jrodefeld posted:

Yes, I believe in defense. I would use violence only as an absolute last resort in resolving any conflict, including violations of property rights. I am opposed to violence which is precisely why I believe in private property rights. People need to know who has jurisdiction over the use of what scarce resource, or else conflict and violence are more likely. The entire point of assigning private property rights is conflict avoidance.

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?

If you don't steal my stuff or use aggression against me, I would never dream of using violence against you. I would only interact with you on a voluntary basis.

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 Am The Scum posted:

I'm willing to look the other way if he puts the toothpaste back in the tube

mojo1701a posted:

But I have privately-funded laboratory tests that prove that my farts are beneficial to your health and well-being! In fact, I should be charging him for the benefits that he's receiving!

My farts also smell like lilac.


Ugh, fine. Just let me and my army of lawyers properly construct the definitions of "toothpaste" and "tube" while I stymie every one of your proposals for an arbitrating third party that can help us resolve our dispute.

Who What Now posted:

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 slaves voluntary employees have you committed aggression against me?

SedanChair posted:

Also, if the whites could chase off the Indians because they weren't making adequate use of the land, this implies that whites could be chased off by someone who could make still more complete and efficient use of it.

jrodefeld posted:

What coherent concept of property acquisition is there other than original appropriation and homesteading?

jrodefeld posted:

Some pollution is something we accept because we don't want to die at 25, living a subsistence existence. We need industry to enjoy any sort of quality of life.

If we all accept some level of pollution, then it is not aggression since it is voluntary.

jrodefeld posted:

However, if pollution is excessive then you can prove damages, either to your health or to your property. Maybe the property value goes down, or your plants die early. Maybe you get sick easier or whatever. Then you should be able to compel the aggressor to pay damages.

Who What Now posted:

The best solution would probably be to kill myself because I wouldn't want to live in your totalitarian hellscape where voluntarily forming a State with like minded people was verboten. I'm very sorry no one wants to live in your nightmare world where loving thought crimes are met with punitive measures.

-EDIT-

And are you actually willing to do a debate or not? A specific time doesn't need to be set but I want a clear confirmation that you're willing to actually go through with it rather than just pretend that you are to make yourself seem more reasonable.

DrProsek posted:

Most modern states have a form of government called "Democracy" (from the Greek "demos" (people) and "kratos" (rule, or power)). In a Democracy, every few years the people get together and choose who they want to fill certain government positions. If a politician implements suboptimal policies or outright policies the people do not want, they will elect someone who will do that they want. I don't really know how you argue a senator has more job security than a CEO. I suppose if you look at the USA where a former senator can turn around and become a lobbyist it's true, but that's not a universal problem of democracy so much as a problem of capitalism in a democracy.

jrodefeld posted:

It is a myth that democracy leads to a more efficient State that more effectively solves social problems. In fact, as Hoppe has argued, I would wager that a benevolent monarch would do far less harm and probably more good for a society than a democratically elected Congress.

jrodefeld posted:

Senators have a great deal of job security. Have you seen the reelection numbers? Incumbents win reelection over 90% of the time. Even if the public is able to rise up and "throw the bums out" why would the new politicians do any better?

The incentive structure is perverse.

jrodefeld posted:

For a private business, there is a system called profit and loss which provides an incentive structure where they must satisfy voluntarily paying customers or face losses or even bankruptcy. Futhermore, anyone can compete for provision of those same services so people have options. With a State monopoly, people have no alternatives.

jrodefeld posted:

I don't like the service of the post office in delivery of mail? Tough luck, no alternative.

jrodefeld posted:

You would be on my side completely if I was criticizing a private monopoly. Yet when I speak of a State monopoly you rush to defend the monopoly.

Who What Now posted:

How else do you make creating a State impossible? You either do it through killing anyone trying to do so or through mind control, and I don't like either of those options.

jrodefeld posted:

It is a myth that democracy leads to a more efficient State that more effectively solves social problems. In fact, as Hoppe has argued, I would wager that a benevolent monarch would do far less harm and probably more good for a society than a democratically elected Congress.

jrodefeld posted:

It is a myth that democracy leads to a more efficient State that more effectively solves social problems. In fact, as Hoppe has argued, I would wager that a benevolent monarch would do far less harm and probably more good for a society than a democratically elected Congress.

ilkhan posted:

His point wasn't either of those, it was "let's come up with an idea to fix [x] without simply ceding the answer to a bunch of people with power over you and guns to enforce that power over you".

jrodefeld posted:

I still don't think you understand what I am saying. When I said "suppose creating a State was impossible" I was not suggesting anything about the real world. I was proposing a thought experiment, a hypothetical.

If you have never seriously considered potential avenues for positive social change that DON'T involve State violence, this thought experiment gives you the opportunity to change your habit of thinking.

Many leftists think that without the benevolent oversight of rulers, people would be completely helpless and unable to solve any problems. We will all supposedly be victims of the "rich" and of all the terrible bogeymen you can think up.

In reality, people have a great deal more power in the market than you understand. So if you start thinking like "what would I do?" in a market economy to solve social problems, to help the poor, to police business practices, then you would be able to recognize non violent solutions for a change.

jrodefeld posted:

It is a myth that democracy leads to a more efficient State that more effectively solves social problems. In fact, as Hoppe has argued, I would wager that a benevolent monarch would do far less harm and probably more good for a society than a democratically elected Congress.

quote:

From the vantage point of elementary economic theory and in light of historical evidence, then, a revisionist view of modern history results. The Whig theory of history, according to which mankind marches continually forward toward ever higher levels of progress, is incorrect. From the viewpoint of those who prefer less exploitation over more and who value farsightedness and individual responsibility above shortsightedness and irresponsibility, the historic transition from monarchy to democracy represents not progress but civilizational decline.

Nor does this verdict change if more or other indicators are included. Quite to the contrary. Without question the most important indicator of exploitation and present-orientedness not discussed above is war. Yet if this indicator were included the relative performance of democratic-republican government appears to be even worse, not better. In addition to increased exploitation and social decay, the transition from monarchy to democracy has brought a change from limited warfare to total war, and the 20th century, the age of democracy, must be ranked also among the most murderous periods in all of history.

Thus, inevitably two final questions arise. What can we expect? And what can we do? As for the first question, the answer is brief. At the end of the 20th century, democratic republicanism in the United States and all across the Western world has apparently exhausted the reserve fund that was inherited from the past. For decades, real incomes have stagnated or even fallen. The public debt and the cost of social security systems have brought on the prospect of an imminent economic meltdown.

At the same time, societal breakdown and social conflict have risen to dangerous heights. If the tendency toward increased exploitation and present-orientedness continues on its current path, the Western democratic welfare states will collapse as the East European socialist peoples' republics did in the late 1980s. Hence one is left with only the second question: what can we do in order to prevent the process of civilizational decline from running its full course to an economic and social catastrophe?

First, the idea of democracy and majority rule must be delegitimized. Ultimately, the course of history is determined by ideas, be they true or false. Just as kings could not exercise their rule unless a majority of public opinion accepted such rule as legitimate, so will democratic rulers not last without ideological support in public opinion.

Likewise, the transition from monarchical to democratic rule must be explained as fundamentally nothing but a change in public opinion. In fact, until the end of WWI, the overwhelming majority of the public in Europe accepted monarchical rule as legitimate. Today, hardly anyone would do so.

On the contrary, the idea of monarchical government is considered laughable. Consequently, a return to the "ancien regime" must be regarded as impossible. The legitimacy of monarchical rule appears to have been irretrievably lost. Nor would such a return be a genuine solution. For monarchies, whatever their relative merits, do exploit and do contribute to present-orientedness as well. Rather, the idea of democratic-republican rule must be rendered equally if not more laughable, not in the least by identifying it as the source of the ongoing process of decivilization.

But secondly, and still more importantly, at the same time a positive alternative to monarchy and democracy — the idea of a natural order — must be spelled out and understood. On the one hand, and simply enough, this involves the recognition that it is not exploitation, either monarchical or democratic, but private property, production, and voluntary exchange that are the ultimate source of human civilization.

On the other hand, psychologically more difficult to accept, it involves the recognition of a fundamental sociological insight (which incidentally also helps identify precisely where the historic opposition to monarchy went wrong): that the maintenance and preservation of a private-property based exchange economy requires as its sociological presupposition the existence of a voluntarily acknowledged "natural" elite — a nobilitas naturalis.

The natural outcome of the voluntary transactions between various private property owners is decidedly nonegalitarian, hierarchical, and elitist. As the result of widely diverse human talents, in every society of any degree of complexity a few individuals quickly acquire the status of an elite. Owing to superior achievements of wealth, wisdom, bravery, or a combination thereof, some individuals come to possess "natural authority," and their opinions and judgments enjoy widespread respect.

Moreover, because of selective mating and marriage and the laws of civil and genetic inheritance, positions of natural authority are more likely than not passed on within a few — noble — families. It is to the heads of these families with long-established records of superior achievement, farsightedness, and exemplary personal conduct, that men turn with their conflicts and complaints against each other, and it is these very leaders of the natural elite who typically act as judges and peacemakers, often free of charge, out of a sense of obligation required and expected of a person of authority or even out of a principled concern for civil justice, as a privately produced "public good."

In fact, the endogenous origin of a monarchy (as opposed to its exogenous origin via conquest) cannot be understood except before the background of a prior order of natural elites. The small but decisive step in the transition to monarchical rule — original sin — consisted precisely in the monopolization of the function of judge and peacemaker. The step was taken, once a single member of the voluntarily acknowledged natural elite — the king — could insist, against the opposition of other members of the social elite, that all conflicts within a specified territory be brought before him.

From this moment on, law and law enforcement became more expensive: instead of being offered free of charge or for a voluntary payment, they were financed with the help of a compulsory tax. At the same time, the quality of law deteriorated: instead of upholding the preexisting law and applying universal and immutable principles of justice, a monopolistic judge, who did not have to fear losing clients as a result of being less than impartial in his judgments, could successively alter and pervert the existing law to his own advantage.

It was to a large extent the inflated price of justice and the perversions of ancient law by the kings which motivated the historical opposition against monarchy. However, confusion as to the causes of this phenomenon prevailed. There were those who recognized correctly that the problem lay with monopoly, not with elites or nobility.: But they were far outnumbered by those who erroneously blamed it on the elitist character of the ruler instead, and who accordingly advocated to maintain the monopoly of law and law enforcement and merely replace the king and the visible royal pomp by the "people" and the presumed modesty and decency of the "common man." Hence the historic success of democracy.

Ironically, the monarchy was then destroyed by the same social forces that kings had first stimulated when they began to exclude competing natural authorities from acting as judges. In order to overcome their resistance, kings typically aligned themselves with the people, the common man.

Appealing to the always popular sentiment of envy, kings promised the people cheaper and better justice in exchange and at the expense of taxing — cutting down to size — their own betters (that is, the kings' competitors). When the kings' promises turned out to be empty, as was to be predicted, the same egalitarian sentiments which they had previously courted now focused and turned against them.

After all, the king himself was a member of the nobility, and as a result of the exclusion of all other judges, his position had become only more elevated and elitist and his conduct only more arrogant. Accordingly, it appeared only logical then that kings, too, should be brought down and that the egalitarian policies, which monarchs had initiated, be carried through to their ultimate conclusion: the monopolistic control of the judiciary by the common man.

Predictably, as explained and illustrated in detail above, the democratization of law and law enforcement — the substitution of the people for the king — made matters only worse, however. The price of justice and peace has risen astronomically, and all the while the quality of law has steadily deteriorated to the point where the idea of law as a body of universal and immutable principles of justice has almost disappeared from public opinion and has been replaced by the idea of law as legislation (government-madelaw).

At the same time, democracy has succeeded where monarchy only made a modest beginning: in the ultimate destruction of the natural elites. The fortunes of great families have dissipated, and their tradition of a culture of economic independence, intellectual farsightedness, and moral and spiritual leadership has been lost and forgotten. Rich men still exist today, but more frequently than not they owe their fortune now directly or indirectly to the state.

Hence, they are often more dependent on the state's continued favors than people of far lesser wealth. They are typically no longer the heads of long-established leading families but "nouveaux riches." Their conduct is not marked by special virtue, dignity, or taste but is a reflection of the same proletarian mass-culture of present-orientedness, opportunism, and hedonism that the rich now share with everyone else; and consequently, their opinions carry no more weight in public opinion than anyone else's.

Hence, when democratic rule has finally exhausted its legitimacy, the problem faced will be significantly more difficult than when kings lost their legitimacy. Then, it would have been sufficient by and large to abolish the king's monopoly of law and law enforcement and replace it with a natural order of competing jurisdictions, because remnants of natural elites who could have taken on this task still existed.

Now, this will no longer be sufficient. If the monopoly of law and law enforcement of democratic governments is dissolved, there appears to be no other authority to whom one can turn for justice, and chaos would seem to be inevitable. Thus, in addition to advocating the abdication of democracy, it is now of central strategic importance that at the same time ideological support be given to all decentralizing or even secessionist social forces; that is, the tendency toward political centralization that has characterized the Western world for many centuries, first under monarchical rule and then under democratic auspices, must be systematically reversed.

Even if as a result of a secessionist tendency a new government, whether democratic or not, should spring up, territorially smaller governments and increased political competition will tend encourage moderation as regards exploitation. And in any case, only in small regions, communities or districts will it be possible again for a few individuals, based on the popular recognition of their economic independence, outstanding professional achievement, morally impeccable personal life, and superior judgment and taste, to rise to the rank of natural, voluntarily acknowledged authorities and lend legitimacy to the idea of a natural order of competing judges and overlapping jurisdictions — an "anarchic" private law society — as the answer to monarchy and democracy.

quote:

I don't like the service of the post office in delivery of mail? Tough luck, no alternative.

VitalSigns posted:

If you have to insert the qualifier "benevolent" before your system, you're already question-begging. Obviously a "benevolent" monarchy would be better than a real democracy: it's benevolent! Other forms of government superior to real democracy: benevolent empire, benevolent Maoism, benevolent matriarchy, benevolent democracy, benevolent corporate oligarchy.

This is like the perfect distillation of Libertarian thought. Sure, real monarchies or real corporate oligarchies have pretty much always been horrible, so let's just ignore any possibility of rulers abusing their power and assume that they'll be benevolent

VitalSigns posted:

Wait wait, you're just assuming here that there's some level of pollution that we all accept in your society so it's voluntary. What if someone doesn't accept that level? Is he not justified in using retaliatory force against the person sending unwanted chemicals onto his property against his will?

If I'm allowed to use force against someone who walks onto my lawn and refuses to leave, why am I not allowed to use force to stop my neighbor's barbecue from blowing any hint of smoke onto my yard that I, as a raw-foodist, furiously object to being made to endure by his aggression?

jrodefeld posted:

You get it.

StandardVC10 posted:

Honestly the fact that Hoppe argues monarchies are more effective than democracies should tell you a lot about where his real priorities are, as monarchies in the classical sense didn't really respect anyone's rights at all; many believed that they were placed on the throne directly by God. More recent autocratic regimes have often been just as bad.

Caros posted:

jrodefeld posted:

You CAN bring up charges against someone for causing pollution. But, like any other property rights invasion, you have to demonstrate some harm. If you can demonstrate that harm, then the aggressor should be forced to pay you restitution.

Most of us accept some level of pollution because we value the benefits of civilization. If you are a radical environmentalist who opposes ANY pollution yet you continue to live in a large city, it would seem clear you are not serious about your convictions. You want the benefits of industry but you also don't want ANY pollution whatsoever.

People who have less of a tolerance for pollution can move into a rural area far away from any factories where the environment is more pristine.

All cars have some level of emissions to them. We accept this reality because some pollution is not harmful to health and the benefits to society outweigh the marginal increase in pollution.

Still, if ANYONE can demonstrate harm from pollution, they should deserve compensation for that harm. This would incentivize businesses to keep pollution low.

jrodefeld posted:

You CAN bring up charges against someone for causing pollution. But, like any other property rights invasion, you have to demonstrate some harm. If you can demonstrate that harm, then the aggressor should be forced to pay you restitution.

jrodefeld posted:

Most of us accept some level of pollution because we value the benefits of civilization. If you are a radical environmentalist who opposes ANY pollution yet you continue to live in a large city, it would seem clear you are not serious about your convictions. You want the benefits of industry but you also don't want ANY pollution whatsoever.

People who have less of a tolerance for pollution can move into a rural area far away from any factories where the environment is more pristine.

jrodefeld posted:

Still, if ANYONE can demonstrate harm from pollution, they should deserve compensation for that harm. This would incentivize businesses to keep pollution low.

Huckenstine's Appeal, Pennsylvania Supreme Court 1872 posted:

In the present case the kiln of the defendant is situated on an outskirt of the city of Allegheny. The properties of the plaintiff and defendant lie adjoining each other, on the hillside overlooking the city, whose every-day cloud of smoke from thousands of chimneys and stacks hangs like a pall over it like a pall, obscuring it from sight. This single word describes the characteristics of this city, its kind of fuel, its business , the habits of its people and the industries which give it prosperity and wealth. The people who live in such a city or within its sphere of influence do so of choice, and they voluntarily subject themselves to its peculiarities and its discomforts for the greater benefit they think they derive from their residence or their business there.
...
With these views in mind, an examination of the evidence in this case discloses no ground to move a chancellor to enjoin against the use of the defendant's kiln, and thus to destroy his business and divert his property from a legitimate use. The gravamen of the plaintiff’s bill is that the smoke and gases from the defendant's kiln injured and partially destroyed his grape vines and fruit trees and make his dwelling uncomfortable In regard to the injury to the vines and trees, and make his dwelling uncomfortable. In regard to the injury to the vines and trees which is the chief ground of complaint, the plaintiff's case is doubtful on two grounds. In the first place, his testimony as to the injury from the causes stated is counterpoised if not outweighed by the testimony of the defendant both in the number and skilfulness of the witnesses. And in the second place it is rendered more than doubtful by the testimony of the defence that the true cause of the blight in the vines is the nature, and cold and wet condition of the soil.

StandardVC10 posted:

Superior achievement, farsightedness, exemplary personal conduct, and massive inbreeding: the ingredients for a successful Natural Elite™!

jrodefeld posted:

Still, if ANYONE can demonstrate harm from pollution, they should deserve compensation for that harm. This would incentivize businesses to keep pollution low.

Who What Now posted:

Furthermore, if he assumes that we all accept some level of pollution as acceptable or even necessary, then why doesn't that apply to other areas of transgression? Why can't we all accept that some level of theft is necessary to not dying at 25 living off of subsistence farming? And why not call that theft taxation?

Vorpal Cat posted:

Monarchies: well know for respecting people property rights and not steeling anything that's not nailed down the instant they think they can get away with it. Also known for there stability and not descending into power struggles and pointless wars at the drop of a hat.

Caros posted:

And everything will go through them. According to him, back before we had kings, these natural social elite:

"Upheld ancient private property laws and applied universal and immutable principles of justice." Dovahkiin los ok dovahkriid

Because these people are genetically superior, and because of social/civil advantages, these Natural Social Elites will typically have children that will continue their line. As far as I can tell Hans Hermann Hoppe literally believes that human beings must be ruled by god-kings who dispense universal justice.

What. The. gently caress.

Edit: To be clear, Hans Hermann Hoppe doesn't like Monarchies either. He thinks that they rely too much on the whims of the common man, they are just better than democracy in that they still have one natural social elite on top. Hans Hermann Hoppe would much rather have many small cadres of individual, local natural social elites ruling over their own private fiefdoms. Hope this helps.

jrodefeld posted:

Trespassing is only aggression if you DON'T want me on your property.

Likewise, small amounts of emissions only count as aggression if and when they are unwanted and cause tangible harm.

jrodefeld posted:

This should be obvious, but the key component is whether the act is voluntary or not. Theft is, by definition, NOT voluntary. Trespassing is only aggression if you DON'T want me on your property.

Likewise, small amounts of emissions only count as aggression if and when they are unwanted and cause tangible harm.

Since most of us understand that some emissions are a necessary part of enjoying the benefits of a productive economy, they are not acts of aggression since they are voluntarily agreed to. For the most part people in cities go about their lives without major health problems causing by pollution, without serious damage to their property or the value of their property by pollution. However, if you do notice some tangible harm to you or your property, then you determine that the level of pollution has exceeded any reasonable standard and it becomes involuntary and an act of aggression. And you should press charges against the aggressor and get compensation for damages.

Now, what about some radical environmentalist who is against ALL emissions, is against industrialization and wants us to go back to "living in nature" without any semblance of "civilization"? Such people exist, who think humans are a cancer on the planet and want us to live like the animals in nature.

This is an extreme example. Wouldn't ANY act of pollution against such a person be an act of aggression? In the first place, any court system would have to be presented with evidence of damages before they could compel restitution. Simply opposing what others do with their own property in some abstract way is clearly not sufficient. You would have to demonstrate that the levels of emissions hurt your body or your property in some tangible way. It might indeed be subtle, but something must be presented to prove damages.

There is another problem faced by such a person. Let me use an example. Suppose I really hate noise pollution. I want my property to be quiet and peaceful and I consider any excessive noise to be a property rights violation. Then let us suppose I buy a house right next to an airport.

Could I sue the airport for noise pollution? That would be absurd. I know what an airport is and how noisy they can be yet I voluntarily purchased property next to it. However suppose a community lived in a very peaceful suburbs and people valued their quiet and serenity. Then suppose an airport was to be build right next to that community. Since the community was there first, they would be permitted to not allow the airport to be built since, by necessity, the building of that airport in that location would constitute a property rights violation. They should have to build that airport in another location, further away from peoples homes.

Similarly, if a radical environmentalist who hates ALL emissions and all industry voluntarily moves to a densely populated urban environment, then simply suing everyone for property rights violations for the minimum noise and emissions levels that a large city necessarily implies would be impermissible.

He or she knew what a large city is and what it entails yet they chose to move there anyway.

quote:

Similarly, if a radical environmentalist who hates ALL emissions and all industry voluntarily moves to a densely populated urban environment, then simply suing everyone for property rights violations for the minimum noise and emissions levels that a large city necessarily implies would be impermissible

paragon1 posted:

So let's say I have undeniable, indisputable proof that AgriChemicals LLC factory waste has killed all of my immediate family, my livestock, sterilized my land, and rendered all water in my land undrinkable. Who is going to hear my lawsuit against AgriChemicals LLC in Libertopia? And how will they compel AgriChemicals LLC (who may be chartered in another country entirely) to pay without violating the NAP?

Or am I justified in signing on with/hiring Valhalla DRO?

paragon1 posted:

Or am I justified in signing on with/hiring Valhalla DRO?

Caros posted:

They are correct.



Well mostly, it is actually 94% non-hispanic white (jesus), 68% male. That chart doesn't have wealth but even without the source on that simple statistics could tell you they are typically middle class because they are 94% non-hispanic white and largely male.

And no, judging a movement based on its demographics is not irrelevant, because it tells us a lot. What sort of movement only appeals to white people. I actually can't think of an example of any movement that appeals 94% to white people other than maybe the loving Clan. The fact that libertarian beliefs do not appeal to the poor, or minorities tells us a lot, in my opinion anyways.

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.

quote:

You could apply this standard to anyone. Anyone who professes to believe in certain principles could theoretically be subjected to some extreme circumstance where they will violate those principles in desperation in order to survive. That doesn't discredit the principles being espoused. If anything it merely proves that they are human, and humans have a breaking point where they will abandon any abstract ideas to survive.

You could as easily criticize those who oppose cannibalism since they might have to resort to it if subjected to some hypothetical extreme situation. "Hypocrites!", you exclaim. They claim to be against eating people but if they are starving on a lifeboat somewhere they are pushed to eating another person, therefore their principle is fatally flawed.

It shouldn't be too hard to see the absurdity of this line of argument.

quote:

People WILL violate the non aggression principle, whether in a libertarian society or a statist one. People will act unethically. That is simply a fact that must be accepted. The purpose of principle and ethics is to provide a standard from which to judge good behavior and distinguish it from bad behavior. The law should be universal and prohibit bad behavior for all members of the society.

quote:

Nearly everyone has some breaking point where they abandon civilized behavior and resort to aggression in order to survive. If someone owned property and had his property violated by a desperate person, say a starving person on an Island, then he could sue the thief later. He could press charges. Society would no doubt criticize him heavily and society, in my opinion, should ostracize and heavily criticize such abhorrent behavior.

However, he still had ownership over that property.

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.

jrodefeld posted:

Ideas should be judged on their merits, not on an ethic head count of its proponents.

Arri posted:

80% of libertarians voted for Romney and 5% for Obama. So 85% of libertarians voted for a statist in 2012. Hilarious.