3 ms·
You do not have a right to take someone's capital from them without their consent. You also do not have a right to privacy that you voluntarily give up. This is
by aminok 10y ago
You do not have a right to take someone's capital from them without their consent. You also do not have a right to privacy that you voluntarily give up. This is really basic logic, that you're failing at.
- harrumph 10y agoHere's a hint: this darling little bubble you live in where consent and volunteerism allegedly rule the day actually happens to utterly exclude your holiest of holies: property rights -- which rest on nothing but violent coercion, specifically not on consent. When you understand that, you'll graduate. Not before.
- aminok 10y agoYou do not need someone's consent to appropriate a clump of natural resources for your own exclusive use. Exercising our rights to our own body is a case of us doing this. You want a society where everyone in the world has to unanimously agree with every decision you make for it to be consensual, which makes for a totally unworkable world model, which describes socialism in a nutshell.
- harrumph 10y ago>You do not need someone's consent to appropriate a clump of natural resources for your own exclusive use. Yes, I am aware that the seizure from natives of the trillions worth of real estate the US is built on is not considered any infringement by libertarians. Their liberty is not worth considering nor defending -- and that comes with the territory of a toy political philosophy that loudly pretends it isn't built utterly upon coercion.