Re: a quick thought
 

[ QUOTE ]
As I have mentioned in other threads, AC is incompatible with a non-belief in property rights, and will ultimately end up forcibly coercing people who do not believe in such rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I understand this. Are you saying that people who don't believe they are free will be enslaved?

Re: a quick thought
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Indeed. I have been long been sympathetic to your point that the moral argument for AC isn't very compelling. Some people do reject the notion that "taxation is theft"; I think Arfinn in a previous thread convincingly pointed out that one's moral stance, which I think can only be only internally subjective, will cause the rejection of many the arguments repeated by some proponents on this board.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's fine. AC doesn't require any objective morality. If your subjective morality says taxation is not theft, that's great. Note, however, that if morality is subjective and personal, you don't have any right to impose your morality upon others.

The morality argument reduces to the negative rights argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

AC definitely requires the acceptance of an objective morality, one that values self-ownership and freedom from coercion above other possible values.

As I have mentioned in other threads, AC is incompatible with a non-belief in property rights, and will ultimately end up forcibly coercing people who do not believe in such rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've mentioned it numerous times, but never actually demonstrated it.

Re: a quick thought
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As I have mentioned in other threads, AC is incompatible with a non-belief in property rights, and will ultimately end up forcibly coercing people who do not believe in such rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I understand this. Are you saying that people who don't believe they are free will be enslaved?

[/ QUOTE ]

If I don't believe that land is capable of being "owned" by a person, should it be morally permissible for someone to force me off of a piece of land just because they claim to own it?

Re: a quick thought
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


As I have mentioned in other threads, AC is incompatible with a non-belief in property rights, and will ultimately end up forcibly coercing people who do not believe in such rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've mentioned it numerous times, but never actually demonstrated it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I have...I have asked the question about the anti-property squatter many times, and never gotten a straight answer from ACists. I interpreted it as them conceding the point.

Re: a quick thought
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


As I have mentioned in other threads, AC is incompatible with a non-belief in property rights, and will ultimately end up forcibly coercing people who do not believe in such rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've mentioned it numerous times, but never actually demonstrated it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I have...I have asked the question about the anti-property squatter many times, and never gotten a straight answer from ACists. I interpreted it as them conceding the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe you got an answer numerous times from pvn and perhaps others, but please link the thread if I'm wrong.

Re: a quick thought
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As I have mentioned in other threads, AC is incompatible with a non-belief in property rights, and will ultimately end up forcibly coercing people who do not believe in such rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I understand this. Are you saying that people who don't believe they are free will be enslaved?

[/ QUOTE ]

If I don't believe that land is capable of being "owned" by a person, should it be morally permissible for someone to force me off of a piece of land just because they claim to own it?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you don't believe land can be owned, by what calculus do you think you are entitled to stay?

Re: a quick thought
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If I don't believe that land is capable of being "owned" by a person, should it be morally permissible for someone to force me off of a piece of land just because they claim to own it?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you don't believe land can be owned, by what calculus do you think you are entitled to stay?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe I am entitled to stay, but I do believe I am entitled to not be assaulted (as long as I am not assaulting anyone else).

Re: a quick thought
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


As I have mentioned in other threads, AC is incompatible with a non-belief in property rights, and will ultimately end up forcibly coercing people who do not believe in such rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've mentioned it numerous times, but never actually demonstrated it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I have...I have asked the question about the anti-property squatter many times, and never gotten a straight answer from ACists. I interpreted it as them conceding the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

link plz.

Re: a quick thought
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As I have mentioned in other threads, AC is incompatible with a non-belief in property rights, and will ultimately end up forcibly coercing people who do not believe in such rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I understand this. Are you saying that people who don't believe they are free will be enslaved?

[/ QUOTE ]

If I don't believe that land is capable of being "owned" by a person, should it be morally permissible for someone to force me off of a piece of land just because they claim to own it?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you don't believe land can be owned, by what calculus do you think you are entitled to stay?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ding ding ding. Without ownership, you devolve to might makes right. Have fun with that.

Re: a quick thought
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe I am entitled to stay, but I do believe I am entitled to not be assaulted (as long as I am not assaulting anyone else).


[/ QUOTE ]

So if I own a store and we are closing for the night and you want to stay, I'm not allowed to call the cops to kick you out?