principles vs reality

[Disengage]

Try telling death you own yourself, and its more like your borrowing your body while you occupy it

I don't see how this is an answer to my questions. 

[Seth King]

Try telling death you own yourself, and its more like your borrowing your body while you occupy it

To be honest, I sympathize with this. I actually don't believe in ownership either. Only claims.

Private property is a useful chimera, but at the end of the day all things belong to God.

I see a slippery slope.

On top of that if all things  belong to God everyone steals from this God because how can they possibly have been given permission to use it. Therefor everyone is a theif. Or if one is merely borrowing from this God what is the contract? What exactly can you do with this God's property? What can't you do? Who says what the terms of this God are? Do I decide? Do you? Does someone in a fancy hat?
Point is there is no point from which to make judgments about anything save from ourselves, throwing deities into the mix only confuses the matter and is beside the point.

The question is a) Do property rights exist b) Are postive obligation ethics correct? The answer to a is yes the answer to b is no, but for the sake of arguement we say that they are valid where do we draw the line between crime and not crime? I mean if CO2 causes harm and producing said is a crime than breathing is a crime. This gets really silly really fast.

I was talking in a metaphysical sense. But yes, as far as our actions go we should respect the ethical claims of others, calling it property if we wish.

[Aegidius]

Try telling death you own yourself, and its more like your borrowing your body while you occupy it

This only makes sense alongside the supposition that death is some sort of real, conscious entity without whose intervention we would live forever, and furthermore that its actions define right and wrong.  (That is, when death takes you from yourself, it is not comitting a crime against you but rather showing that you never owned yourself in the first place.)  

"Clearly you never owned that car, or I wouldn't have stolen it!"

Perhaps this makes sense to the adherents of some religions.

From a more secular standpoint that sees our mortality as a regrettable part of our nature and no different from, for example, the fact that we need to eat every so often, your assertion is a bizarre non sequitor.

"You can't own that car; it won't even run for all eternity!  Try telling wear and tear that you own your car."

[JustSayNoToStatism]

hmm... is mortality regrettable or not? That would be an interesting discussion.

[Aegidius]

To tell the truth, I threw that "regrettable" in there without really thinking about it.  Whether it's appropriate or not depends on a lot of things.

[JustSayNoToStatism]

To tell the truth, I threw that "regrettable" in there without really thinking about it.  Whether it's appropriate or not depends on a lot of things.

I sort of gathered that you weren't taking a stance on it in your previous post. But it's something I've grappled with before. An interesting question, for sure.

[MAM]

To tell the truth, I threw that "regrettable" in there without really thinking about it.  Whether it's appropriate or not depends on a lot of things.

I sort of gathered that you weren't taking a stance on it in your previous post. But it's something I've grappled with before. An interesting question, for sure.

I'm a Transhumanist, I would like to live forever.

[Hanzo]

In theory anarcho capitalism is great, but reality is much muddier and confusing

Anarcho-communism is a much more realistic and viable solution.

[MAM]

In theory anarcho capitalism is great, but reality is much muddier and confusing

Anarcho-communism is a much more realistic and viable solution.

Anarcho communism is funny to me, bitching about the state while wanting more of what the state does.

[assasin7]

In theory anarcho capitalism is great, but reality is much muddier and confusing

Anarcho-communism is a much more realistic and viable solution.

Anarcho communism is funny to me, bitching about the state while wanting more of what the state does.

Thats actually a fight within anarcho communism their are 2 factions (and me because I'm unique):

the radicals: they are against the state at all times, they advocate the creation of alternatives to it in the here and now, they hate liberals and are in favor of, if their hurting us we hurt them. Say they'll smash envirmentally damaging stuff and destroy military planes bound for the middle east.

the chomskytes: in the short term the state is a tool for helping people, their are people suffering and if the state can elievate it its good.

me: I'm not against violence and property destruction (violence is only against people, not property) I want public education destroyed. but i would like universal health care and free food, but I also want the creation of anarchist alternatives. Food not Bombs, squatting, unions, ETC.

[Syock]

me: I'm not against violence and property destruction (violence is only against people, not property) I want public education destroyed. but i would like universal health care and free food, but I also want the creation of anarchist alternatives. Food not Bombs, squatting, unions, ETC.

There is no such thing as free food.  Someone has to grow/hunt/harvest/ship it.  It costs someone something. 

[rudolph]

me: I'm not against violence and property destruction (violence is only against people, not property) I want public education destroyed. but i would like universal health care and free food, but I also want the creation of anarchist alternatives. Food not Bombs, squatting, unions, ETC.

So are you really an anarchist? You want certain things, but don't want others?

TBH the system you are proposing seems neither logically consistent nor viable in the real world. Why would you harm me if I have a bit of extra food and somebody else doesn't? How could you fault me for not wanting someone I do not like on my land? How would you stop me from taking out my gun and shooting you when you try? I find anarcho-communism to be rather lacking when attempting to answer some of these questions (and many more of course).

[Syock]

me: I'm not against violence and property destruction (violence is only against people, not property) I want public education destroyed. but i would like universal health care and free food, but I also want the creation of anarchist alternatives. Food not Bombs, squatting, unions, ETC.

So are you really an anarchist? You want certain things, but don't want others?

TBH the system you are proposing seems neither logically consistent nor viable in the real world. Why would you harm me if I have a bit of extra food and somebody else doesn't? How could you fault me for not wanting someone I do not like on my land? How would you stop me from taking out my gun and shooting you when you try? I find anarcho-communism to be rather lacking when attempting to answer some of these questions (and many more of course).

That is a never ending source of debate.  Ancoms say we are not real anarchists.  They wouldn't consider the food and the land to be yours in the first place.  So they would say you defending it would be the aggression.  

If you read through the posts of assasin7 you will find these arguments follow him all over the forum.  

[rudolph]

me: I'm not against violence and property destruction (violence is only against people, not property) I want public education destroyed. but i would like universal health care and free food, but I also want the creation of anarchist alternatives. Food not Bombs, squatting, unions, ETC.

So are you really an anarchist? You want certain things, but don't want others?

TBH the system you are proposing seems neither logically consistent nor viable in the real world. Why would you harm me if I have a bit of extra food and somebody else doesn't? How could you fault me for not wanting someone I do not like on my land? How would you stop me from taking out my gun and shooting you when you try? I find anarcho-communism to be rather lacking when attempting to answer some of these questions (and many more of course).

That is a never ending source of debate.  Ancoms say we are not real anarchists.  They wouldn't consider the food and the land to be yours in the first place.  So they would say you defending it would be the aggression.  

If you read through the posts of assasin7 you will find these arguments follow him all over the forum.  

I understand, I guess my point is how are you going to convince someone of that. I know that it has been said ad nauseum, but the whole ancom POV is frustratingly vaccuous, I had to say something.

[BobRobertson]

the whole ancom POV is frustratingly vaccuous

Which is why arguing with them is pointless. They're not listening.

If you tell a Zeitgeist zealot that all they're doing is restating Marxist rhetoric, they simply deny it and move on. There is no arguing with someone who will not listen. Come up with two or three obvious ways they're wrong, present those any time they post, and move on.

Anyone who will be convinced by the rhetoric isn't going to listen to the realism of an-cap anyway. If they ever come back and _ask_, then they are ready to listen.