A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)

[mrick]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If property is theft, who is being robbed? And what are they being robbed OF, exactly?

[/ QUOTE ]If you had been reading your grandfathers more diligently, you'd know that everybody owns everything. Which is the same as saying that nobody owns anything. This is the original meaning behind terms such as "common", "commune", "communism".

[/ QUOTE ]

I've read it. It's all a bunch of handwaving. If "everyone owns everything" then you've already got a concept of property.

[/ QUOTE ]Nope, you have a negation of property.

[ QUOTE ]
The people who claim property is theft are just generating slogans.

[/ QUOTE ]This is not an argument. Only, possibly, an expression of annoyance. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] "Generating slogans" could just as easily be said of your lot too, the ACists. Well, I'd rather discuss things with you rather than hurl broad characterizations. [ QUOTE ]
They don't think property is theft, they think particular distributions of property are undesirable and use propaganda smear tactics in an attempt to appeal to emotion.

[/ QUOTE ]Again, the classical, non-hyphenated anarchists started by procliaming that the sacrosanct attributes of human private property are alien to the natural order of things on Earth. The anarchists claimed that property of things on Earth by single individuals is like stealing that thing from everybody else.[ QUOTE ]
That's what I was getting at with my mostly rhetorical question, though I was secretly hoping someone would take the bait.

[/ QUOTE ]So, you presumed everybody has read the classics and knows their positions, and you posted a strictly rhetorical question secretly hoping to "bait responses".

Who's being condescending here, then? And a little trollish.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If property is theft, who is being robbed? And what are they being robbed OF, exactly?

[/ QUOTE ]If you had been reading your grandfathers more diligently, you'd know that everybody owns everything. Which is the same as saying that nobody owns anything. This is the original meaning behind terms such as "common", "commune", "communism".

[/ QUOTE ]

I've read it. It's all a bunch of handwaving. If "everyone owns everything" then you've already got a concept of property.

[/ QUOTE ]Nope, you have a negation of property.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. You can't have it both ways.

If nobody owns resource X, then nobody has any legitimate reason to complain when resource X is consumed.

If someone does have a right to resource X, than that person has an ownership interest in that resource.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The people who claim property is theft are just generating slogans.

[/ QUOTE ]This is not an argument. Only, possibly, an expression of annoyance. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] "Generating slogans" could just as easily be said of your lot too, the ACists.

[/ QUOTE ]

My lot? Other people do it, so you want to accuse me of doing it?

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I'd rather discuss things with you rather than hurl broad characterizations.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I'm trying to do. You threw out the "property is theft" line.

You decry hurling broad characterizations, but you have a beef with me because "my lot" of ACists (not me specifically) might generate slogans.

I think I see where this is going.

[ QUOTE ]
So, you presumed everybody has read the classics and knows their positions, and you posted a strictly rhetorical question secretly hoping to "bait responses".

[/ QUOTE ]

No, YOU presumed anyone who questioned your edicts had NOT read them. I was actually presuming YOU had read them (and not making presumptions about anyone else) since you were, you know, name dropping.

[ QUOTE ]
Who's being condescending here, then? And a little trollish.

[/ QUOTE ]

If exposing inconsistent but slickly-phrased arguments is condescending and trollish, then guilty as charged.

[tame_deuces]

ACists are not anarchists no matter how much they like to tag the wikipedia pages. There is no legitimacy to a property claim in a truly free society unless it is obtained through cooperation with others.

This isn't because it is socialistic or communistic, but because such authority is rejected under anarchist principles.

[ConstantineX]

[ QUOTE ]

ACists are not anarchists no matter how much they like to tag the wikipedia pages. There is no legitimacy to a property claim in a truly free society unless it is obtained through cooperation with others.

This isn't because it is socialistic or communistic, but because such authority is rejected under anarchist principles.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is annoying. No authority has to be given for property to exist. Just the mere long-term usage is property. No matter how much Castro protests that he has no bank accounts to his name, the fact that the leader's perks are reserved to him makes him a de facto (rich) proprietor. The reason authority is closely tied to the concept of property is because society at large realized that disputes arose and there needed be a legitimate method of resolving them. If any good is rationed, it implies an implicit concept of property because the concept of rationing implies certain groups are EXCLUDED from the use of that good. That means those groups excluded cannot possibly claim any sort of "ownership" rights. And a world without any rationing implies a world of no or little scarcity.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]

ACists are not anarchists no matter how much they like to tag the wikipedia pages. There is no legitimacy to a property claim in a truly free society unless it is obtained through cooperation with others.

This isn't because it is socialistic or communistic, but because such authority is rejected under anarchist principles.

[/ QUOTE ]

BS. The cooperation of others is necessary for any society. You think that "true anarchists" reject the necessity of people not killing each other? BS. You're just being contrary for the sake of being contrary here.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

ACists are not anarchists no matter how much they like to tag the wikipedia pages. There is no legitimacy to a property claim in a truly free society unless it is obtained through cooperation with others.

This isn't because it is socialistic or communistic, but because such authority is rejected under anarchist principles.

[/ QUOTE ]

BS. The cooperation of others is necessary for any society. You think that "true anarchists" reject the necessity of people not killing each other? BS. You're just being contrary for the sake of being contrary here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. The problem isn't property rights per se, but the view of property rights as a perpetual absolute. Especially when initial claims to raw resources (for example land) should always be debatable in a truly free society, thus you should have a more fluid and cooperative means of stating property right. Only the socialist anarchist models rejects personal property as a whole.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem isn't lack of property rights per se, but the view of lack of property rights as a perpetual absolute.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Especially when initial claims to raw resources (for example land) should always be debatable in a truly free society, thus you should have a more fluid and cooperative means of stating property right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, so you agree with AC then. Jolly good.

[ QUOTE ]
Only the socialist anarchist models rejects personal property as a whole.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is what you've been advocating as "true anarchism". Fun to see you starting to change your story though.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem isn't lack of property rights per se, but the view of lack of property rights as a perpetual absolute.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Especially when initial claims to raw resources (for example land) should always be debatable in a truly free society, thus you should have a more fluid and cooperative means of stating property right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, so you agree with AC then. Jolly good.

[ QUOTE ]
Only the socialist anarchist models rejects personal property as a whole.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is what you've been advocating as "true anarchism". Fun to see you starting to change your story though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really a change of story, what these other models state as property rights has nothing to do with ACist property rights.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]

ACists are not anarchists no matter how much they like to tag the wikipedia pages. There is no legitimacy to a property claim in a truly free society unless it is obtained through cooperation with others.

This isn't because it is socialistic or communistic, but because such authority is rejected under anarchist principles.

[/ QUOTE ]

what about the land the they stand on, they energy they consume to make any movement, and the air the they breathe, etc.?

How can these not be instantly viewed as property

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]

what about the land the they stand on

[/ QUOTE ]

I really wish you would stop saying this. All you're doing is making AC look bad. The land you stand on? You're standing on the land in my house. You don't own it, now GTFO. So easily refuted it's not even funny.