-
99% of the population would rather live in a civilized society with a state than a primitive society without one. I know I sure would, and I can't understand how someone wouldn't. Either way, there is not going to be a collapse of civilization.
-
But this presupposes certain moral conclusions: that, for instance, finders are keepers and that both parties must agree to an exchange before property may be legitimately transferred. What if the prevailing convention is 'might is right'? That one's property is whatever he can take and successfully defend from others? Yes, if you subscribe
-
1. Supernatural: Atheist 2. Philosophy of Mind: Materialist 3. Causality: Determinism 4. Meta-Ethics: Subjectivist 5. Political: "Statist" 6. Epistemology: Coherentist
-
I don't care about your beliefs. The rationale for your core belief system is what we are looking at. You surely believe all sorts of nonsense. The question here, which you have tried to answer many times, is why you believe it. I guess I will post this again, as you only adressed one scentence in it. "For starters, look at Somalia. In fact
-
Nice video but the lecturer needs to get out more.
-
Not true. Markets coalesce and formulate on their own. Whether or not their actors are aware of property as a concept or not. Even those who disagree with "private property". Also the handling and dealing of property can and will be handled differently based on cultural norms. While there are some fundamental attributes to property which are
-
How does such a belief make markets involuntary? Is someone forcing you to participate in propertarianism against your wil??? My neighbor forces me to clean my house against my will because he does not come do it for me. I should instead be allowed to force him to clean my house for me. (This essentially the equivilent of such logic) Honestly do you
-
That's fine and I know that. Although you have yet to prove any of your positions. It's all just been offered in the context of beliefs and opinions. I have explained my beliefs on this more than once. Granted it may not have been to you, as I have been responding to more than one person. To copy from one of my other posts.... "For starters
-
The only function the state has in relation to the market is to interfere/undermine/confuse. A market of any size consists of producers and consumers voluntarily exchanging with each other to improve their situations in their subjective opinions, what part of this requires a government? The key question is whether or not property rights would be enforced
-
Translated as: It's not property rights if the state's stealing it from you. So you like to assign these property rights at whim, not based on any principle. Contrary to how you formulate the belief property rights occur for specific reasons. They are very specific in occurance and behave in specific ways. There is no arbitrary nature in it