[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Expanding on the mention of the Golden Rule, it represents a very basic moral precept that I imagine VERY few people would say they disagree with: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Coercion is not an option for anyone who buys into this as a moral principle, which I do (and virtually everyone would claim to if asked).

[/ QUOTE ]

Hoarding 100,000 acres of prime land for your own exclusive use and keeping all others off it (at the point of your gun) would also violate the Golden Rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you possibly think this is a legitimate interpretation of what ACists have said about what legitimate ownership constitutes? People have made pretty specific outlines what is and what is not legitimate ownership, do you think they think your example would be legitimate? Really? Because that's a claim you should probably support with quotes, just putting it out there and saying "OMGZ 100K ACRES" is crap. Even if you are right its a [censored] way of making an argument, how is that ever going to convince anyone?

Or are you trying to level people by describing what every single state government in history has tried to do (except usually with more zeroes)?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am only demonstrating the fact that respect for exclusive property rights is not necessarily in line with the "Golden Rule". I am not trying to convince anyone of any other point with that statement.

And this is news to me that ACists believe that 100K acres is illegitimate. What is your rationale for challenging the legitimacy here? Are you trying to say that there is a cap on how much land one can acquire legitimately? If not, then I don't understand your reaction to my statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

But I don't see how any poster here would ever make a claim to 100,000 acres of land and start sniping trespassers, so how does it violate the golden rule? They would "not" do unto others.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm, I think most every poster here would make that claim (well, you added the sniping bit, not me). Are you suggesting that private property proponents would NOT agree that ownership of 100,000 acres can be legitimate? And are you suggesting that private property proponents would NOT agree that defending one's property claims is part of self-defense?

I don't understand your reaction to my statement unless you believe that ACists believe in some imaginary cap on property and they are against the use of force to defend their property. And such a belief is obviously absurd.