- 29 Sep 2014 00:52
#14469856
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.
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.
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.
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.
Eran wrote: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.
Harmattan wrote: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.
Eran wrote: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.