Private school is child slavery!!!

[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.)