Anarcho Capitalism take 1million

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
In answer to your question, the state shoud refrain from taking whatever it wants (including my life and freedom) from me personally because I am (along with others) prepared to revolt and kill in defense of my life if things get ugly enough.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're right. So people (state or not) should take what they need from others, but without going so far as to anger most people into violence.

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In answer to your question, the state shoud refrain from taking whatever it wants (including my life and freedom) from me personally because I am (along with others) prepared to revolt and kill in defense of my life if things get ugly enough.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're right. So people (state or not) should take what they need from others, but without going so far as to anger most people into violence.

[/ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't say "should" at all. I simply note what people and organizations tend to do. In fact, libertarianism is about going in the opposite direction -- taking less than you could get away with without pissing people off. I.E. respecting property rights and free association.

[foal]

I phrased that poorly.

This is about why you think people or states should refrain from taking what they need from you.

Your response may be true in certain cases. But assuming you pay taxes and haven't killed any government officials then it's obviously not true in all circumstances.

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]
I phrased that poorly.

This is about why you think people or states should refrain from taking what they need from you.

Your response may be true in certain cases. But assuming you pay taxes and haven't killed any government officials then it's obviously not true in all circumstances.

[/ QUOTE ]
The OP asked why people shouldn't take whatever they want from me. "Whatever they want" includes a lot of stuff, and self-defense is ultimately the bottom line for me personally. But it also tends to be true that societies that respect property rights will tend to prosper (as I mentioned in my original reply) -- so if you'd like a less extreme answer, there you go.

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
"Whatever they want" includes a lot of stuff

[/ QUOTE ]
That depends what they want.

[ QUOTE ]
But it also tends to be true that societies that respect property rights will tend to prosper (as I mentioned in my original reply) -- so if you'd like a less extreme answer, there you go.

[/ QUOTE ]
Correlation does not equal causation. That doesn't mean it's worthless, but we can't do much more than speculate. Defining "prosperity" would also be an interesting challenge. Countries with the highest "standard of living" tend to be fairly socialist in nature. Most ACists would describe this as not respecting property rights (to a more extreme extent, than say, the US). Of course the definition of "standard of living" is debatable, much like the definition of "prosperity".

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
Private property is right and good. Limitations on private property are evil and horrible. Why? Because we say so and it feels right. This is the only way a good society can be created."

Do you recognize that argument? I think you should, because it's the same kind of argument the statists use against you. And that is, as far as I can tell, the basis of your philosophy.

Realise that property is a lot more complicated than that. You ask me why should you be forced to give anything to this entity called "the people"? Well, I ask you why the people should refrain from taking whatever they need "from you"* (as long as they don't take anything you need for your survival). "Because it's the law? "Because society would not work if they could do that?" Who's law? It certainly appears to be your law, but it's not mine. You sound like statists again.

* They're not really taking anything from you. You have showed me no basis for why you should allowed to own anything, let alone something that other people need to survive. If I live in an anarchy, and I have never signed a contract saying I will respect private property, what right do you have to force me to respect it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I'm not entirely sure what argument you are trying to make. I don't think you've given a very credible or charitable reconstruction of an ACist argument for absolute property rights.
If your point is that ACist claims of property ownership are ultimately unfounded, this is true only to the extent that every statement of any type is 'unfounded' if you go back far enough. But I don't think that most anarchists feel that limitations on property rights are 'evil and horrible' because 'we say so and it feels right.' Most people already think that murder, aggression, and theft are generally wrong, and ACist property rights arguments are mostly designed, not to justify these things (not sure that they need any justification imo), but to show that the logical consequence of being against theft is being against taxation, etc. I really don't see much 'religious' about this.

And I don't think it's necessarily true that libertarians/ACists 'worship' property rights above all else. I think this is a common misconception rooted in the fact that AC property rights are generally considered to be 'absolute.' But I think the only thing that is 'absolute' about property rights is a victim's right to compensation. Thus, the fact that property rights exist, and that they are absolute, doesn't answer (definitively) a question about how I should act in some situation. There may be times when the virtuous way to act would be against someone's property rights (eg, stealing to feed your hungry child). So property rights aren't absolte restraints on how you or I should act, but they are absolute in that even if I had a good reason to steal food to feed my kid, you'd have a legitimate claim to compensation at some point.

As for the issue of property rights being 'complicated', I think this is a conflation of two separate issue: the theoretical absoluteness of property rights in general, and the actual absoluteness of some specific property right. Questions about, say, who should legitimately own land unrighttfully taken from Native Americans shows that property rights are complicated and not absolte in the second sense, but not in the first. ACists don't deny that there are cases in which it may be difficult to find who legitimately owns some land--in practice I bet there would be lots of compromise, and much would depend on local custom and precedent. But this doesn't mean that property rights once defined would be less than absolute. The complication is practical but not theoretical.

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
There may be times when the virtuous way to act would be against someone's property rights (eg, stealing to feed your hungry child).

[/ QUOTE ]
When you accept this, the 'extreme' notion of property rights typically held by ACists starts to break down. Because it can by claimed by similar reasoning that it's virtuous to "steal" from (i.e. tax) people in order to provide sick children with medical care etc etc.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
When you accept this, the 'extreme' notion of property rights typically held by ACists starts to break down. Because it can by claimed by similar reasoning that it's virtuous to "steal" from (i.e. tax) people in order to provide sick children with medical care etc etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree--for one thing, people are never really compensated for money taken via taxation. Second, one would have to provide an argument--'slippery slope' isn't really an argument. In general, state programs like taxation couldn't be justified by the line of reasoning presented because they represent systematic oppression and exploitation, which doesn't seem acceptable even in serious circumstances (part of what makes stealing seem *possibly* acceptable when feeding your starving kid is that it is kind of an emergency--kid needs food or he/she will get sick, starve, etc). This can never really be the case when we're talking about systematic theft and violence, in part because it is inherently systematic.

Again, this really doesn't undercut the AC notion of property rights, since 'rights' delineate cases where obligations can be legitimately enforced with violence. If I steal from you to feed my kid, even if I have good moral reasons and I beleive I'm acting virtuously, you still are entitled to compensation because that food was *yours* and my emergency situation doesn't negate your rights (it just changes how a person ought to act--to take a more emergency-like example, I might steal your car if I thought it was the only way to get a bleeding man to the hospital in time. but my good intentions and virtuous behavior don't negate the fact that its *your* car, and if I do any damage to it I, or perhaps the injured person, would owe you compensation).

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When you accept this, the 'extreme' notion of property rights typically held by ACists starts to break down. Because it can by claimed by similar reasoning that it's virtuous to "steal" from (i.e. tax) people in order to provide sick children with medical care etc etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree--for one thing, people are never really compensated for money taken via taxation. <font color="red"> yes, they are </font> Second, one would have to provide an argument--'slippery slope' isn't really an argument. In general, state programs like taxation couldn't be justified by the line of reasoning presented because they represent systematic oppression and exploitation, <font color="red"> no they dont </font> which doesn't seem acceptable even in serious circumstances (part of what makes stealing seem *possibly* acceptable when feeding your starving kid is that it is kind of an emergency--kid needs food or he/she will get sick, starve, etc). This can never really be the case when we're talking about systematic theft and violence, in part because it is inherently systematic.

Again, this really doesn't undercut the AC notion of property rights, since 'rights' delineate cases where obligations can be legitimately enforced with violence. If I steal from you to feed my kid, even if I have good moral reasons and I beleive I'm acting virtuously, you still are entitled to compensation because that food was *yours* and my emergency situation doesn't negate your rights (it just changes how a person ought to act--to take a more emergency-like example, I might steal your car if I thought it was the only way to get a bleeding man to the hospital in time. but my good intentions and virtuous behavior don't negate the fact that its *your* car, and if I do any damage to it I, or perhaps the injured person, would owe you compensation).

[/ QUOTE ]

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess I'm not entirely sure what argument you are trying to make. I don't think you've given a very credible or charitable reconstruction of an ACist argument for absolute property rights.
If your point is that ACist claims of property ownership are ultimately unfounded, this is true only to the extent that every statement of any type is 'unfounded' if you go back far enough. But I don't think that most anarchists feel that limitations on property rights are 'evil and horrible' because 'we say so and it feels right.' Most people already think that murder, aggression, and theft are generally wrong, and ACist property rights arguments are mostly designed, not to justify these things (not sure that they need any justification imo), but to show that the logical consequence of being against theft is being against taxation, etc. I really don't see much 'religious' about this.

[/ QUOTE ] Most people think selling drugs is wrong, yet you think it's perfectly fine. Your moral views don't appear to come from most people, but from yourself, so "because I say so and it feels right" can't be too far from the truth. I agree though, that this is not very charitable of me to say. Obviously you could say the same about my moral views. There is still a point here: I have lots of moral views, but the only view I want to impose on others is the one that says violence against other people is wrong. I think it's ok to stop someone from forcefully imposing their will onto you or others, even if you have to use force yourself. You agree with this, but then you want to impose your view on private property on top of it. And I don't see how you have the right to do that.

If people respect property rights, like they do in the US and still would if the US was an anarchy, property rights will exist. But they only exist to the degree that they are respected.

You say that societies that have not respected property rights have tended not to prosper. I agree with that, and that should be an incentive for people to respect property rights and to enact economical sanctions against thieves. But it does not justify the use of force. If people don't think property rights will be necessary for prosperity, or don't value prosperity enough that they want your view on property rights in their society, who are you to tell them otherwise?