Private school is child slavery!!!

[myrkul]

Continuing the discussion from the previous thread...

Bitcoin actually provides the perfect voluntaryist solution to keep track of who has paid how much for what services.  You didn't chip in for school?  Your kids don't go.

That's a terrible example.

That's a terrible response.

Don't be an idiot. In another thread (about corporal punishment), you and Rudd-O are getting all righteous about child rights and acting like even the tiniest bit of behaviour modification is some kind of crime against humanity, yet you fail to see the bleeding obvious injustice when a child suffers due to his or her parents' inability to pay school fees. Hypocrite.

Ohhhh.... So you think school should be "free" then?

If it means that the children of jobless hippies get the same educational opportunities as the children of right-wing extremists, then yes. Free AKA: "libre". Or does liberty only apply to a privileged class whose parents can pay?

Good news! It is. It's called "homeschooling." Really, you should Google it.

If someone is providing a service for you, on the other hand, then they need to be compensated, don't you think so?

Don't know about you, but I'm not a big fan of child slavery or indebtedness.

Hmm. I wonder how all those private school parents will react when I tell them that they are practicing "child slavery"?

No, seriously. WTF are you talking about?

[1715403499]

1715403499

[1715403499]

1715403499

[1715403499]

1715403499

[1715403499]

1715403499

[Rudd-O]

Continuing the discussion from the previous thread...

Bitcoin actually provides the perfect voluntaryist solution to keep track of who has paid how much for what services.  You didn't chip in for school?  Your kids don't go.

That's a terrible example.

That's a terrible response.

Don't be an idiot. In another thread (about corporal punishment), you and Rudd-O are getting all righteous about child rights and acting like even the tiniest bit of behaviour modification is some kind of crime against humanity, yet you fail to see the bleeding obvious injustice when a child suffers due to his or her parents' inability to pay school fees. Hypocrite.

Ohhhh.... So you think school should be "free" then?

If it means that the children of jobless hippies get the same educational opportunities as the children of right-wing extremists, then yes. Free AKA: "libre". Or does liberty only apply to a privileged class whose parents can pay?

Good news! It is. It's called "homeschooling." Really, you should Google it.

If someone is providing a service for you, on the other hand, then they need to be compensated, don't you think so?

Don't know about you, but I'm not a big fan of child slavery or indebtedness.

Hmm. I wonder how all those private school parents will react when I tell them that they are practicing "child slavery"?

No, seriously. WTF are you talking about?

What, don't you understand?  Clearly if you teach stuff to your children yourself, or you pay for a private school to teach your children useful stuff, you are enslaving them and indebting them.  Don't you understand that?  Obviously!

Hahahaha, blather³ cracks me up.

[myrkul]

I notice that you removed the bold highlight I added to one of your replies, so you do know what I'm talking about.

I didn't "remove" it, I just didn't add it back.

If someone is providing a service for you, on the other hand, then they need to be compensated, don't you think so?

That depends. If the child wants to buy lollies, then yes, they will have to part with some of their pocket money. But you're not seriously suggesting that a child should work in order to pay off a schooling debt if their parents are unable to pay?

But the kid isn't the one receiving the service. You are. They're teaching your child for you.

[Rudd-O]

I notice that you removed the bold highlight I added to one of your replies, so you do know what I'm talking about.

I didn't "remove" it, I just didn't add it back.

If someone is providing a service for you, on the other hand, then they need to be compensated, don't you think so?

That depends. If the child wants to buy lollies, then yes, they will have to part with some of their pocket money. But you're not seriously suggesting that a child should work in order to pay off a schooling debt if their parents are unable to pay?

But the kid isn't the one receiving the service. You are. They're teaching your child for you.

That's too truthful, simple and obvious to have any effect in blatherblatherblather's mind.

If you want him to agree with you, I suggest the following:

You have to understand, there is absolutely no way that a child can get an education in a voluntaryist society unless you enslave him to pay for his education.  No adult would reasonably think "Well, my child, a creature I chose to bring into this world, needs to learn, so I'll pay for that learning" because, you see, people are too stupid, so they need to be forced into half-a-day-every-weekday concentration camps where they will be told what to believe so there's no way in hell that a responsible adult would actually pay for the service of teaching his own child.  People are malevolent and lazy and shit so obviously statism.

That'll get blather's boner going.

[myrkul]

But the kid isn't the one receiving the service. You are. They're teaching your child for you.

Well well well... So the child is 'owned' by you?

And the attitudes, material wealth, and political views of the parents somehow justify some children getting more educational opportunities than others?

Every child has the same educational opportunities. Every moment of a child's life is an educational opportunity... and they use it. Sponges, they are.

Not sure how you got "the child is 'owned' by me" out of that.

[Rudd-O]

But the kid isn't the one receiving the service. You are. They're teaching your child for you.

Well well well... So the child is 'owned' by you?

And the attitudes, material wealth, and political views of the parents somehow justify some children getting more educational opportunities than others?

Every child has the same educational opportunities. Every moment of a child's life is an educational opportunity... and they use it. Sponges, they are.

Not sure how you got "the child is 'owned' by me" out of that.

Obviously because you don't want to be forced into paying for a statist indoctrination camp -- perhaps preferring homeschooling or unschooling or private schooling -- the "logical" alternative must be that you believe your child is chattel.

You have to be statist to understand this "logic".

[SysRun]

Hold on there, stop complaining and get back to your studies. Your parents aren't paying for you to have arguments on the internet.

[Rudd-O]

Hold on there, stop complaining and get back to your studies. Your parents aren't paying for you to have arguments on the internet.

Vacation LOL!

(Yeah, I have to wait until I get permission from Daddy Gummint to go back to my house and my woman and my car and my life.  I believe they call this paperwork "H-1B".  So I'm enjoying vacation right now.  Blatherblatherblather has provided lots of amusement these days.)

[fornit]

btw, what happens to children in ancap when their parents die and there is no relative?

[cunicula]

btw, what happens to children in ancap when their parents die and there is no relative?

In colonial America, the community used to auction orphans in public market. [can supply references if need to be]
There is a question about where the revenue goes if there is no minimalist state to collect it.

Perhaps the orphan transfers itself to an entrepreneur and the entrepreneur auctions the orphan off?

[cunicula]

perhaps preferring homeschooling or unschooling or private schooling

Of the three options for libertarians, it seems that option 2 is the most popular.

[cunicula]

Too complicated. If some people think it's unfair that CCA or Foxconn get first dibs for no apparent reason, then decentralised ownership is clearly the way to go. In addition to block rewards and fees, "orphan services" should be added to the list of perks that the miners receive when discovering a block of currency units.

Brilliant! The txn fee problem can be solved by the appropriation of resources with ambiguous ownership, namely orphans. All we need to do is funnel more goods, people, etc., with no clear owner into the blockchain to assign owners and bitcoin will become sustainable.

Theft doesn't occur in libertarian environments. Therefore, living chattel will not resist rightful appropriation.

Question: Are females chattel? Can we randomly assign widows to new owners too? I haven't read the latest treatises on natural law. Please update me on the modern theory. Random assignment seems about right, but I wouldn't want to propose anything immoral.

My only reservation: Random allocation via the blockchain is at odds with the principles of our colonial ancestors. They showed support for orphan auctions through common practice. On the other hand, the founding fathers did not have access to cryptocurrency technology. Given the technology, random allocation is obviously preferable.

[Rudd-O]

I can't tell from the content (killfile and all), but looking at the mequetrefes from this forum collectively and suddenly assembling here, and gathering some of my experience talking to statists, there appears to be a neutron star level concentration of statism in this thread.

Like, hardcore statism, probably suggesting that voluntaryists sell children to businesses or serial child rapists, because they do not share their selling-children-to-indoctrination-camps dogma (where children are oh so safe, they could never get drugs, or shanked, or bullied, or children could never get molested there either, because molesters obviously couldn't get a job there -- lol).  But I wouldn't know

Modern statism makes it very, very easy for a reasonable person to put their finger directly in the wound.

Win.  Did I guess right?

[cunicula]

I can't tell from the content, but looking at the mequetrefes from this forum collectively and suddenly assembling here, there appears to be a neutron star level concentration of statism in this thread.  Like hardcore statism, probably suggesting that voluntaryists sell children to businesses because they do not share their selling-children-to-indoctrination-camps dogma.

Win.

We would never suggest such a thing. Owners take care of their property.

If you read carefully, we were talking about unassigned common pool resources, namely orphans.

Are you arguing that common pool resources should not be assigned to private owners? If so, I don't think this thread can help you. There is a re-education thread which may be more suited to your needs.
I have noticed that the people's libertarian hero, The Great Augusto Croppo, has marked you for re-education. I suggest you take his advice.

[Rudd-O]

Cunticula keeps replying.  He probably thinks he's having a conversation with someone who doesn't much care to read his garbage.  Oops.

[cunicula]

Cunticula keeps replying.  He probably thinks he's having a conversation with someone who doesn't much care to read his garbage.  Oops.

As a lowly Statist, I wouldn't dare reply using my own thoughts. I was merely citing the Great Augusto Croppo, the People's Libertarian Hero. Beloved of Theymos and sharing in his interests and hobbies.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=121093.msg1336091#msg1336091

[Rudd-O]

The "conversation" continues.  I can only surmise the statists have devised a devious scheme involving child slavery and children-as-chattel (ginve that's they usually feel about children, their "what about the children"s notwithstanding).

[MoonShadow]

I bothered to read this thread.  I can never get that lifespan back.  Not only do I not have anything constructive to add to the topic, apparently neither does anyone else.  Since this entire thread seems to be the trolling version of a circular firing squad, I'll just leave it all be. 

And yes, I'm now counting myself amongst the trolls here.  I guess I'm now slumming.

[Rudd-O]

Oh Godvernment now the thread has a person who considers children to be chattel.

Well, at least he homeschools.

[cunicula]

Oh Godvernment now the thread has a person who considers children to be chattel.

Well, at least he homeschools.

Moonshadow is an old time libertarian cadre. He was here for the long march up to $30 and the short fall down to $0.01. I suggest you watch your tongue.

[myrkul]

OK, now that you guys are done with your circle-jerk, maybe we can get something productive done?

btw, what happens to children in ancap when their parents die and there is no relative?

Ever hear of godparents?

Noun
godparent (plural godparents)
    One who cares for a child if untimely demise is met by the parents

And I never did get adecent answer to this...

But the kid isn't the one receiving the service. You are. They're teaching your child for you.

Well well well... So the child is 'owned' by you?

And the attitudes, material wealth, and political views of the parents somehow justify some children getting more educational opportunities than others?

Every child has the same educational opportunities. Every moment of a child's life is an educational opportunity... and they use it. Sponges, they are.

Not sure how you got "the child is 'owned' by me" out of that.

Perhaps a more detailed response is in order. Every child has the same educational opportunity, as I said, homeschooling. Now, if you want a professional to take over this duty for you, there will, of course, be varying levels of quality in said professionals, and thus in the education provided. I suggest you get the best you can afford, and it never hurts to take a hand in the job as well, even if you are paying a pro.

[myrkul]

Meh. The thread's kinda dead, man. You had your chance; everyone's gone home. Face it, you lost this one.

By definition, quitting is not "winning."

Since you have no response, I must assume you're admitting defeat. Shame you're too much of a coward to come out and say it.

[cunicula]

Meh. The thread's kinda dead, man. You had your chance; everyone's gone home. Face it, you lost this one.

By definition, quitting is not "winning."

Since you have no response, I must assume you're admitting defeat. Shame you're too much of a coward to come out and say it.

lol godparents. And if there are no godparents then we get to eat it?

[myrkul]

Meh. The thread's kinda dead, man. You had your chance; everyone's gone home. Face it, you lost this one.

By definition, quitting is not "winning."

Since you have no response, I must assume you're admitting defeat. Shame you're too much of a coward to come out and say it.

lol godparents. And if there are no godparents then we get to eat it?

I'm sure there would be many charities set up to help orphaned children. The child could select which one they would prefer, or if too young for even that, one could be selected for them until such time as they are old enough to choose.

You seem to think of children as property, rather than people. That worries me. Promise you won't have kids and subject them to your toxic world-view?

[cunicula]

if too young for even that, one could be selected for them

Who does the "selecting for them"? Sounds very much like a statist entity.

[fornit]

I'm sure there would be many charities set up to help orphaned children. The child could select which one they would prefer, or if too young for even that, one could be selected for them until such time as they are old enough to choose.

i am sure there would be. most of then busy with a huge marketing budget and practically no money to spend on the children, because thats more profitable. its not like donators actually do much fact-checking. just gets in the way of the fuzzy feeling.

You seem to think of children as property, rather than people. That worries me. Promise you won't have kids and subject them to your toxic world-view?

its more likely he realizes that you cannot automatically assume that everyone shares your own affection for children. in your so called statist societies, there have always been those that seek profit through the explotation of children. why do you assume that ancap makes that phenomenom magically disappear?

[myrkul]

if too young for even that, one could be selected for them

Who does the "selecting for them"? Sounds very much like a statist entity.

Most likely, the person who finds/rescues them. So, yeah, not a state.

I'm sure there would be many charities set up to help orphaned children. The child could select which one they would prefer, or if too young for even that, one could be selected for them until such time as they are old enough to choose.

i am sure there would be. most of then busy with a huge marketing budget and practically no money to spend on the children, because thats more profitable. its not like donators actually do much fact-checking. just gets in the way of the fuzzy feeling.

You seem to think of children as property, rather than people. That worries me. Promise you won't have kids and subject them to your toxic world-view?

its more likely he realizes that you cannot automatically assume that everyone shares your own affection for children. in your so called statist societies, there have always been those that seek profit through the explotation of children. why do you assume that ancap makes that phenomenom magically disappear?

The answer to both your questions is the same, and quite simple: The children can choose to switch. If they're being mistreated, they leave. The market keeps the charities honest.

[cunicula]

The answer to both your questions is the same, and quite simple: The children can choose to switch. If they're being mistreated, they leave. The market keeps the charities honest.

I see, so there will be state investigators inspecting the orphanages to make sure the children are allowed to leave. Very good to know.

[myrkul]

The answer to both your questions is the same, and quite simple: The children can choose to switch. If they're being mistreated, they leave. The market keeps the charities honest.

I see, so there will be state investigators inspecting the orphanages to make sure the children are allowed to leave. Very good to know.

Does everything in your world view require monopoly force?

[cunicula]

The answer to both your questions is the same, and quite simple: The children can choose to switch. If they're being mistreated, they leave. The market keeps the charities honest.

I see, so there will be state investigators inspecting the orphanages to make sure the children are allowed to leave. Very good to know.

Does everything in your world view require monopoly force?

Yes.

[myrkul]

The answer to both your questions is the same, and quite simple: The children can choose to switch. If they're being mistreated, they leave. The market keeps the charities honest.

I see, so there will be state investigators inspecting the orphanages to make sure the children are allowed to leave. Very good to know.

Does everything in your world view require monopoly force?

Yes.

So I suppose you'll be going to your state's dating board to assign you a girlfriend, then? And don't forget to get the approved list of first date locations while you're there.

[cunicula]

The answer to both your questions is the same, and quite simple: The children can choose to switch. If they're being mistreated, they leave. The market keeps the charities honest.

I see, so there will be state investigators inspecting the orphanages to make sure the children are allowed to leave. Very good to know.

Does everything in your world view require monopoly force?

Yes.

So I suppose you'll be going to your state's dating board to assign you a girlfriend, then? And don't forget to get the approved list of first date locations while you're there.

Yes, actually use of the state matchmaking services is indeed one of the wonderful benefits I enjoy as a state employee. Not kidding.
Isn't the state wonderful?

[myrkul]

The answer to both your questions is the same, and quite simple: The children can choose to switch. If they're being mistreated, they leave. The market keeps the charities honest.

I see, so there will be state investigators inspecting the orphanages to make sure the children are allowed to leave. Very good to know.

Does everything in your world view require monopoly force?

Yes.

So I suppose you'll be going to your state's dating board to assign you a girlfriend, then? And don't forget to get the approved list of first date locations while you're there.

Yes, actually use of the state matchmaking services is indeed one of the wonderful benefits I enjoy as a state employee. Not kidding.
Isn't the state wonderful?

And I suppose there are heavy fines for not using this matchmaking service? Perhaps even jail time?

[cunicula]

The answer to both your questions is the same, and quite simple: The children can choose to switch. If they're being mistreated, they leave. The market keeps the charities honest.

I see, so there will be state investigators inspecting the orphanages to make sure the children are allowed to leave. Very good to know.

Does everything in your world view require monopoly force?

Yes.

So I suppose you'll be going to your state's dating board to assign you a girlfriend, then? And don't forget to get the approved list of first date locations while you're there.

Yes, actually use of the state matchmaking services is indeed one of the wonderful benefits I enjoy as a state employee. Not kidding.
Isn't the state wonderful?

And I suppose there are heavy fines for not using this matchmaking service? Perhaps even jail time?

That is an interesting idea. Perhaps you should go into politics?

[myrkul]

That is an interesting idea. Perhaps you should go into politics?

No thanks, I have standards.

BTW, you never answered. Are there heavy fines for not using this matchmaking service? Or jail time?

[cunicula]

That is an interesting idea. Perhaps you should go into politics?

No thanks, I have standards.

BTW, you never answered. Are there heavy fines for not using this matchmaking service? Or jail time?

Nope, sorry to disappoint you. I believe that love matches are permitted.

[myrkul]

That is an interesting idea. Perhaps you should go into politics?

No thanks, I have standards.

BTW, you never answered. Are there heavy fines for not using this matchmaking service? Or jail time?

Nope, sorry to disappoint you. I believe that love matches are permitted.

But I thought you said everything requires monopoly force? If you truly believe this, you should push for those sanctions.

[myrkul]

Meh. The thread's kinda dead, man. You had your chance; everyone's gone home. Face it, you lost this one.

By definition, quitting is not "winning."

Since you have no response, I must assume you're admitting defeat. Shame you're too much of a coward to come out and say it.

No, I just can't be bothered responding to your endless nutty responses any more. It's OK, we get it!

Then kindly stop pushing your statist drivel.

Since you apparently didn't read those responses there, I'll repeat them here:

In other threads you were never able to answer the problem of 'justice' in a Stateless society, and your religious worship of free markets relies on the faulty premise that markets are more fundamental than laws.

Justice... I assume you mean for all, yes? Not just the State? Competing arbitration and mediation firms will ensure that those best able to provide that justice will profit more, thus "floating to the top."

You were also unable to answer the question of what happens to people who try to live under a different moral code if AnCap gains popularity.

I felt I answered that quite well. as long as they don't try and force that moral code on others, for instance, by trying to take their property, then they will be respected. In other words, if they live peacefully, they will be treated peacefully. A commune can certainly exist peacefully within an AnCap society, but an AnCap community would not be tolerated in a communist society.

Furthermore, you were unable to answer why the dogma of 'private property' is somehow superior to the dogma of 'community', and why everyone should be required to embrace one and completely reject the other.

As I said above, it's superior because it allows peaceful coexistence, while "community" would not allow someone "own" something.
"Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff." - Frank Zappa.
To say nothing of being based on a rational and self-consistent philosophy, ie self-ownership.

[myrkul]

You were also unable to answer the question of what happens to people who try to live under a different moral code if AnCap gains popularity.

I felt I answered that quite well. as long as they don't try and force that moral code on others, for instance, by trying to take their property, then they will be respected. In other words, if they live peacefully, they will be treated peacefully. A commune can certainly exist peacefully within an AnCap society, but an AnCap community would not be tolerated in a communist society.

No, it's like this: within an AnCap-dominated society, no-one is allowed to reject the concept of private property. If they do, they may be accused of various 'crimes' such as stealing, trespass, intellectual property infringement, unauthorised use, and so on. That's funny, the brochure promised that it would all be optional and "voluntary"! Voluntary except for the AnCap rules "natural laws" that everyone would be forced to obey via a process of mutual coercion. But that's OK, you've got a comprehensive explanation for why 'private property' is an inherently superior dogma to that of 'community':

wut? Voluntary goes both ways. In order for something to be voluntary, both parties must agree to it.
They're perfectly allowed to reject the concept of private property. But if they attempt to force another to accept and join in their rejection (by taking their stuff), then they're stealing. If they, among themselves, agree to reject the concept of private property, then the person who does respect private property will respect their choice.

An AnCap society will peacefully accept a commune that keeps to itself. A communist (or for that matter, Statist of any sort) society will violently oppress an AnCap community, even if it keeps to itself.

[myrkul]

Therefore, if AnCap supporters want to punish dissidents for adhering to an equal but competing system, then they being coercive. However, if they don't punish dissidents, then their system is likely to fall apart and be taken over by something else.

Define "punish dissidents." I've already explained how AnCap can noncoercively coexist with competing systems. If you think that is untenable within a voluntary framework, explain how and why.

Let me use a few examples:
Propertarian (A) meets non-propertarian (B).

B attempts to take A's food. A objects. B uses force to do so anyway, A resists with force. Both might see this as the other coercing them, but objectively, B is attempting to coerce A. A did not agree to the transfer, and so it is not a voluntary action.

B attempts to take A's food. A agrees. Voluntary transaction

A attempts to take B's food. B agrees. Voluntary transaction.

A offers an item in exchange for B's food. B agrees. Voluntary transaction.

You can replace "food" in all of those with any property (or even just the generic "property") and you get the same results.

[myrkul]

You introduce the idea that food is capable of being property, and, by extension, that it is capable of being owned by someone. Care to try again?

Very well, but it won't change the results.

B attempts to take food from A's possession. A objects. B uses force to do so anyway, A resists with force. Both might see this as the other coercing them, but objectively, B is attempting to coerce A. A did not agree to the transfer, and so it is not a voluntary action.

B attempts to take food from A's possession. A agrees. Voluntary transaction

A attempts to take food from B's possession. B agrees. Voluntary transaction.

A offers an item in exchange for food from B's possession. B agrees. Voluntary transaction.

[Rudd-O]

The statists in this thread have literally cranked their statism up to eleven.

Believing that a society can only be organized by a tiny omniscient and omnibenevolent cabal with the exclusive right to give everyone else orders and violently punish resistors, is religious-style brain damage. And it is clearly the product of forms of child abuse where the authoritiy who abused the child used threats and violence to make the child obey.

If you wanna teach an adult that obedience is morally good and disobedience is morally bad, just beat him up or otherwise abuse him when he is a child and disobeys. Do it often enough so that the child internalizes this abuse as righteous. When the child becomes an adult, he will be the perfect sheep, ready to even murder on his designated authority's behalf.

This comment will hit close to home for many of the statists in this thread, no doubt they were abused this way. They will claim "but I turned out okay"... but their behavior and belief structure tells us otherwise.

[myrkul]

You introduce the idea that food is capable of being property, and, by extension, that it is capable of being owned by someone. Care to try again?

Very well, but it won't change the results.

B attempts to take food from A's possession. A objects...

How about:
'B' takes some food from a strange-looking forest where all the trees are lined up in rows and bear many fruits. 'A' sees a nomadic American on his CCTV and calls the private security police. The police then beat 'B' over the head and stick him in a cell overnight.

So now we're postulating a time-traveling Native American who doesn't know what an orchard is? If your argument needs Rip Van Whitehorse to wake up in an asshole's orchard, you must really be stretching. In addition, a beating and an overnight stay is pretty excessive for an apple or two. In an AnCap society, damages could be sought for the excessive force. If the arbitrator were in a particularly uptight mood, those damages would be less the price of the apples.

Both might see this as the other coercing them, but ^??objectively^??, B is attempting to coerce A.

You should look up the word 'subjective', it fits a lot better.

You asked me to prove that AnCap is objectively better. You can't do that with subjective perceptions. You have to deal with objective realities. The objective reality is that B is using force to get food from A. That is coercion, and you can't twist it into anything else.

The statists in this thread have literally cranked their statism up to eleven.

Twelve. Maybe thirteen.

[cunicula]

That is an interesting idea. Perhaps you should go into politics?

No thanks, I have standards.

BTW, you never answered. Are there heavy fines for not using this matchmaking service? Or jail time?

Nope, sorry to disappoint you. I believe that love matches are permitted.

But I thought you said everything requires monopoly force? If you truly believe this, you should push for those sanctions.

I'm sorry the institutions of marriage are supported through subsidization and taxation. I could have sworn that was monopoly force.
It isn't? That's good to know. I feel better than ever about paying taxes.

[cunicula]

You were also unable to answer the question of what happens to people who try to live under a different moral code if AnCap gains popularity.

I felt I answered that quite well. as long as they don't try and force that moral code on others, for instance, by trying to take their property, then they will be respected. In other words, if they live peacefully, they will be treated peacefully. A commune can certainly exist peacefully within an AnCap society, but an AnCap community would not be tolerated in a communist society.

No, it's like this: within an AnCap-dominated society, no-one is allowed to reject the concept of private property. If they do, they may be accused of various 'crimes' such as stealing, trespass, intellectual property infringement, unauthorised use, and so on. That's funny, the brochure promised that it would all be optional and "voluntary"! Voluntary except for the AnCap rules "natural laws" that everyone would be forced to obey via a process of mutual coercion. But that's OK, you've got a comprehensive explanation for why 'private property' is an inherently superior dogma to that of 'community':

wut? Voluntary goes both ways. In order for something to be voluntary, both parties must agree to it.
They're perfectly allowed to reject the concept of private property. But if they attempt to force another to accept and join in their rejection (by taking their stuff), then they're stealing. If they, among themselves, agree to reject the concept of private property, then the person who does respect private property will respect their choice.

An AnCap society will peacefully accept a commune that keeps to itself. A communist (or for that matter, Statist of any sort) society will violently oppress an AnCap community, even if it keeps to itself.

If people unanimously vote for the allocation of common resources, then we can allocate them to private owners. Is that right? To do otherwise would be theft. For example, there could be one hold out who still believes that he shares ownership in parks with the rest of society. We cannot steal the park from this holdout. It violates natural law. Therefore all commonly-owned resources must remain under common ownership, right?

Whatever the status quo is, it should be preserved, unless people unanimously agree to change it. The state's ownership rights should be respected except in cases of unanimous agreement of state members. Is that right? You seem to be advocating for is a stronger form of state power. It makes me a little uncomfortable, but maybe you are right.

Or is the idea to first steal everything from everybody and then prohibit theft once everything has been stolen? That sounds like a lot of violence and theft. Let's go with the first option. m'kay?

[myrkul]

That is an interesting idea. Perhaps you should go into politics?

No thanks, I have standards.

BTW, you never answered. Are there heavy fines for not using this matchmaking service? Or jail time?

Nope, sorry to disappoint you. I believe that love matches are permitted.

But I thought you said everything requires monopoly force? If you truly believe this, you should push for those sanctions.

I'm sorry the institutions of marriage are supported through subsidization and taxation. I could have sworn that was monopoly force.
It isn't? That's good to know. I feel better than ever about paying taxes.

That took a while. Did you have to go ask your supervisor about it?

Even if we were talking about marriage, which we're not, we're talking about dating, I'd hardly call stealing less money from them "support". Marriage is a contract. Between two people. The State has nothing to do with it.

Whatever the status quo is, it should be preserved, unless people unanimously agree to change it. The state's ownership rights should be respected except in cases of unanimous agreement of state members. Is that right? You seem to be advocating for is a stronger form of state power. It makes me a little uncomfortable, but maybe you are right.

Tell you what.. you find me some land which the state acquired without using force or the threat of force, and I'll consider your argument... for that land. All the rest of it is illegitimately acquired - stolen.

[cunicula]

That is an interesting idea. Perhaps you should go into politics?

No thanks, I have standards.

BTW, you never answered. Are there heavy fines for not using this matchmaking service? Or jail time?

Nope, sorry to disappoint you. I believe that love matches are permitted.

But I thought you said everything requires monopoly force? If you truly believe this, you should push for those sanctions.

I'm sorry the institutions of marriage are supported through subsidization and taxation. I could have sworn that was monopoly force.
It isn't? That's good to know. I feel better than ever about paying taxes.

That took a while. Did you have to go ask your supervisor about it?

Even if we were talking about marriage, which we're not, we're talking about dating, I'd hardly call stealing less money from them "support". Marriage is a contract. Between two people. The State has nothing to do with it.

Whatever the status quo is, it should be preserved, unless people unanimously agree to change it. The state's ownership rights should be respected except in cases of unanimous agreement of state members. Is that right? You seem to be advocating for is a stronger form of state power. It makes me a little uncomfortable, but maybe you are right.

Tell you what.. you find me some land which the state acquired without using force or the threat of force, and I'll consider your argument... for that land. All the rest of it is illegitimately acquired - stolen.

Hmmm... so everything owned is illegitimately acquired. How should it be divided, then? Hmm... even after we divide it, it seems that the legacy of illegitimate acquisition will have some impact on who gets what?
What do you propose we do?

[cunicula]

That is an interesting idea. Perhaps you should go into politics?

No thanks, I have standards.

BTW, you never answered. Are there heavy fines for not using this matchmaking service? Or jail time?

Nope, sorry to disappoint you. I believe that love matches are permitted.

But I thought you said everything requires monopoly force? If you truly believe this, you should push for those sanctions.

I'm sorry the institutions of marriage are supported through subsidization and taxation. I could have sworn that was monopoly force.
It isn't? That's good to know. I feel better than ever about paying taxes.

That took a while. Did you have to go ask your supervisor about it?

I was sleeping. I understand that is punishable offence in your libertarian vision of the world.

[thebaron]

Ya'll sure like these circle jerks. Reminds me of certain libertarian forums...

[myrkul]

Tell you what.. you find me some land which the state acquired without using force or the threat of force, and I'll consider your argument... for that land. All the rest of it is illegitimately acquired - stolen.

Hmmm... so everything owned is illegitimately acquired. How should it be divided, then? Hmm... even after we divide it, it seems that the legacy of illegitimate acquisition will have some impact on who gets what?
What do you propose we do?

Here's the thing... I was talking about state land. Most private land was already acquired legitimately.

That took a while. Did you have to go ask your supervisor about it?

I was sleeping. I understand that is punishable offence in your libertarian vision of the world.

At work? Yeah, it will get you fired. Man, those guberment jobs are cushy.

[cunicula]

Here's the thing... I was talking about state land. Most private land was already acquired legitimately.

I'm a bit confused. Isn't all land state land? How is something acquired legitimately? Wouldn't you need a state to legitimate ownership?
If the state determined ownership previously, and the state's allocations are illegitimate, how do they become legitimate when the state is dissolved?
Hmmm... I'm really not getting this.

Is there just a special category for people and groups we like called legitimate? And a special category for people and groups we dislike called illegitimate?
Seems like that would work. It is just like a strong state.

What if we have a case like Hawaii? Where almost all the land belonged to the royal family before the US gov't expropriated them for the public good.
[Thank you wise masters.] Was the Hawaiian royal family legitimate? Is the US gov't legitimate? Whose ownership is legitimate? All ownership claims stem from state action. It is quite confusing.

[myrkul]

Here's the thing... I was talking about state land. Most private land was already acquired legitimately.

I'm a bit confused. Isn't all land state land?

No.

How is something acquired legitimately?

By purchasing it in a voluntary transaction.

Wouldn't you need a state to legitimate ownership?

No.

Tell you what.. you find me some land which the state acquired without using force or the threat of force, and I'll consider your argument... for that land. All the rest of it is illegitimately acquired - stolen.

Hmmm... so everything owned is illegitimately acquired. How should it be divided, then? Hmm... even after we divide it, it seems that the legacy of illegitimate acquisition will have some impact on who gets what?
What do you propose we do?

Here's the thing... I was talking about state land. Most private land was already acquired legitimately.

According to whose laws do you define 'legitimacy'? Oh wait, never mind.

I thought that would have been obvious, since it's right there in the statement... But Statism is brain damage, so I guess I shouldn't expect too much from you guys.

How is something acquired legitimately?

By purchasing it in a voluntary transaction.

You introduce the idea that food is capable of being property, and, by extension, that it is capable of being owned by someone. Care to try again?

Very well, but it won't change the results.

B attempts to take food from A's possession. A objects...

How about:
'B' takes some food from a strange-looking forest...

So now we're postulating a time-traveling Native American who doesn't know what an orchard is? If your argument needs Rip Van Whitehorse to wake up in an asshole's orchard, you must really be stretching. In addition, a beating and an overnight stay is pretty excessive for an apple or two. In an AnCap society, damages could be sought for the excessive force. If the arbitrator were in a particularly uptight mood, those damages would be less the price of the apples.

Like I said, you suggested the extremely vague, biased, and unrealistic food example; I just changed the bias and made it less ridiculous.

Rip van Whitehorse was "less ridiculous"? OK. Sure.

If you want a more realistic example, how about the widespread rejection of "intellectual property rights for artistic or creative endeavours"? American Big Business just loves to create and assert rights over all realms of 'intellectual property', from songs and movies through to medical cures and DNA. But guess what, they appeal to government authority to enforce their rights. AnCap is simply Fascism in disguise -- you imagine that things would be better without an officially designated government, whereas actually the only law would be: "might is right".

... Are you actually claiming that AnCaps would be pro IP? I assure you we are not, and those few libertarians who are, haven't examined that part of their philosophy very well. IP law is an attempt to create artificial scarcity where there is none - in information. and since it requires government force to make it stick, no AnCap is going to support it. AnCap is not "fascism in disguise," you're confusing AnCap with American conservatism. We're not the republican party, no matter how much you would like to put us on that tidy little left-right line.

As for "might is right," How is AnCap, a system based on the philosophy that no person has the right to initiate the use of force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property "might is right," when Democracy, a system based on "there are more of us, so we get to force our opinions on you" and government itself, a system based on "we have the guns, so we have the power," are not?

Do you feel the cognitive dissonance yet?

[MoonShadow]

If you want a more realistic example, how about the widespread rejection of "intellectual property rights for artistic or creative endeavours"? American Big Business just loves to create and assert rights over all realms of 'intellectual property', from songs and movies through to medical cures and DNA. But guess what, they appeal to government authority to enforce their rights. AnCap is simply Fascism in disguise -- you imagine that things would be better without an officially designated government, whereas actually the only law would be: "might is right".

... Are you actually claiming that AnCaps would be pro IP? I assure you we are not, and those few libertarians who are, haven't examined that part of their philosophy very well. IP law is an attempt to create artificial scarcity where there is none - in information. and since it requires government force to make it stick, no AnCap is going to support it. AnCap is not "fascism in disguise," you're confusing AnCap with American conservatism. We're not the republican party, no matter how much you would like to put us on that tidy little left-right line.

Yeah, I almost choked on my morning coffee on that one.  Copyright is, by it's very root definition, a limited term monopoly on the "right" to copy an intellectual work.  It's not even a monopoly arising from market forces (if such a think could really exist) without the intervention of governments that grant and support said monopoly.  Ayn Rand was not a libertarian.  Neither is Glenn Beck.

[myrkul]

If you want a more realistic example, how about the widespread rejection of "intellectual property rights for artistic or creative endeavours"? American Big Business just loves to create and assert rights over all realms of 'intellectual property', from songs and movies through to medical cures and DNA. But guess what, they appeal to government authority to enforce their rights. AnCap is simply Fascism in disguise -- you imagine that things would be better without an officially designated government, whereas actually the only law would be: "might is right".

... Are you actually claiming that AnCaps would be pro IP? I assure you we are not, and those few libertarians who are, haven't examined that part of their philosophy very well. IP law is an attempt to create artificial scarcity where there is none - in information. and since it requires government force to make it stick, no AnCap is going to support it. AnCap is not "fascism in disguise," you're confusing AnCap with American conservatism. We're not the republican party, no matter how much you would like to put us on that tidy little left-right line.

Yeah, I almost choked on my morning coffee on that one.  Copyright is, by it's very root definition, a limited term monopoly on the "right" to copy an intellectual work.  It's not even a monopoly arising from market forces (if such a think could really exist) without the intervention of governments that grant and support said monopoly.  Ayn Rand was not a libertarian.  Neither is Glenn Beck.

Sorry. I should really brush up on the doctrine. All these "new rules" -- some kinds of property are inviolable, other kinds are not respected at all... It gets confusing -- must be my cognitive dissonance.

"Intellectual property" isn't property. You can't own an idea.

[RodeoX]

LOL. I had no idea that I have been working at a child slavery institution. Considering their parents paid $90k for a sixth grade education we will surely be profitable renting them out as slaves. Many of my former slaves are now at elite universities around the world. Presumably working the fields until their Oxford degree comes through.

[MoonShadow]

LOL. I had no idea that I have been working at a child slavery institution. Considering their parents paid $90k for a sixth grade education we will surely be profitable renting them out as slaves. Many of my former slaves are now at elite universities around the world. Presumably working the fields until their Oxford degree comes through.

They have earned some very gilded cages; but, dammit, they are slaves without the liberating childhood or taxpayer funded public education!

[RodeoX]

LOL. I had no idea that I have been working at a child slavery institution. Considering their parents paid $90k for a sixth grade education we will surely be profitable renting them out as slaves. Many of my former slaves are now at elite universities around the world. Presumably working the fields until their Oxford degree comes through.

They have earned some very gilded cages; but, dammit, they are slaves without the liberating childhood or taxpayer funded public education!

hmm. well in some ways I suppose they are slaves to their social status. I have had a student suffer a  nervous breakdown at the thought of having to go to Yale. Her family has gone to Harvard for over 100 years and the shame of going to Yale was just too much. Very sad. 

[myrkul]

Edit: one could even put it this way: ownership of property is just the idea that something belongs to you.

Very deep, very Zen. Unfortunately, also very flawed. If I come and take your stereo, you still have that idea, but I have your stereo. If I copy your book, we both have the book, and we both have the idea.

[MoonShadow]

Edit: one could even put it this way: ownership of property is just the idea that something belongs to you.

Very deep, very Zen. Unfortunately, also very flawed. If I come and take your stereo, you still have that idea, but I have your stereo. If I copy your book, we both have the book, and we both have the idea.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC4QtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DIeTybKL1pM4&ei=i0uqUPOPLIeO8wStqoDADA&usg=AFQjCNEDg7_ap8otqvRJxjUWZn4Bw2kP7g

That's what copies can do...

[myrkul]

Edit: one could even put it this way: ownership of property is just the idea that something belongs to you.

Very deep, very Zen. Unfortunately, also very flawed. If I come and take your stereo, you still have that idea, but I have your stereo. If I copy your book, we both have the book, and we both have the idea.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC4QtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DIeTybKL1pM4&ei=i0uqUPOPLIeO8wStqoDADA&usg=AFQjCNEDg7_ap8otqvRJxjUWZn4Bw2kP7g

That's what copies can do...

Best minute of my day so far! (Considering that it started with a little baby Linda Blair moment, that's not a high bar, but still.)

[cunicula]

Where I live, all land is owned by the state. I guess this must be illegitimate ownership.

What if the dictator sells all the land to his nephew. Is that a voluntary transaction? Does it become an 'AnCap' state by virtue of this 'privatization'.

The nephew says "Well, before the state owned the land [of course, this is true of all land everywhere at some point]. Now I bought the land in a voluntary transaction. So all the land is mine. States are illegitimate. I am a good AnCap. So we are dissolving the state. Now you can give me all your property too and I will fuck your wives. There were laws against this before, but that was theft. So we are dissolving those. So pony up, or vote with your feet. You can make a swim for an illegitimate state if you like, but please don't trespass on my land or I will have to respond to your violence with my own violence. Let's keep our txns voluntary, m'kay?"

So the dictator's nephew is all good in AnCap circles? This becomes the first truly legitimate state feifdom [states are never legitimate slipped up there]? I think the dictator may be looking for new ideological consultants. He has a serious demand for democracy problem which you might be able to fix. Can I help you submit a resume?

[myrkul]

Edit: one could even put it this way: ownership of property is just the idea that something belongs to you.

Very deep, very Zen. Unfortunately, also very flawed. If I come and take your stereo, you still have that idea, but I have your stereo. If I copy your book, we both have the book, and we both have the idea.

Here's a Bitcoin counter-example. Sole possession of the private keys = ownership. In conflicting cases, the winner successfully spends the coins.

Sole possession of private keys approximates ownership, but it's not. Having keys to a safe doesn't mean I own the contents of the safe.
Bitcoins aren't even digital "things" (like, say, an mp3 is) they're just transactions in a record that everyone has. Sole possession of the private keys just means you're the only one who can change the record for that particular address. If I get your private keys, I haven't stolen from you. I may have trespassed, if I had to access your computer to get them, but it's not theft. Sorry.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC4QtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DIeTybKL1pM4&ei=i0uqUPOPLIeO8wStqoDADA&usg=AFQjCNEDg7_ap8otqvRJxjUWZn4Bw2kP7g

That's what copies can do...

You guys assume too much. Where did I suggest that I was a fan of copyright laws in their present form? In fact I think that many of the laws are overdue for significant reform. I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of selectively embracing only some ideas about property. Too bad that in AnCap there would be no State to intervene and lay down the law when somebody tries to enforce the 'wrong' ideas.

"Enforce"? Do me a favor, and read your posts out loud before you hit "Post." It will save you from moments like this. What's the root word of "enforce"?

Where I live, all land is owned by the state. I guess this must be illegitimate ownership.

Most likely, yes. States aren't known for making deals without the gun on the table.

What if the dictator sells all the land to his nephew. Is that a voluntary transaction? Does it become an 'AnCap' state by virtue of this 'privatization'.

If I steal a car, and then sell the car, does the car rightfully belong to the guy I sold it to, or to the guy I stole it from?

[myrkul]

Enlightened Absolutism.

HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAHAHAA!

Yeah, right. That will work.

Tell you what, you want self-similar benevolent absolutism? Sure, no problem. Every person is his or her own benevolent dictator. None can gainsay their word when it comes to their own persons, or the products thereof. Happy?

[myrkul]

Enlightened Absolutism.

HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAHAHAA!

Yeah, right. That will work.

Tell you what, you want self-similar benevolent absolutism? Sure, no problem. Every person is his or her own benevolent dictator. None can gainsay their word when it comes to their own persons, or the products thereof. Happy?

You're openly mocking a number of respected leaders who presided over the Industrial Revolution and guided the uneducated peasantry out of the Middle Ages?

Yup. Most of what they did was get out of the way.

Did you bother looking at the Self-Similarity link? I present you with a real law of Nature and you laugh...

I did indeed look at that link. And applied the concept. At the lowest level, something that is self-similar resembles the whole. In other words, each individual would resemble the whole. The whole is "benevolent absolutism." Each individual being their own benevolent dictator would indeed resemble, at the lowest level, the whole of benevolent absolutism.

[myrkul]

Enlightened Absolutism.

HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAHAHAA!

Yeah, right. That will work.

Tell you what, you want self-similar benevolent absolutism? Sure, no problem. Every person is his or her own benevolent dictator. None can gainsay their word when it comes to their own persons, or the products thereof. Happy?

You're openly mocking a number of respected leaders who presided over the Industrial Revolution and guided the uneducated peasantry out of the Middle Ages?

Yup. Most of what they did was get out of the way.

Did you bother looking at the Self-Similarity link? I present you with a real law of Nature and you laugh...

I did indeed look at that link. And applied the concept. At the lowest level, something that is self-similar resembles the whole. In other words, each individual would resemble the whole. The whole is "benevolent absolutism." Each individual being their own benevolent dictator would indeed resemble, at the lowest level, the whole of benevolent absolutism.

You're mixing two concepts: benevolent dictatorship, where a dictator is thought to be "pretty OK", and Enlightened Absolutism, where the tolerance for 'new thinking' (in practice: art, satire, secular beliefs, etc.) was ahead of its time.

I don't have time right now for all the other 'ping-pong' responses.

Enlightened absolutism (also called by later historians benevolent despotism or enlightened despotism) is a form of absolute monarchy or despotism in which rulers were influenced by the Enlightenment. Enlightened monarchs embraced the principles of the Enlightenment, especially its emphasis upon rationality, and applied them to their territories. They tended to allow religious toleration, freedom of speech and the press, and the right to hold private property. Most fostered the arts, sciences, and education.

Like I said, they mostly just got out of the way.

Benevolent dictatorship is a form of government in which an authoritarian leader exercises political power for the benefit of the whole population rather than exclusively for the benefit of himself or herself or only a small portion of the population.

Yeah, seems like the same concept to me. The only difference is "in which rulers were influenced by the Enlightenment"

So, care to explain how each person being their own benevolent, absolute ruler does not meet your "self-similar" qualification?

[cunicula]

If I steal a car, and then sell the car, does the car rightfully belong to the guy I sold it to, or to the guy I stole it from?

Yeah, that's what I'm trying to figure out. Everything has passed through the state's hands and therefore there is no legitimate ownership? (e.g. as a state employee I cannot legitimate own anything. My salary comes from taxes, which is theft.) Or every time the state privatizes something it establishes a legitimate ownership? Or there is a statute of limitations so that if you own something long enough, then it is rightfully yours? Hmm all the options seem to go in the state's favor.

Can you explain?

[myrkul]

(e.g. as a state employee I cannot legitimate own anything. My salary comes from taxes, which is theft.)

I think you're starting to get the idea.

Or every time the state privatizes something it establishes a legitimate ownership?

I believe sale of stolen goods is illegal in your country, as well? (Unless, of course, the government does it.)

Hmm all the options seem to go in the state's favor.

Can you explain?

If a legitimate owner can be found, stolen State property should be returned to them. If a legitimate owner cannot be found, then the only ways to establish legitimate ownership would be homesteading or syndicalism. In other words, open the ownership to first comers, and those who are currently using the state property are automatically "first comers."

[augustocroppo]

Sole possession of private keys approximates ownership, but it's not. (...)

Not in accordance with this paper from Satoshi Nakamoto:

http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

2. Transactions
We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures.  Each owner transfers the coin to the next by digitally signing a hash of the previous transaction and the public key of the next owner and adding these to the end of the coin.  A payee can verify the signatures to verify the chain of ownership.

In accordance with the above quote, the possession of a private key indicates the ownership of electronic coins. If there was not a method to determine the ownership, it would be impossible for the Bitcoin network to form the blockchain.

Definition of ownership

noun
the act, state, or right of possessing something

The act of possessing a digital key which allows a system to transfer electronic digits from one point to another point is a definition of ownership.

(...) Having keys to a safe doesn't mean I own the contents of the safe.

You are proposing that the ownership of object A does not exist because it cannot determine the ownership of object B.

The ownership of object A is still valid if such ownership does not determine the ownership of object B.

Bitcoins aren't even digital "things" (like, say, an mp3 is) they're just transactions in a record that everyone has.

http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

12. Conclusion
We have proposed a system for electronic transactions without relying on trust.  We started with
the usual framework of coins made from digital signatures, which provides strong control of
ownership, but is incomplete without a way to prevent double-spending.

Sole possession of the private keys just means you're the only one who can change the record for that particular address.

You are contradicting your initial statement. To "change the record for that particular address" it is necessary first to own the private key.

If I get your private keys, I haven't stolen from you.

Yes, you have stolen from me:

Definition of steal
verb
1 [with object] take (another person’s property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it.

You have taken my right of possessing the private key without my permission.

I may have trespassed, if I had to access your computer to get them, but it's not theft. Sorry.

It is theft:

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/theft?q=theft

Definition of theft
noun
[mass noun]
the action or crime of stealing.

[myrkul]

Sole possession of the private keys just means you're the only one who can change the record for that particular address.

You are contradicting your initial statement. To "change the record for that particular address" it is necessary first to own the private key.

Nope, you must possess the key. If two people can possess the same thing at the same time, neither owns it.

You can't own data, and copying isn't stealing.

[augustocroppo]

Nope, you must possess the key. If two people can possess the same thing at the same time, neither owns it.

Wrong again...

If two people posses something, both people OWNS the thing.

You can't own data, and copying isn't stealing.

Yes, I can own data. I am right know owning countless quantity of data in my brain.

Moreover, if the copy happens without prior permission of the owner of the object copied, it is theft.

[MoonShadow]

Sole possession of private keys approximates ownership, but it's not. (...)

Not in accordance with this paper from Satoshi Nakamoto:

http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

2. Transactions
We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures.  Each owner transfers the coin to the next by digitally signing a hash of the previous transaction and the public key of the next owner and adding these to the end of the coin.  A payee can verify the signatures to verify the chain of ownership.

In accordance with the above quote, the possession of a private key indicates the ownership of electronic coins. If there was not a method to determine the ownership, it would be impossible for the Bitcoin network  to form the blockchain.

Definition of ownership

noun
the act, state, or right of possessing something

The act of possessing a digital key which allows a system to transfer electronic digits from one point to another point is an definition of ownership.
n or crime of stealing.

[/quote]

Myrkul didn't really state that well.  The private possesion of the private keys does, indeed, indicate ownership of the value that those coins represent.  However, this is only assumed to be legitimate because there is no way to determine who minght be the legitimate owner of those coins from within the system itself.  Thus, possession of the private keys must be presumed to have been aquired honestly.  Either way, the coping of the private keys, which are simply numbers, isn't theft of property; it's theft of the access to that property.  In this particular case, that property isn't tangible, but nor is it digital; it's simply a concept that, by using this system, we have implicitly agreed to.  That the transaction entries in the blockchain represent the (presumed legtimate) transfer of value.  This is no different than the tranfer of value that occurs within banking computers daily.  It's entirely abstract.  IT comes down to agreements.  You own what you own because you have a honest claim to it that I do not, and I can coose to honor that claim or not, but society at large develops a consensus upon ownership.  While I do agree with Cunicula that what is property is a social convention, I don't agree that those social conventions would not occur in the absence of governments, nor that governments are the natural body to define them.  We have many examples of primitive societies that didn't ever develop anything like what we would consider a government, and yet there are consistent patterns to how these societies view personal property.  Generally speaking, if you killed it and cooked it, it's yours to give away or not; and since most such societes are based upon gift economies, this is usually what happens.  Not because it was community property, but because it's in the interest of one hunter/gatherer to share his surplus with others like himself for the times that he fails to bag the game and another skilled hunter did not fail.  Now real estate is something more complicated, and a very modern & western idea.  But that does not mean that it belongs to everyone via the state, or to the state/king; while that has often been a convient fiction to the peaceful allocation of real estate property.  What libertarain societies would or should do when a significant minority of people within it's own realm should decide that they don't agree with the dominant consensus about property has never really been settled.  Even modern attempts at creating a real libertarian state all but depend upon land that is 'owned' in the tranditional sense by the city-state, and leased for lifetime long periods per agreements.

[fornit]

If I get your private keys, I haven't stolen from you.

Yes, you have stolen from me:

Definition of steal
verb
1 [with object] take (another person’s property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it.

You have taken my right of possessing the private key without my permission.

one-line refutation: lets say i have the intention to return the key i memorized... 

[myrkul]

Nope, you must possess the key. If two people can possess the same thing at the same time, neither owns it.

Wrong again...

If two people posses something, both people OWNS the thing.

Indeed you are wrong again. I'm glad you're coming to realize this. You cannot possess property at the same time someone else does. If two people can possess something at the same time, neither owns it, because it is not property.

You can't own data, and copying isn't stealing.

Yes, I can own data.

No, you can't. Data isn't property.

I am right know owning countless quantity of data in my brain.

I dispute that.

Moreover, if the copy happens without prior permission of the owner of the object copied, it is theft.

I see. We both know the meaning of the word "air." Someone copied that data into our brains. The transfer of that data into your brain occurred without my permission. The transfer of that data into my brain happened without your permission. Have you stolen from me? Have I stolen from you?

[myrkul]

...

...
You guys assume too much. Where did I suggest that I was a fan of copyright laws in their present form? In fact I think that many of the laws are overdue for significant reform. I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of selectively embracing only some ideas about property. Too bad that in AnCap there would be no State to intervene and lay down the law when somebody tries to enforce the 'wrong' ideas.

"Enforce"? Do me a favor, and read your posts out loud before you hit "Post." It will save you from moments like this. What's the root word of "enforce"?

Ooh, touchy. So, back to basics, when an Anarchist nut meets a Communist nut, the Anarchist's claim on a piece of land as "private property" trumps the Communist's claim that it "belongs to the State"? Therefore, when the Anarchist ____(does whatever)_____ to drive the Communist away, that's not enforcement, that's a "legitimate response to a coercive, and therefore illegal occupation"? Suurrre they can co-exist peacefully, it's just the Communist's fault for failing to recognise the superior nature of private property rights. Can there be both private property and a State? No way! That's the evil Communist part of society, and their silly 'State' dogma should be abolished! </sarc>

State = violent monopoly on greed. Take each of those philosophies down to root principles, and you'll see that Private property says you own you, communism says the state owns you. Since both the state and you can't own you at the same time, you can't have a mix. Since the state is a violent monopoly, and monopolies are always worse than services offered on the market, private ownership is better.
 

You're openly mocking a number of respected leaders who presided over the Industrial Revolution and guided the uneducated peasantry out of the Middle Ages?

Yup. Most of what they did was get out of the way.

They got out of whose way?

Peaceful people.

They tended to allow religious toleration, freedom of speech and the press, and the right to hold private property.

Did you bother looking at the Self-Similarity link? I present you with a real law of Nature and you laugh...

I did indeed look at that link. And applied the concept. At the lowest level, something that is self-similar resembles the whole. In other words, each individual would resemble the whole. The whole is "benevolent absolutism." Each individual being their own benevolent dictator would indeed resemble, at the lowest level, the whole of benevolent absolutism.

*yawn*. There's a "lowest level" in a self-similar structure?? Don't bother answering that.

Then a society can not be a self-similar structure. Society does have a lowest level. The individual.

Of course, a fern has a lowest level as well. So I guess according to you, the example used on Wikipedia is wrong?

[augustocroppo]

However, this is only assumed to be legitimate because there is no way to determine who minght be the legitimate owner of those coins from within the system itself.

I am not disputing the legitimacy of the possession. I am arguing over the meaning of ownership, whatever is legitimate or illegitimate. Moreover, there is a method to determine who is the legitimate owner the electronic coins:

http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

We need a way for  the payee to know that  the previous owners did not  sign any earlier transactions.  For our purposes, the earliest transaction is the one that counts, so we don't care about later attempts to double-spend.  The only way to confirm the absence of a transaction is to be aware of all transactions. To accomplish this without  a trusted party,  transactions must  be publicly announced [1], and we need a system for participants to agree on a single history of the order in which they were received.

Thus, possession of the private keys must be presumed to have been aquired honestly.

The Bitcoin protocol do not presume "honestly" to determine ownership.

Either way, the coping of the private keys, which are simply numbers, isn't theft of property; it's theft of the access to that property.

The act of steal requires a direct subject. If you steal my door key to grab my computer with the private keys to obtain the ownership of my electronic coins, you have stolen my Bitcoins, not my access to that electronic coins. The result of your criminal act is defined by your initial intention. Whatever method you use to obtain the ownership, you are acting to possess something you were not allowed with no intention to give back to me.

If I give you my door key, my computer password and ask you to verify if is any problem in the Windows registry, and then you copied my wallet.dat file to obtain the private key and posses my electronic coins, you are not stealing my access to that electronic coins. I granted you the access myself! You are indeed copying  something you were not allowed with no intention to give back to me.

In this particular case, that property isn't tangible, but nor is it digital;

If is not digital, what is

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/digital?q=digital

Definition of digital
adjective
1(of signals or data) expressed as series of the digits 0 and 1, typically represented by values of a physical

http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

The proof-of-work involves scanning for a value that when hashed, such as with SHA-256, the hash begins with a number of zero bits.  The average work required is exponential in the number of zero bits required and can be verified by executing a single hash.

it's simply a concept that, by using this system, we have implicitly agreed to. That the transaction entries in the blockchain represent the (presumed legtimate) transfer of value.  This is no different than the tranfer of value that occurs within banking computers daily.  It's entirely abstract.  IT comes down to agreements.  You own what you own because you have a honest claim to it that I do not, and I can coose to honor that claim or not, but society at large develops a consensus upon ownership.

I own because I own because I own...

Circular logic.

I own my electronic coins in the blockchain because I posses the private keys which allows the Bitcoin protocol verify the previous ownership of my electronic coins with the society's consensus (miners).

[augustocroppo]

one-line refutation: lets say i have the intention to return the key i memorized... 

Well, that would be a prank, not an act of theft.

[myrkul]

one-line refutation: lets say i have the intention to return the key i memorized... 

Well, that would be a prank, not an act of theft.

[MoonShadow]

However, this is only assumed to be legitimate because there is no way to determine who minght be the legitimate owner of those coins from within the system itself.

I am not disputing the legitimacy of the possession. I am arguing over the meaning of ownership, whatever is legitimate or illegitimate. Moreover, there is a method to determine who is the legitimate owner the electronic coins:

http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

Then, I suspect, that we are arguing semantics across a language divide.  That said, ownership is, at core, the right to possess property, or do dispose of it at one's own discression.  For example; in the former Soviet Union the state 'owned' everything, but could not actually possess it.  If a truck driver under the state's employ were to take the truck the state owned and use it to move contraband, it does not mean that he ever owned the truck.  In this sense, it's actually impossible to "own" information, because there is never a single person or group who has a right to destroy that information.  You can destroy the private keys on your hard drive, but that simply destroys your own access to the value on the blockchain; others could still come along in a couple decades and brute force another private key and claim salvage, whether or not you are still alive and could otherwise prove your prior possession.  Within the network itself, it's entirely unnecessary for any particular entity to even submit a claim of salvage, because the production of another private key would be all the claim that is required.

In short, if you don't have a right (or ability) to destroy something, then you don't own it.  If I were to write a poem and keep it on my hard drive, I own that data.  If I were to post it anywhere on the Internet, I've reliquished the ability to destroy that data, and thus do not own it anymore; I only own my own copy.

We need a way for  the payee to know that  the previous owners did not  sign any earlier transactions.  For our purposes, the earliest transaction is the one that counts, so we don't care about later attempts to double-spend.  The only way to confirm the absence of a transaction is to be aware of all transactions. To accomplish this without  a trusted party,  transactions must  be publicly announced [1], and we need a system for participants to agree on a single history of the order in which they were received.

Thus, possession of the private keys must be presumed to have been aquired honestly.

The Bitcoin protocol do not presume "honestly" to determine ownership.

No, the protocol does not.  The people who use it do.  The protocol does not presume anything, it only functions as the developers desire it to, and they must make such presumptions.

Either way, the coping of the private keys, which are simply numbers, isn't theft of property; it's theft of the access to that property.

The act of steal requires a direct subject. If you steal my door key to grab my computer with the private keys to obtain the ownership of my electronic coins, you have stolen my Bitcoins, not my access to the ownership of my Bitcoins. The result of your criminal act is defined by your initial intention. Whatever method you use to obtain the ownership, you are acting to possess something you were not allowed with no intention to give back to me.

If I give you my door key, my computer password and ask you to verify if is any problem in the Windows registry, and then you copy my wallet.dat file to obtain the private key and posses my electronic coins, you are not stealing my access to that electronic coins. I granted you the access myself! You are indeed copying  something you were not allowed with no intention to give back to me.

I don't dispute that copying your private keys implies the intent to spend your coins as if they were mine. I don't understand what point you were trying to make here.

In this particular case, that property isn't tangible, but nor is it digital;

If is not digital, what is

You misunderstand.   The transactions that reside on the blockchain are digital, but the actual coins do not exist. They are entirely an abstract concept.

it's simply a concept that, by using this system, we have implicitly agreed to. That the transaction entries in the blockchain represent the (presumed legtimate) transfer of value.  This is no different than the tranfer of value that occurs within banking computers daily.  It's entirely abstract.  IT comes down to agreements.  You own what you own because you have a honest claim to it that I do not, and I can coose to honor that claim or not, but society at large develops a consensus upon ownership.

I own because I own because I own...

Circular logic.

Linier, actually. Just because you do not understand it, does not make my logic circular.  Every claim of ownership, within bitcoin or otherwise, has a chain of transfers that can be traced back to a start.  In bitcoin, we can trace that start all the way back to one or more block rewards, each originally owned by the miner who created the block.

I own my electronic coins in the blockchain because I posses the private keys which allows the Bitcoin protocol verify the previous ownership of my electronic coins with the society's consensus (miners).

You own them because we both agree that the chain of events depicted by the blockchain is correct, and that they represent an honest title, which is enforced by the protocol and your private keys being kept secret.  If you do not agree you cannot function within the bitcoin economy, because the blockchain (and thus the whole of the bitcoin 'society') would not recognize any claims that do not conform to the perspectives that the protocol reflects.  Otherwise, the entire bitcoin network is just numbers in motion; it is the users who grant them meaning.

[myrkul]

However, this is only assumed to be legitimate because there is no way to determine who minght be the legitimate owner of those coins from within the system itself.

I am not disputing the legitimacy of the possession. I am arguing over the meaning of ownership, whatever is legitimate or illegitimate. Moreover, there is a method to determine who is the legitimate owner the electronic coins:

http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

Then, I suspect, that we are arguing semantics across a language divide. 

Careful... you're getting close to ad hominem.

But, yeah... I've said that for days. The language barrier is killing this debate.

[augustocroppo]

Indeed you are wrong again. I'm glad you're coming to realize this. You cannot possess property at the same time someone else does. If two people can possess something at the same time, neither owns it, because it is not property.

So, in your definition, if I (psychically and legally) posses the house at the same time my wife (psychically and legally) posses the house, we do not owns the house.

Who owns the house?

No, you can't. Data isn't property.

I will put again, in case you did not read:

Definition of ownership
noun
the act, state, or right of possessing something

The definition of ownership do not regard "property", but "something".

Data is "something".

I dispute that.

I see. We both know the meaning of the word "air." Someone copied that data into our brains. The transfer of that data into your brain occurred without my permission. The transfer of that data into my brain happened without your permission. Have you stolen from me? Have I stolen from you?

You are disputing over the act of possessing something which cannot be possessed...

You can own data, but you cannot own what the data means. You can own the data which represents "air", but you cannot own the meaning of "air".

I can own the numbers and letters which of private key, but I cannot own what that numbers and letters means.

Therefore, the answer for your questions is: no, no.

[MoonShadow]

However, this is only assumed to be legitimate because there is no way to determine who minght be the legitimate owner of those coins from within the system itself.

I am not disputing the legitimacy of the possession. I am arguing over the meaning of ownership, whatever is legitimate or illegitimate. Moreover, there is a method to determine who is the legitimate owner the electronic coins:

http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

Then, I suspect, that we are arguing semantics across a language divide. 

Careful... you're getting close to ad hominem.

But, yeah... I've said that for days. The language barrier is killing this debate.

I did not imply that his language problems negates the legitimacy of his perspectives.  You most certainly did.  At least in the opinion of the moderator. 

I was implying that his language issues, and my use of language, were not permitting myself to be understood.  The distinction is not trivial.

[MoonShadow]

Indeed you are wrong again. I'm glad you're coming to realize this. You cannot possess property at the same time someone else does. If two people can possess something at the same time, neither owns it, because it is not property.

So, in your definition, if I (psychically and legally) posses the house at the same time my wife (psychically and legally) posses the house, we do not owns the house.

Who owns the house?

That depends on many other issues than possession.  Possession might imply ownership, but possession is not evidence of ownership.  I would wager, if you are anything like the average middle class couple, that the bank owns the house.

No, you can't. Data isn't property.

I will put again, in case you did not read:

Definition of ownership
noun
the act, state, or right of possessing something

The definition of ownership do not regard "property", but "something".

Data is "something".

That definition is incomplete.   Ownership can be described as the right to possession, but not possession itself.  Therein lies the risk of depending upon a single source for the definitions of English words.  English, moreso than most any other Latin derived language, is "squishy" and imprecise.  Which is great for fostering the thought processes that lead to innovation and ideas, as well as other forms of "outside of the box" thinking, but not so great for things that require precise communications of understanding, like engineering. This, in a nutshell, explains why Americans came up with ideas like the mass production line and the Interent; but the Japanese nearly conquored the US car market with the mass production line.

It's also further evidence that Satoshi Nakamoto was not actually Japanese.

[myrkul]

Indeed you are wrong again. I'm glad you're coming to realize this. You cannot possess property at the same time someone else does. If two people can possess something at the same time, neither owns it, because it is not property.

So, in your definition, if I (psychically and legally) posses the house at the same time my wife (psychically and legally) posses the house, we do not owns the house.

Who owns the house?

You do not each separately possess the house. You jointly own the house. To wit: You cannot sell the house without her consent. If you each owned the house, either one (or both!) could sell the house.

Data is "something".

No. Data is information.

I see. We both know the meaning of the word "air." Someone copied that data into our brains. The transfer of that data into your brain occurred without my permission. The transfer of that data into my brain happened without your permission. Have you stolen from me? Have I stolen from you?

You are disputing over the act of possessing something which cannot be possessed...

Meaning is data. Data can be possessed but it cannot be owned.

But thank you for finally agreeing that you can't own data.

[augustocroppo]

You do not each separately possess the house. You jointly own the house.

So:

You cannot possess property at the same time someone else does. If two people can possess something at the same time, neither owns it, because it is not property.

How I do not own the house if jointly own the house?

Data is "something".

No. Data is information.

Really... What is information? Nothing or something?

Meaning is data (...)

No.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/meaning?q=Meaning

Definition of meaning
noun
what is meant by a word, text, concept, or action:

Meaning is what is meant by information, not the information.

Data can be possessed but it cannot be owned.

In another words, you are suggesting that data can be possessed (have as belonging to one; own:), but it cannot be owned ([with object] have (something) as one’s own; possess).

This is a contradictory statement.

But thank you for finally agreeing that you can't own data.

I did not agree with anything from your failed attempts to reformulate your definitions.

Keep trying.

[myrkul]

You do not each separately possess the house. You jointly own the house.

So:

You cannot possess property at the same time someone else does. If two people can possess something at the same time, neither owns it, because it is not property.

How I do not own the house if jointly own the house?

The part that you cut out explains:
To wit: You cannot sell the house without her consent. If you each owned the house, either one (or both!) could sell the house.
Perhaps you'll listen to OED:

each:

used to refer to every one of two or more people or things, regarded and identified separately:

joint:

shared, held, or made by two or more people together:

You cannot each own the house because you jointly own the house. Data, on the other hand, can be possessed separately by each person that has it.

Data is "something".

No. Data is information.

Really... What is information?

Information. Data. Knowledge. Meaning. Look any of those words up in the dictionary. I suggest dictionary.com, instead of Oxford, since dictionary.com provides more meanings for the words, and may give you a better understanding of the language.

Meaning is data (...)

No.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/meaning?q=Meaning

Definition of meaning
noun
what is meant by a word, text, concept, or action:

Meaning is what is meant by information, not the information.

Meaning is the information which conveys what is meant by other information. A dictionary definition is the information which conveys what is meant by a word. A dictionary definition is the meaning of a word.

Data can be possessed but it cannot be owned.

In another words, you are suggesting that data can be possessed (have as belonging to one; own:), but it cannot be owned ([with object] have (something) as one’s own; possess).

This is a contradictory statement.

That, the way you wrote it, is a contradictory statement. But you'll notice (or maybe you didn't - but I see you kept them in there) I included the definitions in the words. To explode the definitions in the way you did:
Data can be possessed(to have knowledge of: to possess a language.) but it cannot be owned(to have as belonging to one; have as property: to possess a house and car.).

That is not a contradictory statement.

But thank you for finally agreeing that you can't own data.

I did not agree with anything from your failed attempts to reformulate your definitions.

Keep trying.

You sure?

You are disputing over the act of possessing something which cannot be possessed...

[MoonShadow]

You do not each separately possess the house. You jointly own the house.

So:

You cannot possess property at the same time someone else does. If two people can possess something at the same time, neither owns it, because it is not property.

How I do not own the house if jointly own the house?

He's not talking about a house.  You can't both, at the same time, possess a singular object.  That's physically impossible; regardless of the legal shorthand that claims that you both might own the house together.  He's talking about data.  You can each possess a copy, but then neither of you owns the data, only the copy that you possess.

Data is "something".

No. Data is information.

Really... What is information? Nothing or something?

Meaning is data (...)

No.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/meaning?q=Meaning

Definition of meaning
noun
what is meant by a word, text, concept, or action:

Meaning is what is meant by information, not the information.

you reall shouldn't attempt to argue semantics with Myrkul.  Not only are you not understanding his point, even if you were correct he would beat you down with experience.  If nothing else, the man does understand the nuances of the words that he chooses to employ.

Data can be possessed but it cannot be owned.

In another words, you are suggesting that data can be possessed (have as belonging to one; own:), but it cannot be owned ([with object] have (something) as one’s own; possess).

This is a contradictory statement.

No, it's not.  Once again, you can own a copy of the data, but no one can own the data itself.  Like this, you buy a book.  You own the object that is the book, but it is just a container for data; otherwise you would have bought a different book.  But you do not own the infromation that the book contains, and no one else can either, because no one can "own" information, the government enforce IP laws notwithstanding.  You literally don't have the right to destroy that data in the possession of others, only your own copy.

But thank you for finally agreeing that you can't own data.

I did not agree with anything from your failed attempts to reformulate your definitions.

Keep trying.

Please, take a step back and let these ideas sink in for a bit.

[augustocroppo]

Perhaps you'll listen to OED:

each:

used to refer to every one of two or more people or things, regarded and identified separately:

joint:

shared, held, or made by two or more people together:

You cannot each own the house because you jointly own the house. Data, on the other hand, can be possessed separately by each person that has it.

All right, let's deconstruct:

Own: [with object] have (something) as one’s own; possess.

Possess: have as belonging to one; own.

Property:[mass noun] a thing or things belonging to someone; possessions collectively.

"You cannot regarded and identified separately possess the house because you two or more people together possess the house."

You cannot possess property at the same time someone else does. If two people can possess something at the same time, neither owns it, because it is not property.

"You cannot have as belonging to one a thing belonging to someone at the same time someone else does. If two people can have as belonging to one something at the same time, neither have as one’s own it, because it is not a thing belonging to someone."

In another words, your statements shows that your definition is not coherent. You are arguing that if two or more entities share the possession of a given object, none can possess the object.

Since I am disputing the meaning of ownership, your answers have already provided enough evidence to me refute your inconsistent arguments:

Sole possession of the private keys just means you're the only one who can change the record for that particular address.

You are contradicting your initial statement. To "change the record for that particular address" it is necessary first to own the private key.

Nope, you must possess the key. If two people can possess the same thing at the same time, neither owns it.

Deconstructed:

Possession: the state of having, owning, or controlling something.

"Sole state of having, owning, or controlling the private keys just means you're the only one who can change the record for that particular address."

"Nope, you must have as belonging to one the key. If two people can have as belonging to one the same thing at the same time, neither have (something) as one’s own it."

I can share any private key with my wife to let she have as belonging to one (possess) the electronic coins I have as one’s own (own).

This is shared ownership, not absence of ownership. Moreover, you made a statement which contradicts your original argument:

"Data, on the other hand, can be possessed separately by every one of two or more person that has it."

Private keys are data.

Information. Data. Knowledge. Meaning. Look any of those words up in the dictionary. I suggest dictionary.com, instead of Oxford, since dictionary.com provides more meanings for the words, and may give you a better understanding of the language.

You ignored this question: information is nothing or something?

[myrkul]

You are using a very narrow definition of both "own" and "possess." Specifically, you are using the definitions under which the words are interchangeable.

This is a direct result of your reliance on a dictionary definition. Moreover, that dictionary definition provided by a single dictionary. I suggest you broaden your knowledge of the words you are using. For instance:
Possess has 14 meanings. (I am using #6 when I speak of data, and #1 when I speak of property.)
Own has 6 meanings, and an additional 5 idiomatic meanings. (We are both using #3.)


"You cannot separately possess the house because you together possess the house."

Makes sense.

"You cannot have as belonging to one a thing at the same time someone else does. If two people can have as something belonging to one at the same time, neither have it as one’s own, because it is not a thing which can belong to someone."

As does this. This makes it even clearer:

"You cannot have as belonging solely to one a thing at the same time someone else does. If two people can have something as belonging solely to one at the same time, neither have it as one’s own, because it is not a thing which can belong solely to someone."

I can share any private key with my wife to let she have as belonging to one (possess) the electronic coins I have as one’s own (own).

This is shared ownership, not absence of ownership.

It is shared knowledge. In other words, shared possession (definition #6). Since two people cannot simultaneously possess (definition #1) something, neither of you own (definition #3) the data.

"Data, on the other hand, can be possessed separately by every one of two or more people that have it."

Private keys are data.

Indeed they are, and therefore not property. Remember that I use definition #6 of "possess" when I speak of data.

You ignored this question: information is nothing or something?

Neither. Information is a pattern. It may be a pattern of ones and zeros on a hard drive, or impulses in your neurons, or lines in sand. You cannot possess (definition #1) such a pattern, and in the case of the sand lines especially, trying may well destroy it.

[cunicula]

So I guess my apartment will be homesteaded. I (state employee) rent the apartment. My landlord (state employee) leases the apartment for a fixed term. The property development company (joint stock company, majority owned by the state) leases the land below the apartment for a fixed term and leases the public facilities. The government owns the land.

Who gets to homestead the apartment? If it is syndicated, I am afraid the dictator's family syndicate will quickly acquire it.

[sorry that there is so much state making things complicated. I am lucky enough to live in a profoundly statist society.]

[augustocroppo]

He's not talking about a house.  You can't both, at the same time, possess a singular object.  That's physically impossible;

Two or more people can posses a singular object at the same time. That is not physically impossible:

No, it's not.  Once again, you can own a copy of the data, but no one can own the data itself. Like this, you buy a book.  You own the object that is the book, but it is just a container for data; otherwise you would have bought a different book.

If books are bought to be read, the buyer have interest to absorb the data imprinted in the book. If the buyer memorize the name of the author, he/she owned data, he/she acted to possess a piece of information. It not means he/she is the legitimate or solely owner of the information, it means that he/she posses an unique piece of information. He/she could forever keep that unique information for itself and be the only owner, or then express that unique information and share the ownership.

But you do not own the infromation that the book contains, and no one else can either, because no one can "own" information, the government enforce IP laws notwithstanding.

Of course not! For any reader would be quite difficult to completely own the information contained in the book. That is why the author is recognized as the legitimate owner of the information contained in a book. The author produced the information from his own data. He is completely aware of the information produced while the reader is not. The book content becomes the data transferred from a owner (author) to another owner (reader).

You literally don't have the right to destroy that data in the possession of others, only your own copy.

I am not arguing over the right to destroy data in possession of others. I am arguing over the definition of ownership. In the moment you own certain thing, it not means other are granted with ability to destroy your possession. What could or not could be done regarding ownership is quite relative to the moral standards of a certain society.

[myrkul]

So I guess my apartment will be homesteaded. I (state employee) rent the apartment. My landlord (state employee) leases the apartment for a fixed term. The property development company (joint stock company, majority owned by the state) leases the land below the apartment for a fixed term and leases the public facilities. The government owns the land.

Who gets to homestead the apartment? If it is syndicated, I am afraid the dictator's family syndicate will quickly acquire it.

[sorry that there is so much state making things complicated. I am lucky enough to live in a profoundly statist society.]

Either you are of sub-par intelligence, or intentionally misrepresenting my words.

You, since you are using your apartment, would then own it. (syndicalism, remember?) You would then be part owner of a building. Your landlord would be the manager of this building, and possibly part owner as well (if he has an apartment in the building). You (yourself and the other tenants) could, of course, hire another manager, if this one isn't to your liking.

[MoonShadow]

So I guess my apartment will be homesteaded. I (state employee) rent the apartment. My landlord (state employee) leases the apartment for a fixed term. The property development company (joint stock company, majority owned by the state) leases the land below the apartment for a fixed term and leases the public facilities. The government owns the land.

Who gets to homestead the apartment? If it is syndicated, I am afraid the dictator's family syndicate will quickly acquire it.

Ask Dr. Zhivago.

[myrkul]

He's not talking about a house.  You can't both, at the same time, possess a singular object.  That's physically impossible;

Two or more people can posses a singular object at the same time. That is not physically impossible:

I didn't even bother to read past this point. They're both using the bike. If they each possessed the bike, they could steer it in different directions.

[MoonShadow]

He's not talking about a house.  You can't both, at the same time, possess a singular object.  That's physically impossible;

Two or more people can posses a singular object at the same time. That is not physically impossible:

Cute.  Use an object designed to be utilized by two people at once as your example.  Fair enough, it's not impossible, if that is part of the design.  But do both people possess a car, if only one can drive it while the other rides?  Even in your photo, the woman in the back is not in control of the bike, so does she possess it?  That's arguable.  Can two people own a book?  Sure, if they have agreed to share it; but they can't both use it (read it) at the same time, so they can't both possess it at the same time.  My daughter uses my kindle, but I own it and do (sometimes) use it.  Even if she isn't reading it, if it's in her backpack she is in possession of it, and thus I cannot use it.

No, it's not.  Once again, you can own a copy of the data, but no one can own the data itself. Like this, you buy a book.  You own the object that is the book, but it is just a container for data; otherwise you would have bought a different book.

If books are bought to be read, the buyer have interest to absorb the data imprinted in the book. If the buyer memorize the name of the author, he/she owned data, he/she acted to possess a piece of information. It not means he/she is the legitimate or solely owner of the information, it means that he/she posses an unique piece of information. He/she could forever keep that unique information for itself and be the only owner, or then express that unique information and share the ownership.

However unique any person's take upon that data, he cannot own that data. He can only own the container, be it a book or his own mind.  I have a right to destroy a book I bought, and my own person if I choose.  You do not have any such right, and couldn't destroy my data otherwise.  There are many definitions of ownership, but the legitimate authority to destroy that property is a simple and necessary component.  If I don't have the right to destroy my book, then I don't own it.

But you do not own the infromation that the book contains, and no one else can either, because no one can "own" information, the government enforce IP laws notwithstanding.

Of course not! For any reader would be quite difficult to completely own the information contained in the book. That is why the author is recognized as the legitimate owner of the information contained in a book. The author produced the information from his own data. He is completely aware of the information produced while the reader is not. The book content becomes the data transferred from a owner (author) to another owner (reader).

I don't recognize any such thing, and neither does US copyright law.  Such ownership was specificly rejected by the framers of the US Consittution, which only provides for a limited term monopoly on copying of such information.  If it were actual property, then those rights would not just be transferable & inheritable, but eternal.  They are, fortunately, limited in time and scope.

And fair use by libraires & schools would be theft.

You literally don't have the right to destroy that data in the possession of others, only your own copy.

I am not arguing over the right to destroy data in possession of others. I am arguing over the definition of ownership. In the moment you own certain thing, it not means other are granted with ability to destroy your possession.

It does in English.

What could or not could be done regarding ownership is quite relative to the moral standards of a certain society.

Certainly not.

[fornit]

medieval knights often fought for hours and hours, because nobody got the weapons to hurt anyone. in the end, it was often just the one that was too exhausted to stand that got killed.

you guys really need to learn how to use a longbow, if you get my drift...

[augustocroppo]

Neither. Information is a pattern. It may be a pattern of ones and zeros on a hard drive, or impulses in your neurons, or lines in sand. You cannot possess (definition #1) such a pattern, and in the case of the sand lines especially, trying may well destroy it.

Of course information is a pattern!

You refusal to admit that is "something" is what I expected from a deceiver like you. There is no middle point to justify "neither". Information is "something", not "nothing". If information is neither "something" or "nothing", it only can be a thing.

This particular argumentation begun with:

You can't own data, and copying isn't stealing.

Yes, I can own data.

No, you can't. Data isn't property.

Which I replied:

I will put again, in case you did not read:

Definition of ownership
noun
the act, state, or right of possessing something

The definition of ownership do not regard "property", but "something".

Data is "something".

Data can be property if you admit that data is a pattern:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/property?s=t

property
 
— n  , pl -ties
1.   something of value, either tangible, such as land, or intangible, such as patents, copyrights, etc
2.   law  the right to possess, use, and dispose of anything
3.   possessions collectively or the fact of owning possessions of value
4.   a. a piece of land or real estate, esp used for agricultural purposes
    b. ( as modifier ): property rights
5.   chiefly  ( Austral ) a ranch or station, esp a small one
6.   a quality, attribute, or distinctive feature of anything, esp a characteristic attribute such as the density or strength of a material
7.   obsolete logic  another name for proprium
8.   Usually shortened to: prop  any movable object used on the set of a stage play or film

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/information?q=information

Definition of information
noun
[mass noun]
(...)
2 what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/information?s=t

information

in·for·ma·tion
noun
1.
knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance; news: information concerning a crime.
2.
knowledge gained through study, communication, research, instruction, etc.; factual data: His wealth of general information is amazing.
3.
the act or fact of informing.
4.
an office, station, service, or employee whose function is to provide information to the public: The ticket seller said to ask information for a timetable.
5.
Directory Assistance.
 
— n
1. knowledge acquired through experience or study
2. knowledge of specific and timely events or situations; news
3. the act of informing or the condition of being informed
4. a. an office, agency, etc, providing information
    b. ( as modifier ): information service
5. a. a charge or complaint made before justices of the peace, usually on oath, to institute summary criminal proceedings
    b. a complaint filed on behalf of the Crown, usually by the attorney general
6. computing
    a. the meaning given to data by the way in which it is interpreted
    b. another word for data
7. informal too much information  I don't want to hear any more

[myrkul]

medieval knights often fought for hours and hours, because nobody got the weapons to hurt anyone. in the end, it was often just the one that was too exhausted to stand that got killed.

you guys really need to learn how to use a longbow, if you get my drift...

Unfortunately there is no longbow, to punch through his willful ignorance and reliance on a partial understanding of the language he is conversing in. But rest assured, I have the greater stamina.

[cunicula]

So I guess my apartment will be homesteaded. I (state employee) rent the apartment. My landlord (state employee) leases the apartment for a fixed term. The property development company (joint stock company, majority owned by the state) leases the land below the apartment for a fixed term and leases the public facilities. The government owns the land.

Who gets to homestead the apartment? If it is syndicated, I am afraid the dictator's family syndicate will quickly acquire it.

[sorry that there is so much state making things complicated. I am lucky enough to live in a profoundly statist society.]

Either you are of sub-par intelligence, or intentionally misrepresenting my words.

You, since you are using your apartment, would then own it. (syndicalism, remember?) You would then be part owner of a building. Your landlord would be the manager of this building, and possibly part owner as well (if he has an apartment in the building). You (yourself and the other tenants) could, of course, hire another manager, if this one isn't to your liking.

I see, so we start by redistributing all property to its current occupiers. Land to the tiller style, like a good developmental state, like the US in Hawaii or Maoist China.
The plan is to take over and expropriate property owners. Good plan.

Then once the initial expropriation is done with, we open up the parks, oceans, and stuff for homesteading.

Now people can build up new fortunes (or otherwise) in a stateless society.

Now I see why you guys are so into gold. All assets outside of direct possession get redistributed, so the only way of retaining property is by having it in your direct possession.
Ergo, buy gold.

[augustocroppo]

He's not talking about a house.  You can't both, at the same time, possess a singular object.  That's physically impossible;

Two or more people can posses a singular object at the same time. That is not physically impossible:

(...)

Cute.  Use an object designed to be utilized by two people at once as your example.  Fair enough, it's not impossible, if that is part of the design.  But do both people possess a car, if only one can drive it while the other rides?  Even in your photo, the woman in the back is not in control of the bike, so does she possess it?  That's arguable.

Whatever is arguable or not, I have demonstrated that two or more people can posses a singular object at the same time.

You do not each separately possess the house. You jointly own the house.

So:

You cannot possess property at the same time someone else does. If two people can possess something at the same time, neither owns it, because it is not property.

How I do not own the house if jointly own the house?

He's not talking about a house.  You can't both, at the same time, possess a singular object.  That's physically impossible; regardless of the legal shorthand that claims that you both might own the house together.  He's talking about data.  You can each possess a copy, but then neither of you owns the data, only the copy that you possess.

Whatever is the house or the data (private key), two or more people can share a single object at the same time. Therefore they can both share the ownership. Only the absence of an act, state or right to possess the object would mean an absence of ownership.

[myrkul]

Neither. Information is a pattern. It may be a pattern of ones and zeros on a hard drive, or impulses in your neurons, or lines in sand. You cannot possess (definition #1) such a pattern, and in the case of the sand lines especially, trying may well destroy it.

Of course information is a pattern!

You refusal to admit that is "something" is what I expected from a deceiver like you. There is no middle point to justify "neither". Information is "something", not "nothing". If information is neither "something" or "nothing", it only can be a thing.

Nope, it is an arrangement of things. An arrangement of things is not a thing itself. If I draw a set of lines in the sand, and you draw an identical set of lines in the sand, have you stolen from me? You've copied my pattern, my information. And you did so without my permission. It could be argued that simply by looking at the pattern, you're making a copy, inside your own mind. If information is property, I demand that you forget my works! Give me back my property!

[myrkul]

So I guess my apartment will be homesteaded. I (state employee) rent the apartment. My landlord (state employee) leases the apartment for a fixed term. The property development company (joint stock company, majority owned by the state) leases the land below the apartment for a fixed term and leases the public facilities. The government owns the land.

Who gets to homestead the apartment? If it is syndicated, I am afraid the dictator's family syndicate will quickly acquire it.

[sorry that there is so much state making things complicated. I am lucky enough to live in a profoundly statist society.]

Either you are of sub-par intelligence, or intentionally misrepresenting my words.

You, since you are using your apartment, would then own it. (syndicalism, remember?) You would then be part owner of a building. Your landlord would be the manager of this building, and possibly part owner as well (if he has an apartment in the building). You (yourself and the other tenants) could, of course, hire another manager, if this one isn't to your liking.

I see, so we start by redistributing all property to its current occupiers. Land to the tiller style, like a good developmental state, like the US in Hawaii or Maoist China.
The plan is to take over and expropriate property owners. Good plan.

Then once the initial expropriation is done with, we open up the parks, oceans, and stuff for homesteading.

Now people can build up new fortunes (or otherwise) in a stateless society.

Oh, but you are getting soooo close!
You're only missing one word. Let me repeat your post, with that word added, and the extra crap removed:

I see, so we start by redistributing all state property to its current occupiers. Land to the tiller style.
The plan is to take over and expropriate state property. Good plan.

Then once the initial expropriation is done with, we open up the parks, oceans, and stuff for homesteading.

Now people can build up new fortunes (or otherwise) in a stateless society.

There we go!

[cunicula]

So I guess my apartment will be homesteaded. I (state employee) rent the apartment. My landlord (state employee) leases the apartment for a fixed term. The property development company (joint stock company, majority owned by the state) leases the land below the apartment for a fixed term and leases the public facilities. The government owns the land.

Who gets to homestead the apartment? If it is syndicated, I am afraid the dictator's family syndicate will quickly acquire it.

[sorry that there is so much state making things complicated. I am lucky enough to live in a profoundly statist society.]

Either you are of sub-par intelligence, or intentionally misrepresenting my words.

You, since you are using your apartment, would then own it. (syndicalism, remember?) You would then be part owner of a building. Your landlord would be the manager of this building, and possibly part owner as well (if he has an apartment in the building). You (yourself and the other tenants) could, of course, hire another manager, if this one isn't to your liking.

I see, so we start by redistributing all property to its current occupiers. Land to the tiller style, like a good developmental state, like the US in Hawaii or Maoist China.
The plan is to take over and expropriate property owners. Good plan.

Then once the initial expropriation is done with, we open up the parks, oceans, and stuff for homesteading.

Now people can build up new fortunes (or otherwise) in a stateless society.

Oh, but you are getting soooo close!
You're only missing one word. Let me repeat your post, with that word added, and the extra crap removed:

I see, so we start by redistributing all state property to its current occupiers. Land to the tiller style.
The plan is to take over and expropriate state property. Good plan.

Then once the initial expropriation is done with, we open up the parks, oceans, and stuff for homesteading.

Now people can build up new fortunes (or otherwise) in a stateless society.

There we go!

I thought I got to own my apartment now  . Are you saying that the landlord gets it?  

It is okay. I am moving to a more luxurious apartment that is directly owned by the state in December.  

The state owns the vast majority of the wealth in my society. They run a budget surplus every year to finance state wealth accumulation. They hold the nation's assets in trust for future generations. Any wealth left over goes to private owners like the dictator's nieces, nephews, and in-laws. I am pretty happy with how wealth is distributed except the stuff that goes to those private owners (all due to nepotism).

I don't think addition of the adjective "state" changes much in my context. You are welcome to throw it in if it makes you feel better, but if the state owns all land there is not much 'private'  property left to keep sacrosanct. And the 'private' property is the most vicious stuff of all. It is the first stuff that should be seized and redistributed. It is what causes the dictator's democracy problem.

[myrkul]

I don't think addition of the adjective "state" changes much in my context. You are welcome to throw it in if it makes you feel better, but if the state owns all land there is not much 'private'  property left to keep sacrosanct.

This is true. I'm sorry to hear of your slavery.

[cunicula]

This is true. I'm sorry to hear of your slavery.

Somehow I feel that your optimism comes from living in a free society with a limited state. Thus you can have a free and wide-ranging imagination with no fear. When you live in a place like mine imagination is tempered by realism.

You have no capital thought crimes in your country I expect? For example, if I "imagine" injury to the dictator, that is a capital offence.
I suspect you have freedom of assembly. Sadly, private political gatherings of three or more in my country are illegal if they include foreigners.
I suspect you have freedom of speech. If I speak ill of the state that is called libel. My property will be taken and I will be bankrupt. As a bankrupt, I lose my freedom to emigrate until I discharge my debt to the state.
By custom, all references to my person would read, "Cunicula, an undischarged bankrupt,". The state owns all media of course, through its joint-stock companies. Bankrupts are said to be always committing thefts and  murders. As criminals, they are barred from politics and state employment. Bankruptcy is a great mark of shame in my uber-capitalist country.

Perhaps if you lived in a truly statist society like my own you would come to appreciate your country's leaders.

[augustocroppo]

Nope, it is an arrangement of things. An arrangement of things is not a thing itself. If I draw a set of lines in the sand, and you draw an identical set of lines in the sand, have you stolen from me? You've copied my pattern, my information. And you did so without my permission. It could be argued that simply by looking at the pattern, you're making a copy, inside your own mind. If information is property, I demand that you forget my works! Give me back my property!

If an arrangement of things is not a thing itself, what is? Nothing itself?

If a "set of lines in the sand" is nothing, what is?

If I draw a set of lines in the sand, and you draw an identical set of lines in the sand, have you stolen from me? You've copied my pattern, my information. And you did so without my permission.

No, I did not stolen from you. The information is in your brain, not in the "lines in the sand".

It could be argued that simply by looking at the pattern, you're making a copy, inside your own mind. If information is property, I demand that you forget my works! Give me back my property!

It could, but that is not the definition of ownership. Moreover, the pattern recorded in my memory is different of the pattern you recorded in your memory. Merely look at "lines in the sand" is not equivalent to own the same information. Two or more observer always will perceive the "lines in the sand" at the same time from a different perspective.

[myrkul]

This is true. I'm sorry to hear of your slavery.

Somehow I feel that your optimism comes from living in a free society with a limited state. Thus you can have a free and wide-ranging imagination with no fear.

And yet, you do not yearn for freedom... In fact, you attempt to shoot down any talk of liberty. I can only assume that it is your job to do so. I strongly suggest you leave your country.

Nope, it is an arrangement of things. An arrangement of things is not a thing itself.

If an arrangement of things is not a thing itself, what is? Nothing itself?

If a "set of lines in the sand" is nothing, what is?

Since these questions make no sense as written, I'm guessing they were meant to be written:

If an arrangement of things is not a thing itself, what is it? Nothing itself?

If a "set of lines in the sand" is not nothing, what is it?

I told you. It's a pattern. An idea. Information.

If I draw a set of lines in the sand, and you draw an identical set of lines in the sand, have you stolen from me? You've copied my pattern, my information. And you did so without my permission.

No, I did not stolen from you. The information is in your brain, not in the "lines in the sand".

Then how did it get into your brain? How did you make that same pattern? Are you a telepath? Are you snooping around in my head?

Let me help you out: The information is in my head, the lines I drew in the sand, your head, and the lines you drew in the sand, all at the same time. Information is not property, and copying is not theft.

It could be argued that simply by looking at the pattern, you're making a copy, inside your own mind. If information is property, I demand that you forget my works! Give me back my property!

It could, but that is not the definition of ownership. Moreover, the pattern recorded in my memory is different of the pattern you recorded in your memory. Merely look at "lines in the sand" is not equivalent to own the same information. Two or more observer always will perceive the "lines in the sand" at the same time from a different perspective.

If the pattern in your memory is different from the pattern in my memory, how did you produce an identical copy in the sand?

(hint: it's not different)

How is having the same pattern of lines in your mind as I do in mine different from you having the same pattern of letters and numbers (the private key) in your mind and your wife's?

(hint: it's not different)

[JoelKatz]

Nope, it is an arrangement of things. An arrangement of things is not a thing itself. If I draw a set of lines in the sand, and you draw an identical set of lines in the sand, have you stolen from me? You've copied my pattern, my information. And you did so without my permission. It could be argued that simply by looking at the pattern, you're making a copy, inside your own mind. If information is property, I demand that you forget my works! Give me back my property!

It is perfectly reasonable to describe something as theft if society prohibits doing it without paying someone a fee and you do it without paying that fee. For example, say someone owns a museum and charges $10 admission. If you sneak into the museum and look at the exhibits without paying the $10 fee, it is perfectly reasonable and ordinary to say you stole $10 from them.

It is not the information itself that is property but the right to do specific things with the information. There is no reason that can't be property, and that's a perfectly ordinary and reasonable use of the term, just as many other intangible rights can be property. For example, say you mow lawns. I can buy the right to have you mow one average lawn. That right is now my property. Say you own a timeshare. I can buy, and have as my property, the right to occupy that timeshare during August.

Nobody else has any other problem with intangible rights being property. This is just a manufactured confusion with intellectual property rights.

[myrkul]

Nope, it is an arrangement of things. An arrangement of things is not a thing itself. If I draw a set of lines in the sand, and you draw an identical set of lines in the sand, have you stolen from me? You've copied my pattern, my information. And you did so without my permission. It could be argued that simply by looking at the pattern, you're making a copy, inside your own mind. If information is property, I demand that you forget my works! Give me back my property!

It is perfectly reasonable to describe something as theft if society prohibits doing it without paying someone a fee and you do it without paying that fee. For example, say someone owns a museum and charges $10 admission. If you sneak into the museum and look at the exhibits without paying the $10 fee, it is perfectly reasonable and ordinary to say you stole $10 from them.

I think you mean "trespassing."

It is not the information itself that is property but the right to do specific things with the information. There is no reason that can't be property, and that's a perfectly ordinary and reasonable use of the term, just as many other intangible rights can be property. For example, say you mow lawns. I can buy the right to have you mow one average lawn. That right is now my property. Say you own a timeshare. I can buy, and have as my property, the right to occupy that timeshare during August.

You can rent my services as a lawn mower. This is not ownership. Timesharing is a specific type of joint ownership. Nothing intangible about it.

[myrkul]

This is true. I'm sorry to hear of your slavery.

Somehow I feel that your optimism comes from living in a free society with a limited state. Thus you can have a free and wide-ranging imagination with no fear.

And yet, you do not yearn for freedom... In fact, you attempt to shoot down any talk of liberty. I can only assume that it is your job to do so. I strongly suggest you leave your country.

Is that what you call it? "Freedom"? What you so stubbornly advocate is just another path to despotism. Why do you think they call revolutions, revolutions? Because it sounds nifty? No. It's because the status quo turns full-circle, not just 180 degrees as you so desperately wish it to be. Otherwise they would'ce called them U-turns.

But that's OK, keep shouting about freedom and liberty from that dark prison of your mindset...

What makes you think what I want is a revolution? I want an evolution.

(If you're wondering why I always seem to have an answer, it's because I've heard all this bullshit before. You're none of you treading ground that hasn't been stomped flat by much better debaters than yourselves.)

[cunicula]

This is true. I'm sorry to hear of your slavery.

Somehow I feel that your optimism comes from living in a free society with a limited state. Thus you can have a free and wide-ranging imagination with no fear.

And yet, you do not yearn for freedom... In fact, you attempt to shoot down any talk of liberty. I can only assume that it is your job to do so. I strongly suggest you leave your country.

I will move if I find a comparatively remunerative occupation in a more attractive location. For now, the capitalist totalitarian state pays high wages, has good working conditions, a low cost of living, and is extremely safe.

I care about the health and material welfare of my family. Their "liberty", as you call it, is not a big concern.

[myrkul]

regarding your rejection of intellectual property rights and your claim that copying is not theft. Does that include private personal information? No no! We can't allow people to keep their personal info private. That would be a monopoly! Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Anything you don't want public... maybe don't publish it? Don't give it to people who haven't agreed to keep it private.

[Rudd-O]

Somehow I feel that your optimism comes from living in a free society with a limited state. Thus you can have a free and wide-ranging imagination with no fear.

And yet, you do not yearn for freedom... In fact, you attempt to shoot down any talk of liberty. I can only assume that it is your job to do so. I strongly suggest you leave your country.

Uncle Tom hates it when people talk about being free, because it reminds him of how unfree he is.

Some people can't hear the truth, and can't stand people who speak it, because it's just too painful to bear.

I'll leave the intro to Stockholm Syndrome here:

Stockholm syndrome, or capture-bonding, is a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy, sympathy and have positive feelings towards their captors, sometimes to the point of defending them. These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors for an act of kindness.[1][2]

Tell me if this doesn't describe the behavior of the angry, petty and abusive people you've been addressing lately.

[myrkul]

This is true. I'm sorry to hear of your slavery.

Somehow I feel that your optimism comes from living in a free society with a limited state. Thus you can have a free and wide-ranging imagination with no fear.

And yet, you do not yearn for freedom... In fact, you attempt to shoot down any talk of liberty. I can only assume that it is your job to do so. I strongly suggest you leave your country.

I will move if I find a comparatively remunerative occupation in a more attractive location. For now, the capitalist totalitarian state pays high wages, has good working conditions, a low cost of living, and is extremely safe.

I care about the health and material welfare of my family. Their "liberty", as you call it, is not a big concern.

Well, as to that, I would suggest Latin American countries. Mexico, in particular, seems to be moving up in the world, as it were.

Out of curiosity, what country do you live in? I don't want to accidentally visit.

[Rudd-O]

Nobody else has any other problem with intangible rights being property.

There is an epistemological clusterfuck with the fragment "intangible rights being property".  It's unparsable for many reasons, so I'll attempt my best to try and parse this broken English.

If you meant that "intangibles can be property", then "Nobody else has any other problem" is false.  I know of at least four different people who "have a problem with" (that is to say, they have come up with refutations of) the belief that intangibles can be property:

1. Hans Hermann Hoppe
2. Stephan Kinsella
3. Wendy McElroy
4. Stefan Molyneux

Your move.

[myrkul]

regarding your rejection of intellectual property rights and your claim that copying is not theft. Does that include private personal information? No no! We can't allow people to keep their personal info private. That would be a monopoly! Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Anything you don't want public... maybe don't publish it? Don't give it to people who haven't agreed to keep it private.

Should I put that one in the "Wild West" pile, together with justice? I'm trying to put together a rule-book to help people navigate that fine line between what is or is not allowed in an AnCap society.

It's hardly a fine line, and you need not write a whole book... it can be summed up in one sentence:
"No person has the right to initiate the use of force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property."
See? Simple.

I understand that personal responsibility can be difficult to grasp for someone who has had their will broken first by their parents and then by the school system, but it's really a simple matter.

[cunicula]

This is true. I'm sorry to hear of your slavery.

Somehow I feel that your optimism comes from living in a free society with a limited state. Thus you can have a free and wide-ranging imagination with no fear.

And yet, you do not yearn for freedom... In fact, you attempt to shoot down any talk of liberty. I can only assume that it is your job to do so. I strongly suggest you leave your country.

I will move if I find a comparatively remunerative occupation in a more attractive location. For now, the capitalist totalitarian state pays high wages, has good working conditions, a low cost of living, and is extremely safe.

I care about the health and material welfare of my family. Their "liberty", as you call it, is not a big concern.

Well, as to that, I would suggest Latin American countries. Mexico, in particular, seems to be moving up in the world, as it were.

Out of curiosity, what country do you live in? I don't want to accidentally visit.

I'll give you some hints.  My country has the highest number of millionaires per capita in the world and the highest per capita income in the world.
The sovereign wealth fund has almost US$100k per citizen for what they call the state calls its 'rainy day fund.'

Here are some additional hints. When boys misbehave in school. They receive strokes of the cane from the 'discipline master.' Our children lead the world in test scores.

Some call it a "libertarian paradise."

After all, we have minimal taxes and the rate of taxation is the best measure of state authority. Taxation is theft, remember? Your state steals more from you, so you are deeper in slavery than I am.

[MoonShadow]

Out of curiosity, what country do you live in? I don't want to accidentally visit.

I'll give you some hints.  My country has the highest number of millionaires per capita in the world and the highest per capita income in the world.
The sovereign wealth fund has almost US$100k per citizen for what they call the state calls its 'rainy day fund.'

Here are some additional hints. When boys misbehave in school. They receive strokes of the cane from the 'discipline master.' Our children lead the world in test scores.

Some call it a "libertarian paradise." After all, we have minimal taxes and the rate of taxation is the best measure of state authority. Taxation is theft, remember. They steal more from you, so you are deeper in slavery than I am.

Dubai?

[cunicula]

Out of curiosity, what country do you live in? I don't want to accidentally visit.

I'll give you some hints.  My country has the highest number of millionaires per capita in the world and the highest per capita income in the world.
The sovereign wealth fund has almost US$100k per citizen for what they call the state calls its 'rainy day fund.'

Here are some additional hints. When boys misbehave in school. They receive strokes of the cane from the 'discipline master.' Our children lead the world in test scores.

Some call it a "libertarian paradise." After all, we have minimal taxes and the rate of taxation is the best measure of state authority. Taxation is theft, remember. They steal more from you, so you are deeper in slavery than I am.

Dubai?

Very close. You used up your guess, let someone else try. Does this mean gollum gets to keep his precious?

[myrkul]

This is true. I'm sorry to hear of your slavery.

Somehow I feel that your optimism comes from living in a free society with a limited state. Thus you can have a free and wide-ranging imagination with no fear.

And yet, you do not yearn for freedom... In fact, you attempt to shoot down any talk of liberty. I can only assume that it is your job to do so. I strongly suggest you leave your country.

I will move if I find a comparatively remunerative occupation in a more attractive location. For now, the capitalist totalitarian state pays high wages, has good working conditions, a low cost of living, and is extremely safe.

I care about the health and material welfare of my family. Their "liberty", as you call it, is not a big concern.

Well, as to that, I would suggest Latin American countries. Mexico, in particular, seems to be moving up in the world, as it were.

Out of curiosity, what country do you live in? I don't want to accidentally visit.

I'll give you some hints.  My country has the highest number of millionaires per capita in the world and the highest per capita income in the world.
The sovereign wealth fund has almost US$100k per citizen for what they call the state calls its 'rainy day fund.'

Here are some additional hints. When boys misbehave in school. They receive strokes of the cane from the 'discipline master.' Our children lead the world in test scores.

Some call it a "libertarian paradise." After all, we have minimal taxes and the rate of taxation is the best measure of state authority. Taxation is theft, remember? They steal more from you, so you are deeper in slavery than I am.

Let me guess, The Republic of Wadiya?

[cunicula]

Let me guess, The Republic of Wadiya?

Hmm... No, this is a real state.

[cunicula]

Boys getting caned... Libertarian paradise... it could only be Singapore.

Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding!  

Should I run your slogan by the tourism marketing committee?

[MoonShadow]

Nobody else has any other problem with intangible rights being property.

I do.  I have never (personally) met anyone willing to call himself a libertarian that did not.  And, by definition, any flavor of 'anarchist' (Myrkul is an AnarcoCapitalist,IIRC) no form of 'intellectual property' is enforcible in the absence of a state.

[myrkul]

Boys getting caned... Libertarian paradise... it could only be Singapore.

Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding! 

"Libertarian paradise" my ass. Statist hellhole, more like. I'd rather move to Somalia.

[cunicula]

Boys getting caned... Libertarian paradise... it could only be Singapore.

Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding!  

"Libertarian paradise" my ass. Statist hellhole, more like. I'd rather move to Somalia.

Oh, you must be a poor libertarian.  If you were a rich libertarian, then it would be paradise.  

I encourage you to try out Somalia. I'll donate BTC if we can get a libertarian blogging about his AnCap society in Somalia.

[MoonShadow]

Boys getting caned... Libertarian paradise... it could only be Singapore.

Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding!  

Should I run your slogan by the tourism marketing committee?

Singapore is far from a libertarian paradise by any metric beyond lax enforcement of child prostitution laws; and for myself, I'd consider the protection of orphans from sex-starved foreigners one of the very few legitimate functions of a state apparatus.  A loose business regulatory environment is not the only condition of a libertarian "paradise".

[MoonShadow]

Boys getting caned... Libertarian paradise... it could only be Singapore.

Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding!  

"Libertarian paradise" my ass. Statist hellhole, more like. I'd rather move to Somalia.

Oh, you must be a poor libertarian.  If you were a rich libertarian, then it would be paradise.  


I encourage you to try out Somalia. I'll donate BTC if we can get a libertarian blogging about his AnCap society in Somalia.

Any place one might desire to reside is a paradise, if you are wealthy enough.  That includes Somalia.

[myrkul]

Singapore is far from a libertarian paradise by any metric beyond lax enforcement of child prostitution laws; and for myself, I'd consider the protection of orphans from sex-starved foreigners one of the very few legitimate functions of a state apparatus. 

And if state force were the only way to get that done, I'd agree with you.

I encourage you to try out Somalia. I'll donate BTC if we can get a libertarian blogging about his AnCap society in Somalia.

How much we talking about? If it's enough to hire some mercs and set up a protection agency, I might consider it.

[cunicula]

Boys getting caned... Libertarian paradise... it could only be Singapore.

Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding!  

Should I run your slogan by the tourism marketing committee?

Singapore is far from a libertarian paradise by any metric beyond lax enforcement of child prostitution laws; and for myself, I'd consider the protection of orphans from sex-starved foreigners one of the very few legitimate functions of a state apparatus.  A loose business regulatory environment is not the only condition of a libertarian "paradise".

Hey that's libel! Human trafficking laws are strictly enforced [provided that the trafficking involves Singaporean citizens].

The 'dark and dirty' [that's a Singlish expression for citizen of a neighboring state] should not be protected and supported using our tax dollars. You bastards with your entitlements that you think justify theft. I don't know what you mean by child prostitution anyways. Such workers are called 'entertainers'. In your country I understand that entertaining in this way is prohibited. LOL statist slave!

True, our companies hire bonded labor from developing countries. True, the gov't taxes the low wages paid to foreign bonded labor at about 50%. That's not a real tax though, those are foreigners. True, bonded labor is not legally entitled to time off. Not even one day per year. True, employers of bonded labor are liable for crimes committed by their charges. True, bonded labor is prohibited from communicating with members of the oppositie sex. True, female bonded laborers are tested for pregnancy every 3 months. In case of a violation, such criminals are deported. Employers forfeit the bond they placed on workers good behavior and become responsible for hunting down any runaway. Failure to locate a runaway means additional fines. Thus, the private repatriation companies. They search for and seize absconders, and load them on to cargo planes. All very efficient and free market.

I don't see any contradiction between any of this and libertarian ideals. Look how the evils of limited liability have been corrected in our employment arrangements! How can you fail to applaud this example of voluntary exchange and freedom of contract.

My apartment is even equipped with a small, windowless compartment that locks from the outside. It can accommodate one or two third-world nationals (if you use a bunk bed, as many do)
The other day I debated with a colleague whether bonded labor deserves a bed or not. He contended that offering a bed raises expectations for working conditions which leads to poor service.

(completely serious).

[cunicula]

Singapore is far from a libertarian paradise by any metric beyond lax enforcement of child prostitution laws; and for myself, I'd consider the protection of orphans from sex-starved foreigners one of the very few legitimate functions of a state apparatus. 

And if state force were the only way to get that done, I'd agree with you.

I encourage you to try out Somalia. I'll donate BTC if we can get a libertarian blogging about his AnCap society in Somalia.

How much we talking about? If it's enough to hire some mercs and set up a protection agency, I might consider it.

Maybe do a kickstarter? I'll contribute US$1k minimum. You have to blog and take photos, videos, etc. though.
I want footage of the mercs in action.

[myrkul]

Nobody else has any other problem with intangible rights being property.

I do.  I have never (personally) met anyone willing to call himself a libertarian that did not.  And, by definition, any flavor of 'anarchist' (Myrkul is an AnarcoCapitalist,IIRC) no form of 'intellectual property' is enforcible in the absence of a state.

This seems to explain the recent hand-wringing and articles insisting that Bitcoin is tangible, in some obscure way that I can't quite put my finger on. At least my philosophy is more consistent: all property is intellectual property.

Bitcoin is no more tangible than EVE ISK. Or USD in a bank account. It's all just bits on a computer somewhere.

[myrkul]

I encourage you to try out Somalia. I'll donate BTC if we can get a libertarian blogging about his AnCap society in Somalia.

How much we talking about? If it's enough to hire some mercs and set up a protection agency, I might consider it.

Maybe do a kickstarter? I'll contribute US$1k minimum. You have to blog and take photos, videos, etc. though.
I want footage of the mercs in action.

Well, $1k is far from enough to run on until I'm profitable. I don't know how much it would take, but I know it's much more than that.  

What about you, blatherblatherblather? Want to put your money where your mouth is? How much would you contribute to getting me to put my ideas into practice?

(For AnCaps and libertarians: I'll take your money, too, and if I get enough "Yeah, I'd give money to that," I'll actually get to work on figuring out how much I'd need, and set up the kickstarter. "I'll come help" counts, too)

[myrkul]

Nobody else has any other problem with intangible rights being property.

I do.  I have never (personally) met anyone willing to call himself a libertarian that did not.  And, by definition, any flavor of 'anarchist' (Myrkul is an AnarcoCapitalist,IIRC) no form of 'intellectual property' is enforcible in the absence of a state.

This seems to explain the recent hand-wringing and articles insisting that Bitcoin is tangible, in some obscure way that I can't quite put my finger on. At least my philosophy is more consistent: all property is intellectual property.

Bitcoin is no more tangible than EVE ISK. Or USD in a bank account. It's all just bits on a computer somewhere.

Of course that's tangible. How is "bits on a computer" any different from numbers on a "fancy scroll of parchment" telling you the co-ordinates of a piece of land you supposedly own?

Edit: and the parchment has a special "header" section, explaining what it is and saying that "_______ owns such-and-such a piece of land at the following co-ordinates".

Well, aside from being on paper, as opposed to stored in ones and zeroes on a computer, there isn't any difference. Of course, that land deed is just the paperwork. It, by itself, no more grants you ownership of a piece of land than does drawing some lines on a map.

1) Begging for money already, eh?
2) It's Blablahblah.
3) What ideas? We're just trying to send you to a place with no Internet.

1) I was offered money. I was just seeing if you wanted to get in on this "fabulous investment opportunity"
2) I like my version better.
3) Somalia's got some of the best cell reception on the continent. Failing that, there's always satellite. Everyone's always telling me, "You want to live in a stateless society, move to Somalia." I figured you guys would jump at the chance to actually make that happen.

[myrkul]

Of course that's tangible. How is "bits on a computer" any different from numbers on a "fancy scroll of parchment" telling you the co-ordinates of a piece of land you supposedly own?

Edit: and the parchment has a special "header" section, explaining what it is and saying that "_______ owns such-and-such a piece of land at the following co-ordinates".

Well, aside from being on paper, as opposed to stored in ones and zeroes on a computer, there isn't any difference. Of course, that land deed is just the paperwork. It, by itself, no more grants you ownership of a piece of land than does drawing some lines on a map.

OK, so the paperwork/electronic bits are just a formality -- the storage medium. Then what does grant you the real ownership?

We've been over this, I know we have...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle
(or you can buy or inherit it from someone who homesteaded it, or who bought/inherited it from someone who homesteaded it, or from someone who bought/inherited it from someone who bought/inherited it from someone who homesteaded it, etc.)

[cunicula]

Of course that's tangible. How is "bits on a computer" any different from numbers on a "fancy scroll of parchment" telling you the co-ordinates of a piece of land you supposedly own?

Edit: and the parchment has a special "header" section, explaining what it is and saying that "_______ owns such-and-such a piece of land at the following co-ordinates".

Well, aside from being on paper, as opposed to stored in ones and zeroes on a computer, there isn't any difference. Of course, that land deed is just the paperwork. It, by itself, no more grants you ownership of a piece of land than does drawing some lines on a map.

OK, so the paperwork/electronic bits are just a formality -- the storage medium. Then what does grant you the real ownership?

We've been over this, I know we have...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle
(or you can buy or inherit it from someone who homesteaded it, or who bought/inherited it from someone who homesteaded it, or from someone who bought/inherited it from someone who bought/inherited it from someone who homesteaded it, etc.)

When you drop down in Somalia with your team of 'Mercs' is that what is called 'homesteading'?

History question: My statist high school textbook referred to "the conquest of the Americas". However, I understand that, in many cases, affected native people's did not believe in private rights to land. Where no private rights taken, it is clear that conquest did not occur. Would the proper term be "the homesteading of the Americas" or would "the voluntary resettlement of Americas' native inhabitants" be more accurate?

[myrkul]

When you drop down in Somalia with your team of 'Mercs' is that what is called 'homesteading'?

No, we would most likely purchase a building from one of the locals. No need to go out and find land in the middle of nowhere when you're going to be serving a city (I actually thought I would start small, something unlikely to be missed by TPTB).

History question: My statist high school textbook referred to "the conquest of the Americas". However, I understand that, in many cases, affected native people's did not believe in private rights to land. Where no private rights taken, it is clear that conquest did not occur. Would the proper term be "the homesteading of the Americas" or would "the voluntary movement of Americas' native inhabitants" be more accurate?

In some cases, conquest would be accurate, in others homesteading would be. How the Europeans treated the native populations was by no means uniform, and certainly not uniformly kind. The US government made, and subsequently broke, so many treaties with them, that it would be funny, if it weren't so sad and infuriating.

A notable exception is that of William Penn: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn%27s_Treaty_with_the_Indians
Interestingly, Pennsylvania experienced a nearly 10-year period of peaceful anarchy after Penn "temporarily" suspended all taxation, and the people living there decided they'd rather keep it that way: https://mises.org/daily/1865

[myrkul]

It's your memory, you slippery weasel! In order to 'own' something, it's a fundamental requirement for you to remember that fact. Otherwise you will forget about it, and someone else will eventually stake a new claim of ownership on it. So how is your 'tangible' property not fundamentally an intellectual idea in your head?

Is that so?

Let's posit an amnesiac, who wakes up on the beach in front of a beautiful house with a dog licking his face. He follows the dog into the house, which he bought a decade ago, but does not remember.

Are you saying I could come along, and kick him out of that house, simply because he doesn't remember it's his?

[Richy_T]

Win.  Did I guess right?

I wish I could tell you. I don't killfile on principal but that doesn't stop my eyes glazing over at rampant idiocy.

[myrkul]

It's your memory, you slippery weasel! In order to 'own' something, it's a fundamental requirement for you to remember that fact. Otherwise you will forget about it, and someone else will eventually stake a new claim of ownership on it. So how is your 'tangible' property not fundamentally an intellectual idea in your head?

Is that so?

Let's posit an amnesiac, who wakes up on the beach in front of a beautiful house with a dog licking his face. He follows the dog into the house, which he bought a decade ago, but does not remember.

Are you saying I could come along, and kick him out of that house, simply because he doesn't remember it's his?

I don't have time for this. Familiarity is still a kind of memory, and if that fails, one could argue that the property gets passed onto the next-of-kin who does remember, i.e.: the dog.

Oh, so it's the dog's house, now? 

to quote:
You're always dreaming up new examples after the fact to rationalise your pre-existing beliefs. In other words, you're bullshitting, and deep down inside you know that I am correct.

And another pertinent quote:

Do me a favor, and read your posts out loud before you hit "Post." It will save you from moments like this.

[myrkul]

It's your memory, you slippery weasel! In order to 'own' something, it's a fundamental requirement for you to remember that fact. Otherwise you will forget about it, and someone else will eventually stake a new claim of ownership on it. So how is your 'tangible' property not fundamentally an intellectual idea in your head?

Is that so?

Let's posit an amnesiac, who wakes up on the beach in front of a beautiful house with a dog licking his face. He follows the dog into the house, which he bought a decade ago, but does not remember.

Are you saying I could come along, and kick him out of that house, simply because he doesn't remember it's his?

I don't have time for this. Familiarity is still a kind of memory, and if that fails, one could argue that the property gets passed onto the next-of-kin who does remember, i.e.: the dog.

Oh, so it's the dog's house, now? 

Yeah, why not...

You know, Sometimes I think that the only reason I click that "show" link is for the humor value... You certainly do keep me laughing.

to quote:
You're always dreaming up new examples after the fact to rationalise your pre-existing beliefs. In other words, you're bullshitting, and deep down inside you know that I am correct.

Yup.

Thanks for admitting it.

My point still stands:
All property is fundamentally intellectual in nature. Clearly you're trying to "lay down the law" on how the different kinds (whether it's art, digital coins, private nude pictures, or land, etc.) are allowed to be treated, yet you don't want a rulebook. Cognitive dissonance much?

No, I'm not "laying down the law" on how things should be treated. There's only one law: No person has the right to initiate the use of force, threat of force, or fraud upon another person or their property. That includes their computer harddrives. If I want to arrange the ones and zeroes on my harddrive in a specific way, you cannot force me not to. Plain and simple. Ergo, "intellectual property" is not property.

[MoonShadow]

My point still stands:
All property is fundamentally intellectual in nature.

No, all property is fundamentally an agreement in nature.  If I do not agree that your authorship gives you claim to the series of bytes that may render your authored work on my computer, then you do not have ownership of them, I do.  I can agree that you produced the work all day long and still not agree that you have ownership of it.  If you had kept the work on your own systems in such a way that I had to have broken it in order to aquire such information, you might have a point, but if you published the work in any manner you can't claim tresspass.  You wrote the work, but the copy is mine regardless of whether or not I aquired it in a manner that you might approve of.

[augustocroppo]

Bitcoin is no more tangible than EVE ISK. Or USD in a bank account. It's all just bits on a computer somewhere.

X

Bitcoins aren't even digital "things" (like, say, an mp3 is) they're just transactions in a record that everyone has.

Fail...

[myrkul]

Bitcoin is no more tangible than EVE ISK. Or USD in a bank account. It's all just bits on a computer somewhere.

X

Bitcoins aren't even digital "things" (like, say, an mp3 is) they're just transactions in a record that everyone has.

Fail...

I have to say, this is the most words you've managed to string together sensibly the whole time we've been conversing.

Of course, you completely failed to make a point.

[Fjordbit]

The inital premise seems off to me. Typically schools are paid for by land tax. If you rent, you don't pay land tax directly, you would pay a landlord. The landlord would pay the land tax, but I know in my case I don't even pay that directly. I pay my mortgage company 1/12th of the cost every month, and they put it in escrow. Then once a year they pay the property tax. Those coins used to pay that will probably have very little taint with what the renter paid. So, pretty quickly this becomes too cumbersome to use in the intended way.

[MoonShadow]

The inital premise seems off to me. Typically schools are paid for by land tax. If you rent, you don't pay land tax directly, you would pay a landlord. The landlord would pay the land tax, but I know in my case I don't even pay that directly. I pay my mortgage company 1/12th of the cost every month, and they put it in escrow. Then once a year they pay the property tax. Those coins used to pay that will probably have very little taint with what the renter paid. So, pretty quickly this becomes too cumbersome to use in the intended way.

Well, the initial premise is a bit odd, but what about property taxes confuses you?

[myrkul]

The inital premise seems off to me. Typically schools are paid for by land tax. If you rent, you don't pay land tax directly, you would pay a landlord. The landlord would pay the land tax, but I know in my case I don't even pay that directly. I pay my mortgage company 1/12th of the cost every month, and they put it in escrow. Then once a year they pay the property tax. Those coins used to pay that will probably have very little taint with what the renter paid. So, pretty quickly this becomes too cumbersome to use in the intended way.

I think you may be a little confused as to which thread you're in. That was copied from a previous thread, and this discussion is primarily (or, at least, it started out as being) about whether or not privately funded schooling is moral. Whinewhinewhine contends that it's "child slavery."

I suggest you paste that into the original thread.

[Fjordbit]

The inital premise seems off to me. Typically schools are paid for by land tax. If you rent, you don't pay land tax directly, you would pay a landlord. The landlord would pay the land tax, but I know in my case I don't even pay that directly. I pay my mortgage company 1/12th of the cost every month, and they put it in escrow. Then once a year they pay the property tax. Those coins used to pay that will probably have very little taint with what the renter paid. So, pretty quickly this becomes too cumbersome to use in the intended way.

Well, the initial premise is a bit odd, but what about property taxes confuses you?

How you can distinctly tie property taxes directly to a person who has paid them using bitcoin as a mechanism for qualifying children for eligibility of education services.

Bitcoin actually provides the perfect voluntaryist solution to keep track of who has paid how much for what services.  You didn't chip in for school?  Your kids don't go.

[myrkul]

The inital premise seems off to me. Typically schools are paid for by land tax. If you rent, you don't pay land tax directly, you would pay a landlord. The landlord would pay the land tax, but I know in my case I don't even pay that directly. I pay my mortgage company 1/12th of the cost every month, and they put it in escrow. Then once a year they pay the property tax. Those coins used to pay that will probably have very little taint with what the renter paid. So, pretty quickly this becomes too cumbersome to use in the intended way.

Well, the initial premise is a bit odd, but what about property taxes confuses you?

How you can distinctly tie property taxes directly to a person who has paid them using bitcoin as a mechanism for qualifying children for eligibility of education services.

Bitcoin actually provides the perfect voluntaryist solution to keep track of who has paid how much for what services.  You didn't chip in for school?  Your kids don't go.

Once again, that goes in this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=124477.msg1341698#msg1341698

[cunicula]

Bitcoin actually provides the perfect voluntaryist solution to keep track of who has paid how much for what services.  You didn't chip in for school?  Your kids don't go.

Right, this is the same principle behind our nation's lax enforcement of human trafficking laws. The law is for the benefit of tax payers only. It is not an entitlement handed out to aliens. For third-worlders, we merely enforce freedom of contract.

[Fjordbit]

Once again, that goes in this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=124477.msg1341698#msg1341698

Myrkul: Thread Monitor

[myrkul]

Once again, that goes in this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=124477.msg1341698#msg1341698

Myrkul: Thread Monitor

If you want to speak about Bitcoin being used as school payment, then it would be wise to speak in the thread where that was raised, and not in the tangent thread, would it not?

If nothing else, you'll get the attention of the people who are interested in that, and not the trolls in this thread. I'm just trying to help you do that. But if you want to be trolled by cunicula et al, be my guest.

[Fjordbit]

If you want to speak about Bitcoin being used as school payment, then it would be wise to speak in the thread where that was raised, and not in the tangent thread, would it not?

If nothing else, you'll get the attention of the people who are interested in that, and not the trolls in this thread. I'm just trying to help you do that. But if you want to be trolled by cunicula et al, be my guest.

Thanks for your permission.

This forum isn't serious business; you would probably do well not to worry about things so much.

[Rudd-O]

Fjordbit: can you just post on the other thread?  Myrkul doesn't try to control your behavior or make you feel bad by suggesting that.  Thanks :-)

[myrkul]

No, I'm not "laying down the law" on how things should be treated. There's only one law: No person has the right to initiate the use of force, threat of force, or fraud upon another person or their property.

So, what you're basically saying, but cannot bring yourself to admit, is that AnCap would be a monopoly on force?

You've got a funny definition of "monopoly."

Take for example a competing law:

There is only one law: No person has the right to initiate the use of force, threat of force, or fraud upon people or objects in the community.

Given such a law, applying labels of 'property' on parts of the community and attempting to 'own' those bits of the community would be fraudulent and coercive. We've already talked about this. We've already established that two competing laws of this nature could not co-exist without conflict and unresolved accusations of 'coercion' from both sides. Therefore, the 2 jurisdictions would be in conflict until they somehow resolve their differences, probably by agreeing on some non-overlapping country borders.

...you mean communists would want to segregate themselves from capitalists? Madness!

I've never stated, nor implied that the two competing ideas of property would intermingle. I stated that a commune - by definition a community solely composed of communists - would be accepted, tolerated, and respected within a larger AnCap society. However, a capitalist community would not be respected, tolerated, or accepted within a larger communist society.

You say that AnCap has no State, but this is incorrect. By having even just one law and people willing to enforce it, it does have a State. Sure, it would be decentralised, distributed, and disorganised, but it would be a State nonetheless.

You also appear to have a funny definition of "State."

Let's see what I can do to correct this...

The pertinent definitions of "State" from dictionary.com:

7. a politically unified people occupying a definite territory; nation.
8. the territory, or one of the territories, of a government.
9. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) any of the bodies politic which together make up a federal union, as in the United States of America.
10. the body politic as organized for civil rule and government ( distinguished from church).
11. the operations or activities of a central civil government: affairs of state.
12. ( initial capital letter ) Also called State Department. Informal . the Department of State.

Obviously, 8-12 don't apply, but 7 comes close. Let's take a look at that:

7. a politically unified people occupying a definite territory; nation.

Well, it certainly looks like you might be right here... However, there is a word in the definition that has me concerned...

Nation

1. a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own: The president spoke to the nation about the new tax.

Whoops. "to possess a government peculiarly its own" Hmm. No, even definition #7 doesn't fit. I suppose you could call an AnCap region "politically unified," in that they all reject politics, but they're definitely not a nation. No, the closest you could come is calling it a territory filled with single-person "States".

[Richy_T]

To paraphrase from a different debate, AnCap is a state like bald is a hair color.

[myrkul]

I thought I'd share this, considering the holiday...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=66QdQErc8JQ

[myrkul]

No, I'm not "laying down the law" on how things should be treated. There's only one law: No person has the right to initiate the use of force, threat of force, or fraud upon another person or their property.

So, what you're basically saying, but cannot bring yourself to admit, is that AnCap would be a monopoly on force?

You've got a funny definition of "monopoly."

Oh. No quote from the dictionary? Why not? Hey wait a minute...

From the thefreedictionary.com

monopoly

4.
a. Exclusive possession or control: arrogantly claims to have a monopoly on the truth.
b. Something that is exclusively possessed or controlled: showed that scientific achievement is not a male monopoly.

That fits in rather nicely with my usage of the word. AnCap supporters want exclusive control by means of imposing "the one law" on ALL of society, and...

I'm sure that does indeed fit quite nicely with your usage of the word. Unfortunately, it doesn't fit with the sentence you're using it in. I really don't see why you have such a problem with it, since that "one law" says only "Don't bully, don't hit, and don't steal." Did your mommy not teach you these things?

I've never stated, nor implied that the two competing ideas of property would intermingle. I stated that a commune - by definition a community solely composed of communists - would be accepted, tolerated, and respected within a larger AnCap society.

...political dissidents would be confined to their own special areas, where they would be tolerated simply because they're safely "out of the way" and won't get up the AnCap lynchmob's noses. You're not even willing to entertain the possibility of limits on AnCap's territorial domain. It would all be 'AnCap' terrority, just not presently annoying any particular AnCap moguls. Yet AnCap is somehow magically not a monopoly on force?

You've got some explaining to do, young man!

Maybe you just don't understand "voluntary"? That's got to be it.

vol·un·tar·y
adjective
1. done, made, brought about, undertaken, etc., of one's own accord or by free choice: a voluntary contribution.

Doesn't really fit with "confined," does it? The idea is a voluntary society. That means all interactions must be voluntary. For both parties. So it doesn't matter what mode of property you accept. If you try to force an involuntary interaction, you're aggressing.

Take for example a competing law:

There is only one law: No person has the right to initiate the use of force, threat of force, or fraud upon people or objects in the community.

Given such a law, applying labels of 'property' on parts of the community and attempting to 'own' those bits of the community would be fraudulent and coercive. We've already talked about this. We've already established that two competing laws of this nature could not co-exist without conflict and unresolved accusations of 'coercion' from both sides. Therefore, the 2 jurisdictions would be in conflict until they somehow resolve their differences, probably by agreeing on some non-overlapping country borders.

...you mean communists would want to segregate themselves from capitalists? Madness!

More likely, they would be rounded up and put in private jails for failing to recognise some mogul's "property rights". "He's not a victim! By breaking The One Law, he was asking to be locked up."?? That sounds like something that an abuser might say!

You really don't get it, do you?

You say that AnCap has no State, but this is incorrect. By having even just one law and people willing to enforce it, it does have a State. Sure, it would be decentralised, distributed, and disorganised, but it would be a State nonetheless.

You also appear to have a funny definition of "State."

Let's see what I can do to correct this...
...

You were the one suggesting that in AnCap "each person is his own little government". You can cherry-pick definitions all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that AnCap supporters would be:
a) a walking law-book
b) judge
c) jury
d) executioner
e) educator
f) defence force
...sounds like a State to me!

So, like I said, a region filled with single person "States". I really don't see what your problem is with it.

[Awalt541]

So I havent read the whole thread nor do I intend to, I went to a private christian school 7-11th grade,  I was kicked out my junior year for drinking. I blew my knee out during football and had gotten fairly addicted to painkillers thanks to a generous 6x60 percocet (sp?) 30mg script. First time ever using drugs and I went overboard. All the while my sister had to drop out of school for a semester and was in the hospital for 3 months, not one person ever called and asked how I was. I was living at my buddies house because my parents were with my sister at the hospital and my coaches/teachers couldnt have cared less. Private [Christian] institutions as I know them are hypocritical, so much so I am no longer a practicing christian, not one time over the course of 4 years there did I ever feel "God's love" there were good people there and I do not intend to bash christians for the wrong doing of a few.

Now the worst part of it all is that when you sign up to go to school there both you AND your parents sign forms saying that they are allowed to discipline you in whatever manner they see fit and you are not allowed to sue them for wrong doing. In a sense I had to sign away personal rights to attend school there. Instead of getting detention for being late our football coach was informed and we were punished by at practice, our coach happened to be the dean of students and not the kind of man to fuck with.

I graduated from PLD in Lexington and while my class was 500 compared to 120 at my other school the group of friends I have are the most loyal, kind, fair and generous people you will ever know. When I have kids they will go to public school no question, of the friends I know from the private school 4 have ended up in rehab 2 are pregnant and 6 have dropped out of school that leaves 3 still on track to be successful... Now with my group of friends we are all juniors at the University of Kentucky and only one person has decided to drop out of college. I think there is no question which environment better prepares you for life. Of course the only advantage of going to private school is the networking, a guy 3 years older who went there was on Romney's campaign team first year out of college. If you live in the US you pay for education either way, but the extra $$ for private school is not at all worth it.

[cunicula]

So I havent read the whole thread nor do I intend to, I went to a private christian school 7-11th grade,  I was kicked out my junior year for drinking. I blew my knee out during football and had gotten fairly addicted to painkillers thanks to a generous 6x60 percocet (sp?) 30mg script. First time ever using drugs and I went overboard. All the while my sister had to drop out of school for a semester and was in the hospital for 3 months, not one person ever called and asked how I was. I was living at my buddies house because my parents were with my sister at the hospital and my coaches/teachers couldnt have cared less. Private [Christian] institutions as I know them are hypocritical, so much so I am no longer a practicing christian, not one time over the course of 4 years there did I ever feel "God's love" there were good people there and I do not intend to bash christians for the wrong doing of a few.

Now the worst part of it all is that when you sign up to go to school there both you AND your parents sign forms saying that they are allowed to discipline you in whatever manner they see fit and you are not allowed to sue them for wrong doing. In a sense I had to sign away personal rights to attend school there. Instead of getting detention for being late our football coach was informed and we were punished by at practice, our coach happened to be the dean of students and not the kind of man to fuck with.

I graduated from PLD in Lexington and while my class was 500 compared to 120 at my other school the group of friends I have are the most loyal, kind, fair and generous people you will ever know. When I have kids they will go to public school no question, of the friends I know from the private school 4 have ended up in rehab 2 are pregnant and 6 have dropped out of school that leaves 3 still on track to be successful... Now with my group of friends we are all juniors at the University of Kentucky and only one person has decided to drop out of college. I think there is no question which environment better prepares you for life. Of course the only advantage of going to private school is the networking, a guy 3 years older who went there was on Romney's campaign team first year out of college. If you live in the US you pay for education either way, but the extra $$ for private school is not at all worth it.

If you want good public school for your kids move to Singapore. #1 in the world. Year after year after year. Have you heard of the Singaporean method of teaching mathematics? We use it to pwn everyone. True, the statists in South Korea and Scandanavia are close. But we have the strongest state education system and come out on top.

I can see that even in the US though, the state does better than those worthless Christian motherfuckers.

[cunicula]

I really don't see why you have such a problem with it, since that "one law" says only "Don't bully, don't hit, and don't steal." Did your mommy not teach you these things?

Rather than being sarcastic, ask yourself: don't steal what? Property is enshrined into that law like it's an almighty "act of god", rather than something invented by the human intellect. But it seems you are too brainwashed to see it no matter what I say.

My mommy taught me to emphasize with those less fortunate. She said that every rule was secondary to this. She said that a paternalistic state was best for society. She said that even though we were quite well-off, we should always vote for tax increases on affluent people like ourselves.

As a scientist, she taught me to trust in induction and dismiss philosophical arguments.

I guess your mommy taught you to be an AnCap? Bad mommy, very bad.  It is much worse to have had a bad mommy than it is to live in a slave state.

[Rudd-O]

That fits in rather nicely with my usage of the word. AnCap supporters want exclusive control by means of imposing

"the one law" on ALL of society, and...

I'm sure that does indeed fit quite nicely with your usage of the word. Unfortunately, it doesn't fit with the sentence you're using it in. I really don't see why you have such a problem with it, since that "one law" says only "Don't bully, don't hit, and don't steal." Did your mommy not teach you these things?

His mommy probably taught him "Don't bully, don't hit, and don't steal" all the while mommy herself bullied and hit him all the time (and no doubt treated his property as if it belonged to her).  That's how he came to believe that stealing, hitting and bullying is okay and virtuous, so long as you are part of the magical group of people with permission to do so.

Inconsistency, lies and selective violence is how you breed a normal kid into a statist moron.

[cunicula]

Ummm.. no. My mother never spanked me. Ever. Nor did she use any other form of discipline at all (quiet corner time etc.). Instead she tried to persuade me to do what she wanted using words.

In fact, like a true statist, she intervened when she saw people hitting their children in public. Humorously, this once resulted in a fight between my mom and a rather large African-American lady.
I guess that intervention to help defenseless children is what you call 'selective violence.' I am all for it.

[MoonShadow]

Ummm.. no. My mother never spanked me. Ever. Nor did not use any other form of discipline at all (quiet corner time etc.). Instead she tried to persuade me to do what she wanted using words.

In fact, like a true statist, she intervened when she saw people hitting their children in public. Humorously, this once resulted in a fight between my mom and a rather large African-American lady.
I guess that intervention to help defenseless children is what you call 'selective violence.' I am all for it.

How does that data point fit into your worldview, guys?

[MoonShadow]

So I havent read the whole thread nor do I intend to, I went to a private christian school 7-11th grade,  I was kicked out my junior year for drinking. I blew my knee out during football and had gotten fairly addicted to painkillers thanks to a generous 6x60 percocet (sp?) 30mg script. First time ever using drugs and I went overboard. All the while my sister had to drop out of school for a semester and was in the hospital for 3 months, not one person ever called and asked how I was. I was living at my buddies house because my parents were with my sister at the hospital and my coaches/teachers couldnt have cared less. Private [Christian] institutions as I know them are hypocritical, so much so I am no longer a practicing christian, not one time over the course of 4 years there did I ever feel "God's love" there were good people there and I do not intend to bash christians for the wrong doing of a few.

Now the worst part of it all is that when you sign up to go to school there both you AND your parents sign forms saying that they are allowed to discipline you in whatever manner they see fit and you are not allowed to sue them for wrong doing. In a sense I had to sign away personal rights to attend school there. Instead of getting detention for being late our football coach was informed and we were punished by at practice, our coach happened to be the dean of students and not the kind of man to fuck with.

I graduated from PLD in Lexington and while my class was 500 compared to 120 at my other school the group of friends I have are the most loyal, kind, fair and generous people you will ever know. When I have kids they will go to public school no question, of the friends I know from the private school 4 have ended up in rehab 2 are pregnant and 6 have dropped out of school that leaves 3 still on track to be successful... Now with my group of friends we are all juniors at the University of Kentucky and only one person has decided to drop out of college. I think there is no question which environment better prepares you for life. Of course the only advantage of going to private school is the networking, a guy 3 years older who went there was on Romney's campaign team first year out of college. If you live in the US you pay for education either way, but the extra $$ for private school is not at all worth it.

If you want good public school for your kids move to Singapore. #1 in the world. Year after year after year. Have you heard of the Singaporean method of teaching mathematics? We use it to pwn everyone. True, the statists in South Korea and Scandanavia are close. But we have the strongest state education system and come out on top.

I can see that even in the US though, the state does better than those worthless Christian motherfuckers.

Considering that I do homeschool, I have heard of the Singaporean method. I wasn't impressed, myself.

[cunicula]

Considering that I do homeschool, I have heard of the Singaporean method. I wasn't impressed, myself.

You have to remove the capacity for your children to feel before they can learn properly. We are also #1 in the world for lack of emotions. When asked did you have an smile, laugh, feel angry or sad yesterday, only 36% of Singaporeans report yes. That is the lowest rate of emotion in the world. We even beat out the ex-Communist countries. Your children probably still don't know how to master their emotions. How do you expect them to learn if they are always getting distracted by emotional noise?

[MoonShadow]

Considering that I do homeschool, I have heard of the Singaporean method. I wasn't impressed, myself.

You have to remove your capacity for your children to feel before they can learn properly. We are also #1 in the world for lack of emotions. When asked did you have an smile, laugh, feel angry or sad yesterday, only 36% of Singaporeans report yes. That is the lowest rate of emotion in the world. We even beat out the ex-Communist countries. Your children probably still don't know how to master their emotions. How do you expect them to learn if they are always getting distracted by emotional noise?

Well, that's on theory.  The other is that I'm much less concerned that they master math than enjoy their adulthood.  What is the suicide rate there, btw?

[cunicula]

Well, that's on theory.  The other is that I'm much less concerned that they master math than enjoy their adulthood.  What is the suicide rate there, btw?

That might be a state secret. Wait a moment while I check. Nope, how disappointing. Damned transparency.

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

10.1 per 100k according to the above link. This is lower than the US at 12.0. We also have much lower rates of depression than most other developed countries.
Are only mental trouble is obsessive-compulsive disorder. It is about 3 times the world average and is probably under-reported.
I think it comes from the state always compelling us to do things. People get really anxious about incurring the State's disapproval.
It is too bad. Statism has its small problems.

More interesting is that the Singaporean State is conducting "randomized behavior modification trials." Those are exactly the words used by the state newspaper.
They are installing loudspeakers to remind citizens to be clean and tidy at randomly selected high foot traffic locations and then measuring how this effects littering in these areas.
To prevent this from being too obnoxious, they are also broadcasting American popular music from the loudspeakers.

[meowmeowbrowncow]

Considering that I do homeschool, I have heard of the Singaporean method. I wasn't impressed, myself.

You have to remove your capacity for your children to feel before they can learn properly. We are also #1 in the world for lack of emotions. When asked did you have an smile, laugh, feel angry or sad yesterday, only 36% of Singaporeans report yes. That is the lowest rate of emotion in the world. We even beat out the ex-Communist countries. Your children probably still don't know how to master their emotions. How do you expect them to learn if they are always getting distracted by emotional noise?

While the world will demand increasingly productive people the thought of humans as logic machines without feelings to interrupt that pursuit is majorly disturbing.

I'm not convinced mastering emotion is lacking emotion.

[Rudd-O]

Considering that I do homeschool, I have heard of the Singaporean method. I wasn't impressed, myself.

You have to remove your capacity for your children to feel before they can learn properly. We are also #1 in the world for lack of emotions. When asked did you have an smile, laugh, feel angry or sad yesterday, only 36% of Singaporeans report yes. That is the lowest rate of emotion in the world. We even beat out the ex-Communist countries. Your children probably still don't know how to master their emotions. How do you expect them to learn if they are always getting distracted by emotional noise?

While the world will demand increasingly productive people the thought of humans as logic machines without feelings to interrupt that pursuit is majorly disturbing.

I'm not convinced mastering emotion is lacking emotion.

I'm not convinced either.  Mastering emotion doesn't mean squelching it.  From the remnants of what I can see quoted here, I imagine that cunticula obviously has suffered abuse at the hands of a pretty totalitarian system ("Singaporean" method) but he selectively blocks or doesn't remember the abuse.

[meowmeowbrowncow]

Yeah.


Reading that conjures up ideas such as 'thought police' and orwellian worlds.  Eliminating emotion is ...insidious.


Granted I would have liked a better public education.  My experience was a zoo-like atmosphere and very disappointing.

[myrkul]

I really don't see why you have such a problem with it, since that "one law" says only "Don't bully, don't hit, and don't steal." Did your mommy not teach you these things?

Rather than being sarcastic, ask yourself: don't steal what? Property is enshrined into that law like it's an almighty "act of god", rather than something invented by the human intellect. But it seems you are too brainwashed to see it no matter what I say.

Property is not "invented" by the human intellect. It is the natural state of things. You own your body because you, and you alone, are responsible for it's actions. No one can make you do something without your permission, without using coercion or force. And that is why coercion and initiatory force are morally wrong: because they violate the ultimate property right, that of your own body.

All other property rights stem from that one. Because you own your body, you own the results of that body's efforts, the labor and the product of that labor are yours. If someone were to take from you the products of that labor by force or coercion, or fraud, then they have stolen from you. Stolen the products of your labor.

That, then, is your answer: Don't steal what? The products of another person's labor. The hard-earned gain of their blood, sweat, and tears. To attempt to do so is to seek unearned gain, and violates that person's rights to the ownership of the products of his body's labor, and thus, his body.

And even if all of that were just so much sophistry, private property just works better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=66QdQErc8JQ

[myrkul]

Ummm.. no. My mother never spanked me. Ever. Nor did not use any other form of discipline at all (quiet corner time etc.). Instead she tried to persuade me to do what she wanted using words.

In fact, like a true statist, she intervened when she saw people hitting their children in public. Humorously, this once resulted in a fight between my mom and a rather large African-American lady.
I guess that intervention to help defenseless children is what you call 'selective violence.' I am all for it.

How does that data point fit into your worldview, guys?

Even assuming a single word this troll types is true, Mommy doesn't have to be the one abusing him:

You have to remove the capacity for your children to feel before they can learn properly.

Yaaaay conformist robot factories! How in the hell is emotionally deadening your child not abuse?

[MoonShadow]

Ummm.. no. My mother never spanked me. Ever. Nor did not use any other form of discipline at all (quiet corner time etc.). Instead she tried to persuade me to do what she wanted using words.

In fact, like a true statist, she intervened when she saw people hitting their children in public. Humorously, this once resulted in a fight between my mom and a rather large African-American lady.
I guess that intervention to help defenseless children is what you call 'selective violence.' I am all for it.

How does that data point fit into your worldview, guys?

Even assuming a single word this troll types is true, Mommy doesn't have to be the one abusing him:

You have to remove the capacity for your children to feel before they can learn properly.

Yaaaay conformist robot factories! How in the hell is emotionally deadening your child not abuse?

I can't answer that, but my point is that you don't get to decide.  Not all cultures are equal, but that kind of attitude, metasized to an entire population, leads to colonialism for their own good.  It's not a ancap position to take to compel others to do anything, whenever there is a doubt.  And, honestly, there should be doubt on your part concerning other peoples' children.

[MoonShadow]

Property is not "invented" by the human intellect. It is the natural state of things.

Ahh, but aren't you confusing two different definitions of the word 'property'?
I could say that one property of the sky is that it's blue. We can even map a slightly different concept, that of 'territoriality', and say that the sky's blueness belongs to it. We could then build on this concept and say that a person can also own some physical property, and that that property belongs to the person.

However, this line of reasoning is based on a mistake. It's a mistake to say that the sky's 'blueness' is something inherent about the sky. 'Blue' is what I imagine the sky to be after I receive electrical impulses from my eyes, and my brain makes up something called colour. Your sense of blueness could be different. The same could be said of any property.

And even if all of that were just so much sophistry, private property just works better...

On a certain level I think we actually agree here. The "planned society" Communist experiments in various parts of Europe were a miserable failure. Their Marxist ideals that enshrined 'community' and rejected 'property' were always going to be a disaster. Maybe in theory they could have aimed for a minimalist, or practically non-existent State, even voluntary (maybe they did?!). It's just that some members of society didn't want that. Therefore the proponents of Communism had to make a choice - let it all be voluntary and chaotic, or make a concerted effort to educate people about the advantages of Communism and why private property should be completely rejected. They chose the latter option and they failed.

You can learn from others' mistakes.

Actually, there are examples of both methods in practice.  Communism always fails. Several early American colonies, including the Pilgrams of Plymouth Rock, Mass., and in evry case roughly half died of starvation the first winter.  The indian tribes of the East coast didn't have a developed theory of real estate property, but they certainly did understand that the corn planted, cultivated and grown by one family was to be consumed by that family, and that it was rude to harm that plot or take the corn without permission.  In many cases, the local land was never really 'owned' in the traditional sense by those colonists, but in every case they came to acknowledge that on family functionally possessed the amount of land that they lived and worked for as long as they did so, and that the products of same certainly was that family's property.

Ergo, private property is the net result of natural human habits and forces within a community, and the larger that community grows, the more defined that property must become in order for that community to continue to prosper.  Loosely defined property rules are fine for small or temporary communities, and even communism works at the scale of the family (or even up to the small church), the problem is that neither scales well to a greater society. 

[myrkul]

Property is not "invented" by the human intellect. It is the natural state of things.

Ahh, but aren't you confusing two different definitions of the word 'property'?

No. You may be, but I am not.

I could say that one property of the sky is that it's blue. We can even map a slightly different concept, that of 'territoriality', and say that the sky's blueness belongs to it. We could then build on this concept and say that a person can also own some physical property, and that that property belongs to the person.

However, this line of reasoning is based on a mistake. It's a mistake to say that the sky's 'blueness' is something inherent about the sky. 'Blue' is what I imagine the sky to be after I receive electrical impulses from my eyes, and my brain makes up something called colour. Your sense of blueness could be different. The same could be said of any property.

You're deflecting, but I'll knock it down anyway. It gives me an opportunity to teach you something. We might well have different cultural or personal referents for the color we see when we look into the sky - the color of your mother's eyes, the color of a jay's wing - but regardless of how we describe it, we are both seeing a wavelength of light between 450–495 nm. And when we look into the same sky at the same time, we see the same wavelength. That is the difference between subjective perceptions, and objective reality: Subjectively, you may see a shade just lighter than your mother's eyes, and I may see a shade just darker than a jay's wing, but objectively, we're both receiving light at a wavelength of 475 nm.

Now, back to personal property:

You own your body because you, and you alone, are responsible for it's actions. No one can make you do something without your permission, without using coercion or force. And that is why coercion and initiatory force are morally wrong: because they violate the ultimate property right, that of your own body.

This is not a confusion of the concept of "property" as "that which a person owns; the possession or possessions of a particular owner," and "property" as "an essential or distinctive attribute or quality of a thing." No, rather, it is wholly under the first definition. It is the contention that you own your body; it is your possession - the only one you come into the world with, in fact. Your body is your possession because you are the only one who possesses it.

Ergo, private property is the net result of natural human habits and forces within a community, and the larger that community grows, the more defined that property must become in order for that community to continue to prosper.  Loosely defined property rules are fine for small or temporary communities, and even communism works at the scale of the family (or even up to the small church), the problem is that neither scales well to a greater society. 

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[myrkul]

It's not a ancap position to take to compel others to do anything, whenever there is a doubt.  And, honestly, there should be doubt on your part concerning other peoples' children.

Oh, but it is an AnCap position to compel others not to do something, for instance to not hit someone. That's called "defense," and it most certainly can be used third-party, especially when the person being defended is incapable of defending themselves against the aggressor. There is no doubt. A person hitting a kid is attacking a defenseless person.

[Rudd-O]

It's not a ancap position to take to compel others to do anything, whenever there is a doubt.  And, honestly, there should be doubt on your part concerning other peoples' children.

Oh, but it is an AnCap position to compel others not to do something, for instance to not hit someone. That's called "defense," and it most certainly can be used third-party, especially when the person being defended is incapable of defending themselves against the aggressor. There is no doubt. A person hitting a kid is attacking a defenseless person.

Well said. Also, it IS an an cap position to compel certain people doing certain things -- it is perfectly compatible with an cap to compel, using proportional (up to deadly) violence even, a person who rapes, who kills, who robs, or who assaults other human beings (children included), to get said person to stop. Defense of others is just as ethically valid and just as defense of self.

[Richy_T]

To prevent this from being too obnoxious, they are also broadcasting American popular music from the loudspeakers.

Quite, quite masterful.

[MoonShadow]

It's not a ancap position to take to compel others to do anything, whenever there is a doubt.  And, honestly, there should be doubt on your part concerning other peoples' children.

Oh, but it is an AnCap position to compel others not to do something, for instance to not hit someone. That's called "defense," and it most certainly can be used third-party, especially when the person being defended is incapable of defending themselves against the aggressor. There is no doubt. A person hitting a kid is attacking a defenseless person.

If you can justify intervening with force on behalf of my child, based solely upon your own judgement as to what constitutes initiation of force, then you can justify any singular or collective action at all; and morality truly becomes relative. You have, therefore, proven that ancap is as unstable ( and thus just as impossible) as communism.  There still must be some kind of standard, and you know that your position is contrary to 4K years of Judeo-Christian 'standards'.  Not to mention terriblely impractical.

[cunicula]

There still must be some kind of standard, and you know that your position is contrary to 4K years of Judeo-Christian 'standards'.

Nah man. There is no god. Everything is permissible.

What are you going to do with the Confucian cultures? Statism is the core dogma of Confucianism.

[myrkul]

It's not a ancap position to take to compel others to do anything, whenever there is a doubt.  And, honestly, there should be doubt on your part concerning other peoples' children.

Oh, but it is an AnCap position to compel others not to do something, for instance to not hit someone. That's called "defense," and it most certainly can be used third-party, especially when the person being defended is incapable of defending themselves against the aggressor. There is no doubt. A person hitting a kid is attacking a defenseless person.

If you can justify intervening with force on behalf of my child, based solely upon your own judgement as to what constitutes initiation of force, then you can justify any singular or collective action at all; and morality truly becomes relative.

No, it's not my "judgment" as to what constitutes initiation of force. I'm simply applying the same standard to adult/child interactions as I do to adult/adult interactions. And I believe the force was brought into the equation by you. Were you not the one that would respond with the use of deadly force to my verbal statements that you should stop striking your child?

Where, exactly, in your moral code, do these two phrases differ, that one would be justifiably responded to with deadly force, while the other would not?
"Hey, stop raping that woman!"
"Hey, stop hitting that kid!"

There still must be some kind of standard, and you know that your position is contrary to 4K years of Judeo-Christian 'standards'. 

There is a standard: No person has the right to initiate the use of force, the threat of force, or fraud upon another person or their property. And yes, this is contrary to 4 thousand years of abusive "standards," that's the idea. "Person" doesn't just mean "person who looks like me," or "person who has a penis," or "person who likes the opposite sex," or "person who prays to the same god as I do," or "person over a certain arbitrary age." It means all people, young and old, male and female, of all colors, religions, ethnicities, creeds, and orientations. Children are people too.

After all, you said it yourself:

we recognize that he will have rights in the future, and thus he has them now.

[MoonShadow]

It's not a ancap position to take to compel others to do anything, whenever there is a doubt.  And, honestly, there should be doubt on your part concerning other peoples' children.

Oh, but it is an AnCap position to compel others not to do something, for instance to not hit someone. That's called "defense," and it most certainly can be used third-party, especially when the person being defended is incapable of defending themselves against the aggressor. There is no doubt. A person hitting a kid is attacking a defenseless person.

If you can justify intervening with force on behalf of my child, based solely upon your own judgement as to what constitutes initiation of force, then you can justify any singular or collective action at all; and morality truly becomes relative.

No, it's not my "judgment" as to what constitutes initiation of force. I'm simply applying the same standard to adult/child interactions as I do to adult/adult interactions.

It's your own perception of a particular situation that requires judgment, and that is the problem.

Where, exactly, in your moral code, do these two phrases differ, that one would be justifiably responded to with deadly force, while the other would not?
"Hey, stop raping that woman!"
"Hey, stop hitting that kid!"

Hey Myrkel, when did you stop hitting your wife?

Both of those statements are context dependent, and your are trying to imply that a particular situation, and your own perspective on that situtation, is correct.  It also happens to be a strawman argument, but that's not really important.