4 ms·

my assertion is that this is not a "lifeboat" scenario. property "rights" are, at their absolute core, a use of force. to be a true libertarian, you can't beli

my assertion is that this is not a "lifeboat" scenario. property "rights" are, at their absolute core, a use of force. to be a true libertarian, you can't believe in property rights.

anoncowherd 13y ago
>> my assertion is that this is not a "lifeboat" scenario. property "rights" are, at their absolute core, a use of force. Nope. Our "rights" are an idea, but one that's aligned with our "intuitive morality". Force only comes into question when someone is violating your property rights. If no one ever does, then no one will ever have to forcibly defend his property rights. In other words, if someone grabs your iPhone and starts running away, you have the right to try and stop him because he has no right to take your property. It's all very simple when you allow yourself to see it.
- 21echoes 13y ago
  > "intuitive morality" > It's all very simple when you allow yourself to see it. there's your problem. you're refusing to truly reconsider property rights as a use of force, and appealing to instinct rather than actually thinking about the problem. to take something out of the public domain and not allow any other people to make use of the object is force, plain and simple.
  - anoncowherd 13y ago
    >> you're refusing to truly reconsider property rights as a use of force, and appealing to instinct rather than actually thinking about the problem You're skirting around having to actually hear what I'm saying and let it sink in. Do I have to repeat myself? "Property is force" is a nice little distraction, and I've been through this with someone else before. Really, property is not "use of force" even though defending it may require some. But even if you do view property rights as a "use of force", so what? -What do you think that implies? Well, this will probably just get lost in our comment histories, so I won't expend any more effort on this.
    - 21echoes 13y ago
      > But even if you do view property rights as a "use of force", so what? -What do you think that implies? that a philosophy that is founded on "there are only two rules: property rights are The One True Right, and initiation of force is The One True Wrong" is impossible to take seriously. > Well, this will probably just get lost in our comment histories, so I won't expend any more effort on this. nice way to try to take the higher ground while forfeiting. it's okay-- I know thinking is often hard for libertarians.

my assertion is that this is not a "lifeboat" scenario. property "rights" are, at their absolute core, a use of force. to be a true libertarian, you can't believe in property rights.

anoncowherd 13y ago

>> my assertion is that this is not a "lifeboat" scenario. property "rights" are, at their absolute core, a use of force. Nope. Our "rights" are an idea, but one that's aligned with our "intuitive morality". Force only comes into question when someone is violating your property rights. If no one ever does, then no one will ever have to forcibly defend his property rights. In other words, if someone grabs your iPhone and starts running away, you have the right to try and stop him because he has no right to take your property. It's all very simple when you allow yourself to see it.

21echoes 13y ago
> "intuitive morality" > It's all very simple when you allow yourself to see it. there's your problem. you're refusing to truly reconsider property rights as a use of force, and appealing to instinct rather than actually thinking about the problem. to take something out of the public domain and not allow any other people to make use of the object is force, plain and simple.
- anoncowherd 13y ago
  >> you're refusing to truly reconsider property rights as a use of force, and appealing to instinct rather than actually thinking about the problem You're skirting around having to actually hear what I'm saying and let it sink in. Do I have to repeat myself? "Property is force" is a nice little distraction, and I've been through this with someone else before. Really, property is not "use of force" even though defending it may require some. But even if you do view property rights as a "use of force", so what? -What do you think that implies? Well, this will probably just get lost in our comment histories, so I won't expend any more effort on this.
  - 21echoes 13y ago
    > But even if you do view property rights as a "use of force", so what? -What do you think that implies? that a philosophy that is founded on "there are only two rules: property rights are The One True Right, and initiation of force is The One True Wrong" is impossible to take seriously. > Well, this will probably just get lost in our comment histories, so I won't expend any more effort on this. nice way to try to take the higher ground while forfeiting. it's okay-- I know thinking is often hard for libertarians.