[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 ]

Ownership to me means "highest claim to" ie if you stake out a piece of land that doesn't mean you own it for all time until the end of the universe. If at some point someone else has a higher claim to that piece of property then they own it. This may result from you neglecting the property and someone else improving it/taking it over or you dying without heirs and the property falling fallow. My black and white objectivity is only on what is moral once property has been claimed legitimatly. I agree that the process of property allocation and claim is subjective in nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

You agree that claim is subjective and then agree that it is a black and white issue once such claim is "legitimized" whatever that means. So thank you for illustrating my point regarding ACists to a tee.

If a polar bear has some claim over an area of ice, the only thing that makes it "legitimate" is his ability to defend it. Sure he can convince the other polar bears to respect his notion of "property rights" (and all power to him), but if he then claims legitimate sovereignty over such land, that doesn't make such a claim absolute. Another polar bear may disagree with his notion of property rights and say to hell with his claim. Such a polar bear is not acting immorally, as you apparently believe, just because he doesn't believe that another polar bear should control such a fine area. This is reality. Humans are no different. We can convince each other to respect our notion of property rights (and more power to those of us who try), but that will never make our notion of property rights an absolute truth and it will never make those who disagree with us "immoral".

Edit: And as a former raving capitalist cheerleader, I can say that most on this board who fail to see this point remind me of myself at 25. It wouldn't help you much to argue this point with me then as I was set in my views and would argue the same tired cliches like "tragedy of the commons" as pvn and others roll out in lieu of more rigorous thought. Now in my late 30s I see that my beliefs then were built on a house of cards. That doesn't mean that libertarian beliefs on property are bad goals -- they are excellent goals. They just are not absolutely true (no more "true" than socialist thought) and are only "legitimate" in the sense that you convince others to accept them or you defend them with force if necessary.