Still looking for answers from "anarcho-capitalists"

[Phil153]

Equivalent question: If a man owns a large property but only uses a portion of it, can squatters come and set up tents in the unused portion, or build houses and claim it as their own?

If you answer yes to the Indian takeover it would seem you have to answer yes to this as well.

[ QUOTE ]
nietzrenzor's response was a reasonable one. If I hunt and gather on land I am not improving it, so it does not become my property. If I create trails in the process of doing this, I am improving the land that the trails are on and a claim could be made that the trails are my property.

[/ QUOTE ]

The trails comment is lol. Where is the cutoff? If I spend an hour building a decorative rock pile on a piece of land, does that land become mine? How far in a radius from the rock pile?

If I bulldoze a forest, but don't do anything else, does the land become mine? If my ancestors created a trail on a piece of land 50 years ago, is that land still mine? How about 5 years ago?

The idea that land is owned once "improved" (where improved means improved in the Western sense) is fraught with uncertainty and imprecision if you scratch underneath the surface. Yet ACists do a poor job answering these questions, while attacking the questioner's personality (see Borodog in this thread).

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
This anarcho-capitalist doesn't believe in morality of any kind, so the question is pretty moot for me.

[/ QUOTE ]


Have you seen my rapist & high school hypothetical? What would your answers be?

[Zygote]

anarcho capitalism does not dictate morals. Some libertarian philosphies do draw morals and perhaps you'd prefer to address your question to them.


The answer from an anarcho capitalist perspective and from anyone who lives in reality, regardless of political structure, is you only own something so far as you or others protect it.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
Equivalent question: If a man owns a large property but only uses a portion of it, can squatters come and set up tents in the unused portion, or build houses and claim it as their own?

If you answer yes to the Indian takeover it would seem you have to answer yes to this as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you care to expand on this? I can think of some disanalogies between the two situations, and it isn't clear to me that the situations are equivalent (though they might be).

[ QUOTE ]
The trails comment is lol. Where is the cutoff? If I spend an hour building a decorative rock pile on a piece of land, does that land become mine? How far in a radius from the rock pile?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would guess you'd own the rock pile and maybe some small ring around the pile. But this question isn't really that important or interesting.

[ QUOTE ]
The idea that land is owned once "improved" (where improved means improved in the Western sense) is fraught with uncertainty and imprecision if you scratch underneath the surface. Yet ACists do a poor job answering these questions, while attacking the questioner's personality (see Borodog in this thread).

[/ QUOTE ]

You're dealing with real-world problems, so, naturally, things are going to be messy, imprecise, blurry, and so forth. But so what? The fact that the principle of homesteading (as broadly understood) doesn't give us an easy, cookie-cutter model of evaluating claims to property doesn't mean we should dismiss the homesteading principle altogether. In actuality, we should probably dismiss a model that did make things that clear and simple, as it is almost certainly unjust and wrongheaded.

So I would object to you saying that ACists do a "poor" job of answering such questions--many (but perhaps not all) have patiently tried to give reasonable answers to such questions, but the fact of the matter is that there just aren't any clean, simple answers to them. Not because the homesteading principle is somehow insufficient or lacking, but because the nature of how we deal with other human beings and function in a society will always be imprecise and open to some interpretation.
In the real world, much of how people claim property (and what counts as abandoing it, etc) will depend on precendent, local customs, etc (which is why decentralization largely renders these "important" questions moot)--in much the same way that, today, we have far different 'customs' concerning how you contract to buy a house (lots of paperwork, legal stuff, etc) and how you contract to eat at a restraurant (sit down and order food).

So while all these questions are interesting, and while some may have more or less clear answers, it is ridiculous to think that showing that there are imprecise border cases in the libertarian homesteading theory somehow could invalidate homesteading or justify statism (as if states wouldn't have the same exact problems [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]).

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Still looking for answers from "anarcho-capitalists"

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you aren't.

From the very first douchebaggy pm you sent me to your perjorative rechristening of a philosophy you willingly refuse to even try to comprehend, you've done nothing but continually demonstrate your lack of interest in the answers people have given you. You are only interested in winning an argument. You are only interested in your preconceived notions. You are only interested in your apologetics for the status quo.

[/ QUOTE ]
Kinda surprising the mods haven't taken care of this.

Tell the truth: are you just embarassed about the "hypocrite" thing?

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Still looking for answers from "anarcho-capitalists"

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you aren't.

From the very first douchebaggy pm you sent me to your perjorative rechristening of a philosophy you willingly refuse to even try to comprehend, you've done nothing but continually demonstrate your lack of interest in the answers people have given you. You are only interested in winning an argument. You are only interested in your preconceived notions. You are only interested in your apologetics for the status quo.

[/ QUOTE ]
Kinda surprising the mods haven't taken care of this.

Tell the truth: are you just embarassed about the "hypocrite" thing?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am also surprised Iron hasn't banned you yet. I guess consider yourself lucky.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Still looking for answers from "anarcho-capitalists"

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you aren't.

From the very first douchebaggy pm you sent me to your perjorative rechristening of a philosophy you willingly refuse to even try to comprehend, you've done nothing but continually demonstrate your lack of interest in the answers people have given you. You are only interested in winning an argument. You are only interested in your preconceived notions. You are only interested in your apologetics for the status quo.

[/ QUOTE ]
Kinda surprising the mods haven't taken care of this.

Tell the truth: are you just embarassed about the "hypocrite" thing?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am also surprised Iron hasn't banned you yet. I guess consider yourself lucky.

[/ QUOTE ]
You oughtta be ashamed of yourself bro. You're gonna criticize my posts and not borodog's flamefest above? C'mon.

[BCPVP]

This is the politics forum, not the playground sandbox. If you want a place where everyone will be nice to you, go hang out in tldr.

[GoodCallYouWin]

Can someone ban this troll?

edit : I mean OP of course. He whines too much.

[Archon_Wing]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Still looking for answers from "anarcho-capitalists"

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you aren't.

From the very first douchebaggy pm you sent me to your perjorative rechristening of a philosophy you willingly refuse to even try to comprehend, you've done nothing but continually demonstrate your lack of interest in the answers people have given you. You are only interested in winning an argument. You are only interested in your preconceived notions. You are only interested in your apologetics for the status quo.

[/ QUOTE ]
Kinda surprising the mods haven't taken care of this.

Tell the truth: are you just embarassed about the "hypocrite" thing?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am also surprised Iron hasn't banned you yet. I guess consider yourself lucky.

[/ QUOTE ]
You oughtta be ashamed of yourself bro. You're gonna criticize my posts and not borodog's flamefest above? C'mon.

[/ QUOTE ]


You start some thread about "Dawino- Capitalism", a thinly veiled strawman version of Ac'ism with an obviously loaded term.

Then you make this thread which has the same question as the other one. What is the point of this? And surely people will get annoyed.