George Carlin on Religion

[Dabba]

[quote]phaethon wrote:
How boring. I’m nothing close to a Marxist.[/quote]

You said that you certainly don’t believe in private property rights. Thus, you are some kind of left-wing anarchist or Marxist.

No. My grand plan is not to act like a religious zealot about property. To understand that property is only legitimate within a larger social framework and thus some small allowances must be made for the good of society.

Well gee, I don’t, so stop riding in here on your white horse thinking you know exactly what I believe.

That is entirely subjective. You think it is HUGE over-claims whereas I think it is acceptable.

Fine, but you have yet to show why. I can show theoretically why it is a huge over-claim.

Untrue. Countries often buy and sell property. Now you could argue that they use coercion in the form of taxes to obtain the money to purchase in the first place; but again this is not always the case.

Yes, that is always the case.

[quote]I have done some research. I’ve read 100+ pages of forum posts on the issue and countless blogs. And it hasn’t been covered properly. The only proper coverage of it has admitted that property rights are not absolute (for instance there is an interesting article on mises on property easements).

You still haven’t adequately covered why it is different and evil when the state does it but not when the individual does.[/quote]

Well, genius, that’s because I don’t believe it is evil when the state does it. I simply believe that it is economically inefficient and undesirable.

Here’s the difference: The state can attain property in a way in which no other individual or group can. Yes, both private property and the state require force to maintain their property. But private property does not require force to attain (unless granted so by the state of course, in which case it’s more likely state property, but I digress). It requires trade. For example, in a stateless society, if no one took any action against anyone else there would be no violence committed. In a statist society, however, one can sit there and do nothing and still end up with people coming to their house to use violence against them (in the form of taxes).

And the difference between this and rent from a landlord? First of all, as was noted, that transaction was voluntary to begin with. “But he owned the land around me and I didn’t have any choice!” Fine, but the way that private property is attained in a stateless society is still far different than the way that it is attained now and from the way the state obtains it.

What you have to understand is that property is a form of law. In the absence of property rights, there is lawlessness. That is why some form of property is necessary in any “civilized” society. There must be a way to combat the problem of scarcity or there will be chaos.

[Dabba]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Edit: it should be noted, I am shamelessly riffing on Sloth’s point. Also, for noting this, I hope I buy good favor with him when the Anarcho-Capitalocalypse occurs and he gives me Colorado.[/quote]

You chided me in the other thread for making a “smug” and “really dumb” response and then you offer up this little nugget? Hypocrisy, I declare.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]Dabba wrote:

You chided me in the other thread for making a “smug” and “really dumb” response and then you offer up this little nugget? Hypocrisy, I declare.[/quote]

Uh, what? I was giving credit to Sloth for raising a point (which I piggybacked on and did not come up with originally), and then made a self-deprecating joke about it to Sloth? And you all balled up over it because it was “smug”?

Huh?

Good grief.

[Sloth]

[quote]Dabba wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
On the contrary, I acknowledge the need of authority to establish and maintain a society and, yes, a ‘free’-market. I acknowledge the unfortunate need to use force–or at least to threaten with the use of–in order to establish order in human society. I also accept that unanimous consent and perfect voluntarism can’t be a deal-breaker (or again, there is no private property in the first place), therefore, will not accept such an argument.[/quote]

Great. Never said it could be. Continue with your misrepresentation:

Private property without authority and/or coercion is mysticism (borrowing it from the other thread). Take my comment for example. Say I did stake my claim to cover all of the US land mass, what would you say to that? Too big? Based on what laws? What are the regulations of your homesteading then? What is the maximum size a claim can be made for? Who decided that size? Did everyone, past, present, and future consent? If not, can they then encroach upon property and do as they wish? Who says they can’t? Who made such a law for everyone?

The funniest part of all of this is that it applies tenfold to the state. Yet, you seem to ignore this part. And, I can’t answer all of those questions. No one can. The only thing that matters is what people believe is right and legitimate, and that is what decides property rights.

Allow me to make it easier, though. I claim only the lands presently held by the US government in the event of an Anarcho-Capitalocalypse. Am I still making too big of a claim?

Well, of course if you could purchase all of that land, go for it. I assume you can’t.

And this is where the argument fails. Because, relatively speaking, businesses take up a tiny tiny tiny fraction of land, especially compared to the government.

Private property doesn’t exist without authority and at least the threat of force to claim ‘imaginary lines’ (an anarcho phrase used for borders, I now use for property lines) on matter none created.

Holy shit. How many times have I mentioned that private property requires force? You are slower than I thought.

And imaginary lines on matter that none created, which we call private property, certainly doesn’t exist because of the unanimous consent and uncoerced voluntarism of everyone past, present, and future.

So, the solution is to then grant a massive amount of private property (the state) to a select group of individuals? Logic. Get some.[/quote]

Going to leave as is. I think common objections to the existence of a state have been obliterated. Well, that, or private property must also be rejected for the same common objections. But, the reader can decide. Repeating myself just gets boring.

[Dabba]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Dabba wrote:

You chided me in the other thread for making a “smug” and “really dumb” response and then you offer up this little nugget? Hypocrisy, I declare.[/quote]

Uh, what? I was giving credit to Sloth for raising a point (which I piggybacked on and did not come up with originally), and then made a self-deprecating joke about it to Sloth? And you all balled up over it because it was “smug”?

Huh?

Good grief.

[/quote]

Slow today? I was pointing out your hypocrisy - you got on my case in the other thread for being smug yet here you are. You know what, don’t respond, I really don’t care anymore I was just pointing out the obvious.

[Dabba]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Going to leave as is. I think common objections to the existence of a state have been obliterated. Well, that, or private property must also be rejected for the same common objections. But, the reader can decide. Repeating myself just gets boring.

[/quote]

Agreed. When you have no original points to make, you find yourself heading out early.

That, and I highly doubt you have even touched any serious anti-statist literature.

[Sloth]

[quote]Dabba wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Going to leave as is. I think common objections to the existence of a state have been obliterated. Well, that, or private property must also be rejected for the same common objections. But, the reader can decide. Repeating myself just gets boring.

[/quote]

Agreed. When you have no original points to make, you find yourself heading out early.

That, and I highly doubt you have even touched any serious anti-statist literature.[/quote]

If it’s filled with this kind of rebellious teenage angst, I’ll have to pass. Frankly, I’m dissapointed at the unpreparedness of the “anti-statists” to tackle the property issues I raised.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]Dabba wrote:

Slow today? I was pointing out your hypocrisy - you got on my case in the other thread for being smug yet here you are. You know what, don’t respond, I really don’t care anymore I was just pointing out the obvious.[/quote]

Uh, there is no hypocrisy involved - nothing I said was “smug”. I was goofing on the fact that I was stealing Sloth’s point to make my own; my comment was self-deprecating, rather the opposite of “smug”:

self-deprecating: conscious of your own shortcomings, apologetic, excusatory - offering or expressing apology

I thought your logic was (and is) faulty (your arguments have not been very persuasive or tight) - but I had no idea you were that clueless and infantile. Seriously - what you said doesn’t even make sense.

Our resident libertarians appear to be emotionally unwell. It’s getting weird.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]Dabba wrote:

…serious anti-statist literature.[/quote]

This is a contradiction in terms. There exists no serious anti-statist literature - by virtue of embracing anti-statism in light of logic and experience, it ceases to be serious.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Frankly, I’m dissapointed at the unpreparedness of the “anti-statists” to tackle the property issues I raised. [/quote]

I second that, and I think since Dabba has begun his descent into, well, not sure, I think it’s worth a recap:

1. Anti-statists have no bona fide, workable solution to dispute resolution in their stateless society

2. The anti-statist position as to whether a duty exists that says a parent is obligated to take care of their child: “uh, don’t know”

3. The anti-statist position as to how any property boundaries exist (and therefore a right to the property) given the lack of unanimous consent among everyone as to these boundaries: “uh, don’t know that either”

I’ve learned alot about the anti-statist position in this thread, and two things come to mind:

A. I am reminded why it does not have (and does not deserve) to sit at the table of legitimate ideas; it cannot be taken seriously

B. I am reaffirmed that the folks that endorse this theory would be the first casualties of such a world should it ever come to pass

[Sloth]

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[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]

That makes no sense. This is the exact same for any private property you choose to trespass upon.

If you don’t pay your rent you get a notice telling you to pay it. If you ignore that you get a court summon. If you ignore that they eventually come to your house and put chains on you and put you in a cage. Therefore, it is not voluntary. Your mother signing a document does not make it binding on you.

Just as you can leave the house you are renting you can leave the United States.[/quote]

Actually Phaethon raised the property issue first. Don’t want to come off acting like it was my idea.

[Sloth]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The problem is, and always has been, is your galactic naivete in assuming that you can achieve this unanimous consent to cooperate and maintain it over any period of time. If you could, there isn’t a version of “society” - market-based, commune-based, anything - that wouldn’t work.

These always fail, of course, because there never is a durable unanimity to cooperate, because humans are incapable of it. [/quote]

And TB got the unanimous side of it going. Just saw an opportunity to focus on the lack of unanimous consent (which is used to rail against government) with private property. And how that’s tip-toed around.

[PAINTRAINDave]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
…the folks that endorse this theory would be the first casualties of such a world should it ever come to pass[/quote]

I lol’d

[Sloth]

And lastly, I’d extend on the “duty to one’s child” question a bit. This is prompted by a “I don’t know” response to the question. I’d like the Rothbardians to take a crack at it.

Let’s shed some light.

It is the year 3020 in the ungoverned lands known as Rothbardia. A mother has decided she will no longer feed her 8 month old child. She’s not smothering it, dashing out it’s brains, or drowning it. She simply refuses to spend labor feeding it. The child is in the home, on her property. Fellow townsfolk become aware of the situation. A few make their way to her property, intending to remove the child and nourish it. She sees them coming upon her land, and yells for them to retreat off of her property before she shoots them stone dead. She doesn’t want them on her property and is adamant that no other will raise the child she doesn’t want. Would she be justified in enforcing her property rights, shooting and killing the would be rescuers? Are they the criminals?

[phaethon]

[quote]Dabba wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:
How boring. I’m nothing close to a Marxist.[/quote]

You said that you certainly don’t believe in private property rights. Thus, you are some kind of left-wing anarchist or Marxist.
[/quote]

I do believe private property rights are extremely beneficial to a society. I just don’t believe they are a natural right.

[quote]Dabba wrote:
Well gee, I don’t, so stop riding in here on your white horse thinking you know exactly what I believe.
[/quote]

I didn’t. You started this line of reasoning by bringing up how the state situation is completely different than renting.

[quote]Dabba wrote:
Fine, but you have yet to show why. I can show theoretically why it is a huge over-claim.
[/quote]

By what measure can you show it is a huge over-claim? Economic utility?

[quote]Dabba wrote:
Yes, that is always the case.
[/quote]

Not at all. My local council just had a few million dollars donated and used that money to purchase some land for a school. So it is not always the case that the state uses force.

[quote]Dabba wrote:
Well, genius, that’s because I don’t believe it is evil when the state does it. I simply believe that it is economically inefficient and undesirable.
[/quote]

Hmmm your original post seemed to indicate it was highly unethical. You were talking about men with guns dragging you away etc.

If you want to argue instead that it is ethical but there are much better alternatives then go ahead. That would make you a lot less of a maniac libertarian than I normally see around here. For instance you will never see lifty or orion make such claims. To them the state is evil.

[quote]Dabba wrote:
For example, in a stateless society, if no one took any action against anyone else there would be no violence committed.
[/quote]

Perhaps. But the initial distribution of property would be all over the place and can hardly be argued to be moral.

[quote]Dabba wrote:
“But he owned the land around me and I didn’t have any choice!” Fine, but the way that private property is attained in a stateless society is still far different than the way that it is attained now and from the way the state obtains it.
[/quote]

But I thought we had already decided that how land was obtained hundreds of years ago has no bearing?

I don’t think the US state has attained much more land in the last 50 years outside its borders. And within its borders…well that has always been subject to US laws as a condition of purchase; so it is no different than purchasing an apartment and having certain restrictions upon what you can do set by building management.

So there isn’t really a firm ethical foundation for supreme property rights when looked at in a practical sense.

[quote]Dabba wrote:
What you have to understand is that property is a form of law. In the absence of property rights, there is lawlessness. That is why some form of property is necessary in any “civilized” society. There must be a way to combat the problem of scarcity or there will be chaos.[/quote]

Certainly. You are now treating it as an economic issue whereas previously you were treating it as an ethical issue (men with guns taking you away etc).

[phaethon]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[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]

That makes no sense. This is the exact same for any private property you choose to trespass upon.

If you don’t pay your rent you get a notice telling you to pay it. If you ignore that you get a court summon. If you ignore that they eventually come to your house and put chains on you and put you in a cage. Therefore, it is not voluntary. Your mother signing a document does not make it binding on you.

Just as you can leave the house you are renting you can leave the United States.[/quote]

Actually Phaethon raised the property issue first. Don’t want to come off acting like it was my idea.[/quote]

Well actually I think from what you just quoted it is clear that Dabba brought up the property issue first.

[Dustin]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

And TB got the unanimous side of it going. Just saw an opportunity to focus on the lack of unanimous consent (which is used to rail against government) with private property. And how that’s tip-toed around.[/quote]

What was your question regarding private property that is supposedly being tip-toed around?

[Dabba]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Frankly, I’m dissapointed at the unpreparedness of the “anti-statists” to tackle the property issues I raised. [/quote]

I second that, and I think since Dabba has begun his descent into, well, not sure, I think it’s worth a recap:

1. Anti-statists have no bona fide, workable solution to dispute resolution in their stateless society

2. The anti-statist position as to whether a duty exists that says a parent is obligated to take care of their child: “uh, don’t know”

3. The anti-statist position as to how any property boundaries exist (and therefore a right to the property) given the lack of unanimous consent among everyone as to these boundaries: “uh, don’t know that either”

I’ve learned alot about the anti-statist position in this thread, and two things come to mind:

A. I am reminded why it does not have (and does not deserve) to sit at the table of legitimate ideas; it cannot be taken seriously

B. I am reaffirmed that the folks that endorse this theory would be the first casualties of such a world should it ever come to pass[/quote]

I’m done. When there is this much misrepresentation and attempted gang rape, it’s fucking pointless. 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.

[Dabba]

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

And TB got the unanimous side of it going. Just saw an opportunity to focus on the lack of unanimous consent (which is used to rail against government) with private property. And how that’s tip-toed around.[/quote]

What was your question regarding private property that is supposedly being tip-toed around?

[/quote]

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.

[John_S1]

[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.