[mrick]

[ 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.

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 ]
[ 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.

BTW, your kind of "questions" is what sophistry is all about. Fake insightfulness and simplistic thinking. I can see where this is going.

[ 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.

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. 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.

The Anarchists take this up all the way to almost everything that can be "owned" by Man and declare that, since all those things are supposed to be as common to everyone as Air or Water, trying to own any one of them exclusively for oneself amounts to thievery.

[ 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.

But where is the demarcation? Where are those posts?

[ 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.)