What do you believe is moral?

[crumbs]

Same. I stopped at taxes. And taxes are needed unless we want a complete anarchy.

The question is not whether taxes are needed. It is whether or not stealing is immoral even if called something else.

If you feel that stealing is necessary for society, fine...like Malcolm X saying that the ends justify the means. It is still immoral.

Having a bunch of small, independent communities that are vulnerable to one-man rule and aggression against their neighbors is even less moral, isn't it?  Forced taxation is probably the least immoral way for a nation to cooperate.

I have a hard time understanding exactly how those communities would come about.  The State (catchall term for all things government-related, as i've learned) frowns upon stuff like that, afaik. Sure, there's a pile of problems once things get rolling, but i can't even see past inevitable instabaning by government thugs.

[Anon136]

as much as all of the other comments have frustrated me this one pleases me proportionately

libertarians (of which i count my self) often try to oversimplify property systems into basic universal axioms and pretend as if these axioms interpret themselves and draw neat boxes around every conceivable right related to a given piece of property. I try not to fall into this trap. All property systems related to land use are going to be maddeningly complex, even those predicated on overly simplified axioms. we would need legal professionals to sort out the fine detail on precisely where rights begin and end just like we have an entire industry currently dedicated to determining exactly what sorts of circumstances allow people to sue each other. We need to hire professionals for this for the same reason that you hire a doctor to give you medical advise instead of giving yourself medical advise.

In other words, "It's real complicated, don't worry about it... Real smart people will hash out the details."  
You then use the doctor/medical advice analogy to drive the point home.
All analogies  fall short, but the "call the doc for medical advice" fails from the gitgo.  I'm generous to a fault, i'll FTFY:

A girl walks into Anoncare clinic, complaining of migraines.  Anon, with an air of self-assuredness, tells her: "Let's cut off your head, put it on a shelf until it's all better, and, once the problem's solved, we'll put it back on."  The girl, not entirely convinced of the cure's plausibility or eventual outcome, asks Anon to further elucidate the procedure.  Nonplussed, Anon replies:  "Sweetheart, it's all very scientific and complicated!  I pride myself on not bothering with all the busy details -- i leave those up to the doctors who know what they're doing.  I suggest you do the same."

I mean if you build a house do i have the right to vibrate the air on your property? inotherwords can i listen to music in my house which happens to cause atleast some amount of vibration of the air in your house. well most of us would say yes we can vibrate it some but not too much. You cant use any libertarian axiom to paint a clear box around how much is too much. and thats just one of a zillion possable questions as relating to conflicts of property rights. there is no way around having an industry that is specialized in solving these problems.  

You'd be surprised how much of your question is answered, to the decibel & minute of the day, in legal code.  Saying the problems will be worked out by clever folks who do that sort of thing is no better than saying "my business plan is to succeed & make money" -- only of value to those still amused by the "got your nose!" trick.

So wait. Since i dont have every answer to every conceivable question relating to the best trade off between every conceivable conflict of rights my arguments are invalid?

I'm sorry but i disagree because while i cant answer all of these questions directly (im not a god) i can tell you about a discovery process for returning answers that can be expected to improve with time. If we had a market in the provision of law than we could expect that service to improve with time for reasons similar to why computers get smaller and faster every year.

[crumbs]

as much as all of the other comments have frustrated me this one pleases me proportionately

libertarians (of which i count my self) often try to oversimplify property systems into basic universal axioms and pretend as if these axioms interpret themselves and draw neat boxes around every conceivable right related to a given piece of property. I try not to fall into this trap. All property systems related to land use are going to be maddeningly complex, even those predicated on overly simplified axioms. we would need legal professionals to sort out the fine detail on precisely where rights begin and end just like we have an entire industry currently dedicated to determining exactly what sorts of circumstances allow people to sue each other. We need to hire professionals for this for the same reason that you hire a doctor to give you medical advise instead of giving yourself medical advise.

In other words, "It's real complicated, don't worry about it... Real smart people will hash out the details." 
You then use the doctor/medical advice analogy to drive the point home.
All analogies  fall short, but the "call the doc for medical advice" fails from the gitgo.  I'm generous to a fault, i'll FTFY:

A girl walks into Anoncare clinic, complaining of migraines.  Anon, with an air of self-assuredness, tells her: "Let's cut off your head, put it on a shelf until it's all better, and, once the problem's solved, we'll put it back on."  The girl, not entirely convinced of the cure's plausibility or eventual outcome, asks Anon to further elucidate the procedure.  Nonplussed, Anon replies:  "Sweetheart, it's all very scientific and complicated!  I pride myself on not bothering with all the busy details -- i leave those up to the doctors who know what they're doing.  I suggest you do the same."

I mean if you build a house do i have the right to vibrate the air on your property? inotherwords can i listen to music in my house which happens to cause atleast some amount of vibration of the air in your house. well most of us would say yes we can vibrate it some but not too much. You cant use any libertarian axiom to paint a clear box around how much is too much. and thats just one of a zillion possable questions as relating to conflicts of property rights. there is no way around having an industry that is specialized in solving these problems.  

You'd be surprised how much of your question is answered, to the decibel & minute of the day, in legal code.  Saying the problems will be worked out by clever folks who do that sort of thing is no better than saying "my business plan is to succeed & make money" -- only of value to those still amused by the "got your nose!" trick.

So wait. Since i dont have every answer to every conceivable question relating to the best trade off between every conceivable conflict of rights my arguments are invalid?

It's not that your argument is invalid, there's simply no argument there.  You stated what you would like to happen, and left the rest to smart people & imagination.  Let me make an analogy:  I would like to live in lollipop forest & mary Tinkerbell.  Show me my "argument" is invalid.

I'm sorry but i disagree because while i cant answer all of these questions directly (im not a god) i can tell you about a process for returning answers that can be expected to improve with time. If we had a market in the provision of law than we could expect that service to improve with time for reasons similar to why computers get smaller and faster every year.

I see what you mean, but i'm sticking with my lollipop forest & hawt Tinkerbell "argument."

[Anon136]

as much as all of the other comments have frustrated me this one pleases me proportionately

libertarians (of which i count my self) often try to oversimplify property systems into basic universal axioms and pretend as if these axioms interpret themselves and draw neat boxes around every conceivable right related to a given piece of property. I try not to fall into this trap. All property systems related to land use are going to be maddeningly complex, even those predicated on overly simplified axioms. we would need legal professionals to sort out the fine detail on precisely where rights begin and end just like we have an entire industry currently dedicated to determining exactly what sorts of circumstances allow people to sue each other. We need to hire professionals for this for the same reason that you hire a doctor to give you medical advise instead of giving yourself medical advise.

In other words, "It's real complicated, don't worry about it... Real smart people will hash out the details."  
You then use the doctor/medical advice analogy to drive the point home.
All analogies  fall short, but the "call the doc for medical advice" fails from the gitgo.  I'm generous to a fault, i'll FTFY:

A girl walks into Anoncare clinic, complaining of migraines.  Anon, with an air of self-assuredness, tells her: "Let's cut off your head, put it on a shelf until it's all better, and, once the problem's solved, we'll put it back on."  The girl, not entirely convinced of the cure's plausibility or eventual outcome, asks Anon to further elucidate the procedure.  Nonplussed, Anon replies:  "Sweetheart, it's all very scientific and complicated!  I pride myself on not bothering with all the busy details -- i leave those up to the doctors who know what they're doing.  I suggest you do the same."

I mean if you build a house do i have the right to vibrate the air on your property? inotherwords can i listen to music in my house which happens to cause atleast some amount of vibration of the air in your house. well most of us would say yes we can vibrate it some but not too much. You cant use any libertarian axiom to paint a clear box around how much is too much. and thats just one of a zillion possable questions as relating to conflicts of property rights. there is no way around having an industry that is specialized in solving these problems.  

You'd be surprised how much of your question is answered, to the decibel & minute of the day, in legal code.  Saying the problems will be worked out by clever folks who do that sort of thing is no better than saying "my business plan is to succeed & make money" -- only of value to those still amused by the "got your nose!" trick.

So wait. Since i dont have every answer to every conceivable question relating to the best trade off between every conceivable conflict of rights my arguments are invalid?

It's not that your argument is invalid, there's simply no argument there.  You stated what you would like to happen, and left the rest to smart people & imagination.  Let me make an analogy:  I would like to live in lollipop forest & mary Tinkerbell.  Show me my "argument" is invalid

I'm sorry but i disagree because while i cant answer all of these questions directly (im not a god) i can tell you about a process for returning answers that can be expected to improve with time. If we had a market in the provision of law than we could expect that service to improve with time for reasons similar to why computers get smaller and faster every year.

I see what you mean, but i'm sticking with my lollipop forest & hawt Tinkerbell "argument."

i have a general idea about what i think is right and wrong and i know other people who have the same general ideas that i have. we will have some minor disagreements on the specifics but i believe that we will be able to employ specialists to help resolve these disputes over the details so long as most of us agree on the over arching concepts. We would use shared idiology to paint in broad brush strokes what we would like our society to look like, and then create a market in law to draw sharp lines specifically where regrettable and unavoidable trade offs in rights should take place. (as a caviat i should add that this market in law probably would not work if there was too much disparity in the values of the members of that society, that is why it must be a migration of relatively like minded individuals)

and hey I'm very open to the possibility that the whole idea is a "lollipop forest & hawt Tinkerbell"fest. I will be the first to admit that i might be totally wrong, i dont care, im personally willing to take that risk and im personally willing to accept the consequences of being wrong to the point of my own demise if it comes to that and I dont ask you to join me. All i ask is that you support my right to be free, including the freedom to make what you believe are mistakes so long as im not hurting anyone.

and also i want to point out that you were right, i hadnt up until that point made a real argument for how i thought society should function. i was previously just discussing my personal opinions on what constitutes legitimate acquisition.

ok so you still probably want more detail on the technical specifics of how a market in law could work. which i will be happy to provide if you are interested but im this message is long enough as is.

[crumbs]

as much as all of the other comments have frustrated me this one pleases me proportionately

libertarians (of which i count my self) often try to oversimplify property systems into basic universal axioms and pretend as if these axioms interpret themselves and draw neat boxes around every conceivable right related to a given piece of property. I try not to fall into this trap. All property systems related to land use are going to be maddeningly complex, even those predicated on overly simplified axioms. we would need legal professionals to sort out the fine detail on precisely where rights begin and end just like we have an entire industry currently dedicated to determining exactly what sorts of circumstances allow people to sue each other. We need to hire professionals for this for the same reason that you hire a doctor to give you medical advise instead of giving yourself medical advise.

In other words, "It's real complicated, don't worry about it... Real smart people will hash out the details."  
You then use the doctor/medical advice analogy to drive the point home.
All analogies  fall short, but the "call the doc for medical advice" fails from the gitgo.  I'm generous to a fault, i'll FTFY:

A girl walks into Anoncare clinic, complaining of migraines.  Anon, with an air of self-assuredness, tells her: "Let's cut off your head, put it on a shelf until it's all better, and, once the problem's solved, we'll put it back on."  The girl, not entirely convinced of the cure's plausibility or eventual outcome, asks Anon to further elucidate the procedure.  Nonplussed, Anon replies:  "Sweetheart, it's all very scientific and complicated!  I pride myself on not bothering with all the busy details -- i leave those up to the doctors who know what they're doing.  I suggest you do the same."

I mean if you build a house do i have the right to vibrate the air on your property? inotherwords can i listen to music in my house which happens to cause atleast some amount of vibration of the air in your house. well most of us would say yes we can vibrate it some but not too much. You cant use any libertarian axiom to paint a clear box around how much is too much. and thats just one of a zillion possable questions as relating to conflicts of property rights. there is no way around having an industry that is specialized in solving these problems.  

You'd be surprised how much of your question is answered, to the decibel & minute of the day, in legal code.  Saying the problems will be worked out by clever folks who do that sort of thing is no better than saying "my business plan is to succeed & make money" -- only of value to those still amused by the "got your nose!" trick.

So wait. Since i dont have every answer to every conceivable question relating to the best trade off between every conceivable conflict of rights my arguments are invalid?

It's not that your argument is invalid, there's simply no argument there.  You stated what you would like to happen, and left the rest to smart people & imagination.  Let me make an analogy:  I would like to live in lollipop forest & mary Tinkerbell.  Show me my "argument" is invalid

I'm sorry but i disagree because while i cant answer all of these questions directly (im not a god) i can tell you about a process for returning answers that can be expected to improve with time. If we had a market in the provision of law than we could expect that service to improve with time for reasons similar to why computers get smaller and faster every year.

I see what you mean, but i'm sticking with my lollipop forest & hawt Tinkerbell "argument."

i have a general idea about what i think is right and wrong and i know other people who have the same general ideas that i have. we will have some miner disagreements on the specifics but i believe that we will be able to employ specialists to help resolve these disputes over the details so long as most of us agree on the over arching concepts. We would use shared idiology to paint in broad brush strokes what we would like our society to look like, and then create a market in law to draw sharper specifically where regrettable and unavoidable trade offs in rights should take place.

and hey I'm very open to the possibility that the whole idea is a "lollipop forest & hawt Tinkerbell"fest. I will be the first to admit that i might be totally wrong, i dont care, im personally willing to take that risk and im personally willing to accept the consequences of being wrong to the point of my own demise if it comes to that and I dont ask you to join me. All i ask is that you support my right to be free, including the freedom to make what you believe are mistakes so long as im not hurting anyone.

and also i want to point out that you were right, i hadnt up until that point made a real argument for how i thought society should function. i was previously just discussing my personal opinions on what constitutes legitimate acquisition.

ok so you still probably want more detail on the techical specifics of how a market in law could work. which i will be happy to provide if you are interested but im going to let you digest this first.

I have absolutely nothing against getting rid of oppressive laws, government thuggery and land ownership.  I think most folks would like that, they just can't quite work out how to go about it.  If you get something good going, i'll even donate my horn of plenty & the 3-stroke perpetual motion engine to your project

For some reason, i still like Tinkerbell (sans that whole ridiculous possy -- eww!) better, but your idea is nice too -- closer to my lollipop forest than what some of the local libers might like, but that's a good thing

[Anon136]

as much as all of the other comments have frustrated me this one pleases me proportionately

libertarians (of which i count my self) often try to oversimplify property systems into basic universal axioms and pretend as if these axioms interpret themselves and draw neat boxes around every conceivable right related to a given piece of property. I try not to fall into this trap. All property systems related to land use are going to be maddeningly complex, even those predicated on overly simplified axioms. we would need legal professionals to sort out the fine detail on precisely where rights begin and end just like we have an entire industry currently dedicated to determining exactly what sorts of circumstances allow people to sue each other. We need to hire professionals for this for the same reason that you hire a doctor to give you medical advise instead of giving yourself medical advise.

In other words, "It's real complicated, don't worry about it... Real smart people will hash out the details."  
You then use the doctor/medical advice analogy to drive the point home.
All analogies  fall short, but the "call the doc for medical advice" fails from the gitgo.  I'm generous to a fault, i'll FTFY:

A girl walks into Anoncare clinic, complaining of migraines.  Anon, with an air of self-assuredness, tells her: "Let's cut off your head, put it on a shelf until it's all better, and, once the problem's solved, we'll put it back on."  The girl, not entirely convinced of the cure's plausibility or eventual outcome, asks Anon to further elucidate the procedure.  Nonplussed, Anon replies:  "Sweetheart, it's all very scientific and complicated!  I pride myself on not bothering with all the busy details -- i leave those up to the doctors who know what they're doing.  I suggest you do the same."

I mean if you build a house do i have the right to vibrate the air on your property? inotherwords can i listen to music in my house which happens to cause atleast some amount of vibration of the air in your house. well most of us would say yes we can vibrate it some but not too much. You cant use any libertarian axiom to paint a clear box around how much is too much. and thats just one of a zillion possable questions as relating to conflicts of property rights. there is no way around having an industry that is specialized in solving these problems.  

You'd be surprised how much of your question is answered, to the decibel & minute of the day, in legal code.  Saying the problems will be worked out by clever folks who do that sort of thing is no better than saying "my business plan is to succeed & make money" -- only of value to those still amused by the "got your nose!" trick.

So wait. Since i dont have every answer to every conceivable question relating to the best trade off between every conceivable conflict of rights my arguments are invalid?

It's not that your argument is invalid, there's simply no argument there.  You stated what you would like to happen, and left the rest to smart people & imagination.  Let me make an analogy:  I would like to live in lollipop forest & mary Tinkerbell.  Show me my "argument" is invalid

I'm sorry but i disagree because while i cant answer all of these questions directly (im not a god) i can tell you about a process for returning answers that can be expected to improve with time. If we had a market in the provision of law than we could expect that service to improve with time for reasons similar to why computers get smaller and faster every year.

I see what you mean, but i'm sticking with my lollipop forest & hawt Tinkerbell "argument."

i have a general idea about what i think is right and wrong and i know other people who have the same general ideas that i have. we will have some miner disagreements on the specifics but i believe that we will be able to employ specialists to help resolve these disputes over the details so long as most of us agree on the over arching concepts. We would use shared idiology to paint in broad brush strokes what we would like our society to look like, and then create a market in law to draw sharper specifically where regrettable and unavoidable trade offs in rights should take place.

and hey I'm very open to the possibility that the whole idea is a "lollipop forest & hawt Tinkerbell"fest. I will be the first to admit that i might be totally wrong, i dont care, im personally willing to take that risk and im personally willing to accept the consequences of being wrong to the point of my own demise if it comes to that and I dont ask you to join me. All i ask is that you support my right to be free, including the freedom to make what you believe are mistakes so long as im not hurting anyone.

and also i want to point out that you were right, i hadnt up until that point made a real argument for how i thought society should function. i was previously just discussing my personal opinions on what constitutes legitimate acquisition.

ok so you still probably want more detail on the techical specifics of how a market in law could work. which i will be happy to provide if you are interested but im going to let you digest this first.

I have absolutely nothing against getting rid of oppressive laws, government thuggery and land ownership.  I think most folks would like that, they just can't quite work out how to go about it.  If you get something good going, i'll even donate my horn of plenty & the 3-stroke perpetual motion engine to your project

For some reason, i still like Tinkerbell (sans that whole ridiculous possy -- eww!) better, but your idea is nice too -- closer to my lollipop forest than what some of the local libers might like, but that's a good thing

awesome! the only thing stopping me from doing this is the fact that the government would murder me if i tried it.

so my immediate goal, and one of the goals of this conversation, is to convince people, such as yourself, to be of a state of mind that would lead you, and others, to become sufficiently outraged by the news of my demise at the hands of the state over this matter, so as to make it politically untenable for the government to murder me in the event that i should attempt this.

wow sorry that sentence was a mouthful and could probably benefit from that linguistics lesson we talked about earlier.

[FirstAscent]

as much as all of the other comments have frustrated me this one pleases me proportionately

libertarians (of which i count my self) often try to oversimplify property systems into basic universal axioms and pretend as if these axioms interpret themselves and draw neat boxes around every conceivable right related to a given piece of property. I try not to fall into this trap. All property systems related to land use are going to be maddeningly complex, even those predicated on overly simplified axioms. we would need legal professionals to sort out the fine detail on precisely where rights begin and end just like we have an entire industry currently dedicated to determining exactly what sorts of circumstances allow people to sue each other. We need to hire professionals for this for the same reason that you hire a doctor to give you medical advise instead of giving yourself medical advise.

In other words, "It's real complicated, don't worry about it... Real smart people will hash out the details."  
You then use the doctor/medical advice analogy to drive the point home.
All analogies  fall short, but the "call the doc for medical advice" fails from the gitgo.  I'm generous to a fault, i'll FTFY:

A girl walks into Anoncare clinic, complaining of migraines.  Anon, with an air of self-assuredness, tells her: "Let's cut off your head, put it on a shelf until it's all better, and, once the problem's solved, we'll put it back on."  The girl, not entirely convinced of the cure's plausibility or eventual outcome, asks Anon to further elucidate the procedure.  Nonplussed, Anon replies:  "Sweetheart, it's all very scientific and complicated!  I pride myself on not bothering with all the busy details -- i leave those up to the doctors who know what they're doing.  I suggest you do the same."

I mean if you build a house do i have the right to vibrate the air on your property? inotherwords can i listen to music in my house which happens to cause atleast some amount of vibration of the air in your house. well most of us would say yes we can vibrate it some but not too much. You cant use any libertarian axiom to paint a clear box around how much is too much. and thats just one of a zillion possable questions as relating to conflicts of property rights. there is no way around having an industry that is specialized in solving these problems.  

You'd be surprised how much of your question is answered, to the decibel & minute of the day, in legal code.  Saying the problems will be worked out by clever folks who do that sort of thing is no better than saying "my business plan is to succeed & make money" -- only of value to those still amused by the "got your nose!" trick.

So wait. Since i dont have every answer to every conceivable question relating to the best trade off between every conceivable conflict of rights my arguments are invalid?

It's not that your argument is invalid, there's simply no argument there.  You stated what you would like to happen, and left the rest to smart people & imagination.  Let me make an analogy:  I would like to live in lollipop forest & mary Tinkerbell.  Show me my "argument" is invalid

I'm sorry but i disagree because while i cant answer all of these questions directly (im not a god) i can tell you about a process for returning answers that can be expected to improve with time. If we had a market in the provision of law than we could expect that service to improve with time for reasons similar to why computers get smaller and faster every year.

I see what you mean, but i'm sticking with my lollipop forest & hawt Tinkerbell "argument."

i have a general idea about what i think is right and wrong and i know other people who have the same general ideas that i have. we will have some miner disagreements on the specifics but i believe that we will be able to employ specialists to help resolve these disputes over the details so long as most of us agree on the over arching concepts. We would use shared idiology to paint in broad brush strokes what we would like our society to look like, and then create a market in law to draw sharper specifically where regrettable and unavoidable trade offs in rights should take place.

and hey I'm very open to the possibility that the whole idea is a "lollipop forest & hawt Tinkerbell"fest. I will be the first to admit that i might be totally wrong, i dont care, im personally willing to take that risk and im personally willing to accept the consequences of being wrong to the point of my own demise if it comes to that and I dont ask you to join me. All i ask is that you support my right to be free, including the freedom to make what you believe are mistakes so long as im not hurting anyone.

and also i want to point out that you were right, i hadnt up until that point made a real argument for how i thought society should function. i was previously just discussing my personal opinions on what constitutes legitimate acquisition.

ok so you still probably want more detail on the techical specifics of how a market in law could work. which i will be happy to provide if you are interested but im going to let you digest this first.

I have absolutely nothing against getting rid of oppressive laws, government thuggery and land ownership.  I think most folks would like that, they just can't quite work out how to go about it.  If you get something good going, i'll even donate my horn of plenty & the 3-stroke perpetual motion engine to your project

For some reason, i still like Tinkerbell (sans that whole ridiculous possy -- eww!) better, but your idea is nice too -- closer to my lollipop forest than what some of the local libers might like, but that's a good thing

awesome! the only thing stopping me from doing this is the fact that the government would murder me if i tried it.

so my immediate goal, and one of the goals of this conversation, is to convince people, such as yourself, to be of a state of mind that would lead you, and others, to become sufficiently outraged by the news of my demise at the hands of the state over this matter, so as to make it politically untenable for the government to murder me in the event that i should attempt this.

wow sorry that sentence was a mouthful and could probably benefit from that linguistics lesson we talked about earlier.

Did you read the post I linked to, and then factor in the depths I went to in that post, and the consequences of traipsing off into the wilderness to do your thing? Maybe your traipsing in of itself is no big deal, but collectively, is not such a good thing.

[Rassah]

So, just to confirm, do we all agree that we essentially live in a communist world where the government owns everything, even if you buy that thing from someone else claiming to own it, and that you statists believe it's perfectly OK for government to own everything and everyone, including the money you earn, just so you can feel safe?

Cause that's the sense I get from talking to you guys, and frankly, it's quite upsetting. Especially the part about you wanting to use violence to make sure that none of us who wants freedom tries to attain it.

[Rassah]

I have absolutely nothing against getting rid of oppressive laws, government thuggery and land ownership.  I think most folks would like that, they just can't quite work out how to go about it.

They can work it out. Quite easily, in fact, since we have all the tools and bases for it already. You're just not willing to listen to any of it, because you can't imagine the world as anything other than the way it is now. I don't know if it's just your lack of imagination, extreme brainwashing, or just fear of such a world, the later being understandable, since you'd be dead in it within a year.

[hate_the_face]

I do feel pretty safe actually

I forgot how effective an army paid in bitcoins could be

[FirstAscent]

So, just to confirm, do we all agree that we essentially live in a communist world where the government owns everything, even if you buy that thing from someone else claiming to own it, and that you statists believe it's perfectly OK for government to own everything and everyone, including the money you earn, just so you can feel safe?

Cause that's the sense I get from talking to you guys, and frankly, it's quite upsetting. Especially the part about you wanting to use violence to make sure that none of us who wants freedom tries to attain it.

Just to confirm, you voluntarily chose to move to the U.S., correct?

[shantee]

I believe everybody on earth is a theft then. especially traders here. 
I saw where it was going to at question 4 I just answered yes because iwas curious to see the end.and that's finally what i thought ..Some kind of pseudo anarchi anti law stuff ..that's just silly

Yeah yeah   law sucks , money is bad , governement is bad too, it controls us, it steals from us , we have no freedom blah blah blah..
Where doesn the guy who wrote these questions live ? let me guess ? usa ? somewhere in europe ? wow poor you ..at least you would have had more credibility if you lived in china or birmany.. but please..come on..




By the way I had to think a long time at question one. Because something is missing. you should have put an option "maybe"

After all we don't know you. You might be the biggest scum and liar on earth you might have done very bad things and then yeah i believe it would be cool to steal you some money.

[crumbs]

I have absolutely nothing against getting rid of oppressive laws, government thuggery and land ownership.  I think most folks would like that, they just can't quite work out how to go about it.

They can work it out. Quite easily, in fact, since we have all the tools and bases for it already. You're just not willing to listen to any of it, because you can't imagine the world as anything other than the way it is now. I don't know if it's just your lack of imagination, extreme brainwashing, or just fear of such a world, the later being understandable, since you'd be dead in it within a year.

Don't overthink it, tiger.  It's just nausea.  At fails who drool & dream of alchemizing their greed into virtue.  A gag reflex -- sudden, simple & as effective as barfing up a bad chicken sandwich.  

Edit:  This is *not* directed at Anon136.

[crumbs]

So, just to confirm, do we all agree that we essentially live in a communist world where the government owns everything, even if you buy that thing from someone else claiming to own it, and that you statists believe it's perfectly OK for government to own everything and everyone, including the money you earn, just so you can feel safe?

Cause that's the sense I get from talking to you guys, and frankly, it's quite upsetting. Especially the part about you wanting to use violence to make sure that none of us who wants freedom tries to attain it.

[Anon136]

as much as all of the other comments have frustrated me this one pleases me proportionately

libertarians (of which i count my self) often try to oversimplify property systems into basic universal axioms and pretend as if these axioms interpret themselves and draw neat boxes around every conceivable right related to a given piece of property. I try not to fall into this trap. All property systems related to land use are going to be maddeningly complex, even those predicated on overly simplified axioms. we would need legal professionals to sort out the fine detail on precisely where rights begin and end just like we have an entire industry currently dedicated to determining exactly what sorts of circumstances allow people to sue each other. We need to hire professionals for this for the same reason that you hire a doctor to give you medical advise instead of giving yourself medical advise.

In other words, "It's real complicated, don't worry about it... Real smart people will hash out the details."  
You then use the doctor/medical advice analogy to drive the point home.
All analogies  fall short, but the "call the doc for medical advice" fails from the gitgo.  I'm generous to a fault, i'll FTFY:

A girl walks into Anoncare clinic, complaining of migraines.  Anon, with an air of self-assuredness, tells her: "Let's cut off your head, put it on a shelf until it's all better, and, once the problem's solved, we'll put it back on."  The girl, not entirely convinced of the cure's plausibility or eventual outcome, asks Anon to further elucidate the procedure.  Nonplussed, Anon replies:  "Sweetheart, it's all very scientific and complicated!  I pride myself on not bothering with all the busy details -- i leave those up to the doctors who know what they're doing.  I suggest you do the same."

I mean if you build a house do i have the right to vibrate the air on your property? inotherwords can i listen to music in my house which happens to cause atleast some amount of vibration of the air in your house. well most of us would say yes we can vibrate it some but not too much. You cant use any libertarian axiom to paint a clear box around how much is too much. and thats just one of a zillion possable questions as relating to conflicts of property rights. there is no way around having an industry that is specialized in solving these problems.  

You'd be surprised how much of your question is answered, to the decibel & minute of the day, in legal code.  Saying the problems will be worked out by clever folks who do that sort of thing is no better than saying "my business plan is to succeed & make money" -- only of value to those still amused by the "got your nose!" trick.

So wait. Since i dont have every answer to every conceivable question relating to the best trade off between every conceivable conflict of rights my arguments are invalid?

It's not that your argument is invalid, there's simply no argument there.  You stated what you would like to happen, and left the rest to smart people & imagination.  Let me make an analogy:  I would like to live in lollipop forest & mary Tinkerbell.  Show me my "argument" is invalid

I'm sorry but i disagree because while i cant answer all of these questions directly (im not a god) i can tell you about a process for returning answers that can be expected to improve with time. If we had a market in the provision of law than we could expect that service to improve with time for reasons similar to why computers get smaller and faster every year.

I see what you mean, but i'm sticking with my lollipop forest & hawt Tinkerbell "argument."

i have a general idea about what i think is right and wrong and i know other people who have the same general ideas that i have. we will have some miner disagreements on the specifics but i believe that we will be able to employ specialists to help resolve these disputes over the details so long as most of us agree on the over arching concepts. We would use shared idiology to paint in broad brush strokes what we would like our society to look like, and then create a market in law to draw sharper specifically where regrettable and unavoidable trade offs in rights should take place.

and hey I'm very open to the possibility that the whole idea is a "lollipop forest & hawt Tinkerbell"fest. I will be the first to admit that i might be totally wrong, i dont care, im personally willing to take that risk and im personally willing to accept the consequences of being wrong to the point of my own demise if it comes to that and I dont ask you to join me. All i ask is that you support my right to be free, including the freedom to make what you believe are mistakes so long as im not hurting anyone.

and also i want to point out that you were right, i hadnt up until that point made a real argument for how i thought society should function. i was previously just discussing my personal opinions on what constitutes legitimate acquisition.

ok so you still probably want more detail on the techical specifics of how a market in law could work. which i will be happy to provide if you are interested but im going to let you digest this first.

I have absolutely nothing against getting rid of oppressive laws, government thuggery and land ownership.  I think most folks would like that, they just can't quite work out how to go about it.  If you get something good going, i'll even donate my horn of plenty & the 3-stroke perpetual motion engine to your project

For some reason, i still like Tinkerbell (sans that whole ridiculous possy -- eww!) better, but your idea is nice too -- closer to my lollipop forest than what some of the local libers might like, but that's a good thing

awesome! the only thing stopping me from doing this is the fact that the government would murder me if i tried it.

so my immediate goal, and one of the goals of this conversation, is to convince people, such as yourself, to be of a state of mind that would lead you, and others, to become sufficiently outraged by the news of my demise at the hands of the state over this matter, so as to make it politically untenable for the government to murder me in the event that i should attempt this.

wow sorry that sentence was a mouthful and could probably benefit from that linguistics lesson we talked about earlier.

Did you read the post I linked to, and then factor in the depths I went to in that post, and the consequences of traipsing off into the wilderness to do your thing? Maybe your traipsing in of itself is no big deal, but collectively, is not such a good thing.

rofl i see your post now. it reminds me why i blocked you and makes me call into question my choice to reveal a few of your comments in this thread. I know you arnt as stupid as this comment would have people believe.

so lets get this on the record. now im going to try to take out as many variables as possible so that no ones thought will be clouded. lets say my friends and i go out into the middle of no where and build ourselves some log cabins to live in. lets say that land is a national park. lets say that it is illegal to build a house on a national park. lets say that we went through EVERY proper channel to attempt to get permission to build our houses but were denied. lets say that we ad hear to every other regulation (bear cans, pouring water on our camp fires, w/e). lets say that we practice sustainable techniques when harvesting our timber. we select it from different areas spaced out and we plant 4 new trees for every one we harvest.

do you condone the state murdering and or kidnapping us at gun point over this? its a yes or no question. if you still dont feel ok with a yes or no we can revise the premise to fix what you see as any holes or ambiguities.

[shantee]

rofl i see your post now. it reminds me why i blocked you and makes me call into question my choice to reveal a few of your comments in this thread. I know you arnt as stupid as this comment would have people believe.

so lets get this on the record. now im going to try to take out as many variables as possible so that no ones thought will be clouded. lets say my friends and i go out into the middle of no where and build ourselves some log cabins to live in. lets say that land is a national park. lets say that it is illegal to build a house on a national park. lets say that we went through EVERY proper channel to attempt to get permission to build our houses but were denied. lets say that we ad hear to every other regulation (bear cans, pouring water on our camp fires, w/e). lets say that we practice sustainable techniques when harvesting our timber. we select it from different areas spaced out and we plant 4 new trees for every one we harvest.

do you condone the state murdering and or kidnapping us at gun point over this? its a yes or no question. if you still dont feel ok with a yes or no we can revise the premise to fix what you see as any holes or ambiguities.

I don't know what you guys are talking about but to answer this question YES i'll do..It's illegal you said it yourself you would be aware of it.. then...well It's illegal period !

[crumbs]

...so lets get this on the record. now im going to try to take out as many variables as possible so that no ones thought will be clouded. lets say my friends and i go out into the middle of no where and build ourselves some log cabins to live in. lets say that land is a national park. lets say that it is illegal to build a house on a national park. lets say that we went through EVERY proper channel to attempt to get permission to build our houses but were denied. lets say that we ad hear to every other regulation (bear cans, pouring water on our camp fires, w/e). lets say that we practice sustainable techniques when harvesting our timber. we select it from different areas spaced out and we plant 4 new trees for every one we harvest.

do you condone the state murdering and or kidnapping us at gun point over this? its a yes or no question. if you still dont feel ok with a yes or no we can revise the premise to fix what you see as any holes or ambiguities.

You're starting with a faulty premise. 
The statist thug you're likely to encounter first would be an unarmed forest ranger, who'll tell you that building of log cabins is not allowed, because it shits up the park.  He'll most likely simply ask you to "GTFO by the same time, next day." 
If you choose to disobey & escalate this Yogi Bear encounter, a slightly more serious looking crew will show up the next day, and, if you resist, might tase you, bro.  And then zip-lock you and give you a ride into town.  Guns won't enter the picture unless you convincingly try to use a weapon first -- no one's got time for all that.

[Anon136]

...so lets get this on the record. now im going to try to take out as many variables as possible so that no ones thought will be clouded. lets say my friends and i go out into the middle of no where and build ourselves some log cabins to live in. lets say that land is a national park. lets say that it is illegal to build a house on a national park. lets say that we went through EVERY proper channel to attempt to get permission to build our houses but were denied. lets say that we ad hear to every other regulation (bear cans, pouring water on our camp fires, w/e). lets say that we practice sustainable techniques when harvesting our timber. we select it from different areas spaced out and we plant 4 new trees for every one we harvest.

do you condone the state murdering and or kidnapping us at gun point over this? its a yes or no question. if you still dont feel ok with a yes or no we can revise the premise to fix what you see as any holes or ambiguities.

You're starting with a faulty premise. 
The statist thug you're likely to encounter first would be an unarmed forest ranger, who'll tell you that building of log cabins is not allowed, because it shits up the park.  He'll most likely simply ask you to "GTFO by the same time, next day." 
If you choose to disobey & escalate this Yogi Bear encounter, a slightly more serious looking crew will show up the next day, and, if you resist, might tase you, bro.  And then zip-lock you and give you a ride into town.  Guns won't enter the picture unless you convincingly try to use a weapon first -- no one's got time for all that.

ok and if we defended ourselves against an attacker who was trying to taze us for building a few houses out in the middle of no where than that attacker would come back with bigger guns.

im not talking about putting these houses in your local park between the swings and the slide. there are places in these parks out west that have never even been seen by humans (excluding humans in aircraft). obviously its built on the condition that we arnt "shitting up the park" i even mentioned sustainable logging techniques and replanting trees. these parks are thousands and thousands of square miles, im literally only asking for a couple of square miles and well even pay.

really though this is the worst possible example. much better would be settling on an uninhabited island. that would be my first choice.

[Anon136]

rofl i see your post now. it reminds me why i blocked you and makes me call into question my choice to reveal a few of your comments in this thread. I know you arnt as stupid as this comment would have people believe.

so lets get this on the record. now im going to try to take out as many variables as possible so that no ones thought will be clouded. lets say my friends and i go out into the middle of no where and build ourselves some log cabins to live in. lets say that land is a national park. lets say that it is illegal to build a house on a national park. lets say that we went through EVERY proper channel to attempt to get permission to build our houses but were denied. lets say that we ad hear to every other regulation (bear cans, pouring water on our camp fires, w/e). lets say that we practice sustainable techniques when harvesting our timber. we select it from different areas spaced out and we plant 4 new trees for every one we harvest.

do you condone the state murdering and or kidnapping us at gun point over this? its a yes or no question. if you still dont feel ok with a yes or no we can revise the premise to fix what you see as any holes or ambiguities.

I don't know what you guys are talking about but to answer this question YES i'll do..It's illegal you said it yourself you would be aware of it.. then...well It's illegal period !

so its as simple as that is it. illegal = bad, legal = good, end of story.

I suppose we better get to work tracking down all the remaining people who helped to shelter jews during world war 2 and locking them away in prison.

also i hear there is one nazi left in prison. we better let him out. after all he was obeying the law.

Tell me where does the government get the right to dictate the terms of use of a piece of land so remote that it has never even been seen by human eyes? why is their claim to it better than mine?

[shantee]

this thread is becoming dumb ..it kinda started badly but we 're going to reach the Goldwin point ^^ soon