Total Posts:59|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Open Borders and Libertarianism

jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 10:29:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Libertarians seem to have an obsession with open borders... (at least most of the libertarians I know)

This, to me, seems wrong

As an anti-statist, I advocate a society in which all property is, basically, private (bear with me here)...

Now, in this society, all immigration would be restricted... Since all property is private, the owners of the property must approve anyone who comes onto their property...

Now, for a second, imagine a society with some public... statist property as welll...

This property is supposedly owned by the entire community that lives in the area this state controls... Basically, the public services in America are owned by Americans... using a basic view of property... This means that America, or any country, has every right to restrict immigration, even a Minarchist State...

So, isnt open border libertariaism contradictory..
President of DDO
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 10:35:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
All property is private
Some property is "community owned"

What's contradictory again?

Also, believing restrictions on immigration are legitimate =/= advocating them.

If you don't want the brown people on your personal property, great, but restricting immigration means I can't have them on my property either
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 10:36:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/7/2011 10:32:42 PM, darkkermit wrote:
So we are to assume that no person is willing to sell their private property to an immigrant :p?

Again, I advocate no state...

But, the majority gets to decide who comes in and who does not come in... That is, if they are going to use the roads and schools...

I don't like it much either... but hey, thats democracy for ya...
President of DDO
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 10:37:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/7/2011 10:35:11 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
All property is private
Some property is "community owned"

What's contradictory again?

Also, believing restrictions on immigration are legitimate =/= advocating them.

If you don't want the brown people on your personal property, great, but restricting immigration means I can't have them on my property either

Ya, but if you let them on your property... They'll be using the roads and schools that I helped pay for... I am supposed to be partial owner of those things...
President of DDO
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 10:41:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/7/2011 10:36:25 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/7/2011 10:32:42 PM, darkkermit wrote:
So we are to assume that no person is willing to sell their private property to an immigrant :p?

Again, I advocate no state...

But, the majority gets to decide who comes in and who does not come in... That is, if they are going to use the roads and schools...

And how is that not statist?

I don't like it much either... but hey, thats democracy for ya...

And how is that not statist? Your basically advocating absolute state power and mob rule. Why not give the power of the to vote on what one can say, wear, eat, or do since it's all on 'public property'?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 10:44:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/7/2011 10:41:28 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/7/2011 10:36:25 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/7/2011 10:32:42 PM, darkkermit wrote:
So we are to assume that no person is willing to sell their private property to an immigrant :p?

Again, I advocate no state...

But, the majority gets to decide who comes in and who does not come in... That is, if they are going to use the roads and schools...

And how is that not statist?


I don't like it much either... but hey, thats democracy for ya...

And how is that not statist? Your basically advocating absolute state power and mob rule. Why not give the power of the to vote on what one can say, wear, eat, or do since it's all on 'public property'?

This is life in a statist society for ya... get used to it...

If an entire community owns the roads, schools, and what not, the entire community gets to decide who uses these things...

Now, of course, I am against the entire state... Which creates this problem in the first place..
President of DDO
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 10:47:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/7/2011 10:44:06 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/7/2011 10:41:28 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/7/2011 10:36:25 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/7/2011 10:32:42 PM, darkkermit wrote:
So we are to assume that no person is willing to sell their private property to an immigrant :p?

Again, I advocate no state...

But, the majority gets to decide who comes in and who does not come in... That is, if they are going to use the roads and schools...

And how is that not statist?


I don't like it much either... but hey, thats democracy for ya...

And how is that not statist? Your basically advocating absolute state power and mob rule. Why not give the power of the to vote on what one can say, wear, eat, or do since it's all on 'public property'?

This is life in a statist society for ya... get used to it...

If an entire community owns the roads, schools, and what not, the entire community gets to decide who uses these things...

Now, of course, I am against the entire state... Which creates this problem in the first place..

So then wtf are you? You obviously don't advocate libertarianism. And closed borders is not linked with libertarianism.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 10:49:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/7/2011 10:47:34 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/7/2011 10:44:06 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/7/2011 10:41:28 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/7/2011 10:36:25 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/7/2011 10:32:42 PM, darkkermit wrote:
So we are to assume that no person is willing to sell their private property to an immigrant :p?

Again, I advocate no state...

But, the majority gets to decide who comes in and who does not come in... That is, if they are going to use the roads and schools...

And how is that not statist?


I don't like it much either... but hey, thats democracy for ya...

And how is that not statist? Your basically advocating absolute state power and mob rule. Why not give the power of the to vote on what one can say, wear, eat, or do since it's all on 'public property'?

This is life in a statist society for ya... get used to it...

If an entire community owns the roads, schools, and what not, the entire community gets to decide who uses these things...

Now, of course, I am against the entire state... Which creates this problem in the first place..

So then wtf are you? You obviously don't advocate libertarianism. And closed borders is not linked with libertarianism.

I'm a libertarian for all political purposes. However, I am really more of an anti-statist in that I oppose the existence of the state...

I could be called an anarchist, but I do not like that term because it implies social anarchy and radical revolution... While, I support the withering away of the state (not in the marxist sense though)

My point was that closed borders SHOULD be linked with libertarianism... or at least be acceptable to libertarians...
President of DDO
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 10:52:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/7/2011 10:49:49 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/7/2011 10:47:34 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/7/2011 10:44:06 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/7/2011 10:41:28 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/7/2011 10:36:25 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/7/2011 10:32:42 PM, darkkermit wrote:
So we are to assume that no person is willing to sell their private property to an immigrant :p?

Again, I advocate no state...

But, the majority gets to decide who comes in and who does not come in... That is, if they are going to use the roads and schools...

And how is that not statist?


I don't like it much either... but hey, thats democracy for ya...

And how is that not statist? Your basically advocating absolute state power and mob rule. Why not give the power of the to vote on what one can say, wear, eat, or do since it's all on 'public property'?

This is life in a statist society for ya... get used to it...

If an entire community owns the roads, schools, and what not, the entire community gets to decide who uses these things...

Now, of course, I am against the entire state... Which creates this problem in the first place..

So then wtf are you? You obviously don't advocate libertarianism. And closed borders is not linked with libertarianism.

I'm a libertarian for all political purposes. However, I am really more of an anti-statist in that I oppose the existence of the state...

I could be called an anarchist, but I do not like that term because it implies social anarchy and radical revolution... While, I support the withering away of the state (not in the marxist sense though)

My point was that closed borders SHOULD be linked with libertarianism... or at least be acceptable to libertarians...

How you didn't prove it though. All you did was prove that a statist believes in closed borders.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 10:55:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/7/2011 10:52:10 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/7/2011 10:49:49 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/7/2011 10:47:34 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/7/2011 10:44:06 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/7/2011 10:41:28 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/7/2011 10:36:25 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/7/2011 10:32:42 PM, darkkermit wrote:
So we are to assume that no person is willing to sell their private property to an immigrant :p?

Again, I advocate no state...

But, the majority gets to decide who comes in and who does not come in... That is, if they are going to use the roads and schools...

And how is that not statist?


I don't like it much either... but hey, thats democracy for ya...

And how is that not statist? Your basically advocating absolute state power and mob rule. Why not give the power of the to vote on what one can say, wear, eat, or do since it's all on 'public property'?

This is life in a statist society for ya... get used to it...

If an entire community owns the roads, schools, and what not, the entire community gets to decide who uses these things...

Now, of course, I am against the entire state... Which creates this problem in the first place..

So then wtf are you? You obviously don't advocate libertarianism. And closed borders is not linked with libertarianism.

I'm a libertarian for all political purposes. However, I am really more of an anti-statist in that I oppose the existence of the state...

I could be called an anarchist, but I do not like that term because it implies social anarchy and radical revolution... While, I support the withering away of the state (not in the marxist sense though)

My point was that closed borders SHOULD be linked with libertarianism... or at least be acceptable to libertarians...

How you didn't prove it though. All you did was prove that a statist believes in closed borders.

My point is that in an anarchocapitalist society, in which all property is private, all "immigration" would be restricted and require consent of those owning the property immigrants are going to.

The fact is that, when there is a state, the public of the place where the state dominates owns the public servcies, so they have a right to block immigrants from using those things...
President of DDO
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 11:00:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/7/2011 10:29:32 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
Libertarians seem to have an obsession with open borders... (at least most of the libertarians I know)

This, to me, seems wrong

Are you talking about Open Borders or Free migration?

Libertarians are split on Open Borders, because of the security risk involved makes open borders contradict Libertarian beliefs regarding the State's role to protect us.

Many Libertarians who favor it do so because of Free Trade, while those who oppose it do so because of Security

Free migration is popular among Left Wing Libertarians, because Left Wing Libertarians are Anarchists, unlike the Right who are Minarchists.


As an anti-statist, I advocate a society in which all property is, basically, private (bear with me here)...

That would be Anarchy-Capitalism. Anarcho-Capitalists (at-least according to their pamphlet) are Left-Wing Libertarianism. Left Wing Libertarians are always anarchists, and Anarcho-Communists are among them. Right Wing Libertarians are Minarchists, and that is usually what Libertarianism is referring to, at-least in the US, and the UK.


Now, in this society, all immigration would be restricted... Since all property is private, the owners of the property must approve anyone who comes onto their property...

Again anarchy. I use to be Anarcho-Capitalist till I lost faith in society....... So basically all throughout High-school I was an anarchist, and once I graduated I became a Minarchist.


Now, for a second, imagine a society with some public... statist property as welll...

This property is supposedly owned by the entire community that lives in the area this state controls... Basically, the public services in America are owned by Americans... using a basic view of property... This means that America, or any country, has every right to restrict immigration, even a Minarchist State...

Yup... Since it's about National Security, which is why it's a Federal Power granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution.


So, isnt open border libertariaism contradictory..

Yes, and No.....

It's contradictory to defending those who live on the border, but spot on in regards to the Free Market.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 11:54:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/7/2011 10:37:47 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/7/2011 10:35:11 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
All property is private
Some property is "community owned"

What's contradictory again?

Also, believing restrictions on immigration are legitimate =/= advocating them.

If you don't want the brown people on your personal property, great, but restricting immigration means I can't have them on my property either

Ya, but if you let them on your property... They'll be using the roads and schools that I helped pay for... I am supposed to be partial owner of those things...

Taxation for roads and schools is already an abandonment of libertarianism. If they are toll roads and fully tuition-based schools, the terms are unlikely to declare you some sort of "owner."

withering away of the state
rofl
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2011 8:47:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/7/2011 11:54:10 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/7/2011 10:37:47 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/7/2011 10:35:11 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
All property is private
Some property is "community owned"

What's contradictory again?

Also, believing restrictions on immigration are legitimate =/= advocating them.

If you don't want the brown people on your personal property, great, but restricting immigration means I can't have them on my property either

Ya, but if you let them on your property... They'll be using the roads and schools that I helped pay for... I am supposed to be partial owner of those things...

Taxation for roads and schools is already an abandonment of libertarianism. If they are toll roads and fully tuition-based schools, the terms are unlikely to declare you some sort of "owner."

withering away of the state
rofl

I don't think you understand...I want all property to be private
President of DDO
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2011 1:06:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/8/2011 8:47:47 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
All property is private
Some property is "community owned"

I advocate no state...
But, the majority gets to decide

if you let them on your property... They'll be using the roads and schools that I helped pay for... I am supposed to be partial owner of those things...
I want all property to be private

Crikey Jim, you seem to be just rambling incoherently and contradicting yourself here. You have a heavy night last night?
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2011 1:52:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/7/2011 11:00:20 PM, DanT wrote:

Free migration is popular among Left Wing Libertarians, because Left Wing Libertarians are Anarchists, unlike the Right who are Minarchists.

That would be Anarchy-Capitalism. Anarcho-Capitalists (at-least according to their pamphlet) are Left-Wing Libertarianism. Left Wing Libertarians are always anarchists, and Anarcho-Communists are among them. Right Wing Libertarians are Minarchists, and that is usually what Libertarianism is referring to, at-least in the US, and the UK.

It depends on how you define left and right. If we're talking about it economics wise than anarchy is not necessarily lefitst i.e. anarcho-capitalism which stresses private property and free trade. If we're talking about it in regards to power structures than it is left wing, since it opposes political hierarchy.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
jamesofthecommons
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2011 2:04:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/7/2011 10:29:32 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
Libertarians seem to have an obsession with open borders... (at least most of the libertarians I know)

This, to me, seems wrong

As an anti-statist, I advocate a society in which all property is, basically, private (bear with me here)...

Now, in this society, all immigration would be restricted... Since all property is private, the owners of the property must approve anyone who comes onto their property...

Now, for a second, imagine a society with some public... statist property as welll...

This property is supposedly owned by the entire community that lives in the area this state controls... Basically, the public services in America are owned by Americans... using a basic view of property... This means that America, or any country, has every right to restrict immigration, even a Minarchist State...

So, isnt open border libertariaism contradictory..

Libertarianism is contrary to liberty. If all the property in a nation were to be privately owned,what could be said of the liberty of that portion of the population which does not own property ? The libertarians by and large, favor a very conditional liberty;that is liberty only for the ownership class.

If all the property along the border were privately owned ,who is to say that a portion of those owners would not be in favor of leaving their section of border open to the free flow of cheap labor ?

This is my land, that is your land, is hardly a recipie for a strong and free nation;but rather a blueprint for the return of fuedalism.
jamesofthecommons
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2011 2:08:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/7/2011 10:36:25 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/7/2011 10:32:42 PM, darkkermit wrote:
So we are to assume that no person is willing to sell their private property to an immigrant :p?

Again, I advocate no state...

But, the majority gets to decide who comes in and who does not come in... That is, if they are going to use the roads and schools...

I don't like it much either... but hey, thats democracy for ya...

Private property is a creation of the state.It is not possible to advocate the ownership of private property;while at the same time advocating statelessness.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2011 2:22:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Libertarianism is contrary to liberty. If all the property in a nation were to be privately owned,what could be said of the liberty of that portion of the population which does not own property ?
They are free to seek employment from millions of options or attempt to make a living off things that aren't property yet (all the property=/= everything.)

Whereas without any private property no one is free to do anything, they need the permission of the State.

This is my land, that is your land, is hardly a recipie for a strong and free nation;but rather a blueprint for the return of fuedalism.
Feudalism did not involve the lords actually rightfully acquiring any property, they simply made it up. Also, they stabbed anyone who tried to switch employers.

Private property is a creation of the state
Property is a creation of its original acquirer (who created it by mixing labor with something that was not what it is now). The state enforcing it=/= the state creating it.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2011 2:23:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Though you are right that many property owners along a border would be incentivized to let folks in. Cheap labor!
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2011 2:23:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/8/2011 2:08:18 PM, jamesofthecommons wrote:
Private property is a creation of the state.It is not possible to advocate the ownership of private property;while at the same time advocating statelessness.

Uh, no, public property is a creation of the state. By definition. Private property is something owned by individuals and businesses, and does not require the government.
jamesofthecommons
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2011 2:37:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/8/2011 2:23:32 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 10/8/2011 2:08:18 PM, jamesofthecommons wrote:
Private property is a creation of the state.It is not possible to advocate the ownership of private property;while at the same time advocating statelessness.

Uh, no, public property is a creation of the state. By definition. Private property is something owned by individuals and businesses, and does not require the government.

And what or whom exactly gives any individual or group the right to claim ownership over any given piece of property ? Who is it that enforces the claim of private property ?
Yes,public property as we know it, is also a creation of the state.Having said that, the original form of 'public' property was simply land that was commonly shared;and at times fought over.Commonly accsessed,or shared land can exist without a state,privately owned land can not .
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2011 2:44:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/8/2011 2:37:55 PM, jamesofthecommons wrote:
At 10/8/2011 2:23:32 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 10/8/2011 2:08:18 PM, jamesofthecommons wrote:
Private property is a creation of the state.It is not possible to advocate the ownership of private property;while at the same time advocating statelessness.

Uh, no, public property is a creation of the state. By definition. Private property is something owned by individuals and businesses, and does not require the government.

And what or whom exactly gives any individual or group the right to claim ownership over any given piece of property ? Who is it that enforces the claim of private property ?
Yes,public property as we know it, is also a creation of the state.Having said that, the original form of 'public' property was simply land that was commonly shared;and at times fought over.Commonly accsessed,or shared land can exist without a state,privately owned land can not .

If the government collapsed, my watch is still my watch. It remains private property, not public property. Why would a lack of government change that?
jamesofthecommons
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2011 3:02:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/8/2011 2:44:19 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 10/8/2011 2:37:55 PM, jamesofthecommons wrote:
At 10/8/2011 2:23:32 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 10/8/2011 2:08:18 PM, jamesofthecommons wrote:
Private property is a creation of the state.It is not possible to advocate the ownership of private property;while at the same time advocating statelessness.

Uh, no, public property is a creation of the state. By definition. Private property is something owned by individuals and businesses, and does not require the government.

And what or whom exactly gives any individual or group the right to claim ownership over any given piece of property ? Who is it that enforces the claim of private property ?
Yes,public property as we know it, is also a creation of the state.Having said that, the original form of 'public' property was simply land that was commonly shared;and at times fought over.Commonly accsessed,or shared land can exist without a state,privately owned land can not .

If the government collapsed, my watch is still my watch. It remains private property, not public property. Why would a lack of government change that?

Private property is legitimised not by the person making the claim, but by a government willing to enforce that claim. Anyone can claim to own anything,and be willing to use force to defend that claim,however the willingness to use force to defend a claim of ownership does not make that claim legitimate.
Let's be serious about this;do you really believe the institution of private land ownership would exist absent government ? ! Get real would ya !
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2011 3:04:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/8/2011 2:37:55 PM, jamesofthecommons wrote:
At 10/8/2011 2:23:32 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 10/8/2011 2:08:18 PM, jamesofthecommons wrote:
Private property is a creation of the state.It is not possible to advocate the ownership of private property;while at the same time advocating statelessness.

Uh, no, public property is a creation of the state. By definition. Private property is something owned by individuals and businesses, and does not require the government.

And what or whom exactly gives any individual or group the right to claim ownership over any given piece of property ?
An act of creating that property from someone else.

Who is it that enforces the claim of private property ?
Completely different question.

Yes,public property as we know it, is also a creation of the state.Having said that, the original form of 'public' property was simply land that was commonly shared
Land has never been, shall never be, can never be, "commonly shared." Scarcity is THE basic fact of economics.

Commonly accsessed,or shared land can exist without a state
Can't exist at all.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2011 3:04:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Private property is legitimised not by the person making the claim, but by a government willing to enforce that claim. Anyone can claim to own anything,and be willing to use force to defend that claim,however the willingness to use force to defend a claim of ownership does not make that claim legitimate.
You've got it backwards, the only thing governments offer is force. Legitimacy has nothing to do with government.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2011 3:05:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Let's be serious about this;do you really believe the institution of private land ownership would exist absent government ? ! Get real would ya !
This is the fallacy of argument from incredulity.

Note that private land ownership existing and being respected are different questions.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2011 3:08:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/8/2011 3:02:58 PM, jamesofthecommons wrote:
At 10/8/2011 2:44:19 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 10/8/2011 2:37:55 PM, jamesofthecommons wrote:
At 10/8/2011 2:23:32 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 10/8/2011 2:08:18 PM, jamesofthecommons wrote:
Private property is a creation of the state.It is not possible to advocate the ownership of private property;while at the same time advocating statelessness.

Uh, no, public property is a creation of the state. By definition. Private property is something owned by individuals and businesses, and does not require the government.

And what or whom exactly gives any individual or group the right to claim ownership over any given piece of property ? Who is it that enforces the claim of private property ?
Yes,public property as we know it, is also a creation of the state.Having said that, the original form of 'public' property was simply land that was commonly shared;and at times fought over.Commonly accsessed,or shared land can exist without a state,privately owned land can not .

If the government collapsed, my watch is still my watch. It remains private property, not public property. Why would a lack of government change that?

Private property is legitimised not by the person making the claim, but by a government willing to enforce that claim. Anyone can claim to own anything,and be willing to use force to defend that claim,however the willingness to use force to defend a claim of ownership does not make that claim legitimate.

Obviously, there can be another source of legitimacy. I bought this watch with my own money; therefore, it is my watch.

Let's be serious about this;do you really believe the institution of private land ownership would exist absent government ? ! Get real would ya !

Yes, it could.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2011 3:16:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/8/2011 1:52:27 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/7/2011 11:00:20 PM, DanT wrote:

Free migration is popular among Left Wing Libertarians, because Left Wing Libertarians are Anarchists, unlike the Right who are Minarchists.

That would be Anarchy-Capitalism. Anarcho-Capitalists (at-least according to their pamphlet) are Left-Wing Libertarianism. Left Wing Libertarians are always anarchists, and Anarcho-Communists are among them. Right Wing Libertarians are Minarchists, and that is usually what Libertarianism is referring to, at-least in the US, and the UK.

It depends on how you define left and right. If we're talking about it economics wise than anarchy is not necessarily lefitst i.e. anarcho-capitalism which stresses private property and free trade. If we're talking about it in regards to power structures than it is left wing, since it opposes political hierarchy.

I define left and right in the original sense; as used by the French during the French Revolution.

Left = Reform
Right = Tradition

(n) Left Wing: those who support varying degrees of social or political or economic change designed to promote the public welfare
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

(n) Right Wing: those who support political or social or economic conservatism; those who believe that things are better left unchanged
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
jamesofthecommons
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2011 3:16:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/8/2011 3:02:58 PM, jamesofthecommons wrote:
At 10/8/2011 2:44:19 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 10/8/2011 2:37:55 PM, jamesofthecommons wrote:
At 10/8/2011 2:23:32 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 10/8/2011 2:08:18 PM, jamesofthecommons wrote:
Private property is a creation of the state.It is not possible to advocate the ownership of private property;while at the same time advocating statelessness.

Uh, no, public property is a creation of the state. By definition. Private property is something owned by individuals and businesses, and does not require the government.

And what or whom exactly gives any individual or group the right to claim ownership over any given piece of property ? Who is it that enforces the claim of private property ?
Yes,public property as we know it, is also a creation of the state.Having said that, the original form of 'public' property was simply land that was commonly shared;and at times fought over.Commonly accsessed,or shared land can exist without a state,privately owned land can not .

If the government collapsed, my watch is still my watch. It remains private property, not public property. Why would a lack of government change that?

Private property is legitimised not by the person making the claim, but by a government willing to enforce that claim. Anyone can claim to own anything,and be willing to use force to defend that claim,however the willingness to use force to defend a claim of ownership does not make that claim legitimate.
Let's be serious about this;do you really believe the institution of private land ownership would exist absent government ? ! Get real would ya !

Okay;I am now claiming the sun as my private property.From this point onward I will be extracting a weekly fee from all persons not in my immediate family for the right to enjoy and benifit from the sun.Note that,despite a lack of government support for my claim ,I will be using force to assure that everyone respects and abides by my claim.----- Now do you see the problem with your argument ?