[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Edit: The above does not apply to all ACists or even to AC theory itself. But applies to many of the preachers of ACism on this board. Like Christian fundamentalists, these AC disciples will too often use arguments for ACism that are not necessary, they refuse to acknowledge that some things are unknown and make assertions as fact, and when challenged on any point they simply regurgitate their subjective values as if they are absolute truths (which they are not) rather than just stick to making the case why others should adopt their subjective values based on their own merit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you should read some libertarian/AC property rights theory before rants like this. None of them include ownership simply by staking out land for themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Search pvn.

And then explain how if one discovers a new land (or buys it from someone) and stakes it out as their own property, how does this not imply ownership in AC/libertarian theory? And I ask this as someone well steeped in libertarianism as I have been active in libertarian thought for years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please do search my posts. You'll find that I state over and over that simple decree does not confer a legitimate property right. It's one of the primary reasons that states cannot legitimately own property.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are avoiding the issue by playing on this "simple decree" semantics issue. You believe that legitimate ownership can be inferred on one individual for exclusive use of land -- whether that be by staking it out, discovering it, using it, whatever (and irrelevant). Then you use this concept of "legitimate property rights" as if it was an actual thing, some actual objective standard. Well it is not. It is merely an abstract concept that only has subjective meaning if people accept such a notion. Most ACers here refuse to accept that this concept is just a human abstraction and flies in the face of nature. And they have already demonstrated in this thread that they believe in some "morality" regarding property rights once they are established as "legitimate" -- failing to realize that "legitimate" and "morality" are wholly subjective terms which have no meaning whatsoever unless others want to recognize your "morality" or "legitimacy", which they are free to not do. This does not mean that I am against property. I am just against the tired and absurd arguments on this board that go something like: I own my body, thus I can own territory even if in vast quantities beyond necessary for my subsistence, and if others reject this assertion then their values are "immoral" or infringing on your "rights". There are no [censored] rights. None. Period. Get the [censored] over it. You aren't entitled to [censored] on this earth. I don't give a crap how much labor you mix with your land, it will never confer any objective "legitimacy" unless others choose to recognize it as legitimate (or you have enough force then to at least force them to accept your use). Just like the big lion doesn't give a crap if some other lion has mixed his labor with the land by years of hunting, digging, and the like. Stop believing that humans are unique. We aren't. We do indeed have the ability to reason, however. And using this reason we can persuade each other that it is in our best interests to respect property, if we so choose. But we are not using reason if we conclude that our ability to reason somehow confers an objective morality on the issue of property rights. You do a disservice to reason by using the same worn out (and flawed) approaches.