Freedom is ...

[organofcorti]

Freedom is not wearing underwear.

[myrkul]

Might have to sleep on it...

Now THAT is disgusting!

Ha! Yeah, that's probably the best response to this. He knows he's already beat, so he's refusing to engage. Pretty much par for the course with him.

Since he's admitted defeat by refusing to engage, I'll go ahead and run the conversation without him:
Me:
Would you take offense if I crapped in your living room?
Him:
Yes, of course I would.
Me:
So you would like me to respect your property.
Him:
Of course.
Me:
In return, do you agree to respect my property?
Him:
Sure, why not.
Me:
Great, we've just established a property right. All rights are reciprocal agreements like this.
Him:
...

[hazek]

Thus, property rights are not "inalienable", they're subjective.

I agree with this, I agree with is so much in fact that I just avoid the "rights" (and also the "morality") framework completely. Instead I focus on goals that can be objectively evaluated like the goal to live in a society that is free to maximize it's potential an objective requirements of which is everyone to be free to own and be in absolute control over their property..

If you share my goal then you must obey that requirements if you ever want to reach it. And if you don't then I don't really care about you or your goals.

[herzmeister]

Unlike most libertarians, most left-anarchists do make a difference between ownership (the right to use something) and property (the kind that can be only protected by a strong authority or state).

Agreeing to not take a crap in each other's living room is one thing. Having a paper that says you own an island far away is another. Either this claim is backed by a strong authority that can apply (military) force, or it's just as significant as these shady sites on the internet today where you can buy a plot of land on the moon or a star.

[myrkul]

So you concede that other people are required as observers for your property right to exist?

No....

If there are no other people, then I have a de facto right to my property, because there's no one to violate it. When there are other people around, then those people have to agree on some ground rules. We call these ground rules "rights," and so that these ground rules will be fair and equitable, we base them on objective principles such as self-ownership.

[fornit]

So you concede that other people are required as observers for your property right to exist?

No....

If there are no other people, then I have a de facto right to my property, because there's no one to violate it. When there are other people around, then those people have to agree on some ground rules. We call these ground rules "rights," and so that these ground rules will be fair and equitable, we base them on objective principles such as self-ownership.

the idea that objective principles exist is the very core of all fundamentalism. as long as you base your set of rights on "objective" principles you always risk not listening to your fellow citizens who might have entirely different ideas about what rights are necessary and what ground rules are fair and equitable.

[myrkul]

So you concede that other people are required as observers for your property right to exist?

No....

If there are no other people, then I have a de facto right to my property, because there's no one to violate it. When there are other people around, then those people have to agree on some ground rules. We call these ground rules "rights," and so that these ground rules will be fair and equitable, we base them on objective principles such as self-ownership.

the idea that objective principles exist is the very core of all fundamentalism. as long as you base your set of rights on "objective" principles you always risk not listening to your fellow citizens who might have entirely different ideas about what rights are necessary and what ground rules are fair and equitable.

And what would you counter self-ownership with? I claim that everyone owns 100% of themselves, and 0% of anyone else. That is fair and equitable, because it applies to everyone equally. What principle would you base your "fair and equitable" system on?

[fornit]

And what would you counter self-ownership with? I claim that everyone owns 100% of themselves, and 0% of anyone else. That is fair and equitable, because it applies to everyone equally. What principle would you base your "fair and equitable" system on?

i would base it on principles the actual participants could agree upon. as long as you found ancap nation only with volunteers in a completely seperate new nation, that might not be much of a problem at first. but in every existing society, you will always have different views on what is fair and reasonable. as long as you start out with "i know whats right for all of us" you are bound to fuck up, no matter how awesome your principles are.

[myrkul]

And what would you counter self-ownership with? I claim that everyone owns 100% of themselves, and 0% of anyone else. That is fair and equitable, because it applies to everyone equally. What principle would you base your "fair and equitable" system on?

i would base it on principles the actual participants could agree upon.

Do you honestly believe that people could not agree upon "Leave me alone, and I'll leave you alone"?

as long as you start out with "i know whats right for all of us" you are bound to fuck up, no matter how awesome your principles are.

Even when that principle is "I know what's best for me, you know what's best for you, I don't necessarily know what's best for you, and you don't necessarily know what's best for me, so let's just decide for ourselves, and not for each other"?

[Rassah]

And what would you counter self-ownership with? I claim that everyone owns 100% of themselves, and 0% of anyone else. That is fair and equitable, because it applies to everyone equally. What principle would you base your "fair and equitable" system on?

i would base it on principles the actual participants could agree upon.

Do you honestly believe that people could not agree upon "Leave me alone, and I'll leave you alone"?

History says yes. See communist revolutions, religion, colonialism.

[myrkul]

And what would you counter self-ownership with? I claim that everyone owns 100% of themselves, and 0% of anyone else. That is fair and equitable, because it applies to everyone equally. What principle would you base your "fair and equitable" system on?

i would base it on principles the actual participants could agree upon.

Do you honestly believe that people could not agree upon "Leave me alone, and I'll leave you alone"?

History says yes. See communist revolutions, religion, colonialism.

Which is where defense comes in. Those who don't agree to leave people alone and in turn, be left alone, will be "convinced" to leave those who do agree alone.

[fornit]

Which is where defense comes in. Those who don't agree to leave people alone and in turn, be left alone, will be "convinced" to leave those who do agree alone.

well, many countries dont have the space - not to mention the mindset - to play cowboys and indians anymore

[myrkul]

Which is where defense comes in. Those who don't agree to leave people alone and in turn, be left alone, will be "convinced" to leave those who do agree alone.

well, many countries dont have the space - not to mention the mindset - to play cowboys and indians anymore

Who said anything about "Cowboys and Indians"? It's "peaceful people and assholes."

[fornit]

Which is where defense comes in. Those who don't agree to leave people alone and in turn, be left alone, will be "convinced" to leave those who do agree alone.

well, many countries dont have the space - not to mention the mindset - to play cowboys and indians anymore

Who said anything about "Cowboys and Indians"? It's "peaceful people and assholes."

same old game. the only difference is that with cowboys and indians there usually is an agreement who is playing the cowboys and who is playing the indians 

[myrkul]

Which is where defense comes in. Those who don't agree to leave people alone and in turn, be left alone, will be "convinced" to leave those who do agree alone.

well, many countries dont have the space - not to mention the mindset - to play cowboys and indians anymore

Who said anything about "Cowboys and Indians"? It's "peaceful people and assholes."

same old game. the only difference is that with cowboys and indians there usually is an agreement who is playing the cowboys and who is playing the indians 

No need for "agreement," Whoever breaks the agreement to leave the other alone first is the asshole.

[myrkul]

Which is where defense comes in. Those who don't agree to leave people alone and in turn, be left alone, will be "convinced" to leave those who do agree alone.

well, many countries dont have the space - not to mention the mindset - to play cowboys and indians anymore

Who said anything about "Cowboys and Indians"? It's "peaceful people and assholes."

same old game. the only difference is that with cowboys and indians there usually is an agreement who is playing the cowboys and who is playing the indians 

No need for "agreement," Whoever breaks the agreement to leave the other alone first is the asshole.

I see that in this latest tangent in the discussion you've completely abandoned your voluntarism principles. It's all voluntary until someone disagrees, then it's "my way or the highway", huh?

When someone breaks the agreement to leave each other alone, it's not voluntary anymore, because they disagreed. They tried to force someone to do something. They made it not voluntary.

[myrkul]

Which is where defense comes in. Those who don't agree to leave people alone and in turn, be left alone, will be "convinced" to leave those who do agree alone.

well, many countries dont have the space - not to mention the mindset - to play cowboys and indians anymore

Who said anything about "Cowboys and Indians"? It's "peaceful people and assholes."

same old game. the only difference is that with cowboys and indians there usually is an agreement who is playing the cowboys and who is playing the indians 

No need for "agreement," Whoever breaks the agreement to leave the other alone first is the asshole.

I see that in this latest tangent in the discussion you've completely abandoned your voluntarism principles. It's all voluntary until someone disagrees, then it's "my way or the highway", huh?

When someone breaks the agreement to leave each other alone, it's not voluntary anymore, because they disagreed. They tried to force someone to do something. They made it not voluntary.

What agreement? The one you made up?

The one all peaceful people live by:

"No person has the right to initiate the use of force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property."

[myrkul]

Which is where defense comes in. Those who don't agree to leave people alone and in turn, be left alone, will be "convinced" to leave those who do agree alone.

well, many countries dont have the space - not to mention the mindset - to play cowboys and indians anymore

Who said anything about "Cowboys and Indians"? It's "peaceful people and assholes."

same old game. the only difference is that with cowboys and indians there usually is an agreement who is playing the cowboys and who is playing the indians 

No need for "agreement," Whoever breaks the agreement to leave the other alone first is the asshole.

I see that in this latest tangent in the discussion you've completely abandoned your voluntarism principles. It's all voluntary until someone disagrees, then it's "my way or the highway", huh?

When someone breaks the agreement to leave each other alone, it's not voluntary anymore, because they disagreed. They tried to force someone to do something. They made it not voluntary.

What agreement? The one you made up?

The one all peaceful people live by:

"No person has the right to initiate the use of force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property."

Ah yes, the NAP doctrine again... And of course ALL peaceful people have heard of it... Not!

How about freedom from your religion? Are you starting to see the irony in your earlier "freedom is slavery" jibe?

They don't have to have heard of it in order to live by it, and therefore, be peaceful. Some other formulations:

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" - Christianity

"Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state. " - Confucianism

"Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." - Buddhism

"This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you. " - Hinduism

"No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself." - Islam

"What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary." - Judaism

"Regard your neighbor’s gain as your gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss." - Taoism

"That nature alone is good which refrains from doing another whatsoever is not good for itself." Zoroastrianism

So you see, basically every religion has taught this ideal as "good." Following this ideal - not harming another unless they have harmed you - makes you peaceful, regardless of how you word it.

[myrkul]

"No person has the right to initiate the use of force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property."

Ah yes, the NAP doctrine again... And of course ALL peaceful people have heard of it... Not!

How about freedom from your religion? Are you starting to see the irony in your earlier "freedom is slavery" jibe?

They don't have to have heard of it in order to live by it, and therefore, be peaceful. Some other formulations:

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" - Christianity

"Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state. " - Confucianism

"Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." - Buddhism

"This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you. " - Hinduism

"No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself." - Islam

"What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary." - Judaism

"Regard your neighbor’s gain as your gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss." - Taoism

"That nature alone is good which refrains from doing another whatsoever is not good for itself." Zoroastrianism

So you see, basically every religion has taught this ideal as "good." Following this ideal - not harming another unless they have harmed you - makes you peaceful, regardless of how you word it.

None of those even resemble the NAP, sheesh!

They don't? Then maybe you don't understand what the NAP means... because though they express it in different words - one in logical, legal terminology, the others in religious - they carry the same sentiment.

[myrkul]

They don't? Then maybe you don't understand what the NAP means... because though they express it in different words - one in logical, legal terminology, the others in religious - they carry the same sentiment.

The only similarity is that the NAP is also a fucking religion -- you're just too blind to see it.

And what aspects of a religion make it so? Because it looks to me like a legal framework based on logical principles, not a faith based on superstition and myth.