3 ms·

The [1] video is just Propertarianism peddled as Freedom/Liberty. Not sure how you can have self-professed dogmatic attitude to that. I mean it contains a line

The [1] video is just Propertarianism peddled as Freedom/Liberty. Not sure how you can have self-professed dogmatic attitude to that. I mean it contains a line something like this: "people exchange property voluntarily, otherwise they wouldn't do it". What? That's the level of analysis why people exchange "property"? "voluntary"? Sigh. It's funny how people just invent shallow concepts like this and it always end up doing nothing but protecting - and extending - the privileges of the wealthy. It's just a predetermined outcome looking for a theory to justify it.

syshum 5y ago
No, that is not true at all. Fundamentally I support more of a Geo-Libertarian[1] system, so I support property rights for things you create from your own labor, but natural property that was not created by humans belongs to all. Those that want to make exclusive use of this natural properly owe a "rent" to all. This rent is the only ethical tax[2] one can use to publicly finance a government. Taxes on labor, voluntary transaction, etc are all unethical theft of a persons labor [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism [2] https://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2012/04/the-geolibertarian-ethics-of-land-rent/ https://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2012/04/the-geoliberta...
- slver 5y ago
  Do you realize how easy it is to deconstruct the definitions you rely on? What does it mean "created from your own labor" for example? We apply labor to existing things and we transform them as a continuous process. We don't manifest them in one step out of vacuum. So "create with labor" is a fuzzy concept at best. You don't create anything. At what precise point does this property that "belongs to all" become your property? You draw sharp divide between those two categories, so surely there's a sharp divide in terms of time and action that causes said property to shift those categories. I see a wild tree, I cut it off. Is it mine now? Not yet, so I chop it up, is it mine? No? So I take a chunk and make it into an owl figure. Which precise stroke of my instruments turned this tree from shared property into my own property? Or am I being given imaginary shares of this property as I work on it, so it's 10% mine, then 11% mine, then 15% mine... The rest of these definitions are similarly meaningless if you explore them at depth. It doesn't mean that as a system they're bad. As long as you have objective proof they work in reality (not just in our imagination). But you need to realize in terms of "correctness" they're arbitrary. In fact, there's no such thing as objective ethics. So to declare things are ethical or unethical in a universal way is non-sequitur. A concept is only as useful as how applicable it is for achieving certain goals. If it's just a self-referencing system that feels good, but no one has realized it, or even worse, many have tried and keep failing at it... then you have nothing.

syshum 5y ago

No, that is not true at all. Fundamentally I support more of a Geo-Libertarian[1] system, so I support property rights for things you create from your own labor, but natural property that was not created by humans belongs to all. Those that want to make exclusive use of this natural properly owe a "rent" to all. This rent is the only ethical tax[2] one can use to publicly finance a government. Taxes on labor, voluntary transaction, etc are all unethical theft of a persons labor [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism [2] https://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2012/04/the-geolibertarian-ethics-of-land-rent/ https://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2012/04/the-geoliberta...

slver 5y ago
Do you realize how easy it is to deconstruct the definitions you rely on? What does it mean "created from your own labor" for example? We apply labor to existing things and we transform them as a continuous process. We don't manifest them in one step out of vacuum. So "create with labor" is a fuzzy concept at best. You don't create anything. At what precise point does this property that "belongs to all" become your property? You draw sharp divide between those two categories, so surely there's a sharp divide in terms of time and action that causes said property to shift those categories. I see a wild tree, I cut it off. Is it mine now? Not yet, so I chop it up, is it mine? No? So I take a chunk and make it into an owl figure. Which precise stroke of my instruments turned this tree from shared property into my own property? Or am I being given imaginary shares of this property as I work on it, so it's 10% mine, then 11% mine, then 15% mine... The rest of these definitions are similarly meaningless if you explore them at depth. It doesn't mean that as a system they're bad. As long as you have objective proof they work in reality (not just in our imagination). But you need to realize in terms of "correctness" they're arbitrary. In fact, there's no such thing as objective ethics. So to declare things are ethical or unethical in a universal way is non-sequitur. A concept is only as useful as how applicable it is for achieving certain goals. If it's just a self-referencing system that feels good, but no one has realized it, or even worse, many have tried and keep failing at it... then you have nothing.