Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Into a dictionary? Like a dictionary piggy bank?
What is property and who can own it?
vermont proposes latin state motto
- Thread starter UncleBuck
- Start date
Into a dictionary? Like a dictionary piggy bank?
What is property and who can own it?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
No, like a book that has definitions for words, including property.
I don't have or want the authority to tell people what they may own.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Do people have the authority to control what they own?
Should people control their own property and not the property of others?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
If force is required to defend it, they don't own it.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
How so?
Do you own the contents of your wallet? If I come along, all pompous in my fedora and bitch slap you with my cheetoh encrusted hand into a crying fit and take your wallet have I robbed you? Do you have a right to defend yourself and what you own?
I say you do.
I say property rights are very important to define boundaries between people and ensure peace. You seem reluctant to even discuss what property is. Why?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Yeah. We can all clearly see that. For the millionth time, we get it, you are obsessed with property. In fact, I don't think you can define liberty with out mention of it. Actually, I'm convinced that you don't know the difference between liberty and property.
Good ideas don't require force, isn't that one of your little euphemisms? Private property requires force. When you put up a fence around an area and call it yours, by threat of force, you're doing what governments do. At the very least, you're relying on government to carry out your threat of force.
Furthermore, by doing so, you're also taking part in a competitive system since land is finite and we all depend on it. This is coercive. To call yourself an Anarchist while complicit in this coercion is hypocritical enough but unlike my disability benefits, you're in denial about it. Notwithstanding, you compare my pittance of a veteran's disability check with rape, as if I had other options.
You are the one who defends racial discrimination. You are the one extolling liberty only insofar as you can exploit the less fortunate who have no property. You are the one following me from thread to thread hounding me for something nobody else on this forum wishes to discuss. You're boring me and when I express it, you declare victory as if I can't answer your false dichotomies and loaded questions when in fact I simply don't take a fedora wearing neckbeard seriously enough to write more than a flippant line.
The reason I treat you like a teenager who just got finished reading Ayn Rand, is because YOU ARE ONE.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
@ Abandon Conflict ....there's an article published at a website called Strike the Root recently ..I've included the beginning here, you might like to read it or not. Peace.
Also, I'm not a teenager...kid.
How We Come to Own Ourselves
TAGS Philosophy and MethodologyPraxeologyPrivate Property
The primary social evil of our time is lack of respect for self-ownership rights. It is what underlies both private crime and institutionalized crime perpetrated by the state. State laws, regulations, and actions are objectionable just because the state is claiming the right to control how someone's body is to be used.
When the state drafts a man or threatens him with imprisonment if he violates its narcotics laws, for example, it is assuming partial control of his body, contrary to his self-ownership rights.
Moreover, laws such as tax laws or fines for failure to comply with arbitrary state decrees (e.g., economic regulations, anti-discrimination rules) also violate self-ownership rights by assuming ownership of property owned by individuals.
After all, although self-ownership is more fundamental than rights in external resources — one must own oneself in order to own other things — self-ownership is rendered meaningless if the right to own private property is not also respected. This is why Murray Rothbard insisted that all "human rights" are property rights — ownership rights in scarce resources, whether self-ownership rights in one's body or property rights in external objects.
Now as the example above shows, all political theories advocate some form of property rights, since they specify certain owners of various types of resources. State policies that tax, conscript, or imprison or fine individuals for failure to comply with various regulations in effect assign partial ownership in the subjects' bodies or property to the state. The state claims a partial ownership right in these resources.
All political systems assign owners to resources according to some assignment rule. What sets libertarianism apart is its own unique property-assignment rule: the rule that specifies that individuals, not the state, are owners of their own bodies and property.
First Use and Homesteading of Unowned Resources
It is, therefore, crucial that libertarian theory have a sound basis for property rights and for its unique property assignment rules.
Relying on some version of the Lockean notion of homesteading — an individual appropriating something unowned from the state of nature, thereby becoming the owner — libertarianism rightly focuses on the concept of first use of a previously unowned scarce resource as the key test for determining ownership of it.[1]
One's initial impression might be that first use is the bedrock principle of libertarian property assignment, that is, that it decides questions of ownership of all scarce resources, both human bodies and external things. The owner of a plot of land is its first user (or his descendent in title), just as the first user of a body is its owner. This would mean that self-ownership rests on the first use principle.
Also, I'm not a teenager...kid.
How We Come to Own Ourselves
TAGS Philosophy and MethodologyPraxeologyPrivate Property
The primary social evil of our time is lack of respect for self-ownership rights. It is what underlies both private crime and institutionalized crime perpetrated by the state. State laws, regulations, and actions are objectionable just because the state is claiming the right to control how someone's body is to be used.
When the state drafts a man or threatens him with imprisonment if he violates its narcotics laws, for example, it is assuming partial control of his body, contrary to his self-ownership rights.
Moreover, laws such as tax laws or fines for failure to comply with arbitrary state decrees (e.g., economic regulations, anti-discrimination rules) also violate self-ownership rights by assuming ownership of property owned by individuals.
After all, although self-ownership is more fundamental than rights in external resources — one must own oneself in order to own other things — self-ownership is rendered meaningless if the right to own private property is not also respected. This is why Murray Rothbard insisted that all "human rights" are property rights — ownership rights in scarce resources, whether self-ownership rights in one's body or property rights in external objects.
Now as the example above shows, all political theories advocate some form of property rights, since they specify certain owners of various types of resources. State policies that tax, conscript, or imprison or fine individuals for failure to comply with various regulations in effect assign partial ownership in the subjects' bodies or property to the state. The state claims a partial ownership right in these resources.
All political systems assign owners to resources according to some assignment rule. What sets libertarianism apart is its own unique property-assignment rule: the rule that specifies that individuals, not the state, are owners of their own bodies and property.
First Use and Homesteading of Unowned Resources
It is, therefore, crucial that libertarian theory have a sound basis for property rights and for its unique property assignment rules.
Relying on some version of the Lockean notion of homesteading — an individual appropriating something unowned from the state of nature, thereby becoming the owner — libertarianism rightly focuses on the concept of first use of a previously unowned scarce resource as the key test for determining ownership of it.[1]
One's initial impression might be that first use is the bedrock principle of libertarian property assignment, that is, that it decides questions of ownership of all scarce resources, both human bodies and external things. The owner of a plot of land is its first user (or his descendent in title), just as the first user of a body is its owner. This would mean that self-ownership rests on the first use principle.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
You don't own yourself. You are yourself. Your rights are derived from the very fact that you are not and cannot be property.
Self ownership is the core tenet of your philosophy and it is no wonder that you think there is freedom in the idea of working for a wage. This wage slavery is simply rental.
You decry taxes as theft whilst extolling the virtue of robbing from laborers the product of their drudgery and screaming for the right of property owners to do so. You call it voluntary, but by this measure, taxation is also voluntary.
You're clearly a teenager who has never had a job.
Self ownership is the core tenet of your philosophy and it is no wonder that you think there is freedom in the idea of working for a wage. This wage slavery is simply rental.
You decry taxes as theft whilst extolling the virtue of robbing from laborers the product of their drudgery and screaming for the right of property owners to do so. You call it voluntary, but by this measure, taxation is also voluntary.
You're clearly a teenager who has never had a job.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I think we agree that none of us should own others.
I think you own yourself and I own myself.
Robbery exists when one party is under duress. When an agreement is mutually made and there is no fraud involved, how does the "robbery" you speak of occur?
Also you've never answered what property is and who can own it. Are you afraid to give a real answer?
I have socks older than you...kid.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
No, our views are diametrically opposed because you think people are property.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
When you advocate forcing people to interact with somebody they prefer not to....are you advocating the initiation of aggression?
Also regardless of how you define "self ownership" in property terms or otherwise....wouldn't you agree that people have the right to control themselves but not others?
Wouldn't you agree that people should have the right to control THEIR property, but not the property of others?
How come you run from questions?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
How come you ask me loaded questions which assume parameters that do not exist, young man?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
It sounds like you are stopping short of saying that property cannot be owned by an individual but you are afraid to commit to that statement.
So what is property and who can own it?
When you answer that we can have a better discussion.
Also, please give me back my spear and stop using it to make those two people associate in a non-consensual manner.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
You mean when I answer your loaded questions which assume parameters that do not exist, this debate can progress to your next talking points from Ludwig Von Misses-the-point.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
So the spear point belongs to the mastodon hunter or not?
I appreciate the direction our conversation headed in this morning. Although, I still think you run from questions.
What is property and who can own it?
I have to go to work now, I agreed to voluntarily help some less fortunate people out. Gotta honor my commitment. Have fun snacking on cheese today. Please try to help somebody today and don't use the spear to force people to interact if they prefer not to....it's too much like rape. Peace.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
You never answered my question. I answered yours.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Praxeology lol.
Quit pretending like you're an adult.
Quit pretending like you're an adult.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i don't like to say it often, but that was PWNAGE. complete and utter.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
if the government says you can not shoot small children with your gun, do you really own that gun, or are you a slave who is being raped?
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
It means you own the gun but are not badass enough to do what you want with it. Believe it or not, that`s fair to both sides.
Similar threads
