4 ms·

I'll put a parabolic reflector on my property to focus sunlight into a single point on your house, setting it on fire. It's my property so I do what I want. Li

I'll put a parabolic reflector on my property to focus sunlight into a single point on your house, setting it on fire. It's my property so I do what I want. Libertarian nonsense falls apart so quickly.

icebraining 10y ago
No, because that would cause damage to others' property, which isn't allowed in propertarianist theories.
- cylinder 10y ago
  Denial of sunshine isn't damage?
  - gravypod 10y ago
    Fire can directly kill someone. A shadow cannot directly kill someone. Can you please shed some light on how you think these two things are remotely the same? (Had to sneak in the pun)
    - im4w1l 10y ago
      What about my super expensive potted plants that shrivel and die from the lack of sunshine?
      - gravypod 10y ago
        You have multiple paths for recourse. Your plants don't need to be inside, you can install a sun roof, you can get lights, or finally you can talk to your neighbor.
gravypod 10y ago
> I'll put a parabolic reflector on my property to focus sunlight into a single point on your house, setting it on fire The difference is that Robert Rhinehart isn't setting fire to people or directly harming them. The difference is that you are trying to directly cause serious bodily harm. This is the worst analogy possible. The right analogy would be do I have the right to say "he has a parabolic reflector on his property that could start a fire. He needs to remove it." To me, that is unreasonable. > Libertarian nonsense falls apart so quickly Only under the scrutiny of logic with more holes then Swiss cheese. If you'd like to debate libertarian policies then I'm all ears. My email is in my profile.
dmix 10y ago
Wonderful example of a strawman attack if I've ever seen one. Ignoring the obvious property rights issues and the fact that the majority of libertarians still support the existence of limited government interference, even the most hardcore anarcho-capitalists who aren't covered by the above still believe in a non-aggression principle which would clearly be violated. But that is small percentage of an already small group.
- dwaltrip 10y ago
  There is no aggression involved in blocking all sunlight from someone's windows? I would beg to differ. Aggression is not a trivial concept to define.
  - dmix 10y ago
    It's "non aggression" principal not "no aggression"... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle?wprov...

icebraining 10y ago

No, because that would cause damage to others' property, which isn't allowed in propertarianist theories.

cylinder 10y ago
Denial of sunshine isn't damage?
- gravypod 10y ago
  Fire can directly kill someone. A shadow cannot directly kill someone. Can you please shed some light on how you think these two things are remotely the same? (Had to sneak in the pun)
  - im4w1l 10y ago
    What about my super expensive potted plants that shrivel and die from the lack of sunshine?
    - gravypod 10y ago
      You have multiple paths for recourse. Your plants don't need to be inside, you can install a sun roof, you can get lights, or finally you can talk to your neighbor.

gravypod 10y ago

> I'll put a parabolic reflector on my property to focus sunlight into a single point on your house, setting it on fire The difference is that Robert Rhinehart isn't setting fire to people or directly harming them. The difference is that you are trying to directly cause serious bodily harm. This is the worst analogy possible. The right analogy would be do I have the right to say "he has a parabolic reflector on his property that could start a fire. He needs to remove it." To me, that is unreasonable. > Libertarian nonsense falls apart so quickly Only under the scrutiny of logic with more holes then Swiss cheese. If you'd like to debate libertarian policies then I'm all ears. My email is in my profile.

dmix 10y ago

Wonderful example of a strawman attack if I've ever seen one. Ignoring the obvious property rights issues and the fact that the majority of libertarians still support the existence of limited government interference, even the most hardcore anarcho-capitalists who aren't covered by the above still believe in a non-aggression principle which would clearly be violated. But that is small percentage of an already small group.

dwaltrip 10y ago
There is no aggression involved in blocking all sunlight from someone's windows? I would beg to differ. Aggression is not a trivial concept to define.
- dmix 10y ago
  It's "non aggression" principal not "no aggression"... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle?wprov...