Freedom Of Association?

[bonker]

Until you can reasonably and consistently address racial and religious conflicts, Libertarianism is nothing more than a childish muse for the decadent.

It's already been addressed. You lost the argument by admitting that I have the right to control my private property however I see fit.

The fact you keep attaching negative labels and generally being a sarcastic douche only shows how intellectually bankrupt your philosophy is.

No. you presented the crude argument that property rights would permit full freedom of association. I countered with the following:

Taking stock from the above, Libertarianism will allow the freedom of association and the formation of racist apartheid private collectives.
Whites only restaurants, malls, schools, cultural festivals etc. However, liberals are free to boycott these collectives in some non-violent manner.

Yes, I can follow the reasoning, but suspect such a situation is somewhat unstable.

Perhaps some wise Libertarian can enlighten us further?

I'm using negative labels with some of you as you appear deserving. I will dispense credit when due

[1714046287]

1714046287

[1714046287]

1714046287

[myrkul]

Who owns the driveway and who makes sure it stays a driveway?

Uh... Me. thus the term 'driveway':
–noun
1. a road, especially a private one, leading from a street or other thoroughfare to a building, house, garage, etc.

Ok, what happens when obnoxious members of your society refuse to MYOB? What do you actually DO?

Depends on what they actually DO:

Wander on to the property, despite the no trespassing signs, kick 'em out.
Attempt to take my property, take it back, with all necessary force.
Attempt to take my life, defend it, with lethal force.

[NghtRppr]

No. you presented the crude argument that property rights would permit full freedom of association. I countered with the following:

Taking stock from the above, Libertarianism will allow the freedom of association and the formation of racist apartheid private collectives.
Whites only restaurants, malls, schools, cultural festivals etc. However, liberals are free to boycott these collectives in some non-violent manner.

Yes, I can follow the reasoning, but suspect such a situation is somewhat unstable.

Perhaps some wise Libertarian can enlighten us further?

And then I asked "What do you mean by "unstable" and why should we care?" but was ignored. What negative label should I attach to you since you're so deserving? Weasel? Coward? Blind?

[ascent]

If you were dumb enough to buy property next to my property without ensuring that you also bought access rights to get off your property, yes. However, that would rarely ever happen. A builder wants to sell houses. A road owner wants people to use his roads. These two would naturally come to an arrangement so that it would be possible. However, there might be a few cases where some idiot like yourself bought land he can't get on or off without a helicopter, in which case, too damn bad. Maybe you won't be such a drooling moron in the future.

I'm not the idiot here. How do I ensure that the people who own the land around me don't change how they wish to use it? Who regulates that?

[NghtRppr]

If you were dumb enough to buy property next to my property without ensuring that you also bought access rights to get off your property, yes. However, that would rarely ever happen. A builder wants to sell houses. A road owner wants people to use his roads. These two would naturally come to an arrangement so that it would be possible. However, there might be a few cases where some idiot like yourself bought land he can't get on or off without a helicopter, in which case, too damn bad. Maybe you won't be such a drooling moron in the future.

I'm not the idiot here. How do I ensure that the people who own the land around me don't change how they wish to use it? Who regulates that?

So you want to change topics from how do I ensure I can access my property, which I explained was through the use of buying and selling contracts for access rights, to now discussing who enforces said contracts?

[bonker]

No. you presented the crude argument that property rights would permit full freedom of association. I countered with the following:

Taking stock from the above, Libertarianism will allow the freedom of association and the formation of racist apartheid private collectives.
Whites only restaurants, malls, schools, cultural festivals etc. However, liberals are free to boycott these collectives in some non-violent manner.

Yes, I can follow the reasoning, but suspect such a situation is somewhat unstable.

Perhaps some wise Libertarian can enlighten us further?

And then I asked "What do you mean by "unstable" and why should we care?" but was ignored. What negative label should I attach to you since you're so deserving? Weasel? Coward? Blind?

Ignored due to it being utterly stupid.

You should care about conflict and instability as it will destroy your social order and return your society to anarchy. There is no mechanism
 to deal with conflict, to prevent it growing and to prevent the emergence of tyranny.

All you can come up with is babble about property rights? Jesus, this is just a post-Capitalist quagmire.

[jgraham]

It's already been addressed. You lost the argument by admitting that I have the right to control my private property however I see fit.

In other words, you can decide to put a fence up where my driveway leads out of my property?

If you were dumb enough to buy property next to my property without ensuring that you also bought access rights to get off your property, yes. However, that would rarely ever happen. A builder wants to sell houses. A road owner wants people to use his roads. These two would naturally come to an arrangement so that it would be possible. However, there might be a few cases where some idiot like yourself bought land he can't get on or off without a helicopter, in which case, too damn bad. Maybe you won't be such a drooling moron in the future.

Out of curiosity.   What about the property beside that?

One of the problems, I find in trying to reason with people who live in a made-up world is determining what set of rules overlap with the real one.

Incidentally I started reading that Brock book.  So far he's kind of amusing.  What did you think of the first chapter?

[NghtRppr]

Ignored due to it being utterly stupid.

Funny, that's the same reason I'll be ignoring you now.

Out of curiosity. What about the property beside that?

You won't be worried about access on a parcel by parcel basis. You'll be worried about getting access to a major road. Since businesses want people to be able to get to them, they'll make sure you can. Once you get to the highway, you won't have to worry about how you get to Kroger or Publix because Kroger and Publix will have that already figured out.

[bonker]

Ignored due to it being utterly stupid.

Funny, that's the same reason I'll be ignoring you now.

Come now, I'm entirely willing to be enlightened. We have similar instincts after all, personally, I find most people in authority to be dismal
and undeserving tadpoles.

If we end this arguement here, with all due respect, I'll have to maintain my position that Libertarian theory needs to develop beyond the
realm of property rights and to address social conflicts more robustly.

[NghtRppr]

If we end this arguement here, with all due respect, I'll have to maintain my position that Libertarian theory needs to develop beyond the realm of property rights and to address social conflicts more robustly.

I don't really care. If a forum debate is going to drastically affect your philosophical views then you're dumber than I thought. Go read some books, educate yourself and make up your own damn mind. This is just an avenue to explore ideas. It's no substitute for reading works by eminent scholars.

[bonker]

If we end this arguement here, with all due respect, I'll have to maintain my position that Libertarian theory needs to develop beyond the realm of property rights and to address social conflicts more robustly.

I don't really care. If a forum debate is going to drastically affect your philosophical views then you're dumber than I thought. Go read some books, educate yourself and make up your own damn mind. This is just an avenue to explore ideas. It's no substitute for reading works by imminent scholars.

Any well reasoned argument will affect my opinion, regardless of where it comes from.

[NghtRppr]

Any well reasoned argument will affect my opinion, regardless of where it comes from.

That's not what we were discussing. Try to pay attention to context.

It's the fact that if you don't get what you want here you're just going to leave it at that. The whole threat of "debate me or I'll just be closed minded" is kind of stupid.

[myrkul]

Out of curiosity.   What about the property beside that?

See, here's the easy way to do it, and thus the way I figure it will get done:

Imagine a large tract of land, all unclaimed.
Now, pick an edge, and draw a thick line from it to it's opposite. This is a private road. It is built through this area to get from one point to another, both unrelated to the area involved.

Now, section off one part of this land, the farther away from the road the better.

This is the problem: How to ensure access to the private road from that property.
Easiest solution: Claim a strip of land and build a driveway. Now, nobody can buy or homestead a donut around you and lock you in.

See how easy that solution is?

[jgraham]

Ignored due to it being utterly stupid.

Funny, that's the same reason I'll be ignoring you now.

Out of curiosity. What about the property beside that?

You won't be worried about access on a parcel by parcel basis. You'll be worried about getting access to a major road.

Sorry, you don't get to dictate what I will be worried about (I'm just visiting fantasy-world I don't live there).  Your argument seems to be that this system of privatization actually doesn't significantly impede peoples function.  However when asked how this is done.   You answer appears to be "it's all figured out".

Right now, this reminds me of when Feynman was talking with a general and he told him his bright idea for fueling tanks.  "Someone should figure out how to make them run off dirt because then when they're in the field all they would need is a little shovel and..."

and by-the-by I asked you about the Brock book...No review?  Where's the love?

Imagine a large tract of land, all unclaimed.

Again, the rules of fantasy-land impede me a bit.  Wouldn't it be better to assume that all of the land is claimed?  Including the big road.  Perhaps by multiple owners?  With various regulations and rules regarding use?

[myrkul]

Imagine a large tract of land, all unclaimed.

Again, the rules of fantasy-land impede me a bit.  Wouldn't it be better to assume that all of the land is claimed?  Including the big road.  Perhaps by multiple owners?  With various regulations and rules regarding use?

Well, if the land is all claimed, the access rights have all been worked out already, haven't they?

[bonker]

Any well reasoned argument will affect my opinion, regardless of where it comes from.

That's not what we were discussing. Try to pay attention to context.

It's the fact that if you don't get what you want here you're just going to leave it at that. The whole threat of "debate me or I'll just be closed minded" is kind of stupid.

What on earth are you jabbering on about? Anyway, I got shit to do, so I'll just leave you lot
here waffling on about pathways and boundaries and property and all that pointless bullshit.

[myrkul]

Any well reasoned argument will affect my opinion, regardless of where it comes from.

That's not what we were discussing. Try to pay attention to context.

It's the fact that if you don't get what you want here you're just going to leave it at that. The whole threat of "debate me or I'll just be closed minded" is kind of stupid.

What on earth are you jabbering on about? Anyway, I got shit to do, so I'll just leave you lot
here waffling on about pathways and boundaries and property and all that pointless bullshit.

No you won't. Trolls never stay away from the lulz.

[NghtRppr]

I got shit to do

Like what, harassing people that cross your bridge? Fine, take your ball and leave.

"Screw you guys. I'm going home!"

However when asked how this is done.   You answer appears to be "it's all figured out".

Would you build a grocery store unless there was a major road that could get people to your store? No, of course not. That's what I mean by it's all figured out. Businesses want to make money therefore it will be in their best interests to do so. This isn't even remotely the same as making tanks run on dirt because that's technological problem while getting people to drive on roads to a store, isn't. It's a entrepreneurial problem.

I can't predict the future but I can suggest some possibilities. Since major road owners want people to drive on their roads, they also want to attract businesses which will attract customers, thereby bringing more drivers on the road. Road owners will guarantee access to grocery stores and other shops for that reason.

Another possibility is that major stores will first buy options and then build the roads themselves once they have all the options in place.

There are other possibilities but I shouldn't have to exhaust them all just to placate you. The fact is, road owners want drivers and shops attract drivers therefore road owners want to attract shop owners, it's pretty simple really. Just ignore that though and keep talking about "fantasy-land" like a complete and utter tool.

[jgraham]

Imagine a large tract of land, all unclaimed.

Again, the rules of fantasy-land impede me a bit.  Wouldn't it be better to assume that all of the land is claimed?  Including the big road.  Perhaps by multiple owners?  With various regulations and rules regarding use?

Well, if the land is all claimed, the access rights have all been worked out already, haven't they?

Not necessarily, not for a new owner or for any and all uses.

[NghtRppr]

any and all uses

Speaking of "fantasy-land". Since you demand complete and utter perfection, that must be where you live.