|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Re: A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] This is just a string of ridiculous, nonsense, pointless, grey area null zone scenarios designed to hurt the cause of freedom. Why does anyone anywhere care about the possibility of a photon hitting my door when there are millions dying through the corruption of a bloated evil violent coercive state, trillions of dollars in debt and wasteful spending forcing people to spend half their time working for no pay and hundreds of thousands in gulags being beaten and raped for the mere "crime" of setting fire to a plant and putting it in their mouth. [censored] your stupid laser crap. [/ QUOTE ] But whose gonna run the lighthouses!!?!?!?? Seriously I dont get the statists in this thread. If property rights are a problem for AC then its an ever bigger problem for statism. If there are no property rights then we should be satisfied with the madmax type anarchy. Obiously the statists wont go this far. They just want their particular preference of property rights enforced, but there is nothing more inherantly objective in the statist definition of property rights. [/ QUOTE ] But "statists" entire belief system, at least in the political sense, isnt based on an a concept of absolute, inviolable property rights. Anarchists/libertarians do believe in that. Get it now? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)
[ QUOTE ]
But "statists" entire belief system, at least in the political sense, isnt based on an a concept of absolute, inviolable property rights. Anarchists/libertarians do believe in that. Get it now? [/ QUOTE ] But the value of the protection of property rights isnt absolute. Nobody is going to go shoot someone because there was a light put on their house. Retribution is still going to be a case of degree. But I dont see what bothers you about absolute property rights? Does the idea of the welfare state being immoral bother you? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)
[ QUOTE ]
But "statists" entire belief system, at least in the political sense, isnt based on an a concept of absolute, inviolable property rights. Anarchists/libertarians do believe in that. Get it now? [/ QUOTE ] Anarcho-capitalists do, most anarchists don't. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] But "statists" entire belief system, at least in the political sense, isnt based on an a concept of absolute, inviolable property rights. Anarchists/libertarians do believe in that. Get it now? [/ QUOTE ] Anarcho-capitalists do, most anarchists don't. [/ QUOTE ] Lets say a state of anarchy is created. Now an anarcho-capitlist stands his ground and proclaims that the land he stands on his to preach from. An anarcho-socialist comes along and wants to make use of his share of the property that the anarcho-capitalist claimed to be of his right of use. The anarcho-capitalist refuses and, trying to play devil's advocate, says if this society is socialist then before you protest my action you need permission to preach from the land you stand on. The anarcho-socialist redirects this argument to him. This continues back and forth ad-infinitum. In the least both anarchists must concede that all have the right to use their body and the land they stand on. This is inherently anarcho-capitalist and private property based. How far the private property extends is debateable, this much is not, however. The question is what basis of action does the anarcho-socialist have against the anarcho-capitalist in terms of protesting the anarcho-capitlist's attempt for private property use? How can he accomplis his goal without either creating a state or admitting he's at least a hypocrite anarcho-capitalist? In anarchy, there can be quasi socialists but they must respect private property to prevent descending into a state. A kibbutz can live side by side capitalist institutions but they can't make all the land under kibbutz rule without become a state. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)
[ QUOTE ]
The question is what basis of action does the anarcho-socialist have against the anarcho-capitalist in terms of protesting the anarcho-capitlist's attempt for private property use? [/ QUOTE ] He can simply walk onto the land that the capitalist claims as his own. The capitalist is then forced to either accept his claim or violently assert his own dubious moral beliefs to the exclusion of everything else. Some of the core private property arguments start to break down once you've got enough room to live and store a few things. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)
[ QUOTE ]
He can simply walk onto the land that the capitalist claims as his own. [/ QUOTE ] They both have this claim so is anarchy supposed to be defined as people endlessly trampling on each other? How can that represent a non-coercive society by any measure? [ QUOTE ] The capitalist is then forced to either accept his claim or violently assert his own dubious moral beliefs to the exclusion of everything else. [/ QUOTE ] Let say the capitalist abandons his belief. Now what does the society disolve into? Does socialism not imply ownership of your body either? Do i have a right to use your body without permission too? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Re: A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] He can simply walk onto the land that the capitalist claims as his own. [/ QUOTE ] They both have this claim so is anarchy supposed to be defined as people endlessly trampling on each other? How can that represent a non-coercive society by any measure? [/ QUOTE ] Then by non-coercive society you mean a society where coercive acts are impossible? Because there's no such thing. Define how you're interpreting his use of the word "can". |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Re: A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] He can simply walk onto the land that the capitalist claims as his own. [/ QUOTE ] They both have this claim so is anarchy supposed to be defined as people endlessly trampling on each other? How can that represent a non-coercive society by any measure? [/ QUOTE ] Then by non-coercive society you mean a society where coercive acts are impossible? Because there's no such thing. Define how you're interpreting his use of the word "can". [/ QUOTE ] Coercive acts aren't impossible but they aren't representative of the societal structure. In anarchy, coercive acts may occur, under government they are guaranteed. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Re: A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The question is what basis of action does the anarcho-socialist have against the anarcho-capitalist in terms of protesting the anarcho-capitlist's attempt for private property use? [/ QUOTE ] He can simply walk onto the land that the capitalist claims as his own. The capitalist is then forced to either accept his claim or violently assert his own dubious moral beliefs to the exclusion of everything else. Some of the core private property arguments start to break down once you've got enough room to live and store a few things. [/ QUOTE ] You haven't caught the ACist in any sort of tautology or broken reasoning here. He can still claim to be coerced - you just add the pejorative "dubious". Which is important - practically. Not abstractly. |
|
|