I will admit something...

[JA37]

WE own everything perhaps, but that includes you.

I subscribe to a different theory of property rights than you.

Yes, I suppose you do.
"I own whatever I use" was it? Homesteading and stuff?
I'd be rich if I lived in your world. 

[NghtRppr]

WE own everything perhaps, but that includes you.

I subscribe to a different theory of property rights than you.

Yes, I suppose you do.
"I own whatever I use" was it? Homesteading and stuff?
I'd be rich if I lived in your world. 

I'm not sure if you're joking or if you are actually ignorant of Libertarian property rights. There's two way to obtain property, homesteading, which is mixing your labor with unowned property, land, natural resources, whatever, and legitimate title transfer, barter, gifts, gambling. It's hard to see how you'll be rich through mixing your labor with anything unless it's just through diligent hard work. You can't go plant four flags at the corners of Nevada and claim you own it. You actually have to do something with the unowned property you claim, farm, mine, or even study ecology by recording it but not altering it. So, how exactly would you be "rich" in "my" world? You'd be richer since you wouldn't be forced to give money to the government which does everything inefficiently and has little to no incentive to improve.

[JA37]

I'm not sure if you're joking or if you are actually ignorant of Libertarian property rights. There's two way to obtain property, homesteading, which is mixing your labor with unowned property, land, natural resources, whatever, and legitimate title transfer, barter, gifts, gambling. It's hard to see how you'll be rich through mixing your labor with anything unless it's just through diligent hard work. You can't go plant four flags at the corners of Nevada and claim you own it. You actually have to do something with the unowned property you claim, farm, mine, or even study ecology by recording it but not altering it. So, how exactly would you be "rich" in "my" world? You'd be richer since you wouldn't be forced to give money to the government which does everything inefficiently and has little to no incentive to improve.

I'd claim all land and use it to increase biodiversity, study long term effects of global warming or anything else that would be very hard to actually check. I mean, how can you actually check what I'm doing? My forests might be in a growth period, no action required on my part. My fields might be resting for a few years to yield bigger crops in the future. How can you tell?
Or isn't that allowed?

And another thing that interests me. How do you keep track of which land actually belong to whom? A central land authority that registers all owners? Doesn't seem like something you'd like. Several registers? Something else?

[smellyBobby]

Most of us believe we own ourselves and all of the labor we produce. We believe we have the right to sustain ourselves according to our own will. Simply put, taxes and government force infringe this.

Very simple. Very concise.

Believe it or not but I actually agree with most of this. Agreed it's very simple, very concise and also imho very simplistic.

Agree too simplistic.How is ownership of a common resource managed? Who will decide who gets what in a group, for a certain task? Your assuming that everyone will play nice and divide a community gathered resource up fairly based upon (Prob(Failure)*FailureCost) + (Prob(Success)*Benefit), naive....

Who will create the structures necessary to stop coercion?? The goodwill of all agents will somehow create it??

Yes I support taxes and a government that create these structures, the market can not exist without them. If the government and taxes aren't being used for these purposes then pull the government into line.

If anyone supports the notion of the free market then you implicitly support "being forced to work for 'non-profit' universal services to all worked sustainably and provided happiness and prosperity for all" , through your taxes, to create the structures necessary to stop coercion.

[NghtRppr]

I'd claim all land and use it to increase biodiversity, study long term effects of global warming or anything else that would be very hard to actually check. I mean, how can you actually check what I'm doing? My forests might be in a growth period, no action required on my part. My fields might be resting for a few years to yield bigger crops in the future. How can you tell?

Do you really think that you, off the top of your head, can come up with objections that many great thinkers haven't (a) already thought of or (b) already offered solutions to?

At the very least, you need to fence in the land. There has to be some kind of visible border around your property. Also, if someone moves into land that you own, you can't just say "oh I own that", you have a burden of proof. In the case of ecology, it would be some kind of historical data, survey maps, a deed whatever.

And another thing that interests me. How do you keep track of which land actually belong to whom? A central land authority that registers all owners? Doesn't seem like something you'd like. Several registers? Something else?

How do you keep up with your credit rating? Is there a single government agency that does that? No, actually its several different agencies. I'm also not against central authority or even monopolies, as long as they are voluntary. If everyone decides to use Bob's Land Registration because they are honest and it's convenient to have only one, fine with me. However, if Bob's Land Registration starts getting abusive, the door is open for competition, which somewhat assures that abuses aren't that tempting in the first place. It's a sort of business suicide.

[AntiVigilante]

I disagree with the forcing part. It should be opt in/opt out.

no. there should be the choice: pay or leave.
i don't like all them who says: i don't pay taxes, they are bad. only stupid people say that.
intelligent people accept the facts: either i follow the rules and get the benefits, or i keep totally to my self, not paying, and not getting any of the benefits.

If I don't pay for the govt benefiots I have more money ior more time to make benefits for my neighborhood. Taxes destroy community.

[JA37]

Do you really think that you, off the top of your head, can come up with objections that many great thinkers haven't (a) already thought of or (b) already offered solutions to?

At the very least, you need to fence in the land. There has to be some kind of visible border around your property. Also, if someone moves into land that you own, you can't just say "oh I own that", you have a burden of proof. In the case of ecology, it would be some kind of historical data, survey maps, a deed whatever.

I'm not sure which great thinkers you refer to, but I did read a few articles that was offered to me, and watched a few youtube films that people suggested, and if that represented the great thinkers I'm not impressed.

Fences? Really? Visible border? Go have a look at a large farm. They have no fences around their crop fields and it would be very impractical and expensive to have it. It becomes even more absurd with forests.
I assure you that I could claim enough land anywhere to go around and inspect it every 10 years or so, making sure it's doing it's job acting as a carbon sink. I see so many ways to abuse the system you're proposing. So you have to prove that you own your property to anyone who shows up?

How do you keep up with your credit rating? Is there a single government agency that does that? No, actually its several different agencies. I'm also not against central authority or even monopolies, as long as they are voluntary. If everyone decides to use Bob's Land Registration because they are honest and it's convenient to have only one, fine with me. However, if Bob's Land Registration starts getting abusive, the door is open for competition, which somewhat assures that abuses aren't that tempting in the first place. It's a sort of business suicide.

Credit rating is a bit like IP isn't it. It's not "scarce".
I was in Greece not too long ago. I came across a guy who built a house there. He assumed that the road outside was a public road, which it wasn't it'd turn out. When his house was built some guy came up with a document showing that he owned the road and now wanted to be compensated. Our hero had nothing to do but to pay the fee that the man asked for. Then another man came, with another contract claiming the HE owned the road, then another and another. All with valid documents. And the fee was low enough to not bother going to court about.
He fully expects someone to come one day with a paper claiming to own the land that the house stands on, but then the stakes will be higher.
Turns out that this isn't uncommon in Greece. A country with a more or less failed state. That's what I'd expect without a central authority.

[AntiVigilante]

He fully expects someone to come one day with a paper claiming to own the land that the house stands on, but then the stakes will be higher.
Turns out that this isn't uncommon in Greece. A country with a more or less failed state. That's what I'd expect without a central authority.

First that's not lack of authority, that's lack of protocol. Imagine me trying to send you a transaction without having signed it. It's a matter of protocol.

Second why central? Why not consolidated such as a decentralized council that anyone can participate in? Like here. Or USUncut.

Stop confusing form with function.

[NghtRppr]

I'm not sure which great thinkers you refer to, but I did read a few articles that was offered to me, and watched a few youtube films that people suggested, and if that represented the great thinkers I'm not impressed.

A few articles and YOUTUBE? Come on... Read some books. I'll suggest some if you don't know how to use Google. I think it's just easier for you to reject ideas that you are ignorant of.

Fences? Really? Visible border? Go have a look at a large farm. They have no fences around their crop fields and it would be very impractical and expensive to have it.

The crops themselves act as a border. It's pretty obvious where a plowed field ends and the forest begins. It's pretty obvious where a wheat field ends and the forest begins.

It becomes even more absurd with forests.

So because owning a forest would be difficult you think that is a death blow to the entire system? There are many other ways to mark a boundary. Post some signs every half mile, stake the corners, have a radio transmitter. The common thread here is that this is a technological problem, not a theoretical one.

I assure you that I could claim enough land anywhere to go around and inspect it every 10 years or so, making sure it's doing it's job acting as a carbon sink. I see so many ways to abuse the system you're proposing. So you have to prove that you own your property to anyone who shows up?

No just in court if you evict someone and they sue you or you use force against them and there is an investigation.

Credit rating is a bit like IP isn't it. It's not "scarce".

That's a non sequitur.

I was in Greece not too long ago. I came across a guy who built a house there. He assumed that the road outside was a public road, which it wasn't it'd turn out. When his house was built some guy came up with a document showing that he owned the road and now wanted to be compensated. Our hero had nothing to do but to pay the fee that the man asked for. Then another man came, with another contract claiming the HE owned the road, then another and another. All with valid documents. And the fee was low enough to not bother going to court about.
He fully expects someone to come one day with a paper claiming to own the land that the house stands on, but then the stakes will be higher.
Turns out that this isn't uncommon in Greece. A country with a more or less failed state. That's what I'd expect without a central authority.

In other words, since there's no final authority that you can appeal to, no dispute is ever truly resolved. That's actually the same case with our current system. Even if you get all the way up to the Supreme Court the issue isn't settled because then you can just petition Congress to pass a law so that your case is won that way.

[JA37]

A few articles and YOUTUBE? Come on... Read some books. I'll suggest some if you don't know how to use Google. I think it's just easier for you to reject ideas that you are ignorant of.

I asked questions. People pointed me to what they thought were good videos and articles. They weren't.
Feel free to suggest things to read/watch, I'll give it a shot. Bad/stupid things don't get much time though.

The crops themselves act as a border. It's pretty obvious where a plowed field ends and the forest begins. It's pretty obvious where a wheat field ends and the forest begins.

So because owning a forest would be difficult you think that is a death blow to the entire system? There are many other ways to mark a boundary. Post some signs every half mile, stake the corners, have a radio transmitter. The common thread here is that this is a technological problem, not a theoretical one.

No just in court if you evict someone and they sue you or you use force against them and there is an investigation.

Or you could just use the current system which is both working, economical and efficient. Why replace a system, with some faults, with another with different but equally big or bigger faults? Why not try to improvements? Look, I can see some benefits to your way of thinking, and I can see how some thoughts can be incorporated into current systems, but your system as a whole just doesn't make sense to me.

That's a non sequitur.

I don't think it is. You can have different credit ratings with different organizations.  You can't have different owners of a patch of land. Not at the same time anyway.

In other words, since there's no final authority that you can appeal to, no dispute is ever truly resolved. That's actually the same case with our current system. Even if you get all the way up to the Supreme Court the issue isn't settled because then you can just petition Congress to pass a law so that your case is won that way.

I don't agree with your conclusion. And laws are seldom retroactive, and those who are are advertised in advance to let you react to them. Also, your solution to the problem above would be to make sure the person with the most resources wins? Hardly seems more fair to me.

[Anonymous]

Or you could just use the current system which is both working, economical and efficient.

[JA37]

Oh, look, I can also link images.

[AntiVigilante]

It's actually derived from Dmitri Pisarev, presumably socialist-inclined and admired by Lenin.

"Break, beat up everything, beat and destroy! Everything that's being broken is rubbish and has no right to life! What survives is good"

I don't go for moral games based on mere whims and desires. I go for what works and sustains itself through disaster, attacks and wear-and-tear. So far it has been shown that liberty may do this and has done so in limited scenarios.

Who the hell are you to define destruction, rubbish, right, life, survival, and good?

You'd easily discard something you thought destroyed that you didn't value right up until it put a knife to your back.

Lenin was a coward.

[Anonymous]

It's actually derived from Dmitri Pisarev, presumably socialist-inclined and admired by Lenin.

"Break, beat up everything, beat and destroy! Everything that's being broken is rubbish and has no right to life! What survives is good"

I don't go for moral games based on mere whims and desires. I go for what works and sustains itself through disaster, attacks and wear-and-tear. So far it has been shown that liberty may do this and has done so in limited scenarios.

... right up until it put a knife to your back.

Anything that tries to achieve its ends through such means doesn't deserve to live.

Life is defined by nature and nature has mostly achieved its goals through flow and the individual whims of its components in synchronous harmony. Humanity has been mostly a tsunami pushing with an endless foam upon the shore, destroying all in its sight in the name of the supposed common good.

Good is what survives in the face of all that opposes it. Good sustains and so far none of our attempts at civilization have done so.

[AntiVigilante]

It's actually derived from Dmitri Pisarev, presumably socialist-inclined and admired by Lenin.

"Break, beat up everything, beat and destroy! Everything that's being broken is rubbish and has no right to life! What survives is good"

I don't go for moral games based on mere whims and desires. I go for what works and sustains itself through disaster, attacks and wear-and-tear. So far it has been shown that liberty may do this and has done so in limited scenarios.

... right up until it put a knife to your back.

Anything that tries to achieve its ends through such means doesn't deserve to live.

Challenges only cause polarization. What you need is self-awareness. There is no survival of the fittest, but only the school of fish that looks like a much bigger one.

Who is achieving anything? You are attacking something based on your values.
Since you don't value a thing, you prematurely assume its failure.
Since you don't value a thing, you ignore it and fail to see it rise back up.
Since you don't value a thing, you laugh at its previous condition and fail to acknowledge your own vulnerability.
Since you don't value a thing, you attack it with insufficient opposition and fail to see the community turn against you.
Since you don't value a thing, it strikes along with Brutus, your best pal, and you're now a part of history.

Life is defined by nature...

Life is undefined. Nature is undefined. They are one and the same.

has mostly achieved its goals through flow and the individual whims of its components in synchronous harmony.

Life is an end in itself. Nature is the macro, life is the micro. It only seeks knowledge of itself. Survival is an inch away from death. Thriving is self-sustaining. You have no foundation upon which to judge anything which lives. Life is thriving at its own pace, It does not need your pompous ass challenging it.

Humanity has been mostly a tsunami pushing with an endless foam upon the shore, destroying all in its sight in the name of the supposed common good.

You are quite the hypocrite aren't you, precious?

Good is what survives in the face of all that opposes it. Good sustains and so far none of our attempts at civilization have done so.

Only the dead survive. The living don't even take you seriously. Truly you wouldn't know the difference between a civilization thriving and a lifeless tornado destroying.

[Anonymous]

Go ahead. Let's take this to nihilism. I am a nihilist at heart but I'll have my preferences.

I know nothing. You know nothing. Fine.

[AntiVigilante]

Go ahead. Let's take this to nihilism. I am a nihilist at heart but I'll have my preferences.

I know nothing. You know nothing. Fine.

I'm actually not a nihilist. I'm just a loud son of gun. I take destruction for the common good to be the same as destruction for the common improvement. The sickness is the same. The only difference is context. I do think corrective action is warranted, provided you pick up after yourself. But the purpose of an early challenge should be to prevent catastrophic collapse not induce collapse to discover the living. How can you value what is living if you are preoccuppied with destruction? That is a cognitive dissonance which further impedes objectivity.

Philosophy announced merely temps manipulation. All philosophies have cycled from the concrete to the abstract and back. In this list the numbers refer to the number of pivot points in the discussion. The evens tend toward the concrete. The odds toward the abstract.

0. Nihilism - Nothing matters. I am nothing. Politicians don't do anything important.
1. Solipsism - I am everything. Everything matters. Politics is all there is.
2. Materialism - I am me. You are you. My things matter. Politics is black and white trying to grab each other's stuff.
3. Relativism - We are we. Our things matter. Politics puts the guy in the center right as left, the guy on the far right as moderate and the news anchor quietly moves the center line.
4. Practicalism - We thrive. Living things matter. Politics avoids history as the backdrop that exposes political manipulation.

I tend toward #4. Also notice the thin line between 0 and 1.

[Anonymous]

You wouldn't know what the common good is even if it shoved itself up your prefrontal cortex.  

...and Ubi pus, ibi evacua.

[AntiVigilante]

You wouldn't know what the common good is even if it shoved itself up your prefrontal cortex.  

...and Ubi pus, ibi evacua.

You see the vacuum and you must smash it.

Jesus, you really like dividing by zero.

[Anonymous]

You wouldn't know what the common good is even if it shoved itself up your prefrontal cortex.  

...and Ubi pus, ibi evacua.

You see the vacuum and you must smash it.

Jesus, you really like dividing by zero.

I got nothing better to do besides having sex and feeding myself.