4 ms·

to my sibling comment, so what you're saying is, mob rule? this is probably defacto how it is, but it does not make it right. Nobody else has any rights to what

to my sibling comment, so what you're saying is, mob rule? this is probably defacto how it is, but it does not make it right. Nobody else has any rights to what I own, and I dont have rights to them. this kind of thinking that the "society" can just set rules that violates other people is a sick and disgusting development, this form of communist cancer has to be destroyed.

tfourb 3y ago
See my sibling comment: property in most societies is something that not only confers rights to the owner, but also responsibilities. If you own an apartment in a city where there is great demand for housing, but (for whatever reason) you decide against making that apartment available for someone to use, society (through creating laws and regulations) can decide that you forfeit your rights to that property. It is the same logic that is behind laws and regulations that force people to improve their property in some way, i.e. by removing lead paint, installing more efficient heating, etc. This logic is well accepted throughout the world. "Property obligates" is the historical and present norm (except maybe in the U.S.) and the extreme libertarian view of "absolute rights" to property is probably what is a "sick and disgusting" development.
TeMPOraL 3y ago
Look, there are two possible definitions of "ownership" and "property". One is, you own whatever you can physically keep. If you have a pretty stone, and I come to you, and bash your head in, and take your stone, guess what, it's mine now. If I scoop your brains out of your half-broken skull, I'll have a new ashtray too, so I profit off this exchange! The second definition is, whatever set of rules the society enforces to prevent the scenario described above, which define what I can keep, and under what conditions. You could say these rules "violate other people" and is "communist cancer", and you're right in a way - my natural right of coming over to you and bashing your head in is surely being violated now! But I prefer this anyway, because it also protects me from getting my head bashed in by someone stronger than me.
- redeeman 3y ago
  your right ends where it takes away others. Forcing taxes on people is not that. I cannot violate others, and anyone who would give themselves the rights to do so, are bandits, oftentimes having formed a gang
  - vidarh 3y ago
    > your right ends where it takes away others. This is exactly Proudhon's argument for his infamous "property is theft" - property rights limits the freedom of others by restricting them from e.g. making use of the land you arbitrarily fence off - and why Dejacque, the father of libertarianism [1], and a firm anarcho-communist, agreed with him. The right-libertarian property fetishism is founded on ignoring the restrictions property rights places on the rights of others; something every legal system on the planet recognises to various degrees. As such, while none go as far as Proudhon and Dejacque wanted in stripping away property rights, the default of human society is to see property rights as inherently and necessarily limited for the protection of the rights of others. (I'd be all for giving you the opportunity of opting out of taxes, as long as society gains the freedom to refuse to deal with you if you opt out, up to and including freedom to deny you the use of everything funded by said society; freedom is a two-way street) [1] On the Human Being, Male and Female, Joseph Déjacque, is the first use of "libertarianism" as a political ideology. Dejacque accuses Proudhon of being a "moderate anarchist, liberal, but not libertarian". Dejacque went on to publish "Le Libertaire" (The Libertarian), the first libertarian periodical. On the Human Being, Male and Female, can be found here: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/joseph-dejacque-on-the-human-being-male-and-female https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/joseph-dejacque-on-t...
    - tfourb 3y ago
      Technically, you can probably opt out of taxes in return for opting out of using tax-funded services and infrastructure, especially in the U.S. and other countries with vast tracts of wilderness: just hike a few days into the woods/mountains, vanish into public lands and do not interact with society anymore. Of course, no libertarians actually go that far, because if they admit to it or not, they are pretty happy to accept the benefits of taxation (roads, police, emergency medical attention, the military, courts, etc.) even if they publicly decry any attempt at funding it. My impression is that libertarianism is basically an attempt by pretty well-off people to create a pseudo-scientific reason for them to free ride on the contributions of others to society.
m000 3y ago
> Nobody else has any rights to what I own Nobody else, except perhaps your local HOA [1]. So much about your "property". /s [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrizmAo17Os https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrizmAo17Os
- redeeman 3y ago
  no gang has ever considered themselves to be doing things that shouldnt be done, whether it be the mafia, government, or HOA. They are all illegitimate
vidarh 3y ago
"This form of communist cancer" of limitations on property rights is little different to how property rights have been curtailed by law in different ways in pretty much every society since many hundreds of years before Marx was born.

tfourb 3y ago

See my sibling comment: property in most societies is something that not only confers rights to the owner, but also responsibilities. If you own an apartment in a city where there is great demand for housing, but (for whatever reason) you decide against making that apartment available for someone to use, society (through creating laws and regulations) can decide that you forfeit your rights to that property. It is the same logic that is behind laws and regulations that force people to improve their property in some way, i.e. by removing lead paint, installing more efficient heating, etc. This logic is well accepted throughout the world. "Property obligates" is the historical and present norm (except maybe in the U.S.) and the extreme libertarian view of "absolute rights" to property is probably what is a "sick and disgusting" development.

TeMPOraL 3y ago

Look, there are two possible definitions of "ownership" and "property". One is, you own whatever you can physically keep. If you have a pretty stone, and I come to you, and bash your head in, and take your stone, guess what, it's mine now. If I scoop your brains out of your half-broken skull, I'll have a new ashtray too, so I profit off this exchange! The second definition is, whatever set of rules the society enforces to prevent the scenario described above, which define what I can keep, and under what conditions. You could say these rules "violate other people" and is "communist cancer", and you're right in a way - my natural right of coming over to you and bashing your head in is surely being violated now! But I prefer this anyway, because it also protects me from getting my head bashed in by someone stronger than me.

redeeman 3y ago
your right ends where it takes away others. Forcing taxes on people is not that. I cannot violate others, and anyone who would give themselves the rights to do so, are bandits, oftentimes having formed a gang
- vidarh 3y ago
  > your right ends where it takes away others. This is exactly Proudhon's argument for his infamous "property is theft" - property rights limits the freedom of others by restricting them from e.g. making use of the land you arbitrarily fence off - and why Dejacque, the father of libertarianism [1], and a firm anarcho-communist, agreed with him. The right-libertarian property fetishism is founded on ignoring the restrictions property rights places on the rights of others; something every legal system on the planet recognises to various degrees. As such, while none go as far as Proudhon and Dejacque wanted in stripping away property rights, the default of human society is to see property rights as inherently and necessarily limited for the protection of the rights of others. (I'd be all for giving you the opportunity of opting out of taxes, as long as society gains the freedom to refuse to deal with you if you opt out, up to and including freedom to deny you the use of everything funded by said society; freedom is a two-way street) [1] On the Human Being, Male and Female, Joseph Déjacque, is the first use of "libertarianism" as a political ideology. Dejacque accuses Proudhon of being a "moderate anarchist, liberal, but not libertarian". Dejacque went on to publish "Le Libertaire" (The Libertarian), the first libertarian periodical. On the Human Being, Male and Female, can be found here: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/joseph-dejacque-on-the-human-being-male-and-female https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/joseph-dejacque-on-t...
  - tfourb 3y ago
    Technically, you can probably opt out of taxes in return for opting out of using tax-funded services and infrastructure, especially in the U.S. and other countries with vast tracts of wilderness: just hike a few days into the woods/mountains, vanish into public lands and do not interact with society anymore. Of course, no libertarians actually go that far, because if they admit to it or not, they are pretty happy to accept the benefits of taxation (roads, police, emergency medical attention, the military, courts, etc.) even if they publicly decry any attempt at funding it. My impression is that libertarianism is basically an attempt by pretty well-off people to create a pseudo-scientific reason for them to free ride on the contributions of others to society.

m000 3y ago

> Nobody else has any rights to what I own Nobody else, except perhaps your local HOA [1]. So much about your "property". /s [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrizmAo17Os https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrizmAo17Os

redeeman 3y ago
no gang has ever considered themselves to be doing things that shouldnt be done, whether it be the mafia, government, or HOA. They are all illegitimate

vidarh 3y ago

"This form of communist cancer" of limitations on property rights is little different to how property rights have been curtailed by law in different ways in pretty much every society since many hundreds of years before Marx was born.