WHAT WE'RE UP AGAINST IN THE GENERAL: My Argument with a Flock of Communists...

[Gaddafi Duck]

If they really Rothbard, Mises, and Hayek as they said, and are still communists, they are without a doubt a lost cause. You won't be able to "convert" them, you'll just win the argument by default because they'll just not respond. Never understood that..how people who act so intellectual think they have such a thorough understanding of things, only to maintain their position after they fail to be able to adequately address the counterarguments. If you're really that "intelligent", wouldn't you assume the most sensible logic presented? If you're a communist and you get your ass whooped by another ideology, doesn't that mean you should adopt a better perspective of the world?

Then again, I don't know any communist that has the mental capacity to digest Mises, so I doubt they read him as much as they just skimmed.

 

[affa]

Dude, you're trying to turn my general statements about the Left into a personal attack against you. But hey, if you want to go down that road...

You quoted me, when I was talking about myself, as if I was talking about someone else, and, after twisting my views into your wrongheaded belief about them, told me 'what I would say next' [which was completely untrue], then called me immoral and unethical because of what you claimed I would say, but never would say. so yes, it was a personal attack on me.

Most on the Left aren't an-syn. I was addressing my earlier comments in regards to a typical Leftist. An-syn is a different beast.

Obviously. But my point, throughout, is that people view property differently. This split is what divides us, and why so many people talk 'at' each other, rather than 'with' each other. While I'm against the state [including state redistribution of wealth], I recognize that someone who argues the State should protect property rights, while accusing the 'left' of theft through a desire for wealth redistribution, wants to have its cake and eat it too.

Both sides are sitting there calling the other side thieves and neither side will even listen to the other side's opinion, because they are too busy screaming 'thief!' at them.

If you don't support property rights, I am happy to debate with you, but you are most certainly not my ally.

Then you will forever miss the forest for the trees. It's a shame. At least I'll still be there, supporting Ron Paul, despite your attempts to push me away. At least I'll be converting those on the left and far left that you dismiss as enemies. It's a shame your dogma doesn't let you get past your own biases long enough to see we're all working towards the same goal, but simply think it needs to [eventually] be accomplished differently.

Here's how I define property rights: the right to use, control and dispose of property that you obtain through your own efforts (mental or physical). Please explain how that is "original theft," and how denying me those rights is moral in your world. The way I see it, those who are not able to own and consume what they produce are slaves.

So before I answer this, I want to be clear: you are claiming that if a person labors to produce widgets in a widget factory, the widgets they produce are theirs and theirs alone? Or else they are "slaves"? And the carpenters that built the factory are the owners of the factory itself, for it is the fruit of their labor? And so a person who uses their existent power [in the form of previously accumulated capital from other, unrelated, ventures] to have the factory built is then, in turn, stealing it from the carpenters and has [wage] slaves that produce widgets for him?

Interesting way of looking at things. I'm surprised your definition of property rights brings us down that path. [note: yes, I know that's not what you meant. funny, though, that it can be interpreted that way, isn't it?]

Typical Leftists are not an-syn, and do advocate for State action.

Most people in this day and age are Statists, right and left. It's just as true to say 'typical Rightists are not an-cap, and do advocate for State action'. Your bias against the so called 'left' may blind you to that, but it's the cold hard truth.

My understanding of an-syn is that you reject wage labor (ala Lockean Liberalism), and you reject property rights on the grounds that that's the reason the State exists, and the State is evil and therefore property rights are evil too. Is that correct so far?

You keep trying to define this as morality, when really, words like 'evil' really have no place in this discussion.

A better way to put it is that the State is born to protect the Property Rights of the few. As the State grows, it takes from all, both propertied and propertied through taxation and other means. Eventually, it recognizes that since the unpropertied outnumber the propertied by a considerable amount, it can appeal to the masses by promoting concepts such as wealth redistribution. It can play both sides, by making similar [but opposing] promises to the propertied. Ultimately, the State will hurt both in order to expand its own power and wealth.

As for your definition of an-syn, it's extremely lacking. Most of an-syn is about how to act and produce without the State; temporary associations, etc.

Denying property rights means denying me the ability to support my life. Yes, that's an immoral and evil position.

Would you also say that denying others the use of your property if it denies them their ability to support their life is immoral and evil?

I only want the State to protect individual rights -- including property rights. That is not the same State that the Left wants. They want a State that is empowered to initiate force; I don't (and the ideology I support would prevent, not encourage, the creation of such a State).

How exactly does this State protect your property rights? Through an armed police force? Through throwing debtors in jail? Resolving worker disputes by smashing unions?
It sounds to me that you want a perfect State, that protects the propertied, but you forget that your pet will grow and eventually bite the hand that feeds it. How long before the State realizes that once it taxes you to provide the protection you ask for, it can then redistribute 'your' wealth to others in exchange for expanded power? And then we're back at square one - a State that uses Force against all, for differing reasons.
You keep accusing the 'Left' of wanting a State that uses force [to redistribute wealth] and refusing to acknowledge you gave them that ability to use Force in the first place.
It's all nice and easy to say "They [the Left] want a State that is empowered to initiate force" but you absolutely ignore that is exactly what many on the so called Right want too.

We can't live without property rights -- which is why we need government to help protect and defend them. What's the alternative? Gang rule?

We can't live without the government! Oh noes! Pass me the heroin! I'm sorry, I usually love to respond to these threads, but... c'mon, really?

I want limited government, not zero government. I want property rights. I want a moral system. Freedom of choice. A free market. Protection of individual rights. Do you want any of those things?

No. No. Yes [though I don't think your definition of 'moral' is correct. Yes. Yes, but defined differently from your definition, for we disagree on fundamentals. Not by the State. Not by your definitions, and certainly not with the involvement of the State.

 

[AceNZ]

The Rule of Law can ONLY exist with the threat of force...in our homes, on our streets, or in foreign relations. It is a primal fact of life, possibly even a law of nature. If you jump off a cliff...it's gonna hurt. If you piss off mom, she'll swat you with a wooden spoon.

Force in retaliation.

By claiming the Right to property is 'moral', one implies that it is the responsibility of the State to protect that Right, through the application of force.

Force in retaliation.

This leads to further abuses, culminating in actions like all of us being complicit in funding and filling the ranks of an international police force stretching from the Banana Wars to Blood for Oil.

Only if we allow the initiation of force.

The problem here, is of course, why MUST I have to give up MY Right to property (taxes) in order to protect ExxonMobil's?

Why should you be taxed at all? I don't agree with taxation.

In a 'free' society, it's not 'my' responsibility to protect 'your' stuff. That's YOUR responsibility. Jack McCoy (of Law and Order) eloquently states, "Man has only those Rights that he can defend." It is Exxonmobil's Right to protect it's property, it is MY right to defend MY property. It is the State's job to protect these Rights.

If the protection of property is in private hands, then you end up with gang rule. You can defend your property against me, but not against my gang. Then what? You join a gang, too? We get our gangs to agree to not fight each other? Oops, all of a sudden, that's a government.

 

[AceNZ]

define morality: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior. If you agree with this definition (ala Webster), then you already agreed that morality is subjective. There is no measurable way to denote "right and wrong" behavior. It is just not possible.

Webster's definition is incomplete.

There is a measurable way to define right and wrong in the context of morality: what's right supports your life in the long-term; what's wrong does not.

So, what kind of force falls under "not paying taxes"?

None. Which is one reason why it shouldn't be a crime. Before you even get to "not paying," taxation is a form of theft (and therefore an initiation of force) -- which is why I'm against taxation, on moral grounds.

The initiation of force is immoral -- regardless of whether it's done by an individual on their own, or an individual acting in the name of the State, or a group of individuals acting in response to a democratically derived decision.

 

[AceNZ]

So before I answer this, I want to be clear: you are claiming that if a person labors to produce widgets in a widget factory, the widgets they produce are theirs and theirs alone? Or else they are "slaves"?

If a person produces widgets in a factory, that implies capital equipment is involved, as well as labor to produce that equipment and labor to create the inputs to the manufacturing process. The production process involves many steps, people and processes. So first, a person working in a factory almost never produces anything on their own. And second, how they are reimbursed for their work should be determined by mutual agreement between the worker and employee. They might be paid in widgets, or perhaps with money.

And the carpenters that built the factory are the owners of the factory itself, for it is the fruit of their labor?

Perhaps, as long as they also provided the other equipment, materials, land, ideas and so on that go into creating a factory. If all they provide is labor, then the factory is not the fruit of that alone, so they wouldn't own it. The nature of their payment should be determined by mutual agreement with the others involved. Maybe they would agree to take a share of ownership in the factory; I suspect most would prefer money.

And so a person who uses their existent power [in the form of previously accumulated capital from other, unrelated, ventures] to have the factory built is then, in turn, stealing it from the carpenters and has [wage] slaves that produce widgets for him?

Slavery requires an unwilling participant; someone who has no choice and no control over their actions and decisions; someone who is compelled by physical force. Wages (or other forms of payment) should be determined by mutual agreement, by free choice, in a free market where employers compete for employees.

Equating capital use to slavery is immoral. If I work hard to design and build a new widget, why should I not be able to sell it or rent it if others agree it has value?

Interesting way of looking at things. I'm surprised your definition of property rights brings us down that path. [note: yes, I know that's not what you meant. funny, though, that it can be interpreted that way, isn't it?]

Thanks for biting. Hook, line and sinker, as they say.

Lockean Liberalism (which is what you're describing) is highly flawed -- the flaws are pretty easy to see from a moral perspective.

You keep trying to define this as morality, when really, words like 'evil' really have no place in this discussion.

For the same reasons that you keep trying to move this discussion out of the realm of morality, I refuse to do so. It IS a moral issue. The approach you're advocating IS immoral and evil. If you can't see it, perhaps others reading this thread can.

A better way to put it is that the State is born to protect the Property Rights of the few.

The State should protect everyone's property rights (as well as other individual rights). Everyone needs property to survive.

As the State grows, it takes from all, both propertied and propertied through taxation and other means. Eventually, it recognizes that since the unpropertied outnumber the propertied by a considerable amount, it can appeal to the masses by promoting concepts such as wealth redistribution.

That's nonsense. Everyone owns property. The clothes on your back; the money in your pocket; the food for your next meal. The concept of property extends far beyond land.

Ultimately, the State will hurt both in order to expand its own power and wealth.

That may be the way the State is today, but there are alternatives other than eliminating the State and property rights.

Would you also say that denying others the use of your property if it denies them their ability to support their life is immoral and evil?

In other words, is it moral to prevent people from stealing from me who were unable to enough produce property of their own to support their life? Yes, absolutely.

How exactly does this State protect your property rights? Through an armed police force? Through throwing debtors in jail? Resolving worker disputes by smashing unions?

Yes, police should be armed. Everyone else could be armed, too, if they so choose.

Debtors should not go to jail if they fail to pay their debts. The nature of debt is a contractual agreement between the lender and the borrower. As long as no fraud is involved, bankruptcy laws can be used to resolve failure to pay issues.

Workers should be free to form unions, but not as a result of coercion or other forms of government force. Similarly, people should be free to join unions or leave them as they wish. Government should not smash unions unless they violate individual rights.

It sounds to me that you want a perfect State, that protects the propertied, but you forget that your pet will grow and eventually bite the hand that feeds it. How long before the State realizes that once it taxes you to provide the protection you ask for, it can then redistribute 'your' wealth to others in exchange for expanded power? And then we're back at square one - a State that uses Force against all, for differing reasons.

Yes, protect the "propertied" -- that's everyone.

I don't support taxation. The government should be funded through voluntary means. If it starts to overreach (or underperform), then stop supporting it.

You keep accusing the 'Left' of wanting a State that uses force [to redistribute wealth] and refusing to acknowledge you gave them that ability to use Force in the first place.

I gave them nothing of the kind.

It's all nice and easy to say "They [the Left] want a State that is empowered to initiate force" but you absolutely ignore that is exactly what many on the so called Right want too.

True. However, I think the Right is in a better position philosophically to fight the issue. I haven't heard anyone from the Left arguing for a smaller State, other than anarchists. On the Right, at least we have RP, the Tea Party and Libertarians.

We can't live without the government! Oh noes! Pass me the heroin! I'm sorry, I usually love to respond to these threads, but... c'mon, really?

Ridicule? C'mon. Weak. Yes, really. Well, unless you'd prefer to revert to an age of savagery or gang warfare or all-against-all.

 

[otherone]

if the protection of property is in private hands, then you end up with gang rule. You can defend your property against me, but not against my gang. Then what? You join a gang, too? We get our gangs to agree to not fight each other? Oops, all of a sudden, that's a government.

Reductio ad absurdum.
Cops can't protect you or your stuff. In a best case scenario, they can hopefully prevent the perpetrators from repeating their behavior.

 

[affa]

Equating capital use to slavery is immoral.

Lol. I'd rather spend my time debating with someone who tries to address the questions raised, and doesn't simply call the other person evil as their primary defense mechanism. It's laughable you initially entered this thread stating the 'moral argument' is the way to win the so-called Left over, when it's so clear you refuse to even try to understand the position of the Left, and rather hurl insults. Heck, I'd rather debate the merits of dry food versus canned food with my cat.

Your State is cursed to ever grow. It will always bite the hand that feeds. You ultimately create the Left by your very actions, and you don't even realize it.

 

[AceNZ]

Lol. I'd rather spend my time debating with someone who tries to address the questions raised, and doesn't simply call the other person evil as their primary defense mechanism.

Now you're trying to deny that I was addressing the questions you raised? It sounds like you're just frustrated that I wouldn't debate them on your terms.

It's laughable you initially entered this thread stating the 'moral argument' is the way to win the so-called Left over, when it's so clear you refuse to even try to understand the position of the Left, and rather hurl insults.

Sorry you don't think I understand the Left. I understand better than you seem to think. I just refuse to debate on the Left's terms, or to go down the rat-holes they offer, and I don't shy away from calling things immoral or evil when they are. Not PC, I know.

If someone is standing over me threatening my life (which is how I see anti-property rights movements), then I'm not going to debate with them why they think that's a good idea. I'm going to call them on it, and call the action what it is: immoral.

BTW, the fundamental here is the importance of ideas -- which are a problem for both the Left and the Right. I still think morality is a good place to start these discussions, but ideas should really be the endpoint.

Heck, I'd rather debate the merits of dry food versus canned food with my cat.

Good luck with that.

Your State is cursed to ever grow. It will always bite the hand that feeds. You ultimately create the Left by your very actions, and you don't even realize it.

My morals and actions have had no influence on the State or the Left, since they are very different from the popular view today. "My" State doesn't exist yet. You keep saying it will grow, but refuse to hear why that doesn't have to be so.

 

[AceNZ]

Cops can't protect you or your stuff. In a best case scenario, they can hopefully prevent the perpetrators from repeating their behavior.

Funny, I've called the cops twice in my life in the face of threatening situations (and have been around when others have done the same), and they did a pretty good job both times at protecting both me and my "stuff". (I'm not talking about the modern militarized version of the police, who seem to violate more rights than they protect). Police can't be there every moment of your life, of course, so self-defense is moral, reasonable and warranted in those cases -- but they can definitely do more than just prevent repeat offenses.

FWIW, protection of property rights (and other individual rights) involves more than just the police, it requires courts, too.

 

[affa]

Now you're trying to deny that I was addressing the questions you raised? It sounds like you're just frustrated that I wouldn't debate them on your terms.

not frustrated at all. i don't care what you believe, to be quite honest, because as i've said repeatedly, the only thing that matters is we get Ron Paul elected. philosophy is great and all, but immaterial to the situation on our doorstep.

you seek to push what you call the 'left' away, and i see an army of allies. My way will get more people behind Ron Paul. Yours won't.

as for 'addressing the issues', my point is quite simple: saying something is immoral is not an argument. stating your presuppositions as fact does not make them so. to use your terms of good and evil: you call me 'evil' because I don't agree with how you define property rights. I choose not to call you 'evil', even though I think you committed the original 'sin' by claiming property in the first place. You built a fence around what was once everyone's land, and then call us all criminals for walking on 'your' grass. You created the State to protect 'your' property, then blame other people when the State eventually grows strong enough to tax you, give your money to others, and then finally claims your land under Imminent Domain.

Don't you see the big neverending cycle? As soon as we step on that ride, it starts over again.

If someone is standing over me threatening my life (which is how I see anti-property rights movements)

I know that's how you see it. And it's also why I know you can't see the other side of the coin. I 'get' your side of the argument. I really do. Within a system of property rights, it makes sense. If resources were infinite, I'd probably be fine with it. But as it is, I simply don't agree with it. I don't feel the urge nor the inclination nor the need to call you 'evil' over some philosophical difference. If you've internalized it to such a point that you see people that disagree with you as evil, well, I mean, that's exactly the problem we face in America today - far too many people unwilling to try to understand the 'other', and dismissing them as 'evil'.

then I'm not going to debate with them why they think that's a good idea. I'm going to call them on it, and call the action what it is: immoral.

And that's why you will forever talk to brick walls. Because you know what? The 'Left' you so despise thinks you're the 'immoral' one. They think you're the 'evil' one. Because you're both looking at the same issues, and seeing the negative space of the other's position. You call them evil for wanting to redistribute wealth, and they think you're evil for celebrating income disparity. You claim their system won't work. They say yours won't. You say they're thieves. They say you're thieves. And on, and on, and on.

BTW, the fundamental here is the importance of ideas -- which are a problem for both the Left and the Right. I still think morality is a good place to start these discussions, but ideas should really be the endpoint.

Ideas are for discussion and debate. As soon as you assign black and white morality to them, there is no discussion. Who wants to 'start a discussion' with someone who thinks their ideas are 'evil'? I mean, heck, I'm not going to try to convert a Christian to atheism, and I'd prefer they didn't try to convert me. We're diametrically opposed from the start [but i'm more than happy to discuss politics, Ron Paul, philosophy, and even religion with them... as long as it remains unjudgemental]. And by placing morality into your economic and political views in the way you do, you will only succeed in shutting out people. Just like if someone went up to you and said 'rich people are evil'.

My morals and actions have had no influence on the State or the Left, since they are very different from the popular view today. "My" State doesn't exist yet. You keep saying it will grow, but refuse to hear why that doesn't have to be so.

I don't refuse to hear. I simply do not agree with you. Get it? I think the fundamental building blocks of the society you envision are inherently flawed. You can not create a system without force when force is built into the fundamentals you use to build it.

 

[AceNZ]

you seek to push what you call the 'left' away, and i see an army of allies. My way will get more people behind Ron Paul. Yours won't.

Endorsing an-syn and bashing property rights might get more anarchists behind RP, but it will, at the same time, drive people like me on the more traditional and conservative side, away. Getting the general public to endorse something close to Libertarianism is hard enough; throw a little anarchism in there, and it's a recipe for disaster.

You built a fence around what was once everyone's land, and then call us all criminals for walking on 'your' grass.

This statement alone shows that you have no understanding of what property rights are or where they originate, much less why they're necessary to support man's life.

I know that's how you see it. And it's also why I know you can't see the other side of the coin. I 'get' your side of the argument. I really do.

Perhaps, but the statements you've made in this thread suggest otherwise.

And that's why you will forever talk to brick walls.

I've actually had some good success with conventional Leftists. Some are brick walls, but not all -- not by a long shot.

Because you know what? The 'Left' you so despise thinks you're the 'immoral' one. They think you're the 'evil' one.

The most common thing I hear from the Left is that I'm "stupid." I don't recall being called evil or immoral (until now).

Because you're both looking at the same issues, and seeing the negative space of the other's position. You call them evil for wanting to redistribute wealth, and they think you're evil for celebrating income disparity. You claim their system won't work. They say yours won't. You say they're thieves. They say you're thieves. And on, and on, and on.

I don't think the solution is to cave in to the Left's view. I prefer to discuss and debate the issues, but from a different perspective than those on the Right have traditionally taken. Reality, reason and morality support my view; they don't support the Left's. A rational person can often wake up and see that when approached in the right way. (oh, and being against egalitarianism is not the same thing as "celebrating income disparity.")

As soon as you assign black and white morality to them, there is no discussion. Who wants to 'start a discussion' with someone who thinks their ideas are 'evil'?

A common response to my saying something is immoral is for people to ask "why?" It doesn't usually prevent or discourage discussion.

BTW, in case it wasn't obvious, I was never trying to convince you of anything. My arguments are directed at the others who may be listening, and who may still be on the fence.

I don't refuse to hear.

Perhaps, but you've said nothing in this thread that indicates to me that you understand what I'm saying. For example, you argue against my position using strawmen like taxation, which I don't even support.


I don't really have anything more to add here; I can see this isn't going anywhere.

 

[WilliamC]

when somebody says "per say" I just get a picture of a smug hipster in my head.

Especially when the correct form is per se


Form the Latin don't 'cha know, but it's all Greek to me

 

[WilliamC]

as for 'addressing the issues', my point is quite simple: saying something is immoral is not an argument. stating your presuppositions as fact does not make them so. to use your terms of good and evil: you call me 'evil' because I don't agree with how you define property rights. I choose not to call you 'evil', even though I think you committed the original 'sin' by claiming property in the first place. You built a fence around what was once everyone's land, and then call us all criminals for walking on 'your' grass.

I pull this out to make a specific point.

I build a house around land I have legally acquired in my county and a fence around the land I own. You come into my house without my permission and under certain circumstances and I willl kill you flat out, no discussion about property rights or morality or good and evil or what your intent was. I don't care, my children live in my house, and if I think they are threatened by an intruder then I'll kill the intruder. Simple as that.

If you are on my land and refuse to leave when I ask you I might not flat out kill you (depends on other behavior you may or may not be displaying) but I will use force (both my own and that of the city government where my residence is) to remove you, and if I perceive you have intent to harm me or my family I'll kill you.

This comes from a very ancient territorial instinct that predates humanity and which is present throughout the animal kingdom.

Ideas of property rights derive from this territorial instinct.

Property and property rights are obvious to anyone who studies ethology, as most all animals have evolved a system of territoriality which helps prevent intra-species violence.

See here for elaboration.

Anyone who refuses to believe in private property is either stupid or evil or both. It's like not believing that most humans prefer to engage in monogamy and to insist that everyone practice free love.

Might sound nice, but nature doesn't work that way.

Edit: I am not threatening any specific individual, simply stating a fact about what happens every day to those who violate the private property rights of others by breaking into homes or criminally trespassing with the intent to cause harm to people or property.

 

[Occam's Banana]

[...]

... my point, throughout, is that people view property differently. This split is what divides us, and why so many people talk 'at' each other, rather than 'with' each other. While I'm against the state [including state redistribution of wealth], I recognize that someone who argues the State should protect property rights, while accusing the 'left' of theft through a desire for wealth redistribution, wants to have its cake and eat it too.

Both sides are sitting there calling the other side thieves and neither side will even listen to the other side's opinion, because they are too busy screaming 'thief!' at them.

[...]

Most people in this day and age are Statists, right and left. It's just as true to say 'typical Rightists are not an-cap, and do advocate for State action'. Your bias against the so called 'left' may blind you to that, but it's the cold hard truth.

[...]

A better way to put it is that the State is born to protect the Property Rights of the few. As the State grows, it takes from all, both propertied and [un]propertied through taxation and other means. Eventually, it recognizes that since the unpropertied outnumber the propertied by a considerable amount, it can appeal to the masses by promoting concepts such as wealth redistribution. It can play both sides, by making similar [but opposing] promises to the propertied. Ultimately, the State will hurt both in order to expand its own power and wealth.

[...]

It sounds to me that you want a perfect State, that protects the propertied, but you forget that your pet will grow and eventually bite the hand that feeds it. How long before the State realizes that once it taxes you to provide the protection you ask for, it can then redistribute 'your' wealth to others in exchange for expanded power? And then we're back at square one - a State that uses Force against all, for differing reasons.
You keep accusing the 'Left' of wanting a State that uses force [to redistribute wealth] and refusing to acknowledge you gave them that ability to use Force in the first place.
It's all nice and easy to say "They [the Left] want a State that is empowered to initiate force" but you absolutely ignore that is exactly what many on the so called Right want too.

[...]

I suspect you and I differ over the nature & necessity of "property." (I don't have sufficient info to be sure of the degree or significance of any such differences, though.)

Nevertheless, your points regarding the metastatic nature of the State - and the source of the metastasis - are very good.

+rep from an an-cap to an an-syn. (Ron Paul is right - as usual. "Freedom brings people together!")

 

[affa]

I build a house around land I have legally acquired in my county and a fence around the land I own. You come into my house without my permission and under certain circumstances and I willl kill you flat out, no discussion about property rights or morality or good and evil or what your intent was. I don't care, my children live in my house, and if I think they are threatened by an intruder then I'll kill the intruder. Simple as that.

If someone came into my home and threatened my family, I'd do everything under the sun to stop them as well. It seems you hear I reject property rights, and think that means there's no sense of possession, no sense of law, no sense of order. That's simply untrue.
It's like people who haven't a clue about anarchism thinking 'oh, that means anyone can murder people whenever they want'. It requires misrepresenting the position to an extreme degree.

 

[affa]

I suspect you and I differ over the nature & necessity of "property." (I don't have sufficient info to be sure of the degree or significance of any such differences, though.)

Exactly! Absolutely. There are a number of variant systems besides strict property rights, but just because I don't use the common definition in use today [or in pure libertarianism as I understand it] doesn't mean there aren't use/ownership rules in play. There is still a society of some sort. We're all talking hypotheticals here.

Nevertheless, your points regarding the metastatic nature of the State - and the source of the metastasis - are very good.

Thanks. I think it's really important to remember that when discussing any of these abstract theories, we do so because we're striving for a better society. We're all trying to figure out a way to improve. That's why I find terms like 'evil' so... silly, for lack of a better way.

----------

Endorsing an-syn and bashing property rights might get more anarchists behind RP, but it will, at the same time, drive people like me on the more traditional and conservative side, away. Getting the general public to endorse something close to Libertarianism is hard enough; throw a little anarchism in there, and it's a recipe for disaster.

discussing property rights in a thread on RPF isn't going to push anyone away. especially not in a thread that is about the radical left to begin with. and there is a huge contingent of various sects of anarchists already in the tank for Ron Paul, in case you weren't aware. Scary atheists too. And Deists. And Christians. And Muslims.

This statement alone shows that you have no understanding of what property rights are or where they originate, much less why they're necessary to support man's life.

No, it means I disagree with you. Since I know we both dismiss Social Contract Theory, it would be like someone telling us 'oh, if we didn't have SCT then people would be killing each other in the streets!'. And we go 'no, you don't need SCT, there is another way'... and then we are told that we're evil and that SCT is "necessary to support man's life."

It simply doesn't follow. It's not as if I am suggesting lawlessness and chaos replace the modern definition of property rights; there are many, many alternate theoretical systems [and to be clear, even libertarianism and an-cap are purely theoretical at this stage of the game].

The most common thing I hear from the Left is that I'm "stupid." I don't recall being called evil or immoral (until now).

that's a really lame attempt to infer i called you evil, when it's absolutely clear from everything I've said that I've said no such thing.

Reality, reason and morality support my view; they don't support the Left's.

lol. your dogma is barking.

Perhaps, but you've said nothing in this thread that indicates to me that you understand what I'm saying. For example, you argue against my position using strawmen like taxation, which I don't even support.

I know you don't support taxation. If I implied so, I'm sorry. To be clear, I'm saying, the State you do want to create will eventually tax you to pay for the protections you want - if not today, then tomorrow, and then it will eventually realize it can redistribute those taxes to curry favor. This does not mean you favor taxes, or want taxes. It is a criticism of the State, not of you.

Look at what the State is capable of even with documents like the Constitution in play. The State is a damn weed. Planting that seed is dangerous.

I don't really have anything more to add here; I can see this isn't going anywhere.

I'm pretty sure I mentioned that several posts ago.

 

[soulcyon]

Webster's definition is incomplete.

There is a measurable way to define right and wrong in the context of morality: what's right supports your life in the long-term; what's wrong does not.

That's because even Webster agrees that morality is completely subjective and immeasurable. Because there are countless examples of "what is right" that can instantly become "wrong" from a different perspective. As per your definition, "supports life in the long term" is not a measurable act - a simple example is: risking your own life to save another (where the other person is blamed for killing you, he is considered immoral). There is no such thing as Universally preferable behavior, so your argument holds no water.

Are you saying that Slavery is moral? Because slavery doesn't necessarily kill other people, it mostly restricts their freedoms in what they can do.

Are you saying that stealing money is moral? Because that money can help for your own knee surgery (supporting life in the long-term). Morality is subjective, stop arguing such a blatantly obvious conclusion.

None. Which is one reason why it shouldn't be a crime. Before you even get to "not paying," taxation is a form of theft (and therefore an initiation of force) -- which is why I'm against taxation, on moral grounds.

The premise of theft is the ILLEGAL taking of property - so if the State takes your money in the name of law, then it is not ILLEGAL thus not THIEVERY. So your argument holds no water again.

The initiation of force is immoral -- regardless of whether it's done by an individual on their own, or an individual acting in the name of the State, or a group of individuals acting in response to a democratically derived decision.

So why does the government have a military and stat have police departments?

I agree with otherone, you say that you can achieve the goal with an argument for morality. However, now you claim that morality is objective!? If this were possible, then we could have solved the problem with society centuries ago.

 

[Mini-Me]

I agree with otherone, you say that you can achieve the goal with an argument for morality. However, now you claim that morality is objective!? If this were possible, then we could have solved the problem with society centuries ago.

I don't intend to get into a long, drawn-out argument over universal morality vs. moral relativism, but I think you misunderstand AceNZ's position here. Just because people disagree on a matter does not inherently make it subjective. Years ago, people swore the Earth was flat and killed other people to uphold this dogma. That doesn't mean the Earth used to be flat, or that its shape is subjective; the Earth was round the whole time. We just weren't always in a position to know it. That is essentially the perspective that moral universalists hold regarding morality. You can believe this or disbelieve it, but your disbelief or disagreement alone does not make it a nonsensical position.

 

[Narmical]

It seems you hear I reject property rights, and think that means there's no sense of possession, no sense of law, no sense of order. That's simply untrue.

You hit it on the heard. I hear "i reject property rights" and then i think you mean no one really owns everything. Could you explain what you mean by property rights, and what it means to reject hem, and what scene of possession you are talking about?

 

[soulcyon]

I don't intend to get into a long, drawn-out argument over universal morality vs. moral relativism, but I think you misunderstand AceNZ's position here. Just because people disagree on a matter does not inherently make it subjective. Years ago, people swore the Earth was flat and killed other people to uphold this dogma. That doesn't mean the Earth used to be flat, or that its shape is subjective; the Earth was round the whole time. We just weren't always in a position to know it. That is essentially the perspective that moral universalists hold regarding morality. You can believe this or disbelieve it, but your disbelief or disagreement alone does not make it a nonsensical position.

The Earth seemed flat to everyone living on it, so from their PERSPECTIVE, they believed it was flat. The truth is that the Earth is round, proven by a variety of scientific instruments and mathematics. Perception is related to this argument, HOWEVER (big however), even if we perceive the truth, we can still disagree on moral values. E.g, I can believe that killing anybody is immoral - however you can bring up self-defense as an argument. The fact that we have a disagreement proves Morality is subjective.

If you ever find a Mathematical proof against/for any moral value, that will be noteworthy achievement (maybe a nobel prize?). AceNZ disagreed that Morality is subjective, so I proved him wrong multiple times now.

We can also have a discussion about what is Math - but one thing I would like to say, if you go in this direction, Math has truly been universal tool across all societies and cultures of humanity. Sure, the way we represent Math can vary, such as language and characters, however the Logical nature of Math cannot be denounced.