a quick thought

[NickMPK]

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

If I don't believe that land is capable of being "owned" by a person, should it be morally permissible for someone to force me off of a piece of land just because they claim to own it?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you don't believe land can be owned, by what calculus do you think you are entitled to stay?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe I am entitled to stay, but I do believe I am entitled to not be assaulted (as long as I am not assaulting anyone else).

[/ QUOTE ]

So you can own yourself (no assault otherwise), just not land? Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

What is ownership of land other than the right to assault me if I don't leave? What is taxation other than the right to assault me if I don't pay? Both constitute the theft of my freedom, right?

[GoodCallYouWin]

"Both constitute the theft of my freedom, right?"

Only in the sense that defending yourself from a violent assault is taking away the freedom of the person who is assaulting you (that is to say, no).

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ 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 ]

Not being an AC'ist does not equal being a communist. There are grey areas here, not necessarily a black/white answer. Almost every ideology have some concept of property rights in place.

[Brainwalter]

Nick is not saying "Other rights might sometimes be more important than property rights" like you are. He is saying "What if person X doesn't believe in property rights (at all)?"

[NickMPK]

[ 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.

[pvn]

[ 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?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I believe you got an answer numerous times from pvn and perhaps others, but please link the thread if I'm wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the thread in question. The relevant discussion starts on page 5 or so. Pvn does come closest to giving an answer, which is basically, "if we don't have property, then we have nothing," but that still sound like a mandatory belief in property rights to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, the thread where you said you wanted to use a utilitarian calculus, then admitted that such is impossible. Well, that certainly is helpful. Personally, I advocate the use of timetravel. All of our problems will be solved if we would just use this wonderful tool.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
Nick is not saying "Other rights might sometimes be more important than property rights" like you are. He is saying "What if person X doesn't believe in property rights (at all)?"

[/ QUOTE ]

ACists are always saying, "If I don't believe in your morality, you have no right to force it upon me." I'm just saying that AC itself forces a morality upon everyone living under it, and it is a morality that adopts a set of axioms that generate property rights and exclude the possibility of any so-called "positive" rights.

The person who doesn't accept the legitimacy of property rights is just an example of a person involuntarily coerced under AC, just as the person who doesn't accept the legitimacy of the state is involuntarily coerced by the state.

[owsley]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm just trying to point out that AC society would require the same coercive acceptance of property rights that statism does.


[/ QUOTE ]

How is this "coercion" you point in AC anything close to the same as the coercion of the current US state? Come on no way are they the same.

[pvn]

[ 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 ]

No, it still doesn't require any such thing. I'm not *required* to occupy "your" "property" if I decide to not recognize your ownership, or ownership as a legitimate principle in general.