American-liberals, socialists and statists, what is your idea of liberty?

[Anonymous]

I am honestly curious. What is your idea of freedom that all men deserve?

[1713492072]

1713492072

[Dobrodav]

Well, my idea of full personal freedom is EDEM. Adam and Eva, and  fk that whitebirded creature and snake.

[SlaveInDebt]

Throwing away my social security number and all forms of ID. I was a number in prison and realized I was in society. I know I am a person not live stock.

[LokeRundt]

When there is such thing as a truly free-market, when all engagements with companies/individuals is based on mutual consent. . .when I can purchase personal defense from a provider that is subject to supply/demand forces (because duh, it's never going to be "utopian"), instead of being forced to pay for a defense provider that rules by coercion and monopoly (while proclaiming the charade of "you can vote, so it's not coercion!")

When statist organizations do not seek to hinder/regulate my travel across this planet ON WHICH I WAS BORN

When all human society becomes decentralized, and all individuals may become self-realized.

[LokeRundt]

aww shit, read the subject line in OP. . . none of those apply to me



Nevermind, continue

[Babylon]

I am a Liberal and a Socialist, although not a Statist.

To me liberty is freedom from coercion.  When nobody else can claim right to my labor, my time, or my body without my consent.

[hugolp]

I am a Liberal and a Socialist, although not a Statist.

To me liberty is freedom from coercion.  When nobody else can claim right to my labor, my time, or my body without my consent.

It sounds like you should defend the free market then.

[lemonginger]

I'm a libertarian socialist, as historically the vast majority of all anarchists have identified themselves. My idea of liberty is about the same as yours. My idea of property, however, is very different.

[MoonShadow]

I'm a libertarian socialist,

That's still a contradiction in terms.

[lemonginger]

It isn't, it never has been, and it never will be

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/bakunin/stateless.html

[epi 1:10,000]

Maximize liberty but not at the expense of equal opportunity and taking into account true human cognitive structure.  As in humans cannot be reasoned to the complete absence of emotion but a group as a whole can be more reasoned than an individual.  Our understanding of trueth and reality is constantly being changed by new discoveries, and reality/our limitations are being changed by new inventions.  as these change so can our definitions of what is just.  In this sense Moral Particularism can be useful.  I reject strict inflexible musturbatory constructs. "Nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so" -WS   I currently like John Rawls... at least as far as public policy.  I don't see taxation as a form of slavery if the taxes are used to protect negative freedoms or protect positive freedoms where peoples positive fredoms are impaired by the few.  That is not the same as all out classical socialism as this does not go to the extent of all out full support for the poor.  I do like the principal of self-ownership; not to the exclusion of all others but as one in a sea of many considerations in any given situation.

[hugolp]

Maximize liberty but not at the expense of equal opportunity and taking into account true human cognitive structure.  As in humans cannot be reasoned to the complete absence of emotion but a group as a whole can be more reasoned than an individual.

Decissions are always taken by the emotional part of the brain. Without emotions we would be unable to make any decission. This is neurology. Emotions are not a bad thing, on the contrary, are a good thing. But some people are more emotionally capable than others.

Our understanding of trueth and reality is constantly being changed by new discoveries, and reality/our limitations are being changed by new inventions.  as these change so can our definitions of what is just.  In this sense Moral Particularism can be useful.  I reject strict inflexible musturbatory constructs. "Nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so" -WS   I currently like John Rawls... at least as far as public policy.  I don't see taxation as a form of slavery if the taxes are used to protect negative freedoms or protect positive freedoms where peoples positive fredoms are impaired by the few.  That is not the same as all out classical socialism as this does not go to the extent of all out full support for the poor.  I do like the principal of self-ownership; not to the exclusion of all others but as one in a sea of many considerations in any given situation.

Sorry, but you said nothing. You said that you want one and the other.

[epi 1:10,000]

Decissions are always taken by the emotional part of the brain. Without emotions we would be unable to make any decission. This is neurology. Emotions are not a bad thing, on the contrary, are a good thing. But some people are more emotionally capable than others.

Yes, agreed. I am not defining emotions as a good or bad thing, just a reality and a variability injection system.  I am sorry if I implied otherwise.

You said that you want one and the other.

Yes the two are not mutually exclusive and supreme absolutes have no place in moral particularist philosophy. There is no sacred there is no divine.  Wait What are you saying is at odds with eachother.

[Babylon]

I am a Liberal and a Socialist, although not a Statist.

To me liberty is freedom from coercion.  When nobody else can claim right to my labor, my time, or my body without my consent.

It sounds like you should defend the free market then.

I do.

I'm a Market Anarchist, and that includes defense of the free market.

I don't defend property rights in the way that they are perceived by Anarcho-Capitalists.  I do not believe that actions against property constitute violence against the "owners" of that property.

Property, in the way that it is perceived by Capitalists, is impossible in an Anarchist society.

[Babylon]

I'm a libertarian socialist,

That's still a contradiction in terms.

Only to you because you do not understand the terms.

Socialist does not mean "controlled by the government"  it means "controlled by society"  and that is, in particular, the relevent portions of society.

So a flour mill should be controlled by the workers who work there and the people who avail themselves of the milling service.  That's socialism.

There is no reason that this is incompatible with libertarianism.  In fact, as a Libertarian Socialist, I argue that there is far less liberty involved for the workers and consumers, if that mill is controlled by an owner or board of directors.

[AnonymousBat]

I'm a Market Anarchist, and that includes defense of the free market.

Property, in the way that it is perceived by Capitalists, is impossible in an Anarchist society.

I don't understand though how you can have a free market without property rights.

[hugolp]

I'm a Market Anarchist, and that includes defense of the free market.

Property, in the way that it is perceived by Capitalists, is impossible in an Anarchist society.

I don't understand though how you can have a free market without property rights.

I dont think he is talking about completely abolishing property rights. He is proably talking about some form of "weak" property rights, like right of exclusive use or similar.

[fellowtraveler]

I don't understand though how you can have a free market without property rights.

Man's life can only be sustained through his work (his liberty), as he creates new products (property), which he trades with other men. This is how man sustains his life.

Thus, property is the result of man's work, and is also the reason for his work. As every trade is voluntary, it can be assumed that each party to the trade has improved his circumstances, or he wouldn't have chosen to take part in the trade. As millions of trades go on every day, people's lives are improved millions of times over, resulting in the great improvement in the human condition that history shows to be consequential to free markets.

You might enslave a man by taking away his liberty, but you will also enslave a man by taking the fruits of his labor. In the first case, you choose how he will give you all of his production. In the second case, he chooses how he will give you all of his production. Either way, he is a slave.

If someone attacks you, you may have to use violent force if you wish to survive. This is the law of the jungle. Any jury would acquit you for using deadly force in such circumstances.

Similarly, if someone attempts to take your liberty (say, by binding your hands and feet, and throwing you into the trunk of a car) then you similarly may have to use violent force if you wish to survive. After all, if the attacker is willing to tie you up and throw you into the trunk of a car, how could any reasonable person not be expected to also fear for their life in such circumstances?

Similarly, if someone attempts to take your property, then you similarly may have to use violent force if you wish to survive. After all, clearly this person is willing to use violent force against you, since otherwise no one would normally part with the fruits of their own labor. And since he is willing to use violent force, and indeed is threatening you with it, then you are in a state of war the same as if he had threatened your life or liberty.

Clearly we can see that any man has a right to use force to defend his life, his liberty, and his property.

And if a single man has a right to use force to defend life, liberty, and property, then it stands to reason that a group of men likewise have the right to band together and provide a common defense of life, liberty and property.

Thus government, when used solely to protect our rights, actually has a moral right to function: the same moral right that you have to defend yourself individually against threats or attack.

But whenever government is used to violate our life, liberty, or property, then it does not have a moral right, any more than an individual person would have a moral right to do those things.

This is why the US Constitution was originally designed to limit the powers of government. Democratic processes were strictly limited to the political realm, not the moral realm: no democratic process ever has the right to vote regarding people's lives, liberties, or property, any more than a democratic process has the right to commit genocide. No crime is "right" just because a majority wills it. Once democratic processes become a tool for subverting human rights, then we devolve into a system where "everybody is enslaved to everybody" and where no one's rights are respected anymore, because people no longer have any understanding of their rights, or of the Western Tradition and Enlightenment that brought those rights to our awareness in the first place.

[LokeRundt]

Well written, FellowTraveler.

Assuming you are the same FellowTraveler I've heard before, where can I hear some more of your work?

[AnonymousBat]

This is why the US Constitution was originally designed to limit the powers of government. Democratic processes were strictly limited to the political realm, not the moral realm: no democratic process ever has the right to vote regarding people's lives, liberties, or property, any more than a democratic process has the right to commit genocide. No crime is "right" just because a majority wills it. Once democratic processes become a tool for subverting human rights, then we devolve into a system where "everybody is enslaved to everybody" and where no one's rights are respected anymore, because people no longer have any understanding of their rights, or of the Western Tradition and Enlightenment that brought those rights to our awareness in the first place.

Great post fellowtraveler.

However, the United States wasn't founded as a Democracy, but as a Republic. In a Republic, judges can supercede the wishes of the majority and protect the minority against the tyranny of the majority.

We've been slowly throwing that away, starting when they abolished the US Senate in 1913. (For clarification, the US Senate has become a second House of Representatives.)

[lemonginger]

I dont think he is talking about completely abolishing property rights. He is proably talking about some form of "weak" property rights, like right of exclusive use or similar.

Weak exclusive claims to property.
Strong common claims to property.

[Trader Steve]

I can identify with this:

My Philosophy of Liberty

By Anthony Freeman
http://economicsandliberty.wordpress.com/my-philosophy-of-liberty/

The following is a loose overview of my personal “Philosophy of Liberty” which I have developed up to the present time. It warrants further refinement and I’m sure I will continue to modify it as I continue my studies of economics and liberty. Those champions of individual liberty that have contributed to my personal philosophy are too numerous to list here but I have provided links below to sources where you will find many of their works. I hope that my philosophical observations may be of benefit to you and give you some ideas in the development of your own “Philosophy of Liberty”.

Simplified Definitions

Life: our biological existence in space and time.

Liberty: the ability to live one’s life as one wishes while respecting the lives of others.

Property: the goods that man produces or acquires through voluntary exchange and/or gift. Claims of land ownership are included here as well.

Murder: the taking of man’s life without his voluntary consent. This deprives him of his future (and future productivity).  Excluded from this definition is the taking of another person’s life in the act of self-defense against an aggressor (when one believes one’s life is threatened) or in the defense of others when the lives of these others are threatened.

Slavery: the taking of man’s liberty without his voluntary consent. This deprives him of his present.

Theft: the taking of man’s property without his voluntary consent. This deprives him of his past (the time energy and talent that he used to produce this property).

Plunder: The ill-gotten gains from theft.

On The Nature of Human Life

    Man seeks happiness (and seeks to remove uneasiness or discomfort).
    Man seeks life for if there is no life there is no man.
    In order to live man must consume those things that sustain his life (food, shelter, etc.).
    In order for the necessities of life to be consumed they must first be produced.
    An infant cannot produce for himself so he must rely on the production of others through charity.
    As a child matures he must continue to rely on the charitable production of others until he learns to produce for himself.
    In the process of producing for oneself man usually develops a specialization resulting in a surplus that can be traded for the products of the specialized skills of others.
    This process of production results in what is often referred to as “the fruits of his labor”.
    These products are an extension of man because they are the direct result of his invested time and life energy.

First Conclusion

Based upon the propositions set forth, anyone who seeks to take another man’s life, liberty or property against that man’s voluntary consent is an enemy to human life. With this understanding I propose to label my philosophy of liberty as “pro-life” as I am vehemently opposed to murder, slavery, and theft. This is not to be confused with the label of “pro-life” as it relates to abortion although abortion is certainly an issue to be considered within this broader philosophy (the issues regarding abortion will not be addressed in this missive).

Further Observations

There are some men who seek to take away the property and liberty of others in order to use this production for personal profit. These men choose this path as they find it preferable to producing for themselves.

This short-term benefit is not only dangerous to the thief but it is detrimental to his long-term well-being as well. This is because his victims must divert a portion of their resources toward protection services instead of to production. This loss of production reduces the overall societal standard of living as there are less products and services available for trade.

Despite this, the thief is not concerned with the detrimental, long-term effects of plunder as he only cares about the immediate benefit. Therefore, the rest of society must take protective measures if they wish to safeguard their life, liberty and property. It follows then that the degree of man’s freedom is proportionate to the level of protection he has secured.

The Ignorant Plunderers

These are the individuals that unintentionally participate in plunder as they have not thought through the consequences of their actions. Those in this category are the majority of all plunderers and, unfortunately, a large percentage of society.

The Purposeful Plunderers

These are the individuals who know that their actions are contrary to human well-being and they continue in their plunder anyway. They can be thought of as “anti-life”. Those in this category are in the minority of all plunderers.

On Advancing Liberty

It appears then that there are three worthy endeavors that must be undertaken if one wants to enhance life (freedom):

First: One must work to master himself.  Self-mastery.  Self-control.  He must work to adjust his actions so that he is no longer a participator in plunder.  Robert LeFevre referred to this as Autarchy or “self-rule”.  Freedom is self-control, not license to impose on others.

Second: One must work to educate those individuals that are Ignorant Plunderers so that they can recognize the negative consequences of their actions and then hopefully change those actions.

Third: One must invest a portion of his resources toward the protection of his life, liberty and property from both types of Plunderers. Harry Browne recognized this when he said that “freedom is self-defense” in his fantastic Rule Your World seminar.

On Self-Defense

There many strategies for defending one’s life, liberty and property which will not be addressed in detail here.

One strategy for dealing with the Purposeful Plunderers that I will call your attention to is the one put forth by Marc Stevens in his book Adventures in Legal Land. His key observation is that the Purposeful Plunderers must maintain a veneer of legitimacy or moral authority in order to continue their plunder. Marc’s techniques for destroying that veneer are powerful and they warrant further study, analysis and practice.

On Education

Thankfully for the internet there are now numerous resources where people can learn the ideas of liberty. A few that I will mention here are The Freedom School, LewRockwell.com, and the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

On Self-Rule

On this wise I will refer you to two, short discourses that explain this principle better than I ever could.  The first is Robert LeFevre’s Autarchy.  The second is A Way To Be Free – Epilogue which I feel are some of the finest words ever written concerning the cause of liberty.

Conclusion

With my personal philosophy I can easily be referred to by any of the popular labels: Libertarian, Liberal, Classical Liberal, Voluntaryist, Autarchist, Capitalist, Free-Market Capitalist, Anarcho-Capitalist, Anarchist, Agorist, Counter-Economist, Idealist, Realist and so on but when you really get to the heart of the matter I am ultimately “Pro-Life”.

[The Script]

Well said, sir. 

[david4dev]

I am honestly curious. What is your idea of freedom that all men deserve?

I'm a socialist but not a statist and I don't even know what an American-liberal is.

Liberty is the extent at which you can do whatever you want.

In my opinion each individual should have as much liberty as possible without infringing on the liberties of other individuals. In the best societies there should be a very high average degree of liberty and nobody should have much less liberty than this average. It a difficult topic because there is no real way to objectively and quantitatively measure liberty.

Liberty is restricted in 3 ways:

• Naturally: restrictions due to the laws of nature and natural occurrences. For example, however much you would like to exceed the speed of light, you can't. Another example is illness, which can restrict your freedom to live your life the way you want.
• Passively: restrictions indirectly due to the actions (or inaction) of others. An example is ownership any scarce resource - if you own it, others can't. Another example is using DRM to prevent people from downloading and using digital goods.
• Actively: restrictions which are directly caused by the actions of others. Examples include violence, law and taxes.

Natural restrictions can and should be reduced through scientific research and development.

Passive restrictions can and should be reduced through voluntary sharing of both scarce and plentiful resources. They can also be reduced through an increase in active restrictions (eg. taxation with wealth redistribution).

Active restrictions can and should be reduced by limiting the powers of governments and corporations but going too far may enable more active restrictions from one individual to another (eg. removing murder laws will reduce active restrictions from government but may cause an increase in murders). Also a reduction in active restrictions may cause an increase in passive restrictions.

[NghtRppr]

You're taking the wrong approach. You're starting with some kind of goal in mind and then deciding how to reach that goal through various actions. Instead, you need to decide what kind of actions are permissible and then figure out what goals are compatible with those actions. As you mentioned, murder is right out but so should all forms of assault on person or property, including theft, which is what taxation is.

[david4dev]

You're taking the wrong approach. You're starting with some kind of goal in mind and then deciding how to reach that goal through various actions. Instead, you need to decide what kind of actions are permissible and then figure out what goals are compatible with those actions. As you mentioned, murder is right out but so should all forms of assault on person or property, including theft, which is what taxation is.

I'm starting with a goal, attempting to find actions that will make progress towards it and discounting any actions that I find immoral. There are some countries with dictatorships causing a strong active restriction of the liberties of the people who live their. An action that could increase the liberty of those people is to go to war with those countries and overthrow their government then help the people to create a society that is more free and more democratic. I believe this is wrong even if the outcome is a long term improvement because I believe that war is always wrong.

[NghtRppr]

I'm starting with a goal, attempting to find actions that will make progress towards it and discounting any actions that I find immoral.

So you don't think theft is immoral?

[david4dev]

I'm starting with a goal, attempting to find actions that will make progress towards it and discounting any actions that I find immoral.

So you don't think theft is immoral?

Not always. I don't think taxes are immoral if they are used to provide public services and welfare (but not where they are used to fund war or wasted on needless bureaucracy). Someone starving stealing food is not immoral either in my opinion.

[NghtRppr]

Not always.

Then my previous criticism stands. You're looking at the consequences and deciding if the action is right or wrong based on that. You've got it backwards. You need to first decide what actions are right or wrong and then accept whatever consequences they entail.

Someone starving stealing food is not immoral either in my opinion.

Even if you steal as a matter of life and death, you should still be forced to pay restitution because it's still wrong. It's not something owed to you just because you are hungry. If it weren't wrong then you wouldn't be expected to pay for your crime.

[david4dev]

Not always.

Then my previous criticism stands. You're looking at the consequences and deciding if the action is right or wrong based on that. You've got it backwards. You need to first decide what actions are right or wrong and then accept whatever consequences they entail.

Someone starving stealing food is not immoral either in my opinion.

Even if you steal as a matter of life and death, you should still be forced to pay restitution because it's still wrong. It's not something owed to you just because you are hungry. If it weren't wrong then you wouldn't be expected to pay for your crime.

My views on theft depend on the consequences. I don't believe that it is an absolute wrong like murder or initiatory violence. We have a fundamental difference in opinion where you believe in the sanctity of property and I don't.

[NghtRppr]

My views on theft depend on the consequences.

They shouldn't anymore than murder or rape should.

I don't believe that it is an absolute wrong like murder or initiatory violence. We have a fundamental difference in opinion where you believe in the sanctity of property and I don't.

Yes, we do. I can promise you that I won't touch you or your property first but it seems like you aren't willing to offer me the same respect. We have two mutually exclusive opinions and if one of us can't convince the other to change his mind, the only alternative is violence.

[david4dev]

I can promise you that I won't touch you or your property first but it seems like you aren't willing to offer me the same respect.

Actually I can promise you that I won't steal your property because I have all of the property I need and more (which isn't that much). Even if I lose all of my property, I can rely on the welfare state to provide for my needs so I will not have a valid reason to steal from you.

if one of us can't convince the other to change his mind, the only alternative is violence.

There are plenty of other alternatives. The one I favour is respecting each others opinions while disagreeing. My morality will prevent me from initiating violence anyway and even in the case of self defence, I will look for alternatives (such as running away).

[NghtRppr]

Even if I lose all of my property, I can rely on the welfare state to provide for my needs so I will not have a valid reason to steal from you.

That's like saying "I don't have to steal from you, I can just ask someone else to do it for me and then receive the stolen property". That's called aiding and abetting.

There are plenty of other alternatives. The one I favour is respecting each others opinions while disagreeing. My morality will prevent me from initiating violence anyway and even in the case of self defence, I will look for alternatives (such as running away).

Right, so you refuse to do your own dirty work but you have no problem advocating thugs in blue costumes doing it for you.

[FredericBastiat]

Here's my take on it. Took me a bit, but I think I got it covered.

THE LAW

Men, Women, Agent(s), Person(s), and Life collectively or individually have synonymous equivalent meaning herein. De facto entrusted crucially dependent Life admits safe guardianship or conveyance thereto.
1.   All men are equal in Rights.
  1.1.   All men are intrinsically free, whose expression when manifest, admits autonomy.
  1.2.   Rights exist because man exists (consequent to Life).
  1.3.   Rights are inalienable and inherent, hence discovered not created.
  1.4.   Man commits autonomous choices apart from all other men.
2.   Rights are defined as the Liberty to control, secure and defend one’s Property and Life.
3.   Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything not in violation of other’s Rights.
4.   Rights Violations are unprovoked physical aggressions (UPAs) initiated by man against another, or Breaches of Contract (BOCs), resulting in an incontrovertible diminishment in one’s Rights.
  4.1.   UPAs are non-consenting acts which cause an Object (Property or Life) to undergo a transferred or transformed change to the Object’s original energy state or condition.
  4.2.   Energy transfer to/from an Object or energy transformation of the Object occurs by means of three ways, namely: thermodynamic work, heat transfer, or mass transfer.
  4.3.   Contracts are compulsory promissory agreements involving Property or Life (and specific performances or forbearances therewith) between mutually consenting men.
  4.4.   Misrepresentation of Contract obligations or BOCs resulting in misappropriation of Property or Life, or expenditures related thereto, is subject to Rights Violations.
5.   Property can be anything comprised of physical material matter (PMM).
6.   Property is the exclusive non-simultaneous possession or dominion of discrete PMM.
  6.1.   Unconstrained/non-delimited/uncontrolled PMM (UPMM), UPMM effusions or energy transmissions, are not Property; they are ownerless nonexclusive UPMM or Emissions thereof, until physically made to become otherwise.
 6.2.   A Property’s inertial reference frame, dimensions, Emissions/Emitters, usage and genesis thereof, define and constitute its Property Scope Ambit (PSA).
  6.3.   PSAs that initiate tangible material perturbations which intersect or preclude another’s preexisting or antecedent PSAs may be subject to Rights Violations.
6.4.   Preexisting antecedent unconstrained Emitters cannot proscribe the receipt of similar, both in magnitude and direction, intersecting Emissions Flux.
  6.5.   Property cannot transform into something extracorporeal, extrinsic or compulsory due to the manipulation or interpretation of its PMM composition.
  6.6.   Absent Contract and Force, Property or Life of one man shall not control, compel or impede Property or Life of another.
  6.7.   Unintentional personal ingress vouchsafes unimpeded passage and egress.
7.   Force is the means –proportionate to the aggression– to obstruct, inhibit or extirpate the Rights of any man who interferes with or imminently threatens the Rights of other men.
  7.1.   Force can only be applied to resolve Rights Violations and is consequently just.
  7.2.   Man, or an Agent to man, must ascertain that a Rights Violation has occurred.
  7.3.   Man is severally liable and accountable for solely his Rights Violations a posteriori.
8.   Justice, viz., lawfulness effectuates disjunctive Rights between men.
9.    That which is neither just nor lawful is Violence and imperils the Rights of man.
10.   Violence causes inequality (unequal in Rights of man) and is forbidden.

[im3w1l]

Statist from sweden.

I don't think liberty is top priority. Liberty can be sacrificed for the ability for lots of people to lead good lives. That said, it is essential that the entities with power are never allowed to grow to powerful. Not because it threatens liberty, but because it threatens the good life

[david4dev]

Even if I lose all of my property, I can rely on the welfare state to provide for my needs so I will not have a valid reason to steal from you.

That's like saying "I don't have to steal from you, I can just ask someone else to do it for me and then receive the stolen property". That's called aiding and abetting.

It is not like that and it is definitely not aiding and abetting - aiding and abetting requires me to do some action to help someone who is stealing from you. I would not do that. You seem to feel that if I lost everything and had to rely on the welfare state until I could make a living for myself, that would be stealing from you specifically.

There are plenty of other alternatives. The one I favour is respecting each others opinions while disagreeing. My morality will prevent me from initiating violence anyway and even in the case of self defence, I will look for alternatives (such as running away).

Right, so you refuse to do your own dirty work but you have no problem advocating thugs in blue costumes doing it for you.

I do not advocate any violence except for minimal force in self defence or when someone is arrested and will not come quietly.

[myrkul]

Even if I lose all of my property, I can rely on the welfare state to provide for my needs so I will not have a valid reason to steal from you.

That's like saying "I don't have to steal from you, I can just ask someone else to do it for me and then receive the stolen property". That's called aiding and abetting.

It is not like that and it is definitely not aiding and abetting

It most certainly is like that. I'll agree it is not aiding and abetting if you would knowingly shelter a tax evader.

[david4dev]

Even if I lose all of my property, I can rely on the welfare state to provide for my needs so I will not have a valid reason to steal from you.

That's like saying "I don't have to steal from you, I can just ask someone else to do it for me and then receive the stolen property". That's called aiding and abetting.

It is not like that and it is definitely not aiding and abetting

It most certainly is like that. I'll agree it is not aiding and abetting if you would knowingly shelter a tax evader.

It isn't like that. If you want to call it stealing then I would be stealing from the whole of society not you specifically. I suppose you also think that I am stealing now because I am benefiting from a public education, I have a subsidised bus pass and I go to an NHS dentist.

If I knew someone who was evading tax I would not turn them in to the police just as I don't turn in someone I know who is claiming benefits while working - however immoral I find that.

[myrkul]

It isn't like that. If you want to call it stealing then I would be stealing from the whole of society not you specifically. I suppose you also think that I am stealing now because I am benefiting from a public education, I have a subsidised bus pass and I go to an NHS dentist.

If I knew someone who was evading tax I would not turn them in to the police just as I don't turn in someone I know who is claiming benefits while working - however immoral I find that.

Very well, you're not aiding and abetting.

You're also not personally stealing from me. (in fact, since I think you're in another country you're not stealing from me at all, but that's beside the point) What you are doing is delegating your desire to steal from me (figuratively speaking) to a group of people. So a better description of what is going on would be conspiracy.

[NghtRppr]

It is not like that and it is definitely not aiding and abetting - aiding and abetting requires me to do some action to help someone who is stealing from you.

Read this...

Aiding and abetting is an additional provision in United States criminal law, for situations where it cannot be shown the party personally carried out the criminal offense, but where another person may have carried out the illegal act(s) as an agent of the charged, working together with or under the direction of the charged party, who is an accessory to the crime.

When you get someone to do your bidding, to steal from someone, that's called aiding and abetting.

You seem to feel that if I lost everything and had to rely on the welfare state until I could make a living for myself, that would be stealing from you specifically.

I'm forced to pay taxes against my will. That's theft. You are receiving part of that stolen money and you encourage it to happen. You are having money stole from me and anyone else that pays taxes against their will.

[david4dev]

Correct me if I am wrong, but you believe that because my family can't afford private education, I don't deserve to be educated?

[AyeYo]

I'm forced to pay taxes against my will. That's theft. You are receiving part of that stolen money and you encourage it to happen. You are having money stole from me and anyone else that pays taxes against their will.

And you weren't forced to pay against your will then YOU would stealing services and benefits from the rest of us that do pay taxes.  See how that works both ways?  You're free to leave any time.

[myrkul]

I'm forced to pay taxes against my will. That's theft. You are receiving part of that stolen money and you encourage it to happen. You are having money stole from me and anyone else that pays taxes against their will.

And you weren't forced to pay against your will then YOU would stealing services and benefits from the rest of us that do pay taxes.  See how that works both ways?  You're free to leave any time.

If the services weren't forced down our throats at the barrel of a gun, nobody would be stealing anything. See how that works?

[FredericBastiat]

Very well, you're not aiding and abetting.

You're also not personally stealing from me. (in fact, since I think you're in another country you're not stealing from me at all, but that's beside the point) What you are doing is delegating your desire to steal from me (figuratively speaking) to a group of people. So a better description of what is going on would be conspiracy.

Myrkul, to be perfectly accurate (assuming we're going to apply physics here), our statist friend hasn't actually stolen from anybody. The State thru some delegating body (taxing facility) has taken/stolen/coerced money from the many. These are the thieves we should pursue. He personally hasn't actually stolen anything (he applied no force to that effect) from anybody. However, he is in possession of stolen property, which if it could be determined (difficult if the state refuses to disclose who they stole it from), could then be returned to you (the taxed/plundered). Now, if he were to refuse to return the stolen property, he would then qualify as a thief and could be prosecuted forthwith.

If we stick to the physics, we can punish the right individuals. Unfortunately, the State protects it's own. To wit, they give special privilege and license to the few, to plunder the many. They have a license to steal, protected by a greater collective force than you personally can produce in self defense, hence you yield to the plunderer because you fear for your life (or you value it more than your stolen property). This is why Sweden wouldn't dare try to tax Americans (or the reverse) because we know our "State" would protect us from such a seige.

Unfortunately, many of us don't stand up to the State (local) and refuse to be robbed. Shame, apathy breeds the seeds of destruction.

[myrkul]

Very well, you're not aiding and abetting.

You're also not personally stealing from me. (in fact, since I think you're in another country you're not stealing from me at all, but that's beside the point) What you are doing is delegating your desire to steal from me (figuratively speaking) to a group of people. So a better description of what is going on would be conspiracy.

Myrkul, to be perfectly accurate (assuming we're going to apply physics here), our statist friend hasn't actually stolen from anybody. The State thru some delegating body (taxing facility) has taken/stolen/coerced money from the many. These are the thieves we should pursue. He personally hasn't actually stolen anything (he applied no force to that effect) from anybody. However, he is in possession of stolen property, which if it could be determined (difficult if the state refuses to disclose who they stole it from), could then be returned to you (the taxed/plundered). Now, if he were to refuse to return the stolen property, he would then qualify as a thief and could be prosecuted forthwith.

If we stick to the physics, we can punish the right individuals. Unfortunately, the State protects it's own. To wit, they give special privilege and license to the few, to plunder the many. They have a license to steal, protected by a greater collective force than you personally can produce in self defense, hence you yield to the plunderer because you fear for your life (or you value it more than your stolen property). This is why Sweden wouldn't dare try to tax Americans (or the reverse) because we know our "State" would protect us from such a seige.

Unfortunately, many of us don't stand up to the State (local) and refuse to be robbed. Shame, apathy breeds the seeds of destruction.

Well said, as always.

[NghtRppr]

And you weren't forced to pay against your will then YOU would stealing services and benefits from the rest of us that do pay taxes.

I have no problem paying for services that I agree to pay for and actually use. If I want cable service, I pay for it. You want to pretend that it's a package deal but it's not. I should be able to pay for military defense but not waging wars in other countries. I should be able to pay for roads that I actually use but not roads in other area codes. How exactly am I stealing by not paying for a road I never drive on?

[david4dev]

our statist friend

I am not a statist. I am a socialist libertarian.

[NghtRppr]

Correct me if I am wrong, but you believe that because my family can't afford private education, I don't deserve to be educated?

Deserve? No. You only deserve to be left alone. Other than that, you either need to earn it or depend on voluntary charity. However, educating young people does benefit me and as such, I would definitely donate to charity to support education. I resent being forced by threat of physical violence though. I resent not being able to pick which charities to donate to and what form my charity should take. I would rather donate tutoring services in math or computer science than money.

[david4dev]

Correct me if I am wrong, but you believe that because my family can't afford private education, I don't deserve to be educated?

Deserve? No. You only deserve to be left alone. Other than that, you either need to earn it or depend on voluntary charity. However, educating young people does benefit me and as such, I would definitely donate to charity to support education. I resent being forced by threat of physical violence though. I resent not being able to pick which charities to donate to and what form my charity should take. I would rather donate tutoring services in math or computer science rather than money.

So you don't believe I have the right to education?

[NghtRppr]

So you don't believe I have the right to education?

No, I don't believe in positive rights. I owe you inaction, not action. I owe it to you not to hurt you or your property physically. I don't owe you my labor or the fruits thereof. That's only something a slave owes its master.

[myrkul]

Correct me if I am wrong, but you believe that because my family can't afford private education, I don't deserve to be educated?

Deserve? No. You only deserve to be left alone. Other than that, you either need to earn it or depend on voluntary charity. However, educating young people does benefit me and as such, I would definitely donate to charity to support education. I resent being forced by threat of physical violence though. I resent not being able to pick which charities to donate to and what form my charity should take. I would rather donate tutoring services in math or computer science rather than money.

So you don't believe I have the right to education?

You don't have the right TO anything. You have the right NOT to be forced into one educational mold. You can educate yourself, or delegate that job to whomever you choose.

[david4dev]

Here is another point of disagreement. I believe in positive rights. I believe I have the right to education, healthcare and more.

[AyeYo]

I'm forced to pay taxes against my will. That's theft. You are receiving part of that stolen money and you encourage it to happen. You are having money stole from me and anyone else that pays taxes against their will.

And you weren't forced to pay against your will then YOU would stealing services and benefits from the rest of us that do pay taxes.  See how that works both ways?  You're free to leave any time.

If the services weren't forced down our throats at the barrel of a gun, nobody would be stealing anything. See how that works?

No I don't, because the services aren't forced on you.  You're free to leave at any time.

Since you choose to stay, you choose to reap the benefits and pay for those benefits.  This is all voluntary.  You can leave at any time.

[FredericBastiat]

our statist friend

I am not a statist. I am a socialist libertarian.

Golly, I guess I'd better be more selective with my verbiage. You may not be a statist, in fact, I really don't care what you label yourself. All I care about is whether or not what property you have, was actually acquired in a mutually consensual way. To be perfectly crystal clear, If what property you have acquired was not stolen or coerced from another man/woman, then I have no argument with you. If however, I make you aware that the property you have acquired (anywhere in the chain of custody) is of a questionable nature, as it were, obtained thru coersion or force, and you believe that that is okay, you would be gravely wrong.

Theft is theft is theft. Whether you give yourself some title of nobility, mantle of force, wear a costume indicating your prowess, what have you, it mattereth not. Governments are merely a coalition of like-minded associates who believe their solidarity is somehow superior to the rights of the common man. They are nothing more than a collective of superior forces acting as a unit. They have no greater right to steal from the many as the individual does another man. Duh comes to mind. It really is that simple.

Notwithstanding that, and the fact that it would be near impossible to determine whose property (ie. plundered thru the state) belonged to who (reasonably determinable), such that you couldn't return it to it's rightful owner, I suppose you could keep the plunder. Just remember, next time your government gives you a hand-out, it's likely to be ill-gotten goods. That ought to at least make you think twice about the justification of it all.

I personally think it's unfortunate that we participate in such activities, but what to do...?

[david4dev]

I'm forced to pay taxes against my will. That's theft. You are receiving part of that stolen money and you encourage it to happen. You are having money stole from me and anyone else that pays taxes against their will.

And you weren't forced to pay against your will then YOU would stealing services and benefits from the rest of us that do pay taxes.  See how that works both ways?  You're free to leave any time.

If the services weren't forced down our throats at the barrel of a gun, nobody would be stealing anything. See how that works?

No I don't, because the services aren't forced on you.  You're free to leave at any time.

Since you choose to stay, you choose to reap the benefits and pay for those benefits.  This is all voluntary.  You can leave at any time.

I'm sorry, but leave to where exactly? Just saying 'you could leave this society' is hardly respecting that person's liberty.

[myrkul]

I'm forced to pay taxes against my will. That's theft. You are receiving part of that stolen money and you encourage it to happen. You are having money stole from me and anyone else that pays taxes against their will.

And you weren't forced to pay against your will then YOU would stealing services and benefits from the rest of us that do pay taxes.  See how that works both ways?  You're free to leave any time.

If the services weren't forced down our throats at the barrel of a gun, nobody would be stealing anything. See how that works?

No I don't, because the services aren't forced on you.  You're free to leave at any time.

Since you choose to stay, you choose to reap the benefits and pay for those benefits.  This is all voluntary.  You can leave at any time.

I was born here. Those services were forced on me before I had the choice to leave or not. And there is no reason why I should choose to leave the voluntary services which I pay for simply to avoid the involuntary ones that I do not wish to pay for.

[NghtRppr]

Here is another point of disagreement. I believe in positive rights. I believe I have the right to education, healthcare and more.

I also think rights are timeless. Throughout the history of the humanity, one human always owed it to another human not to attack them or their property. However, to say that cavemen owed each other healthcare is absurd.

[david4dev]

Here is another point of disagreement. I believe in positive rights. I believe I have the right to education, healthcare and more.

I also think rights are timeless. Throughout the history of the humanity, one human always owed it to another human not to attack them or their property. However, to say that cavemen owed each other healthcare is absurd.

Well I believe rights apply to everyone alive now and in the future. There is no point worrying about people who lived in the past because they are dead now and there is nothing we can do to help them.

[NghtRppr]

No I don't, because the services aren't forced on you.

Cool story. Too bad history shows it's not true.

My family owned this land since before it was a state. So one day, my ancestor, a farmer, is on his land and a government agent shows up. The exchange went something like this.

Agent: Hey, there. We're starting a new state.
Farmer: That's great to hear! I'm a good neighbor and I look forward to trading with you. Good luck!
Agent: No, you don't understand. You're part of this state now and you have to pay taxes.
Farmer: What?! I didn't agree to this! This is armed robbery! You're no better than a thief!
Agent: Well, you can always move.
Farmer: Move?! I've owned this land for generations. Why should I move? This is my land.
Agent: Not anymore.

Right, so now I'm the thief? Because some farmer couldn't stand up to an entire army?

Like I said, cool story. Too bad it's not based in reality.

[AyeYo]

No I don't, because the services aren't forced on you.

Cool story. Too bad history shows it's not true.

My family owned this land since before it was a state.

And Native Americans owned that land before anyone in your family 20+ generations removed even knew it existed.  The only reason you own that land is because the US government says you own it.  In order to enjoy that and all the other benefits of this system, you pay taxes.  If you don't want the benefits, then you're free to leave and no one will force you to pay taxes anymore.

[NghtRppr]

And Native Americans owned that land before anyone in your family 20+ generations removed even knew it existed.

Actually no, there weren't any Indians living on this land when my ancestors settled it.

The only reason you own that land is because the US government says you own it.

Keep drinking that Kool-Aid.

[AyeYo]

Keep drinking that Kool-Aid.

Ah, guess you have no real response to that one.

Just remember, natives the world over "owned" their land too... until they didn't.

[NghtRppr]

Just remember, natives the world over "owned" their land too... until they didn't.

If they can prove any theft they should have their land returned to them as well as paid restitution.

[AyeYo]

Just remember, natives the world over "owned" their land too... until they didn't.

If they can prove any theft they should have their land returned to them as well as paid restitution.

Well of course they should, but without any powerful government to back them up it's a lost cause.  The only think keeping me from taking your land right now is the fact that the US government is guaranteeing your ownership of it and the US government happens to have more firepower than I do.

[NghtRppr]

The only think keeping me from taking your land right now is the fact that the US government is guaranteeing your ownership of it and the US government happens to have more firepower than I do.

I bet I have more firepower than you do too.

[AyeYo]

The only think keeping me from taking your land right now is the fact that the US government is guaranteeing your ownership of it and the US government happens to have more firepower than I do.

I bet I have more firepower than you do too.

Thank you for implicitly agreeing with my point.

[NghtRppr]

The only think keeping me from taking your land right now is the fact that the US government is guaranteeing your ownership of it and the US government happens to have more firepower than I do.

I bet I have more firepower than you do too.

Thank you for implicitly agreeing with my point.

Yes, I agree that the only thing stopping you from stealing my property is that I have more firepower than you. Right now it's me and the government but under a libertarian society it will be Brinks or ADT or any other security company that I choose to pay.

[myrkul]

Yes, I agree that the only thing stopping you from stealing my property is that I have more firepower than you. Right now it's me and the government but under a libertarian society it will be Brinks or ADT or any other security company that I choose to pay.

But don't you see? Without the bigger guns of government, Brinks and ADT would be killing each other to protect you!

[AyeYo]

The only think keeping me from taking your land right now is the fact that the US government is guaranteeing your ownership of it and the US government happens to have more firepower than I do.

I bet I have more firepower than you do too.

Thank you for implicitly agreeing with my point.

Yes, I agree that the only thing stopping you from stealing my property is that I have more firepower than you. Right now it's me and the government but under a libertarian society it will be Brinks or ADT or any other security company that I choose to pay.

Right, so you don't actually have any property rights.  You just have bigger guns on that piece of land than I do.  So when someone with bigger guns than you comes along, your "ownership" is history, because you never actually owned anything, you just maintained your presence there with bigger guns than the next guy.

[FredericBastiat]

Right, so you don't actually have any property rights.  You just have bigger guns on that piece of land than I do.  So when someone with bigger guns than you comes along, your "ownership" is history, because you never actually owned anything, you just maintained your presence there with bigger guns than the next guy.

Interesting direction you're taking here. It sounds like, at least to me, unless your just being sarcastic, that the only thing you fear is the bigger "stick". That rights, which are theoretical constructs, are only derived from superior forces. That the only consequence there is, is pain, and were it possible that you could avoid this, if you had this "bigger stick", you would use it to acquire land and commodities.

Sounds like we are merely prey and predator. There is no right nor wrong. No justice or injustice. All of this garrulity is mere topic fodder for the weak. Might makes right. Moral relativism is pegged to nothingness.

Pain avoidance is the name of the game is it? Okaaayyyy.....

[NghtRppr]

Right, so you don't actually have any property rights.

I said the only thing stopping you, which has nothing to do with rights.

However, if we follow your logic then nobody has any rights at all. The only thing stopping you from murdering me is more firepower so according to your logic, I don't have the right to not be murdered. That's a pretty absurd viewpoint.

[AyeYo]

Right, so you don't actually have any property rights.  You just have bigger guns on that piece of land than I do.  So when someone with bigger guns than you comes along, your "ownership" is history, because you never actually owned anything, you just maintained your presence there with bigger guns than the next guy.

Interesting direction you're taking here. It sounds like, at least to me, unless your just being sarcastic, that the only thing you fear is the bigger "stick". That rights, which are theoretical constructs, are only derived from superior forces. That the only consequence there is, is pain, and were it possible that you could avoid this, if you had this "bigger stick", you would use it to acquire land and commodities.

Sounds like we are merely prey and predator. There is no right nor wrong. No justice or injustice. All of this garrulity is mere topic fodder for the weak. Might makes right. Moral relativism is pegged to nothingness.

Pain avoidance is the name of the game is it? Okaaayyyy.....

It would seem that way, wouldn't it?  If you go and read bitcoin2cash's post history, you'll begin to see the contradiction I've been talking about.

[NghtRppr]

If you go and read bitcoin2cash's post history, you'll begin to see the contradiction I've been talking about.

Why don't you prove your own point instead of engaging in obscurantism?

[MoonShadow]

Right, so you don't actually have any property rights.  You just have bigger guns on that piece of land than I do.  So when someone with bigger guns than you comes along, your "ownership" is history, because you never actually owned anything, you just maintained your presence there with bigger guns than the next guy.

Interesting direction you're taking here. It sounds like, at least to me, unless your just being sarcastic, that the only thing you fear is the bigger "stick". That rights, which are theoretical constructs, are only derived from superior forces. That the only consequence there is, is pain, and were it possible that you could avoid this, if you had this "bigger stick", you would use it to acquire land and commodities.

Sounds like we are merely prey and predator. There is no right nor wrong. No justice or injustice. All of this garrulity is mere topic fodder for the weak. Might makes right. Moral relativism is pegged to nothingness.

Pain avoidance is the name of the game is it? Okaaayyyy.....

It would seem that way, wouldn't it?  If you go and read bitcoin2cash's post history, you'll begin to see the contradiction I've been talking about.

This point of view would make you a sociopath.

[FredericBastiat]

Remind me to go out and buy a bigger gun (make that a howitzer attached to a tank), put a moat around my property and populate it with crocodiles, put a earth berm behind that, shore up ammo, and wait for the end of the world.

Wow. The things people are willing to believe these days. Scary thought.

I sure hope this is just a big misunderstanding. I'd hate to get in the middle of that conversation per chance I become somebody else's lunch.

[AyeYo]

Right, so you don't actually have any property rights.  You just have bigger guns on that piece of land than I do.  So when someone with bigger guns than you comes along, your "ownership" is history, because you never actually owned anything, you just maintained your presence there with bigger guns than the next guy.

Interesting direction you're taking here. It sounds like, at least to me, unless your just being sarcastic, that the only thing you fear is the bigger "stick". That rights, which are theoretical constructs, are only derived from superior forces. That the only consequence there is, is pain, and were it possible that you could avoid this, if you had this "bigger stick", you would use it to acquire land and commodities.

Sounds like we are merely prey and predator. There is no right nor wrong. No justice or injustice. All of this garrulity is mere topic fodder for the weak. Might makes right. Moral relativism is pegged to nothingness.

Pain avoidance is the name of the game is it? Okaaayyyy.....

It would seem that way, wouldn't it?  If you go and read bitcoin2cash's post history, you'll begin to see the contradiction I've been talking about.

This point of view would make you a sociopath.

That's my point exactly.  Keep in mind that I'm not the one arguing for might makes right, the libertarians are doing that, they just don't understand how.

[Babylon]

Right, so you don't actually have any property rights.

I said the only thing stopping you, which has nothing to do with rights.

However, if we follow your logic then nobody has any rights at all. The only thing stopping you from murdering me is more firepower so according to your logic, I don't have the right to not be murdered. That's a pretty absurd viewpoint.

Why?  Where do rights come from if not from enforcement by superior force?

[MoonShadow]

Right, so you don't actually have any property rights.

I said the only thing stopping you, which has nothing to do with rights.

However, if we follow your logic then nobody has any rights at all. The only thing stopping you from murdering me is more firepower so according to your logic, I don't have the right to not be murdered. That's a pretty absurd viewpoint.

Why?  Where do rights come from if not from enforcement by superior force?

You should stop and consider your own choice of words.  Rights come from our Creator, or if you reject that concept, from our basic humanity.  However, enforcement of rights comes from the justifiable use of superior force.  Just because you can violate the rights of another, should you have the bigger guns at the moment, doesn't mean that 'might makes right'.

[lemonginger]

Once upon a time, this thread looked like it might be going somewhere interesting. Now it's just the same-old same-old.

A discussion of where rights come from or whether they exist and what their relationship is to liberty/freedom (ie; can you have liberty with a non-rights based approach?) etc might be interesting....

[AyeYo]

Right, so you don't actually have any property rights.

I said the only thing stopping you, which has nothing to do with rights.

However, if we follow your logic then nobody has any rights at all. The only thing stopping you from murdering me is more firepower so according to your logic, I don't have the right to not be murdered. That's a pretty absurd viewpoint.

Why?  Where do rights come from if not from enforcement by superior force?

You should stop and consider your own choice of words.  Rights come from our Creator, or if you reject that concept, from our basic humanity.  However, enforcement of rights comes from the justifiable use of superior force.  Just because you can violate the rights of another, should you have the bigger guns at the moment, doesn't mean that 'might makes right'.

Obviously what does make right is whatever YOU say makes right, right?

[MoonShadow]

Right, so you don't actually have any property rights.

I said the only thing stopping you, which has nothing to do with rights.

However, if we follow your logic then nobody has any rights at all. The only thing stopping you from murdering me is more firepower so according to your logic, I don't have the right to not be murdered. That's a pretty absurd viewpoint.

Why?  Where do rights come from if not from enforcement by superior force?

You should stop and consider your own choice of words.  Rights come from our Creator, or if you reject that concept, from our basic humanity.  However, enforcement of rights comes from the justifiable use of superior force.  Just because you can violate the rights of another, should you have the bigger guns at the moment, doesn't mean that 'might makes right'.

Obviously what does make right is whatever YOU say makes right, right?

No.

[AyeYo]

Right, so you don't actually have any property rights.

I said the only thing stopping you, which has nothing to do with rights.

However, if we follow your logic then nobody has any rights at all. The only thing stopping you from murdering me is more firepower so according to your logic, I don't have the right to not be murdered. That's a pretty absurd viewpoint.

Why?  Where do rights come from if not from enforcement by superior force?

You should stop and consider your own choice of words.  Rights come from our Creator, or if you reject that concept, from our basic humanity.  However, enforcement of rights comes from the justifiable use of superior force.  Just because you can violate the rights of another, should you have the bigger guns at the moment, doesn't mean that 'might makes right'.

Obviously what does make right is whatever YOU say makes right, right?

No.

Excellent, highly detailed response.

Then what makes right?

[Babylon]

Once upon a time, this thread looked like it might be going somewhere interesting. Now it's just the same-old same-old.

A discussion of where rights come from or whether they exist and what their relationship is to liberty/freedom (ie; can you have liberty with a non-rights based approach?) etc might be interesting....

Rights are generally not a very popular approach for left wing Anarchists, we do however believe very strongly in Liberty.

Whether our approach is effective at realizing that goal is open to interpretation, but although the periods of Left Libertarian society have generally been fairly brief several have matched the ideal fairly closely.  Catalonia Spain during the civil war being one and Revolutionary Ukraine being another.

[lemonginger]

As a left-libertarian I agree with you. Still think an overarching philosophical discussion about it would be interesting.

I also think that looking at pre-civilized socieities ala David Graber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fragments_of_an_Anarchist_Anthropology) is often more useful than the aforementioned (good examples) of parts of Spain during the Civil War and the Free Territories in the Ukraine (always would add the Shinmin Autonomous Region to that list) -- also to look at how "Temporary Autonomous Zones" function -- either intentional communities, the aftermath of disasters, large-scale gatherings, etc.

[AyeYo]

Right, so you don't actually have any property rights.

I said the only thing stopping you, which has nothing to do with rights.

However, if we follow your logic then nobody has any rights at all. The only thing stopping you from murdering me is more firepower so according to your logic, I don't have the right to not be murdered. That's a pretty absurd viewpoint.

Why?  Where do rights come from if not from enforcement by superior force?

You should stop and consider your own choice of words.  Rights come from our Creator, or if you reject that concept, from our basic humanity.  However, enforcement of rights comes from the justifiable use of superior force.  Just because you can violate the rights of another, should you have the bigger guns at the moment, doesn't mean that 'might makes right'.

Obviously what does make right is whatever YOU say makes right, right?

No.

Excellent, highly detailed response.

Then what makes right?

Bump for an answer.

[lemonginger]

Bump for an answer.

Come on AyeYo, whether you agree with it or not the non-aggression principal and the rights it is based on has been outlined many times in this forum by right-Libs and AnCaps. You are just playing dumb for the sake of an argument. If you want to make the argument that this approach is incorrect or coercive in and of itself, or that it only results from a priori assumptions, or that it involves a forced-agreement to a social contract just as much as any other socio/political approach (my argument), then please lay out that argument in a post and have that discussion/debate. But continually playing dumb and attacking strawmen is getting old and honestly does a disservice to an honest intellectual debate about the merits (or not) of a natural rights based approach.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_libertarianism

[AyeYo]

Bump for an answer.

Come on AyeYo, whether you agree with it or not the non-aggression principal and the rights it is based on has been outlined many times in this forum by right-Libs and AnCaps. You are just playing dumb for the sake of an argument. If you want to make the argument that this approach is incorrect or coercive in and of itself, or that it only results from a priori assumptions, or that it involves a forced-agreement to a social contract just as much as any other socio/political approach (my argument), then please lay out that argument in a post and have that discussion/debate. But continually playing dumb and attacking strawmen is getting old and honestly does a disservice to an honest intellectual debate about the merits (or not) of a natural rights based approach.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_libertarianism

I've actually done exactly that in multiple threads.  Here's the argument, it's a very simple one.


Obviously not everyone agrees with the NAP and other such shit that libertarianism is based on.

It follows that not everyone wants a libertarian type society, in fact, most don't.

So, if you want to institute this libertarian society, you're going to have to FORCE people to abide by a system based on beliefs they don't believe in.

[myrkul]

So, if you want to institute this libertarian society, you're going to have to FORCE people to abide by a system based on beliefs they don't believe in.

Forcing people to stop robbing people at gunpoint to pay for their entitlements! Such injustice!

If you want to live in a hierarchy, nothing's stopping you. Just don't try to make someone who doesn't want to.

[AyeYo]

So, if you want to institute this libertarian society, you're going to have to FORCE people to abide by a system based on beliefs they don't believe in.

Forcing people to stop robbing people at gunpoint to pay for their entitlements! Such injustice!

If you want to live in a hierarchy, nothing's stopping you. Just don't try to make someone who doesn't want to.

You make my point for me perfectly.

[myrkul]

So, if you want to institute this libertarian society, you're going to have to FORCE people to abide by a system based on beliefs they don't believe in.

Forcing people to stop robbing people at gunpoint to pay for their entitlements! Such injustice!

If you want to live in a hierarchy, nothing's stopping you. Just don't try to make someone who doesn't want to.

You make my point for me perfectly.

Except that the current system forces people to live in the hierarchy, Yes I suppose I do.

[FredericBastiat]

Libertarianism, on the whole, permits everybody to have more freedoms. That's the conclusion they come to when they take the step-by-step process of determining what types of activities they can engage in while not causing harm to their neighbors. To wit, if you own property and you control your own life, and your activities on your property (with you on it) stay within the boundaries it is confined to, then there isn't a problem.

If however there is a problem, that being your property or person in some way, shape or form, changes the conditions of other peoples property in some tangible, measurable way, and this force or intersection of property or life is not consented to or not acceptable to others, then a conflict arises. This conflict, which if it could be reasonably measured with the laws of physics, and is significant enough, then some form of mitigation and ultimately restitution (proportional to the forces applied) would need to be made to bring the conditions of the affected property and person(s) back to some nearly equivalent state prior to the intrusion.

This is what Libertarians strive for.