Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's not von Mises. Contained within this book are the answers to all the questions asked.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious? How many times does the name von Mises appears on the page you link to! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

How is that relevant? The book is by Rothbard.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ask them to stop using goverment services and see what they think about goverment services then. I'm serious. in fact don't even ask, just dont let them use anything the goverment produces . If they say anything about it then they believe in goverment no matter what fancy worded crap they spout.

[/ QUOTE ]

gg

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ask them to stop using goverment services and see what they think about goverment services then. I'm serious. in fact don't even ask, just dont let them use anything the goverment produces . If they say anything about it then they believe in goverment no matter what fancy worded crap they spout.

[/ QUOTE ]

gg

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol put down the gun first and then we'll talk.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ask them to stop using goverment services and see what they think about goverment services then. I'm serious. in fact don't even ask, just dont let them use anything the goverment produces . If they say anything about it then they believe in goverment no matter what fancy worded crap they spout.

[/ QUOTE ]

gg

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol put down the gun first and then we'll talk.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that you are using a gun as well.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

thanks for the heads up clowntable.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ask them to stop using goverment services and see what they think about goverment services then. I'm serious. in fact don't even ask, just dont let them use anything the goverment produces . If they say anything about it then they believe in goverment no matter what fancy worded crap they spout.

[/ QUOTE ]

gg

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol put down the gun first and then we'll talk.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that you are using a gun as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I'm not.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

Property rights aren't defended by guns (or the threat of policemen with guns)? I think you're wrong.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ask them to stop using goverment services and see what they think about goverment services then. I'm serious. in fact don't even ask, just dont let them use anything the goverment produces . If they say anything about it then they believe in goverment no matter what fancy worded crap they spout.

[/ QUOTE ]

gg

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol put down the gun first and then we'll talk.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that you are using a gun as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I'm not.

[/ QUOTE ]

OMG you cant seriously be this stubborn, how do you plan to enforce youre property rights then?

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
Give me your wallet is enough to prove that people who don't think property exists are either saying stuff they don't really believe for their own purposes or batshit insane.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is quite right. They can not believe in property rights and still get upset if you take their money, not because they feel their rights have been violated, but rather because they are forced to operate in an environment where money is the only way to acquire essential goods and services.

As an example, suppose I hate universal health care but live in Canada. If I get sick and you steal my health card, I will get upset. It's not because I really love my universal health care system deep down inside, it's because I am being forced to not pursue alternatives.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]

1. The idea of Property is inherently in contradiction with itself


a. There was no property in the state of nature: property is a legal institution that differs from both possession and use.


b. The first owners converted common objects or potentially other-owned objects into personal property. They took objects in the use of all or to others and made them their own. This conversion without compensation of other community stakeholders is theft.



c. All property today derives from these first takings, or from intermediate conquests, murders, pillages, etc. (i.e. colonization of North America, Arabic conquest of the Byzantine Empire). As an aside, this is why in the U.S. no one “owns” any land free and clear but rather we are tenants holding a fief of the Sovereign (we pay rent in property taxes ldo).


d. Therefore all property is theft in theory and in fact. Thus there is no basis for the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate possession and use. But property simply is the distinction between legitmate and illegitimate posession and use. Contradiction Q.E.D.



[/ QUOTE ]


I'd be interested in a serious AC'er addressing this "first taking" argument in the OP.