Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Libertarians!

lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2011 2:17:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Suuure maybe I just don't understand correctly, but my dad had no answers either and is consulting his friend, who is a libertarian politician.
So I'll just copy my questions I had on facebook

Libertarians, where does one's "property rights" end and another begins?

Commonly I hear about "buy and own a building and do whatever", "ANARCHY!"! "If you have money you make the rules!!"

But then there comes a time, one's own body is their... property, surely. I have never seen one argue against that.

Now it should be up to each property owner to decide if they wear clothes for example then, no?
But if you own a building and make an anti-nude rule, wouldn't that in itself go against property rights?

Another thing, the you own what you can buy/anarchy thing....
If a group then has the money, surely they own it then, then there is no such thing as "anarchy" because the state then is purchased.
Then the state can make whatever laws they want, due to property rights.

In that sense no one but the state has any rights.
Doesn't that go against the basic libertarian view?

Just some things I randomly thought of.


Enjoy
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2011 2:34:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Not really sure what you're trying to say here.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2011 2:41:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/14/2011 2:17:03 PM, lovelife wrote:

Libertarians, where does one's "property rights" end and another begins?

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Commonly I hear about "buy and own a building and do whatever", "ANARCHY!"! "If you have money you make the rules!!"

Straw man. Markets are just one game we can play with freedom. We can also play democracy or monarchy, but we cannot force anyone else to play with us.

But then there comes a time, one's own body is their... property, surely. I have never seen one argue against that.

For the record, all the arguments against private property can be applied to self ownership too. For example - "what if someone owns all the food! Private property is bad!" permutates to "what if a doctor refused to perform surgery! Self ownership is bad"

Now it should be up to each property owner to decide if they wear clothes for example then, no?

Homesteading isn't specific to a plot of land. Its specific to an activity. Its just that most activities take up space so property rights historically could just be defined in terms of land.

But if you own a building and make an anti-nude rule, wouldn't that in itself go against property rights?

Who's property rights are you violating?

Another thing, the you own what you can buy/anarchy thing....
If a group then has the money, surely they own it then, then there is no such thing as "anarchy" because the state then is purchased.

A state is an aggressive monopolist on law. Rich people are not necessarily any of those things.

Then the state can make whatever laws they want, due to property rights.

I don't think any libertarian theory says you can build a death cannon on your property and fire it at people just because its on your property.

In that sense no one but the state has any rights.

... does not follow at all.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2011 3:13:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/14/2011 2:41:03 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 2/14/2011 2:17:03 PM, lovelife wrote:

Libertarians, where does one's "property rights" end and another begins?

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Commonly I hear about "buy and own a building and do whatever", "ANARCHY!"! "If you have money you make the rules!!"

Straw man. Markets are just one game we can play with freedom. We can also play democracy or monarchy, but we cannot force anyone else to play with us.

Not really. Its not an argument, its laying out groundwork for what drew me to wondering.

But then there comes a time, one's own body is their... property, surely. I have never seen one argue against that.

For the record, all the arguments against private property can be applied to self ownership too. For example - "what if someone owns all the food! Private property is bad!" permutates to "what if a doctor refused to perform surgery! Self ownership is bad"

Okay?
Was I saying that owning yourself is bad?
No I was stating something that is important to my point later on.

Now it should be up to each property owner to decide if they wear clothes for example then, no?

Homesteading isn't specific to a plot of land. Its specific to an activity. Its just that most activities take up space so property rights historically could just be defined in terms of land.

So what your saying is you aren't your own "property" nor is your clothing?

But if you own a building and make an anti-nude rule, wouldn't that in itself go against property rights?

Who's property rights are you violating?

the person or group that owns the building that makes rules against another's rights, the right to not wear their property (clothing) in public, or apply to the same in a sense of self ownership.

Another thing, the you own what you can buy/anarchy thing....
If a group then has the money, surely they own it then, then there is no such thing as "anarchy" because the state then is purchased.

A state is an aggressive monopolist on law. Rich people are not necessarily any of those things.

Not really. Not at first anyway.
All it would take for the "aggressive monopoly" to form is for a group of rich people to buy land, maybe a little at time, buildings etc, until they own the very place you live, and allow you to stay if you pay them, which increases their profits, which would expand their borders.
In that case they may be able to make whatever rules they want, especially if your answer is "when in someone else's property you have to obey" or the bigger property wins or anything else that makes you wear clothing against your will.

Then the state can make whatever laws they want, due to property rights.

I don't think any libertarian theory says you can build a death cannon on your property and fire it at people just because its on your property.

If they are on your property, or perceived property.

In that sense no one but the state has any rights.

... does not follow at all.

Maybe if I cleared up the obvious misunderstandings.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2011 3:32:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/14/2011 3:13:49 PM, lovelife wrote:

So what your saying is you aren't your own "property" nor is your clothing?

No. I am not saying that.

the person or group that owns the building that makes rules against another's rights, the right to not wear their property (clothing) in public, or apply to the same in a sense of self ownership.

There is no public property under libertarianism.

Not really. Not at first anyway.
All it would take for the "aggressive monopoly" to form is for a group of rich people to buy land, maybe a little at time, buildings etc, until they own the very place you live, and allow you to stay if you pay them, which increases their profits, which would expand their borders.

If they acquired legal power by purchasing property, that is not aggressive, which is not a state.

In that case they may be able to make whatever rules they want, especially if your answer is "when in someone else's property you have to obey" or the bigger property wins or anything else that makes you wear clothing against your will.

Please keep subscribing to the ancient land theory of property.

If they are on your property, or perceived property.

Most libertarians dont think you can shoot someone just for trespassing.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2011 3:45:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/14/2011 3:32:46 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 2/14/2011 3:13:49 PM, lovelife wrote:

So what your saying is you aren't your own "property" nor is your clothing?

No. I am not saying that.

So you and your clothing are your own properties.

the person or group that owns the building that makes rules against another's rights, the right to not wear their property (clothing) in public, or apply to the same in a sense of self ownership.

There is no public property under libertarianism.

Public=/=public property.
School systems are public, but they are still private property that make up their own rules (dress codes, no gum, no phones, no physical contact, etc etc)

Not really. Not at first anyway.
All it would take for the "aggressive monopoly" to form is for a group of rich people to buy land, maybe a little at time, buildings etc, until they own the very place you live, and allow you to stay if you pay them, which increases their profits, which would expand their borders.

If they acquired legal power by purchasing property, that is not aggressive, which is not a state.

It would be, perhaps under a different name, but they would pass down their power much like monarchs, maybe more hand chosen, who knows.
Point is within 3 generations I can guarantee that a purely libertarian society will become a dictatorship.

For example, maybe mirza is rich, and he and a few muslim buddies live in the libertarian place, and decide to buy a building to have shari'a apply there. They work, and expand to 2-3 buildings within a few years, then they start going after parks, and buy houses (non occupied most likely) from whoever is looking to sell or rent out, and then they rent those out, and buy off people who live in their houses, expand their borders just a little more to also own the streets, and other such things, and you now effectively live under shari'a in a libertarian society.

In that case they may be able to make whatever rules they want, especially if your answer is "when in someone else's property you have to obey" or the bigger property wins or anything else that makes you wear clothing against your will.

Please keep subscribing to the ancient land theory of property.

What do you even mean by that?

If they are on your property, or perceived property.

Most libertarians dont think you can shoot someone just for trespassing.

Thats odd, most everyone I know does think that, and I figured libertarians were bigger on property rights than anyone/thing else
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2011 3:49:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/14/2011 2:17:03 PM, lovelife wrote:
Suuure maybe I just don't understand correctly, but my dad had no answers either and is consulting his friend, who is a libertarian politician.:

Your dad probably couldn't answer it because it was inane nonsense.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2011 3:51:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/14/2011 3:45:40 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 2/14/2011 3:32:46 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 2/14/2011 3:13:49 PM, lovelife wrote:

So you and your clothing are your own properties.
I'm using myself, and I'm using my clothing. I'm not hurting anyone. I have a right to continue using them in that manner. For most practical purposes, these are manifest as property rights under legal systems.

Public=/=public property.

What I'm trying to say is that there is no "general area", or "general activity".

School systems are public, but they are still private property that make up their own rules (dress codes, no gum, no phones, no physical contact, etc etc)

The "public" of "public school" is state ownership. That is not public at all.

It would be, perhaps under a different name, but they would pass down their power much like monarchs, maybe more hand chosen, who knows.
Point is within 3 generations I can guarantee that a purely libertarian society will become a dictatorship.

For example, maybe mirza is rich, and he and a few muslim buddies live in the libertarian place, and decide to buy a building to have shari'a apply there. They work, and expand to 2-3 buildings within a few years, then they start going after parks, and buy houses (non occupied most likely) from whoever is looking to sell or rent out, and then they rent those out, and buy off people who live in their houses, expand their borders just a little more to also own the streets, and other such things, and you now effectively live under shari'a in a libertarian society.

Wait wait. So your argument is that because states CAN re-emerge, they will re-emerge. Lol.

Please keep subscribing to the ancient land theory of property.

What do you even mean by that?

You keep thinking about property rights in cardinal terms. But that legal theory is only applicable to like, agricultural societies where all activities involve exclusive use of land. Its not applicable today, and it isn't a general expression of rights.

If they are on your property, or perceived property.

Most libertarians dont think you can shoot someone just for trespassing.

Thats odd, most everyone I know does think that, and I figured libertarians were bigger on property rights than anyone/thing else

*shrug*
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2011 4:15:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/14/2011 3:51:48 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 2/14/2011 3:45:40 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 2/14/2011 3:32:46 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 2/14/2011 3:13:49 PM, lovelife wrote:

So you and your clothing are your own properties.
I'm using myself, and I'm using my clothing. I'm not hurting anyone. I have a right to continue using them in that manner. For most practical purposes, these are manifest as property rights under legal systems.

So no one has the right to tell you you have to or cannot wear clothing? (except maybe in pools being disallowed for health reasons)

Public=/=public property.

What I'm trying to say is that there is no "general area", or "general activity".

Not sure how that is a given.

School systems are public, but they are still private property that make up their own rules (dress codes, no gum, no phones, no physical contact, etc etc)

The "public" of "public school" is state ownership. That is not public at all.

Its open to all hence public.

It would be, perhaps under a different name, but they would pass down their power much like monarchs, maybe more hand chosen, who knows.
Point is within 3 generations I can guarantee that a purely libertarian society will become a dictatorship.

For example, maybe mirza is rich, and he and a few muslim buddies live in the libertarian place, and decide to buy a building to have shari'a apply there. They work, and expand to 2-3 buildings within a few years, then they start going after parks, and buy houses (non occupied most likely) from whoever is looking to sell or rent out, and then they rent those out, and buy off people who live in their houses, expand their borders just a little more to also own the streets, and other such things, and you now effectively live under shari'a in a libertarian society.

Wait wait. So your argument is that because states CAN re-emerge, they will re-emerge. Lol.

Do you disagree?
If so what proof do you have to show it wont?

Please keep subscribing to the ancient land theory of property.

What do you even mean by that?

You keep thinking about property rights in cardinal terms. But that legal theory is only applicable to like, agricultural societies where all activities involve exclusive use of land. Its not applicable today, and it isn't a general expression of rights.

So you can't own land?
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2011 4:59:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Lovelife, I have come to the conclusion that you are not taking this very seriously. There are many libertarian resources that can answer all your questions. They can be found for free at mises.org.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2011 5:55:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/14/2011 4:59:01 PM, Sieben wrote:
Lovelife, I have come to the conclusion that you are not taking this very seriously. There are many libertarian resources that can answer all your questions. They can be found for free at mises.org.

I wanted to know how you would all answer.
I'm getting answers from a politician later, I just wanted to see how the answers and debates would stack against each other.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2011 6:46:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
lovelife i think you're misunderstanding the thing about clothes in buildings.

you think that restuarants should be able to allow smoking if they want to right? and people who don't want to be around smokers just don't go into those restaurants and everything is cool.

now look at the nudity thing... if you own a building, and don't want any naked people in it, you require people who come in to wear clothes. those that don't wish to wear clothes simply don't go into the building. theres no coercion involved in that situation.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2011 6:47:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
also if someone "buys all the land" its not really a state because they can't force any landowners to sell if they don't want to...
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2011 7:46:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/14/2011 6:46:03 PM, belle wrote:
lovelife i think you're misunderstanding the thing about clothes in buildings.

Nah I was just wondering where one's property rights begin and another's ends.

you think that restuarants should be able to allow smoking if they want to right?

Actually smoking causes harm to other people['s property] thus by smoking you are taking aggression on another, which is allowed in some places in some cases, however it can be banned.
Clothing is not aggressive. At least none that I have seen.

and people who don't want to be around smokers just don't go into those restaurants and everything is cool.

Yes.

now look at the nudity thing...

A'right

if you own a building, and don't want any naked people in it, you require people who come in to wear clothes.

So where do property rights end/begin?
If you are your own property then no one can change or require anything of you.
Unless there is some kind of line, and where is that drawn?
Aggression?
Location?
What determines it?

those that don't wish to wear clothes simply don't go into the building. theres no coercion involved in that situation.

But if it becomes a state it becomes coercive, which makes me wonder about the libertarian response to a state forming from a libertarian society.

also if someone "buys all the land" its not really a state because they can't force any landowners to sell if they don't want to...

Sure, but in a few generations, no one chose to be led entirely by one group of people. Since they own it they can make laws just as strict as Saudi Arabia, or North Korea.
Now I think that's pretty extreme, but I hope you see where I'm coming from.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2011 4:33:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Okay so I got an answer from the politician lady (the only politician I know is a libertarian...)

Gail Katherine Lightfoot February 17 at 12:45pm Report
Property rights are inviolate. Whatever we acquire honestly in a fair exchange with others or create on our own is ours to do with whatever we wish. It is just like our personal space. Yours begins where mine ends. Inside my space or property, I decide. Outside or in your space, you decide.
Yes, each person can decide it they wish to be clothed or not o their own property. If you own a building, you control its use and can require clothing. The individual using your building accepts your rules. Owning your body only means you control it inside your own space or within limits set by others in their spaces and you take care of your own body without interference from others.
Since there is really no such thing as public property, any rules about clothing in public places must be voluntary. When the gov't buys it and says it is publically owned, they fail to ask us if we want it. The only way to purchase anything is with the full consent of each buyer and seller. For a huge group, like the taxpayers, each person has to sign on or the purchase is not actually valid. In the reverse, if a group owns something, each owner has to agree to every rule and must agree to sell. Not most or 51%, all or 100%.


How many here agree with her?
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2011 4:49:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/17/2011 4:33:47 PM, lovelife wrote:
Okay so I got an answer from the politician lady (the only politician I know is a libertarian...)

Gail Katherine Lightfoot February 17 at 12:45pm Report
Property rights are inviolate. Whatever we acquire honestly in a fair exchange with others or create on our own is ours to do with whatever we wish. It is just like our personal space. Yours begins where mine ends. Inside my space or property, I decide. Outside or in your space, you decide.
Yes, each person can decide it they wish to be clothed or not o their own property. If you own a building, you control its use and can require clothing. The individual using your building accepts your rules. Owning your body only means you control it inside your own space or within limits set by others in their spaces and you take care of your own body without interference from others.
Since there is really no such thing as public property, any rules about clothing in public places must be voluntary. When the gov't buys it and says it is publically owned, they fail to ask us if we want it. The only way to purchase anything is with the full consent of each buyer and seller. For a huge group, like the taxpayers, each person has to sign on or the purchase is not actually valid. In the reverse, if a group owns something, each owner has to agree to every rule and must agree to sell. Not most or 51%, all or 100%.



How many here agree with her?

No one should really be agreeing to the last part. Since then I could buy a single share of Microsoft, then not agree to do anything and stonewall the entire company. That would allow for competitors to infiltrate companies and bring them down in that manner.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2011 4:55:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/17/2011 4:49:37 PM, OreEle wrote:
No one should really be agreeing to the last part. Since then I could buy a single share of Microsoft, then not agree to do anything and stonewall the entire company. That would allow for competitors to infiltrate companies and bring them down in that manner.

She's referring to joint ownership. Stockholders only own individual shares in the company.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2011 5:56:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/17/2011 4:55:19 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 2/17/2011 4:49:37 PM, OreEle wrote:
No one should really be agreeing to the last part. Since then I could buy a single share of Microsoft, then not agree to do anything and stonewall the entire company. That would allow for competitors to infiltrate companies and bring them down in that manner.

She's referring to joint ownership. Stockholders only own individual shares in the company.

Well she says the only way to purchase "anything," which implies that she is talking about everything.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"