Truth To Power wrote:But some "property" -- specifically land titles and IP monopolies -- is nothing but institutionalized initiation of force.
RedPillAger wrote:here i think we actually agree on something. if you mean intellectual property, i don't recognize it as property. IP is an illegitimate monopoly. if you think it through, you'll find it can only be created by non-consensual governments, which i'm not a proponent of.
Property in land can only be created by non-consensual means, too.
RedPillAger wrote:well, there was uninhabited land at one point. whomever initially claimed it did so without aggression to anyone.
When did anyone ever "claim" uninhabited land? They just started using it non-exclusively. The claim of ownership always came later, when others were already using the land, and by "claiming" it, the aggressor purposed to initiate force against all who were otherwise at liberty to use it. All land titles are founded on the intention to initiate force against others who would otherwise be at liberty to use the land.
In that case, you are assuming that we are born without rights to liberty, because our liberty to use land has already been removed by force and made into the property of landowners.
i don't believe that rights exist.
What does the NAP describe but (especially property) rights?
i do think liberty exists, and i want more of it.
Which you purpose to obtain by taking others' liberty from them....?
you can't take land from anyone else without violating the NAP.
Nonsense. That's like saying you can't take your property back from a thief without violating the NAP. They only got the land in the first place by violating the NAP. You can't forcibly prevent anyone else from exercising their liberty to use what nature provided for all without violating the NAP.
i'd suggest working out a mutually beneficial arrangement to use or buy the land if you need it.
So, you suggest I meet the extortion demands of a protection racketeer....? That sounds like ancap, all right.
How is it "mutually beneficial" for me to pay him for something I would otherwise have been at liberty to use for free? If some greedy, vicious, evil parasite claims to own the earth's atmosphere, and demands I pay him rent for air to breathe, do you recommend I enter into a "mutually beneficial arrangement" with him, too? We both benefit because I get to breathe, and he gets my money? That kind of "mutually beneficial arrangement"?
The naked face of NAP aggression.
quit demanding something for nothing.
Huh??? An apologist for landowner greed, privilege and parasitism is telling
me not to demand something for nothing?
BWAHAHHAHAHAAA!!! What a nerve!
I do not demand anything from anyone, except that they not initiate force against me -- conspicuously
unlike the greedy, evil, parasitic landowner, who demands that others pay
him for what government, the community and nature provide, in return for zero (0) contribution from him.
It is the
landowner who demands something for nothing, pal, and I will thank you to remember it. I demand only that he not initiate force against me. But you claim he is entitled to initiate force against me.
you are not entitled.
An apologist for the most privileged, entitled parasites on the face of the earth is telling
me I am not entitled??!?
BWAHAHAHHAHAAAA!!!
I am entitled not to be forcibly deprived of life, liberty, and property in the fruits of my labor for the unearned profit of greedy, privileged, parasitic landowners.
It may be "mutually" consensual between you and the seller, but it's not entirely consensual, because as soon as you forcibly exclude others from the land they would otherwise be at liberty to access and use, you initiate force against them. I didn't consent to the forcible removal of my right to liberty so that you could be a parasite, demanding that I pay you for the advantages government, the community and nature provide, sorry.
i think this contains our main point of disagreement. you claim some right to use my land
No, I simply do not recognize your claim that it is "your" land, because nothing could ever have made it your land -- other than your (and much more importantly, government's) willingness to initiate force against me for your unearned profit, that is.
where i don't acknowledge that you have that right.
Right. Like all greedy, privileged, entitled, parasitic landowners, you believe that your claim to own land removes my right to liberty, enabling you to enslave me. Simple.
from where i'm sitting, your freedom stops where it starts to interfere with mine.
Your freedom to rob and enslave me by initiating force against me, you mean...?
What on earth do you think your initiation of force against me to prevent me from using what nature provided to sustain my life does but "interfere" with my liberty?
Give your head a shake.
the reverse is also true. therefore, my position is coherent.
No it's not. You simply ignore the fact that by initiating force against me to exclude me from land that cannot possibly be rightfully your property, you are forcibly depriving me of my liberty.
yours does not offer the same symmetry.
OTC, mine is much more symmetrical than yours: neither of us has any right to deprive the other of what they would otherwise have. You asymmetrically claim a right to deprive me of what I would otherwise have -- my liberty -- but I can't deprive you of what you WOULDN'T otherwise have: the land.
Your position is incoherent, self-contradictory garbage.
lucky wrote:So is the ancient history of land relevant to current economic policy or is it not?
Yes, in that it has defined the current situation. But history started several thousand years ago, not several billion.
RedPillAger wrote:it's a sad state of affairs that views the person wanting to be free as an extremist.
You want to be free... to enslave others by forcibly removing their liberty to use what nature provided for all.
in any case, i've given you no rules to live by. my position is that i cannot.
Except that we have to honor greedy, privileged parasites' claims to own land, that is.
Oh, and Red? I notice you have a picture of Jefferson under your nick. Here's what he had to say on the subject of property in land:
"It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject that no individual has, of natural
right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson, 1813.
"Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so
far extended as to violate natural right." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785.