[quote]Dustin wrote:
What was your question regarding private property that is supposedly being tip-toed around?[/quote]
My interest started with;
[quote]
Dabba Wrote:
If I don’t pay my taxes I get a notice telling me to pay them. If I ignore that, I get a court summon. If I ignore that, they eventually come to my house to put chains on me and put me in a cage. If I resist I get shot and likely killed. Therefore, it is not voluntary. One group of men hundreds of years ago signing a document does not make it binding on me.[/quote]
This second statement led to me responding;
[quote]Dabba wrote:
Private property is attained through homesteading or purchase on the open market. The state simply seizes land and claims it as its own.
Sloth wrote:
I can’t help it, here. A common objection of the anarchist is that it his misfortune to be born within the borders of a nation-state, and under the thumb of a government. That there is an wrong- headed assumption to expect his consent. Indeed, he did not give his consent at the drawing of borders, or to the birth (or the form) of the government so how can his consent be expected in the present?
Yet, private property suffers the same issues. No man created the matter of the earth, the water, nor the air. Yet, men at some point siezed control–exluding all others from doing as they too wished with matter none created–of something that is not his. Land, earth, and ore didn’t materlize through the magic of the market place. No, force and the threat of, established authority over the land and it’s resources. The same establishes it’s borders…err, boundries. Private property assumes consent, and where none is given, relies on force. It doesn’t matter if I didn’t consent to people owning beachfront property back when someone first ‘claimed’ it. I just have to tolerate the tacky little house and shops ruining the scenery.
If the lack of unanimous consent of those past, present, and future is an issue with one, then it’s an issue with the other.[/quote]
You can follow from there or start from the very first post.
[quote]Dabba wrote:
I wouldn’t bother. These guys, well, they have tradition on their side. You can’t win. See, you’re just a whiny teenager full of “angst”.
I have had many a serious discussion about these topics with people who are actually curious about the ideas, and want to actually increase their knowledge (GASP!). Here it is clear that people just want to pad their world view and go into the discussion already knowing they are correct.[/quote]
I had a sneaking suspicion you were unserious. Turns out I was right.
[quote]Dabba wrote:
You guys are set in your ways, its fine, I understand, but don’t pretend like you guys actually understand the philosophy I’m putting forth when you refuse to actually read the damn stuff.[/quote]
No, your problem is that we do understand it and just disagree with it and point out the holes in logic. When you start off by saying “hey, I’ve got this nifty philosophy that pretty has it pretty much all figured out” and get reduced to answers of “uh, I don’t know” on some of the most basic, seminal aspects of human governance, then look inward for the problem, not outward.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
If I don’t pay my taxes I get a notice telling me to pay them. If I ignore that, I get a court summon. If I ignore that, they eventually come to my house to put chains on me and put me in a cage. If I resist I get shot and likely killed. Therefore, it is not voluntary. One group of men hundreds of years ago signing a document does not make it binding on me.[/quote]
I’m not sure what the point of this paragraph is.
And yes, taxation usually doesn’t come with an option.
What’s your question?
[quote]
Yet, private property suffers the same issues. No man created the matter of the earth, the water, nor the air. Yet, men at some point siezed control–exluding all others from doing as they too wished with matter none created–of something that is not his. Land, earth, and ore didn’t materlize through the magic of the market place. No, force and the threat of, established authority over the land and it’s resources. The same establishes it’s borders…err, boundries. Private property assumes consent, and where none is given, relies on force. It doesn’t matter if I didn’t consent to people owning beachfront property back when someone first ‘claimed’ it. I just have to tolerate the tacky little house and shops ruining the scenery.
If the lack of unanimous consent of those past, present, and future is an issue with one, then it’s an issue with the other.[/quote]
This paragraph reads as though you are thinking out loud. I agree with the observation, I guess. I’m just not sure what you are getting at.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
If I don’t pay my taxes I get a notice telling me to pay them. If I ignore that, I get a court summon. If I ignore that, they eventually come to my house to put chains on me and put me in a cage. If I resist I get shot and likely killed. Therefore, it is not voluntary. One group of men hundreds of years ago signing a document does not make it binding on me.[/quote]
[/quote]
That was Dabba’s post, not mine.
[quote]Dabba wrote:
I wouldn’t bother. These guys, well, they have tradition on their side. You can’t win. See, you’re just a whiny teenager full of “angst”.
I have had many a serious discussion about these topics with people who are actually curious about the ideas, and want to actually increase their knowledge (GASP!). Here it is clear that people just want to pad their world view and go into the discussion already knowing they are correct.[/quote]
I am open to discuss anti-state-ism and anarchisme.
here is my questions dabba if you want to answer them:
1: whats the difference beetwen a anti-statist and a anarchist?
2: If you dont have a state, why would it be either capitalist or socialist. would this not be up to the communitys, individuals etc?
3: have you read some old school anarchists like proudhon, bakunin, max stirner, kropotkin and malatesta?
4: whats the difference beetwen libertarianisme and anarcho-capitalisme? the previous debate made me confused, and I believed I knew this haha…
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]Dabba wrote:
I wouldn’t bother. These guys, well, they have tradition on their side. You can’t win. See, you’re just a whiny teenager full of “angst”.
I have had many a serious discussion about these topics with people who are actually curious about the ideas, and want to actually increase their knowledge (GASP!). Here it is clear that people just want to pad their world view and go into the discussion already knowing they are correct.[/quote]
Welcome to PWI.[/quote]
LMAO
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]Dabba wrote:
I wouldn’t bother. These guys, well, they have tradition on their side. You can’t win. See, you’re just a whiny teenager full of “angst”.
I have had many a serious discussion about these topics with people who are actually curious about the ideas, and want to actually increase their knowledge (GASP!). Here it is clear that people just want to pad their world view and go into the discussion already knowing they are correct.[/quote]
Welcome to PWI.[/quote]
Sadly, this is very true. Especially the way the words ‘correct’ and ‘wrong’ are used in posts when referring to beliefs and opinions. As if there is no room for other, equally valid views and positions.
Gotta love how a Carlin video devolves into the usual monkey throw shit, I’m (and so is my movement)smarter than you chaos that is TNation’s PWI
I haven’t seen a George Carlin skit in such a long time that the only thing I remembered about him was that he swore a lot. I have a much better appreciation of him now. Very funny. Thanks for posting the videos.