6 ms·

The right to own property is an extension of our right to own our own life. We are only obligated to contracts we have voluntarily entered into. You need to add

The right to own property is an extension of our right to own our own life. We are only obligated to contracts we have voluntarily entered into. You need to address the immorality of using violence to force people to be empathetic. We are not responsible for the lives of others. You have the option at any time to donate 100% of your disposable income to a charity of your choice. You do not have the moral right to violent police enforcement to force people to enter into contracts against their will. These rights are guaranteed by our constitution and your misguided opinions have been discarded decades ago.

pestaa 6y ago
> We are only obligated to contracts we have voluntarily entered into. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract
- bofadeez 6y ago
  The concept of a social contract is axiomatically immoral as it relies on the use of involuntary compulsion and violent police enforcement, in violation of the non-aggression principle. Educate yourself on a world where the non-aggression principle is actually respected on an institutional level: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
  - danans 6y ago
    > The right to own property is an extension of our right to own our own life. Not at all. It's a benefit of modern nation states and the contracts they extend to their residents. A monopoly on violence [1] is a fundamental step of the legitimation process of any sovereignty, whether an anarcho-capitalist homestead or a modern nation state. Property rights (including property held in common by the state) are a benefit of the state contract and are enforced by the same monopoly on violence. If you expect your property rights to be protected, you must engage in the contract (via residency and payment of taxes) with an authority that backs them up those rights. Otherwise, you will have a scenario like Afghanistan, with fluid internal sovereignty and where property rights frequently are managed through violence. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence
    - bofadeez 6y ago
      I absolutely 100% agree with that statement. Acting in an immoral fashion that violates the non-aggression principle is a fundamental step toward a "modern nation-state." But it's still fundamentally immoral and operates on the assumption that humans are not entitled to ownership of their own lives. The major difference is that an AC homestead would be voluntary, while a social contract imposed at birth is involuntary. And I've been to Afghanistan and it's a much much more complicated situation than you're describing.
      - danans 6y ago
        > But it's still fundamentally immoral and operates on the assumption that humans are not entitled to ownership of their own lives. That's a lovely principle, but it means little without enforcement. How would property rights be enforced in anarcho-capitalist society without a system of property laws, courts to adjudicate them, and law enforcement? > And I've been to Afghanistan and it's a much much more complicated situation than you're describing. Every real-world society is more complicated than the models we use to describe them. These things all exist on multiple spectra. Socialist Northern Europe is not perfectly or fairly distributive of wealth. Some people in Afghanistan have their property rights enforced by the state. But on balance, the enforcement of property rights in a country with a weak state like Afghanistan is lower than in Northern Europe, especially the further you get from the government's seat of power. At least today, a warlord cannot take over a town in Belgium and forcibly take over a section of houses to build a garrison. State enforcement of property rights is the stable foundation on which higher level societal productivity happens. Without it, there are no factories, no secure supply lines, limited commerce and communication. The GDP of most advanced nations would vaporize.
        bofadeez 6y ago
        I think all you're saying is that it's impractical to be 100% moral on an institutional level. I like to think that's not true. Anyone who initiates aggression against peaceful people is inherently wrong, even if (they think) it's for a greater good. You're just trying to morally justify it for practicality.

pestaa 6y ago

> We are only obligated to contracts we have voluntarily entered into. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

bofadeez 6y ago
The concept of a social contract is axiomatically immoral as it relies on the use of involuntary compulsion and violent police enforcement, in violation of the non-aggression principle. Educate yourself on a world where the non-aggression principle is actually respected on an institutional level: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
- danans 6y ago
  > The right to own property is an extension of our right to own our own life. Not at all. It's a benefit of modern nation states and the contracts they extend to their residents. A monopoly on violence [1] is a fundamental step of the legitimation process of any sovereignty, whether an anarcho-capitalist homestead or a modern nation state. Property rights (including property held in common by the state) are a benefit of the state contract and are enforced by the same monopoly on violence. If you expect your property rights to be protected, you must engage in the contract (via residency and payment of taxes) with an authority that backs them up those rights. Otherwise, you will have a scenario like Afghanistan, with fluid internal sovereignty and where property rights frequently are managed through violence. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence
  - bofadeez 6y ago
    I absolutely 100% agree with that statement. Acting in an immoral fashion that violates the non-aggression principle is a fundamental step toward a "modern nation-state." But it's still fundamentally immoral and operates on the assumption that humans are not entitled to ownership of their own lives. The major difference is that an AC homestead would be voluntary, while a social contract imposed at birth is involuntary. And I've been to Afghanistan and it's a much much more complicated situation than you're describing.
    - danans 6y ago
      > But it's still fundamentally immoral and operates on the assumption that humans are not entitled to ownership of their own lives. That's a lovely principle, but it means little without enforcement. How would property rights be enforced in anarcho-capitalist society without a system of property laws, courts to adjudicate them, and law enforcement? > And I've been to Afghanistan and it's a much much more complicated situation than you're describing. Every real-world society is more complicated than the models we use to describe them. These things all exist on multiple spectra. Socialist Northern Europe is not perfectly or fairly distributive of wealth. Some people in Afghanistan have their property rights enforced by the state. But on balance, the enforcement of property rights in a country with a weak state like Afghanistan is lower than in Northern Europe, especially the further you get from the government's seat of power. At least today, a warlord cannot take over a town in Belgium and forcibly take over a section of houses to build a garrison. State enforcement of property rights is the stable foundation on which higher level societal productivity happens. Without it, there are no factories, no secure supply lines, limited commerce and communication. The GDP of most advanced nations would vaporize.
      - bofadeez 6y ago
        I think all you're saying is that it's impractical to be 100% moral on an institutional level. I like to think that's not true. Anyone who initiates aggression against peaceful people is inherently wrong, even if (they think) it's for a greater good. You're just trying to morally justify it for practicality.