Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

A Question for the (Hardcore) Libertarians

InVinoVeritas
Posts: 59
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2014 9:15:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If all property were private, how would it be possible for someone to exercise his right to not work and be homeless? In a case of extreme privatization, someone who owns no property would have to accept charity just to exercise his (negative) right to "be somewhere" in the material world.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 6:55:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/4/2014 9:15:31 PM, InVinoVeritas wrote:
If all property were private, how would it be possible for someone to exercise his right to not work and be homeless?

Why would that be a right? You are basically positing a right to the work of others by saying someone should be able to not work and just live off what others provide.

In a case of extreme privatization, someone who owns no property would have to accept charity just to exercise his (negative) right to "be somewhere" in the material world.

They need to accept charity anyway if they are living somewhere tax-funded. Else they could go and live in some unowned bit of jungle somewhere.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 8:28:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This is sort of similar to an idea I had while thinking about private roads: is it permissible for someone to own land that completely encompasses someone and then deny them access to it, effectively trapping them inside?
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 3:36:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The logical inconsistency you are expounding is inherent in any sort of economic system. You can't buy land off the original owner, God, and once any type of property rights are established it's going to be unjust in some way. Property-owners have the ultimate advantage because there's little you can do without somewhere to do it. The only just solution is to decide as a community - communism.

One aspect that really ticks me off is waterfront properties. If I want to fish or swim, I can't do it in most places because somebody decided to build a house there and now I have limited access to the water. I don't care if somebody has a million billion dollars, they have no right to block my access to the water. To add insult to injury, it's environmentally unsound to build property right next to the water, because guess what - natural organisms need access to the water too. Riparian buffer zones should be established around all bodies of water, but are hardly ever done unless it's publicly owned in some way. If I was King, the first thing I would do is destroy every structure within a few hundred yards of any body of water and restore the natural habitats around it.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
InVinoVeritas
Posts: 59
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 9:25:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/5/2014 6:55:26 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 1/4/2014 9:15:31 PM, InVinoVeritas wrote:
If all property were private, how would it be possible for someone to exercise his right to not work and be homeless?

Why would that be a right? You are basically positing a right to the work of others by saying someone should be able to not work and just live off what others provide.

I'm not talking about the right to the work of others. I'm talking about the right to exist and do nothing in any given space. If everything is privatized, then you have to work just to get to the status of the modern-day homeless man. In the society I'm talking about, someone who owns no property is indebted just be existing.

In a case of extreme privatization, someone who owns no property would have to accept charity just to exercise his (negative) right to "be somewhere" in the material world.

They need to accept charity anyway if they are living somewhere tax-funded. Else they could go and live in some unowned bit of jungle somewhere.

There would be no unowned jungle. Every piece of land, no matter how "worthless," has a value and can be invested int; every piece of property would be bought in a privatized society, based on economic intuition.
InVinoVeritas
Posts: 59
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 9:27:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/5/2014 8:28:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
This is sort of similar to an idea I had while thinking about private roads: is it permissible for someone to own land that completely encompasses someone and then deny them access to it, effectively trapping them inside?

One could argue that, by purchasing that land in the first place, the person who is trapped made an investment that reflected the possibility of this unlikely situation. Also, the road person would be working against his self-interest as a businessman and lose profits at a drastic rate.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2014 1:44:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/5/2014 8:28:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
This is sort of similar to an idea I had while thinking about private roads: is it permissible for someone to own land that completely encompasses someone and then deny them access to it, effectively trapping them inside?

lol at you posing my arguments as your own.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2014 3:17:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/6/2014 9:25:36 PM, InVinoVeritas wrote:
At 1/5/2014 6:55:26 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 1/4/2014 9:15:31 PM, InVinoVeritas wrote:
If all property were private, how would it be possible for someone to exercise his right to not work and be homeless?

Why would that be a right? You are basically positing a right to the work of others by saying someone should be able to not work and just live off what others provide.

I'm not talking about the right to the work of others. I'm talking about the right to exist and do nothing in any given space. If everything is privatized, then you have to work just to get to the status of the modern-day homeless man. In the society I'm talking about, someone who owns no property is indebted just be existing.

Isn't it natural? I mean we're burdening both the world and our human race by just being born in to this world. We consumed lives and produced wastes just to be functional, so isn't it logical that if we're to translate that in to economic value everyone of us will start off living in debt that need to pay off thorough our works (at the very least we're probably in dept to our parents who pay for our food, our education, and our hospital bill that required to give us birth).
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2014 9:07:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/7/2014 1:44:48 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 1/5/2014 8:28:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
This is sort of similar to an idea I had while thinking about private roads: is it permissible for someone to own land that completely encompasses someone and then deny them access to it, effectively trapping them inside?

lol at you posing my arguments as your own.

You might have had the idea too, but I didn't get it from you.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2014 9:23:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/7/2014 9:07:31 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/7/2014 1:44:48 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 1/5/2014 8:28:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
This is sort of similar to an idea I had while thinking about private roads: is it permissible for someone to own land that completely encompasses someone and then deny them access to it, effectively trapping them inside?

lol at you posing my arguments as your own.

You might have had the idea too, but I didn't get it from you.

Whatever helps you along to being less retarded bro.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2014 9:38:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/6/2014 9:25:36 PM, InVinoVeritas wrote:
At 1/5/2014 6:55:26 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 1/4/2014 9:15:31 PM, InVinoVeritas wrote:
If all property were private, how would it be possible for someone to exercise his right to not work and be homeless?

Why would that be a right? You are basically positing a right to the work of others by saying someone should be able to not work and just live off what others provide.

I'm not talking about the right to the work of others. I'm talking about the right to exist and do nothing in any given space. If everything is privatized, then you have to work just to get to the status of the modern-day homeless man. In the society I'm talking about, someone who owns no property is indebted just be existing.

Right, because hunger requires that he "pay the price" for life. So, given there is this conditional to the "right to life", and given a libertarian society where compulsory "common good" is scoffed at, how can you possibly conclude that anyone has the "right to not work?" At the very least, without social welfare, he must work to feed himself.

In a case of extreme privatization, someone who owns no property would have to accept charity just to exercise his (negative) right to "be somewhere" in the material world.

They need to accept charity anyway if they are living somewhere tax-funded. Else they could go and live in some unowned bit of jungle somewhere.

There would be no unowned jungle. Every piece of land, no matter how "worthless," has a value and can be invested int; every piece of property would be bought in a privatized society, based on economic intuition.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
miketheman1200
Posts: 49
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2014 1:06:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It is certainly a good question. The way I see it, most people or businesses that own property would allow people to move upon or over their property so that they may have an opportunity to conduct business. An implicit contract of sorts, like when you walk into a store. It doesn't make sense for people to deny anyone else the right to come near their home because everyone needs human interaction to survive. So even though people have private property they will allow people to cross it in order to survive. There might be private communities that you can not enter but it is highly unlikely that urban areas would be a stalemate of people in their homes hiding from other people protecting their property.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 7:44:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/5/2014 8:28:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
This is sort of similar to an idea I had while thinking about private roads: is it permissible for someone to own land that completely encompasses someone and then deny them access to it, effectively trapping them inside?
LOL that's hilarious
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 7:55:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
How can anyone claim to be a hardcore libertarian when they support that big ol' hierarchy generator known as capitalism.
Pareidolic-Dreamer
Posts: 84
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2014 1:22:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/4/2014 9:15:31 PM, InVinoVeritas wrote:
If all property were private, how would it be possible for someone to exercise his right to not work and be homeless? In a case of extreme privatization, someone who owns no property would have to accept charity just to exercise his (negative) right to "be somewhere" in the material world.

I really don't know how "hardcore" a libertarian you would say I am. My best friend is what I would call a hardcore conservative, and he would certainly say the same about my libertarianism.

Anyway, you've created a box that Already defines your conservative answer.
In your box, the man can not legally, or morally justify being homeless.
So, you win.

However, If I were the homeless person, (once upon a time I was homeless, on purpose!) I would justify it for myself (and only for myself) with the understanding that 1/7 billionth of this world belongs to me, and I will be morally self justified in taking what ever part I am currently standing on, until someone forces me away.

Or, I will justify it by simply accepting, (in good conscious) that what ever charitable faction allows me to live somewhere legally, also understands the underlying truth and has rightfully given me a place to live.

Or, I will justifiably take some land from someone else so that I can survive.
I say "justifiably" because no one has the right to tell me that I do not belong on this earth.
No one has the right to take away what I need in order to survive here.

That remains true as long as thre are sufficient resources to house us all.
When the resources go below our collective need, then we will naturally follow a new rule.
Each of us will do what is necessary for survival, or die trying.

Thats my answer.
Thanks for asking.
Pareidolic-Dreamer
I see wall people.

When I argue against someone's truths, I always feel like I am arguing just as strongly against my own.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2014 3:06:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/4/2014 9:15:31 PM, InVinoVeritas wrote:
If all property were private, how would it be possible for someone to exercise his right to not work and be homeless? In a case of extreme privatization, someone who owns no property would have to accept charity just to exercise his (negative) right to "be somewhere" in the material world.

Land and space aren't property, paradox solved.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
InVinoVeritas
Posts: 59
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2014 12:45:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/15/2014 3:06:01 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 1/4/2014 9:15:31 PM, InVinoVeritas wrote:
If all property were private, how would it be possible for someone to exercise his right to not work and be homeless? In a case of extreme privatization, someone who owns no property would have to accept charity just to exercise his (negative) right to "be somewhere" in the material world.

Land and space aren't property, paradox solved.

Land and space aren't property? You must be living in another world.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2014 2:35:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/17/2014 12:45:54 PM, InVinoVeritas wrote:
At 1/15/2014 3:06:01 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 1/4/2014 9:15:31 PM, InVinoVeritas wrote:
If all property were private, how would it be possible for someone to exercise his right to not work and be homeless? In a case of extreme privatization, someone who owns no property would have to accept charity just to exercise his (negative) right to "be somewhere" in the material world.

Land and space aren't property, paradox solved.

Land and space aren't property? You must be living in another world.

There are many rainbows and truffles (both kinds) why don't you stop by :)
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2014 2:38:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/17/2014 12:45:54 PM, InVinoVeritas wrote:
At 1/15/2014 3:06:01 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
Land and space aren't property, paradox solved.

Land and space aren't property? You must be living in another world.

Sorry I neglected to actually make my point. Oh yes, if you want to catch a libertarian (or anyone) in a contradiction you need to work with what they claim things should be.

If I'm in a concentration camp and say "everyone should be free" and someone says "but then how can you kill Jews if they are free" and I say "well we shouldn't kill Jews" they have not caught me in a contradiction by pointing to all the dead Jews.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2014 7:04:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/17/2014 2:38:29 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 1/17/2014 12:45:54 PM, InVinoVeritas wrote:
At 1/15/2014 3:06:01 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
Land and space aren't property, paradox solved.

Land and space aren't property? You must be living in another world.

Sorry I neglected to actually make my point. Oh yes, if you want to catch a libertarian (or anyone) in a contradiction you need to work with what they claim things should be.


To fully resolve the paradox, you need to demonstrate that land/space not being ownable is compatible with the rest of libertarianism's premises.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2014 9:14:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/17/2014 7:04:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/17/2014 2:38:29 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 1/17/2014 12:45:54 PM, InVinoVeritas wrote:
At 1/15/2014 3:06:01 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
Land and space aren't property, paradox solved.

Land and space aren't property? You must be living in another world.

Sorry I neglected to actually make my point. Oh yes, if you want to catch a libertarian (or anyone) in a contradiction you need to work with what they claim things should be.


To fully resolve the paradox, you need to demonstrate that land/space not being ownable is compatible with the rest of libertarianism's premises.

Well that's going to be hard without a concrete list of well described libertarian positions. I describe myself as a libertarian because that's what people have called my views.... how do I put it, I only provide a warranty for my own beliefs in their entirety.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.