Libertarians and gun rights activits here is how the rest of the world sees you

[ElectricMucus]

Ok, fine 
I'll get back at you this evening.

The thread was originally planned as me posting funny pictures about the topic but it turned out to be heavily debated which is fine, just unexpected. And I like a good debate

[1714686098]

1714686098

[1714686098]

1714686098

[1714686098]

1714686098

[1714686098]

1714686098

[ElectricMucus]

Property rights exist because people agree they exist. People want the comfort of having a place they call "home" where they can consider themselves "safe", so they are willing to allow others to have that comfort as well. As long as most people agree that owning property is a right, they aren't going to complain when someone ignores that right and is punished for it.

It's a start. But getting people to agree on something is hardly a proper justification. History has shown that people will agree to lots of things many of which we currently see as unjustified if they are coerced enough.

I guess the joke is on me since the guy who's unwilling or unable to give me a proper debate is Butthurt I deleted his post and you delete all your posts anyway and I can't really debate you that way either.

I agree that it's difficult to get people to agree! o_O

That's why we have the market.

Unfortunately, even the market can be distorted long enough to cause huge amounts of pain for large amounts of people.

Uh yeah The Market... much like the Ferengi Material Continuum sounds like an esoteric concept to me .

You are using a capitalist terminology here, just like I have previously excluded. But even if you didn't mean to and mean the social exchange of things and actions by which by Libertarian definition we participate if we like it or not.  (Much like the Continuum )
From the classical Anarchist point of view you just admitted to my point. From the Libertarian perspective the authority over property doesn't need justification because the Invisible Hand Of The Free Market will correct any injustice. Even if that were true (which I highly object against) you can't justify the claim of Authority with it just the happenstance of that property.

[ElectricMucus]

You are again confusing ownership with consumption (or utilization if you will). It is not necessary to own something in order to make use of it, it's just more or less the status quo in our capitalist society,
The great difference is ownership does not require utilization. Mind you my critique of Libertarianism comes from a classical Anarchist perspective.
I have chosen this perspective to highlight the discrepancies between Libertarianism and  Anarchism which it is claimed to be related to.

I propose that Libertarianism is more related to Neoliberalism and I even think it's the same thing, just radicalized.
From a Statist perspective lawful ownership is only possible because the monopoly of force, and I tend to agree with that. The Market can not provide an environment where ownership which is unrelated to utilization is possible.
For instance it would not be possible to invest in real estate and keeping it empty for later appreciation in value. In an Anarchist society no force would prevent squatters to occupying it without ownership.

I think that in an Anarchist society ownership would just mean utilization and nothing more.

[Bitcoin-hotep]

You realize that that is just a modern take on the original Texas state flag?
Read up on why Texas is a state

[ElectricMucus]

Yeah, lots of gun rights activists are backwards wingnuts from Texas.

[ElectricMucus]

Utilization seems to be a relative term. Allowing land to sit empty is a type of utilization in and of itself. The Earth needs natural places for it's ecosystem to maintain itself. So who are you to judge which use is more important?

Your squatter example is perfect. So... empty land is sitting there and some squatters decide to occupy it (assuming occupation is a better use for the land). Then they leave for whatever reason, let's say to go to work. What prevents another group of squatters moving in and occupying it? Perhaps they will utilize it better, so their claim to ownership is stronger?

No... this is silly. Society won't function like this, which is why we have agreed upon property rights. Anarchy doesn't need to be chaos, although many people seem to think this. No wonder if they are seeing anarchy as you do, because if we don't have some agreed upon rights, we will have chaos. Fortunately, nothing about anarchy prevents people from making agreements, quite the opposite.

Leaving land empty for the ecosystem isn't utilization. Nature exists independently of human society and I find the "necessity" to "own" unoccupied land disgusting. It's not up to me to judge that, right, this decision has to make everybody themselves.

When it comes down to it every instance of ownership is related to the application of power, be it aggressive or defensive if not directly indirectly through past claims. And it is maintained by the application of power. (Why do you think fences are so popular)
Yes there are better and worse types of utilization for a type of resource. If you take the squatter example the squatters think that the land is better utilized they will make use of it on their own authority. Whatever authority an investor claims to have will not matter to them. Other squatters would need to share the resource or go somewhere else if the resource is too scare. Under this definition application of power is justified by the utilization and the need for that utilization. And since the squatters have greater need for a place to stay than the investor has for a park squatters win under anarchist rule of law.

[ElectricMucus]

Oh come on you can do better than quoting phrases.

[RodeoX]

I'm a liberal gun rights activist. And I could care less about how the world views me. 

[ElectricMucus]

Oh come on you can do better than quoting phrases.

I just want to understand what your point is. These "phrases" are what you've said boils down to.

When it comes down to it every instance of ownership is related to the application of power, be it aggressive or defensive if not directly indirectly through past claims. And it is maintained by the application of power.

Might makes right.

And since the squatters have greater need for a place to stay than the investor has for a park squatters win under anarchist rule of law.

To each according to his need.

And again, explain "anarchist rule of law" to me, as that has me completely baffled. Explain who's law for starters.

Anarchist rule of law was a figure of speech for a lack of a better term.  Who knows what terms a functioning Anarchist society would use. Laws are made by the state and rules well, anybody can make some up.
I don't think my arguments boil down to these phrases. I have made logical deductions here based on these examples. You can either dismiss the examples and show that they don't have to be representative for the general case or find an error in the deductions. Or you could agree with me.

[ElectricMucus]

I'm a liberal gun rights activist. And I could care less about how the world views me. 

At least you admit to being a liberal

[ElectricMucus]

I think we have a hard time discussing things because we disagree on the very definitions of the words we are using!

Yes, most importantly the word "Libertarianism"


But lets say we both agree on: "Might makes right." and "To each according to his need."
Then how is the application of power ever justified if it is done to somebody with the greater need? If it's not:

How do you suppose justified ownership would work in a Libertarian society? Do you recognize a difference to how it would if it were classical Anarchism instead?

[ElectricMucus]

Justified ownership, ultimately, comes down to whether or not you can prevent someone else from taking your possessions.

Hahaha, right. So if am the sole controller of a skynet type robotic army I have justified ownership of the world? And that's feudalism.

It is right we have very serious different options on what words mean! For me "justified" come from "justice".
The definition of Anarchy isn't "no rulers" its "Every authority must be justified." As it seems we disagree on both phrases.

[ElectricMucus]

Btw according to this logic the goverment has justified ownership of you.
It can protect you from any other entity trying to take possession of you, hahaha

[Mike Christ]

Btw according to this logic the goverment has justified ownership over you.
It can protect you from any other entity trying to take possession of you, hahaha

This is true; they do own you and I, because we give them the means to own us.  Once we agree that it's better for each of us to own ourselves, this comes to an end.

[ElectricMucus]

I think we have a hard time discussing things because we disagree on the very definitions of the words we are using!

Yes, most importantly the word "Libertarianism"


But lets say we both agree on: "Might makes right." and "To each according to his need."
Then how is the application of power ever justified if it is done to somebody with the greater need? If it's not:

How do you suppose justified ownership would work in a Libertarian society? Do you recognize a difference to how it would if it were classical Anarchism instead?

I may agree with "might makes right", although not "right" as in "correct" or "moral".

I do not agree with "to each according to his need" especially because it conflicts with "might makes right". It does not matter how much you need something, if you can't protect it, you can't have it (ultimately).

I consider myself an anarchist in the purest sense of the word. No rulers. I won't bow to anyone. So, I'm not sure how a libertarian defines anything. Don't they allow for small government to protect "rights", thus ownership?

I'm also not familiar with "classical anarchism". As I said, the definition of anarchy is very simple in my book, no rulers.

Justified ownership, ultimately, comes down to whether or not you can prevent someone else from taking your possessions. Bitcoin, for example, makes it very clear. If you are not the sole controller of your private keys, you don't have any bitcoins. You need to have a method to prevent others from taking your possessions if you want to truly claim that you "own" them. This method does not need to employ might, but it needs to protect against it. If the only way to protect against might is might, then so be it. Might could be a social agreement to protect everyone's belongings, as I've tried to explain with the concept of "rights".

I don't care much about how people think things should work, I'm more interested in how things actually work.

I did forget to quote this masterpiece.

[ElectricMucus]

Btw according to this logic the goverment has justified ownership over you.
It can protect you from any other entity trying to take possession of you, hahaha

This is true; they do own you and I, because we give them the means to own us.  Once we agree that it's better for each of us to own ourselves, this comes to an end.

It seems you Libertarians have some problems with ethics if that is your concept of justice.

[ElectricMucus]

You might be suffering from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder

I'm no doctor though, but see one.

[ElectricMucus]

You might be suffering from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder

Better that than:

What a relief we are back to how the thread started.

[Mike Christ]

Btw according to this logic the goverment has justified ownership over you.
It can protect you from any other entity trying to take possession of you, hahaha

This is true; they do own you and I, because we give them the means to own us.  Once we agree that it's better for each of us to own ourselves, this comes to an end.

It seems you Libertarians have some problems with ethics if that is your concept of justice.

My concept of justice doesn't involve one group having special rights over another; however, my concept of justice isn't popular.  Your concept of justice, however, is, and the states of the world do have sovereignty over the people, which is understood to be morally consistent, as I pointed out.  Once we agree that this isn't justice, we can talk about what is.

[ElectricMucus]

Well... LOL!

Look, I'm an anarchist because I don't think people should be giving all their power to one entity who is then capable of controlling everything.

I don't want people to suffer at the hands of those who can only take (as opposed to produce).

I do what I can to maintain my individual freedom. I use money that puts the power back in my hands. I own weapons to protect myself from those who would do me harm. I avoid conflict with those who have a monopoly on power while doing my best to avoid contributing more to their power.

No one should have the power to "own the world". My hopes don't prevent that from happening. Individuals need to take power for themselves in order to prevent it!

That makes you look like an egoist at best and a brat at the worst though.

I urge you to research classical anarchism.
And then post-structuralist anarchism. That's the school of thought I find most attractive. I know that from where you stand right now when you read about it you see it as hypocritical.

BTW: I am proud of my sense of ethics and fuck you if you think that does not matter.