3 ms·

>> 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 skir

>> 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.