For Libertarian leaning folks

[dblack]

Liberty Without Responsibility

Are you trying to make a point? Or just randomly typing?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

That's a great point. If there weren't so many thieves, there'd be fewer laws about theft.
Portland tried to decriminalize drugs and theft, and it lead to more drugs, druggies and thieves.

If it were legal to chase a thief and shoot that POS in the back, there'd be fewer thieves.

Being Soft on Crime Is State-Sponsored Terrorism

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The legality of theft is to hold someone accountable for taking something that doesn't belong to them.

Thieves Get the Death Penalty; It's Even in the Bible

 

[dblack]

Being Soft on Crime Is State-Sponsored Terrorism

Taxation Without Representation.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Just because a baby feels ownership of a thing and gets angry when some other baby tries to take it doesn't mean there's some magical sky fairy granting them objective ownership over that thing. Property is a legal fiction and legality is a function of government.

Ghostocracy Has Become America's Future

Dead people's property is a bribed legal fantasy. The dead have no right to preordain winners and losers in the next generation, setting up their heirs halfway to the finish line, including through the living inheritance of trust funds. The next generation's competitive playing field for economic positions is owned by the public and must be regulated by the public's own laws, not by decrees from perpetual thrones.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The Sage of Main Street
I disagree with your disagree

A Molested Generation Loses the Will to Survive

Gayism inevitably leads to pedophilia. Besides, tolerance of those who don't go full-blown into that urge is unnatural.

Proof is that, throughout human history, Gayism could have been an evolutionary solution to overpopulation. But it wasn't chosen; therefore, it is even worse and more anti-evolutionary than incessant tribal war, infanticide, and human sacrifice, which were chosen instead to solve the survival problem of too many mouths to feed.

 

[YoursTruly]

It's not a bait question, it's a fundament question about the nature of property. But it's okay. I didn't really expect you to have a an interesting answer. Maybe dblack will.

I'm looking for steak and you're serving chitterlings. Then come up with some conspiracy as to why I'm not eating.

 

[YoursTruly]

Thieves Get the Death Penalty; It's Even in the Bible

At the very least, have their hands cut off. (with no pain meds)

 

[YoursTruly]

Being Soft on Crime Is State-Sponsored Terrorism

Just like anything, any time something bad has no severe consequences, more are going to do bad. It's just that simple. This goes for everything from small children to the government. It's just human nature.

The punishment for crimes like theft and those more harmful (rape, murder etc etc) should be so severe, that almost everyone would think to themselves, "Na, that ain't worth the punishment."
If the punishment was having your hand cut off, I guarantee you a MF wouldn't be stealing petty stuff, like those smash and grabs.
After instituting this punishment, within a year, the rates of theft would drastically fall.
First offence, a pinky finger. 2nd offence the entire hand.
There'd be a LOT of mf walking around with 9 fingers saying "I ain't gonna do that no mo."

 

[LeroyDumonde]

Sorry, I should be clearer, a right to property is a legal fiction. Survival is instinctual. This requires the acquisition and possession of resources. The notion of an inalienable right to property is merely a libertarians attempt to justify using force to keep others from resources they've claimed as their own. I understand the natural impulse to do this, I don't believe, intellectually, that this infers on you some mystical right to do it. To Libertarians, force is only justified in self defense but that wouldn't cover the right to use force to keep people off land or away from resources if there wasn't, first, some mystical right to it.

The reality is the right to property is entirely made up. Starting from the erroneous belief that people have an inalienable right to property leads us to the ridiculous conclusion of allowing the existence of billionaires and soon trillionaires and individuals who have legal ownership over a good portion of the earth's natural resources.

I didn't invoke natural rights either. I haven't even been a libertarian, or anywhere within the Enlightenment tradition, in almost a decade. The concept of property is instinctual. Humans are social creatures so communities, even absent a state, will develop social rules around property. Optimally when societies create governments these rules will be codified into law. This is a bottom up approach to government. The top down approach is what we see from modern states whereby the aristocratic class determines the laws and then uses whatever propaganda they have available to convince the masses that their system is the only valid one.

 

[Curried Goats]

I didn't invoke natural rights either. I haven't even been a libertarian, or anywhere within the Enlightenment tradition, in almost a decade.

Which is why i clarified. I realized I just assumed everyone here was a libertarian.

The concept of property is instinctual. Humans are social creatures so communities, even absent a state, will develop social rules around property. Optimally when societies create governments these rules will be codified into law. This is a bottom up approach to government. The top down approach is what we see from modern states whereby the aristocratic class determines the laws and then uses whatever propaganda they have available to convince the masses that their system is the only valid one.

I understand that property is an invention of social society (you don't need the idea of property if you're alone on an island) that was my point. That it is a social invention and that we should treat it as such rather than a mystical inalienable right.

 

[Curried Goats]

I'm looking for steak and you're serving chitterlings. Then come up with some conspiracy as to why I'm not eating.

You're just plain dodging questions you don't have capacity to think out rationally.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

At the very least, have their hands cut off. (with no pain meds)

Giving a New Meaning to, "Look, Ma, No Hands!"

 

[YoursTruly]

Giving a New Meaning to, "Look, Ma, No Hands!"

You ain't kidding. Someone with no hands are people you know didn't learn the first time.

 

[YoursTruly]

You're just plain dodging questions you don't have capacity to think out rationally.

Yes, I avoid stupidity at all costs. But I'm not afraid to call you out on yours.

You just upset that I didn't bite your hook.

 

[Curried Goats]

Yes, I avoid stupidity at all costs. But I'm not afraid to call you out on yours.

You just upset that I didn't bite your hook.

I'm not upset that you can't explain how you aquire property without force. As I said I never expected much from you. It's dblack who's inability amuses me more.

 

[my2¢]

I voted Libertarian in 1980 when I lost all hope in both of the 2 major parties. I've had it with this whole voting thing and am contemplating turning the task over to the wife. For years now I've held notion that one has to be either pathetically poor or ridiculously rich for politics to play any role in life.

 

[YoursTruly]

I'm not upset that you can't explain how you aquire property without force. As I said I never expected much from you. It's dblack who's inability amuses me more.

You're upset because I didn't get caught up in your gotcha question.

 

[Oddball]

I didn't invoke natural rights either. I haven't even been a libertarian, or anywhere within the Enlightenment tradition, in almost a decade. The concept of property is instinctual. Humans are social creatures so communities, even absent a state, will develop social rules around property. Optimally when societies create governments these rules will be codified into law. This is a bottom up approach to government. The top down approach is what we see from modern states whereby the aristocratic class determines the laws and then uses whatever propaganda they have available to convince the masses that their system is the only valid one.

You might as well be arguing with a Stirnerite....He's a principle-free klepto.

 

[Curried Goats]

You're upset because I didn't get caught up in your gotcha question.

It's not at all a gotcha question, it's a philosophical one. Don't worry. I understand it's beyond your capabilities...