Don't Drug Test Welfare Reciepients?!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
We live in exactly the world you want to live in. Anarchy underlay every society in the past and will underlie every society in the future, forever. This is because, in an anarchic system, there is no law forbidding law–there cannot be–so any entity with enough power to write and impose its laws is operating perfectly within the boundaries of the larger anarchic system. It’s all anarchy, in the end. Anarchy is just the way things are, and it produced this slavery that you believe yourself to be suffering. And it will produce it again and again and again.[/quote]

I have no problem looking at things that way. That just means it’s up to those who desire freedom to help others see that it is worth the cost. I never argue for some utopian fantasy world in which everything will work forever. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance(source seems to be in dispute; possibly Thomas Jefferson).[/quote]

I admit it changes very little. It is something to think about, though. Anarchy is, of course, an eternal constant, in some abstraction or another.

122

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I admit it changes very little. It is something to think about, though. Anarchy is, of course, an eternal constant, in some abstraction or another.[/quote]

I agree. Changes have to first come about via intellectual/philosophical means, then it must be realized that humans are humans, and that liberty has to be closely guarded. In my opinion, the most essential realization is that private property should truly be private property-if a governing body refuses to recognize that fact, I think it is time to get rid of that governing body.

123

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I admit it changes very little. It is something to think about, though. Anarchy is, of course, an eternal constant, in some abstraction or another.[/quote]

I agree. Changes have to first come about via intellectual/philosophical means, then it must be realized that humans are humans, and that liberty has to be closely guarded. In my opinion, the most essential realization is that private property should truly be private property-if a governing body refuses to recognize that fact, I think it is time to get rid of that governing body.
[/quote]

holy fuck , how can you closely guard liberty with out rules ?

124

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I admit it changes very little. It is something to think about, though. Anarchy is, of course, an eternal constant, in some abstraction or another.[/quote]

I agree. Changes have to first come about via intellectual/philosophical means, then it must be realized that humans are humans, and that liberty has to be closely guarded. In my opinion, the most essential realization is that private property should truly be private property-if a governing body refuses to recognize that fact, I think it is time to get rid of that governing body.
[/quote]
You really are hung up on private property. If it makes you feel better the government is not interested in regulating your underwear. Seriously, what do you even mean by private property? I don’t care if a dog is private property but if I see someone beating his dog to death I will stop him, with violence if necessary, and I like the idea that we have laws that concern the treatment of animals. Is that interfering with property rights? If the government recognized property rights as strongly as you want would slavery have been outlawed? I mean, that was the govt interfering with property rights.

Are property rights natural rights or a man made construct? The idea that someone can look at a mountain and say, “that belongs to me,” doesn’t seem like a natural right.

125

Yeah, “private property” for sure. When my home garden starts to be regulated, the government apparently DOES care about what I do on my property…

and this one is my favorite

http://blog.usfoodsafety.com/2013/09/28/health-department-raids-local-farm-to-fork-picnic-dinner-orders-all-food-to-be-destroyed-with-bleach/

126

[quote]NickViar wrote:
the state has overstepped its bounds.[/quote]
That I can actually agree with.

127

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
holy fuck , how can you closely guard liberty with out rules ?
[/quote]

Have I not already said that I’m not against rules? I’m just FOR private property. You can be as socialist as you want on your own property. I have rules on my property. I don’t have an open door policy here. I don’t let people knock holes in my house with sledgehammers. I should be entitled to spend my money as I choose. I should be free to retain my property without paying a cartel for its “service”-when I’m not, it’s time to fight back.

128

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
You really are hung up on private property. If it makes you feel better the government is not interested in regulating your underwear. Seriously, what do you even mean by private property? I don’t care if a dog is private property but if I see someone beating his dog to death I will stop him, with violence if necessary, and I like the idea that we have laws that concern the treatment of animals. Is that interfering with property rights? If the government recognized property rights as strongly as you want would slavery have been outlawed? I mean, that was the govt interfering with property rights.

Are property rights natural rights or a man made construct? The idea that someone can look at a mountain and say, “that belongs to me,” doesn’t seem like a natural right. [/quote]

Yes, you would be interfering with the property rights of another, and I would support that person’s right to repel your use of force by whatever means necessary.

Slavery would never have existed if the government recognized property rights as strongly as I want. No man can rightfully own another. The fact that you feel outlawing slavery is interfering with property rights is very telling. There is no more abhorrent violation of property rights than slavery.

I think property rights are natural rights. The first person to see and explore(mix his labor with-I don’t believe one can just look at the horizon and claim all as his) a mountain certainly had the right to claim the land he explored as his own as far as I’m concerned. After that, any transfer of that mountain’s land should have been voluntary. If the initiation of force is necessary to claim something, I would say that means it is not yours.

129

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
You really are hung up on private property. If it makes you feel better the government is not interested in regulating your underwear. Seriously, what do you even mean by private property? I don’t care if a dog is private property but if I see someone beating his dog to death I will stop him, with violence if necessary, and I like the idea that we have laws that concern the treatment of animals. Is that interfering with property rights? If the government recognized property rights as strongly as you want would slavery have been outlawed? I mean, that was the govt interfering with property rights.

Are property rights natural rights or a man made construct? The idea that someone can look at a mountain and say, “that belongs to me,” doesn’t seem like a natural right. [/quote]

Yes, you would be interfering with the property rights of another, and I would support that person’s right to repel your use of force by whatever means necessary.

Slavery would never have existed if the government recognized property rights as strongly as I want. No man can rightfully own another. The fact that you feel outlawing slavery is interfering with property rights is very telling. There is no more abhorrent violation of property rights than slavery.

I think property rights are natural rights. The first person to see and explore(mix his labor with-I don’t believe one can just look at the horizon and claim all as his) a mountain certainly had the right to claim the land he explored as his own as far as I’m concerned. After that, any transfer of that mountain’s land should have been voluntary. If the initiation of force is necessary to claim something, I would say that means it is not yours. [/quote]
So in your world it’s OK to torture living creatures, like dogs, as long as you own them? There are countries where that is legal and guess what, they are crap holes compared to nations where that is seen as abhorrent. I would take some govt “oppression” in regard to animal cruelty over living in 3rd world conditions.

Outlawing slavery was a violation of property rights. Now, had slavery never existed then that would be a different matter however, when you take the concept of ownership to extremes then it’s easy to see just how slavery can exist.

I also think the idea of doing what you want with your property might sound like freedom but many of the laws regarding what you can or can’t do with your property have to do with when what you do affects the property of others. So go ahead and spray chemicals on your lawn but if they get onto my property then there will be a problem. So it’s not so much your freedom getting violated but keeping you from violating the freedom of others.

The idea that owning a mountain is an expression of natural rights makes no sense when you consider that the mountain was there before you and will be there after. If anything, you’re renting and that’s another reason why you can’t do whatever you want. There are certain concessions regarding the future mature people need to make in a finite existence.

130

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
So in your world it’s OK to torture living creatures, like dogs, as long as you own them? There are countries where that is legal and guess what, they are crap holes compared to nations where that is seen as abhorrent. I would take some govt “oppression” in regard to animal cruelty over living in 3rd world conditions.

Outlawing slavery was a violation of property rights. Now, had slavery never existed then that would be a different matter however, when you take the concept of ownership to extremes then it’s easy to see just how slavery can exist.

I also think the idea of doing what you want with your property might sound like freedom but many of the laws regarding what you can or can’t do with your property have to do with when what you do affects the property of others. So go ahead and spray chemicals on your lawn but if they get onto my property then there will be a problem. So it’s not so much your freedom getting violated but keeping you from violating the freedom of others.

The idea that owning a mountain is an expression of natural rights makes no sense when you consider that the mountain was there before you and will be there after. If anything, you’re renting and that’s another reason why you can’t do whatever you want. There are certain concessions regarding the future mature people need to make in a finite existence. [/quote]

Nope, not okay. It should be legal, that’s it. I can do whatever I want to my animals and it has zero effect on you-you will not be living in third world conditions because you oppose the way I treat an animal.

If you believe outlawing slavery was a violation of property rights, I doubt we’ll be coming to any understanding of one another’s views. If government has any legitimate purposes, outlawing slavery is certainly one. In regards to the Civil War: it was a violation of property rights-outlawing slavery could never be such a violation-although I know it wasn’t the Union’s reason for going to war, the Union should have bought and released all the slaves(including its own), while allowing the Confederacy to leave. One CAN NOT own another human. One can unjustly control another human, but that’s it.

If what I do with my property violates your property in some way, you can sue me for the damages. I have ABSOLUTELY NO right to harm your property. You have ABSOLUTELY NO right to control my property.

You don’t believe in property rights, and believe we are indebted to and bound by future generations, as well as, I assume, past generations, correct?

131

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
holy fuck , how can you closely guard liberty with out rules ?
[/quote]

Have I not already said that I’m not against rules? I’m just FOR private property. You can be as socialist as you want on your own property. I have rules on my property. I don’t have an open door policy here. I don’t let people knock holes in my house with sledgehammers. I should be entitled to spend my money as I choose. I should be free to retain my property without paying a cartel for its “service”-when I’m not, it’s time to fight back.[/quote]

what about oil companies harvesting natural gas from under my property with out my permission ?

132

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
Yeah, “private property” for sure. When my home garden starts to be regulated, the government apparently DOES care about what I do on my property…

and this one is my favorite

http://blog.usfoodsafety.com/2013/09/28/health-department-raids-local-farm-to-fork-picnic-dinner-orders-all-food-to-be-destroyed-with-bleach/[/quote]

they regulate the fuck out of my garden :slight_smile:

133

@ nick , I have been trying to get at the nuts and bolts of how Nickyville would work . OK how and who determines if rules are broken and what can be done about it ?

134

[quote]NickViar wrote:
If what I do with my property violates your property in some way, you can sue me for the damages. I have ABSOLUTELY NO right to harm your property. You have ABSOLUTELY NO right to control my property.
[/quote]
That is incongruous. I can control your property as far as how it relates to my property. This is implied in your post. In Nickville a property owner can sue for damages but cannot do anything to prevent the damage in the first place?

And as far as cruelty to animals goes, yes, it does affect others. It does bring down the quality of life for everyone which can actually cause damage to property values. And since you admit that there should be limits on property ownership (as you say that one cannot do something on his property that will damage another person’s property) you open the door to the concept of limiting rights to animal ownership.

People owned slaves. The govt outlawed slavery. That was a violation of property rights as perceived by slave owners. The govt can and does restrict what can and can’t be owned and again, you don’t have a problem with that. So if the govt, the people, define what is and what isn’t property then it stands to reason that they can also define how exactly that property can be owned and treated. You can only own something when others agree that it can be owned. If someone is the first human to sail across a particular ocean he can’t claim that he owns that ocean. Well, he can claim it but whether or not he actually owns it would depend upon others acknowledging it.

135

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
Yeah, “private property” for sure. When my home garden starts to be regulated, the government apparently DOES care about what I do on my property…

and this one is my favorite

http://blog.usfoodsafety.com/2013/09/28/health-department-raids-local-farm-to-fork-picnic-dinner-orders-all-food-to-be-destroyed-with-bleach/[/quote]

they regulate the fuck out of my garden :slight_smile:
[/quote]

You like having your garden regulated, don’t you? lol

136

[quote]NickViar wrote:
You don’t believe in property rights, and believe we are indebted to and bound by future generations, as well as, I assume, past generations, correct?[/quote]
Of course I believe in property rights. I do agree with the second part because, unlike most Americans, I wasn’t raised by wolves.

137

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Well, he can claim it but whether or not he actually owns it would depend upon others acknowledging it. [/quote]

That’s a good point.

138

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Well, he can claim it but whether or not he actually owns it would depend upon others acknowledging it. [/quote]

That’s a good point. [/quote]
And you know this as well as anyone that all of these rights exist and are maintained because other people are willing to die for them. If a group of people, a nation, wants to put certain restrictions and regulations on those rights in exchange for that same group being willing to protect those rights with their lives then it’s a bargain. Nick cannot defend his property or rights by himself. If he wants the group to help him protect his property then he needs to accept that the group might put some restrictions on his rights. I mean, shouldn’t we also have a say when it comes to what we are willing to fight and die for? I am not willing to die to protect someone’s right to torture their dog.

139

After reading a lot of these posts lately, I’ve had a couple of possible realizations.

  1. No matter what structure we have, even in an Anarchist structure, you will eventually see some type of “government.” It can be as simple as a community council or something, but there will be something.

  2. I do not believe many people can argue with the previous. It’s just human nature; however, I think we see the problems we have today b/c the amount of control over such a large population.

I see a positive with having some sort of US Government, but unless it effects interstate trade of some sorts or something truly has an impact on the nation as a whole (perhaps defense), perhaps that’s where their influence should end. And then as you work your way down the “government chain” Fed → State → County → City/Town, the more influence/control over “personal” stuff can happen. This can then allow states, counties, and cities/towns to COMPETE for residences and business and such. At this time, my life changes very little moving from state to state or city to city, except maybe some minor annoyances. So much control happens from the Federal level. We all start to feel a little trapped. And then the response is “if you don’t like it, move to a different country.”

Instead, it can be “if you don’t like it, move to a different city/state.”

I dunno, just some thoughts here.

140

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Well, he can claim it but whether or not he actually owns it would depend upon others acknowledging it. [/quote]

That’s a good point. [/quote]
And you know this as well as anyone that all of these rights exist and are maintained because other people are willing to die for them. If a group of people, a nation, wants to put certain restrictions and regulations on those rights in exchange for that same group being willing to protect those rights with their lives then it’s a bargain. Nick cannot defend his property or rights by himself. If he wants the group to help him protect his property then he needs to accept that the group might put some restrictions on his rights. I mean, shouldn’t we also have a say when it comes to what we are willing to fight and die for? I am not willing to die to protect someone’s right to torture their dog. [/quote]

Like I’ve been saying, it’s about the scale and scope of the government. Like you I would not be willing to give my life so Michael Vick can hold dog fighting events on his “property”.