Spideynw: Not in a civilized society that understands property rights.
Not in a civilized society that understands property rights.
I see. So once someone has physical possession of something, it's theirs, no matter whether or not someone comes and takes it from them and has no legal recourse for taking it back?
bloomj31: someone has physical possession of something, it's theirs, no matter whether or not someone comes and takes it from them and has no legal recourse for taking it back?
someone has physical possession of something, it's theirs, no matter whether or not someone comes and takes it from them and has no legal recourse for taking it back?
A free society doesn't eliminate crime. The victim is still the just owner, while the criminal is now the unjust owner. Anything beyond that I'll leave to greater minds to flesh out. In my personal opinion, the victim would not be committing a crime by "stealing" it back.
free paradigm blog ::: free paradigm on youtube
demosthenes: A free society doesn't eliminate crime. The victim is still the just owner, while the criminal is now the unjust owner. Anything beyond that I'll leave to greater minds to flesh out. In my personal opinion, the victim would not be committing a crime by "stealing" it back.
I never said a free society eliminates crime or that it should be able to. And I don't think it would be a crime to take it back. The problem is what happens when the victim hasn't the power to take it back?
bloomj31: Spideynw: Not in a civilized society that understands property rights. I see. So once someone has physical possession of something, it's theirs, no matter whether or not someone comes and takes it from them and has no legal recourse for taking it back?
Are you asking how justice would work in a civilized free society? Do you think without a government, society would devolve into chaos?
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
bloomj31: demosthenes: A free society doesn't eliminate crime. The victim is still the just owner, while the criminal is now the unjust owner. Anything beyond that I'll leave to greater minds to flesh out. In my personal opinion, the victim would not be committing a crime by "stealing" it back. I never said a free society eliminates crime or that it should be able to. And I don't think it would be a crime to take it back. The problem is what happens when the victim hasn't the power to take it back?
This is just simple fear-mongoring, that in a free society, disputes cannot be resolved favorably for both parties involved in the dispute.
Spideynw: This is just simple fear-mongoring, that in a free society, disputes cannot be resolved favorably for both parties involved in the dispute.
That's not even what I'm saying, although I do not accept the idea that law can work without a final arbiter. You asked me how can the government have a better claim over what is mine than I can? Whether or not the claim is better is irrelevant, they have the guns and the power. And so the validity of their claim is secondary to their ability to carry out said claim. That's how they have the claim. Through the threat of violence. Which I'll admit is morally wrong but doesn't change the fact that the threat is made anyways.
Therefore, if you can take the guns away from the government, they will no longer have power. Now, what's your plan for taking the guns away from the government?
Spideynw: Are you asking how justice would work in a civilized free society? Do you think without a government, society would devolve into chaos?
No, I don't think society would devolve into chaos, that's not what I said.
bloomj31:as long as the government is going to be handing out goodies, we may as well fight to have the goodies handed out to the things we are in favor of.
What happens when the goodies you want differ from the goodies your neighbor wants? Do you not see the fallacy in this form of reasoning? Your fighting for goodies you want and your liberal friends are fighting for the ones they want, they are winning and there are more of them.
bloomj31:Doesn't owning of property depend on the ability of the owner to protect said property?
Owning property and defending property are entirely two separate things. Defending property is a service just like a landscaper. But the existence of landscapers does not dictate the existence of property no more then a security agency.
In the absence of a security agency if someone steals something from you it's still theft. Property is fearly clearly defined, not sure why you got confused here.
In addition to you can purchase PDA's today. Drug transporting companies do it all the time through central america. Their problem is they go up against governments who have a near unlimited amount of resources. Drug lords cannot extort money from the mass populous where-as governments can. The government is essentially a rogue PDA thats taken control of a whole country. In that respect drug transport companies are no more or no less honest than domestic trucking transport agencies.
Filc,
I don't think you understand what I'm saying here, perhaps this is my fault.
1. There is no reason for a lot of people to turn down government handouts. Some people, like myself, have a reason. But others do not and so they will take them.
2. What the hell good is property if you can't protect it? Private property requires some kind of means of protecting and maintaining it. I'm not saying this couldn't be done without a government I'm just saying that it's kind of important either way
bloomj31:Now, what's your plan for taking the guns away from the government?
Get at least 5% of the population, in a geographic location, to stop paying them willingly. Get at least 5% of the population to stop paying fines and take jail time instead. When I say a geographic location, I am talking about a location as small as perhaps a city. It may need to be as large as a state however. Regardless, I think a location the size of a state would be sufficient. In other words, freestateproject.org.
Spideynw: Get at least 5% of the population, in a geographic location, to stop paying them willingly. Get at least 5% of the population to stop paying fines and take jail time instead. When I say a geographic location, I am talking about a location as small as perhaps a city. It may need to be as large as a state however. Regardless, I think a location the size of a state would be sufficient. In other words, freestateproject.org.
Do you think there are 15 million people in the US who will do this?
The Late Andrew Ryan:I would make pay cuts in response to a deficit which grow with the deficit as well as making seriouse ramifications for corruption.
There may be a more elegant way: Whatever debts a certain administration makes during its existence, are divided and become the personal debt of its members at the end of their period. Simple and self-correcting. :)
Mises Wiki | Economic Resources and Books (search engine)
All property can't be protected all the time. This is the essence of crime. It seems that you are noting that the existence of crime is important. I agree completely. That's what libertarianism is all about. We libertarians hold the correct view that crime would be most effectively minimized in a society of completely unrestrained markets. The existence of crime should make you feel more passionate about justice, not nihilistic about the validity of property rights.
BTW - This board is about to get bitchslapped for being so retarded.
bloomj31:Do you think there are 15 million people in the US who will do this?
Like I said, 5% of a city's population may be enough to secede. So all I need is a few thousand people. Are there even a few thousand? Well, the freestateproject is trying to find 20,000, which I think would be enough.
demosthenes: All property can't be protected all the time. This is the essence of crime. It seems that you are noting that the existence of crime is important. I agree completely. That's what libertarianism is all about. We libertarians hold the correct view that crime would be most effectively minimized in a society of completely unrestrained markets. The existence of crime should make you feel more passionate about justice, not nihilistic about the validity of property rights. BTW - This board is about to get bitchslapped for being so retarded.
I don't feel dispassionate about justice. Nor do I feel nihilistic about the validity of property rights.
Spideynw: Like I said, 5% of a city's population may be enough to secede. So all I need is a few thousand people. Are there even a few thousand? Well, the freestateproject is trying to find 20,000, which I think would be enough.
I'm interested to see what happens.
bloomj31:I don't feel dispassionate about justice. Nor do I feel nihilistic about the validity of property rights.
wow, you've come along way. good to hear
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
nirgrahamUK: wow, you've come along way. good to hear
I would argue that I never felt nihilistic about property rights, I just brought up the same concerns then that I have now and got labels thrown at me that didn't make sense.
you said that you had no moral sense. might makes right. you said that it was hollow to talk about whether slavery is good or bad. (that position is nihilistic vis ethics and justice)
nirgrahamUK: you said that you had no moral sense. might makes right. you said that it was hollow to talk about whether slavery is good or bad. (that position is nihilistic vis ethics and justice)
I never said might makes right. I said might makes possible. Which it does. I never said that I had no moral sense, but that I am often less motivated by morality than I am by personal gain. I don't even remember talking about slavery.
Like I said, 5% of a city's population may secede. So all I need is a few thousand people. Are there even a few thousand? Well, the freestateproject is trying to find 20,000, which I think would be enough.
It's naive to think this will even make a dent in State power across the globe. Although I love how these attempts at social engineering will spread the word of liberty and although I would definitely participate if I had the balls, I simply refuse to believe that it would be any more consequential than, say, Ron Paul's run at the presidency in 2008. While he definitely lit a fire up under the liberty movement's ass, he also made absolutely no dent in worldwide state power.
I'm waiting for new technology that's going to make State power an anachronism. Or I'll wait for the State to destroy itself. Whichever one comes first.