If you believe that private property should exist, you must acknowledge that property owners may discriminate against anyone, for any reason, at any time.
If you don’t believe that private property should exist, then you have no reason to oppose anything a government does, for any reason, at any time.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
If you believe that private property should exist, you must acknowledge that property owners may discriminate against anyone, for any reason, at any time.
If you don’t believe that private property should exist, then you have no reason to oppose anything a government does, for any reason, at any time.[/quote]
I disagree with both statements. However even if you can logically prove the first it does not follow that you can entail the second on that basis whatsoever.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
If you believe that private property should exist, you must acknowledge that property owners may discriminate against anyone, for any reason, at any time.
If you don’t believe that private property should exist, then you have no reason to oppose anything a government does, for any reason, at any time.[/quote]
I disagree with both statements. However even if you can logically prove the first it does not follow that you can entail the second on that basis whatsoever.[/quote]
If you don’t get to decide how your property is used, you don’t own it.
You may more accurately be called a tenant, and therefore have plenty to gripe about. In that case, your government is restricted from abusing you how?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
If you believe that private property should exist, you must acknowledge that property owners may discriminate against anyone, for any reason, at any time.
If you don’t believe that private property should exist, then you have no reason to oppose anything a government does, for any reason, at any time.[/quote]
I disagree with both statements. However even if you can logically prove the first it does not follow that you can entail the second on that basis whatsoever.[/quote]
If you don’t get to decide how your property is used, you don’t own it.
You may more accurately be called a tenant, and therefore have plenty to gripe about. In that case, your government is restricted from abusing you how? [/quote]
“Being restricted from” and “having to reason to oppose anything a government does, for any reason, at any time” are two astronomically different things.
I can have plenty of reasons to oppose plenty of things gov’t might do even if I don’t believe in property rights. It’s a Grand Canyon sized jump.
Further, if I decide that my property should be used in the execution of ritualistic human sacrifices that is plenty of grounds for the gov’t to come in, take me and put me behind bars for the rest of my life.
You must acknowledge the existence of limits to property rights in SOME form.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
If you don’t get to decide how your property is used, you don’t own it.
[/quote]
One of the self-imposed limits on property and rights by libertarians here is that you cannot use it to harm others.
Ergo, you don’t actually get to decide how to use your property. You can’t willingly choose to harm other people with it.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
It’s group think, collectivism, erosion of the individual, classlessness. It fits right into the rhetoric quite perfectly, and why they push it. [/quote]
Communism has nothing to do with social contract theory.
The foundation of the U.S., however, does.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Because the converse can’t logically exist.
No one is free to do anything. But, alas, we have freewill, thought and rational minds.[/quote]
No, what I consider freedom is thus- True, genuine absolute freedom to do whatever the hell I want. Free to walk to somewhere. Free to PREVENT someone else from walking to somewhere, and vice versa.
Free to reach up and touch my head. Free to punch someone in the mouth. Stuff like that. Just the ability to do things. It’s so freaking simple that I’m having a hard time even putting it into proper words.
But this “Free” is quite different from the “Free” that you’re talking about, I feel. I’m hesitant to even place the attach the word “free” to what I’m talking about here.
Enough about freedom. Let’s try to bring this back to the three natural rights DBCooper wrote-
“the right to life, liberty, and estate/property”
Since liberty is essentially the same as freedom, let’s talk about the other two.
What justification do you have for those?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
No, I laid out a very specific and simple red line. Once it hurts someone else, it no longer can be a right. As it isn’t universal.[/quote]
Which I think is completely arbitrary.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
You might want to unplug from the commie rhetoric as well.
Your last sentence is utter and complete garbage, and you’re smart enough to know it. You can’t even be serious here. [/quote]
If I deliberately undercut competition and increase my control of the market at the expense of them, I’m not harming them?
Or, a simpler example since I have no detailed understanding of business-
If my actions directly cause competition to close shop, did I harm them?
Adam Smith and Teddy Roosevelt both believe that no one firm should have enough power in the market place to really undercut prices, right?
No oligopolies in the free market?
[quote]magick wrote:
Free to PREVENT someone else from walking to somewhere, and vice versa.[/quote]
We’re talking about universal, inherent, rights.
If you are “free” to take away someone else’s freedom, neither of you are actually free. And if no one is free, how do you know who the rulers are?
[quote] It’s so freaking simple that I’m having a hard time even putting it into proper words.
But this “Free” is quite different from the “Free” that you’re talking about, I feel. I’m hesitant to even place the attach the word “free” to what I’m talking about here.[/quote]
What you are talking about isn’t freedom. It’s elevated status conferred upon you, and you alone, because you are “free” to take away the freedom of others.
[quote]Enough about freedom. Let’s try to bring this back to the three natural rights DBCooper wrote-
“the right to life, liberty, and estate/property”
Since liberty is essentially the same as freedom, let’s talk about the other two.
What justification do you have for those?[/quote]
Justification? I need to justify that people can try and survive?
I need to justify that people can keep what is theirs?
How about you justify why the opposite is true?
[quote]
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
No, I laid out a very specific and simple red line. Once it hurts someone else, it no longer can be a right. As it isn’t universal.[/quote]
Which I think is completely arbitrary.[/quote]
How is universally applied criteria arbitrary, yet your examples of “some people” having more leeway to do things, but others not, not arbitrary?
[quote]
If my actions directly cause competition to close shop, did I harm them?[/quote]
No. They failed to react to the market. They weren’t the best at that particular thing, and the market showed that to be the case.
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
It’s group think, collectivism, erosion of the individual, classlessness. It fits right into the rhetoric quite perfectly, and why they push it. [/quote]
Communism has nothing to do with social contract theory.
The foundation of the U.S., however, does.[/quote]
So your rebuttal amounts to “no”?
Okay…
There is no social contract, none. No single person has any obligation to anyone they didn’t birth, or voluntarily accept that responsibility for. People today aren’t responsible for the sins of those in the past, and society isn’t to blame for the actions of individuals.
There is no requirement, simply by being born, that one now owes any sort of anything to anyone in that group.
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Maybe I’m just being narcissistic (a distinct possibility), but I have a hard time believing that there’s any point in arguing with someone who would be in disagreement with the law after the above argument is presented to them.[/quote]
What if they reject the concept of natural rights?[/quote]
Then they necessarily reject the idea of civil rights.
[quote]FlatsFarmer wrote:
No oligopolies in the free market?[/quote]
On a long enough timeline, no. It’s impossible.
However, that is a long, long timeline.
It’s one of those areas where government intervention into the market makes sense, at least on a purely theoretical level.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
“Being restricted from” and “having to reason to oppose anything a government does, for any reason, at any time” are two astronomically different things.[/quote]
I tried to acknowledge the difference; however, “astronomically” is probably a bit of an exaggeration. You can certainly have a problem with anything, but to deny private property is to deny all rights-you would, therefore, have no reasonable basis for criticism of rulers.
Like I said, oppose anything you wish, but your opposition will look foolish.
Yes, the government would do that. Should it? Only if your sacrifices have not consented.
I believe rights belong to all humans, so I do not acknowledge limits on property rights. I imagine that you’re trying to make the “You’re saying that my liberty gives me the right to take your life? Gotcha, libertarian!” argument. No, if rights are universal, your right can’t step on mine. That is not a limit on rights; that is acknowledgment that everyone has rights.
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
If you don’t get to decide how your property is used, you don’t own it.
[/quote]
One of the self-imposed limits on property and rights by libertarians here is that you cannot use it to harm others.
Ergo, you don’t actually get to decide how to use your property. You can’t willingly choose to harm other people with it.[/quote]
That’s not a self-imposed limit; it’s an acknowledgment that rights belong to all. It naturally follows the existence of rights. The entity that chooses how property is used owns that property. You don’t get to use your property to harm others, because you don’t own them or their properties.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
That’s not a self-imposed limit; it’s an acknowledgment that rights belong to all. It naturally follows the existence of rights. [/quote]
This.
I typed a bunch of things in response Countingbeans. Then my laptop did something it never did before- It shut down, seemingly for no reason whatsoever.
I take that as a sign from God, and will respond to you next week.
[quote]magick wrote:
I typed a bunch of things in response Countingbeans. Then my laptop did something it never did before- It shut down, seemingly for no reason whatsoever.
I take that as a sign from God, and will respond to you next week.[/quote]
lol… Okay, that works, because I’m about to leave anyway until Monday.
Look forward to it.
Ha!
Good for them.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Ha!
Good for them.[/quote]
I have grave doubts about it working out when the previous attempt at this same thing resulted in jail time…
The Quaintances tried it in New Mexico in the early 90s.
Fantastic article that should be posted and shared everywhere with everybody.