7 ms·

Just so I follow, do you recognize the existence indirect coercion by necessities (which very well could be the result of private property creating artificial s

Just so I follow, do you recognize the existence indirect coercion by necessities (which very well could be the result of private property creating artificial scarcity) at all? Because if you do I have no idea how you can come to the idea that one can just "walk away". > The USDA is not a tangent It is, you're switching the topic to be about government, and a contemporary setting, instead of continuing on the topic of a private property owner and a hypothetical libertarian society. Libertarians seem to have a bad habit of using unnecessarily convoluted language.

Dracophoenix 5y ago
"Artificial" scarcity, even of so-called necessities, is not indirect coercion so long as it's the choice of the property owner. No one is entitled to the provisions or labor of another because of lack or need. If someone decides it's not in his interest to distribute the fruits of his labor, that's his right. And yes, people can walk away. Human beings have being walking away for tens of thousands of years. You don't need to read libertarian literature to know the phrase "vote with your feet". A government with a monopoly on force and enforcement of contracts is as much a feature of a libertarian society as it is in a contemporary one, and so the comparison involving the USDA is germane. The contention is one of degree and nature involvement. A private property owner in a libertarian society must still follow the law to the extent that such laws don't violate his rights.
- cloudfifty 5y ago
  > so long as it's the choice of the property owner. and there you have it. why libertarianism in it's propertarianism form has nothing to do with freedom and all to do with giving power to the property owners. > And yes, people can walk away. You surely can't believe that people can just walk away from their only source of income?
- lovich 5y ago
  What untamed land might an intrepid settler go to if they wanted to vote with their feet? There aren’t any frontiers anymore. Everything is owned

Dracophoenix 5y ago

"Artificial" scarcity, even of so-called necessities, is not indirect coercion so long as it's the choice of the property owner. No one is entitled to the provisions or labor of another because of lack or need. If someone decides it's not in his interest to distribute the fruits of his labor, that's his right. And yes, people can walk away. Human beings have being walking away for tens of thousands of years. You don't need to read libertarian literature to know the phrase "vote with your feet". A government with a monopoly on force and enforcement of contracts is as much a feature of a libertarian society as it is in a contemporary one, and so the comparison involving the USDA is germane. The contention is one of degree and nature involvement. A private property owner in a libertarian society must still follow the law to the extent that such laws don't violate his rights.

cloudfifty 5y ago
> so long as it's the choice of the property owner. and there you have it. why libertarianism in it's propertarianism form has nothing to do with freedom and all to do with giving power to the property owners. > And yes, people can walk away. You surely can't believe that people can just walk away from their only source of income?
lovich 5y ago
What untamed land might an intrepid settler go to if they wanted to vote with their feet? There aren’t any frontiers anymore. Everything is owned