Wherever useful work is done to build/design/organise/etc., that's the "original appropriation".
If I come into your workshop (the workshop where you work, not necessarily the one you own) and steal the piece of marble you were going to make into a pillar, or a bunch of countertops, and take it back to my workshop, and make a statue instead, Does that make the finished piece of marble mine? Did you have an agreement with the previous appropriator to do the work? But you said that "Wherever useful work is done to build/design/organise/etc" is the original appropriation. How can something have a previous appropriator and then experience original appropriation? *yawn* So it's usually appropriation from the previous owner. You mean, theft? Or did they pay that previous owner for the property? |
|
|
|
The problem here is legitimacy. You say that someone who pays their taxes and believes in democracy is really someone who supports murder and robbery and that entitles you to kill them. You do not have a legitimate basis for claiming self-defence there.
If I pay a person to murder someone, am I any less guilty than if I pulled the trigger myself? No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. You can not delegate a right you do not have. Again, you are claiming that if someone disagrees with you, that means they want to kill you so that you can kill them yourself and call it "self-defence." That's sickening. No, I am saying that if someone pays a murderer, knowing that they pay a murderer, that makes them just as guilty as if they pulled the trigger themselves. I'm not going to kill someone just because they "disagree with me." |
|
|
|
The problem here is legitimacy. You say that someone who pays their taxes and believes in democracy is really someone who supports murder and robbery and that entitles you to kill them. You do not have a legitimate basis for claiming self-defence there.
If I pay a person to murder someone, am I any less guilty than if I pulled the trigger myself? No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. You can not delegate a right you do not have. |
|
|
|
Wherever useful work is done to build/design/organise/etc., that's the "original appropriation".
If I come into your workshop (the workshop where you work, not necessarily the one you own) and steal the piece of marble you were going to make into a pillar, or a bunch of countertops, and take it back to my workshop, and make a statue instead, Does that make the finished piece of marble mine? Did you have an agreement with the previous appropriator to do the work? But you said that "Wherever useful work is done to build/design/organise/etc" is the original appropriation. How can something have a previous appropriator and then experience original appropriation? |
|
|
|
The difference is that I have not threatened to kill you.
No, you prefer to do your dirty work by proxy. If you were a real man, you'd come and try to take my money yourself. Again the thug approach. You threaten to kill people who disagree with you and then you complain that they are not "a real man" if they don't descend to your level. You pay people to kill people who disagree with you. Is murder by proxy somehow better? Face it, Hawker. You support murder. You support robbery. You support people who make the Mafia look like the nice guys. And you're calling me a bad guy for resisting that. |
|
|
|
The difference is that I have not threatened to kill you.
No, you prefer to do your dirty work by proxy. If you were a real man, you'd come and try to take my money yourself. |
|
|
|
Sure, if I can only pay for the services I use. For instance, I'd rather not pay for the bombing and gunning down of civilians (or anyone, really) in the middle east. Can I opt out of that, Or do I have to pay for the whole package deal because I walked down a road?
Its a package deal. If you really didn't like the war, you would take the extra step and not use the road. Or, I could voluntarily pay for only those services I used, and not force people to pay for services they don't use, or even want. So everyone who pays taxes and disagrees with you is a legitimate target. That kind of thuggish "You put me in this position so you've only yourself to blame for being stabbed." attitude is exactly what a decent law and order system is designed to protect us against.
Let's turn this around: So everyone who doesn't pay taxes and disagrees with you is a legitimate target. That kind of thuggish "You put me in this position so you've only yourself to blame for being stabbed." attitude is exactly what a decent law and order system is designed to protect us against. Oh, wow, only takes changing one word to turn the position you're (falsely) accusing me of into exactly your position. |
|
|
|
Wherever useful work is done to build/design/organise/etc., that's the "original appropriation".
If I come into your workshop (the workshop where you work, not necessarily the one you own) and steal the piece of marble you were going to make into a pillar, or a bunch of countertops, and take it back to my workshop, and make a statue instead, Does that make the finished piece of marble mine? |
|
|
|
Alternately, I seriously doubt that myrkul has ever killed someone for paying their taxes. (correct me if I'm wrong) It's great to stand on your principle, and the non-aggression principle supports your defense against aggression. Agorists, anarchists, libertarians, voluntarists, etc. expand upon it and say that which is wrong for an individual is wrong for a collective, so taxation, conscription, war, etc. are illegitimate. Though a statist would be your enemy, we aren't to the point of punching every statist in the nose because they are a statist.
I haven't, and I honestly wouldn't. That's quite extreme. I would, however, point out that they are supporting aggression, and if that doesn't change their mind, I will refuse to associate with them. Only if they continued to force themselves and their views on me, would I act in defense. Hawker's been pretty adamant about forcing his views on me. If you so much as walk down a paved road because its easier than romping through the woods you better be paying for the road you walk on, because it wasn't conjured up using fairy dust.
Sure, if I can only pay for the services I use. For instance, I'd rather not pay for the bombing and gunning down of civilians (or anyone, really) in the middle east. Can I opt out of that, Or do I have to pay for the whole package deal because I walked down a road? |
|
|
|
Apparently, people in Nordic countries hire their meteorologists based on meteorological skill, instead of appearances.
Weather broadcasters do not necessarily need to be meteorologists, just as IBM PR officials need not be hardware specialists. True, but the pretty face is an extra cost. I suppose it's worth it for the extra viewers. |
|
|
|
Do you support taxation, by the way? You never said.
If you live in a cabin built with your own two hands and get all of your food from a garden in your backyard and you do it all on non-government paid property, then no, I don't think you should pay taxes. But if I trade, in any way, with anyone else, I should pay a third party under penalty of kidnapping or death? |
|
|
|
Quite a vicious little chap aren't you? Freedom means obeying your rules and those that disagree are legitimate targets.
And here are my only rules: No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET There's a reason the libertarian mascot is a porcupine. Oh really? Who is this myrkul making threats then? I would get in this argument but I don't want myrkul threatening to choke me, too. Violent people are so irrational.  Now, why would I do that? Unless you're going to morally and financially support the people who would rob me, kidnap me, or potentially even murder me? Thats a threat. Don't try running away from your thuggish tendencies. That's no more a threat than the quills on a porcupine are. You pay people to rob, kidnap, or kill me, I am entitled to fight back. |
|
|
|
Are you capable of differentiating between the initiation of force, and self defense?
Both are forms of violence. So, no. Do you support taxation, by the way? You never said. |
|
|
|
Quite a vicious little chap aren't you? Freedom means obeying your rules and those that disagree are legitimate targets.
And here are my only rules: No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET There's a reason the libertarian mascot is a porcupine.  |
|
|
|
|
Apparently, people in Nordic countries hire their meteorologists based on meteorological skill, instead of appearances.
|
|
|
|
Now, why would I do that?
Unless you're going to morally and financially support the people who would rob me, kidnap me, or potentially even murder me?
Violence begetting violence. You're doing a good job at making the wheel go round and round, I guess. Defense does not beget more violence. It ends it. People who disagree with you won't be killed if they behave as you dictate.
If by that, you mean don't threaten me and mine, yes, that's exactly right. |
|
|
|
I would get in this argument but I don't want myrkul threatening to choke me, too. Violent people are so irrational. Now, why would I do that? Unless you're going to morally and financially support the people who would rob me, kidnap me, or potentially even murder me? Again back to threatening people who disagree with you? They're free to disagree. Just not to morally and financially support robbers and murderers. |
|
|
|
I would get in this argument but I don't want myrkul threatening to choke me, too. Violent people are so irrational. Now, why would I do that? Unless you're going to morally and financially support the people who would rob me, kidnap me, or potentially even murder me? |
|
|
|
I don't hold communist views, thank you. Oh, but you do. You want all land held in common. Georgeism is just eco-communism. If we're gonna privatize the seas, are we gonna stop the fish from swimming to each others parts of it? If not, you might as well catch all the fish in your area, your 'neighbours' fish will come swim to you, and you'll just catch that the next day. And why do you think the rainforrests are being cut down right now? Its because that's the profitable thing to do. It will make you more money to tear it down and grow or build something else. And why does global change deserve a whole other conversation? The whole point of the tragedy of the commons is that it's supposed to be bigger than any individual.
Sorry, but all of this seems to me like the tragedy of the commons 101. Well, first: Sea plots would likely be much larger, entire "fishing grounds," for just that reason. It's much harder, and much more disruptive, to fence off the seas. Second: The rainforests are being cut down now because politicians are cheaper to buy than private landowners. Third: Global climate change deserves it's own conversation because it is a much more complex subject. Well, all land seems to be taken by now. And anyone born after 2140 will have to earn their bitcoins by providing a service to the community. In fact, that's the only way to get them now. I honestly don't see how privately owning land would bring peace. Let me explain. If land is owned by nobody, anyone can come and take it at any time. I could justifiably force you off your land. I'd say that's "strife." If land is owned by "everybody" and some organization is going to come around and collect rent, they'll have to force me to pay, because I won't want to. That also qualifies as "strife." On the other hand, if someone wants to buy my land, they need only offer me enough money to convince me to sell it. Voluntarily. Peacefully. There are absolutely arguments to be held against democracy, but I don't think these are it.
Well, any other result means that the majority has enforced their will on the minority. That's just might makes right. So when you say "WE THE PEOPLE," what you actually mean is "WE THE STRONGEST." I don't think imposing yours on others provides any more freedom or peace than them imposing theirs on yours.
I'm not imposing my views on anyone. Merely resisting their attempts to impose theirs on me. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
