why we as lbertarians advocate the use of force in protecting property rights

[forsmant]

discuss. ;)

[Liberty Star]

Becuase Libertarians are at liberty to advocate whatever they choose to advocate :)

[forsmant]

Good answer. that settles it. Is it a little hypocritical to reject the use of force unless it is to protect your ego?

[Liberty Star]

That was light hearted comment.

But without going into merits of original argument, Libertanianism does not preclude use of force to protect liberties.

Just because Bush/Cheney gave use of force a very bad name, it doesn't mean force is never necessary to defend liberties.

[BKV]

Good answer. that settles it. Is it a little hypocritical to reject the use of force unless it is to protect your ego?

yes, it's hypocritical to not admit your exceptions.

it's also a matter of defining "who shot first", libertarians can/will often say their use of force is defense, not initiation.

[RSLudlum]

I believe in giving fair warning before using force to protect my property

http://www.gadsden.info/i/clipart/Dont-Tread-300.gif

[pcosmar]

I am not a pacifist.
I also, am not a violent person.
I see the use of force as acceptable in defense of property, Life, Liberty and in the defense of others.
I see the initiation of force against others for gain as wrong.

It is neither force or violence that are wrong, only the misuse.

[bucfish]

Enforcing voluntary contracts is not use of force but rather enforcement of voluntary agreements.

[BKV]

I am not a pacifist.
I also, am not a violent person.
I see the use of force as acceptable in defense of property, Life, Liberty and in the defense of others.
I see the initiation of force against others for gain as wrong.

It is neither force or violence that are wrong, only the misuse.

Amen.

That's not so hard to admit, is it? the rest of you!

[BKV]

Enforcing voluntary contracts is not use of force but rather enforcement of voluntary agreements.

very good point.

this makes every law justifiable to enforce so long as people have not done everything in their might to voice disagreement to it.

[Liberty Star]

I am not a pacifist.
I also, am not a violent person.
I see the use of force as acceptable in defense of property, Life, Liberty and in the defense of others.
I see the initiation of force against others for gain as wrong.

It is neither force or violence that are wrong, only the misuse.

Well put.

I agree with all of it, except that I still won't mind being called a "pacifist" as peace would be my first preference.

[bucfish]

very good point.

this makes every law justifiable to enforce so long as people have not done everything in their might to voice disagreement to it.

No law that encroaches upon "natural Law" or "God's Law" is justifiable because their should be laws of conscience. Which any law that promotes tyranny has no conscience. Romans 13 has been miscontrued by Hitler, Stalin and Mao. Romans 13 promotes conscienceness not bowing to man;s law.

[BKV]

No law that encroaches upon "natural Law" or "God's Law" is justifiable because their should be laws of conscience. Which any law that promotes tyranny has no conscience. Romans 13 has been miscontrued by Hitler, Stalin and Mao. Romans 13 promotes conscienceness not bowing to man;s law.

Stalin and Mao would never admit they "man's law"

What is "natural law"?

besides, we're talking about VOLUNTARY CONSENT.

[forsmant]

BKV who are you?

Property is an extension of the ego. It is the minds way of identifying tangible things as oneself or belonging to ones self. The abstractness of our thoughts do not limit the actions of others. By writing a contract or acting on your own to enforce your property rights is still advocating the use of force. What good is a contract if one side breaches? Who will enforce the penalties? Does it really matter?


This is purely an intellectual curiosity for me.

[BKV]

BKV who are you?


Mr. Might Makes Right



Property is an extension of the ego. It is the minds way of identifying tangible things as oneself or belonging to ones self.


Agreed, as well as intangible concepts so long as it's enforceable and recognized.



The abstractness of our thoughts do not limit the actions of others. By writing a contract or acting on your own to enforce your property rights is still advocating the use of force. What good is a contract if one side breaches? Who will enforce the penalties? Does it really matter?


Agreed, contracts are nothing unless forced. Nor is anything unless forced, recognized, agreed upon and exercised.

Who will enforce it? Whoever can, should. No it doesn't matter, because talk never gets things done (when it ever does it's because two people agreed to save the blood).



This is purely an intellectual curiosity for me.

I don't mind sharing what I believe.

[forsmant]

Well, its clear we are on the same wave length. Lets grab a beer!

[pcosmar]

Well put.

I agree with all of it, except that I still won't mind being called a "pacifist" as peace would be my first preference.

I am a peaceful man. But I do have my limits.
I would like nothing better than to relax with friends, under a shade tree with good music,good food and a nice buzz.
However, I have traveled some rougher roads and met evil people. I know they exist.
My choice is peace, but I don't always get my choice.

[Andrew-Austin]

Why wouldn't we advocate the use of force to protect property rights?

Discuss.

[forsmant]

Libertarians preach freedom and non violence unless it threatens their ego or physical body. I say that a damaged ego is not a sufficient cause to advocate force.

[BKV]

Why wouldn't we advocate the use of force to protect property rights?

Discuss.

idiots and pacifists, or communists with nothing to lose.

[BKV]

Libertarians preach freedom and non violence unless it threatens their ego or physical body. I say that a damaged ego is not a sufficient cause to advocate force.

you're entitled to your opinion (as well as free to defend it at any cost you wish), but you should respect others if they believe their ego is more important than your life :)

[forsmant]

you're entitled to your opinion (as well as free to defend it at any cost you wish), but you should respect others if they believe their ego is more important than your life :)


Most definitely. I value my life more than disrespecting another mans ego.

[Kludge]

Minarchism (and everything else which isn't simply anarchy) necessarily involves the legislation of morality.

[forsmant]

Sre sure. But those concepts are created from within anarchy. Enforcing the morality is ultimately what we call order.

[BKV]

Minarchism (and everything else which isn't simply anarchy) necessarily involves the legislation of morality.

I assume you mean "some"

I dont think you want to make lying illegal.

[Andrew-Austin]

Libertarians preach freedom and non violence unless it threatens their ego or physical body. I say that a damaged ego is not a sufficient cause to advocate force.

"Damaged ego".

Property is something we need to survive. We would die without food and shelter, so its not something that can be defined as just mere egotism. Egotism being an exaggerated sense of self importance. Perhaps we should use the simplest possible definition of ego, and say ego is awareness of self.

We're conscious of ourselves, to the extent that every man on the planet can recognize that he owns himself. All property rights stem from self-ownership, self ownership being something self evident. I like Robert LeFevre's (a famous libertarian pacifist) definition of human rights: "the individual having a right may do as he pleases within the areas of his rights, without having to ask anyone's permission, and at the same time maintain his moral position."

Say a man is exploring some unowned land, and grabs an apple from a tree to eat it.
Such a simple example of a man utilizing his rights can not be called egotism. If someone were to violate this man's right to pick the apple by attacking him and taking it from him, the use of force against the aggressor would be justified.

[forsmant]

YOur example is not egotism. The apple was never his property, it was just an apple. When you label it as property you label it as an extension of yourself thus in your mind limiting others from using it. Property is not necessary for survival. Property is a and abstract label on things. Things are what is needed for survival.

[BKV]

YOur example is not egotism. The apple was never his property, it was just an apple. When you label it as property you label it as an extension of yourself thus in your mind limiting others from using it. Property is not necessary for survival. Property is a and abstract label on things. Things are what is needed for survival.

Amen!

[Andrew-Austin]

YOur example is not egotism. The apple was never his property, it was just an apple. When you label it as property you label it as an extension of yourself thus in your mind limiting others from using it. Property is not necessary for survival. Property is a and abstract label on things. Things are what is needed for survival.

He had a right to take the apple, thus he had a right to it as his property.

I'm not getting this whole "its just an abstract extension of yourself" stuff. What is your problem commie?

[Kludge]

I assume you mean "some"

I dont think you want to make lying illegal.

Indeed. I thought it was implied :p

I think you share in my belief that rights (property rights or otherwise) are nothing more than concepts which only exist because "society" (government) says they do.

[forsmant]

I must be a commie? I understand that ownership is an abstract concept and ultimately meaningless in the grand scheme of life and death.

[Conza88]

Where do I begin?

http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj209/jayrocksufu/sisko_facepalm.gif

[Andrew-Austin]

I must be a commie? I understand that ownership is an abstract concept and ultimately meaningless in the grand scheme of life and death.

I was just joking. Its certainly not 'meaningless' in the whole grand scheme of life, but yeah everything is meaningless in death.

[BKV]

Indeed. I thought it was implied :p

I think you share in my belief that rights (property rights or otherwise) are nothing more than concepts which only exist because "society" (government) says they do.

Yes, indeed.

Or simply, nothing means anything unless it's acted on.

[LATruth]

Because relying on politicians is not working?

[BKV]

Because relying on politicians is not working?

no, because relying on anybody can't be enough.

[NMCB3]

YOur example is not egotism. The apple was never his property, it was just an apple. When you label it as property you label it as an extension of yourself thus in your mind limiting others from using it. Property is not necessary for survival. Property is a and abstract label on things. Things are what is needed for survival.LOL HA HA hahaha :rolleyes:

[torchbearer]

Good answer. that settles it. Is it a little hypocritical to reject the use of force unless it is to protect your ego?

The only legitimate use of force is for self defense.
If you own your body, you have a right to that life. If you don't defend it, it is no longer your right because you are dead.
Property you earn from the use of your body is also your right, thus you can defend it.
The only legitimate use of government force(government is force) is in defense of those individual rights.

"Force in protecting rights" is not an initiation of aggression but an act of self preservation of the rights to your life and liberty and property.

[Conza88]

The only legitimate use of force is for self defense.
If you own your body, you have a right to that life. If you don't defend it, it is no longer your right because you are dead.
Property you earn from the use of your body is also your right, thus you can defend it.
The only legitimate use of government force(government is force) is in defense of those individual rights.

"Force in protecting rights" is not an initiation of aggression but an act of self preservation of the rights to your life and liberty and property.

Thank yoooooou.

And government / State ALWAYS violates that legitimate use. It NEVER remains limited to it.

Thus enter: Correct logical conclusion of the non aggression axiom + Lockean / Rothbardian homesteading private property rights = Anarcho-Capitalism.

:o

[BKV]

Thank yoooooou.

And government / State ALWAYS violates that legitimate use. It NEVER remains limited to it.


But if there's no state to abuse their freedom to use force, that freedom will just be left to individuals.

If you don't oppress crooks, crooks will oppress others, or crooks will arise later.



Thus enter: Correct logical conclusion of the non aggression axiom + Lockean / Rothbardian homesteading private property rights = Anarcho-Capitalism.

:o

NAA/NAP works fine if its accepted.

[Conza88]

But if there's no state to abuse their freedom to use force, that freedom will just be left to individuals.

If you don't oppress crooks, crooks will oppress others, or crooks will arise later.


Market for Liberty by Linda and Morris Tannehil (pdf) (http://mises.org/books/marketforliberty.pdf) (audiobook) (http://freekeene.com/free-audiobook/)

For a New Liberty by Murray N. Rothbard (pdf) (http://mises.org/rothbard/foranewlb.pdf) (text) (http://mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp) (audiobook) (http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=87)

Myth of National Defense by Hans-Hermann Hoppe (pdf) (http://mises.org/etexts/defensemyth.pdf)

The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman (pdf) (http://www.4shared.com/file/92922216/dd10024e/David_Friedman_-_The_Machinery_of_Freedom.html)

Read. Listen. Learn.

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. That principle is contempt prior to investigation." ~ Herbert Spencer

[forsmant]

That looks like a Truth Warrior reply.


So, if i destroy your teddy bear is your liberty or life really in danger? Creating something from the earth may give you a sense of accomplishment and entitlement but all you really did was make a thing. To earn is still an abstract concept that we as humans create in order to protect are ego from harm. I have already explained why property is just an extension of the ego in a previous post. If someone is encroaching on your ego and not your physical body are they really initiating force? Many have answered in the affirmative but I ask is this the best system?

Conza your ego seems to be threatened whenever someone questions the foundations of your beliefs. By asking these questions am I initiating force?

[heavenlyboy34]

Thank yoooooou.

And government / State ALWAYS violates that legitimate use. It NEVER remains limited to it.

Thus enter: Correct logical conclusion of the non aggression axiom + Lockean / Rothbardian homesteading private property rights = Anarcho-Capitalism.

:o

+a bazillion! You're awesome, Conza! :cool::D:)

[Conza88]

That looks like a Truth Warrior reply.

Looks, but it's not. I'm offering the answers to all his questions, he's been repeating for the last several months. He refuses to accept my responses, which destroy his. It stems from his idiotic epistemology. His method is completely flawed. There is no hope for him, nor do I care. Hopefully others read the books and wake up. Not my problem he wants to remain ignorant of the truth. There is another list I gave about economic reasoning etc. YOU need to read it aswell.


So, if i destroy your teddy bear is your liberty or life really in danger? My property is.


Creating something from the earth may give you a sense of accomplishment and entitlement but all you really did was make a thing.

You didn't create it. You transformed it with your labor.


To earn is still an abstract concept that we as humans create in order to protect are ego from harm. I have already explained why property is just an extension of the ego in a previous post.

You didn't explain shit, you just pulled it out of your ass. Your premise is flawed.

And you haven't defined ego yet.


If someone is encroaching on your ego and not your physical body are they really initiating force? Many have answered in the affirmative but I ask is this the best system?

Define ego.

Only through property was the benefits of the division of labor discovered, human prosperity exploded and they are ultimately what are the foundations of Western Civilization.


Conza your ego seems to be threatened whenever someone questions the foundations of your beliefs. By asking these questions am I initiating force?

Define ego. Are you using the real definition or your retarded one? I don't feel threatened at all, I get pissed off at your stupidity / illogical position and the fact that a Ron Paul supporter holds it, lessens my hope for humanity.

And so 'property' is abstract, but 'things' exist? What is the distinction?

Again define your terms
- Property
- Things

[Andrew-Austin]

Forsmant I gotta say I don't immediately see a good counter to your argument, then again it really seems to be just an opinion anyways:



Creating something from the earth may give you a sense of accomplishment and entitlement but all you really did was make a thing.

All you really did? When has productivity been something to be belittled?



To earn is still an abstract concept that we as humans create in order to protect are ego from harm. Or maybe its just a meaningful way of interpreting the world mankind has adopted to move beyond the state of primitive subsistence. If a man expends his time and energy transforming a chunk of matter, there is no reason both he and society would not consider it more his than others. If we lived in the world without a sense of property, then there would also be no such thing as theft since it too is "just an abstraction".

There is only three systems society can adopt regarding property:
1. No one is allowed to steal without punishment/repurcussion
2. Some are allowed to steal (the present system, governments have a license to steal)
3. Everyone steals from everyone

If society did not recognize property rights to begin with the third system would be the result. We would live in a world where everyone would just "steal" the fruits of labor from everyone else. Upon producing/gathering something, there would be a good chance that someone else would try and take it from you. So there would be little incentive to be productive, and mankind would just stagnate at a primitive subsistence level.

So you tell me if adopting the view of property rights in order to deny such a cruel world, is still "just a meaningless ego trip".




Conza your ego seems to be threatened whenever someone questions the foundations of your beliefs. By asking these questions am I initiating force?
You also seem to have quite the ego on you, by acting like your above the "petty abstraction" of property rights.. The man who pretends he is free of ego, is usually full of himself.

I don't share your opinion that the concept of property is just a device we use to protect our "ego". When you harvest x from the land, I recognize that it is yours so as to diminish the chance that you will steal what I harvest from the land. Mutual respect and cooperation is something that benefits us all and is not a matter of ego, and it just so happens to mesh with property rights perfectly.

[forsmant]

Forsmant I gotta say I don't immediately see a good counter to your argument, then again it really seems to be just an opinion anyways:



All you really did? When has productivity been something to be belittled?

Or maybe its just a meaningful way of interpreting the world mankind has adopted to move beyond the state of primitive subsistence. If a man expends his time and energy transforming a chunk of matter, there is no reason both he and society would not consider it more his than others. If we lived in the world without a sense of property, then there would also be no such thing as theft since it too is "just an abstraction".

There is only three systems society can adopt regarding property:
1. No one is allowed to steal without punishment/repurcussion
2. Some are allowed to steal (the present system, governments have a license to steal)
3. Everyone steals from everyone

If society did not recognize property rights to begin with the third system would be the result. We would live in a world where everyone would just "steal" the fruits of labor from everyone else. Upon producing/gathering something, there would be a good chance that someone else would try and take it from you. So there would be little incentive to be productive, and mankind would just stagnate at a primitive subsistence level.

So you tell me if adopting the view of property rights in order to deny such a cruel world, is still "just a meaningless ego trip".



You also seem to have quite the ego on you, by acting like your above the "petty abstraction" of property rights.. The man who pretends he is free of ego, is usually full of himself.

I don't share your opinion that the concept of property is just a device we use to protect our "ego". When you harvest x from the land, I recognize that it is yours so as to diminish the chance that you will steal what I harvest from the land. Mutual respect and cooperation is something that benefits us all and is not a matter of ego, and it just so happens to mesh with property rights perfectly.

Very interesting reply. Of the systems you number 1 and 3 and just special cases of two, the one in which we will never escape. If there is no property how can it be called stealing.

I am hardly belittling production, just taking it out of the realm of the abstract. I think that you are just upset that I am questioning the foundations of our belief in property. And yes I do have a large ego. However, I have not claimed I am above the "petty" ego trip. I am trying to understand the egos proper place in politics and mutual cooperation.

So in this property less world how would a society succeed? IT would depend heavily on respect of possession and use. Idle resources would be put to use by whoever is willing. Rent would most likely not develop in a world in which property is not a right. A man would not be able to own a piece of paper or land and continue to enrich himself from the fruits of another mans labor. Ideas would flow freely as well as land and products. Obviously there would not be an incentive to produce much if nothing were given in return. A system of barter would develop in which people trade labor. The link in my signature explores such a world.



Ego-the part of a person's self that is able to recognize that person as being distinct from other people and things

Labeling things as your property is a way of projecting yourself onto things that are not you.

I thought we already knew what the ego was.

[forsmant]

Looks, but it's not. I'm offering the answers to all his questions, he's been repeating for the last several months. He refuses to accept my responses, which destroy his. It stems from his idiotic epistemology. His method is completely flawed. There is no hope for him, nor do I care. Hopefully others read the books and wake up. Not my problem he wants to remain ignorant of the truth. There is another list I gave about economic reasoning etc. YOU need to read it aswell.

My property is.



You didn't create it. You transformed it with your labor.



You didn't explain shit, you just pulled it out of your ass. Your premise is flawed.

And you haven't defined ego yet.



Define ego.

Only through property was the benefits of the division of labor discovered, human prosperity exploded and they are ultimately what are the foundations of Western Civilization.



Define ego. Are you using the real definition or your retarded one? I don't feel threatened at all, I get pissed off at your stupidity / illogical position and the fact that a Ron Paul supporter holds it, lessens my hope for humanity.

And so 'property' is abstract, but 'things' exist? What is the distinction?

Again define your terms
- Property
- Things

Your posts seam to degenerate into tirades of anger. I already defined the terms.

[Andrew-Austin]

The link in my signature explores such a world.


I'm feeling too lazy to reply to the rest of your post right now, but can I get a cliff notes version of that science fiction story?

[Conza88]

Your posts seam to degenerate into tirades of anger. I already defined the terms.

See sig. Indeed, please quote them to me. The definitions. Links to sources, like real dictionaries will help.

Atm, you have no leg to stand on. :rolleyes:

[forsmant]

I'm feeling too lazy to reply to the rest of your post right now, but can I get a cliff notes version of that science fiction story?

No

[forsmant]

See sig. Indeed, please quote them to me. The definitions. Links to sources, like real dictionaries will help.

Atm, you have no leg to stand on. :rolleyes:

I have two legs and you have a dictionary.

[Kludge]

I have two legs and you have a dictionary.

Thanks for reminding me that I need to look up "crepuscular". Brian Doherty throws all sorts of ridiculous words around when he writes.

[Conza88]

I have two legs and you have a dictionary.

Typical run away response, just like the socialist. "Yes. No. Maybe. I dunno." Kind of response.

I know the definitions mate, I'm just not sure you do.

If we are to have a proper discussion, I'm not going to let you define your way out of it.

Define your terms. You said you had - I SAID SHOW ME, LINK ME TO THEM, cus I don't see any of them.

I called you out.

What did you do? Did you link me to them? NOoooooooooo. :rolleyes: Dodgin'... ;)

[BKV]

Thanks for reminding me that I need to look up "crepuscular". Brian Doherty throws all sorts of ridiculous words around when he writes.

what's you reading? Radicals of Capitalism?

[Kludge]

what's you reading? Radicals of Capitalism?

Yeah.

[BKV]

also be no such thing as theft since it too is "just an abstraction".

There is only three systems society can adopt regarding property:
1. No one is allowed to steal without punishment/repurcussion
2. Some are allowed to steal (the present system, governments have a license to steal)
3. Everyone steals from everyone


Yes, all or none or something in between.

Which means nothing unless we first agree on what's property.

If a socialist believes nobody can own land, any land owner is already a thief, people robbing land owners would not be criminals, they'd be justice enforcement.

[Icymudpuppy]

I can see both sides of this argument. I like the possession concept. No rent. If I buy a property, I could improve it, and sell it for a profit immediately, or I could allow someone to buy it slowly under a payment plan while occupying it for a profit, but I could not rent it out indefinitely, thereby depriving the renter of ever "possessing" his home.

In the apple case, the man has picked the apple, he possesses it, and he expended his effort to pick it. He has ownership, and taking it from him should require a payment in exchange for his effort.

Even chimpanzees understand this concept. They trade food they have acquired for other types of food they want, grooming, sex, and social standing.

[torchbearer]

Yes, all or none or something in between.

Which means nothing unless we first agree on what's property.

If a socialist believes nobody can own land, any land owner is already a thief, people robbing land owners would not be criminals, they'd be justice enforcement.

I defined property earlier in this thread. Conza expanded on it.
Use my definition for it is the one he is using.

[Conza88]

Yes, all or none or something in between.

Which means nothing unless we first agree on what's property.

If a socialist believes nobody can own land, any land owner is already a thief, people robbing land owners would not be criminals, they'd be justice enforcement.

No, it means nothing until you have the correct epistemology for economics.

Which you don't.

An Introduction to Economic Reasoning (http://mises.org/etexts/EconReasoning.pdf) by David Gordon


"As the only text of its kind, this book is engaging, funny, filled with examples, and never talks down to the student. It is perfect for homeschoolers, but every student, young or old, will benefit from it. Indeed, a student familiar with its contents will be fully prepared to see through the fallacies of the introductory economics texts used at the college level."

Epistemological Problems of Economics (http://mises.org/epofe.asp) by Ludwig Von Mises


"The science of human action that strives for universally valid knowledge is the theoretical system whose hitherto best elaborated branch is economics. In all of its branches this science is a priori, not empirical. Like logic and mathematics, it is not derived from experience; it is prior to experience. It is, as it were, the logic of action and deed."

Economic Science and the Austrian Method (http://mises.org/esandtam.asp) by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Praxeology and Economic Science:

Sec I : "It is well-known that Austrians disagree strongly with other schools of economic thought..."
Sec II : "Non-praxeological schools of thought mistakenly believe that relationships between certain events are well-established empirical laws..."

On Praxeology and the Praxeological Foundation of Epistemology

Sec I : "As have most great and innovative economists, Ludwig von Mises intensively and repeatedly analyzed the problem of the logical status of economic propositions..."
Sec II : "Let me turn to Mises's solution..."
Sec III : "I shall now turn to my second goal: the explanation of why and how praxeology also provides the foundation for epistemology..."
Sec IV : "In so establishing the place of praxeology proper, I have come full circle in outlining the system of rationalist philosophy as ultimately grounded in the action axiom..."

Counter Revolution of Science (http://www.mises.org/store/Counter-Revolution-of-Science-Hardback-P415.aspx) by F.A. Hayek


The problem that Hayek deals with reaches to the core of how economists think about their discipline. There was once such a thing as the human sciences of which economics was part. The goal was to discover and elucidate the exact laws that govern the interaction of people with the material world. It had its own methods and own recommendations.

Then something changed. Science became entirely positivistic in its orientation. Economics was changed from a human science into a poor cousin of the natural sciences that applied positivist methods, and to no great end, for human beings do not move about like molecules but rather engage in choices and unpredictable actions.

What Hayek does in this treatise is link the change in methodology to a change in politics. The economy and people began to be regarded as a collective entity to be examined as if whole societies should be studied as we study planets or other non-volitional beings. It then began to make mistakes, treating facts as theories and theories as contingent. And thus is the state invited in to treat society as a laboratory.

This re-definition of what constitutes science thus had a terrible and even deadly result for human well being and liberty. Science had turned from being a friend of freedom into being employed as its enemy.


The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science (http://mises.org/ufofes.asp) by Ludwig Von Mises


There are two senses in which this book is indeed ultimate: it deals with the very core of economics as a science, and it is the last book that he wrote.

As his career was coming to a close, Mises saw that that fiercest battles over economic questions come down to issues of epistemology: how do we determine what is and what is not true in economics? How do we even know that economics is a valid science? What are the methods we should use in studying economics? What constitutes a true proposition and how do we know?

These questions matter because, as Mises says, the very future of freedom and civilization itself depend on economic science, the development and application of which was "the most spectacular event of modern history."

[Conza88]

I can see both sides of this argument. I like the possession concept. No rent. If I buy a property, I could improve it, and sell it for a profit immediately, or I could allow someone to buy it slowly under a payment plan while occupying it for a profit, but I could not rent it out indefinitely, thereby depriving the renter of ever "possessing" his home.

Who says you are going to profit if you sell it? Housing bubble anyone? :rolleyes:

You haven't listened to this speech have you?

YouTube - Why the Meltdown Should Have Surprised No One (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgMclXX5msc)


In the apple case, the man has picked the apple, he possesses it, and he expended his effort to pick it. He has ownership, and taking it from him should require a payment in exchange for his effort.

Even chimpanzees understand this concept. They trade food they have acquired for other types of food they want, grooming, sex, and social standing.

Yes, he homesteaded the apple. If it was not already owned on anyones land, etc.

And yes, children understand the concept of property rights... "It's mine" stage... ;)

[Bman]

Reading some of this I have a quesiton for you Conza.

Lets say some one decides to take a swing with a baseball bat to your car. But does not actually steal any of the scarce resources. How is that viewed in Anarcho-Capitolism.

[Icymudpuppy]

Who says you are going to profit if you sell it?

Did you not read the part about making improvements if you sell it immediately.

And in the case of the slow buyer, letting him live in it before he has fully paid it off is worth a little something extra above the cost. Call it interest if you like, or a payment on generosity.

[BKV]

No, it means nothing until you have the correct epistemology for economics.

Which you don't.


I don't entirely agree with you, or your epistemology (if that's what Austrain economics is, fine), yes.

Glad you figured it out.

[Nanerbeet]

"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who don't."


I think that was Thomas Jefferson. That pretty much somes it up.

[Conza88]

Reading some of this I have a quesiton for you Conza.

Lets say some one decides to take a swing with a baseball bat to your car. But does not actually steal any of the scarce resources. How is that viewed in Anarcho-Capitolism.

If there is damage dome - resources are stolen from the owner of the car, because he has to pay to fix the car. Or spend his time and labour fixing his own car.

If, as you are stipulating - there is no damage. If he doesn't hit / damage your property (car)... Then why would it matter?

Essentially though, it could depend on whose land the car is on. If you are envisioning a kind of stand off, he has a bat and threatens to hit you car etc. If it's on your own property.

Trespassing. On 'anothers' - it could be stated that upon entering this property, you shall not threaten anyone elses property, or face retribution. Whatever..

Your question is extremely vague, or extremely basic. I could go on with PDA's, etc. Insurance companies.


Did you not read the part about making improvements if you sell it immediately.

And in the case of the slow buyer, letting him live in it before he has fully paid it off is worth a little something extra above the cost. Call it interest if you like, or a payment on generosity.

I did. Did you read the part about a Housing bubble? lol. Did you listen to Peter Schiff on this? No. It's quite obvious. :)


I don't entirely agree with you, or your epistemology (if that's what Austrain economics is, fine), yes.

Glad you figured it out.

You will never discover the truth. Fine by me, just don't go spreading your bullshit. You deserve all the suffering, lies, ignorance and stupidity get you. Do yourself a favor, invest everything in the stock market. Don't diversify. Take out shit loads of debt. Get money from a loan shark and spend big..

Then deal with the consequences. :rolleyes: Might learn something then.

[Bman]

Or spend his time and labour fixing his own car.

Isn't that an LTOV argument?:p

[Conza88]

Isn't that an LTOV argument?:p

No. That is in regards to the theory of value. We're not talking about value now are we chump? ;)

We're talking about what makes property.

Homesteading does.

And you call yourself Ron Paul supporters? :rolleyes: If you don't start to educate yourself in terms of the Austrian School - you're never going to be as effective at converting others to Liberty.

Ron Paul has said endlessly - the first thing to do is EDUCATE YOURSELF, so you can spread the message.

YouTube - A Proof of Property Rights (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tobN6iY4iIs)

[Bman]

No. That is in regards to the theory of value. We're not talking about value now are we chump? ;)

We're talking about what makes property.

Homesteading does.

And you call yourself Ron Paul supporters? :rolleyes: If you don't start to educate yourself in terms of the Austrian School - you're never going to be as effective at converting others to Liberty.

Ron Paul has said endlessly - the first thing to do is EDUCATE YOURSELF, so you can spread the message.

YouTube - A Proof of Property Rights (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tobN6iY4iIs)

Lighten up mate. It was a joke.

[H Roark]

Giving the state authority through elected officials to initiate force onto a transgressor whose violated another's property rights is not necessarily a libertarian only ideal. Now if you're talking about why is it that some Libertarians advocate the use of murder in protecting property rights - well that is not me.

Say someone is stealing my car and I run to defend it through non-lethal means and I am then threatened by the criminal put into a life-or-death situation only then do I see legitimate reason for stealing or ending someone else's life. I only wish that our judicial courts and laws justly call for equal retribution. That is the only reason why I have always admired Hammurabi's code. All other rights protected - the theft or damage of property does not equal the value of a life.


idiots and pacifists, or communists with nothing to lose.

Yes, I'm sure you're the same type of Libertarian that argues that they would donate more to charities if the state didn't take all their money. :rolleyes: I'm sure you can at least admit that you come out on top by stealing someone else's life in exchange for your stolen property.

[Conza88]

Lighten up mate. It was a joke.

YouTube - Doug Stanhope on Freedom (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTOQhPd2Xh4)

:D

[john_anderson_ii]

Forgive me, I didn't read the entire thread.

Here's how I've come to the conclusion that force is justified in order to protect property. The ownership of property is a right inherent to mankind. How we come to own property is through labor. Labor is the expenditure of your time on this Earth. In the case of the computer that I'm typing at, it represents roughly 44 hours of my life that I labored in order to purchase and claim ownership of it. In the case of my house and truck, those were purchased on my guarantee of future labor in the form of a mortgage and auto-loan. Therefore, if someone were to deprive me of these things, they would be depriving me of a portion of my life that I cannot get back either physically in the case of my computer, or legally in the case of my auto, with the exception of insurance which I also labor to pay.

The monetary cost or it's equivalence in terms of hourly labor is inconsequential. The fact is that anyone who wishes to deprive you of your earned, or indentured to earn property is by de-facto depriving you of a portion of your life which you will never recover.

We only have so much time from cradle to grave, and our property is what we earn during that time. Depriving a man of the fruits of his labors is, in fact, depriving said man of the time he spent on those labors.

[Conza88]

Giving the state authority through elected officials to initiate force onto a transgressor whose violated another's property rights is not necessarily a libertarian only ideal.

It has NOTHING to do with Liberty.

YouTube - The Philosophy of Liberty (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I)


Yes, I'm sure you're the same type of Libertarian that argues that they would donate more to charities if the state didn't take all their money. :rolleyes: I'm sure you can at least admit that you come out on top by stealing someone else's life in exchange for your stolen property.

He's not a Libertarian. He's an advocacy for scum. See sig.

And I would argue that people would donate more to charities if there was no welfare state. Or are you one of the retarded ones that wouldn't? :rolleyes:

[forsmant]

Typical run away response, just like the socialist. "Yes. No. Maybe. I dunno." Kind of response.

I know the definitions mate, I'm just not sure you do.

If we are to have a proper discussion, I'm not going to let you define your way out of it.

Define your terms. You said you had - I SAID SHOW ME, LINK ME TO THEM, cus I don't see any of them.

I called you out.

What did you do? Did you link me to them? NOoooooooooo. :rolleyes: Dodgin'... ;)

Post #14 is the definition of property. Every time I look up property and ownership in the dictionary they refer to it as a legal right. That puts them both in the realm of the abstract.

post #46 ego is defined again That definition is from dictionary.com

If we are to have a proper discussion your attitude would need adjusting. You come off as arrogant, rude, sarcastic and abrasive. I find that to be common among libertarians and anarcho capitalists. That shouldn't excuse the behavior.

[forsmant]

To earn something depends on the respect of other people. The mere fact of other peoples existence give rise to this whole debate. If there was only one man would he own the world? You can only earn what other people allow you to have.

[mediahasyou]

See the video above: The Philosophy of Liberty. ^

[Kludge]

The mere fact of other peoples existence give rise to this whole debate.

:confused::confused::confused:

:p

[LibForestPaul]

We only have so much time from cradle to grave, and our property is what we earn during that time. Depriving a man of the fruits of his labors is, in fact, depriving said man of the time he spent on those labors.

ditto

[H Roark]

He's not a Libertarian. He's an advocacy for scum. See sig.

And I would argue that people would donate more to charities if there was no welfare state. Or are you one of the retarded ones that wouldn't? :rolleyes:

No I would. I was suggesting that he is one of the retarded ones that wouldn't donate more while arguing the contrary. I should of made that more clear.

Yes, I did see your signature. That pretty much sums it up.

[BKV]

You will never discover the truth. Fine by me, just don't go spreading your bullshit. You deserve all the suffering, lies, ignorance and stupidity get you. Do yourself a favor, invest everything in the stock market. Don't diversify. Take out shit loads of debt. Get money from a loan shark and spend big..


Nice try, I am stupid but not retarded.



Then deal with the consequences. :rolleyes: Might learn something then.

Why do I need to learn something I can foresee or expect?

[BKV]

To earn something depends on the respect of other people. The mere fact of other peoples existence give rise to this whole debate. If there was only one man would he own the world? You can only earn what other people allow you to have.

thanks!

forsmant & bkv vs. Conza & the rest

[BKV]

Yes, I'm sure you're the same type of Libertarian that argues that they would donate more to charities if the state didn't take all their money. :rolleyes: I'm sure you can at least admit that you come out on top by stealing someone else's life in exchange for your stolen property.

I'm not a libertarian, but yes, I DEFINITELY don't buy the excuse that the reason people don't donate is because it's all the State's fault. (Conza blames that).

Sorry, I admit what?

[Conza88]

Post #14 is the definition of property. Every time I look up property and ownership in the dictionary they refer to it as a legal right. That puts them both in the realm of the abstract.

post #46 ego is defined again That definition is from dictionary.com

If we are to have a proper discussion your attitude would need adjusting. You come off as arrogant, rude, sarcastic and abrasive. I find that to be common among libertarians and anarcho capitalists. That shouldn't excuse the behavior.


To earn something depends on the respect of other people. The mere fact of other peoples existence give rise to this whole debate. If there was only one man would he own the world? You can only earn what other people allow you to have.

YouTube - A Proof of Property Rights (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tobN6iY4iIs)


I will enjoy your attempt at a refutation. Good luck. :rolleyes:

[BKV]

And I would argue that people would donate more to charities if there was no welfare state. Or are you one of the retarded ones that wouldn't? :rolleyes:

If disagreeing with you on that makes me retarded, then yes I am.

But no, I don't deny people might donate more if there was less or no state, but I am not betting on it or counting on it. How much more? How much is enough?

Donating and helping people for nothing in return (whether its done via taxation or voluntary charity) will have the same effect on the recipient, ENCOURAGE THEM TO BE LAZY DEPENDENTS.

I'm not against Robin Hood taxing because it's government or force, I'm against helping people in charity altogether, bailing out the poor and the sick is no different than bailing out fat cat crooks, they will never learn if you allow them to eat free.

I'm not afraid to admit if people can't help themselves, it's cheaper and better for us to leave them to starve and die because it's not our fault or responsibility to look out for others. (those who disagree are socialists in my book, I don't care what you call yourself. Those who deny that's possible are not honest about their beliefs)

[Conza88]

Nice try, I am stupid but not retarded.

You are emotionally retarded. (http://blog.mises.org/archives/005573.asp)


Why do I need to learn something I can foresee or expect?

The only way you could is by following the fundamental premises of the Austrian School. ;)


thanks!

forsmant & bkv vs. Conza & the rest

Lies, fallacies and falsehoods vs. the truth, justice and wisdom.


No I would. I was suggesting that he is one of the retarded ones that wouldn't donate more while arguing the contrary. I should of made that more clear.

Yes, I did see your signature. That pretty much sums it up.

Ah ok, apologies. :)

[BKV]

You are emotionally retarded. (http://blog.mises.org/archives/005573.asp)

The only way you could is by following the fundamental premises of the Austrian School. ;)


No need to follow it myself, I see people making stupid choices in front of my all day, sitting back and laughing my ass off is what I do, and I know that doesn't count as learning.

Did I ONCE say I disagree with Austrian school's perspective?



Lies, fallacies and falsehoods vs. the truth, justice and wisdom.



Reality & history vs. hypothetical self proclaimed "natural laws"



Ah ok, apologies. :)

[Kludge]

YouTube - A Proof of Property Rights (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tobN6iY4iIs)


I will enjoy your attempt at a refutation. Good luck. :rolleyes:


That was a waste...

You can trust your senses, but it'd be based on faith (no matter how arrogantly you assert that your own perception is objective), and there is no guarantee that it is even remotely similar to "objective reality". You can believe what I just said to be true, and even try to confirm it with your own reasoning, but it may not ultimately be true, and is based on faith. This is why I take issue with the word "objective", because nothing is objective (based on my perception). At best, I can try to influence you to adopt my own perception, so that it appears more credible ("objective").

[krazy kaju]

Libertarianism rests on the non-aggression principle, which states that in a civilized and moral society, no aggression should be initiated by one individual against another. When the NAP is violated, then aggressive action may be taken against the violator in order to correct the previous misdoing.

[Conza88]

Did I ONCE say I disagree with Austrian school's perspective?

All the time. It's perspectives are achieved through it's premises and axioms. It's a priori and deductive reasoning.


Reality & history vs. hypothetical self proclaimed "natural laws"

Animal Spirits, Paradoxes, Inconsistency, Illogical methods, formulas, empiricism, positivism, changed as often as the wind vs. History, Reality, Axioms, Praxeology, A priori deductive reasoning.



An Introduction to Economic Reasoning (http://mises.org/etexts/EconReasoning.pdf) by David Gordon


"As the only text of its kind, this book is engaging, funny, filled with examples, and never talks down to the student. It is perfect for homeschoolers, but every student, young or old, will benefit from it. Indeed, a student familiar with its contents will be fully prepared to see through the fallacies of the introductory economics texts used at the college level."

Epistemological Problems of Economics (http://mises.org/epofe.asp) by Ludwig Von Mises


"The science of human action that strives for universally valid knowledge is the theoretical system whose hitherto best elaborated branch is economics. In all of its branches this science is a priori, not empirical. Like logic and mathematics, it is not derived from experience; it is prior to experience. It is, as it were, the logic of action and deed."

Economic Science and the Austrian Method (http://mises.org/esandtam.asp) by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Praxeology and Economic Science:

Sec I : "It is well-known that Austrians disagree strongly with other schools of economic thought..."
Sec II : "Non-praxeological schools of thought mistakenly believe that relationships between certain events are well-established empirical laws..."

On Praxeology and the Praxeological Foundation of Epistemology

Sec I : "As have most great and innovative economists, Ludwig von Mises intensively and repeatedly analyzed the problem of the logical status of economic propositions..."
Sec II : "Let me turn to Mises's solution..."
Sec III : "I shall now turn to my second goal: the explanation of why and how praxeology also provides the foundation for epistemology..."
Sec IV : "In so establishing the place of praxeology proper, I have come full circle in outlining the system of rationalist philosophy as ultimately grounded in the action axiom..."

Counter Revolution of Science (http://www.mises.org/store/Counter-Revolution-of-Science-Hardback-P415.aspx) by F.A. Hayek


The problem that Hayek deals with reaches to the core of how economists think about their discipline. There was once such a thing as the human sciences of which economics was part. The goal was to discover and elucidate the exact laws that govern the interaction of people with the material world. It had its own methods and own recommendations.

Then something changed. Science became entirely positivistic in its orientation. Economics was changed from a human science into a poor cousin of the natural sciences that applied positivist methods, and to no great end, for human beings do not move about like molecules but rather engage in choices and unpredictable actions.

What Hayek does in this treatise is link the change in methodology to a change in politics. The economy and people began to be regarded as a collective entity to be examined as if whole societies should be studied as we study planets or other non-volitional beings. It then began to make mistakes, treating facts as theories and theories as contingent. And thus is the state invited in to treat society as a laboratory.

This re-definition of what constitutes science thus had a terrible and even deadly result for human well being and liberty. Science had turned from being a friend of freedom into being employed as its enemy.

The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science (http://mises.org/ufofes.asp) by Ludwig Von Mises


There are two senses in which this book is indeed ultimate: it deals with the very core of economics as a science, and it is the last book that he wrote.

As his career was coming to a close, Mises saw that that fiercest battles over economic questions come down to issues of epistemology: how do we determine what is and what is not true in economics? How do we even know that economics is a valid science? What are the methods we should use in studying economics? What constitutes a true proposition and how do we know?

These questions matter because, as Mises says, the very future of freedom and civilization itself depend on economic science, the development and application of which was "the most spectacular event of modern history."

[H Roark]

I'm not a libertarian, but yes, I DEFINITELY don't buy the excuse that the reason people don't donate is because it's all the State's fault. (Conza blames that).

Sorry, I admit what?

In other words, have you not ended up gaining more by killing the criminal then what the criminal had gained in stealing your property? Also consider that once the criminal is dead they no longer have possession of your property.

stolen life > stolen property

[Kludge]

Libertarianism rests on the non-aggression principle, which states that in a civilized and moral society, no aggression should be initiated by one individual against another. When the NAP is violated, then aggressive action may be taken against the violator in order to correct the previous misdoing.

I disagree with that interpretation. I believe the NAP also requires that no aggressive action be committed unless it would stop imminent aggression (self-defense). To do otherwise would be claiming ownership over another person whereas self-defense can be interpreted as asserting ownership over yourself.

[BKV]

All the time. It's perspectives are achieved through it's premises and axioms. It's a priori and deductive reasoning.


No, I agree with Austrian theory probably 90-98% of the time.

But probably not on the foundations. (as any foundations of any theory are ultimately axiomic, circular or self contradictory)



Animal Spirits, Paradoxes, Inconsistency, Illogical methods, formulas, empiricism, positivism, changed as often as the wind vs. History, Reality, Axioms, Praxeology, A priori deductive reasoning.

DUDE, CAN I HUG YOU? THANKS A LOT

I have asked you this question at least 10 times and you've FINALLY given me a list I can now work with. Will come back later (after the reading list, thanks)

[BKV]

In other words, have you not ended up gaining more by killing the criminal then what the criminal had gained in stealing your property?


Yes I have, what's wrong with that?
You think I respect life so I can risk being a victim again?



Also consider that once the criminal is dead they no longer have possession of your property.

stolen life > stolen property

If the criminal would hand back my property without having to be dead, I'd probably make a deal, but I'd rather not take the risk.

Generally I agree life is greater than property, but at the same time life is only as good as you make it, the criminal's disrespect for property makes his life unworthy (and yes, I judge because I can).

[BKV]

Libertarianism rests on the non-aggression principle, which states that in a civilized and moral society, no aggression should be initiated by one individual against another. When the NAP is violated, then aggressive action may be taken against the violator in order to correct the previous misdoing.

Thanks for repeating the obvious.

In order words
"If we agree, good. If not, we can fight"
Might makes right unless it's not necessary.

[BKV]

I disagree with that interpretation. I believe the NAP also requires that no aggressive action be committed unless it would stop imminent aggression (self-defense). To do otherwise would be claiming ownership over another person whereas self-defense can be interpreted as asserting ownership over yourself.

a much better understanding of the obvious nature of reality.

[Conza88]

No, I agree with Austrian theory probably 90-98% of the time.

But probably not on the foundations. (as any foundations of any theory are ultimately axiomic, circular or self contradictory)

LOL, you don't even know the "Austrian theory". Spell it out, what do you agree with.

See this is mildly humorous. You can't actually agree with the "Austrian theory" unless you agree with the fundamental premises / foundations on WHICH IT IS BUILT. They are INHERENT WITHIN THE THEORY.

/massive facepalm


DUDE, CAN I HUG YOU? THANKS A LOT

I have asked you this question at least 10 times and you've FINALLY given me a list I can now work with. Will come back later (after the reading list, thanks)

:confused: what? No you haven't. And it wasn't even a list. You are psychotic.

[Mr Tansill]

Forsmant,

I’ve been reading this forum for a while from the sidelines, but your question spurred my joining tonight. To me, your argument is convoluted – you call ‘property’ an abstract idea…in my view, abstract refers to things like perfect circles, the 4th dimension, and the shape of the universe. In any case, I’ll argue using your axioms and with your rules to get to my conclusion anyway. The basis of your argument, as it seems to me, is that person A has no right to resort to violence if person B destroys their ‘property’ because ‘property’ is a derivative of the ego and matters of ego aren’t worth resorting to violence over. Is this an appropriate one-sentence summary of your view? I think your ‘teddy bear’ example is used to make a point that property is something relatively unimportant and not worthy of resorting to violence over, but here’s my point: even if we restrict ourselves to the petty, base objects of damaged egos and hurt feelings regarding ‘property’, if person B knows that person A is willing to resort to violence over a destroyed teddy bear, then it is person B’s free choice to enter into that realm, and if he chooses to do so, then by default the destruction of person A’s teddy bear was a vital enough interest to person B that he was willing to risk the violent reaction of person A! As arbitrary, pointless, and petty as you make it for person A to react violently over a teddy bear, you make it for B. Do you not see that? This is the basic problem of your argument: you make no reference to the motivations or understanding of person B (you do an unfair thing which is bring in person A’s ego, but leave out person B’s) – your conclusion was reached in a vacuum using a set that includes person A, person A’s motivation and feelings and ego, a teddy bear, and person B…person B in your argument is an amoral actor! That’s why it’s all effed up! Is your argument deconstructed enough yet for you to see how it fits together?

Mr. Tansill

[BKV]

LOL, you don't even know the "Austrian theory". Spell it out, what do you agree with.

See this is mildly humorous. You can't actually agree with the "Austrian theory" unless you agree with the fundamental premises / foundations on WHICH IT IS BUILT. They are INHERENT WITHIN THE THEORY.

/massive facepalm


Yes, you can agree with conclusions and prescriptions without agreeing with foundations.

What do I agree with of Austrian theory?

1. Less government the better
2. People should be trusted to make their own choices
(and held responsible for it)
3. Honesty is the best policy
4. Nothing is immoral, just profitable
5. None of the above matter unless property is defined and respected
6. None of the above matter unless we agree to be non-violent
7. If everybody agrees, everything would be fine (communists agree with that as well)



:confused: what? No you haven't. And it wasn't even a list. You are psychotic.
Yes, every time I say "might makes right" is when I said "that's the only natural law, tell me other ones", you just spat out a list after I've pressed you for it time over time.

[john_anderson_ii]

To earn something depends on the respect of other people. The mere fact of other peoples existence give rise to this whole debate. If there was only one man would he own the world? You can only earn what other people allow you to have.

By this train of logic, if I spend 20 hours tilling and planting my lawn, and then a few weeks watering it, it's not my lawn unless my neighbors consent to allowing it to be my lawn?

Inversely, are you saying that you can only earn and own what you allow others not to have?

How does earning something demand respect? A framer on a construction crew might be viewed as a drunkard, who cheats on his wife and earns the scorn of his Christian leaning foreman. However, the simple fact that said drunkard shows up on Monday morning and does his job earns that drunkard his negotiated wage which he uses to purchase property. Where did the respect of his peers, neighbors, or anyone come into this equation?

If there were only one man in the the world, than possibly yes, that man could own the world, he would own what he discovered and labored to achieve. If that one man were to sit on duff and do nothing he would own only what he could get into his palms by sitting on his duff. That would be his labor and his meager acquisitions would be his fruit.

I'm am stating that ownership of earned property is an inherent right, not subject to the whim of others. My previous argument concerning the expenditure of nonredeemable time is a logical argument in support of my summation. You, forsmant, seem to be arguing that ownership of property is only possible via others who allow you to own said property. Is this a correct summation, or are you angling towards a "you keep what you kill and can defend" type mentality? The former is just illogical, while the latter ignores the formations of lawful nations, and individual agreements.

By extension of my hypothesis, the one and only man in the world would own whatever he wished to achieve through labor, by your hypothesis he would own nothing, because there would be no one else in the world to ratify and acquiesce to his claims of ownership.

The logic of your argument boils down to this: Man owns nothing, men and nations of men own everything which each man in the pride posses. I beg to disagree with a vengeance.

[john_anderson_ii]

To earn something depends on the respect of other people. The mere fact of other peoples existence give rise to this whole debate. If there was only one man would he own the world? You can only earn what other people allow you to have.

By this train of logic, if I spend 20 hours tilling and planting my lawn, and then a few weeks watering it, it's not my lawn unless my neighbors consent to allowing it to be my lawn?

Inversely, are you saying that you can only earn and own what you allow others not to have?

How does earning something demand respect? A framer on a construction crew might be viewed as a drunkard, who cheats on his wife and earns the scorn of his Christian leaning foreman. However, the simple fact that said drunkard shows up on Monday morning and does his job earns that drunkard his negotiated wage which he uses to purchase property. Where did the respect of his peers, neighbors, or anyone come into this equation?

If there were only one man in the the world, than possibly yes, that man could own the world, he would own what he discovered and labored to achieve. If that one man were to sit on duff and do nothing he would own only what he could get into his palms by sitting on his duff. That would be his labor and his meager acquisitions would the his fruit.

I'm am stating that ownership of earned property is an inherent right, not subject to the whim of others. My previous argument concerning the expenditure of nonredeemable time is a logical argument in support of my summation. You, forsmant, seem to be arguing that ownership of property is only possible via others who allow you to own said property. Is this a correct summation, or are you angling towards a "you keep what you kill and can defend" type mentality? The former is just illogical, while the latter ignores the formations of lawful nations, and individual agreements.

By extension of my hypothesis, the one and only man in the world would own whatever he wished to achieve through labor, by your hypothesis he would own nothing, because there would be no one else in the world to ratify and acquiesce his ownership of what he claimed was his.

In other words, your world view dictates that property is something lent to a person from some sort of supernatural communal collective. Wherein the members of this collective agree on the owner of the property in question, and this "collective" might revoke ownership at any time, for any reason. Yes, that's pretty much absurd as absurd can be.

[forsmant]

Forsmant,

I’ve been reading this forum for a while from the sidelines, but your question spurred my joining tonight. To me, your argument is convoluted – you call ‘property’ an abstract idea…in my view, abstract refers to things like perfect circles, the 4th dimension, and the shape of the universe. In any case, I’ll argue using your axioms and with your rules to get to my conclusion anyway. The basis of your argument, as it seems to me, is that person A has no right to resort to violence if person B destroys their ‘property’ because ‘property’ is a derivative of the ego and matters of ego aren’t worth resorting to violence over. Is this an appropriate one-sentence summary of your view? I think your ‘teddy bear’ example is used to make a point that property is something relatively unimportant and not worthy of resorting to violence over, but here’s my point: even if we restrict ourselves to the petty, base objects of damaged egos and hurt feelings regarding ‘property’, if person B knows that person A is willing to resort to violence over a destroyed teddy bear, then it is person B’s free choice to enter into that realm, and if he chooses to do so, then by default the destruction of person A’s teddy bear was a vital enough interest to person B that he was willing to risk the violent reaction of person A! As arbitrary, pointless, and petty as you make it for person A to react violently over a teddy bear, you make it for B. Do you not see that? This is the basic problem of your argument: you make no reference to the motivations or understanding of person B (you do an unfair thing which is bring in person A’s ego, but leave out person B’s) – your conclusion was reached in a vacuum using a set that includes person A, person A’s motivation and feelings and ego, a teddy bear, and person B…person B in your argument is an amoral actor! That’s why it’s all effed up! Is your argument deconstructed enough yet for you to see how it fits together?

Mr. Tansill

Welcome to the forums! I like paragraphs and spacing. ;)

Person A could simply ask person B to give the teddy bear back. Person B's ego may not have been involved if he were not claiming the teddy bear as his own. What if he just kicked the teddy bear into a puddle of water while walking down the road? Person A may have left the bear unattended and it was not clear that he wished to posses the bear. Is resorting to violence the most practical course of action?

My point is that property rights are an artificial attempt at limiting the freedom of people. Violence is the ultimate encroachment on freedom and advocating it for only rights perceived to be natural or just is hypocritical for a libertarian who believes in the non aggression axiom.

I would say that the legal concept of property is convoluted and always open for interpretation simply because it is an abstract concept.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/abstract

abstract--Considered apart from concrete existence

What if I were to walk past a house on my street that recently became abandoned. The landlord is unable to get a renter because his price is to high or the house is in poor condition. Whatever the reason the house stays vacant for 6 months and is really falling into disrepair. It then becomes a place where bums lay there head occasionally. The police or the landlord catch wind of this unofficial use and physically remove the bums. The house continues to remain unoccupied and the landlord moves out of state. It seems as though the house is doomed to crumble to dust. Then 3 months later a man decides to move in and clean up the house. This man happens to be a carpenter and over the next few months repairs the home. He begins to live out of the house like an average homeowner. The neighbors begin to wonder if he is renting or if he bought the house. He never gives a satisfying answer so one neighbor makes some calls. The police arrive and forcible evict the man for using property that he had no right to use. The landlord catches wind and celebrates the repair of the home and then sells it for a nice profit to a different couple. The man must spend his nights in jail or deal with some other form of punishment simply for using the idle resource.

Certainly I think a man is free to let his home fall into disrepair. I also believe that the man is free to take residence in an unoccupied home especially if he plans on taking care of it. The short story in the link in my signature takes place on a world in which possession and use is the basis of social interaction. It is an interesting story and funny. I encourage you all to read it.

[forsmant]

By this train of logic, if I spend 20 hours tilling and planting my lawn, and then a few weeks watering it, it's not my lawn unless my neighbors consent to allowing it to be my lawn?

Inversely, are you saying that you can only earn and own what you allow others not to have?

Yes, although this may degenerate into a fight.




How does earning something demand respect? A framer on a construction crew might be viewed as a drunkard, who cheats on his wife and earns the scorn of his Christian leaning foreman. However, the simple fact that said drunkard shows up on Monday morning and does his job earns that drunkard his negotiated wage which he uses to purchase property. Where did the respect of his peers, neighbors, or anyone come into this equation?

I am a framer. While on the job he is respected for his work. If the boss did not respect that man he would fire him. Therefore not allowing him to have job or money. Not stealing the guys tool bags shows respect for the tools that he uses. Respect is not all or nothing.




If there were only one man in the the world, than possibly yes, that man could own the world, he would own what he discovered and labored to achieve. If that one man were to sit on duff and do nothing he would own only what he could get into his palms by sitting on his duff. That would be his labor and his meager acquisitions would be his fruit.

So you are saying a man only owns what he controls or possesses in his palms at any given moment. Ownership is a way of limiting what other humans can control. We limit them by the use of force or the threat of force. If no other human is present to limit ownership become arbitrary and non existent. The world just is and belongs to no one.


I'm am stating that ownership of earned property is an inherent right, not subject to the whim of others. My previous argument concerning the expenditure of nonredeemable time is a logical argument in support of my summation. You, forsmant, seem to be arguing that ownership of property is only possible via others who allow you to own said property. Is this a correct summation, or are you angling towards a "you keep what you kill and can defend" type mentality? The former is just illogical, while the latter ignores the formations of lawful nations, and individual agreements.

I am saying that property doesn't exist. Only things exist. You keep what you defend or what others don't take from you. The formations of lawful nations is a construct that uses force to protect peoples claim on things. It is the initiation of force or rather the threat of force. You all advocated it and I am asking why. Many have answered similar to you but you answers ultimately come down to because I feel I have a right to control things.




By extension of my hypothesis, the one and only man in the world would own whatever he wished to achieve through labor, by your hypothesis he would own nothing, because there would be no one else in the world to ratify and acquiesce to his claims of ownership.

The logic of your argument boils down to this: Man owns nothing, men and nations of men own everything which each man in the pride posses. I beg to disagree with a vengeance.

Men and nations own nothing either. Ownership is not real. Property is not real. Whatever you posses is yours. We should and ought to make property laws. Property laws will allow men to understand and respect each others wishes. But one man should not gain influence over so much stuff that he cannot use. Vengence huh? Mighty angry are we?

[forsmant]

In other words, your world view dictates that property is something lent to a person from some sort of supernatural communal collective. Wherein the members of this collective agree on the owner of the property in question, and this "collective" might revoke ownership at any time, for any reason. Yes, that's pretty much absurd as absurd can be.

Absurd but it happens all the time. Eminent domain is the term. I am not discussing what is right or just. Just what is.

[Mr Tansill]

Welcome to the forums! I like paragraphs and spacing.

Yeah...me too :)


Person A could simply ask person B to give the teddy bear back. Person B's ego may not have been involved if he were not claiming the teddy bear as his own. What if he just kicked the teddy bear into a puddle of water while walking down the road? Person A may have left the bear unattended and it was not clear that he wished to posses the bear. Is resorting to violence the most practical course of action?

Fine, but now your person B has become a moral actor and it is what person A should do first - it's definitely not ok for person A to resort to violence against person B in your case here of accidental damage...what I'm saying, though, is that once person A and B understand the terms they are operating under (i.e. B caused damage A's bear, and A wants it fixed and B doesn't want to fix it) then the resort to 'violence' becomes necessary.

In our society this includes legal violence with the ultimate aim of obtaining restitution in the form of the other person's money. Without that, though, the rules of society governing us, what else is there? The resort to taking from person B something of equivalent value to replace what was unjustly taken from A. I'll try and use an example from your carpenter example to illustrate this.


Certainly I think a man is free to let his home fall into disrepair. I also believe that the man is free to take residence in an unoccupied home especially if he plans on taking care of it.

Your house example is an interesting construction because its logic is open to some situations that I don't think your carpenter would find livable...let me give you a hypothetical and then you tell me what the carpenter in your example would do:

The carpenter goes around house by house fixing them up getting evicted and moving on and on until he finally gets fed up and returns to the state of nature. He wanders into a forest and begins the process of using trees and other available materials to construct himself a log cabin. At this point, a teenager comes upon his house and burns it down for a good time, thus completing the circle of life and returning the trees to the earth. Let's say the carpenter and teenager continue this cycle indefinitely. Certainly in regards to your philosophy, the carpenter has NO complaint and NO recourse and NO right to resort to violence, right? These are your rules...I mean he doesn't believe in 'property' rights...so in effect he becomes a slave to this teenage menace. Now what is he to do? Move back to the city?

Let's say he does and let's say the teenager follows him and they continue the cycle no matter how the carpenter tries to escape this cycle (asking him to stop, paying him, trying to evade him) he can't...at what point does the carpenter accept that he has a right to the product of his labor or act out in violence?

[forsmant]

Fucking Teenagers.

[Conza88]

Yes, you can agree with conclusions and prescriptions without agreeing with foundations.

No, wrong. It doesn't make the conclusion wrong, but your premises can both be wrong. To reach a truth statement, the premises must be correct.

Your epistemology is retarded. How can you ever discover truth with it? Essentially, you just want to believe you don't believe in it, but you're actually following the people who use axioms and deductive logic. For some fcked up reason, you're doing your best to avoid that conclusion.

Empircism, scientific method, positivism - none of these things applied in the economic real, have ever, and will never get to the truth.


An Introduction to Economic Reasoning

Chapter 1 - Method (http://mises.org/etexts/EconReasoning.pdf)


What do I agree with of Austrian theory?

1. Less government the better
2. People should be trusted to make their own choices
(and held responsible for it)
3. Honesty is the best policy
4. Nothing is immoral, just profitable
5. None of the above matter unless property is defined and respected
6. None of the above matter unless we agree to be non-violent
7. If everybody agrees, everything would be fine (communists agree with that as well)



These essentially have nothing to do with Austrian theory. Try again.


Yes, every time I say "might makes right" is when I said "that's the only natural law, tell me other ones", you just spat out a list after I've pressed you for it time over time.

Negative. Natural law is achieved by the things I listed. ;)