Would Libertarians give up their property for Libertarianism - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Classical liberalism. The individual before the state, non-interventionist, free-market based society.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
Would Libertarians give up their currently recognised property for Libertarianism? As I understand it, according to the NAP any property acquired through violation of the NAP is not legitimate property. When the thief (and maybe murderer and all sorts of other crimes) sells that property it does not become legitimate. Any product from a farm or factory built on that stolen property or using that property as raw materials, transporting inputs and outputs across stolen land etc etc, is it self illegitimate property. Can we not assume that all property is illegitimate beyond all reasonable doubt. So morally no one has any right to currently recognised property?

Now personally I would go further and say that ones very self is itself a product based on illegitimate property. An individual does not just spring into life fully formed like Athena. An individual requires parents and ancestors and a culture and society to be born into and grow up. The idea of self ownership seems to me utterly preposterous. I can't imagine how anyone could be so intellectually lacking to even consider the idea. Of course self ownership like private property generally might make sense as a pragmatic, every day working assumption. Its just as philosophical, moral absolute it seem banal. And this is without taking into account that ancestors might have some moral claim against their off spring. In fact to be honest I could never quite workout what the relationship of the Libertarian system is to planet Earth. I'm sure there must be one.

But anyway just suppose us, the Communalists and other malcontents were willing to give up their claims and demands on your individual selves would Libertarians be prepared to give up what property the currently constituted governments now recognise in order to live in a Libertarian world. You see I've noticed that all ideological groups always want others to make sacrifices, either in what they control or in what they claim. The Zionists want the Palestinians to give up their claims and for their neighbours to give up their weapons programmes. The Palestinians want Israel to relinquish control which is under no immediate threat of loss. Even my clearly superior solution of the Palestinians being given a homeland in South Texas and the current population being relocated and compensated by the American government involves someone else making sacrifices not me. The Communists want the Bourgeoisie to have their property taken away. The small government Republicans want the poor and unemployed to lose their welfare. I don't claim to be any different I support Copyright but oppose Patents, which is quite convenient because I'm writing and plan to continue to write software. If the Democratic government was to disappear I personally would be prepared to use unlimited violence to protect my copy right but to stop the extraction of involuntary patent revenue.

So would you be willing to give up all your current property and your passport (citizenship) for the wonders of Libertarianism, just keeping your ill gotten self? Or are you yet another group for who conveniently morality requires that others make all the sacrifices?
Now personally I would go further and say that ones very self is itself a product based on illegitimate property.

You're setting up an impossible situation: your premise is that even one's own body isn't one's own property, and then you ask if we're willing to give up ownership of our own bodies in order to be libertarian, under which ownership of one's own body is a very basic tenet. So your question is meaningless.
A thief cannot legitimately own the property he stole. Agreed.

However, the person who purchased the property from the thief isn't as obviously lacking in legitimacy.

He clearly doesn't have as good a title as the original owner from whom the property was stolen. But if that owner doesn't exist, is unknwon, cannot be found or doesn't wish to claim the property, the purchaser may well be the legitimate owner.

This well describes the situation of most property titles today. Sure, in the chain of title transfers, there probably have been thieves and robbers, most likely of the political variety. But the current owners have purchased their property rather than stolen it, and, critically, no better claimant is available.

When I bought my house, I also purchased title insurance that would have compensated me in the unlikely event that a better claimant for the title of the property was to come forward.

Perhaps that insurance allows me to declare, with clear conscience, that I would give up my property if so required by the rules of a libertarian society.
I think perhaps there is some kind of fairey tale being told here....

One in which everything that exists was ultimately stolen from someone else at some time or other if you trace history far enough back.

This is most likely bullshit however. Even in war most of the stuff is not stolen from the locals. Only the taxation rights from the hierarchy.

I'm not a palestinian. I don't live in a warzone.
Where are all these stolen fatories? Where I live no factories have ever been stolen from anyone that I'm aware of. The Germans managed to bomb a few once, that's about it.

My house was built by an invading general in 1066. I'm not sure if he stole it form anyone. He might have. Certainly he brought the materials to build it with him. The wood from his ships. It's the sum achievement of more than one lifetime's work. The combined human effort of more than one person. My life is as nothing to it. I am worth less than it is. I cannot ever expect to replace it if I lose it. Mess with it and you'll pull my psycho trigger.

I am happy to kill people to keep certain items I own. I am happy to die for it too.
You ask what I would be willing to sacrifce for my property, both my life and yours. Preferably yours.

So bring it commies. Come get my stuff. Come and explain to my face how I stole it from you.
Same goes for Libertarians or anyone else.

My passport and my citisenship are not things that I'm married to either. I have to give them up sooner or later anyway in order to retire to Japan with Mrs Baff.
No biggie.
Will I give up my citisenship for my principles... gladly. There is very little I won't give up for love. Will I give stuff up for a political ideology? Of course not.
Politics is a bag of shit. Ideology just a bunch of words.
Can ancestors of former slaves claim compensation for the stolen labour of former generations? Can wealthy individuals claim compensation for taxes? Can we all claim compensation for the pollution produced by everyone else?

I think libertarians would want to avoid abstractions and consider a time limit on property claims.
Libertarians recognise that some past injustices cannot, as a matter of practice, be wholly repaired.

No, the ancestors of former slaves cannot claim such compensation, because the value lost to their ancient ancestors cannot be located, nor can the perpetrators be identified (all of them being long dead).

Wealthy (and less wealthy) individuals should be able to claim compensation for taxes paid as a matter of principle. Their claim, together with that of government bond-holders, ought to be taken into account when government property is being privatised.

As for pollution, once we transition to a tort-based regime, pollution-based claims would become possible, though I doubt they would be applied retroactively, except in unusual cases.
AFAIK wrote:Can ancestors of former slaves claim compensation for the stolen labour of former generations? Can wealthy individuals claim compensation for taxes? Can we all claim compensation for the pollution produced by everyone else?

I think libertarians would want to avoid abstractions and consider a time limit on property claims.

They can try.
I can trace my own ancestry as far back as my grandparents.

I am willing to accept financial responsability for my parents. Both living and dead. I would consider that to be a priviledge given that both have so often done the same for me.
My dead grandparents and whoever you may decide I am spawned from before that, I'm not willing to pay for them just as they never paid anything to me.

Not all injustices, past or present can be readressed.
If you want to sue everyone for everything go and live in America.

In life shit will happen to you. Not all of it will be your fault. Also shit will happen to other people too. And despite your best efforts some of the shit that happens to other people will be your fault. This is normal.
As far as is humanly possible we do not recourse to legal enforcement wherever possible. We only do this in very extreme circumstances.
Typically, you would discuss your ancestors slavery with me and if you could convince me of both my complicity and your aggreivance and I happened to have the money to pay you what you asked and have no greater need of it than yours.... I would pay.

Most likely however is that I would just ridicule and insult you.
If you are so weak as to come out with some crap about how my ancestor abused your ancestor and that's why today I have to give my stuff to you.... you aren't going to be someone I am able to feel any respect for as an individual on your own merits.

Seriously, law courts are expensive to run. If you brought this kind of petty twaddle before a court, I would expect them to charge you with contempt.

And with all the recent deaths in Spain, it would[…]

Holes in my Consciousness

Hillary Clinton

What doesn’t effect fertility?

Agreed on Saudi Arabia, but explain this shit: I[…]