Political Theory

Re: Convincing statists of absolute property rights

Autolykos — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 13:42:33 GMT

You'd have to explain it to them more carefully than I did, of course. I wasn't more careful in my own explanation because you already know about self-ownership and so forth. :P

Re: Convincing statists of absolute property rights

Wheylous — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 13:32:37 GMT

See, but you're already seeing this from a point of view of self-ownership, etc, which are all part of the anti-statist vocab. Thinking of property as an extension of self-ownership (or vice versa) already requires the "freed" mindset, because most people just don't think about these things and it is too abstract. But it is a good idea you propose.

Re: Convincing statists of absolute property rights

Autolykos — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 13:13:34 GMT

Presumably by "accumulation", you mean peaceful and voluntary accumulation (i.e. no aggression or fraud* used). In that case, to say that a person has no right to unlimited accumulation of property is to say that his self-ownership is not absolute. In other words, other people have a higher claim on some part of himself, at least when it comes to his (again, peaceful and voluntary) actions. Since I don't think that's the case, I'd consider it aggression to interfere with another person's accumulation of property. And since I consider aggression to be morally wrong, that means I consider interfering with another person's accumulation of property to be morally wrong.

* Note: some people may consider fraud to be a kind of aggression, but others don't. I use both terms to hopefully mitigate confusion.

Re: Convincing statists of absolute property rights

Chyd3nius — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 13:02:02 GMT

Q: Do you believe there exists the right to property for people in general?

A: Yes

Q: Unlimited accumulation of property?

A: No

Q: Ah, but if you believe in the constrained concept of property, Y follows X, and Z follows Y, and we know X, so Z (absolute property)

A: Thank you, you have enlightened me. Long live libertarians. : |

Something along these lines.

They will answer that if that's the case, then they won't belive in property rights at all because stateless society just won't work. Or they will try to twist your logic. People can't be converted to the an-cap in 5 minutes.

Re: Convincing statists of absolute property rights

Wheylous — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 03:10:01 GMT

one can't be brought over to such a radical and non-conventional premise without some really good arguments and principled thinking

This particular question is part of a series of articles I intend to write to dislodge the statist mindset. And what you're doing here is saying "hey, it's difficult" and not providing a solution. Of course, you need not, and I appreciate you pointing it out, but beyond that, there isn't much to take from the comment.

I don't understand how what you said here has anything to do with what you quoted

I was saying that aggression is simply very convenient. Hey, it's great if others get their money while I benefit!

@Hashem: you have already suggested that to me :P I still have not had time to read it. Thanks, though.

Re: Convincing statists of absolute property rights

hashem — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 02:47:12 GMT

Yes I support a belief in property rights. You haven't read literature on it? Dude this article is so short and clear!

Re: Convincing statists of absolute property rights

Neodoxy — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 02:23:35 GMT

Wheylous:

Are we voluntaryists thus a special class of people who were born free? A ring of Chosen, perhaps...?

Most are much more "special" in this case than most statists, one can't be brought over to such a radical and non-conventional premise without some really good arguments and principled thinking. With this being said there are libertarians who are libertarians because of similarly flawed logic to statists.

Wheylous:

Oh, it's quite convenient (as I like to frame my understanding of statist psychology). Yet there must be a way...

I don't know whether this argument exists, I was just curious whether anyone had encountered something that might be useful.

I don't understand how what you said here has anything to do with what you quoted

Re: Convincing statists of absolute property rights

Wheylous — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 02:12:04 GMT

Are we voluntaryists thus a special class of people who were born free? A ring of Chosen, perhaps...?

the argument from involuntary action and force works quite well.

Oh, it's quite convenient (as I like to frame my understanding of statist psychology). Yet there must be a way...

I don't know whether this argument exists, I was just curious whether anyone had encountered something that might be useful.

Re: Convincing statists of absolute property rights

Neodoxy — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 01:56:19 GMT

It's a fools' errand, people for the most part believe what they want to believe not what logically implies, they will change their premises and twist logic in such a way that their result comes about.

With this being said I think the argument from involuntary action and force works quite well.

Convincing statists of absolute property rights

Wheylous — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 01:25:39 GMT

While the question of where we get property rights seems a bit elusive (to me atm without having read literature on it), there might be a simpler way to bring people over to the cause if there is a way to show that absolute property rights (unlimited wealth accumulation) follow from conditional property rights (made it up, but I'd like it to mean "you can have some property but not too much property"). Then a lot of people can be convinced in the sanctity of property and the aggression of the state. I'd like the argument thus to be:

Q: Do you believe there exists the right to property for people in general?

A: Yes

Q: Unlimited accumulation of property?

A: No

Q: Ah, but if you believe in the constrained concept of property, Y follows X, and Z follows Y, and we know X, so Z (absolute property)

A: Thank you, you have enlightened me. Long live libertarians. : |

Something along these lines.