The message of liberty in less than one minute.

[Hawker]

...snip...

In Texas, if somebody tries to trespass on my property or steal from me, I can shoot them. Castle Doctrine.

Is this not private property without a state?

...snip...

/doh

Of course its not private property without a state.  Think about what you have written.  "Trespass" "property" "doctrine" - all legal concepts created by the state.  Take away the state and there is no private property to "trespass" on and no courts to have "doctrines" in.

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

Please read a little and educate yourself. 

[Jon]

...snip...

In Texas, if somebody tries to trespass on my property or steal from me, I can shoot them. Castle Doctrine.

Is this not private property without a state?

...snip...

/doh

Of course its not private property without a state.  Think about what you have written.  "Trespass" "property" "doctrine" - all legal concepts created by the state.  Take away the state and there is no private property to "trespass" on and no courts to have "doctrines" in.

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

Please read a little and educate yourself.  

Alright, I am going to hang a "No Trespassing" sign right here, saying the governmnet recognizes this as my property.

Moments later I am shot, my wife gets raped and all of my stuff is stolen.

What now?

The state tries to find the perpetrators and say it's illegal but I am fucking dead.

Hawker, the laws are worthless when it comes to sustaining my "rights". My rights are not even guaranteed nor do they truly exist with a state.

Law books are just bounded pieces of paper in the end.

Private property and "laws" only exist when they are fully enforceable. Otherwise, you just have pure religious dogma.

A law or right that cannot be enforced is nothing to me or anybody who wishes to disobey them.

[Rassah]

So you only have rights as long as you have more fire-power than the next guy?  And your neighbour only has rights as long as he has more fire-power than you?

Phfff, sorry, this one was easy, so couldn't resist.
You only have rights to your personal property as long as you, and the group that shares your common definition of rights and within which you live, collectively have more firepower that the next guy. There don't even need to be laws or rules written down beyond a verbal agreement of I don't screw with you, and watch your back, and you do the same for me.

Boss, call it personal property, not private property, otherwise it's just stupid semantics with him.

[Hawker]

...snip...

In Texas, if somebody tries to trespass on my property or steal from me, I can shoot them. Castle Doctrine.

Is this not private property without a state?

...snip...

/doh

Of course its not private property without a state.  Think about what you have written.  "Trespass" "property" "doctrine" - all legal concepts created by the state.  Take away the state and there is no private property to "trespass" on and no courts to have "doctrines" in.

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

Please read a little and educate yourself. 

Alright, I am going to hang a "No Trespassing" sign right here, saying the governmnet recognizes this as my property.

Moments later I am shot, my wife gets raped and all of my stuff is stolen.

What now?

The state tries to find the perpetrators and say it's illegal but I am fucking dead.

Hawker, the laws are worthless when it comes to sustaining my "rights". My rights are not even guaranteed nor do they truly exist with a state.

Law books are just bounded pieces of paper in the end.

The efficiency or not of your local police force is nothing to do with the video.  The video talks about private property where you have no state.  My point is that cannot be - the whole idea of private property is a state concept - if you have no state then you have only items that you possess until they are taken off you by someone with more fire-power.

[Rassah]

^^^ This. As I keep pointing out, he has no concept of rights or property whatsoever. So why waste time with him?

[Hawker]

^^^ This. As I keep pointing out, he has no concept of rights or property whatsoever. So why waste time with him?

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

That seems a fair concept of rights of propertyto me.

Do you have better?

[Rassah]

^^^ This. As I keep pointing out, he has no concept of rights or property whatsoever. So why waste time with him?

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

That seems a fair concept to me.

Do you have better?

I suggested personal property, but no, I don't. This REALLY reminds me of the people who say that all morality comes from the Bible, and thus those without faith (atheists) have no morals and no reason to not go around murdering everyone. That's probably why I find Hawker so damn frustrating (especially since this government theism is the crap that was the basis of those who founded my home country of USSR, e.g. You common folk have rights. It's because we give you your rights)
In fact, that's a good canned reply to stick to. For every "rights and property comes from laws" I'll just reply "all morality and concept of good and bad comes from the bible."

[Jon]

...snip...

In Texas, if somebody tries to trespass on my property or steal from me, I can shoot them. Castle Doctrine.

Is this not private property without a state?

...snip...

/doh

Of course its not private property without a state.  Think about what you have written.  "Trespass" "property" "doctrine" - all legal concepts created by the state.  Take away the state and there is no private property to "trespass" on and no courts to have "doctrines" in.

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

Please read a little and educate yourself. 

Alright, I am going to hang a "No Trespassing" sign right here, saying the governmnet recognizes this as my property.

Moments later I am shot, my wife gets raped and all of my stuff is stolen.

What now?

The state tries to find the perpetrators and say it's illegal but I am fucking dead.

Hawker, the laws are worthless when it comes to sustaining my "rights". My rights are not even guaranteed nor do they truly exist with a state.

Law books are just bounded pieces of paper in the end.

if you have no state then you have only items that you possess until they are taken off you by someone with more fire-power.

That's how it is now with the state. If somebody with more firepower and force than the current government comes along, then I am just as screwed.

There is nothing sacred or special about the government. They are just regular people like you and I who happen to be the highest power or the biggest gun, if you will. They are not wise, incorruptible nor virtuous. They are not God.

The point is there will be always a bigger gun. You might as well arm everybody and make local communities the biggest guns around.

[Jon]

^^^ This. As I keep pointing out, he has no concept of rights or property whatsoever. So why waste time with him?

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

That seems a fair concept to me.

Do you have better?

I suggested personal property, but no, I don't. This REALLY reminds me of the people who say that all morality comes from the Bible, and thus those without faith (atheists) have no morals and no reason to not go around murdering everyone. That's probably why I find Hawker so damn frustrating (especially since this government theism is the crap that was the basis of those who founded my home country of USSR, e.g. You common folk have rights. It's because we give you your rights)
In fact, that's a good canned reply to stick to. For every "rights and property comes from laws" I'll just reply "all morality and concept of good and bad comes from the bible."

I couldn't of said it any better.

To me the laws are equivalent to the Bible.

Like the Bible, the law may say homosexuality and sodomy is unlawful and against human nature but it doesn't make it so.

[Hawker]

...snip...
That's how it is now with the state. If somebody with more firepower and force than the current government comes along, then I am just as screwed.

There is nothing sacred or special about the government. They are just regular people like you and I who happen to be the highest power or the biggest gun, if you will. They are not wise, incorruptible nor virtuous. They are not God.

The point is there will be always a bigger gun. You might as well arm everybody and make local communities the biggest guns around.

You are confusing yourself with implementation details.  Lets back up and take things in order.

Your property rights come from the state: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property

If you feel the police are not the most effective way to protect property rights and you have a better idea, that's great.  But you have to start with property rights that need to be protected.  That means you start with a state.  

Then you get onto implementation details.  This is the part where you can complain that the police are useless and that every family should have their own Apache attack helicopter.  But they are only allowed use them to protect their own property and that is defined by the state.  

You see the logic now?

[Hawker]

^^^ This. As I keep pointing out, he has no concept of rights or property whatsoever. So why waste time with him?

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

That seems a fair concept to me.

Do you have better?

I suggested personal property, but no, I don't. This REALLY reminds me of the people who say that all morality comes from the Bible, and thus those without faith (atheists) have no morals and no reason to not go around murdering everyone. That's probably why I find Hawker so damn frustrating (especially since this government theism is the crap that was the basis of those who founded my home country of USSR, e.g. You common folk have rights. It's because we give you your rights)
In fact, that's a good canned reply to stick to. For every "rights and property comes from laws" I'll just reply "all morality and concept of good and bad comes from the bible."

The difference is simple.

There are many examples of morality and only some of them are related to the bible.  

There are zero examples of private property outside of a state.  Its never happened.  Boss's whole thesis requires a religious act of faith that we get rid of the state and mysteriously things will start to work.  I'm not that keen on acts of faith.

[Jon]

...snip...
That's how it is now with the state. If somebody with more firepower and force than the current government comes along, then I am just as screwed.

There is nothing sacred or special about the government. They are just regular people like you and I who happen to be the highest power or the biggest gun, if you will. They are not wise, incorruptible nor virtuous. They are not God.

The point is there will be always a bigger gun. You might as well arm everybody and make local communities the biggest guns around.

You are confusing yourself with implementation details.  Lets back up and take things in order.

Your property rights come from the state: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property

If you feel the police are not the most effective way to protect property rights and you have a better idea, that's great.  But you have to start with property rights that need to be protected.  That means you start with a state.  

Then you get onto implementation details.  This is the part where you can complain that the police are useless and that every family should have their own Apache attack helicopter.  But they are only allowed use them to protect their own property and that is defined by the state.  

You see the logic now?

We have various governmenst with missiles and guns. We would prefer them to only use them to protect themselves. They don't. 99% of the world's military power is with the United States. The US is held accountable to nobody. Actions can be taken against those below it with little recourse.

What do I advocate? Decentralizing this power through its benefactors (aka the taxpayers) and make people accountable to the states or forces of their choosing.

The system you have now is failing, Hawker. It's time to choose something sustainable. It's time to do something more local.

If we can only do things this way, we're doomed.

[Rassah]

There are zero examples of private property outside of a state.  Its never happened.

Really? Are you absolutely sure about that?

[Jon]

There are zero examples of private property outside of a state.  Its never happened.

Really? Are you absolutely sure about that?

It's useless, Rassah. Apparently shooting a potential rapist is not establishing a right to yourself. It's just violence.

When the state does it, it's an established right.

The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual, crime.

-Max Stirner

[Hawker]

...snip...
That's how it is now with the state. If somebody with more firepower and force than the current government comes along, then I am just as screwed.

There is nothing sacred or special about the government. They are just regular people like you and I who happen to be the highest power or the biggest gun, if you will. They are not wise, incorruptible nor virtuous. They are not God.

The point is there will be always a bigger gun. You might as well arm everybody and make local communities the biggest guns around.

You are confusing yourself with implementation details.  Lets back up and take things in order.

Your property rights come from the state: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property

If you feel the police are not the most effective way to protect property rights and you have a better idea, that's great.  But you have to start with property rights that need to be protected.  That means you start with a state.  

Then you get onto implementation details.  This is the part where you can complain that the police are useless and that every family should have their own Apache attack helicopter.  But they are only allowed use them to protect their own property and that is defined by the state.  

You see the logic now?

We have various governmenst with missiles and guns. We would prefer them to only use them to protect themselves. They don't. 99% of the world's military power is with the United States. The US is held accountable to nobody. Actions can be taken against those below it with little recourse.

What do I advocate? Decentralizing this power through its benefactors (aka the taxpayers) and make people accountable to the states or forces of their choosing.

The system you have now is failing, Hawker. It's time to choose something sustainable. It's time to do something more local.

If we can only do things this way, we're doomed.

If a system where we get richer every year, where we live longer, where we are safer from crime every year and about 75% of the population has a shot at a very comfortable life is "failing" please offer a better one.

You might be shocked that a lot of people agree with you and make it happen.

Posting a video that doesn't make sense will not help you though...my problem is that the video was illogical crap.  I've never said life can't be made better.

[Jon]

...snip...
That's how it is now with the state. If somebody with more firepower and force than the current government comes along, then I am just as screwed.

There is nothing sacred or special about the government. They are just regular people like you and I who happen to be the highest power or the biggest gun, if you will. They are not wise, incorruptible nor virtuous. They are not God.

The point is there will be always a bigger gun. You might as well arm everybody and make local communities the biggest guns around.

You are confusing yourself with implementation details.  Lets back up and take things in order.

Your property rights come from the state: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property

If you feel the police are not the most effective way to protect property rights and you have a better idea, that's great.  But you have to start with property rights that need to be protected.  That means you start with a state.  

Then you get onto implementation details.  This is the part where you can complain that the police are useless and that every family should have their own Apache attack helicopter.  But they are only allowed use them to protect their own property and that is defined by the state.  

You see the logic now?

We have various governmenst with missiles and guns. We would prefer them to only use them to protect themselves. They don't. 99% of the world's military power is with the United States. The US is held accountable to nobody. Actions can be taken against those below it with little recourse.

What do I advocate? Decentralizing this power through its benefactors (aka the taxpayers) and make people accountable to the states or forces of their choosing.

The system you have now is failing, Hawker. It's time to choose something sustainable. It's time to do something more local.

If we can only do things this way, we're doomed.

If a system where we get richer every year, where we live longer, where we are safer from crime every year and about 75% of the population has a shot at a very comfortable life is "failing" please offer a better one.

You might be shocked that a lot of people agree with you and make it happen.

Posting a video that doesn't make sense will not help you though...my problem is that the video was illogical crap.  I've never said life can't be made better.

*shakes hand*

[Hawker]

There are zero examples of private property outside of a state.  Its never happened.

Really? Are you absolutely sure about that?

No I am not.  

[Hawker]

...snip...

*shakes hand*

/hug

I hope this doesn't mean that you are going to delete your account and start again

[Rassah]

If a system where we get richer every year, where we live longer, where we are safer from crime every year and about 75% of the population has a shot at a very comfortable life is "failing" ...

To reiterate my last statement, Really? Are you absolutely sure about that?

Are you sure we are getting richer because we are producing more, and outcompeting everyone else? Are you sure our riches aren't being entirely nullified by our increasing debt that everyone will have to either pay back or let the country go bankrupt? Are you sure people's net worth is just = bank & stock savings, and not = bank & stock savings - personal debt - national debt?

Are you sure our current system is even sustainable? I'm not, though I am very sure that Greek and Icelandic citizens thought theirs was.

[Hawker]

If a system where we get richer every year, where we live longer, where we are safer from crime every year and about 75% of the population has a shot at a very comfortable life is "failing" ...

To reiterate my last statement, Really? Are you absolutely sure about that?

Are you sure we are getting richer because we are producing more, and outcompeting everyone else? Are you sure our riches aren't being entirely nullified by our increasing debt that everyone will have to either pay back or let the country go bankrupt? Are you sure people's net worth is just = bank & stock savings, and not = bank & stock savings - personal debt - national debt?

Are you sure our current system is even sustainable? I'm not, though I am very sure that Greek and Icelandic citizens thought theirs was.

I've had a good day farming gold so the "getting richer" part was personal.  Maybe it should be left out.

My impression is that most people with jobs are happy as their mortgages are low due to low interest rates and inflation is low.

As you and I discussed in another thread, there is a sustainability problem that a large percentage of our populations are doomed to unemployment.  I meet one guy every day and as he gets closer and closer to having to sell his home, I can see its killing him.  Countries in the developing world sustain unemployment rates of 40% or so for decades and we have a long way to go before things get that bad.  

I don't believe national debt is a problem.  Its generally owed to pensioners and it amounts to a tax on savings since most big countries now borrow for less than the inflation rate.  If the whole thing goes wrong, well, how bad is it that the have a few million angry grannies? Iceland is doing fine and it defaulted in 2008.  Same for Argentina.

So on balance, yes, I'm sure its sustainable.  There is nothing out there that worries me in economic terms.