Daily Anarchist Forum
November 27, 2021, 12:57:53 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to the Daily Anarchist Forum!
 
   Home   Help Search Members Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 14
  Print  
Author Topic: Converting an anarcho-communist  (Read 71695 times)
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #75 on: June 25, 2012, 01:17:23 PM »

definition of property: An area in which the property owner has the right to initiate force.
Few propertarian anarchists would be okay with that definition. AFAIK, trespassing, in the common law sense, was not the crime it's thought of today. If you walk through a giant field, doing no harm, the owner can't shoot you. Passing through was treated differently than other types of land use. But it isn't allowed if breaking and entering is required. I'm pulling this stuff out of memory from discussions I've had with people better read than myself. Admittedly, it's all somewhat fuzzy and vague. But I'm the one who doesn't care about absolute morality anyways.

Why? I seems accurate
You will need to elaborate. I don't know what you are asking.
Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."
-MAM
assasin7
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 516


View Profile
« Reply #76 on: June 25, 2012, 06:34:44 PM »

Why is property not a region in which the owner has the right to initiate force?
Logged

"owning a fire arm, that's a hanging offense"
"then go hang yourself"
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #77 on: June 25, 2012, 07:20:05 PM »

Why is property not a region in which the owner has the right to initiate force?
I answered that already. It's too general of a claim. I used the example of trespassing, and how it doesn't justify shooting someone, even in the eyes of propertarians. So not all people think that every infraction justifies the use of force. So your definition isn't a good one, because that's not how people see property.
Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."
-MAM
Hanzo
Full Member
***
Posts: 241


Deprived Ninja


View Profile
« Reply #78 on: June 25, 2012, 08:41:56 PM »

Why is property not a region in which the owner has the right to initiate force?
A property owner can't beat anyone just for being on their property. Only to defend it.
Logged

What if it was a gift?
assasin7
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 516


View Profile
« Reply #79 on: June 25, 2012, 08:58:17 PM »

Why is property not a region in which the owner has the right to initiate force?
A property owner can't beat anyone just for being on their property. Only to defend it.

A state can't beat a citizen up just for being in it, just for breaking the law
Logged

"owning a fire arm, that's a hanging offense"
"then go hang yourself"
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #80 on: June 25, 2012, 10:37:03 PM »

Why is property not a region in which the owner has the right to initiate force?
A property owner can't beat anyone just for being on their property. Only to defend it.

A state can't beat a citizen up just for being in it, just for breaking the law
Bullshit!
Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."
-MAM
SinCityVoluntaryist
Left Rothbardian against the corporate state; Ron Paulian against the empire
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1238



View Profile
« Reply #81 on: June 25, 2012, 10:55:08 PM »

That is bullshit beyond all reasonable understanding. So the police state that we're currently living in doesn't count as a beating? Going throughporno scanners at the airport that can cause cancer and gives perverts the options of seeing your balls is natural?
Logged

<iframe src="http://c4ss.org/c4ssnews/js1.0/c4ssnewsobject.html?ctc=eef467&clc=f4f367" id="c4niframe" width="160" height="360" style="margin: 0px;" scrolling="no" frameborder="0"></iframe>

Support the Molinari Institute:
http://praxeology.net/molinari.htm
SinCityVoluntaryist
Left Rothbardian against the corporate state; Ron Paulian against the empire
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1238



View Profile
« Reply #82 on: June 25, 2012, 11:25:20 PM »

 Ass7., your view of property is completely off. Having property is not meant to represent a sign of force against other individuals. Property, by it's very nature, is meant to be used by man in order to bring order to his life. Man needs property in order to organize himself and what is morale to himself. Tell me, without property, how would you be able to structure yourself? Ex: if you have furniture, but have no property that gives you the ability to structure said furniture, how can you create order?
Logged

<iframe src="http://c4ss.org/c4ssnews/js1.0/c4ssnewsobject.html?ctc=eef467&clc=f4f367" id="c4niframe" width="160" height="360" style="margin: 0px;" scrolling="no" frameborder="0"></iframe>

Support the Molinari Institute:
http://praxeology.net/molinari.htm
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #83 on: June 26, 2012, 12:00:44 AM »

Background for my previous answer:

The obvious counterexample would require that I Godwin the thread, so I won't mention it explicitly. But, you know...that whole ordeal.

Or what about Executive Order 9066?
Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."
-MAM
SinCityVoluntaryist
Left Rothbardian against the corporate state; Ron Paulian against the empire
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1238



View Profile
« Reply #84 on: June 26, 2012, 02:04:20 AM »

Not familiar with that, Mark.
Logged

<iframe src="http://c4ss.org/c4ssnews/js1.0/c4ssnewsobject.html?ctc=eef467&clc=f4f367" id="c4niframe" width="160" height="360" style="margin: 0px;" scrolling="no" frameborder="0"></iframe>

Support the Molinari Institute:
http://praxeology.net/molinari.htm
assasin7
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 516


View Profile
« Reply #85 on: June 26, 2012, 06:47:03 AM »

That is bullshit beyond all reasonable understanding. So the police state that we're currently living in doesn't count as a beating? Going throughporno scanners at the airport that can cause cancer and gives perverts the options of seeing your balls is natural?

Yea, but property is just as bad, an owner of property can command the same thing, but you would complain.
Logged

"owning a fire arm, that's a hanging offense"
"then go hang yourself"
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #86 on: June 26, 2012, 10:13:17 AM »

That is bullshit beyond all reasonable understanding. So the police state that we're currently living in doesn't count as a beating? Going throughporno scanners at the airport that can cause cancer and gives perverts the options of seeing your balls is natural?

Yea, but property is just as bad, an owner of property can command the same thing, but you would complain.
No, an owner of property can't command the same thing. An owner of a theoretical airport can't ensure that every other airport has the same ridiculous practices.
Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."
-MAM
SinCityVoluntaryist
Left Rothbardian against the corporate state; Ron Paulian against the empire
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1238



View Profile
« Reply #87 on: June 26, 2012, 11:44:02 AM »

 Ah, but you see, now you're confusing public, government owned property with private property. Property that is owned by the government (in this case airports) is, but its very nature, a violent space because government must use the force of taxation in order to maintain it. Private property, on the other hand, is a space that a person uses his own resources and money to own and mold the way he or she deems fit.

 A person that owns private property has a right to defend it. If you come onto someone's property without their full consent and commit a criminal act, they have every right to meet you with full force.

 Let me explain why your argument in wholly invalid: if man does not own his body (his most basic property), then the ideas of theft and murder cannot exist, because if man does not own himself then, he cannot be held responsible for such actions. Taking this and applying it to property, we must then conclude that if man does not have any property, then there cannot be any justification for the idea of theft. Do you understand where I'm coming from here?
Logged

<iframe src="http://c4ss.org/c4ssnews/js1.0/c4ssnewsobject.html?ctc=eef467&clc=f4f367" id="c4niframe" width="160" height="360" style="margin: 0px;" scrolling="no" frameborder="0"></iframe>

Support the Molinari Institute:
http://praxeology.net/molinari.htm
Hanzo
Full Member
***
Posts: 241


Deprived Ninja


View Profile
« Reply #88 on: June 26, 2012, 11:47:40 AM »

The purpose of (private) property is to allocate resources most efficiently (ie allocate it to those who will use it most productively and thus produce the most wealth for others and themselves). The purpose of the state is, quite frankly, to be an asshole. The state adds 0 value to society. It actually takes away a a lot of value. Capital assets are used to produce things, the state is used to take things.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2012, 11:50:10 AM by Deprived Ninja » Logged

What if it was a gift?
Hanzo
Full Member
***
Posts: 241


Deprived Ninja


View Profile
« Reply #89 on: June 26, 2012, 11:49:17 AM »

Out of curiosity, in your words, assassin,  how should resources be allocated to people?
Logged

What if it was a gift?
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 14
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!