5 ms·

I get how you could not agree with it but what's not to understand about "Leave me alone while I leave you alone" as a distilled worldview?

Nursie 12y ago
No, that's fine, I understand it as a philosophy and have some sympathy with the motivations behind it. I also think it would be a horrible thing to put into practice for a variety of reasons. But the inconsistency strikes me as odd.
- zo1 12y ago
  "But the inconsistency strikes me as odd." Hello, I'll be your friendly anarcho-capitalist for the day. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask away.
  - Nursie 12y ago
    OK, well at the basis of it, how can taxes be considered a form of violent theft if property (particularly private real estate defended with deadly force) is not? (apologies if this is not the view you take! I'm getting the picture this is not a consistent thing across libertarians, I may be getting confused by objectivists....)
    - zo1 12y ago
      The main difference, if I understand what you're asking, is consent. As an example, I'll use myself. I currently live in a sort of "shared" property. We have private components (houses), and shared components (facilities, gardens, pool, etc) in between that we all have access to. We all consent to paying a monthly levy so that maintenance and communal things are taken care of. This includes insurance for damage to our property, and all sorts of stuff. We also have a set of rules that we all agree on, and vote on periodically, etc. Not much unlike a state. The main difference being I can just up and move to a different one if I don't really like this one. As someone who's also emigrated a few times, I'll let you know that it's not as easy as they claim. No one assumed, or coerced us in to this agreement. We as sound-minded individuals consented to it. We weren't automatically put into such an agreement by virtue of being born on this land. Would you call it theft if I went and mowed your lawn (without you asking), and then had your employer deduct my fee/charge for doing so from your paycheck? Also, take care when discussing this topic. Libertarianism is a bit different to anarcho-capitalism. Libertarians generally feel that we still need government to do basic things such as enforce "laws" and provide state protection. Not ideal, but for a lot of people, it's a starting point into attempting to devise a perfectly moral system founded on sound first-principles.
      - Nursie 12y ago
        And what if someone else wanted to come and live in your property. You don't know them, but they just show up in the garden one day. What gives you the right to demand a levy from them or move them on by force?
        zo1 12y ago
        I don't demand any sort of levy from them. They're on my property, and they need to leave. If they don't, I'll have to forcibly remove them. Nothing about libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism prevents me from using defensive force. If my property, or safety are harmed/infringed upon, then I have the right to defend myself and property.
        Nursie 12y ago
        But that's the root of what I'm saying - what makes it your property other than your willingness to initiate force?
        zo1 12y ago
        That depends on how we transition to a free society. But it'd probably have to be like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle
        Nursie 12y ago
        What interests me about that is particularly the Lockean proviso - i.e. Homesteading is awesome when there's enough land for everyone to be able to do that. This is not the case though, and your taking some land as your own does deprive others of the use of that land, because it is a finite resource.
        mercer 12y ago
        So how do you handle the problem of someone acquiring so much land that this person can effectively control anyone who lives on his land (and basically form his own dictatorship, because he owns the best land)? Honest question.

Nursie 12y ago

No, that's fine, I understand it as a philosophy and have some sympathy with the motivations behind it. I also think it would be a horrible thing to put into practice for a variety of reasons. But the inconsistency strikes me as odd.

zo1 12y ago
"But the inconsistency strikes me as odd." Hello, I'll be your friendly anarcho-capitalist for the day. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask away.
- Nursie 12y ago
  OK, well at the basis of it, how can taxes be considered a form of violent theft if property (particularly private real estate defended with deadly force) is not? (apologies if this is not the view you take! I'm getting the picture this is not a consistent thing across libertarians, I may be getting confused by objectivists....)
  - zo1 12y ago
    The main difference, if I understand what you're asking, is consent. As an example, I'll use myself. I currently live in a sort of "shared" property. We have private components (houses), and shared components (facilities, gardens, pool, etc) in between that we all have access to. We all consent to paying a monthly levy so that maintenance and communal things are taken care of. This includes insurance for damage to our property, and all sorts of stuff. We also have a set of rules that we all agree on, and vote on periodically, etc. Not much unlike a state. The main difference being I can just up and move to a different one if I don't really like this one. As someone who's also emigrated a few times, I'll let you know that it's not as easy as they claim. No one assumed, or coerced us in to this agreement. We as sound-minded individuals consented to it. We weren't automatically put into such an agreement by virtue of being born on this land. Would you call it theft if I went and mowed your lawn (without you asking), and then had your employer deduct my fee/charge for doing so from your paycheck? Also, take care when discussing this topic. Libertarianism is a bit different to anarcho-capitalism. Libertarians generally feel that we still need government to do basic things such as enforce "laws" and provide state protection. Not ideal, but for a lot of people, it's a starting point into attempting to devise a perfectly moral system founded on sound first-principles.
    - Nursie 12y ago
      And what if someone else wanted to come and live in your property. You don't know them, but they just show up in the garden one day. What gives you the right to demand a levy from them or move them on by force?
      - zo1 12y ago
        I don't demand any sort of levy from them. They're on my property, and they need to leave. If they don't, I'll have to forcibly remove them. Nothing about libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism prevents me from using defensive force. If my property, or safety are harmed/infringed upon, then I have the right to defend myself and property.
        Nursie 12y ago
        But that's the root of what I'm saying - what makes it your property other than your willingness to initiate force?
        zo1 12y ago
        That depends on how we transition to a free society. But it'd probably have to be like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle
        Nursie 12y ago
        What interests me about that is particularly the Lockean proviso - i.e. Homesteading is awesome when there's enough land for everyone to be able to do that. This is not the case though, and your taking some land as your own does deprive others of the use of that land, because it is a finite resource.
        mercer 12y ago
        So how do you handle the problem of someone acquiring so much land that this person can effectively control anyone who lives on his land (and basically form his own dictatorship, because he owns the best land)? Honest question.