Dude, I think you got some time line problems here... LOL

Well sure that might be true with relatively simple capital live a shovel. But how about instead of a car maker. Here let me fix your post...

And sure enough, under Capitalism a small handful of people can own car factories. But we only need so many car factories and it takes a lotta car makers to build cars so it's just not really going to be efficient or practical that every car maker has his own factory. So under Capitalism, a small minority must necessarily own the means of production, and the vast majority must necessarily share crop, work for wages, be enslaved*, etc.

*not saying you personally support slavery, just saying the historically Capitalists have traded off free and slave labor, as they felt they were morally and functionally equivalent.

I appreciate that your one liners are just as brief in content as words, but do they really add anything to the discussion?

Perhaps you should go back and read the post I was responding to...

I just simplified his post into "gotta eat" for him.

Really? GM was one of the most widely-held stocks of all time.

And there's some evil overlord handing out the deeds to the pre-determined proper number of car factories?

Not everyone can be the quarterback for the Dallas Cowboys, the solution therefore is to ban football?

You gave up because you never had an argument to begin with.

The funny thing is, I am not the one that introduced any sort of "theoretical thought experiment" to begin with, so you can kindly go **** yourself with your false accusations.

"If scarce resources must be utilized to survive you have no choice but to consume them in order to not perish from this life. What other choices do you have if you don't consume them?"

Once again, you confuse me with someone who advocates "natural rights."

Unilaterally using violence against a trespasser? Well there are a few issues that one could take with your particular example. For one, you framed it so the "evil villain" of the island framed the terms of contract to where he would give the sailors a choice between coercing them as punishment via hunting them to death, coercing them as punishment through a physical beating (and then hunting), or allowing them to voluntarily leave the island (even though mother nature may claim their lives if they chose to do that). Neither of the first two terms are at all rational reciprocal measures to the act of sailors trespassing (in other words it isn't founded on some logical reciprocal notion of "an eye for an eye" or anything like that) so clearly the rational choice for the sailors is to "default" on such a deal in the name of self-defense. This is the way in which this is simply a one-shot prisoner's dilemma. You've framed the terms of the situation to where there is no chance or possibility of repeated interaction between the island owner and the sailors to where any cooperative solution may spontaneously arise, so of course the dominant strategy is non-cooperation. Congrats, you've basically reiterated Hobbe's argument. What have you "proven" with this "thought experiment" aside from the fact that the superior strategy in a one-shot PD is non-cooperation (something that we've known for quite some time now)?

It is understood that the owner of the island is free to physically expel the sailors from the island he owns because he doesn't want them trespassing, but so what? Why shouldn't he be? By the elementary rules of debate and epistemology, it is the person making the claim in this case that the island owner is for some reason not free to exclude others from the use of his island, and that the island owner is under some obligation to allow said sailors to stay on his claimed island to which the burden of proof lies. That means you. Please demonstrate the "rule" that gives reason to why he is not at liberty to expel them.

There is no culture or society that does not believe in property. The fundamental idea of "mine" and "thine" predates any written human history.

You keep talking about "unilaterally using violence" and all that crap, but this is a completely vacuous charge.

Defending one's property predates the Capitalist system you are referring to.

Are you about to argue that people should not keep their promises? Because that is exactly what you are saying when you state that people should not be bound by contractual obligations.

Once again, the "social contract" as per Rawls et al is not an actual contract. However, this does not negate the legitimacy of actual contracts.

Of course it does. The only reason to speak of it in terms of "rich" and "poor" is because you seem concerned about economic end results.

What a bunch of hogwash. If I have a **** ton of money and I pay others a given price to protect that **** ton of money, then I am not dependent or using governments to protect my **** ton of money, I'm using economic means to exclude others from taking my **** ton of money.

Your particular use of language in this last bit does wonders to help illustrate my point about jealousy and anti-capitalists. You clearly despise those with more wealth than you simply based on the fact that they have more wealth than you.

Wtf did you even read his stuff? His entire logic on the "(il)legitimacy of property" is founded on the assumption that "that which is not equal, is not just."

Go ahead and start it chief. Since you want to take on Proudhon's position, you are up first (considering Bastiat is a response to Proudhon, it only makes sense).

No, pretty much every Libertarian I know will concede that the government "works" for both the "boss class" (in your mind: "capitalists," I presume) and others (what you would call "non-capitalists," I presume) in different ways. This is what I am talking about. You have these certain assumptions drawn from your own particular philosophical beliefs and rhetoric and you try to impose them on libertarian thought. This is your biggest mistake and the root of all your confusion here, imo.

There exists literally no libertarian that I know of that has stated or implied this. If there are, they are surely a minority, and they do not post on this forum afaik.

No one painted them as a singular movement, buddy. Reading comprehension fail once again.

Of course they do. Nowhere is this denied. Now go ahead and answer the actual question please.

You didn't answer the question, you just danced around it in usual fashion. Is it or is it not for some worker group to exclude some willing worker from becoming a part of their group? If it is permissible under your system, why are they allowed to exclude people from the use of their property when an individual is not, and why are you so insistent on drawing completely arbitrary lines?

Your divide is completely arbitrary in nature.

Meanwhile back at the hall of justice: Captain arbitrary once again enters the fray....

So please humor me and demonstrate how exactly your pet "axiom" that you base your "just" social order on is rationally or logically any more "just" or preferable to one founded on some NAP of the "ACists" you are mocking again?

I'll let you Google Hume's whole defense of property. It is excellent.

and another long rambling wall of text with nary a cognitive position stated, it reads worse than a Congressional Bill.

And another post by cres that addresses nothing and states no factual information whatsoever.

The topic of this thread was property rights vs privacy rights. For some reason you've gone off on some epic journey to Complexathon, written pages upon pages of verbose, bloated, tomes that have no real bearing on the topic, and then you wonder why your delusional posting doesn't receive responses, except for the sparring missledog engaged in for practice I assume.

tl:dr for the most part is your way. Sure support your position, but if you can't edit out the crap and create an elevator pitch, you're writing a blog, not having a discussion.

None of your last couple of posts have any bearing on the topic. They simply consist of you whining about a discussion you aren't even a part of.

Had you actually followed what has happened instead of simply looking for an excuse to try and ridicule me, you'd see that I challenged some of Missledog's assertions, and it lead to the discussion we are having now. If this bothers you, then simply ignore it. Simple as that.

And fwiw what we are discussing very much has to do with "property rights" and their implications in general, so it absolutely has real bearing on the original topic. IOW, you are wrong again.

I approve of this poast! It make me LOL'ed out loud. Guilty as charged, sir! Well OK, my friend Montius & me have been called out for trashing this thread by blogging OT. Again, guilty as charged, but in my defense I would like to point out I suggested moving our OT conversation elsewhere in several consecutive poasts To continue wandering OT go here

So back ITT to privacy considerations -vs- Libertarianism, and OPs poast. As an attempt for make amends, I will attempt to poast a cliffs...

Cliffs so far...

1. OP asked an insightful question, and followed up with another insightful question in a followup paost. And OPs insightful examples were ignored, as the thread wandered OT like usual on this BBS.

2. The OP raised the question: How do Libertarians balance property rights against privacy rights? Several poasters asked the obvious follow up question "Do Libertarians have any concept of distinct rights of privacy to balance against anything?" The unanimous consensus from the Libertarians (&etc) was that LiberLand would not have any distinct rights of privacy. Libertarians believe that any privacy considerations are sufficiently addressed in their NAP (or whatever).

3. Several examples of foul and offensive breaches of privacy were presented that obviously do not involve fraud or the use or threat of violence. The answer from the Libertarians (&etc) was like usual... Kumbaya! People would act differently in LiberLand, don't be silly this just wouldn't happen! Kumbaya!

4. Several poasters asked the Libertarians directly to explicitly use the language, including the "special" redefinitions implicit in, the NAP to explain why these breaches of privacy shouldn't happen in LiberLand? Their answer so far ITT is... soundofcrickets.mp3.

5. One Libertarian (&etc), my friend Montius, has claimed that "Trumanizing" someones live would be perfectly legal and respectable in LiberLand (but would be unlikely, Kumbaya!). So at least to Montius there are zero effective privacy considerations that cannot be trumped by $$$ in LiberLand.

6. One Libertarian (&etc), my friend Montius again, has claimed that privacy considerations are only possible with the violent enforcement of property rights, and furthermore cannot even be considered to make logical sense outside of the concept of the rights of property.

If you think "Trumantizing" someone's entire life is at all even a plausibly realistic scenario, then you need to demonstrate this. Me calling you out for asserting some unrealistic hypothetical isn't "Kumbaya" ********, it is a matter of reason and logic. I'd say that if one has to resort to unrealistic absurdities to point out the "flaws" in a particular principle or idea, then that principle or idea is probably pretty damn sound.

And another thing, you keep framing it as "the violent enforcement of property rights." Why? You clearly have a rhetorical reason for doing so, and I suspect it is to try to associate "property rights" with notions of "coercion." If this is the case, then your ass continuing to go on breathing is only possible with the violent enforcement of your "right to life."

And yes, I stated privacy makes no sense outside any concept of exclusion. This is a liberty and fact of ownership (notice I did not invoke any "right" here, the difference of which is an important concept you have yet to grasp).

If you scroll back, you'll see that the first question that several poasters asked was: does Libertarianism have any distinct rights of privacy? The unanimous opinion ITT was no, that Libertarians feel that the NAP covers any respect for privacy concerns. The second question asked by several poasters was this... can respect for privacy concerns be logically inferred from the NAP.

This is a different concept than how likely or unlikely disrespect may happen, and I will get to that next. This concept is different than handicapping, it is more like 2+3=5. As we both agree that under the NAP that someone's life could be logically, legally and righteously be "Trumanized" in LiberLard. So we can both agree that respect for privacy concerns cannot be logically inferred from the NAP.

Kinda like this... if a Jackintheboxian told you that their SSAP, Secret Sauce Automatic Protocol, is the "one axiom" of total awesome just-ness, and is the one "axiom" to rule them all. And you said yeah... but does it logically infer absolute property rights? If the Jackintheboxian said.... well almost always, occasionally a degenerate third generation trust fund arsehole might get dispossesed. But kumbaya, it is exactly as likely as someone getting "Trumanized" in LiberLand, Kumbaya!.

Well would that be good enough for a Libertarian? That's what people are talking about when they are asking about the relation of respect of privacy concerns -vs- Libertarianism. They are not asking about how likely or unlikely total and absolute disrespect might happen. They are asking if total and absolute disrespect is something this system condones and allows.

Of course, several poasters have also requested that the Libertarians derive a concept of respect for privacy concerns explicitly using the language of the NAP. So far ITT the answer from the the Libertarians (&etc) is... soundofcrickets.mp4. So /QED that it is logically impossible to infer respect for privacy concerns under the NAP, amirite?

OK now onto your prediction "Trumanizing" people in LiberLand would be relatively uncommon. Once again, I don't have to "demonstrate to you a plausible scenario" any more than I have to "demonstrate to you a plausible scenario" that my Chargers will make up one game with two to go. We are both handicapping, making educated guesses about the proposed future (or imagined future). Nobody is "right" or "wrong", we have opinions.

So yes, I handicap that in LiberLand there would be a cottage industry of "Trumansizing", and you handicap that it in LiberLand that "Trumanization", while fine and dandy, but would be relatively uncommon. Well I'll tell you what... I'll explain why I handicap this imaginary prop bet the way I do if you explain why you handicap this imaginary prop bet the way you do.

LOL no, there are plenty of other obvious flaws in the pseudo-philosophy of Libertarianism. They reason we are talking about the "border cases" is to point out the systematic flaws in the underlying logic, er sophistry. And LOL, or maybe I'm kept alive because I'm a productive wage slave? But yeah, retirement can be terminal under Capitalism, LOL.

Well I was just using the words "property rights" and "privacy rights" in a general sense of the word because that's what OP used. I didn't have any pedantic distinction to make, you know just a general "OK within the agreed rules" sort of thing, just like OP.

I'm not sure how this new word "exclusion" is related to property rights. And this "liberty" you speak of, well I know that "liberty" is a special word for you Libertarians (&etc) just like "aggression". So I would surely and inadvertently "straw-man" the whole thing up, as you dudes have overloaded this word.

I'm not sure why we need to detour into some theory of rights here, like I said I think OP just meant "OK within the rules". But of course, if you feel their are important pedantic distinctions to be had here, well, if you must... go go go!

Only overeducated people from relatively privileged backgrounds who have never wondered how they're going to pay the rent next month or feed their children talk about employment as something that is strictly "voluntary".

Also, one should note that no one is a "libertarian" who would not benefit from the entrenchment of the current power structure that their politics entails.

Ok so you have yet to address my argument. I see. So instead you are stuck on some other point someone said pages ago.

Privacy concerns are wholly an issue of property concerns. Privacy (and by extension "privacy rights") make no sense without a coherent concept of property.

Except I'm pretty sure that someone whose life has been "Trumanized" can pretty easily be shown to have been defrauded. If you recall, the NAP addresses the issue of fraud. But I suspect you haven't bothered to actually take the time to understand the idea you are ridiculing here.

Your argument basically boils down to "well this organizing principle of society can't guarantee that something won't happen, ergo it is no good." Of course this notion is absurd. Lots of things could happen. Nothing guarantees anything absolutely.

You having to reach to such absurd and implausible scenarios to find "flaws" in the NAP demonstrates the inherent weakness of your argument.

Because I think it is near impossible (if not impossible in fact) for such a necessarily large group of people to sustain such an elaborate conspiracy for that long. Not to mention I do not see how such an enterprise could possibly be profitable enough to sustain it for years at a time.

So far you have yet to point out any "systematic flaws." Your argument has boiled down to "Boo, I don't like property rights, boo! I don't think anyone has the right to exclude anyone else from the use of their property, but I'm not going to actually demonstrate where an owner is obligated to let anyone and everyone use his stuff, boo!"

And I'm saying the whole "rights speak" issue is not at all being used as a coherent concept here. You have done nothing but exacerbate this silliness with your insistent invocation of it.

Umm maybe the fact that ownership has any meaning without some element of exclusion that separates owners from non-owners of the resource in question? In short: It has everything to do with property, and in turn, "property rights."

No, it isn't some special word, but it sure as **** is distinct from "rights." A "liberty" (or freedom) is a relation between one person and a set of feasible acts.

There are important distinctions. "Liberties" are distinct from "rights" and the two cannot fit into the same concept and still make sense.

Or, you know, people who use words and concepts correctly.

Well I'm not sure exactly what your point is. This thread is about privacy -vs- Libertarianism. Several poasters asked how the NAP can logically infer protections for peoples privacy. Especially given that several foul and heinous examples of breaches of privacy are obviously possible without committing fraud or the use or threat of violence. Several poasters have asked for the Libertarians to explicitly use the language of the NAP in their explanation. All me have heard so far is... soundofcrickets.mp5
.

That is except for Montous, who said that "Trumanizing" someone would be just fine and dandy in Liberland under the NAP (but kumbaya! not relatively common). If the NAP condones and allows "TRumanizing", regardless of how unlikely it might be then /QED we have proven that the NAP logically infers zero protections for peoples privacy.

I would feel a lot happier if we can come to some agreement that the above is logically before moving on to discuss how likely or unlikely the NAP would condone and allow these kinds of breaches in peoples sense of privacy in a practical world.

What you dudes don't get when people things like why does one of the most influential schools of Libertarianism condones and would allow slavery the are not looking for the kumbaya answer... sure some of us condone and would allow slavery, and we all condone and would allow indentured servitude, but hey no big deal really, slavery and such would be relatively unusual. That's not the answer they are looking for... people like their anti-slavery and pro-privacy absolute just like you would like your property rights absolute. Savvy?

The point of these *thought experiments* is not to argue what exactly should happen given these exact details. The point is to use "border conditions" to illuminate the systematic bankrupt nature of the underlying pseudo-philosophy. If we have a system like the NAP which condones and allows "Trumanization", a total and completely inhuman breach of privacy, then likewise that system is going to condone and allow all sorts of other lesser breaches of privacy.

The point of the *thought experiments* is not to nit-pick the premise, the point is to think through the logical conclusions that this pseudo-philosophy directly and logically must lead to. OK?

No it is not. My argument is like this... real world Capitalism has laws against general slavery, and the real world Capitalist governments actively interfere to suppress the trafficking of slaves using their OMG MEN WITH GUNS. But sure, slavery still exists and the real world Capitalist system cannot guarantee that this won't happen.

But the various flavors Libertarianism (&etc) of Libertarianism do not have this feature. Some of the flavors actively condone and approve of slavery, while all of them condone and approve of any exploitative relationship that falls just short of meeting some fixed historical definition of slavery.

The difference is that real world Capitalism has rules, in general, against such things as slavery, indentured servitude, and gross breaches of peoples privacy. There are no guarantees these rule will always work. Libertarian Capitalism on the other hand has optional rules about slavery (varies by "flavor") and condone and allow indentured servitude and gross breaches of privacy.

It is not a question of if the real world Capitalists guarantees always work or not. It is a question about Libertarian Capitalism not having any guarantees at all, in fact under Libertarianism is almost a guarantee of these foul breaches in privacy will happen because the system condones and allows these kind foul of activities. You know, give or take a "Kumbaya that just wouldn't happen in LiberLand, Kumbaya" here or there.

I love this LOL-idiotic line of reasoning. First of all, you are taking the *though experiment* way to literally. If if would be fine & dandy under the NAP to "Trumanize" someone for years, it also would be fine & dandy under the NAP to perpetuate lessor gross breaches in privacy, less elaborately, for shorter periods of time, correct? The purpose of picking "border conditions" for these *thought experiments* is that all the lessor conditions are covered by the same example. Got it?

But let me just comment this: "I do not see how such an enterprise could possibly be profitable enough to sustain it". This is a common LOL-idiotic line of Libertarian (&etc) rhetoric. Let's see... I could point out that Big Brother type voyeuristic reality tv is hugely popular, as well as ad or subscriber based Jenny-Cam type exhibitionist web sites. I could point out that there is a consumer demand for this type of entertainment, and there is no reason The Truman Show could not be popular also in this genre.

But there is a much easier way to deal with the generic bit of Libertarian (&etc) empty blah-blah. Well we know under real world Capitalism that we have wage discrepancies of over 1000:1 between executives and line workers. Libertarian Capitalism would only increase the ratio. And several of those executives hobbies can easily employ hundreds of line workers to pursue directly and support indirectly. Think of a car or yacht collector. And as long as that executive's hobby only costs him 100 line worker wages to support and he gets paid a 1000x these line workers, well his hobby enterprise is easily sustainable indefinitely. EZ game, no need to even talk about sustainable businesses plans in fantasy land.

Well you should really be correcting OP not me, his post has both "property rights" and "privacy rights" in the thread title for goodness sake. And if you have been paying attention, I have not used the words "rights" (other than directly referring to the OP) for several consecutive posts ITT. So I am not using the words "rights" or "redistribute" anymore at your insistence, OK? Any more "special" words I need to avoid?

Defining words to suit your personal ideology is not the same thing as "using words correctly".

If the government instituted a law that said you must go to Arabia and shoot Arabs, or be shot yourself, by your definition, anyone who chooses to go to Arabia volunteers to do so. Because hey, they have a choice.

Now let's say the contract for going to Arabia includes weekly buggery. When you sign your contract, you agree to being buggered weekly. Now you can't complain when you're buggered. You signed up for it.

I know you won't get what I'm saying. You're not capable of understanding that choices, such as taking a job, are not taken in a vacuum and that coercion does not have to be as explicit as the threat of being shot.

Breaches of privacy are largely breaches of property (or lack of exclusionary measures by property owners).

Once again, you fail at reading comprehension. Imagine that.

Trumanizing people's lives is based on fraud. The NAP does not condone fraud as per its very definition. Savvy?

No Libertarian argument condones slavery you asshat. Stop making things up. Savvy?

Oh so the point of these *thought experiments* is for you to assert things that aren't true or even accurately representative of the thing your are arguing against? I see.

If the premise is faulty and does not represent the actual philosophy, the "logical conclusions" you draw from your thought experiment do not reflect the actual philosophy you are arguing against. They amount to a strawman. Ok?

OMG MEN WITH GUNS don't just disappear under Libertarianism. You have a really ****** understanding about the things you are arguing against.

No one I have ever seen approves or condones slavery. Stop making **** up.

Your idea of an "exploitative relationship" is a Marxian absurdity. Stop making **** up.


No they don't. Stop making **** up.

Once again, stop making **** up.

The "guarantees" under Libertarianism are the rules against the breaches of torts. These rules are largely out of convention and predate any state.

All are still clearly issues of fraud. Got it?

Yeah except none of those shows involve defrauding people. Big Brother et al are all contractual based enterprises.

JFC, and you have the ass to say things like "LOL-idiotic reasoning" in reference to other people's posts?

I'm addressing you because you are the one that continues to misusing it as a concept. I don't really give two ***** about the way that the OP used the word because I am not having a discussion with him, I'm having one with you.

I agree, which is why people saying employment is "involuntary" or that they are "forced" to take a particular job is absurd.

No, that is an instance of coercion, as one of your existing options is actually being made worse by the threat of violence from another party.

Who is coercing you into taking a job? Someone holding a gun to your head and saying "go work at McDonalds or I'm going to blow your ****ing head off"?

Well this whole "Own your own body" is a childish and vacuous slogan... But Montous just pwned his own body ITT, LOL. I'll get back to privacy concerns soon...

Well no. But let's go with what you said... breaches of privacy are largely breaches of the rights of property. Which means you think they are secondarily caused without breaching the rights of property. So once again we can conclude /QED, that the rights of property do not directly address privacy concerns.

We have reached 100% agree on this correct? Property rights, at most, would lesson the chance that breaches of privacy might happen, but there is nothing that logically follows from property rights that ensures any general considerations for privacy.

Or we haven't. Like I said, before we go on to handicap how wide spread breaches of privacy would happen in LiberLand, I really think we need to get an agreement about this.

Well I don't Savvy. Do you want me to go find the quote where you said it would be OK but uncommon. It is OK to admit you were wrong about "Trumanizing". If you want to say this is fraud I can just come up with another just as obvious example that you won't consider fraud. EZ game.

LOL, no. Some Libertarians are pro-slavery, some are not. All libertarians are pro-indentured servitude. Logically Absolute Property + Absolute Contract --> Slavery. Why do you think people always bring slavery up while talking to you dudes?

No I feel my reasoning is 100% correct here. Would you care to explain my mistake?

Here, I'll give an example that should also settle the "fraud" issues raised above. Two birds with one stone.

A perv executive who makes 1000x what a line worker makes opens up a hobby business. He hires ten hotties for line worker wages, two supervisors for 5x line worker wages, and spends 10x a line workers wages to rent the offices and create busy work for the hotties. This is only 3% of the pervs wages, an easily sustainable hobby budget.

We have already established ITT that in LiberLand that any privacy concerns would have to be explicitly spelled out. The perv leaves out an effective privacy clause (alternately writes something in about a nominal $X penalty payment for any employee or owner breaching privacy, etc). And then he has a whole lotta secret cameras installed in the hobby company offices.

So no fraud, a nominal cost to the perv, and perfectly legal and righteous to Libertarians.

And please, can we just skip the kumbaya, in LiberLand people would be different. kumbaya! We know that perv bosses do this now, even at the risk of OMG GUBBERNIT OMG MEN WITH GUNS OMG might violently interfere with the pervs hobby or freedom. And surely there are other perv bosses who would be happy to do so if it was legal and righteous, like it would be in LiberLand. Let's go with that reality instead of another song of Kumbaya!

1. Imagine a scenario where freaks, degenerates and psychopaths have all the money and property in the world.

2. ????

3. Capitalism doesn't work.

There FYP. But I get your point, we prols need masters. So some small group must have all the money and property in the world, because we prols need masters. And we got lucky, because we were born into Captitalism, so one thing we got is masters, for sure. Which we prols need.

But I am being unfair to paint our masters as freaks, degenerates and psychopaths... oh, no they are the best and the brightest, and got all the money and property because they were smarter and worked hard. Or... they just inherited it (over 90% of wealth).

But Kumbaya! None of this would happen in LiberLand, Kumbaya! LOL OMG.

If the above is true then no political system will ever work so why bother discussing anything?

I have no interest in this discussion but I'd like to interject:

MissileDog, your snarky posting style where you randomly add crap like "/QED" does not come across well at all and weakens any intelligent points you have to share. I don't know if you just can't help being a it or what, but it's rather annoying to read and doesn't win you any points with anyone. Just sayin'.

Every should just post a pic of Kim Jong Il in response to every missiledawg post as a FYP.