[quote]kamui wrote:
non aggression =/= non violence
[/quote]
Wrong! It is the initiation of violence. Defending oneself against and offensive attack while still requiring violence is not “aggressive” behavior.
ag·gres·sion
â?? â??[uh-gresh-uhn]
â??noun
1.
the action of a state in violating by force the rights of another state, particularly its territorial rights; an unprovoked offensive, attack, invasion, or the like: The army is prepared to stop any foreign aggression.
2.
any offensive action, attack, or procedure; an inroad or encroachment: an aggression upon one’s rights.
3.
the practice of making assaults or attacks; offensive action in general.
Nobody buys this. It involves a claim to earth and water no man created, denying any other passerby or newcomer use, as if the the homesteader was the Creator. There’s no secular monolith with engraved instructions “Finders, exclusive keepers.” Property lines are no different than your hated borders…imaginary lines enforced by the at least the threat of violence. Mankind has not consented, without coercion, to the concept of one man being able to tell others they can longer enjoy a stretch of beach front property because a drop of their sweat hit a bit of dirt. Funny enough, your view of property has religious overtones. Mine is an honest recognition of how limited the world and it’s resources is, and the hard decisions which must be made.
I’m comfortable with private property. I’m also comfortable with recognizing the truth of it. Did you get consent from every human being as to how mankind will handle earth, water, and air not of their creation? Matter which even existed before mankind did?
Nobody buys this. It involves a claim to earth and water no man created, denying any other passerby or newcomer use, as if the the homesteader was the Creator. There’s no secular monolith with engraved instructions “Finders, exclusive keepers.” Property lines are no different than your hated borders…imaginary lines enforced by the at least the threat of violence. Mankind has not consented, without coercion, to the concept of one man being able to tell others they can longer enjoy a stretch of beach front property because a drop of their sweat hit a bit of dirt. Funny enough, your view of property has religious overtones. Mine is an honest recognition of how limited the world and it’s resources is, and the hard decisions which must be made.
I’m comfortable with private property. I’m also comfortable with recognizing the truth of it. Did you get consent from every human being as to how mankind will handle earth, water, and air not of their creation? Matter which even existed before mankind did?
[/quote]
Homesteading does not require “creation”. It requires only first use of land. Obviously if someone can expend the labor to build and defend a fence around a property line they can claim the property as theirs. Common law figured this stuff out years ago.
The State gets around this by building “a fence” around everyone else’s fences, and ta-da! A nation is born.
Homesteading does not require “creation”. It requires only first use of land. Obviously if someone can expend the labor to build and defend a fence around a property line they can claim the property as theirs. Common law figured this stuff out years ago.
The State gets around this by building “a fence” around everyone else’s fences, and ta-da! A nation is born.[/quote]
You’re not answering anything. You could’ve responded with “just because” for all that your last post was worth. Did you get unanimous consent, free of of any coercion, as to how man makes use of matter none of us created? There’s no “In the beginning, there was homesteading.”
As you said, someone pointed a gun at others and declared “this earth is now mine, and you can’t hunt for food on it. gather it’s wood for your fire, nor take water from the creek. I am willing to kill you to make it mine exclusively, though I have no more claim to it’s creation than any other man.”
The State gets around this by building “a fence” around everyone else’s fences, and ta-da! A nation is born.[/quote]
It’s my understanding that in your philosophy collective language is a no-no, only talk of individuals. So, individuals built this fence with the same arbitrary or spontaneous authority as the individuals and their fences within.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Heck, private property violates non-aggression. Don’t get me wrong, it’s the best we can do on our limited little rock here. However, I don’t pretend that a piece of earth comes into existence, assigned to every new human life born into the world. At some point, someone or some persons claims(ed) matter he didn’t create, and slapped an imaginary line around. Exclusive ownership over nature’s bounties, trespassers will be shot (or bonked on the head with a club, whatever). This concept of private property isn’t really like looking back at an infinite history of men creating the earth, air, and water. And then, selling it on the market. Or, simply sitting on it. Someone said, “I’m using this and you’re not, don’t test me.”[/quote]
So you not only want a system that works but the immaculate conception of such a system.
Yeah well, then you will indeed have to go to religion.
[/quote]
With such a weak response, I take it you agree.
[/quote]
Not really, you are adressing a non issue.
The only reasons could be a) the adress a minor, irrelevant flaw because you simply do not like libertarianism while ignoring the gaping wounds of conservativism or b) the quest for intellectual or moral purity.
The only reasons could be a) the adress a minor, irrelevant flaw because you simply do not like libertarianism while ignoring the gaping wounds of conservativism or b) the quest for intellectual or moral purity.
[/quote]
So, basically, “yeah, you’re right. It’s not a point that can be thought around.”
The State gets around this by building “a fence” around everyone else’s fences, and ta-da! A nation is born.[/quote]
It’s my understanding that in your philosophy collective language is a no-no, only talk of individuals. So, individuals built this fence with the same arbitrary or spontaneous authority as the individuals and their fences within. [/quote]
The State is a collective idea and that is why I argue against its legitimacy.
The only reasons could be a) the adress a minor, irrelevant flaw because you simply do not like libertarianism while ignoring the gaping wounds of conservativism or b) the quest for intellectual or moral purity.
[/quote]
So, basically, “yeah, you’re right. It’s not a point that can be thought around.”
[/quote]
It was yeah, you are right, you have found one tiny, utterly unimportant detail you can harp about, while ignoring that all other ideologies out there must bend you into a mental bretzel before you can take them seriously.
It was yeah, you are right, you have found one tiny, utterly unimportant detail you can harp about, while ignoring that all other ideologies out there must bend you into a mental bretzel before you can take them seriously.
[/quote]
Thanks, I knew I was. Not because I’m super intelligent, but because it’s obvious. I wouldn’t say it was tiny or unimportant when talking about private property being derived from a non-aggression principle though. That’s just obviously not how natural resources fell into human ownership, entering the market. Nor, could it ever be. There’s was/is no chance for unanimous consent as to how matter none of us created will be used, shared, left open for everyone, left open for none, or owned by individuals or groups. It took/takes force, aggression to even realize private property (or any other system). For it to be ‘claimed,’ excluding others, and putting it on the market.
It was yeah, you are right, you have found one tiny, utterly unimportant detail you can harp about, while ignoring that all other ideologies out there must bend you into a mental bretzel before you can take them seriously.
[/quote]
Thanks, I knew I was. Not because I’m super intelligent, but because it’s obvious. I wouldn’t say it was tiny or unimportant when talking about private property being derived from a non-aggression principle though. That’s just obviously not how natural resources fell into human ownership, entering the market. Nor, could it ever be. There’s was/is no chance for unanimous consent as to how matter none of us created will be used, shared, left open for everyone, left open for none, or owned by individuals or groups. It took/takes force, aggression to even realize private property (or any other system). For it to be ‘claimed,’ excluding others, and putting it on the market.
[/quote]
Not really, that is true for land and not much else and land is the least important factor of production now.
It was yeah, you are right, you have found one tiny, utterly unimportant detail you can harp about, while ignoring that all other ideologies out there must bend you into a mental bretzel before you can take them seriously.
[/quote]
Thanks, I knew I was. Not because I’m super intelligent, but because it’s obvious. I wouldn’t say it was tiny or unimportant when talking about private property being derived from a non-aggression principle though. That’s just obviously not how natural resources fell into human ownership, entering the market. Nor, could it ever be. There’s was/is no chance for unanimous consent as to how matter none of us created will be used, shared, left open for everyone, left open for none, or owned by individuals or groups. It took/takes force, aggression to even realize private property (or any other system). For it to be ‘claimed,’ excluding others, and putting it on the market.
[/quote]
Not really, that is true for land and not much else and land is the least important factor of production now. [/quote]
It was yeah, you are right, you have found one tiny, utterly unimportant detail you can harp about, while ignoring that all other ideologies out there must bend you into a mental bretzel before you can take them seriously.
[/quote]
Thanks, I knew I was. Not because I’m super intelligent, but because it’s obvious. I wouldn’t say it was tiny or unimportant when talking about private property being derived from a non-aggression principle though. That’s just obviously not how natural resources fell into human ownership, entering the market. Nor, could it ever be. There’s was/is no chance for unanimous consent as to how matter none of us created will be used, shared, left open for everyone, left open for none, or owned by individuals or groups. It took/takes force, aggression to even realize private property (or any other system). For it to be ‘claimed,’ excluding others, and putting it on the market.
[/quote]
Not really, that is true for land and not much else and land is the least important factor of production now. [/quote]
And ore, minerals, and other raw resources. [/quote]
Natural resources (including land) are one of the biggest costs and dampeners of production.
The biggest expense for most people is rent/mortgage payments! Because we have to constantly make these payments we have much less security…and this damages productivity like nothing else. Without significant security most of us cannot perform optimally. I could automate everything in my current job, but I know that if I do then I will likely lose the job, which in the current economy would be suicide. I would I might lose my house. And I am not the exception, many jobs could be optimized out of existence but employees don’t want to do it because then how would they pay the mortgage? It is just too risky.
Likewise, if I didn’t have rent to pay, then I could work on my own projects. 10 hours of work/wk is easily enough to pay for my transport, food, and entertainment costs.
Not to mention the fundamental shift in power in the financial sector that would result if people didn’t have to pay mortgages etc. Banks would have 1/10th (if that) of the power they currently do.
For example the average mortgage in Australia (where I am living atm) is $300,000-$360,000! At around 6-7% interest. This puts significant stress on the homeowner and gives significant power to the bank.
And while land isn’t the only factor in house prices, it is the major one. When I built my house it cost less than $100,000 for a 4 bedroom 3 bathroom place. Older homes would be worth even less.
tl;dr - Land is an important safety net and building block. It still remains one of the most important kinds of property for the masses.
Edit: Edited to be more friendly and less of a jerk
It was yeah, you are right, you have found one tiny, utterly unimportant detail you can harp about, while ignoring that all other ideologies out there must bend you into a mental bretzel before you can take them seriously.
[/quote]
Thanks, I knew I was. Not because I’m super intelligent, but because it’s obvious. I wouldn’t say it was tiny or unimportant when talking about private property being derived from a non-aggression principle though. That’s just obviously not how natural resources fell into human ownership, entering the market. Nor, could it ever be. There’s was/is no chance for unanimous consent as to how matter none of us created will be used, shared, left open for everyone, left open for none, or owned by individuals or groups. It took/takes force, aggression to even realize private property (or any other system). For it to be ‘claimed,’ excluding others, and putting it on the market.
[/quote]
Not really, that is true for land and not much else and land is the least important factor of production now. [/quote]
And ore, minerals, and other raw resources. [/quote]
Not really, because not only is it right below the land, you also need to put some serious work into it to get the raw resources out of them.
Not only that but the argument of “someone 1000 years ago could pass along the land which they supposedly claimed” creating some sort of social strata of the have and have nots is pretty far fetched.
There are aspects of intrinsic value to land yes…but most of it results from improvements therein. These improvements and valuations can change with time. Something like the Bakken shale formation…I imagine land was pretty cheap there over a decade ago, let alone hundreds of years ago. However recent discoveries and ownership change the value of the land. The land is then being used for its most highly valued purpose. But if land is “collectively owned” How does the company, and ultimatley society realize the benefit of this marked improvement in land usage.
So there can be Positive externalities from Private property ownership. The negative externalities most oftenly cited from environmental concerns DO occur, but are still more easility mitigated than a tragedy of the commons.
My goodness, my goodness, how can I possibly respond to this post?
And why is that? If you are not using a religion for your moral basis then what are you using if not a secular or man made construct? Do you see a third rail here I cannot? It would appear that there is either a religious basis for a moral or a ‘man made’ rational one. Similarly if neither secular thinking or religious thinking can create a universal moral code what do you see accomplishing this?
You do of course realize that just because you are a libertarian doesn’t mean you, personally, cannot have a moral code that lies outside of the non-aggression principle (in so far as they do not conflict)? So for example, you could be a Christian and a Libertarian and there wouldn’t be a conflict (necessarily). You do get that right? Libertarianism =/= secularist or relativist.
It is a very tricky topic to say the least. I do, personally, think you have a moral duty to take care of a child. I do think that giving that child up for adoption could satisfy this too, but in some way shape or form you do have a moral obligation to the child until a period of self sufficiency. But again this is absolutely not germane to our discussion and I can only conclude it is a cheap trick on your part to distract from the fact you have been proved blatantly wrong on your original point.
Libertarianism, by virtue of the fact it has an absolute moral principle, is NOT a morally relative system. It fits every single characteristic of an absolute moral law, as can be seen from the definition of moral absolutism outlined previously. So the fact you continue on with this line of reasoning is pretty stunning. It is quite plain it has as morally absolute a principle as any other philosophy out there and this is not sophistry. Simple definition of which it checks all the boxes.
It is a null contract, because, get this, he has an ABSOLUTE right to his person and to not have unwanted physical violence towards him, so just as soon as he wants to walk away from that deal he can. There is no contract that could ever take away his ABSOLUTE MORAL RIGHT to his body. He can assent to violence if he chooses, but he can never concede his right not to have that moral right.
It would only be a red herring if it was distracting from the real argument- it is not. You keep insisting that libertarianism implies moral relativism because it lets people follow their own beliefs without the threat of physical violence as a result (again just like the system we have currently in this country). It may or may not condone their belief system morally (e.g. it would not condone an ideology that disregarded the individual), but asserts libertarians are not justified in physically hurting these people for this system even if it is flawed. The fact we do not murder people for disagreeing with us DOES NOT mean that we do not think there is a universal moral code or that they are not wrong. Can you see this very, very basic distinction?
[quote]No, I understand libertarianism just fine, and you aren’t off the hook yet. Despite your best efforts to talk around the issue, I want to cut right to the heart of it - what morals exist (outside of the “non-aggression principle”)?
Can’t wait for your answer.
Oh, and for bonus points - are public nudit laws unconstitutional if they interfere with a person’s religious tenet of nakedness?[/quote]
Are you sure about that? Because it really doesn’t look like it, although admittedly it doesn’t look like you are clear on what makes something relative or absolute either.
For the purpose of our discussion, the main premise you have based many of your objections on is the moral relativism you feel is implied by Libertarianism, correct? If that is the case, then it doesn’t matter how many principles are absolute- one is completely sufficient to destroy your premise.
The fact that non-aggression has as a subset of absolute moral principles against murder, rape, theft, and physical violence (just to jot down a couple) might satisfy your need for more absolute moral laws. If it doesn’t I would like for you to provide an example of your own different principles (not including subset items). But even if that does not, it doesn’t matter. Once again, even if there is only one absolute principle this is enough to refute your claim that libertarianism implies moral relativism.
Oh and do you mean unconstitutional or in violation of the non-aggression principle? Not the same thing, but I know recognizing important philosophical distinctions isn’t always that easy for you.
Constitutionally I don’t know, but my guess is it would not be, given the deference to states rights. But who knows if someone challenged it how it would shake out with the right judges deciding the case.
From a non-aggression standpoint, it would be fine. The right to no physical violence does not mean the right not to ever be offended. Suppose my religion or belief system said the color pink was sacrilegious, would you think the color should be banned if enough people agreed?
[quote]Nope, but nice try. The history of Man suggests not a trajectory towards freedom, but rather cycles where civilizations progress and then decline. And Humans have shown a penchant for embrcaing dreadful ideologies that hamper our progress and civilization, including a worship of the state (see Nazi Germany, Communist Russia) and abstract liberty (see French Revolution).
These are the convulsions of ideology - and are stark contrasts to this foolish notion of The March of Freedom Through History. If we aren’t careful to preserve our gains while rejecting these jaunts into re-designing idiocy (“if only we reorganize our entire society on the basis of Reason!”), we cause one of those declines.
We’ve made tremendous gains. This is the point I have making all along. I have no interest in undermining those gains by indulging in frivolous ideologies - like libertarianism.[/quote]
This is a very confused rejoinder. If we have, over time with ebbs and flows, made a net positive gain isn’t this a TRAJECTORY TOWARDS FREEDOM? I can make a line graph of what this would look like if that would help. The line would track upwards overtime FYI (sort of like an upwards trajectory!). The fact that this has occurred precisely because people have asserted their individual liberties in the face of their governments more and more over time seems to indicate that libertarianism is on to something, you know, because that is the heart of our philosophy and all.
You do of course realize that just because you are a libertarian doesn’t mean you, personally, cannot have a moral code that lies outside of the non-aggression principle (in so far as they do not conflict)? So for example, you could be a Christian and a Libertarian and there wouldn’t be a conflict (necessarily). You do get that right? Libertarianism =/= secularist or relativist.
[/quote]
Well, at least you ‘personally’ think so. Some of our libertarians would consider it an act of aggression (the conflict) to ‘trespass’ on the property of negligent parents to remove children. Since the parents aren’t actively being violent or abusive, but merely refusing to ‘service’ the needs and wants of others. In fact, they’d view negligence laws as breaking the non-aggression principle as it ‘enslaves’ one human being to others through the threat of force.
Me? I don’t care what anyone’s personal opinion on the matter is. I will demand action by the state against gross negligence.
