The ACist claims that a purely private ownership system can protect nature reserves and other kinds of natural sites worth preserving was always nonsensical, with or without Nielsio's ridiculous logic. His ridiculous logic just confirms it further (and fwiw I think more reflective of general ACist orthodoxy than your, much more sensilble imo, position).

lol at the personal dig.

I appreciate your post, but it was the libertarian (?) in that vid who introduced the era of settlement of the West to show how inherently evil government is. I just pointed out that it is pretty ridiculous it is to criticize the government for imposing itself on people who had just imposed themselves on other people.
Besides I am not even sure how accurate a discreption that is. Obviously they didn't ask everyone living there whether they wanted to join the US, but did the settlers actively try to stay independent from the US or was the dedelopment to statehood driven by both the US government and the settlers?

Hey! Leave NIMN alone! He has an E in GCSE history

I mean, maybe we need a thread about this? If I/a group of people concerned about the environment buy up a bunch of land to preserve it from industrialization or whatever, whats the probs exactly? If groups who cared about the environment did this instead of spending millions on lobbyists, they'd have preserved half the ****ing world by now. You can trade like a hundred billion acres for a Snickers Bar in Virginia.

You deserved it and you know it. "Well, Nielsio said this so that invalidates all of the ACists claims about this subject." Come on, you know that is incredibly stupid, just admit it and move on?

Napolitano is also guilty of believing in rights theory. I love him and would gladly have sexy times with him, but talking about mystical rights in the year 2011 is a little ******ed.

I believe he was talking about the government seizing gold claims, btw, but I could be wrong, need to watch it again.

No problem until Nielsio moves the hippies out of the way and builds a factory on top of it.

Right, as I said to NIMN and as apparently needs to be repeated to you, Nielsio is not representative of all ACists or libertarians. Furthermore, until he clarifies, I'm going to assume we've misunderstood him or that he's changed his position.

Yes he was. He made no comment on whether or not the settlers had wanted the government to acquire them (I believe they did but I'm not an expert on this). He was talking about Congress attempting to seize land with established gold claims.

We did one before. It made no sense.

And if the owners then choose to sell it off to a housing developer or timber company who offer them a lot of money for it? "Sorry general public - he made us an offer we couldn't refuse." The state is far from perfect at this, but suggesting it would be better if the state was completely out of the picture and everything was left up to the private sphere (which essentially means business given the money involved in certain areas) is nonsense.

Not really, because that wasn't my exact point. My point was that what Neilsio is saying invalidates the ACist defense of natural reserves and so on, because it essentially conforms to the axiomatic property systems advocated by most ACist theorists I've come across already. Not that Nielsio said it, therefore all ACists believe it.

Most conversations where the native american stuff comes up, many ACists flock to Murrary Rothbard and Ayn Rand's banner of "they weren't using it properly, it wasn't homesteaded hurr durr". Which means that owning a nature reserve should always be superseded by more "productive" uses of the land.

So do most ACists I've come across here, and on a number of other ACist forums. Most are Rothbardians or close to that line of thinking.

Taso, how did you get your name changed?

Also, are you saying we shouldn't have rights? Or that they are made up? No entiendo.

I do think the scenario you described is better. The "general public" has no "right" to go to this land and enjoy it. The people who paid for its purchase have full authority to do whatever they want with it. Now, I had said they were environmentalists, which yes, probably means they are stupid hippies incapable of what I'm about to suggest, but, if I was one of the people who contributed money for the purchase of that land, I would suggest the creation of contracts to ensure that it could not be sold off, or something of that kind.

But, assuming they didn't do this (probably too stoned amirite), concerned environmentalists could try to raise money to outbid the contractors. If they aren't able to, and also can't convince the owners of the land to not sell, oh well, too bad. Now that land will be used for something else its so sad that they can't use the government to force that land to be used for what they want

i'm not looking up what your spanish word means.


you may have well just asked if we shouldn't have unicorns.

Today's Muslim bigotry:

Peter King, saying the things he thinks everyone is thinking:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7252VY20110306

Two old Sikh men gunned down at random, would not be at all surprised if the perp thought they were Muslims:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7252VY20110306

They probably have ticks.

Edit: The unicorns not the Muslims.

What the hell? ROTHBARD was a pioneer of libertarianism? No, he was a pioneer of anarcho-voluntarism-austro-neo-Confederacy or whatever you want to call it. The core ideas of what we now call libertarianism were first articulated in the 17th century.

On Liberty was published before the War of Northern Aggression even started.

ur wrong (whenever i speak about what ACists believe in, i generally speak only for myself)



well that explains everything to everyone

Sightless- Mea culpa, I forgot about you, who also gets angry when people start following ACism down the rabbit hole of ********. So it's not just pvn.

sorry fly, I often use the words libertarian and ACist interchangeably, I was referring to ACism here. Calm down, have some dip, try to reply to the actual point of the post instead of nitting **** up about when libertarianism started like anyone gives a ****. the actual point was that it had nothing to do with racism, but was instead a manifestation of his defense of rights. (I do think Rothbard is a pioneer of libertarianism btw, don't feel like its a debate worth having, especially with you).

Both links are the same

Tsao: we did this wilderness thread a while back.

The short version: if wilderness refers to land that is untouched by humans, and if homesteading land is the only way to "acquire" it, then it is impossible to preserve wilderness.

Because any wilderness is fair game for homesteading.

It's not a question of a lack of imagination about how this would be arranged, it stems from a fundamental disagreement about what is worth preserving via property rights.

Nielsio's arguments about "productivity" are an even less defensible version of the same moral philosophy.

no i mostly get upset when people just have no idea what they are talking about

The irony is he is right. I say irony, because the protests and the hearings into it are a self fulfilling prophesy.

it's more or less about preserving nature. so yeah, after purchasing you can put up a sign that says "Scholar's Nature Preserve". i don't think anyone who loves nature will mind too much.

I thought no comparison of utility between people was what made 'the common good' impossible? Now it's oh my, I can put that to better use?

The homesteading would be no big deal if the land actually wan't used, but it was. People lived off of it. That's a pretty good use.

I thought libertarian morals were about the use of force only being legitimate to defend yourself and your legitimately homesteaded or traded property? How the hell can you homestead wilderness (the point here is that wilderness is not homesteaded by definition). You are left in the position of saying - violence can only be used to defend homesteaded property (and we have already determined that many ACists place fairly high standards on what consists of homesteading activity - but in this case you can just throw a fence up around vast areas of wilderness, call it homesteaded when it clearly isn't and use violence against anyone who "trespasses" on said un-homesteaded area. Which is clearly "aggression" under the ACist definition of the word.