He's top 5 worst posters in Politics, even if I agreed with him. He can't think for himself and just posts huge walls of other people's thoughts to overcompensate. The presentation is god awful. If I wanted to talk to Chomsky or read Chomsky, I'd go do that. I'm here to find out what the people here think about issues, not what someone else thinks. Anyone can just link other people's thoughts.

Agree with this segment.

Plus when I tried to engage him, albeit combative-ly, on the actual thought process behind his walls of text all I got was, "Im not reading any of that" as a response.

Rights tend to come from things people universally despise. To determine these things can either seem really difficult at first glance or really easy, depending on if you lean on the "despise" or the "universally" part.

I.E. everyone universally despises being murdered (killed against their will) and so we say humans have a "right to life".

Problem is when some aggressive socialists start making things up like a "right to food" since everyone universally despises starving to death, failing to realize that a "right to food" is the same thing as saying "a right to violently enslave another who is to provide food."

The main problem with positive rights is determining what rights must be prioritized in order to achieve this. Negative rights typically never interfere with each other (if someone can think of one that will, I'll take it back), but positive rights can often times be impossible or even contradictory.

Ummm, no. The main problem is people accepting the principles and fighting over the details. Positive rights are nothing more than decrees by thugs with guns to force someone to provide something for someone else. Such things do not need to be "achieved".

Yes. at least under the "Social Norms" theory.

Untrue. It could be as simple as deciding that nobody has the right to own the means of food production, or to hoard food and sell it for profit. Same goes with air and water.

So he posts walls of Chomsky, giving proper credit to the author, and most ACists just parrot Rothbard or some other moronic douche without giving credit. So agreeing with anything that comes out of Mises is "thinking for yourself" now?

But you cannot enforce such things without using violence.

Why do you assume people are just parroting Rothbard? While it may be the same ideas, each explanation is a unique way of describing something which may or may not have been posted on Mises.

Why is that automatically the case? Couldn't one argue that violence is necessary to establish ownership of land in the first place? or at least to maintain it?

Sure, you could. But it wasn't what was asked.

Then I am asking it now. Isn't ownership of property and resources only achieved and/or maintained through violence/force?

Yes.

Then how does capitalism (with private ownership being a major caveat of its philosophy) not violate the NAP by simply existing?

Dude no wtf man.

Property is the antithesis of violence. Property is the result of the peaceful effort to preempt conflict over scarcity via mutual agreement. Nothing about it requires violence. That would be like saying to get pussy one must rape a girl.

Because NAP allows for retalitory violence.

Sure, but the same could be said about sharing a resource by coming to an agreement over it. You still need violence to enforce those rights against those who disagree to them. It is nothing like your analogy, since property rights would exist even without universal support, but sex without consent is rape.

Because people don't consider themselves everywhere at once?

They consider themselves in a specific place. So, if there are NAP enforcers for my locality then that's one problem (i.e. when I or they are not in their locality). If there are general NAP enforcers for "everywhere" in ACland, then how is that different than our federal government?

Here's the gaps for me:

Seems like there are things that we currently do that are part of ACland that wouldn't change, so what's the use?

And, the things that are NOT like current don't seem to have a way of actually working.

End of gaps.

Do you conceive religion having a large part to play in an ACist society, or will it by and large be extinct by the time ACism is possible?

Can any ACists give a quick run down of their understanding of rights, and duties? i.e. the logic behind them, their moral legitimacy, and the meaning behind what a right is.

Because there is not a monopoly on these things.


There are a ton of things different - it a voluntary system rather than one that uses force to pay for things, and there would be no geographical monopolies on those services. Competition is increased and these businesses would be directly responsible to the consumers.

What things wouldn't work?

There is no requirement or advantage/disadvantage in having religion around.

The basic rights you would have are fairly easy to enumerate but the details of how far they extend is where things get a little messy and unclear.

- Right to your body and what it produces.
- Right to property free of interference from others.

The question comes down to when your rights interfere with others. If I made a garbage dump on my land and it caused a lot of terrible odors, it would damage my neighbors property. Is it clear if I am violating his rights? What if I just paint my house an ugly color and it is not pleasing for him to look at? What about an annoying dog that barks all the time? Etc... I don't have a specific answer for all of those things, and social norms would have to work out the details.

As for the right to your body and what it produces - it may be the case that some people are mentally ill and a danger to society and it wouldn't make sense to allow them to do whatever they wanted. Or children or alzheimers patients who cannot do such things.

I could be missing a few things, but they are the most obvious ones.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/41...anism-1142628/

1. Is it fair to say that you believe the "right" to private property is the most important "right"? Meaning, you are ok with a country in which national defense is not ensured, justice is not ensured, and protection is not ensured, as long as private property rights are?

2. The wealthy are the most privileged, and most capable of providing for their own security, among the people in the world. Is it fair to say that you are most concerned with their security--more so than the security of the less fortunate? So you are fine with a society in which one sect is oppressed, as long as the most fortunate are not, even though any relative utility scale would suggest the most fortunate are being oppressed to a less significant degree?

3. Is it fair to say that you believe the best way to help the less fortunate is by not helping them? I.e. Reaganomics?

4. Do any of you consider yourselves to be sociopaths? Can any provide an argument that this is not a sociopathic belief structure?

No, valuing life is far more important than property.

As far as "national defense", such a concept would not exist without a nation. Justice (in terms of those who are harmed by violations of rights) is of course important and a part of property rights. Protection is simply a service that people can offer.

No. No, I'm not ok with this, and no idea why you think that is what I am saying.

No. And not sure how that is Reaganomics - that's a completely different concept.

No. Give me an argument it is. I can't prove a negative.

5. There is a man with a million dollars, and an innocent man murdered and his murderer escapes justice. You have two choices, you can take 100,000 dollars from the first man to spare the seconds life and bring his would be murderer to justice, or you can protect the first's property.

Which is the more moral option to you?

I don't really understand what you are asking. There is a guy who has a million dollars chilling on his own and wants to give me $100,000 not to turn in his murderer buddy? Or I can "protect his property? I don't understand what you are asking nor do I understand how the options have anything to do with morality.