4 ms·

If you claim that you "own" something, like property or a car, and the government disagrees, and you threaten to shoot anyone who takes it, but then the police

by wfo 11y ago

If you claim that you "own" something, like property or a car, and the government disagrees, and you threaten to shoot anyone who takes it, but then the police come and take it from you, who has "initiated" force? All of your "possessions" are really things that are currently being lent to you by the government. If the government chooses to stop allowing you to borrow some of its possesions, that's not initiating force. You're initiating force if you prevent the state from taking what it owns.

burntsushi 11y ago
Well, obviously I disagree that the government owns all of your possessions.
- wfo 11y ago
  What gives you the moral authority to prevent others from using things that you claim you own? Where do your claims come from, if not the government? Because a relative who also claimed to own it in the past and backed that claim up with physical force claims that you now own it? No, there is no ownership or property without societal and cultural agreement made formal, i.e. government, and no moral authority beyond the ability to kill or injure those others who wish to use it if there is no government. I've encountered this extreme and radical ideology before; it seems you want to take a snapshot of private property ownership /now/ and claim that it is right and just, ignoring injustices of the past and how these things came to be, and then claim that the property rights are inviolable and any violation of them with physical force is injustice. No, the property rights themselves as they exists now are an injustice without the support of the state.
  - burntsushi 11y ago
    > it seems you want to take a snapshot of private property ownership /now/ and claim that it is right and just I don't actually. I don't see anything black & white about property. Instead, I view it as a means to attempt to resolve conflict over scarce resources peacefully. I do not believe this requires moral authority or coercive government. I mean, the presence of coercive government doesn't really resolve any of your criticisms either. Where does it get the moral authority to apply coercion come from? 51% of the population? Why does 51% of the population have a moral authority over the other 49%? I'll say this to re-emphasize the message I'm trying to convey: I really don't care much at all about property or ownership. Sure, I do believe they are useful constructs to reason about interaction between actors in society, but its particular formulation isn't a sticking point to me. What I care about is: are you trying to justify coercion? If so, then it isn't OK with me. If you have some means of satisfying your "moral authority" without the use of coercion, then great! Let's do it.
    - wfo 11y ago
      The use of resources and property is what drives coercion in the first place. It's very convenient of you to not be interested in property; if you ignore resources and access to them and every driver of conflict and coercion then sure it's truly wonderful to be against coercion. But this is solipsistic: We can all live without food or property or shelter and never force anyone to do anything and starve to death alone. But the moment you even pick a berry you have taken it from everyone else and are claiming it as your property. Similarly with animals, water, property. This in itself is a coercive act; it involves the threat of force in your view. So simple human existence is by nature coercive. The state is only a formalized tool we use to reduce it: general agreement on basic principles and a willingness to share. Your point about the moral authority of 51% of the population coercing the remaining 49% is an interesting one, but I would answer thusly: you are not coerced at all, in fact you are free to exist without obeying the state. All you must do is avoid taking the state's possessions: don't breathe our air, don't eat our food, don't live on our land, don't drink our water. If you're willing to do this you can live completely coercion-free. It's the kind of choice libertarians love; the illusion of one.
      - burntsushi 11y ago
        > This in itself is a coercive act No, it's not. I defined what I meant by coercion in other comments. If your definition is different, then erase all uses of coercion in my comments and replace it with my definition. You are very clearly using the word "coercion" in a way that is very different from how I'm using it. I would personally recommend that we end this discussion. Your condescending tone is insufferable.
        wfo 11y ago
        Attacking someone's tone, ignoring their substance and walking away is usually what I do when I lose an argument as well so at least in that we agree. Taking a position like yours which is so fundamentalist and extreme and simultaneously divorced from reality is admirable in that it is Socratic: you take an absurd position and push others until they realize their own contradictions. But you can't be upset about blowback when you do this since it is intentionally obnoxious; Socrates was executed for being so horribly difficult, all you received was one snarky line in an otherwise long, respectful and thoughtful comment addressing only the substance of your argument, which is honestly far above the par for the course when it comes to average HN comments. I'll agree this conversation should end.

by wfo 11y ago

burntsushi 11y ago

Well, obviously I disagree that the government owns all of your possessions.

wfo 11y ago
What gives you the moral authority to prevent others from using things that you claim you own? Where do your claims come from, if not the government? Because a relative who also claimed to own it in the past and backed that claim up with physical force claims that you now own it? No, there is no ownership or property without societal and cultural agreement made formal, i.e. government, and no moral authority beyond the ability to kill or injure those others who wish to use it if there is no government. I've encountered this extreme and radical ideology before; it seems you want to take a snapshot of private property ownership /now/ and claim that it is right and just, ignoring injustices of the past and how these things came to be, and then claim that the property rights are inviolable and any violation of them with physical force is injustice. No, the property rights themselves as they exists now are an injustice without the support of the state.
- burntsushi 11y ago
  > it seems you want to take a snapshot of private property ownership /now/ and claim that it is right and just I don't actually. I don't see anything black & white about property. Instead, I view it as a means to attempt to resolve conflict over scarce resources peacefully. I do not believe this requires moral authority or coercive government. I mean, the presence of coercive government doesn't really resolve any of your criticisms either. Where does it get the moral authority to apply coercion come from? 51% of the population? Why does 51% of the population have a moral authority over the other 49%? I'll say this to re-emphasize the message I'm trying to convey: I really don't care much at all about property or ownership. Sure, I do believe they are useful constructs to reason about interaction between actors in society, but its particular formulation isn't a sticking point to me. What I care about is: are you trying to justify coercion? If so, then it isn't OK with me. If you have some means of satisfying your "moral authority" without the use of coercion, then great! Let's do it.
  - wfo 11y ago
    The use of resources and property is what drives coercion in the first place. It's very convenient of you to not be interested in property; if you ignore resources and access to them and every driver of conflict and coercion then sure it's truly wonderful to be against coercion. But this is solipsistic: We can all live without food or property or shelter and never force anyone to do anything and starve to death alone. But the moment you even pick a berry you have taken it from everyone else and are claiming it as your property. Similarly with animals, water, property. This in itself is a coercive act; it involves the threat of force in your view. So simple human existence is by nature coercive. The state is only a formalized tool we use to reduce it: general agreement on basic principles and a willingness to share. Your point about the moral authority of 51% of the population coercing the remaining 49% is an interesting one, but I would answer thusly: you are not coerced at all, in fact you are free to exist without obeying the state. All you must do is avoid taking the state's possessions: don't breathe our air, don't eat our food, don't live on our land, don't drink our water. If you're willing to do this you can live completely coercion-free. It's the kind of choice libertarians love; the illusion of one.
    - burntsushi 11y ago
      > This in itself is a coercive act No, it's not. I defined what I meant by coercion in other comments. If your definition is different, then erase all uses of coercion in my comments and replace it with my definition. You are very clearly using the word "coercion" in a way that is very different from how I'm using it. I would personally recommend that we end this discussion. Your condescending tone is insufferable.
      - wfo 11y ago
        Attacking someone's tone, ignoring their substance and walking away is usually what I do when I lose an argument as well so at least in that we agree. Taking a position like yours which is so fundamentalist and extreme and simultaneously divorced from reality is admirable in that it is Socratic: you take an absurd position and push others until they realize their own contradictions. But you can't be upset about blowback when you do this since it is intentionally obnoxious; Socrates was executed for being so horribly difficult, all you received was one snarky line in an otherwise long, respectful and thoughtful comment addressing only the substance of your argument, which is honestly far above the par for the course when it comes to average HN comments. I'll agree this conversation should end.