The message of liberty in less than one minute.

[Jon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5lhkNUtkBA&

Enjoy, those who are uninitiated.

[1715286542]

1715286542

[1715286542]

1715286542

[1715286542]

1715286542

[1715286542]

1715286542

[Hawker]

Same mistake again and again.

If you have property rights, you have a state.  So his whole pitch falls into self-contradiction at 10 seconds in.

[Jon]

I enforce my property rights with my owned hired men, weapons and structures. Am I a state?

Are various independent contractors offering security states? Is ADT a state? Is a man with a single gun a state?

[Hawker]

I enforce my property rights with my owned hired men, weapons and structures. Am I a state?

They are not property rights in that you control any item you want off anyone with less armaments than you.

[Hunterbunter]

I enforce my property rights with my owned hired men, weapons and structures. Am I a state?

Are various independent contractors offering security states? Is ADT a state? Is a man with a single gun a state?

While a different scale, yes it is. You govern it, have the same idea about rules for visitors, or anyone who wants to stay on your land. Lichtenstein is a state, and it's barely bigger than a suburb.

[Jon]

I enforce my property rights with my owned hired men, weapons and structures. Am I a state?

They are not property rights in that you control any item you want off anyone with less armaments than you.

So do the current police protect us from people with more arms sufficiently? Do they have an obligation to protect you?

[cbeast]

If you have property rights, you have a state.

I've sold all my physical property and converted the value to Bitcoin. Bitcoin exists without a state. I have a right to my Bitcoins because I possess the private keys that control them.

I have thought about having a garage sale this spring. I may allow a 10% discount for paying with Bitcoin and if people pay cash I may offer them Bitcents on printed slips if they wish.

[Hawker]

I enforce my property rights with my owned hired men, weapons and structures. Am I a state?

They are not property rights in that you control any item you want off anyone with less armaments than you.

So do the current police protect us from people with more arms sufficiently? Do they have an obligation to protect you?

Me? Yes.  Its part of their contract of employment.  You? I assume your local police have a similar obligation.  Syrian peasants?  Not so much.

Not sure why you are going off topic here.  The logic that private property is a legal concept and this requires a state for it to exist has nothing to do with whether or not the state is decent.

[Hawker]

If you have property rights, you have a state.

I've sold all my physical property and converted the value to Bitcoin. Bitcoin exists without a state. I have a right to my Bitcoins because I possess the private keys that control them. The rules of the Bitcoin network are an agreement on how we create, control, and possess Bitcoins. The agreement on the rules of the network give me my property rights. This is all voluntary and requires no state.

You don't have a right to your bitcoins if you don't have a court in which you can enforce that right if you lose control of them.  You merely control the keys for the present.  If I happen to hack your account and take them and you you are not prepared to sue me to get them back, then the keys are no longer yours in any sense.

[Hawker]

If you have property rights, you have a state.

I've sold all my physical property and converted the value to Bitcoin. Bitcoin exists without a state. I have a right to my Bitcoins because I possess the private keys that control them. The rules of the Bitcoin network are an agreement on how we create, control, and possess Bitcoins. The agreement on the rules of the network give me my property rights. This is all voluntary and requires no state.

You don't have a right to your bitcoins if you don't have a court in which you can enforce that right if you lose control of them.  You merely control the keys for the present.  If I happen to hack your account and take them and you you are not prepared to sue me to get them back, then the keys are no longer yours in any sense.

I don't need a court to enforce it. What account? My private keys exist only in my brain.

Again, I have a right to my Bitcoins because I possess the private keys that control them.

Its not a right. 

I have a right to my car.  If you take the keys, I can sue you and get them back. 

You have the same right to your bitcoin.

Take away the option to sue, and its longer a right.  Merely possession.  In fact, if someone else has a right to them and sues you, you lose them.

[Hawker]

...snip...

The agreement to the rules of the bitcoin network give me the right. You can sue me until you run out of money, you aren't getting the private keys. You are powerless to obtain them. Do you understand?

Right - a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral

I have a just claim simply because I possess them and no one can change that except myself.

On that basis, a thief who has buried his loot and is being kept is jail until he yields the location has a "right" to the loot.  You don't think that do you?

What you are really doing is abusing the word "right" and trying to give it a new meaning for what we currently call "possession."  

Does that seem like a good use of your time?  Assuming you succeed, the video OP posted will have to be remade with the new word for "right" and then we start again.

[Hawker]

...snip...
I've given you a clear example of a right that does not require a state to enforce. You can choose to understand it, or ignore it. Regardless of the definition, in my example, you can not obtain my property, so it's semantics arguing whether I have a right to it or not.

Exactly - if there is no state, then the use of the word "right" is just a semantic sweetener.  

Example: It may be that you and I set up a business together, 50:50, and you were in charge of money.  We fell out and you are keeping all the money.  If I can't sue you, that is the end of the story and you now have my money and there is nothing to be done about it.  Its yours because you possess it.

But if I have a right to the money, I can send a lawyer after you and at some point you will have to decide between jail time and returning my share of the Bitcoin.

I'm sure you agree that is an important difference.  Lets leave semantics out of it - the difference between the 2 situations is huge.

But if you look at the OP's video, he talks about individuals having a right to defend their property.  

Without a state that creates a legal framework that defines what property is and how you can own it, those individuals don't have a "right to defend their property" they have a power to take control of stuff and kill anyone who opposes them.

[Hawker]

You repeated what I said.  If you control my bitcoins and I don't have a right to sue, then I have lost the bitcoins. 

So, take away my right to sue, and I don't have any right to my bitcoins. 

[Hawker]

You repeated what I said.  If you control my bitcoins and I don't have a right to sue, then I have lost the bitcoins.  

So, take away my right to sue, and I don't have any right to my bitcoins.  

A lawsuit is only one option that you may use in an attempt to repossess your Bitcoins.

By the way, if you are attempting to repossess Bitcoins, you've already failed to protect yourself. You didn't protect your property. The state didn't protect your property. You are hoping the state's threat of force is enough to convince me to return your Bitcoins. Apparently, you see the state's threat of force as your only option and the only thing that gives you a right to your property.

You keep reinforcing my point.  Without the state's threat of force, I don't have a right to my Bitcoins that you stole. You have them and I just have to take my losses.

So when the OP's video talks about people having property rights without a state, its nonsense.

[Rassah]

More weirdo confusion by you two  
Would it be fair to say that a right is what Holiday described, being intrinsic and independent of any specific entities (like government or court rooms) which is also agreed on by the rest of the neighboring community? (Though, even more specifically, based on the golden rule or NAP). If that's the case, even if you steal someone's Bitcoin, you still don't have the right to them, because you both, violated the NAP by initiating the taking of someone else's property, AND violated the accepted community standards, which will likely bring the wrath of the community in you, be it through lawsuits, avoiding doing any business with you, or just vigilante justice.

[Rassah]

As for safely storing Bitcoin in your head, sorry to be so gruesome, but:

Here's a glass of drain cleaner. You have 5 minutes until the pain of dissolving yourself from the inside drives you permanently insane. I have in my hand a glass of vinegar and carbon. I'll trade you for your key.

[Rassah]

And consider this, if I go through the trouble of memorizing private keys to protect my Bitcoins, try to imagine what kind of resources I use to protect my person. 

Good point 

[Hawker]

And consider this, if I go through the trouble of memorizing private keys to protect my Bitcoins, try to imagine what kind of resources I use to protect my person. 

Good point 

Obligatory: http://xkcd.com/538/

[Rassah]

And consider this, if I go through the trouble of memorizing private keys to protect my Bitcoins, try to imagine what kind of resources I use to protect my person. 

Good point 

Obligatory: http://xkcd.com/538/

Was what I was thinking about.

[ribuck]

... when the OP's video talks about people having property rights without a state, its nonsense

Well you certainly don't have property rights with a state, since every state takes property from its citizens in order to fund itself.