[Truth To Power]

The reason you should respect property rights (when defined as above) is that as a descent person, you don't believe in using force against other (peaceful) people or their ongoing projects.

When someone's "ongoing project" involves the uncompensated abrogation and/or forcible removal of my right to liberty -- my right to use what nature provided for all, and to access the services, infrastructure, opportunities and amenities that government and the community have provided equally to all citizens as public goods -- then that person is not peaceful, and not engaged in a peaceful enterprise. That is why the feudal "libertarian" ideal favored by the likes of Eran has never been peaceful in practice, and never can be: private property in natural resources (land) absent just compensation to all who are thus deprived of their liberty to use them is inherently neither just nor peaceful.

So in the fully-automated world we are delving in, a decent person should accept to starve rather than violate the property of the one who make caviar castles out of boredom?

In the fully automated world, goods like food and housing would be so cheap that no one need starve or even suffer want. The starvation and homelessness would only arise through institutionalization and enforcement of invalid property "rights" in natural resources and technology, which are inherently not peaceful as they forcibly remove others' rights to liberty.

You also realise that the stability and prosperity of society depends on such respect.

Respect for the invalid property claims of greedy takers may seem stable in the short run, but it reliably destroys societies in the long run.

The point is that in an anarcho-capitalist society, few people would have an interest to make the society prosperous. Asking people to die politely not always produces the desired outcome.

When you understand that the an-cap or "non-aggression principle"-based society Eran advocates is in fact a society based on the forcible enslavement of producers by landowners -- i.e., feudalism -- it's much easier to dismiss such nonsense.

[Redneck]

Well, try this on for size. If you don't think you have to respect my rights and I have a bigger army than yours, then I win.
The fact is that ownership of anything, sans government, is based on ones ability to enforce said ownership through physical constructs (i.e.:weapons), or social constructs (i.e.: making deals with you or anyone else I see fit to protect my property.)

[anarchist23]

This is very true.
This is an old thread. If you go to the top of the page and click on "Forum" and then click on "new posts" ...you will get a list of more up to date threads. It's good to see you are getting involved with PoFo. Good Luck.

[Truth To Power]

Well, try this on for size. If you don't think you have to respect my rights and I have a bigger army than yours, then I win.

No, you are not even talking about rights at all. You are just talking about brute, animal force: might makes right. But that is not a principle that applies to human beings, only to brute animals. You have simply adopted the behavioral norm of a subhuman animal as your moral principle in order to evade the fact that you cannot defend your claimed property "rights" with facts or logic.

The fact is that ownership of anything, sans government, is based on ones ability to enforce said ownership through physical constructs (i.e.:weapons), or social constructs (i.e.: making deals with you or anyone else I see fit to protect my property.)

No, you are factually incorrect. The defining characteristic of a right is that A willingly defends B's right against C without any such deal having been made, because A recognizes at some level that security of B's right is in A's interest. That is why property in the fruits of one's labor is recognized as a right in all human societies, with or without government, but property in land and other natural resources requires government -- the state -- to appropriate such items as property by force.

[Redneck]

I like it. But how do you explain eminent domain. A protects B from C until A wants then takes from B.

[Potemkin]

No, you are not even talking about rights at all. You are just talking about brute, animal force: might makes right. But that is not a principle that applies to human beings, only to brute animals. You have simply adopted the behavioral norm of a subhuman animal as your moral principle in order to evade the fact that you cannot defend your claimed property "rights" with facts or logic.

Ask the people of Iraq or Syria or Sudan or Somalia whether 'might makes right' is a principle which applies to human societies or not. What answer are they likely to give you?

And there is one thing which all these countries have in common: the absence of a government based on the rule of law; indeed, the absence of any effective government at all which is not fighting for its very existence and is therefore also subject to the rule of 'might makes right'.

All government is coercive, but the absence of government is even more coercive. Instead of a single tyrant, you are plagued by a thousand tyrants.

[Cookie Monster]

And there is one thing which all these countries have in common: the absence of a government based on the rule of law; indeed, the absence of any effective government at all which is not fighting for its very existence and is therefore also subject to the rule of 'might makes right'.

All government is coercive, but the absence of government is even more coercive. Instead of a single tyrant, you are plagued by a thousand tyrants.

Indeed, you need a firm authority to develop and nurture a rule based society. This wisdom of rule by law functioning as the basis for the rule of law is often forgotten/ignored by contemporary politicians. They believe that the components and norms of a rule of law system, as seen for example in Sweden, can by simply be duplicated in Iraq or Sudan while ignoring the process - often with tears, blood and sweat - that led to its creation.

[Potemkin]

Indeed, you need a firm authority to develop and nurture a rule based society. This wisdom of rule by law functioning as the basis for the rule of law is often forgotten/ignored by contemporary politicians. They believe that the components and norms of a rule of law system, as seen for example in Sweden, can by simply be duplicated in Iraq or Sudan while ignoring the process - often with tears, blood and sweat - that led to its creation.

Precisely right. Personally, I put it down to their general ignorance of the historical process. Either that, or they haven't watched enough episodes of Game of Thrones.

[Cookie Monster]

Precisely right. Personally, I put it down to their general ignorance of the historical process.

I think that it is also partly due to the process of globalisation, and the accompanied universalisation of rules and norms. The conundrum of international rules and norms is that they should - at their very core at least - apply everywhere if they are truly to be universal rules and norms; even if it is contrary to and ignorant of the historical process. If not, it would mean abandoning an important product and instrument of the globalisation process.

Either that, or they haven't watched enough episodes of Game of Thrones. .

At least those until Season 4/5 (with Tyrion, Tywin and Stannis). The last season, although very enjoyable and emotional, was more like a cliché grand heroic story.

[Potemkin]

I think that it is also partly due to the process of globalisation, and the accompanied universalisation of rules and norms. The conundrum of international rules and norms is that they should - at their very core at least - apply everywhere if they are truly to be universal rules and norms; even if it is contrary to and ignorant of the historical process. If not, it would mean abandoning an important product and instrument of the globalisation process.

Good point. The process of forgetting history is at least as important as the process of remembering history in achieving historical progress. After all, if we remembered everything, then we would never do a damn thing that was new or original. For example, it was the Renaissance Italians' misunderstanding (misremembering) of ancient Greek drama which led to the invention of opera, an essentially new innovation in the arts. I suppose the same thing is true in politics.

[Cookie Monster]

Good point. The process of forgetting history is at least as important as the process of remembering history in achieving historical progress. After all, if we remembered everything, then we would never do a damn thing that was new or original. For example, it was the Renaissance Italians' misunderstanding (misremembering) of ancient Greek drama which led to the invention of opera, an essentially new innovation in the arts. I suppose the same thing is true in politics.

Not sure if this creative process in art and culture also equally applies to such a challenging task as state-building. If anything, nations don't forget history. We see that this issue comes up time and again in contested spaces and in the struggles of various nations/tribes/civilisations with a consciousness that can be described as revisionist or revanchist, precisely because they remember one way or another the conceived injustice or past glory.

[Potemkin]

Not sure if this create process in art and culture also equally applies to such challenging tasks as state-building. If anything, nations don't forget history. We see it that issue come up time and again in contested spaces and in the struggles of various nations/tribes/civilisations with a consciousness that can be described as revisionist or revanchist, precisely because they remember one way or another the conceived injustice or past glory.

Indeed, but they usually misremember their glorious past or historical grievance, Cookie. The 'history' of a nation is, after all, a tool in the hands of the ruling elite of that nation, who will use it for their own purposes in the present.

[Cookie Monster]

Indeed, but they usually misremember their glorious past or historical grievance, Cookie. The 'history' of a nation is, after all, a tool in the hands of the ruling elite of that nation, who will use it for their own purposes in the present.

And perhaps the ruling elites are mere actors of a play authored by the scholars and bards, the true elites, who document and tell the deeds and exploits of the elites. And in turn the elites, who feel the angst of "history's" gaze, act in accordance with the play?!