Are you trying to make a point? Or just randomly typing?Liberty Without Responsibility
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Are you trying to make a point? Or just randomly typing?Liberty Without Responsibility
Being Soft on Crime Is State-Sponsored TerrorismThat'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.
Thieves Get the Death Penalty; It's Even in the BibleThe legality of theft is to hold someone accountable for taking something that doesn't belong to them.
Taxation Without Representation.Being Soft on Crime Is State-Sponsored Terrorism
Ghostocracy Has Become America's FutureJust 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.
A Molested Generation Loses the Will to SurviveThe Sage of Main Street
I disagree with your disagree
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.
Thieves Get the Death Penalty; It's Even in the Bible
Being Soft on Crime Is State-Sponsored Terrorism
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.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.
Which is why i clarified. I realized I just assumed everyone here was a libertarian.I didn't invoke natural rights either. I haven't even been a libertarian, or anywhere within the Enlightenment tradition, in almost a decade.
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.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're just plain dodging questions you don't have capacity to think out rationally.I'm looking for steak and you're serving chitterlings. Then come up with some conspiracy as to why I'm not eating.
Giving a New Meaning to, "Look, Ma, No Hands!"At the very least, have their hands cut off. (with no pain meds)
Giving a New Meaning to, "Look, Ma, No Hands!"
You're just plain dodging questions you don't have capacity to think out rationally.
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.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.
You might as well be arguing with a Stirnerite....He's a principle-free klepto.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.
It's not at all a gotcha question, it's a philosophical one. Don't worry. I understand it's beyond your capabilities...You're upset because I didn't get caught up in your gotcha question.