3 ms·

You have no moral right to use violent force against someone to force them to give up their private property for the crime of having more than another person. T

by aminok 10y ago

You have no moral right to use violent force against someone to force them to give up their private property for the crime of having more than another person. The goal of eliminating resource inequality absolutely does not justify this violation. It's totally absurd on so many levels.

nabla9 10y ago
What you say would be true if property would be an issue with two people when they meet one-to-one. There are different kinds of property on a sliding scale. 1) Your personal belongings, tools of trad and other things needed for living are considered yours by everyone in practically all cultures. That's property protected by ethics and morality. 2) Anything past that is service that society/government provides for people living in advanced society. It's not a moral issue anymore. It's a issue of society agreeing on tax rate and forms of property protection. It would be helpful to at least acknowledge that most people dont' agree with unlimited property rights morals and stop preaching like it's god given truth.
- aminok 10y ago
  >2) Anything past that is service That is just an arbitrary distinction to justify your greed for the property of others. We either have a moral right to make exclusive use of natural resources or we do not. Whatever argument you make for the right to appropriate natural resources as 'personal' property can be applied to the right to appropriate natural resources as 'non-personal' property. These debates get very philosophical, but when you step out of the theoretical for a moment, and think about what it means to tax someone's income, it's self-evident what property rights are, and that violating them is an authoritarian infringement upon human rights. Taxing income requires a law demanding that a person disclose personal information on all of their private income to the government. Anyone who refuses to surrender their privacy and disclose this extremely personal information faces the potential punishment of being thrown in prison, where they are kept in a small enclosure, and where they often develop mental illness, and suffer from physical and sexual abuse. This is overt mass-surveillance enforced through threats of incarceration. Then, once a person has disclosed this personal information under threat of imprisonment, a tax on income requires demanding that people hand over a share of this currency that they've received in private trade. This tax debt is unlike other types of debt. It's a debt obligation that a person assumes without their consent. If I receive currency in private trade, that's my property. If you came up to me in the street, and demanded I give you a share, and attacked me when I refused, you would know, instinctively, that you're being an aggressor, and so would every bystander who witnessed the assault. It's merely the obfuscation provided by using layers of government intermediaries that obscures this fact when you do the same thing through the political process.
  - nabla9 10y ago
    >We either have a moral right to make exclusive use of natural resources or we do not. Others don't have the obligation to protect what you think is your right. Imagine the value of your property rights, if neither law nor law enforcement would protect it. >it's self-evident If most people disagree with you, it's not self evident. No amount of sidestepping arguments of others and continued preaching is going to convince others. Essentially you are just stating your ideology and calling it self evident. This is like abortion issue where minority of people asserts that fetus has rights but majority don't see it.
    - aminok 10y ago
      >Others don't have the obligation to protect what you think is your right. True, but they also don't have a moral right to violate my rights. If the government merely stopped protecting private property from aggressive seizure, that would be one thing. But thanks to "social democracy" (demagogic democracy), the government has become the primary instrument by which people aggressively seize the property of others. >If most people disagree with you, it's not self evident. I disagree that most people disagree with me. Most people do not consider the steps involved in money that someone earns going into their own bank account thanks to government intervention. If they did consider it, I believe it would be self-evident to most what property rights are, and that violating them is an authoritarian infringement upon human rights.
      - nabla9 10y ago
        >If they did consider it, I believe it would be self-evident to most what property rights are, and that violating them is an authoritarian infringement upon human rights. So, you work on the assumption that me and most of the people you argue against are just misinformed and if you preach to them enough, this self evident universal morals is revealed to them?
        aminok 10y ago
        >So, you work on the assumption that me and most of the people you argue against are just misinformed and if you preach to them enough, this self evident universal morals is revealed to them? Yes, though I don't consider it preaching. I consider it informing.

by aminok 10y ago

nabla9 10y ago

What you say would be true if property would be an issue with two people when they meet one-to-one. There are different kinds of property on a sliding scale. 1) Your personal belongings, tools of trad and other things needed for living are considered yours by everyone in practically all cultures. That's property protected by ethics and morality. 2) Anything past that is service that society/government provides for people living in advanced society. It's not a moral issue anymore. It's a issue of society agreeing on tax rate and forms of property protection. It would be helpful to at least acknowledge that most people dont' agree with unlimited property rights morals and stop preaching like it's god given truth.

aminok 10y ago
>2) Anything past that is service That is just an arbitrary distinction to justify your greed for the property of others. We either have a moral right to make exclusive use of natural resources or we do not. Whatever argument you make for the right to appropriate natural resources as 'personal' property can be applied to the right to appropriate natural resources as 'non-personal' property. These debates get very philosophical, but when you step out of the theoretical for a moment, and think about what it means to tax someone's income, it's self-evident what property rights are, and that violating them is an authoritarian infringement upon human rights. Taxing income requires a law demanding that a person disclose personal information on all of their private income to the government. Anyone who refuses to surrender their privacy and disclose this extremely personal information faces the potential punishment of being thrown in prison, where they are kept in a small enclosure, and where they often develop mental illness, and suffer from physical and sexual abuse. This is overt mass-surveillance enforced through threats of incarceration. Then, once a person has disclosed this personal information under threat of imprisonment, a tax on income requires demanding that people hand over a share of this currency that they've received in private trade. This tax debt is unlike other types of debt. It's a debt obligation that a person assumes without their consent. If I receive currency in private trade, that's my property. If you came up to me in the street, and demanded I give you a share, and attacked me when I refused, you would know, instinctively, that you're being an aggressor, and so would every bystander who witnessed the assault. It's merely the obfuscation provided by using layers of government intermediaries that obscures this fact when you do the same thing through the political process.
- nabla9 10y ago
  >We either have a moral right to make exclusive use of natural resources or we do not. Others don't have the obligation to protect what you think is your right. Imagine the value of your property rights, if neither law nor law enforcement would protect it. >it's self-evident If most people disagree with you, it's not self evident. No amount of sidestepping arguments of others and continued preaching is going to convince others. Essentially you are just stating your ideology and calling it self evident. This is like abortion issue where minority of people asserts that fetus has rights but majority don't see it.
  - aminok 10y ago
    >Others don't have the obligation to protect what you think is your right. True, but they also don't have a moral right to violate my rights. If the government merely stopped protecting private property from aggressive seizure, that would be one thing. But thanks to "social democracy" (demagogic democracy), the government has become the primary instrument by which people aggressively seize the property of others. >If most people disagree with you, it's not self evident. I disagree that most people disagree with me. Most people do not consider the steps involved in money that someone earns going into their own bank account thanks to government intervention. If they did consider it, I believe it would be self-evident to most what property rights are, and that violating them is an authoritarian infringement upon human rights.
    - nabla9 10y ago
      >If they did consider it, I believe it would be self-evident to most what property rights are, and that violating them is an authoritarian infringement upon human rights. So, you work on the assumption that me and most of the people you argue against are just misinformed and if you preach to them enough, this self evident universal morals is revealed to them?
      - aminok 10y ago
        >So, you work on the assumption that me and most of the people you argue against are just misinformed and if you preach to them enough, this self evident universal morals is revealed to them? Yes, though I don't consider it preaching. I consider it informing.