a perfect world. The fifth statement is a contradiction as supporting property rights means that you support everyone having property rights, if people prevent other people from having property due to personal believes then they don't support full property rights.

 

There are no unlimited resources, only renewable ones, which require limited resources to produce.

 

 

You aren't obliged to argue - if you do so it is because you care, stop lying to yourself.

 

I think you are arguing with the sequence of logic you presented, which (as I set out) doesn't match my reasoning.

 

Many resources appear effectively unlimited... do you need some air mister? Breathe all you like!!

[aviet]

I don't agree with reactionary attacks to your comments, or down-voting. I'd prefer to counter them.

The argument that property rights are an act of aggression is at best nuanced. In its purest form, property can be claimed, but not usurped. It can only be passed on voluntarily or via a mechanism of laws, such as inheritance law in which 1st degree relatives and a spouse would have property divided. There is no aggression here.

What you are arguing against is not property rights, it is a broader phenomena which could be termed as structural violence, i.e. by the act of property ownership some people may have so few resources that they live in poverty that they cannot feasibly lift themselves out of.

It is possible that there may be poverty in a jurisdiction that has provisions for property rights, but its not specifically the existence of those provisions that will be the cause of poverty. It will be caused by a whole host of issues. If you look at countries that have endemic poverty, you will almost definitely find they have poor property rights, Venezuela would be a good example - the country with the lowest disposable income in South America (half of its nearest counterpart) has the 3rd worst property rights in the world. Meanwhile the countries with the best property rights have low poverty and high disposable incomes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Property_Rights_Index

Note how highly socialist countries, like those in Scandinavia, have good property rights and low poverty. Countries with much smaller government budgets, like Hong Kong, also do well.

The use of the Hindu caste system is not a good example, because it is not a system of property rights, but a system of ethnic rights, which guarantees certain people have a reduced access to property and other things.
 

[Will Torbald]

if ownership of a specific resource gives you 'joy of ownership' but denies someone else the 'right to life', then there is an issue to be considered/discussed...

 

 

There is no such thing as the right to life.

[pperrin]

A perfect world by definition would not be very, very boring unless boring is your idea of a perfect world. If your idea of a perfect world is boredom, then your ideal world is one in which every desire is immediately and effortlessly fulfilled. This is not my idea of a perfect world, and not the ideal world of most freedom-minded people, it is the ideal world of the unproductive moocher.

 

In your 'perfect world' you would create artificial challenges to give your life meaning rather than being a free loading moocher?

 

If by catering to the imperfections of the world, you mean catering to the needs and desires of others, that's how wealth and abundance is created in a free society.

 

By property rights, I gather you mean physical property and the means of production. You are no doubt ignoring the economic opportunity afforded virtually anyone in a free society to exchange their labor freely on the open market, to improve their productivity through study and application of effort and practice, and the ability to conspire with other like-minded individuals to compete on the open market with such abilities, You are likewise ignoring the ability of such individuals to accumulate capital by not consuming as much as they earn, thereby affording themselves the ability to purchase land and other means of production. Instead, you focus on those who have already accomplished such feats or inherited such wealth from others.

 

'in a free society...' yes that is the 'perfect' bit I discounted earlier, because it needs no attention - hence onto the indian caste system...

 

The Indian caste system of untouchables, while not entirely unique, is nevertheless an example of a non-egalitarian system wherein certain members of society are regarded by law, but perhaps more importantly, by custom or cultural tradition as not equal to others. Such prejudice is certainly a fundamental cause of a socially unjust system which oppresses a marginalized class in favor of other classes including possible privileged classes. The solution, however, is not to deprive all of rights and treat everyone equally poorly, but rather, to extend rights to all, and to deprive all of their undeserved privileges which come at the expense of others. In short, you don't correct the injustices of a prejudicial caste system by denying everyone rights, but by extending rights to those who are currently being denied them.

 

What 'rights' are denied to 'untouchables'? They may have equal rights to everyone else, but the current 'owners' of  resources simply choose not to make them available. The reason they don't make them available (cultural, political etc) is irrelevant if you recognise absolute property rights - the owners can (and do) deny the untouchables access and need not explain themselves to the likes of you (or me).

 

Property rights do not preclude property owners from being evil b*stards - however much you hope their greed for profit will induce them to act otherwise...

 

 the idea of water rights wherein a person with a creek on his land is forbidden from damming it up to effectively prevent others further down-stream from benefitting form its usage. But this is very different from the idea of eliminating the right of the homesteader to any water rights, i.e., the right to divert at least a portion of the stream in order to irrigate his crops and obtain potable water for livestock and human consumption.

 

I did differentiate between rights to resources that doesn't deny others (unlimited) and those that do (scarce), so I do not see this as out of line with my original posting.

 

Private property is not merely a mainstay of libertarianism, but of liberty and freedom to any degree. What the world is gradually outgrowing is the notion that unproductive marxist moochers and bureaucrats have a better idea of how to run the world or execute social justice than those who are committed to libertarian principles and free-market capitalism. 

 

But.... State monopoly is no better for anyone than private monopoly. They are the same to you or I if we need a resource and are denied it.. Simply hoping, predicting, guessing, wishing that the owners desire for profit is great enough to 'do the right thing' is not enough.

 

Sorry bout the editing/embedding - still working out how this thing works(!).

Nobody owes you happiness. You have no case to mandate it from others.

 

I said nothing about being owed it - just the right to pursue it.

A property claim is indirectly a threat of violence. If you use the things I claim as property, I will bring violence against you. This is typically done because the usage of the property is considered aggression by the person making the property claim.

 

However, if the person using the property doesn't consider the property claim valid (e.g. they make a copy of a DVD, violating the intellectual property claim they don't consider valid), then from that persons perspective, the one protecting "their property" is the aggressor.

So when I make reference to MY mother and MY country, I'm making a property claim? You can have a relative relationship to something without having property.

Perhaps he ignored the existence of the opportunity, but you're ignoring the massive disparity of opportunity. Slaves had the opportunity to attain freedom/wealth just like everyone else, but they weren't born with it like others were.

 

How does property accumulation not inherently reduce opportunity of others? That accumulation limiting that which can be possessed and used by others who aren't even using it themselves. What's the libertarian justification for permitting people to make a property claim on scarce resources they don't plan on using themselves?

 

Yup some pretty solid stuff in there....

[RichardY]

RichardY, on 06 Jun 2016 - 1:41 PM, said:

So if Property Rights are Aggression, maybe I could go live in Jennifer Lawrence's Bedroom?

 

If the option is for you to freeze to death on the streets then yes, maybe you should.

What if I just want to admire the "decor", raid the mini-bar help myself to some scarce Dom perignon Champagne and sit in the Jacuzzi? Why only maybe I should, of course I should  .(Might have trouble with the hounds though, plus a  potential 44 Magnum blowing my balls off might deter me). But, how would something like the Mini-bar and Champagne be aggressing against me?  

 

No, a 'right' is absolute - I distinguish between 'abundant' resources (where your ownership denies no one) and 'scarce' resrouces where your onwership may deny others - if ownership of a specific resource gives you 'joy of ownership' but denies someone else the 'right to life', then there is an issue to be considered/discussed...

So if I'm hungry can I go sit in a restaurant have the meal be satisfied then not pay? Also do you effectively define what property rights are? As you distinguish between scarce and abundant. How do you enforce the transfer of abundant resources?

 

 

I agree that homesteading is a pretty lame concept.

So the Serfs in Russia forced to work the land, had what was coming to them when they were thrown off the land in favour of more technological methods? Or it was Ok to remove slaves from the land in the Southern States of America and steal from the taxpayers to give them more marginal land elsewhere. Or Remove Clansmen from Scotland in the Highland Clearances. Or for the Aristocracy to Appropriate large tracts of land in Prussia for the Kaiser and fellow Aristocrats.

There is no such thing as the right to life.

As far as someone does not adhere to Stefans UPB implicitly or explicitly I agree, the fact people can conceive of Rights enables their existence. Without the conception or adherence to Morality you are left only with a will to power. But by saying that you have no right to life aren't you effectively putting a target on yourself, basically saying you can shoot me if you want to and take my stuff and suffer no moral implication from others and visa versa? Or that you effectively have no Morality no difference between good and evil, murder and to be alive?

[dsayers]

I agree that homesteading is a pretty lame concept.

Strawman. Investing in something is not the same as gazing upon it.

 

I don't agree with reactionary attacks to your comments

Not an argument and poisoning the well.

[shirgall]

Property rights can be used to prevent others pursuing their happiness, while seeming to offer the supposed 'owners' nothing much more than the 'pleasure' of exerting control over others.

 

Those property rights come from the inherent scarcity of reality. Feel free to storm the barricades of the universe in your own way, but the ultimate "fuck you" to nature trying to kill you is living, surviving, thriving, and making a whole bunch more of you to carry on the fight in the next generation. Railing against everyone else drinking the chlorine in the gene pool is dividing your efforts. Instead, seek arrangements for mutual gain and quit trying to tear down everyone else.

[Will Torbald]

As far as someone does not adhere to Stefans UPB implicitly or explicitly I agree, the fact people can conceive of Rights enables their existence. Without the conception or adherence to Morality you are left only with a will to power. But by saying that you have no right to life aren't you effectively putting a target on yourself, basically saying you can shoot me if you want to and take my stuff and suffer no moral implication from others and visa versa? Or that you effectively have no Morality no difference between good and evil, murder and to be alive?

 

 

Killing a man in self defense would violate his right to life if there were such a thing, thus making the exercise of defense immoral just by conceiving such a thing. You can either defend yourself and admit that nothing that lives does so on a right, or abandon all concept of righteous self protection. In other words, you live because you can, not because you must - and especially not because you have a right to do so. It's a tautology as well. I'm alive therefore right to live. That's like saying that I have brown hair therefore a right to brown hair.

[RichardY]

Killing a man in self defense would violate his right to life 

If someone tries to murder me they forfeit that Right. Rights only exist as far as they are implicitly or explicitly mutually acknowledged.

Those property rights come from the inherent scarcity of reality. Feel free to storm the barricades of the universe in your own way, but the ultimate "fuck you" to nature trying to kill you is living, surviving, thriving, and making a whole bunch more of you to carry on the fight in the next generation. Railing against everyone else drinking the chlorine in the gene pool is dividing your efforts. Instead, seek arrangements for mutual gain and quit trying to tear down everyone else.

 Best post on the thread.

[dsayers]

by saying that you have no right to life aren't you effectively putting a target on yourself, basically saying you can shoot me if you want to and take my stuff and suffer no moral implication from others and visa versa?

No. You have a right to not be stolen from, assaulted, raped, or murdered. These are negative obligations. Right to life means that if your kidney fails, you get to take mine. It invokes unchosen positive obligations, which can never be ethical. Right to life != right to not be murdered.

 

[Will Torbald]

If someone tries to murder me they forfeit that Right. Rights only exist as far as they are implicitly or explicitly mutually acknowledged.

 

It's not as simple as saying that they forfeit a right, since if you assume there is a right to life, then he has priviliges that he can claim are not being rightfully owed to him. His argument is that by people having private property his right to life is being infringed, and he demands the life that he is owed by that right from others. He considers it an injustice that someone isn't keeping him alive. That kind of entitlement is not rational.

[Kikker]

 

"I don't want to get into disputes on word definitions (just use a different word!) - but consider how people spend their leisure time, especially in video games... they seek challenge, disputes, and obstacles to overcome. The 'joy' often/generally comes from *finding* solutions, not by actually living in the 'perfect world' that they (supposedly) create."

 

On a side issue - western civilisation seems to be crumbling because youngsters have too *few* real imperfections to challenge them, so make stuff up... like 'micro agressions' and so love their made up issues, they ignore real ones. (They are so busy with intellectual masturbation the are not interested in real world intellectual sex).

 

 

 

You don't seem to get what the word perfect means. But you're telling me now that you used the term perfect world sarcastically to describe what other people believe instead of yourself?

 

 

No that is pretty wide of the mark.

1) yes.

2) 'should'? at most I observed that people do, I didn't say they should.

3) ?

4) I'd suggest 'feeling unhappy' and having your pursuit of happiness arbitrarily blocked are different things.

5) ok, that looks closer...

6) No, there is nothing to abolish if they were always bogus...

So happiness is a something that should be pursued on it's own?

 

 

You aren't obliged to argue - if you do so it is because you care, stop lying to yourself.

 

I think you are arguing with the sequence of logic you presented, which (as I set out) doesn't match my reasoning.

 

Many resources appear effectively unlimited... do you need some air mister? Breathe all you like!!

You just agreed with statement 5 which I concluded to be a contradiction. You need to take your own words more seriously.

[Des]

Yup some pretty solid stuff in there....

Ownership is not pre-existing outside of our ability to co-ordinate action by use of reasoned argument.

 

Given that we are able to co-ordinate action by use of reasoned argument, and given that one of the threats to my life is death due to conflict, how can I argue for a trade which minimises the threat to me, of death in conflict?**

 

Well, I can argue that people have a (pretty much universal) preference for owning their own buttholes, vaginas and toothbrushes. From that it follows that accepting the principle of ownership of "stuff", is on the path to best practice in conflict resolution.

 

The preference is not generally for some limited ownership of the butthole or the toothbrush, so the proposition of some principle of limited ownership is going to fall over against the general tide of preference.

 

Now, how to distinguish some other thing from the toothbrush?

 

Sure, I want to say that the oil that is partly under the land registered to someone in Kuwait, and partly under the land registered to someone in Iraq, is somehow different from the toothbrush. How is it different? When the oil has been brought to the surface and put in a barrel, it is very much like the toothbrush. When it is glopping around underneath the rock above, it is still the same stuff. The difference is in the blurry lines in the dispute over ownership, not in the principle that it is ownable stuff.

 

What is the dispute-resolution method for stuff that "sits still" like the land surface, or sloshes around like oil or seawater? The long-practiced method is the treaty.

 

If we don't want to die in a conflict between the man in Kuwait with a drilling rig, and the man in Iraq with a drilling rig, what we would do to resolve that conflict, is advise them to write up a treaty and sign it and stick to it. Whichever one of them breaks it, we ostracise him, and take the side of the one not in breach of the treaty. If they won't make a treaty, we ostracise them both, sell them no arms, and go destroy any arms they acquire, so that the conflict is limited to rock, fist and knife fighting in a local area.

 

Why?

Because the whole point of ownership is that you and I do not die in conflict (to be specific, that we hugely decrease the odds that we die in some conflict). When ownership is a little more complex that toothbrush-ownership, a treaty resolves it, and people being unreasonable about treaty terms, get the social disapproval appropriate to that unreasonableness.

 

**for a trade which minimises the threat to me, of death in conflict

That I trade not aggressing against you, in exchange for you not aggressing against me, within a society of people all committed to that trade each one with all the others in that society.

 

In some cases ownership is defined by treaty. This could cover "intellectual property", to the extent that some practical treaty can be drafted. I have not explored how one would draft such a treaty, but I can say that whoever has not signed, is not subject to it's provisions, but could be sanctioned by ostracism, if the signatories choose to use that pressure, if they can make the argument that: not signing up to the intellectual property treaty is unreasonable. 

[EclecticIdealist]

Perhaps he ignored the existence of the opportunity, but you're ignoring the massive disparity of opportunity. Slaves had the opportunity to attain freedom/wealth just like everyone else, but they weren't born with it like others were.

There is certainly disparity of opportunity between those born into great wealth and those who must achieve it in their own lifetime. Shall we then resort to violence to deprive those born into wealth and disperse it to those born without it? Under what premise of justice shall we deprive those who have? Under what premise of justice shall we dispense it to those who have not?

 

How does property accumulation not inherently reduce opportunity of others? That accumulation limiting that which can be possessed and used by others who aren't even using it themselves. What's the libertarian justification for permitting people to make a property claim on scarce resources they don't plan on using themselves?

Any usage or accumulation of property inherently reduces the opportunity of others. This fact alone cannot be sufficient cause for depriving others of property, as all are inherently unjust by occupying any space at all, thereby depriving another of its usage. Thus the mere accumulation of property cannot be considered unjust, else all are unjust rendering the concept of justice meaningless.

 

But suppose the accumulation of property is solely for the purpose of depriving or exploiting the labor of others? This would indeed be immoral. How this situation could be peaceably resolved in a stateless society escapes me. In a minarchist society, all land under the jurisdiction of the state would be recognized as ultimately belonging to all members of society under the jurisdiction of the government. As such, individuals would be able to lay claim to a parcel of land for the purpose of homesteading. This land would be retained in their possession and the possession of any heirs for the purpose of being maintained as a primary residence and consequently, exempt from property tax. If at any point, the property is no longer used as a primary residence by the heirs, it may be maintained as secondary property. As a secondary property it would be subject to property taxation to compensate the members of society being deprived the opportunity of using it as a primary residence. The taxes thus generated would be utilized to provide public housing for any who wish to live within a municipality rather than homesteading and are unable to afford to purchase land or rent housing that is privately owned within the municipality. Taxes on secondary property should be imposed at a percentage rate commensurate with the purchase price of land of comparable size and improvement that is available on the open market in near proximity, such that the taxes should be no more than 1/15 of the current market value of the property for any given year. This incentivizes the secondary property owner to either make the land productive to the benefit of themselves and other members of the community (by providing a product or service) or unburden themselves of surplus land.

In your 'perfect world' you would create artificial challenges to give your life meaning rather than being a free loading moocher?

I said nothing about creating artificial challenges; although the creation of artificial challenges do overcome the problem of boredom. What is artificial is a world wherein every need is met without effort. No such world has ever existed. It is contrary to growth which is contrary to life itself.

 

Property rights do not preclude property owners from being evil b*stards - however much you hope their greed for profit will induce them to act otherwise...

A marxist state is run by evil b*stards, you think this is a better solution? Show me which country has more people living in abject poverty, subject to starvation, have their governments slaughtering significant portions of the population, etc. You think individual property owners are worse than these marxist state governments? Wake up and read your history books instead of the marxist propaganda.

 

But.... State monopoly is no better for anyone than private monopoly. They are the same to you or I if we need a resource and are denied it.. Simply hoping, predicting, guessing, wishing that the owners' desire for profit is great enough to 'do the right thing' is not enough.

Actually, a State monopoly is almost always much worse due to the size and scope of the monopoly that is realizable by the state with its power of near limitless taxation and bureaucratic enforcement. This is why Crony Capitalism, or Corporate Feudalism is such a problem. The corporations essentially buy off the State bureaucrats effectively securing themselves a monopoly or at least a cartel, securing a more favorable position for themselves than smaller potential competitors in the marketplace. But the worst area this occurs in is in the Crony Capitalist Cartel known as the Federal Reserve Bank system and the World Bank system.

 

Given the mistrust that you have for private business owners, and state monopolies, I'm left to wonder who you think you CAN trust. If human beings cannot be trusted to do the right thing, then who are you going to put in charge of your marxist utopia? Puppies?

[RichardY]

No. You have a right to not be stolen from, assaulted, raped, or murdered. These are negative obligations. Right to life means that if your kidney fails, you get to take mine. It invokes unchosen positive obligations, which can never be ethical. Right to life != right to not be murdered.

 

 You missed the subtle distinction within the video you posted. 5:28 if you wish to review.

 

Right to LiVe, is a Positive Right. I can tear out organs from potential "donors" to live. Immoral 

Right to LiFe is a Negative Right. By saying you have no right to life, if we take Morality as Universal you are effectively saying I have no right to Life either, so are one of the following: A Nihilist, Insane, Hostile or Mistaken. 

 

I did however find the video more clarifying, even if the voice sounded a little grating thank you.

[dsayers]

 You missed the subtle distinction within the video you posted. 5:28 if you wish to review.

 

Right to LiVe, is a Positive Right. I can tear out organs from potential "donors" to live. Immoral 

Right to LiFe is a Negative Right.

Do you know what positive and negative mean? Right TO live/life is positive. Right to NOT be murdered is negative (as evidenced by the presence of not). I can not murder you all day long BECAUSE it's the opposite of action. That's why unchosen NEGATIVE obligations are POTENTIALLY ethical while unchosen positive obligations can never be ethical. The fact that they're positive means they require action, which means in order to be ethical, must also require consent.

 

If you believe you have a right to life/live, why not just stop eating? It's costly and time-consuming. 99% of everybody who has ever lived has died. 100% of everybody who is alive is going to die.

 

It was clear before that your hang up is a definition break down. I provided definitions and you're still clinging to your original conclusion, even going so far as poisoning the well by saying that if I understand that people can die, I'm X, Y, or Z adjectives (none of which include empiricist). So why don't you instead of deflecting make the case as to why you have a right to life/live and provide a null hypothesis so that an actual discussion can begin? Otherwise, this is yet another exercise in bias confirmation.

[ThomasTheIdealist]

There is certainly disparity of opportunity between those born into great wealth and those who must achieve it in their own lifetime. Shall we then resort to violence to deprive those born into wealth and disperse it to those born without it? Under what premise of justice shall we deprive those who have? Under what premise of justice shall we dispense it to those who have not?

We should resort to violence to prevent violent action from those who threaten. My point is that while all property is a threat of violence, some property is needed for one to live, and therefore the threat is one of self-defense. As you accumulate more, there exists a point where it has nothing to do with your self-preservation and only serves to deprive others and broaden your personal empire. I don't deny that finding solutions to this is challenging, I just find it disturbing that libertarians think indefinite property accumulation is conducive to individual liberty and not just a microcosm of statism.

Any usage or accumulation of property inherently reduces the opportunity of others. This fact alone cannot be sufficient cause for depriving others of property, as all are inherently unjust by occupying any space at all, thereby depriving another of its usage. Thus the mere accumulation of property cannot be considered unjust, else all are unjust rendering the concept of justice meaningless.

 

But suppose the accumulation of property is solely for the purpose of depriving or exploiting the labor of others? This would indeed be immoral. How this situation could be peaceably resolved in a stateless society escapes me. In a minarchist society, all land under the jurisdiction of the state would be recognized as ultimately belonging to all members of society under the jurisdiction of the government. As such, individuals would be able to lay claim to a parcel of land for the purpose of homesteading. This land would be retained in their possession and the possession of any heirs for the purpose of being maintained as a primary residence and consequently, exempt from property tax. If at any point, the property is no longer used as a primary residence by the heirs, it may be maintained as secondary property. As a secondary property it would be subject to property taxation to compensate the members of society being deprived the opportunity of using it as a primary residence. The taxes thus generated would be utilized to provide public housing for any who wish to live within a municipality rather than homesteading and are unable to afford to purchase land or rent housing that is privately owned within the municipality. Taxes on secondary property should be imposed at a percentage rate commensurate with the purchase price of land of comparable size and improvement that is available on the open market in near proximity, such that the taxes should be no more than 1/15 of the current market value of the property for any given year. This incentivizes the secondary property owner to either make the land productive to the benefit of themselves and other members of the community (by providing a product or service) or unburden themselves of surplus land.

I tend to agree with the more specific goals of early individualist anarchists like Benjamin Tucker. Namely that people should accumulate property only to the extent that they themselves use it. Absentee ownership, or otherwise forms of literal rent seeking, should not be considered valid property claims. Though the capitalist argument isn't entirely wrong that making everything privately owned (as opposed to lots of land being unowned) would put resources to maximum use and it benefits people on a broader scale, there exists a line where that ceases to be true. And the line closes in as the population of the world increases and heirs increase their wealth while others are penniless. But more striking, it deviates from the individualism libertarians purport. It's the same argument used in support of healthcare mandates and such, or any greater good case. Libertarians should be fighting to minimize the domain of violence individuals can use to compel others to do things, not increase it.

 

Your tax comments remind me of the Geolibertarian/Georgist's LVT (land-value tax). Milton Friedman said that this tax on the unimproved land value was the least bad tax (along with his negative-income tax). So while it would be an improvement, I don't consider minarchism to be ideal.

[pperrin]

No. You have a right to not be stolen from, assaulted, raped, or murdered. These are negative obligations. Right to life means that if your kidney fails, you get to take mine. It invokes unchosen positive obligations, which can never be ethical. Right to life != right to not be murdered.

 

 

If I needed a kidney, maybe I'd take yours. If I needed food maybe I'd take yours. If I needed food and had none, maybe I'd eat your kidney.

 

Because in my universe I am more valuable than you - if you don't think you are more valuable you will happily let me, if you think we are equal you will not mind either way... If you agree that people have different values you will fight me.

I don't agree with reactionary attacks to your comments, or down-voting. I'd prefer to counter them.

 

Indeed, multiple down voting shows a mental defect in the voter - they actually spent time *again* on something the profess to dislike. It is retarded behaviour.

 

The argument that property rights are an act of aggression is at best nuanced. In its purest form, property can be claimed, but not usurped. It can only be passed on voluntarily or via a mechanism of laws, such as inheritance law in which 1st degree relatives and a spouse would have property divided. There is no aggression here.

 

I start from the position that all property is theft (I think the 'self ownership' thing is a smart arse attempt at a 'theory of everything' that doesn't actually work), self is 'special' and doesn't fall under generic 'property' rights.

What you are arguing against is not property rights, it is a broader phenomena which could be termed as structural violence, i.e. by the act of property ownership some people may have so few resources that they live in poverty that they cannot feasibly lift themselves out of.

 

It is possible that there may be poverty in a jurisdiction that has provisions for property rights, but its not specifically the existence of those provisions that will be the cause of poverty. It will be caused by a whole host of issues. If you look at countries that have endemic poverty, you will almost definitely find they have poor property rights, Venezuela would be a good example - the country with the lowest disposable income in South America (half of its nearest counterpart) has the 3rd worst property rights in the world. Meanwhile the countries with the best property rights have low poverty and high disposable incomes.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Property_Rights_Index

 

Note how highly socialist countries, like those in Scandinavia, have good property rights and low poverty. Countries with much smaller government budgets, like Hong Kong, also do well.

 

I don't accept 'utilitarian' arguments, material good for others cannot place an obligation on me. If I worked as a slave someone else may get rich - thats no moral or other reason that I should do so!

 

The use of the Hindu caste system is not a good example, because it is not a system of property rights, but a system of ethnic rights, which guarantees certain people have a reduced access to property and other things.

 

Restricting (or otherwise) use of resources is a claim to 'property rights' over it, so I stand by that example. 'Rights' may define *who* decides something but do not dictate which way the decision goes. A man with a monopoly on drinking water may choose to let mankind die of thirst, can this be moral?.

 

I don't agree with reactionary attacks to your comments, or down-voting. I'd prefer to counter them.

 

Indeed, multiple down voting shows a mental defect in the voter - they actually spent time *again* on something the profess to dislike. It is retarded behaviour.

 

The argument that property rights are an act of aggression is at best nuanced. In its purest form, property can be claimed, but not usurped. It can only be passed on voluntarily or via a mechanism of laws, such as inheritance law in which 1st degree relatives and a spouse would have property divided. There is no aggression here.

 

I start from the position that all property is theft (I think the 'self ownership' thing is a smart arse attempt at a 'theory of everything' that doesn't actually work), self is 'special' and doesn't fall under generic 'property' rights.

What you are arguing against is not property rights, it is a broader phenomena which could be termed as structural violence, i.e. by the act of property ownership some people may have so few resources that they live in poverty that they cannot feasibly lift themselves out of.

 

It is possible that there may be poverty in a jurisdiction that has provisions for property rights, but its not specifically the existence of those provisions that will be the cause of poverty. It will be caused by a whole host of issues. If you look at countries that have endemic poverty, you will almost definitely find they have poor property rights, Venezuela would be a good example - the country with the lowest disposable income in South America (half of its nearest counterpart) has the 3rd worst property rights in the world. Meanwhile the countries with the best property rights have low poverty and high disposable incomes.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Property_Rights_Index

 

Note how highly socialist countries, like those in Scandinavia, have good property rights and low poverty. Countries with much smaller government budgets, like Hong Kong, also do well.

 

I don't accept 'utilitarian' arguments, material good for others cannot place an obligation on me. If I worked as a slave someone else may get rich - thats no moral or other reason that I should do so!

 

The use of the Hindu caste system is not a good example, because it is not a system of property rights, but a system of ethnic rights, which guarantees certain people have a reduced access to property and other things.

 

Restricting (or otherwise) use of resources is a claim to 'property rights' over it, so I stand by that example. 'Rights' may define *who* decides something but do not dictate which way the decision goes. A man with a monopoly on drinking water may choose to let mankind die of thirst, can this be moral?.

 

I don't agree with reactionary attacks to your comments, or down-voting. I'd prefer to counter them.

 

Indeed, multiple down voting shows a mental defect in the voter - they actually spent time *again* on something the profess to dislike. It is retarded behaviour.

 

The argument that property rights are an act of aggression is at best nuanced. In its purest form, property can be claimed, but not usurped. It can only be passed on voluntarily or via a mechanism of laws, such as inheritance law in which 1st degree relatives and a spouse would have property divided. There is no aggression here.

 

I start from the position that all property is theft (I think the 'self ownership' thing is a smart arse attempt at a 'theory of everything' that doesn't actually work), self is 'special' and doesn't fall under generic 'property' rights.

What you are arguing against is not property rights, it is a broader phenomena which could be termed as structural violence, i.e. by the act of property ownership some people may have so few resources that they live in poverty that they cannot feasibly lift themselves out of.

 

It is possible that there may be poverty in a jurisdiction that has provisions for property rights, but its not specifically the existence of those provisions that will be the cause of poverty. It will be caused by a whole host of issues. If you look at countries that have endemic poverty, you will almost definitely find they have poor property rights, Venezuela would be a good example - the country with the lowest disposable income in South America (half of its nearest counterpart) has the 3rd worst property rights in the world. Meanwhile the countries with the best property rights have low poverty and high disposable incomes.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Property_Rights_Index

 

Note how highly socialist countries, like those in Scandinavia, have good property rights and low poverty. Countries with much smaller government budgets, like Hong Kong, also do well.

 

I don't accept 'utilitarian' arguments, material good for others cannot place an obligation on me. If I worked as a slave someone else may get rich - thats no moral or other reason that I should do so!

 

The use of the Hindu caste system is not a good example, because it is not a system of property rights, but a system of ethnic rights, which guarantees certain people have a reduced access to property and other things.

 

Restricting (or otherwise) use of resources is a claim to 'property rights' over it, so I stand by that example. 'Rights' may define *who* decides something but do not dictate which way the decision goes. A man with a monopoly on drinking water may choose to let mankind die of thirst, can this be moral?

There is no such thing as the right to life.

 

So given the opportunity to extend your own life by the death of another it is automatically wrong to take it?

There is certainly disparity of opportunity between those born into great wealth and those who must achieve it in their own lifetime. Shall we then resort to violence to deprive those born into wealth and disperse it to those born without it?

 

Isn't property retained simply by threat of violence?

 

Under what premise of justice shall we deprive those who have? Under what premise of justice shall we dispense it to those who have not?

 

On what basis do you justify depriving 'every one else'? Other than giving your actions the name 'property rights' and being in possession of it with threats of violence if challenged? 

 

Any usage or accumulation of property inherently reduces the opportunity of others. This fact alone cannot be sufficient cause for depriving others of property, as all are inherently unjust by occupying any space at all, thereby depriving another of its usage. Thus the mere accumulation of property cannot be considered unjust, else all are unjust rendering the concept of justice meaningless.

 

Maybe it is the denial to others, rather than the ownership itself that creates 'injustice' - owning an abundant resource denies no one, owning a scarce resource does.

 

This incentivizes the secondary property owner to either make the land productive to the benefit of themselves and other members of the community (by providing a product or service) or unburden themselves of surplus land.

 

Who are you to 'incentivize' others? Who are you to judge what is good or bad and then seek to make others work towards your goals? 

 

 

A marxist state is run by evil b*stards, you think this is a better solution? Show me which country has more people living in abject poverty, subject to starvation, have their governments slaughtering significant portions of the population, etc. You think individual property owners are worse than these marxist state governments? Wake up and read your history books instead of the marxist propaganda.

 

On this scale no owner is any different to a 'marxist state' - if you are denied ownership, what difference does it make if it is a 'marxist state' denying you, a cronie capitalists, or a (supposedly) libertarian joe average? Whoever 'owns' it and denies it to you, makes no difference... does it? 

 

Actually, a State monopoly is almost always much worse due to the size and scope of the monopoly that is realizable by the state with its power of near limitless taxation and bureaucratic enforcement. This is why Crony Capitalism, or Corporate Feudalism is such a problem. The corporations essentially buy off the State bureaucrats effectively securing themselves a monopoly or at least a cartel, securing a more favorable position for themselves than smaller potential competitors in the marketplace. But the worst area this occurs in is in the Crony Capitalist Cartel known as the Federal Reserve Bank system and the World Bank system.

 

Given the mistrust that you have for private business owners, and state monopolies, I'm left to wonder who you think you CAN trust. If human beings cannot be trusted to do the right thing, then who are you going to put in charge of your marxist utopia? Puppies?

 

My 'marxist utopia' - gosh it took Marx years to set out his vision, yet you think I have presented his ideas in a few posts -- how amazing am I?!?!?! -  I reject any system that *requires* me to trust anyone, however should I be obliged to trust someone I expect the maximum flexibility in choosing who I so trust.

[dsayers]

If I needed a kidney, maybe I'd take yours. If I needed food maybe I'd take yours. If I needed food and had none, maybe I'd eat your kidney.

 

Because in my universe I am more valuable than you - if you don't think you are more valuable you will happily let me, if you think we are equal you will not mind either way... If you agree that people have different values you will fight me.

In what way does this have anything to do with the fact that right to life != right to not be murdered?

[EclecticIdealist]

Isn't property retained simply by threat of violence?

Only when threatened by anti-social individuals who have chosen violence over cooperation for mutual benefit.

On what basis do you justify depriving 'everyone else'? Other than giving your actions the name 'property rights' and being in possession of it with threats of violence if challenged? 

On the basis of self-preservation and a willingness to be cooperative with likeminded individuals and hostile to any who do not share my interests of self-preservation and cooperation for mutual benefit.

Maybe it is the denial to others, rather than the ownership itself that creates 'injustice' - owning an abundant resource denies no one, owning a scarce resource does.

Owning a portion of an abundant resource denies no one, but all land is scarce in the sense that no parcel of land is equal to all other parcels of land. What then shall we do with the scarce resource of land if all need land to thereby subsist?

Who are you to 'incentivize' others? Who are you to judge what is good or bad and then seek to make others work towards your goals? 

I am a joint tenant on this planet, just as they and every other person is, and quality land is inherently scarce. Who are they to hoard such a scarce resource thus depriving others of its use? If they do not wish to live coopertively with their fellow man, they will live at odds with them. That is the law of society.

On this scale no owner is any different to a 'marxist state' - if you are denied ownership, what difference does it make if it is a 'marxist state' denying you, a cronie capitalists, or a (supposedly) libertarian joe average? Whoever 'owns' it and denies it to you, makes no difference... does it? 

If they are denying it to you, it makes no difference in that respect; however in the marxist and crony capitalist systems, it is the strong and well connected oppressing the weak and poorly connected. Consider carefully which system you support. The libertarian system offers the average joe the best chance of opportunity.

My 'marxist utopia' - gosh it took Marx years to set out his vision, yet you think I have presented his ideas in a few posts -- how amazing am I?!?!?! -  I reject any system that *requires* me to trust anyone, however should I be obliged to trust someone I expect the maximum flexibility in choosing who I so trust.

Then by definition, you cannot trust a marxist system because such a system offers among the least flexibility in choosing who to trust.

[labmath2]

I am a staunch socialist who believes in the theory of use. One can only use violence to defend that which one is immediately using. The only thing every living person is always using is their bodies (because its what is keeping them alive). I walk into your yard and set up tent. When you come home to find me on your lawn you demand i remove myself, i refuse. I am willing to universalize my propositions and be judged on them, but i refuse to be judged by yours. Would my position be valid?

 

As long as you universalize your theory of property should others have to take you up on your version of property? If you are under no obligation to indulge them, then are others obligated to indulge your notion of property? Is there only one valid theory of property?