6 ms·

>> I specifically mean that libertarians don't view property rights as forceful, but the left does. I don't know what kind of libertarianism you're referring t

>> I specifically mean that libertarians don't view property rights as forceful, but the left does. I don't know what kind of libertarianism you're referring to, exactly. But property is based on property rights, is it not? It makes no sense to think that you have no rights in the absence of a government. Think about it. If there's no government, would you not have the right to defend yourself or your property against an aggressor? -Of course you would. Governments have nothing to do with that. >> If it's not a possibility that can happen in the actual world, then the statement is basically meaningless The statement means what it means, even if only as a sentence. But look, I already acknowledged that not everyone adheres to the NAP. That can't be helped now, and it probably can't be helped ever. But the number of people who aggress against others can sure be reduced through peaceful, sensible, consistent parenting, for example. The fact that not every single goddamn human being out there is good is not a reason to dismiss libertarian/free-market/anarchist ideas. You'll have to do way better than that, but ultimately, you'll find that reason, logic, and evidence should / can not be dismissed at all.

steveklabnik 13y ago
I mean all those that subscribe to the NAP: minarchists, 'right libertarians,' voluntaryists, and 'anarcho-capitalists.' > Think about it. I have thought about it, and so have many others. This argument is pretty old and tired, and goes way beyond this thread. There have been many criticisms of the NAP by anarchists. The actual, original strain of anarchists: 'left anarchism.'
- anoncowherd 13y ago
  >> I mean all those that subscribe to the NAP: minarchists, 'right libertarians,' voluntaryists, and 'anarcho-capitalists.' What exactly is your claim about them, then? I should stop guessing at ideas to refute and let you make a claim first. >> This argument is pretty old and tired, and goes way beyond this thread. Which argument? "Think about it" doesn't constitute one, so it seems you wanted to quote something other than what you were supposedly addressing. That's kind of weird. >> There have been many criticisms of the NAP by anarchists. The actual, original strain of anarchists: 'left anarchism.' Sure. It's certainly possible to complicate things to no end. But is it worthwhile? Moral rules are not absolutes, but that's alright. The point is to get close enough, and there are often several sensible ways to view ideas, such as "property" for example. But bickering about the exact definitions of words your opponent happens to use is just a bullshit distraction, intentional or not. I've wasted way too much time on that road already. We both use and understand the English language just fine. There are no obstacles to our communication besides the ones intentionally put up.
  - steveklabnik 13y ago
    I did make a claim. The claim is that without specifically defining force and initiation, the NAP is useless. You re-asserted a particular definition, and said 'think about it.' I don't find that to be particularly convincing.
    - anoncowherd 13y ago
      >> The claim is that without specifically defining force and initiation, the NAP is useless And I pointed out that you don't really need any specific definitions for "force" or "initiation" (and that bickering about the definitions for everyday words is a bullshit distraction). But suppose "force" meant "violence or coercion", and "to initiate" meant "to start" (there's no real confusion about that, at least). With these definitions, what's your problem with the NAP?
      - saraid216 13y ago
        > With these definitions, what's your problem with the NAP? Those aren't definitions. Is it force for someone to own a gun? Is it force for someone to reveal that they're carrying a gun? Is it force for someone to draw a gun? Is it force for someone to fire a warning shot? Is it force for someone to point a gun? Is it initiation for someone to attack a third party? Is it initiation for someone to attack a friend? Is it force to covet your property? Is it force to touch your property? Is it force to enter your property? Is it force to illegitimately acquire your property? Is it force to manipulate your property? Is it force to develop your property's uses? Is it initiation for someone to threaten you? Is it initiation for someone to threaten you abstractly? Is it initiation for someone to threaten your property? Is it initiation for someone to threaten your friends? That's off the top of my head. Gimme a bit, and I'll "think about it".
        anoncowherd 13y ago
        As I mentioned already, it's certainly possible to complicate things to no end. But what exactly do you think you've accomplished with this message, besides prompting me to refute bullshit distractions? >> Is it force for someone to own a gun? Is it force for you to own shoes? >> Is it force for someone to reveal that they're carrying a gun? Is it force for someone to reveal they're not wearing a bra? No, it's not. Coercion requires an intent, a choice, and an action. Why are you flashing a gun? -Has someone just threatened to attack you? -Or have you just demanded money from someone? >> Is it force for someone to draw a gun? Is it force for someone to fire a warning shot? Is it force for someone to point a gun? Intent, intent, intent, etc. >> Is it initiation for someone to attack a third party? Is it initiation for someone to attack a friend? Is it initiation for someone to attack you? Of course. The one who attacks, ie. initiates, is the aggressor. >> Is it force to covet your property? Is it force to covet a woman? >> Is it force to touch your property? Is it force to touch a person? >> Is it force to enter your property? Is it force to enter Wal-Mart? >> Is it force to illegitimately acquire your property? I don't think so. But it depends on stuff. >> Is it force to manipulate your property? Is it force to open a door? >> Is it force to develop your property's uses? What do you even mean? .. Oh, but don't actually answer that. I have a feeling we're not about to get anywhere in this discussion.
- anoncowherd 13y ago
  By the way, voluntarists and anarcho-capitalists are one and the same.
  - steveklabnik 13y ago
    To me, I agree, but I've heard some of them draw a distinction I don't fully understand and I try to be respectful of identifying people in the way they choose to be identified.
    - anoncowherd 13y ago
      I'm not sure what that distinction might be, and I doubt it would be real anyway. Basically the idea is that everything should be voluntary, which is really hard to disagree with whilst being sane.
      - steveklabnik 13y ago
        Not with their definition of 'voluntary.'
        anoncowherd 13y ago
        This is their definition of 'voluntary': http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/voluntary http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/voluntary done, made, brought about, undertaken, etc., of one's own accord or by free choice - Coincidentally, it's also yours.
Nursie 13y ago
>> If there's no government, would you not have the right to defend yourself or your property against an aggressor? You're claiming a piece of land as your own but I don't see how you have any more right to it than any other human born on this earth. You initiate force to remove me from what you see as your land. Who's the aggressor? Where does your right to land derive from?
- JoeAltmaier 13y ago
  Generally, improvements and occupation make it your home. Somebody coming in to take land containing a house you built, a barn you raised, cattle you bred on a crop you are growing, are taking what's yours. Take this away and nobody would use land at all. Been done in history again and again; result always the same : collapse of farming, which means collapse of the govt.
  - Nursie 13y ago
    >> Generally, improvements and occupation make it your home. Somebody coming in to take land containing a house you built, a barn you raised, cattle you bred on a crop you are growing, are taking what's yours. So nobody should be able to own land they aren't using for anything and I should be able to just go and occupy it? Cool. >> Take this away and nobody would use land at all. Been done in history again and again; result always the same : collapse of farming, which means collapse of the govt. And now we've moved onto a pragmatic rather than moral absolutist argument, which I agree with entirely. Now that we're in this territory, let's talk about a bunch of other human-friendly pragmatic moves we could make as a society that might improve everyone's lives, eh?
    - anoncowherd 13y ago
      >> So nobody should be able to own land they aren't using for anything and I should be able to just go and occupy it? Cool. Why would the same rule not apply to you? In other words, you can't just "occupy" land, you'll have to use it, just like everyone else.

steveklabnik 13y ago

I mean all those that subscribe to the NAP: minarchists, 'right libertarians,' voluntaryists, and 'anarcho-capitalists.' > Think about it. I have thought about it, and so have many others. This argument is pretty old and tired, and goes way beyond this thread. There have been many criticisms of the NAP by anarchists. The actual, original strain of anarchists: 'left anarchism.'

anoncowherd 13y ago
>> I mean all those that subscribe to the NAP: minarchists, 'right libertarians,' voluntaryists, and 'anarcho-capitalists.' What exactly is your claim about them, then? I should stop guessing at ideas to refute and let you make a claim first. >> This argument is pretty old and tired, and goes way beyond this thread. Which argument? "Think about it" doesn't constitute one, so it seems you wanted to quote something other than what you were supposedly addressing. That's kind of weird. >> There have been many criticisms of the NAP by anarchists. The actual, original strain of anarchists: 'left anarchism.' Sure. It's certainly possible to complicate things to no end. But is it worthwhile? Moral rules are not absolutes, but that's alright. The point is to get close enough, and there are often several sensible ways to view ideas, such as "property" for example. But bickering about the exact definitions of words your opponent happens to use is just a bullshit distraction, intentional or not. I've wasted way too much time on that road already. We both use and understand the English language just fine. There are no obstacles to our communication besides the ones intentionally put up.
- steveklabnik 13y ago
  I did make a claim. The claim is that without specifically defining force and initiation, the NAP is useless. You re-asserted a particular definition, and said 'think about it.' I don't find that to be particularly convincing.
  - anoncowherd 13y ago
    >> The claim is that without specifically defining force and initiation, the NAP is useless And I pointed out that you don't really need any specific definitions for "force" or "initiation" (and that bickering about the definitions for everyday words is a bullshit distraction). But suppose "force" meant "violence or coercion", and "to initiate" meant "to start" (there's no real confusion about that, at least). With these definitions, what's your problem with the NAP?
    - saraid216 13y ago
      > With these definitions, what's your problem with the NAP? Those aren't definitions. Is it force for someone to own a gun? Is it force for someone to reveal that they're carrying a gun? Is it force for someone to draw a gun? Is it force for someone to fire a warning shot? Is it force for someone to point a gun? Is it initiation for someone to attack a third party? Is it initiation for someone to attack a friend? Is it force to covet your property? Is it force to touch your property? Is it force to enter your property? Is it force to illegitimately acquire your property? Is it force to manipulate your property? Is it force to develop your property's uses? Is it initiation for someone to threaten you? Is it initiation for someone to threaten you abstractly? Is it initiation for someone to threaten your property? Is it initiation for someone to threaten your friends? That's off the top of my head. Gimme a bit, and I'll "think about it".
      - anoncowherd 13y ago
        As I mentioned already, it's certainly possible to complicate things to no end. But what exactly do you think you've accomplished with this message, besides prompting me to refute bullshit distractions? >> Is it force for someone to own a gun? Is it force for you to own shoes? >> Is it force for someone to reveal that they're carrying a gun? Is it force for someone to reveal they're not wearing a bra? No, it's not. Coercion requires an intent, a choice, and an action. Why are you flashing a gun? -Has someone just threatened to attack you? -Or have you just demanded money from someone? >> Is it force for someone to draw a gun? Is it force for someone to fire a warning shot? Is it force for someone to point a gun? Intent, intent, intent, etc. >> Is it initiation for someone to attack a third party? Is it initiation for someone to attack a friend? Is it initiation for someone to attack you? Of course. The one who attacks, ie. initiates, is the aggressor. >> Is it force to covet your property? Is it force to covet a woman? >> Is it force to touch your property? Is it force to touch a person? >> Is it force to enter your property? Is it force to enter Wal-Mart? >> Is it force to illegitimately acquire your property? I don't think so. But it depends on stuff. >> Is it force to manipulate your property? Is it force to open a door? >> Is it force to develop your property's uses? What do you even mean? .. Oh, but don't actually answer that. I have a feeling we're not about to get anywhere in this discussion.
anoncowherd 13y ago
By the way, voluntarists and anarcho-capitalists are one and the same.
- steveklabnik 13y ago
  To me, I agree, but I've heard some of them draw a distinction I don't fully understand and I try to be respectful of identifying people in the way they choose to be identified.
  - anoncowherd 13y ago
    I'm not sure what that distinction might be, and I doubt it would be real anyway. Basically the idea is that everything should be voluntary, which is really hard to disagree with whilst being sane.
    - steveklabnik 13y ago
      Not with their definition of 'voluntary.'
      - anoncowherd 13y ago
        This is their definition of 'voluntary': http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/voluntary http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/voluntary done, made, brought about, undertaken, etc., of one's own accord or by free choice - Coincidentally, it's also yours.

Nursie 13y ago

>> If there's no government, would you not have the right to defend yourself or your property against an aggressor? You're claiming a piece of land as your own but I don't see how you have any more right to it than any other human born on this earth. You initiate force to remove me from what you see as your land. Who's the aggressor? Where does your right to land derive from?

JoeAltmaier 13y ago
Generally, improvements and occupation make it your home. Somebody coming in to take land containing a house you built, a barn you raised, cattle you bred on a crop you are growing, are taking what's yours. Take this away and nobody would use land at all. Been done in history again and again; result always the same : collapse of farming, which means collapse of the govt.
- Nursie 13y ago
  >> Generally, improvements and occupation make it your home. Somebody coming in to take land containing a house you built, a barn you raised, cattle you bred on a crop you are growing, are taking what's yours. So nobody should be able to own land they aren't using for anything and I should be able to just go and occupy it? Cool. >> Take this away and nobody would use land at all. Been done in history again and again; result always the same : collapse of farming, which means collapse of the govt. And now we've moved onto a pragmatic rather than moral absolutist argument, which I agree with entirely. Now that we're in this territory, let's talk about a bunch of other human-friendly pragmatic moves we could make as a society that might improve everyone's lives, eh?
  - anoncowherd 13y ago
    >> So nobody should be able to own land they aren't using for anything and I should be able to just go and occupy it? Cool. Why would the same rule not apply to you? In other words, you can't just "occupy" land, you'll have to use it, just like everyone else.