[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ZOMGWTFLOLBBQ.
Yes, pointing out your sophistry is itself sophistry. Geez.
[/ QUOTE ] Pointing out with specific examples what the classics of anarchism were all about is not sophistry. Evading the discussion by asking (your words) "rhetorical question, hoping someone would take the bait" is an exercise in
sophistry. Also a little
trollish.
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, wow. Yes, I'm the one avoiding the discussion by dragging us down into this tar pit. Please. YOU are the one who wants to derail the discussion into a nitpicky tarpit of nuanced connotations of "anarchy" and "government" and "property". I guess I was actually the one who "took the bait."
Setting an argumentative trap for someone to step into isn't sophistry, it's simply making the inconsitencies of your argument painfully obvious.
[ QUOTE ]
Additionally, it is
dishonest to set up imaginary and unrelated tasks to the other party and then accusing it of avoiding them. I'm not supporting the position of the classics of anarchism. I'm trying to present their case, as best as I can. You ask
me to prove that "property is theft", while I'm presenting why
they claimed this. This is dishonest. It's like I'm presenting the reasons Bush had to invade Iraq and you ask me to prove there were valid reasons to invade Iraq.
[/ QUOTE ]
O
M
G
Are you serious? You're going to accuse me of avoiding discussion and you want to get into THIS? Whether this positoin is "yours" or "some other guys" is immaterial. You are presenting it. I am arguing against IT, not YOU specifically. If YOU are taking the onus of presenting it, then by default, YOU would be the obvious candidate for answering challenges against that which you are presenting. If you want to abandon your presentation, by all means, be my guest. But to suggest that I am being *dishonest*??? Get real.
FWIW, I *would* (and HAVE) issued challenges to those who "present" the case for invading iraq to provide justifications. It's part of the deal. You're under no obligation, of course, so don't act like you're being unjustly burdened here.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Resource Air is a common resource, meaning it belongs to everybody and nobody owns it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Make up your mind. Which is it?
[/ QUOTE ]If everybody owns the Air, then nobody owns it
exclusively. A river's water belongs to everybody because no one
alone owns it. At least, this is the way things should be, according to the Anarchists.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, and the logical implications of this are disastrous. Tragedy of the commons 101.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Simple decree doesn't equal ownership.
I OWN YANKEE STADIUM, because I say so.
Have I stolen Yankee Stadium?
[/ QUOTE ] Nope, you haven't.
But if you attempt to take over Yankee Stadium (say on the strength of your armed band of followers), the Yankee Stadium owner is sure to have a few arguments against that.
[/ QUOTE ]
But this is different than what I was replying to.
[ QUOTE ]
But forget Yankee Stadium --and Fenway too. You avoid the plain and basic premise of the classical Anarchists. Start with
Air. Saying you "own the Air" would be laughably stupid. It would be an unenforceable decree.
[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed.
[ QUOTE ]
However, if you attempt to truly take over the Air (say by forcing your fellow citizens to pay an Air Tax, on the strength of your armed band of followers), then you are taking over for yourself something that belongs to everybody.
[/ QUOTE ]
So it's their
property, then. But property is theft. So now what? Inconsistency.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think these arguments have been quite roundly refuted, by myself and others, in this forum a number of times. Noting the lack of recognition of scarcity in these arguments is IMO more than enough to show they are useless.
[/ QUOTE ] Fair enough. If you'd then care to point out some links to those posts, I'd be obliged. I am very keen to learn where the line is drawn. As a lifelong capitalist, I have no clue where. I agree with the Anarchists about the Air, but I don't agree with them about T-Bills.
[/ QUOTE ]
Air most certainly CAN be owned.
[ QUOTE ]
http://www.clayhomemedical.com/image...ygen_truck.jpg
[/ QUOTE ]
Do you think the contents of the above tanks are unowned? Or not air?
The fact that air in the atmosphere IS unowned does not imply that it CANNOT be owned.
There IS no line drawn.
[ QUOTE ]
But where is the
demarcation? Where are those posts?
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't bookmark them. But a quick search turned up this long thread which basically started from the point of contention - someone pissed off that "fake anarchists" where "stealing" his words.
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...part=1&vc=1
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh and you asked one question, something like "who's the owner of all that public property". (Only it was rhetorical - right.)
[/ QUOTE ]
So what's the answer?
[/ QUOTE ]Uh, the public ?
And because I know you're gonna ask "who's the public?", [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] I'm telling you now, that means everybody. (Your favorite design must be the circle.)
[/ QUOTE ]
So if property is theft, then everyone is a thief.