|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:It'd be a waste of money (like the last few times he got red texted) because it'll vanish when he inevitably gets banned again. I suppose so, but I guess I'd like his love of false consensus arguments to be prominently displayed someplace as a warning to others. Perhaps his next Leper's Colony entry instead?
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 17:40 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I find it strange that you would even think this is some sort of trump card where you just disproved the validity of the non-aggression principle. Name any other principle held by anyone and I could construct an unlikely extreme hypothetical where the proponents would break their professed principles if pushed far enough. That proves nothing. The people in these scenarios are not breaking our principles or theirs, only yours. We are asking you why we should accept your principle, and pointing to circumstances in which it is so obviously unappealing that even you don't want to keep it. We are not concerned about your strength of character! We are showing you cases in which your principle should be rejected, because it leads to unethical outcomes. To make this clearer, consider the case where I can only save a penniless orphan's life by stealing Bill Gates's dinner. I have no emotional attachment to the orphan, I may even dislike him or her intensely; and I am well fed, comfy, and in full possession of my faculties. So I am not 'desperate' or 'pushed' at all. I am not breaking my principles in extremis. On the contrary, I am trying to do the morally right thing: and the morally right thing is to steal Bill Gates's dinner and save that orphan's life. jrodefeld posted:The purpose of principle and ethics is to provide a standard from which to judge good behavior and distinguish it from bad behavior. So if we adopt your principle, we should think that letting that orphan starve is 'good behaviour'. We don't. Do you?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
80% of libertarians voted for Romney and 5% for Obama. So 85% of libertarians voted for a statist in 2012. Hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
Come on down everybody, and sign up for my One Moral Principle. I would explain how it's naturally superior and will prevail over all other forces in history but it's frightfully difficult for most commoners to understand. Wait who's this lurking in my bedsheets?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
Uh, no Caros, we actually became involved in both World Wars because the
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
Arri posted:80% of libertarians voted for Romney and 5% for Obama. So 85% of libertarians voted for a statist in 2012. Hilarious. Libertarians, the group that is 96% white, not voting for a black man? Color me shocked.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
quote:Libertarians are not concerned with property "above all else". We are concerned with the initiation of force. It would seem quite odd for you to criticize an anti-rape advocacy group for caring about property "above all else". In that case the anti-rape advocate would be protecting the property rights of women to their own bodies. The libertarians are doing precisely the same thing yet we are criticized for it? Everyone owns property and aggression against that property is an act of violence. Bullshit. All rights are property rights in a libertarian society. You are concerned with initiation of force only because it infringes on property rights. Saying that you put property above all wealth is factually true because you believe that even human life is merely one more form of property. quote:What you are trying to do is make libertarians and Austrian economists out to be born with a silver spoon in their mouths, owners of massive wealth who just want to protect their own wealth. You are missing my point. I was replying to a post where you begged the question over whether I believed that modern economists could be 'bought'. I replied by begging the exact same question back at you. I think mine is rather more poignant because Austrian economics and libertarianism in general is incredibly focused on private property to the exclusion of all else. It is all about what is mine being mine, and yours being yours. This gives it special appeal to people who already 'have theirs' and thus can say gently caress you got mine. This is why libertarianism is 94% non-hispanic white, primarily men. Because it appeals to people who already succeeded. An ideology that appeals to people who have already succeeded will inevitably pull in people like the Koch's who are at once true-believers and willing to spend billions to try and make their ideas ascendant over others, even if it requires setting up faulty science to do it. My point is that you are accusing Keynesian economics of something that austrians are also entirely guilty of. If both sides are subject to it then what is the point in even arguing over it? quote:You are making a big deal out of something that has no real relevance to the point I was making. Yes, I said Mises' work was released in English in the "late 30s". I was going off of memory and the very fact that I gave a rough estimate rather than a specific date should have clued you to that fact. I was in error but the point stands regardless. The Theory of Money and Credit came out too late to have the impact it might have had before the Keynesian revolution took full effect. Pointing out that you made factually untrue statement = making too big a deal. Gotcha. quote:I'm going to deal with this more when it comes up later because it is better to deal with it all in one go. Ooh, a Mises.Org link from Murray Rothbard! Surely the man who thinks that a free-flowing market in human loving children will know everything there is to know about the great depression and couldn't possibly be lying in an attempt to justify a wrongheaded viewpoint about the Great Depression. Herbert Hoover did almost nothing to stop the depression. The policies that he did implement were small and in many cases forced through by a congress that wisely knew that sitting on your rear end while the world burned was not the thing to do. Hoover' policy on the great depression, in his own words was a "trickle-down" approach wherein he would attempt to support some businesses and recommend policies that would help them get back on their feet. I could argue this point with you for hours but we're literally on our fourth round of this particular debate, and you are living in a fantasy land. There is nothing I can say that will convince you that you are wrong, because the only sources that you read/will provide are people featured on Mises.Org. Its like trying to tell someone how the civil war ended when they only read Harry Turtledove novels for their history. quote:Yes the economy crashed due to the stock market crash of 1929. But WHY did the stock market crash in 1929? How can you just dismiss the question of "why" and just assume that these instabilities are just some inherent feature of capitalism? Due to a loss of aggregate demand. Businesses had been expanding and producing more and more goods, and when demand eventually tapered off the stock market crashed. The stock market crash caused a loss of consumer confidence which lowered aggregate demand which meant that buinesses were sitting on large stockpiles of goods that they could not sell which meant... etc. A feedback loop that caused an economic crash. quote:The economy improved after we went off the gold standard? That's funny, I thought our economy continued in Depression for another decade culminating in the second World War. THAT is success? FDR stole the gold from private citizens so they could suffer through another decade of double digit unemployment and hard times? The official end of the great depression by actual loving economists indicates that the US left recession in late 1933, the same year they left the gold standard. The US had economic improvements for four straight years until a double dip recession in 1937-38, and then continued to grow every year thereafter until the post-war recession in 1945 due to the drawdown (there actually was a recession in 45, if only just technically). Are you denying the empirical fact that the US had economic growth from 1933-1937 and from 1938-1943? Because that is what you'd be saying if you are arguing that the US continued in depression for another decade. That is to say, are you sure you want to lie about an easily proven fact. Or are you merely arguing that since the US didn't immediately bounce back to where they were pre-recession (which never happens in a long recession) that the recession didn't end. Also stop redefining words. FDR didn't loving steal anything. A recession doesn't mean 'bad economic times' it means that the economy is shrinking. Words mean things Jrodefeld.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:What are you talking about? Keynesian style policies were what proved effective at curbing the great depression? Even non-Austrian economists and historians are conceding that the economic interventions of the 1930s proved ineffective or harmful to economic recovery. The record is quite clear on this subject. I've written enough on my previous post on this subject. Read that first. Yes Jrodefeld. It turns out that stimulating the economy with massive spending during a big recession is what got people out of the recession. This is true pretty much anywhere you look in the world during the course of the great recession. The fact that you can find some Non-Austrians that say that public spending during the depression does not defeat the vast, overwhelming evidence from tens of thousands of economists over the course of the century. The record is entirely clear on this subject. That said, way to dodge the post you were quoting. I'm going to reiterate it here again because I think it is really important for you to answer this one: Mises was the chief economist for the Austrian Chamber of Commerce and was a lead advisor for both governments that were in power in Austria during their great depression, only leaving when the Nazis came to power in Austria. Here is a quote from Mises.Org: quote:Then after the Great Depression hit, he wrote again in 1931. His essay was called: "The Causes of the Economic Crisis." And the essays kept coming, in 1933 and 1946, each explaining that the business cycle results from central-bank generated loose money and cheap credit, and that the cycle can only be made worse by intervention. So... yeah. Despite being in a position of power and influence in Austria he did exactly gently caress and all to curb their great depression. So why exactly should we listen to him? Especially when Keynesian style policies were what proved effective at curbing the great depression. Ludwig Von Mises was a chief economic advisor in Austria. Why did austria do no better in escaping the recession. Surely if his ideas are so revolutionary Austria should have avoided the recession, or at least not suffered it at the same length and difficulty as the US (it did until the Nazis showed up incidentally)
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
The constant redefinition of words to suit one's own purposes is basically Baby's First Sophistry. Ayn Rand used "X, which is really to say Y" pretty constantly across her writings. As with Rand, it's interesting and amusing to see how often a devoted and earnest ideologue like jrod resorts to it: it strongly suggests that he has taken himself in with his own nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
I don't know Caros, I'm willing to allow that he is at least partly concerned with the initiation of force. It's also pretty clear that he has come to an incredibly immoral conclusion about it, too. It's a fact that at some point someone in society is going to need to be dealt with by force for whatever reason. They may be directly attacking someone, in which case Statists and AnCaps agree that self-defense is warranted, or they may be indirectly harming a person or group of people. Statists believe that we should have have a pre-determined set of guidelines on when and how to apply force against the latter situation and that these rules should apply to everybody and that there should be some manner of oversight that the people have control over. Jrod and other AnCaps believe that it should be left up to mob rule. Whether you call these mobs DRO, PMCs, or whatever else they want to call, it all boils down to an ad hoc group of angry people with torches and pitchforks. The only possible oversight these groups have is that if they somehow fail to meet expectations then people won't pay them. That's it. I don't know about anyone else, but hiring the cheapest band of thugs to enforce your will doesn't sound like "justice".
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:I'm kind of surprised that jrodefeld doesn't have a big red text saying "SURELY WE CAN AGREE THAT I AM BOGGLINGLY STUPID" yet. His self-selected avatar bearing the image of his adored Murray Rothbard, noted racialist and lover of Nazi science is already a better warning to others than any avatar I could think to purchase.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I think these "lifeboat scenarios" don't prove nearly as much as you think they do. You think that by getting me to admit that if I was starving I would violate the non-aggression principle to survive, that somehow discredits libertarianism. I think this is ridiculous. You're missing the point of the example, this is clear from your counter-example of cannibalism. Take the cannibal. I can say "I am morally opposed to cannibalism." but if push came to shove, who knows, I might actually eat a person. The difference between my opposition to cannibalism and the non-aggression principle is that my opposition to cannibalism is not the keystone to an entire moral system, while the Non-Aggression principle is. For Ancapism to work, the Non-Aggression Principle must be inviolate. Aggression against another must always be immoral. There is no subjectivity here, there is no option for "Well okay in this circumstance" because if there is a moral greyness, or if there is a tact approval of a violation of the NAP, then the whole thing comes crumbling down If I am stranded on a mountaintop and I eat some motherfucker to stay alive, normal people with non-cultist obsessive morals will have mixed feelings. Some people will say I'm a monster, others will say that it was a bad thing for a good cause. It also depends on whether I killed him to survive, etc. With the NAP it has to be wrong. If people forcibly appropriate food, or water or whatever from someone you have to say "This is morally indefensible" because if you argue that it is okay in this circumstance, they they are doing it because they have to, then the rule is no longer absolute. If it is okay to steal food from someone to live, why not for healthcare, or food stamps, or... This is the problem with moral absolutism, its the reason you don't much see it out religious observance, because human morality is subjective. So lets see what you have to say about it. quote:It shouldn't be too hard to see the absurdity of this line of argument. The bolded section is pretty important IMHO. The fact that you believe that society would criticize him heavily says a ton, because it implies that you, and even your proposed society, believe that letting a person starve to death when you can prevent it is morally wrong. The fact is that you believe the person, or people who steal to survive are morally in the right. You believe that in certain circumstances it is the morally correct thing to do to steal to survive. So why is taxation wrong? If it is okay to steal to survive then the Non-Aggression Principle, which argues that force is inherently illegitimate, is flawed. If it the NAP is not universal, then it is subjective. If it is subjective then we aren't arguing whether it can be morally violated, we're arguing over when it should be morally violated. Edit: Hey Who What Now, I challenged him first. Get to the back of the line you statist! [quote] jrodefeld posted:I get it. You want to use violence against me for following my conscience and wanting no part of your central planning and redistribution schemes. The difference between you and me is that I DON'T want to commit violence against you. I don't want you thrown in a cage for acting in any peaceful way you might wish. You can voluntarily organize with other lefties and experiment with any social organization you please. To summarize. WHAAAAAAAAAAAAA. Jrodefeld, I've often seen you, and other libertarians make the argument that "Oh I don't want to tell you whether or not you can have a state, so why should you be able to force me to be in one?" Well the simple fact is that we have been born into a world with states. Believe me when I say I would be more than loving happy to give you and every other libertarian the opportunity to carve out your own little libertarian paradise somewhere and leave the rest of us in our statist hellscape. When people suggest you go to Somalia, that is what they are getting at. Whether you accept this fact or not, most people like having a state. Most people enjoy the protections and the benefits it gives us, and your ideas are not convincing to the vast majority of people (Such as only 6% of non-whites). We are not oppressing you. No one here is going "YEAH! KEEP THOSE drat AN-CAPS DOWN!" we are simply looking at our current society, and your proposed society, and deciding that we like our current one better. Caros fucked around with this message at 18:48 on Nov 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:jrodefeld, if you're serious about wanting to have a spoken debate then I would be very interested in having a debate on the ethics of the NAP and a hypothetical Libertarian stateless society. I understand you can't do it immediately and I'm willing to wait to hash out a good time to do it. You wouldn't even have to get a webcam, I don't have on either and I'd be willing to place the audio over images when it's posted for posterity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Why I mean by that is simply the non-aggression principle. Acts of aggression should be illegal. All other acts should be legal. What is aggression or not aggression is determined by the concept of private property rights, which come into existence through homesteading or original appropriation. Hey, I asked this before but you ignored it, but what did aggression mean? How do you possibly decide what's aggressive? How can you say aggression is always bad?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:You don't understand. Today, the State permits businesses to violate private property rights through pollution, they permit them to gain monopoly privilege through subsidies and to do a myriad of things that would be illegal under libertarian law. Throughout this and other threads, you have advocated for a "stateless" society. In your description of an ideal society, libertarian law is 100% voluntary; no one forces you to do anything. You need to provide motivation for why business people would agree to be bound by libertarian law and why they would choose not to break those laws, potentially in subtle and undetectable ways. For instance, if dumping mercury into the river is going to improve my profit margin by 1%, and if I'm able to dump mercury in a way that can't be traced back to me, then what aspects of ancap libertarian society are going to prevent me from doing this? Are DROs going to inspect my facilities to ensure that I'm not dumping mercury into the river? If so, how is this any different than state regulation? If business owners are going to voluntarily agree to not pollute tomorrow, in the absence of a state, then why wouldn't they agree to not pollute today, in the presence of one? State privilege has nothing to do with the personal decision to pollute; nearly every industrial process produces pollution. Even business owners without a monopoly or any state privilege choose to pollute. It's not the state that causes them to pollute, it's greed. The only way to curb this greed is with intervention from a stronger 3rd party. If this is going to be a DRO, then you need to establish why a business owner is going to join a DRO that inspects his facilities (rather than a DRO that does not inspect and chooses to look the other way; the free market will provide these) jrodefeld posted:Critics of the market or of libertarianism like to bring up difficult situations like the one you describe but the real question that should be posed is this: what would the State do about this? Could they really solve such a problem were the market could not? Yes, that's the point of a strong regulatory framework! In places with weak regulation, pollution is rampant. In places with strong regulation, pollution is much better controlled. We have empirical evidence that regulation works. The market fails in this regard in every instance where the market is allowed to work, but we have seen that the state can succeed here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
Caros posted:Edit: Hey Who What Now, I challenged him first. Get to the back of the line you statist! You snooze, you lose! Literally in this case, since I'm guessing you were actually asleep. But I figured I'd give him a softball topic first to warm up and maybe even give him a little confidence before you smash him down.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
The short answer, jrod, to your question of "How would YOU stop pollution in a stateless society?" is this; you can't. It's impossible. Your Libertopia makes it impossible. There are no checks or balances on corporations; they hold enormous amounts of dollars in a land where the dollar is king. You imagine that the State is shielding them from Liablity; in the United States this is true, but more accurately, the State is the only one creating Liability in the first place, via Law and Regulations. Absent those, you have no ability to hold Pollution Inc. accountable. At all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
Jrod, do you believe in a Just World? Do you believe that a libertarian society would result in true meritocracy? Why or why not?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
"Heinrich Brüning and Engelbert Dollfuss did noting wrong. " -Jrodfeld.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
There must be some kind of secret truth about the material world that is apparent only to libertarians, because how else can you reduce all human interaction to property rights unless you're privileged to some kind of transcendental wisdom hidden from the rest of us. Reading people talk to Jrod is like seeing people try to argue with a chat bot that spits out essay-length garbage in response to reasoned arguments. Jrod, either you're privy to universal secrets none of us will ever understand or you're just wrong. Anyway the idea that cutthroat elites would suddenly play nice and polite with each other because of the Holy NAP is comparable to the belief in the inevitability of maoism third-worldism or santa claus. We have centuries of history of companies and corporations simply buying good press after intentionally loving over/murdering people for profit and then getting off scot free. Or just doing what they want to people and getting away with it because their victims were the wrong skin color/spoke the wrong language/were in the wrong place at the wrong time with virtually zero repercussions. And no it is not the Evil State that allows them to do this. Were it not for states we would all be slave labor for a tiny number of depraved ultra-oligarchs, or worse. Trusting good faith principles to keep totally anarchic societies in perfect equilibrium is extraordinarily naive. If you gave heroin to junkies so they can keep it safe for you, how much are you going to trust their promise not to shoot it the second you turn your back on them? Libertarianism is a religion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
jrod (or other an-caps/whateverists): what happens to intellectual property in libertopia? Patents, copyrights, and trademarks all only exist due to state enforcement. Should IP be eliminated? Or is this one of those things where DROs will somehow sort out a completely voluntary IP regime?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
You know who else was an Austrian thinker? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:jrod (or other an-caps/whateverists): what happens to intellectual property in libertopia? Patents, copyrights, and trademarks all only exist due to state enforcement. Should IP be eliminated? Or is this one of those things where DROs will somehow sort out a completely voluntary IP regime? A lot of An-Caps are actually totally against Intellectual Property in my experience. Because you can't like... own an idea...man. The ones I've talked to who are like that are usually the middle class males however, who mostly use it as an excuse to not feel bad for illegal downloads. I don't think they've actually thought it through.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
The issue here is clearly that Jrod insists on using the limited and imperfect English language. If only he'd use the pure, unifying imagism of Network Theory to disseminate his revelations, all would become clear.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:The issue here is clearly that Jrod insists on using the limited and imperfect English language. If only he'd use the pure, unifying imagism of Network Theory to disseminate his revelations, all would become clear. I really would pay to see Eripsa and Jrodefeld debate each other. It'd be two people who know nothing screaming at each other. It would be beautiful.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:If I am the first user of something, I homestead a piece of land and mix my labor with it, why exactly does another man have a better claim to that land than I do? This "mix my labour with [thing]" phrase is so goddamn weird it creeps me out every single time. Where does it come from and what cult invented it? They have broken the NAP inscribed on my heart and must pay.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
Perfidia posted:This "mix my labour with [thing]" phrase is so goddamn weird it creeps me out every single time. Where does it come from and what cult invented it? They have broken the NAP inscribed on my heart and must pay. I doubt she invented it, but it was a large part of Ayn Rand's justification for why brutally stealing land from the Native Americans was not only necessary, but also moral and correct.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:If I am the first user of something, I homestead a piece of land and mix my labor with it, why exactly does another man have a better claim to that land than I do? Because they may use the land more efficiently or to greater social benefit than you do. There are a lot of things humans need to survive. Individual ownership of land is not one of them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
Perfidia posted:This "mix my labour with [thing]" phrase is so goddamn weird it creeps me out every single time. Where does it come from and what cult invented it? They have broken the NAP inscribed on my heart and must pay. Locke posted:Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:A few have argued that voluntary slavery is indeed consistent with self ownership and libertarian theory. I disagree. Murray Rothbard explains why voluntary slavery cannot exist: ilkhan posted:You can't sell yourself because yourself isn't transferable. But you can rent access to your effort (job) / knowledge (consulting) / body (surrogates). Beyond that, what do you think a job is? A contract to rent your time and effort in exchange for consideration. Wait wait wait wait, what?! Why the exception for my person? I can sell my property any time that I want, and the buyer will have that property forever. Once it's hers, I can't get it back unless she decides to sell or give it back to me, no matter how much I might want or need my former property. But somehow my person, which is mine and nobody else's, is not for sale because Reasons. Sounds like nanny-statism to me!
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:I doubt she invented it, but it was a large part of Ayn Rand's justification for why brutally stealing land from the Native Americans was not only necessary, but also moral and correct. twodot posted:As far as I know, that's from John Locke: I think I will class this as Objectivist Alchemy from now on, though I still think it's a very strange formulation. Thanks, guys!
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
Man you chumps are worrying about owning land while I just declared myself the owner of all air. I hereby forbid all libertarians and an-caps from consuming my air (the rest of you are cool though).
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
Is Jrode one of those people who doesn't think that the New Deal got us out of the Depression, but WWII did? Or does he not even go that far?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Is Jrode one of those people who doesn't think that the New Deal got us out of the Depression, but WWII did? Or does he not even go that far? He posts such staggeringly dull walls of text I don't blame you for missing it, but he did claim last page (I think) that it's a given that economic interventions in the 30s failed at best and made things worse at worst, and that conventional history agrees with him on that. It was only one, out of many, things he is entirely wrong about.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
I Am The Scum posted:Man you chumps are worrying about owning land while I just declared myself the owner of all air. I hereby forbid all libertarians and an-caps from consuming my air (the rest of you are cool though). I mixed my labour with your air by farting into it. Does that mean that I now own that air as my personal property?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
mojo1701a posted:I mixed my labour with your air by farting into it. Does that mean that I now own that air as my personal property? no, it means you violated the NAP by invading his rightfully claimed air. He is now well within his rights under Libertarian Principles to murder you for this horrid transgression
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
Yeah for real in libertopia what would stop me, an ancap robber baron, from hiring some armed goons, and declaring an arbitrarily-sized dome of air around my turf my own private reserve of oxygen? So whenever the poor bastards living in my territory breathe, which is all the time, I can demand money from them for services rendered and take their poo poo. They're aggressing on me for taking my property, so I can legally initiate force against them. They could leave and live somewhere else I guess but what's stopping me from building a big rear end wall lined with
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
zeal posted:no, it means you violated the NAP by invading his rightfully claimed air. He is now well within his rights under Libertarian Principles to murder you for this horrid transgression I'm willing to look the other way if he puts the toothpaste back in the tube 
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
Question, when you mix your labor with the land how far down does ownership go? For example can I mix my labor with the land beneath yours by digging a tunnel? And when your house/farm/factory/whatever collapses my tunnel and kills me Who What Now fucked around with this message at 22:19 on Nov 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 17:40 |
|
|
It extends through the core. Welcome to China.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 22:22
|
|