5 ms·

> That is precisely why they initiate the transfer while they are alive by making a will. A will is not a transfer. The law is very clear on this. The governme

> That is precisely why they initiate the transfer while they are alive by making a will. A will is not a transfer. The law is very clear on this. The government gets the property, then redistributes it to the rich kids via a nanny state program called "inheritance law". > What’s your justification for changing the law on property? To increase fairness and justice. What's your justification for not? > this amounts to people enforcing their view of property on everyone else Every possible political system does this, except the "grab what you can" world where there is no property at all. So why is yours "voluntary" and mine isn't. > people own what they own and obtain through voluntary exchange Property isn't voluntary. It is coercively enforced by the state. > we prohibit taking people’s stuff It's literally not their stuff. Tax law is very clear on this. Me: This stuff rightfully belongs to A, because of egalitarianism. You: This stuff rightfully belongs to B, because it belongs to B. You're doing a basic circular argument. This is the thing with libertarianism - it's just pure status quo bias. "This person rightfully owns it because they own it". Nothing to do with freedom, because property is coercive, nothing to do with anti state because property is run by the state - just allegiance to existing property owners.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> To increase fairness and justice. It’s not fair for you to decide what other people own. Its injust for you to have that much control over other’s property. > What's your justification for not? According to you I am changing the law, same as you. Fairness and justice. > A will is not a transfer. The law is very clear on this. Thats not really the case, and I’m unconcerned aboit statutes that were written by oligarchs. A will is a valid transfer. > Every possible political system does this You’re not in a position to decide what is and is not possible. > Property isn't voluntary. Yes it is. > It is coercively enforced by the state. So what if you (incorrectly) believe this to be the case? You can’t imagine a possible political system without coercive enforcement so you’re unable to criticize property on this basis. > It's literally not their stuff. In any system of fairness and justice it is. > Me: This stuff rightfully belongs to A, because of egalitarianism. You: This stuff rightfully belongs to B, because it belongs to B. You: This stuff rightfully belongs to A, because of egalitarianism. Me: Its not egalitarian for you to dictate what other people rightfully own. That would be a hierarchy with you at the top. > You're doing a basic circular argument. No, I’m applying egalitarian principles to your proposed authoritarian restructuring of society. > This is the thing with libertarianism - it's just pure status quo bias. "This person rightfully owns it because they own it". Who cares about libertarianism? I’m sharing the joys of egalitarianism with you. Quit trying to dictate the world to the rest of us and embrace the pluralism of egalitarianism. > Nothing to do with freedom, because property is coercive, But you like coercion, so to you this isn’t a problem for libertarianism.
- djrobstep 6y ago
  It seems you're just confused on a basic level about how property works - property is coercion. It is literally the initiation of coercive violence on people who enter certain areas or touch certain objects (or threats thereof). > ...for you to dictate ... that would be a hierarchy with you at the top ... your proposed authoritarian restructuring of society ... Quit trying to dictate the world to the rest of us Once again, you're confused on a basic level - what makes my proposed system more authoritarian than yours? You want property law enforced with one particular distribution, I want it enforced with another particular distribution. What makes my distribution authoritarian and yours not?
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    > It seems you're just confused on a basic level about how property works - property is coercion. No, property is a social construct that humans use to denote who has exclusive rights over the disposition of a thing. > It is literally the initiation of coercive violence on people who enter certain areas or touch certain objects (or threats thereof). No, property is literally a social construct that humans use to denote who has exclusive rights over the disposition of a thing. Coercion comes afterwards, when people seek to enforce this norm on people who dispute it. > Once again, you're confused on a basic level - what makes my proposed system more authoritarian than yours? The hierarchical nature of the relations. Your system has people who have the power to grant and confiscate all the property in society. Since property is the right to determine the disposition of a thing, your system results in the ruling class exerting property rights over everything. > You want property law enforced with one particular distribution False. I am not specifying the distribution that is enforced. > I want it enforced with another particular distribution. What makes my distribution authoritarian and yours not? You’re choosing the distribution that is enforced, whereas I’m advocating for a distribution that is collectively decided absent coercion. My distribution is the emergent result of repeated interaction under egalitarian social norms. Your distribution is a hierarchical imposition of your preferred distribution.
    - djrobstep 6y ago

chordalkeyboard 6y ago

> To increase fairness and justice. It’s not fair for you to decide what other people own. Its injust for you to have that much control over other’s property. > What's your justification for not? According to you I am changing the law, same as you. Fairness and justice. > A will is not a transfer. The law is very clear on this. Thats not really the case, and I’m unconcerned aboit statutes that were written by oligarchs. A will is a valid transfer. > Every possible political system does this You’re not in a position to decide what is and is not possible. > Property isn't voluntary. Yes it is. > It is coercively enforced by the state. So what if you (incorrectly) believe this to be the case? You can’t imagine a possible political system without coercive enforcement so you’re unable to criticize property on this basis. > It's literally not their stuff. In any system of fairness and justice it is. > Me: This stuff rightfully belongs to A, because of egalitarianism. You: This stuff rightfully belongs to B, because it belongs to B. You: This stuff rightfully belongs to A, because of egalitarianism. Me: Its not egalitarian for you to dictate what other people rightfully own. That would be a hierarchy with you at the top. > You're doing a basic circular argument. No, I’m applying egalitarian principles to your proposed authoritarian restructuring of society. > This is the thing with libertarianism - it's just pure status quo bias. "This person rightfully owns it because they own it". Who cares about libertarianism? I’m sharing the joys of egalitarianism with you. Quit trying to dictate the world to the rest of us and embrace the pluralism of egalitarianism. > Nothing to do with freedom, because property is coercive, But you like coercion, so to you this isn’t a problem for libertarianism.

djrobstep 6y ago
It seems you're just confused on a basic level about how property works - property is coercion. It is literally the initiation of coercive violence on people who enter certain areas or touch certain objects (or threats thereof). > ...for you to dictate ... that would be a hierarchy with you at the top ... your proposed authoritarian restructuring of society ... Quit trying to dictate the world to the rest of us Once again, you're confused on a basic level - what makes my proposed system more authoritarian than yours? You want property law enforced with one particular distribution, I want it enforced with another particular distribution. What makes my distribution authoritarian and yours not?
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > It seems you're just confused on a basic level about how property works - property is coercion. No, property is a social construct that humans use to denote who has exclusive rights over the disposition of a thing. > It is literally the initiation of coercive violence on people who enter certain areas or touch certain objects (or threats thereof). No, property is literally a social construct that humans use to denote who has exclusive rights over the disposition of a thing. Coercion comes afterwards, when people seek to enforce this norm on people who dispute it. > Once again, you're confused on a basic level - what makes my proposed system more authoritarian than yours? The hierarchical nature of the relations. Your system has people who have the power to grant and confiscate all the property in society. Since property is the right to determine the disposition of a thing, your system results in the ruling class exerting property rights over everything. > You want property law enforced with one particular distribution False. I am not specifying the distribution that is enforced. > I want it enforced with another particular distribution. What makes my distribution authoritarian and yours not? You’re choosing the distribution that is enforced, whereas I’m advocating for a distribution that is collectively decided absent coercion. My distribution is the emergent result of repeated interaction under egalitarian social norms. Your distribution is a hierarchical imposition of your preferred distribution.
  - djrobstep 6y ago