Bitcoin Forum

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5lhkNUtkBA&

Enjoy, those who are uninitiated.

Same mistake again and again.

If you have property rights, you have a state.  So his whole pitch falls into self-contradiction at 10 seconds in.

I enforce my property rights with my owned hired men, weapons and structures. Am I a state?

Are various independent contractors offering security states? Is ADT a state? Is a man with a single gun a state?

They are not property rights in that you control any item you want off anyone with less armaments than you.

While a different scale, yes it is. You govern it, have the same idea about rules for visitors, or anyone who wants to stay on your land. Lichtenstein is a state, and it's barely bigger than a suburb.

So do the current police protect us from people with more arms sufficiently? Do they have an obligation to protect you?

I have thought about having a garage sale this spring. I may allow a 10% discount for paying with Bitcoin and if people pay cash I may offer them Bitcents on printed slips if they wish.

Me? Yes.  Its part of their contract of employment.  You? I assume your local police have a similar obligation.  Syrian peasants?  Not so much.

Not sure why you are going off topic here.  The logic that private property is a legal concept and this requires a state for it to exist has nothing to do with whether or not the state is decent.

You don't have a right to your bitcoins if you don't have a court in which you can enforce that right if you lose control of them.  You merely control the keys for the present.  If I happen to hack your account and take them and you you are not prepared to sue me to get them back, then the keys are no longer yours in any sense.

Its not a right. 

I have a right to my car.  If you take the keys, I can sue you and get them back. 

You have the same right to your bitcoin.

Take away the option to sue, and its longer a right.  Merely possession.  In fact, if someone else has a right to them and sues you, you lose them.

On that basis, a thief who has buried his loot and is being kept is jail until he yields the location has a "right" to the loot.  You don't think that do you?

What you are really doing is abusing the word "right" and trying to give it a new meaning for what we currently call "possession."  

Does that seem like a good use of your time?  Assuming you succeed, the video OP posted will have to be remade with the new word for "right" and then we start again.

Exactly - if there is no state, then the use of the word "right" is just a semantic sweetener.  

Example: It may be that you and I set up a business together, 50:50, and you were in charge of money.  We fell out and you are keeping all the money.  If I can't sue you, that is the end of the story and you now have my money and there is nothing to be done about it.  Its yours because you possess it.

But if I have a right to the money, I can send a lawyer after you and at some point you will have to decide between jail time and returning my share of the Bitcoin.

I'm sure you agree that is an important difference.  Lets leave semantics out of it - the difference between the 2 situations is huge.

But if you look at the OP's video, he talks about individuals having a right to defend their property.  

Without a state that creates a legal framework that defines what property is and how you can own it, those individuals don't have a "right to defend their property" they have a power to take control of stuff and kill anyone who opposes them.

You repeated what I said.  If you control my bitcoins and I don't have a right to sue, then I have lost the bitcoins. 

So, take away my right to sue, and I don't have any right to my bitcoins. 

You keep reinforcing my point.  Without the state's threat of force, I don't have a right to my Bitcoins that you stole. You have them and I just have to take my losses.

So when the OP's video talks about people having property rights without a state, its nonsense.

More weirdo confusion by you two  :P
Would it be fair to say that a right is what Holiday described, being intrinsic and independent of any specific entities (like government or court rooms) which is also agreed on by the rest of the neighboring community? (Though, even more specifically, based on the golden rule or NAP). If that's the case, even if you steal someone's Bitcoin, you still don't have the right to them, because you both, violated the NAP by initiating the taking of someone else's property, AND violated the accepted community standards, which will likely bring the wrath of the community in you, be it through lawsuits, avoiding doing any business with you, or just vigilante justice.

As for safely storing Bitcoin in your head, sorry to be so gruesome, but:

Here's a glass of drain cleaner. You have 5 minutes until the pain of dissolving yourself from the inside drives you permanently insane. I have in my hand a glass of vinegar and carbon. I'll trade you for your key.

Good point  :)

Obligatory: http://xkcd.com/538/

Was what I was thinking about.

Well you certainly don't have property rights with a state, since every state takes property from its citizens in order to fund itself.

Do try to stay up.  The very idea of private property means there is a state.  As it happens, we don't need to theorise about this.  Turn your computer off and go outside.  If you can see a building that someone owns, you live in a state.

Do feel free to find the owner and tell them they don't own really it.  You may learn something from the reaction.

Most property "owners" know that the property will be seized unless they pay the taxes that are assessed on it. And that if the state wants to put a freeway on their property, their "ownership" won't enable them to keep the property.

I like the way you put "owners" in quotes.  Their rights are legal creations of the state and not given to them unconditionally.  Without the state, the issue would not arise as the best you could hope for is possession until someone with more armaments than you comes along and takes it off you.

I think you are saying the same thing I am.  The OP's video is a crock.  Without the state, there is no private property.

No, I didn't mention "without the state". I said that with the state, there is no private property.

Perhaps a trip to wikipedia would clear up your confusion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property

In case you find it hard work to read it all here is the money quote:

Which neatly leads back to my point about OP's video being nonsense.  No state means no private property so the whole thing falls apart from about 10 seconds in. 

Don't argue with Hawker about rights. From the many discussions on other forums, it's very evident that he does not believe in basic inalienable rights. He believe nobody really has any rights at all, and that anything that we may call "rights" is only something that was written down on paper after being agreed upon buy a certain number of elected individuals or crowned officials.
If you were to ask him, he would likely say that before government, and laws, nobody had any right at all. Likewise, anybody who is not afforded rights by law specifically, such a slaves or women a few centuries ago top, did not have any rights whatsoever, and the only reason they eventually were given rights was not because people decided that they really do have rights, and that the laws are infringing on those rights, but because the majority of people simply decided to give them rights just because.
In short, Hawker believes that right are only things that are specifically given by law, and never anything that somebody is born with or processes out of their own will and ability to reason. This has been discussed, to death, ad nauseum, on many other threads. So, arguing with him is pointless and you'll never win, since him arguing that rights come from laws because laws give is rights is pretty much like arguing with a religious fundamentalist who says the Bible proves god because the Bible says it's true.

"Private" is only there to separate it from "public," so you are correct, without a state creating the concept of "public" property and allowing you to own "private" property, private property wouldn't exist. Perhaps a much less confusing term to use would be "personal property"

Puke. Here we go again. It's the spin zone. It's semantics and 'is/ought' argumentation again. If you follow it to the nth degree you'll eventually realize that it boils down to the NAP. Everything else is some variant of that or worse.

I like the idea of me being a sovereign nation state (SNS). I am a nation of one (has a nice ring to it). If someone joins my society (of his own free will), we become a SNS of two or more. As long as we mutully agree beforehand on how we want to conduct ourselves, as to what we'll do or not do, I could care less if we're an SNS of 2 or 2 billion. I think it's entirely possible to do this with contract arrangements and without coercion, taxes, and expropriation (eminent domain).

You keep trotting that out.  What happens when your little nation state meets Attila the Hun or so more modern psychopath with millions of fanatical followers?

You bow down and serve him or you die.

Meanwhile you have to live without private property as you have no courts.  Its pointless talking about contracts unless you have enforcement.

Just like places like Afghanistan, or hell, even Switzerland (where everyone is armed and everyone is an army) have bowed down and submitted to invaders for centuries, right?
There is NO amount of military power or nukes that can wipe out a determined insurgency using guerilla tactics, driven only by ideas. You are scared, and that's understandable, but fear does not create rights or freedom. Fighting to assert your own right to choose how to live your life is the only thing that does that.

Exactly like Afghanistan.  The poor sods will never have peace as they don't have a state and every neighbour finances their tribal wars. 

Switzerland is a state.  It has private property and one of the best health systems in the world.

Don't change the subject. PLEASE tell me that Afghanistan was conquered and made to submit by the likes of the Mongolian Empire, Soviet Union, or America. I'd love to see that. And the topic wasn't about healthcare, but the people's collective will and ability to defend themselves to the point that going to war with them is not worth it (example was specifically about Switzerland v.s. Nazi Germany, as well as earlier invaders.)

Hawker, if it is in my possession, it is my right. If I can commit the act, it is my right to do so. If I can sustain the possession, the ability or whatever it may be, it is my right. If I can do all of the former without a state, they are still my rights.

I do not need a state to maintain my rights as long as I have the might to do so myself and through my own virtue. Remember, might is what entails rights. It is my strength and my abilities that entail my rights. There is nothing more to this. A state guarantee is mere happenstance and could be argued as a ability of my own virtue: the rights are given to me out of my value to the institution.

To say otherwise is purely religious.

For instance, if a state won't care for you, if you can't feed yourself, clothe yourself or shelter yourself, none of these things are your rights. The UN can declare you are entitled to such things but that means nothing, for you have nothing but whatever strength and virtue you currently possess.

As the primitive men before you, you will only be able to attain these things through your own might.

But let the individual man lay claim to ever so many rights because Man or the concept man ‘entitles’ him to them, because his being man does it: what do I care for his right and his claim? If he has his right only from Man and does not have it from me, then for me he has no right. His life, for example, counts to me only for what it is worth to me. I respect neither a so-called right of property (or his claim to tangible goods) nor yet his right to the ‘sanctuary of his inner nature’ (or his right to have the spiritual goods and divinities, his gods, remain un-aggrieved). His goods, the sensuous as well as the spiritual, are mine, and I dispose of them as proprietor, in the measure of my — might.

- Max Stirner

So you only have rights as long as you have more fire-power than the next guy?  And your neighbour only has rights as long as he has more fire-power than you?

What a pleasant picture you paint.  Sadly its got issues with the English language.  You have confused "possession" and "ownership."  Saying that you possess everything you can take by force is true.  That doesn't mean you own it.  It only means you have possession until someone takes it off you or kills you.

In effect, your Max Stirner makes the case for a state.  He speaks as one who robs old ladies of their handbags.  Only fear of punishment keeps that kind in check.  By the way when he says "His goods, the sensuous as well as the spiritual, are mine," I assume he is justifying rape ?

The state does not paint an alternate reality. It only fools its subjects into thinking so. The state fails at upholding ownership everyday.

Ownership and possession is the same according to you because the state will be just as poor as me defending my own property, at least in the US.

The courts are overpriced and bureaucratic. The police here have no obligation to serve according to the supreme court.

My firearms and my defenses can only be more powerful and of higher quality than what the state has to offer.

Now you are being silly.  You can't find facts or theory to back up your argument so its a big "waaah the sky is falling in" cry.

Get a grip on yourself.  Private property is perfectly well protected in all modern states.  Crime falls every year.  Life expectancy rises every year.  Things are good - you should be looking for ways to make them better instead of filling your head with nonsense.

How often do you think stolen property is recovered? Do you see the police constantly guarding your property?

Who do you we usually rely on for such things? Private security. Private investigation. Our own security cameras and security measures.

The state does very little for us when it comes to these things. Private insurance is the only thing we can sufficiently use to cover loss and the contracts are enforced on the basis that the parties involved will be out of business and worse off otherwise.

The state plays a very small role in all of this and when we need them most, they pool up cases of abuse and outright war against innocent people.

The good things we have such as an increased lifespan and a lower crime rate are mostly due to individuals voluntarily improving things through their own businesses and desires aka capitalism.

Also: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut/

The fact is the technology exists today for the individual to sufficiently protect their own property and themselves without a monopoly on force. We don't need governments to protect us.

The incentive for people to overpower many security-enabled citizens is absurdly low. Even today, most households are far from fortresses, police hardly monitor them constantly and they are still safe. They can only be better off with an alternative system that competes to meet their desires.

For instance, insurance coverage alone can easily provide enough incentive to keep criminals off the streets. Sure, you have freeriders that won't buy insurance but their property won't be covered from loss and damage.

Again, the state is irrelevant in this day and age.

The point is that you do have property and that means you have a state.  You video talks about having private property without a state.  As I said, that is nonsense as the definition of what is private property comes from the state.

If you have problems with the efficiency of your local police, you have my sympathy.  The ones here are great - I had a non-molestation order on someone for a few years and the police were very fast to arrest her when she made her periodic appearances.  I suspect that if you had a need, you might find the help is there for you as well.  But that whole thing is off topic to your video.

In Texas, if somebody tries to trespass on my property or steal from me, I can shoot them. Castle Doctrine.

Is this not private property without a state?

If I try to steal a farmer's cattle, I will be likely shot before I can get away. Again, is this not private property without using a state?

If an armed woman is about to be raped but she shoots the rapist, was it only her that protected her right to herself?

The state isn't here to personally protect our persons. We can only take action towards that. The only thing enforcing our right to ourselves is our own means. Easily, people can come in hurt us through their own freewill. The state guarantees nothing against that except after the damage has been done.

It seems only the individual and their own private means can sustain the right to themselves and guarantee it.

/doh

Of course its not private property without a state.  Think about what you have written.  "Trespass" "property" "doctrine" - all legal concepts created by the state.  Take away the state and there is no private property to "trespass" on and no courts to have "doctrines" in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property

Please read a little and educate yourself. 

Alright, I am going to hang a "No Trespassing" sign right here, saying the governmnet recognizes this as my property.

Moments later I am shot, my wife gets raped and all of my stuff is stolen.

What now?

The state tries to find the perpetrators and say it's illegal but I am fucking dead.

Hawker, the laws are worthless when it comes to sustaining my "rights". My rights are not even guaranteed nor do they truly exist with a state.

Law books are just bounded pieces of paper in the end.

Private property and "laws" only exist when they are fully enforceable. Otherwise, you just have pure religious dogma.

A law or right that cannot be enforced is nothing to me or anybody who wishes to disobey them.

Phfff, sorry, this one was easy, so couldn't resist.
You only have rights to your personal property as long as you, and the group that shares your common definition of rights and within which you live, collectively have more firepower that the next guy. There don't even need to be laws or rules written down beyond a verbal agreement of I don't screw with you, and watch your back, and you do the same for me.

Boss, call it personal property, not private property, otherwise it's just stupid semantics with him.

The efficiency or not of your local police force is nothing to do with the video.  The video talks about private property where you have no state.  My point is that cannot be - the whole idea of private property is a state concept - if you have no state then you have only items that you possess until they are taken off you by someone with more fire-power.

^^^ This. As I keep pointing out, he has no concept of rights or property whatsoever. So why waste time with him?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property

That seems a fair concept of rights of propertyto me.

Do you have better?

I suggested personal property, but no, I don't. This REALLY reminds me of the people who say that all morality comes from the Bible, and thus those without faith (atheists) have no morals and no reason to not go around murdering everyone. That's probably why I find Hawker so damn frustrating (especially since this government theism is the crap that was the basis of those who founded my home country of USSR, e.g. You common folk have rights. It's because we give you your rights)
In fact, that's a good canned reply to stick to. For every "rights and property comes from laws" I'll just reply "all morality and concept of good and bad comes from the bible."

That's how it is now with the state. If somebody with more firepower and force than the current government comes along, then I am just as screwed.

There is nothing sacred or special about the government. They are just regular people like you and I who happen to be the highest power or the biggest gun, if you will. They are not wise, incorruptible nor virtuous. They are not God.

The point is there will be always a bigger gun. You might as well arm everybody and make local communities the biggest guns around.

I couldn't of said it any better.

To me the laws are equivalent to the Bible.

Like the Bible, the law may say homosexuality and sodomy is unlawful and against human nature but it doesn't make it so.

You are confusing yourself with implementation details.  Lets back up and take things in order.

Your property rights come from the state: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property

If you feel the police are not the most effective way to protect property rights and you have a better idea, that's great.  But you have to start with property rights that need to be protected.  That means you start with a state.  

Then you get onto implementation details.  This is the part where you can complain that the police are useless and that every family should have their own Apache attack helicopter.  But they are only allowed use them to protect their own property and that is defined by the state.  

You see the logic now?

The difference is simple.

There are many examples of morality and only some of them are related to the bible.  

There are zero examples of private property outside of a state.  Its never happened.  Boss's whole thesis requires a religious act of faith that we get rid of the state and mysteriously things will start to work.  I'm not that keen on acts of faith.

We have various governmenst with missiles and guns. We would prefer them to only use them to protect themselves. They don't. 99% of the world's military power is with the United States. The US is held accountable to nobody. Actions can be taken against those below it with little recourse.

What do I advocate? Decentralizing this power through its benefactors (aka the taxpayers) and make people accountable to the states or forces of their choosing.

The system you have now is failing, Hawker. It's time to choose something sustainable. It's time to do something more local.

If we can only do things this way, we're doomed.

Really? Are you absolutely sure about that?

It's useless, Rassah. Apparently shooting a potential rapist is not establishing a right to yourself. It's just violence.

When the state does it, it's an established right.

The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual, crime.

-Max Stirner

If a system where we get richer every year, where we live longer, where we are safer from crime every year and about 75% of the population has a shot at a very comfortable life is "failing" please offer a better one.

You might be shocked that a lot of people agree with you and make it happen.

Posting a video that doesn't make sense will not help you though...my problem is that the video was illogical crap.  I've never said life can't be made better.

*shakes hand*

No I am not.  

/hug

I hope this doesn't mean that you are going to delete your account and start again :P

To reiterate my last statement, Really? Are you absolutely sure about that?

Are you sure we are getting richer because we are producing more, and outcompeting everyone else? Are you sure our riches aren't being entirely nullified by our increasing debt that everyone will have to either pay back or let the country go bankrupt? Are you sure people's net worth is just = bank & stock savings, and not = bank & stock savings - personal debt - national debt?

Are you sure our current system is even sustainable? I'm not, though I am very sure that Greek and Icelandic citizens thought theirs was.

I've had a good day farming gold so the "getting richer" part was personal.  Maybe it should be left out.

My impression is that most people with jobs are happy as their mortgages are low due to low interest rates and inflation is low.

As you and I discussed in another thread, there is a sustainability problem that a large percentage of our populations are doomed to unemployment.  I meet one guy every day and as he gets closer and closer to having to sell his home, I can see its killing him.  Countries in the developing world sustain unemployment rates of 40% or so for decades and we have a long way to go before things get that bad.  

I don't believe national debt is a problem.  Its generally owed to pensioners and it amounts to a tax on savings since most big countries now borrow for less than the inflation rate.  If the whole thing goes wrong, well, how bad is it that the have a few million angry grannies? Iceland is doing fine and it defaulted in 2008.  Same for Argentina.

So on balance, yes, I'm sure its sustainable.  There is nothing out there that worries me in economic terms.