a quick thought

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How many places do you know of right now that do not believe in property rights?

[/ QUOTE ]

I thik in most societies only a small minority support the interpretation of unlimited property rights that is a fundament for many AC'ist's belief system. That doesn't determine whether it is right or wrong obviously, but you can't claim any consensus as you belong to a minority.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not trying to claim a consensus. If u want to start convincing the world that everyone should disolve the notion of any property belonging to any individual and convince everyone that everything should be freely shared be my guest.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It’s not a question of belief. It’s a question of behavior. What an ACist believes is not equal and opposite to what a Statist believes. A Statist believes that his/her beliefs entitle him/her to control/coerce me. If the arguments were:

Statist: I don’t believe in owning guns. Therefore I don’t own a gun
ACist: I believe in owning guns. Therefore I own a gun

Statist: I don’t believe land can be owned. Therefore, I don’t own any land.
ACist: I believe land can be owned. Therefore, I own land.

They would be equal and opposite (morally). However:

Statist: I don’t believe in owning guns. Therefore you can’t own a gun
ACist: I believe in owning guns. Therefore I own a gun

Statist: I don’t believe land can be owned. Therefore, you can’t own any land.
ACist: I believe land can be owned. Therefore, I own land.

Is the argument, they are not equal at all. The Statist believes that his beliefs entitle him to restrict my behavior. ACland has room for everyone, Stateland however does not.

(You are also making an additional leap that trespassing entitles the land owner to assault you. I don’t think ACist would agree (I don’t)).

[/ QUOTE ]

My whole point is that the ACist belief in property does restrict my behavior.

ACist: I believe in property. Therefore, you can't be on my property.

[/ QUOTE ]

Beliefs are interesting things.

I believe that my penis rules the world. You are restricting the natural order of things by covering your anus.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How many places do you know of right now that do not believe in property rights?

[/ QUOTE ]

I thik in most societies only a small minority support the interpretation of unlimited property rights that is a fundament for many AC'ist's belief system. That doesn't determine whether it is right or wrong obviously, but you can't claim any consensus as you belong to a minority.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not trying to claim a consensus. If u want to start convincing the world that everyone should disolve the notion of any property belonging to any individual and convince everyone that everything should be freely shared be my guest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Never done, newer will. To repeat, not being an AC'ist doesn't make you a communist, AC'ism is at one extreme of the spectre and communism is at the other, most people end up somewhere in between. To assign me an extreme position I don't hold is dishonest debating.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How many places do you know of right now that do not believe in property rights?

[/ QUOTE ]

I thik in most societies only a small minority support the interpretation of unlimited property rights that is a fundament for many AC'ist's belief system. That doesn't determine whether it is right or wrong obviously, but you can't claim any consensus as you belong to a minority.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not trying to claim a consensus. If u want to start convincing the world that everyone should disolve the notion of any property belonging to any individual and convince everyone that everything should be freely shared be my guest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Never done, newer will. To repeat, not being an AC'ist doesn't make you a communist, AC'ism is at one extreme of the spectre and communism is at the other, most people end up somewhere in between. To assign me an extreme position I don't hold is dishonest debating.

[/ QUOTE ]

I"m not assinging you anything. I believe people should be able to believe whatever they want to believe. <font color="orange"> </font>

[2OuterJitsu]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that my penis rules the world. You are restricting the natural order of things by covering your anus.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, I didn't want to be so crass.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How many places do you know of right now that do not believe in property rights?

[/ QUOTE ]

I thik in most societies only a small minority support the interpretation of unlimited property rights that is a fundament for many AC'ist's belief system. That doesn't determine whether it is right or wrong obviously, but you can't claim any consensus as you belong to a minority.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not trying to claim a consensus. If u want to start convincing the world that everyone should disolve the notion of any property belonging to any individual and convince everyone that everything should be freely shared be my guest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Never done, newer will. To repeat, not being an AC'ist doesn't make you a communist, AC'ism is at one extreme of the spectre and communism is at the other, most people end up somewhere in between. To assign me an extreme position I don't hold is dishonest debating.

[/ QUOTE ]

I"m not assinging you anything. I believe people should be able to believe whatever they want to believe. <font color="orange"> </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

Definately, anybody ever argued otherwise? Just pointing out that your belief isn't evident or even common and thus you have no objective claim to be right. I respect your opinion, but not your (maybe not you) way of constantly pretending there is some universal moral and logical solid fundament for your belief, as there isn't. If you admit that your opinion has just as shaky fundament as mine we have come much further.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How many places do you know of right now that do not believe in property rights?

[/ QUOTE ]

I thik in most societies only a small minority support the interpretation of unlimited property rights that is a fundament for many AC'ist's belief system. That doesn't determine whether it is right or wrong obviously, but you can't claim any consensus as you belong to a minority.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not trying to claim a consensus. If u want to start convincing the world that everyone should disolve the notion of any property belonging to any individual and convince everyone that everything should be freely shared be my guest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Never done, newer will. To repeat, not being an AC'ist doesn't make you a communist, AC'ism is at one extreme of the spectre and communism is at the other, most people end up somewhere in between. To assign me an extreme position I don't hold is dishonest debating.

[/ QUOTE ]

I"m not assinging you anything. I believe people should be able to believe whatever they want to believe. <font color="orange"> </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

Definately, anybody ever argued otherwise? Just pointing out that your belief isn't evident or even common and thus you have no objective claim to be right. I respect your opinion, but not your (maybe not you) way of constantly pretending there is some universal moral and logical solid fundament for your belief, as there isn't. If you admit that your opinion has just as shaky fundament as mine we have come much further.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm willing to accept AC , my first preference is 'bkholdem king of the world' government. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[bkholdem]

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

Ding ding ding. Without ownership, you devolve to might makes right. Have fun with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can still be morally opposed to the use of force without accepting property rights. That is, you could say that I only have self-ownership; that is, I have only the right to be where I am right now.

Societies have existed for centuries that acknowledge the right to be free from violence but don't acknowledge the permanent ownership of land.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you weren't always there. So you didn't have any entitlement before, and you gave up the entitlement to where ever you were before that. So you go to work, I can move into your house?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well sure, if I don't believe in property rights, then I can't keep you from occupying my house if I leave it. A person with such beliefs probably would not own a house. But I don't see how any of this speaks to whether this person is coerced into submitting to property rights in AC society.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are we comparing AC to the present system and other possible realities or are we comparing AC to a fantasy utopia?

[bkholdem]

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

Ding ding ding. Without ownership, you devolve to might makes right. Have fun with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can still be morally opposed to the use of force without accepting property rights. That is, you could say that I only have self-ownership; that is, I have only the right to be where I am right now.

Societies have existed for centuries that acknowledge the right to be free from violence but don't acknowledge the permanent ownership of land.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you weren't always there. So you didn't have any entitlement before, and you gave up the entitlement to where ever you were before that. So you go to work, I can move into your house?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well sure, if I don't believe in property rights, then I can't keep you from occupying my house if I leave it. A person with such beliefs probably would not own a house. But I don't see how any of this speaks to whether this person is coerced into submitting to property rights in AC society.

[/ QUOTE ]

He's not compelled to be a member of any society. This is like saying that you don't recognize the authority of Wal-Mart while you're in "their" store. But nobody has compelled you to enter the store in the first place.

Since you think being removed from the store would be assault, we'll just build a big brick wall around you. Will moving your rotting corpse in three weeks be considered "assault"?

[/ QUOTE ]

LMAO

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nick do you recognize that if no one can enforce a property claim over a piece of land, no one would be willing to make a permanent improvement to the land, such as any kind of agriculture or standing structure? After all, if you leave it for a minute anyone else can come along and claim it ("I have the right to be where I am now") right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course I recognize this.

And in the interest of the things you mention, we (currently the state) coercively force a particular conception of property rights onto people, whether they agree with this belief or not. And this is a very good thing.

ACists, however, claim that they would not force any set of beliefs onto unwilling people. I'm just trying to point out that AC society would require the same coercive acceptance of property rights that statism does.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would also require the same coercive acceptance of not raping 2 year olds in the town square and chopping it's head off and playing soccer with it afterwards.

There can be no real world existance I can envision in which everyone gets their needs met at all times and no one has to forgo a satiation of their desires.

If you can enlighten me as to how such as world could exist and there would never be a conflict please do so.