4 ms·

Almost nobody would respect property rights if there wasn't the implicit threat of a man with a gun either, so the stuff would all get taken by someone else any

Almost nobody would respect property rights if there wasn't the implicit threat of a man with a gun either, so the stuff would all get taken by someone else anyway.

sneak 3y ago
Negative rights versus positive rights, this is an old and well-documented dichotomy. Positive rights are a fiction to euphemize theft and slavery. From a purely logical standpoint, negative rights can be the only true rights.
- notahacker 3y ago
  "Theft" is something which can't even exist in the absence of consensus on which objects you have the right to compel others to refraining from using. We have that consensus, and relatively efficient enforcement of it, it just happens to disagree with you on what stuff's inalienably yours.
  - sneak 3y ago
    If we actually had that consensus, people would pay taxes willingly. They don’t, and they wouldn’t, because we do not have that consensus.
    - notahacker 3y ago
      Many people do, actually. Either way, my point isn't that the consensus is unchallengeable. My point is that it's exactly the same consensus that makes "property" and "theft" actually things. Without any sort of consensus, "theft" is just a change in who's using an object and if you try to stop them you're the one initiating force. Quite a lot of people wouldn't willingly refrain from driving your car.
- amanaplanacanal 3y ago
  From a practical standpoint, there is no difference though. Without government, different strongmen will come and take your stuff, and maybe your life. There’s no free lunch. “Rights” are a mental abstraction. The only real rights you have are the ones you can defend with force.
- tivert 3y ago
  >> Almost nobody would respect property rights if there wasn't the implicit threat of a man with a gun either, so the stuff would all get taken by someone else anyway. > Negative rights versus positive rights, this is an old and well-documented dichotomy. You can go on about "negative rights" all you want, but they're meaningless unless there's "a man with a gun" making sure they're respected. You may say that, you'll be that guy with the gun, but then what happens when there are more bandits than you can handle? Try to solve that problem, and pretty soon you've invented government with taxes and everything. Refuse to solve that problem, and you're a serf to some bandit lord. The libertarian dream is like an unstable element that has a half-life of a microsecond. Sure, maybe you can imagine conditions for its existence and people can (and do) write books about how it would work under those conditions. However, that's all moot because those conditions are unstable and it will quickly decay into something else.

Almost nobody would respect property rights if there wasn't the implicit threat of a man with a gun either, so the stuff would all get taken by someone else anyway.

sneak 3y ago

Negative rights versus positive rights, this is an old and well-documented dichotomy. Positive rights are a fiction to euphemize theft and slavery. From a purely logical standpoint, negative rights can be the only true rights.

notahacker 3y ago
"Theft" is something which can't even exist in the absence of consensus on which objects you have the right to compel others to refraining from using. We have that consensus, and relatively efficient enforcement of it, it just happens to disagree with you on what stuff's inalienably yours.
- sneak 3y ago
  If we actually had that consensus, people would pay taxes willingly. They don’t, and they wouldn’t, because we do not have that consensus.
  - notahacker 3y ago
    Many people do, actually. Either way, my point isn't that the consensus is unchallengeable. My point is that it's exactly the same consensus that makes "property" and "theft" actually things. Without any sort of consensus, "theft" is just a change in who's using an object and if you try to stop them you're the one initiating force. Quite a lot of people wouldn't willingly refrain from driving your car.
amanaplanacanal 3y ago
From a practical standpoint, there is no difference though. Without government, different strongmen will come and take your stuff, and maybe your life. There’s no free lunch. “Rights” are a mental abstraction. The only real rights you have are the ones you can defend with force.
tivert 3y ago
>> Almost nobody would respect property rights if there wasn't the implicit threat of a man with a gun either, so the stuff would all get taken by someone else anyway. > Negative rights versus positive rights, this is an old and well-documented dichotomy. You can go on about "negative rights" all you want, but they're meaningless unless there's "a man with a gun" making sure they're respected. You may say that, you'll be that guy with the gun, but then what happens when there are more bandits than you can handle? Try to solve that problem, and pretty soon you've invented government with taxes and everything. Refuse to solve that problem, and you're a serf to some bandit lord. The libertarian dream is like an unstable element that has a half-life of a microsecond. Sure, maybe you can imagine conditions for its existence and people can (and do) write books about how it would work under those conditions. However, that's all moot because those conditions are unstable and it will quickly decay into something else.