a quick thought

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

How is anything you've said so far useful for figuring out how we should structure modern societies?

[/ QUOTE ]

Practically, at least as useful as anything any ACist has ever suggested as to how we should structure society.

[bkholdem]

[ 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 ]

Is a man allowed to lie down in bed 5 inches from your teenage daughter and 'not be assaulted'?

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]


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

[/ QUOTE ]

The second comparison is really more fair, isn't it?...since AC itself only exists as a fantasy utopia.

[ianlippert]

I missed this thread blow up so I might be covering stuff that is already covered

[ QUOTE ]
Well, you can in the sense that you would probably be physically able to do so with the help of you private defense association in AC society.

But you are still coercively imposing your morality upon me if I don't believe in your conception of property rights.



[/ QUOTE ]

So is it ok for me to come into your house while your family tries to sleep? Is it morally acceptable for you to call the cops on me? Its fine to have moral theories so that we can test them against each other but the first thing any theory must have is internal consistancy. If you dont believe in property rights then everyone has access to all good at all times. I cant believe that anyone actually believes in this sort of stuff, and if they do they are in an extreme minority.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ 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 ]

Is a man allowed to lie down in bed 5 inches from your teenage daughter and 'not be assaulted'?

[/ QUOTE ]

So questioning your right to own your land equals questioning the right of his teenage daughter to be left alone? An example from Norwegian law on your rights when being on other man's property (uncultivated land):

[ QUOTE ]

Specific rules
A place is to be left at least as tidy as it was upon arrival. It is not allowed to leave permanent traces of one's presence or to be a nuisance to the land owner or other people. Traveling off tracks and roads is only allowed on foot or skis. On tracks and roads cycling and riding is permitted. A tent must be pitched at least 150 meters from a dwelling and a maximum of two days, unless the land owner's permission is obtained. Kindling and firewood may be gathered from dead trees and branches, but felling of live trees is prohibited. Fires are not permitted in or near forests between 15 April and 15 September. It is not allowed to tear down fences and enclosures. The land owner is permitted to expel persons damaging his property.

Gathering flowers, herbs, berries and mushrooms is permitted, but common sense dictates that it should not be for commercial purposes without getting permission from the land owner and that endangered species must be left in place. Nuts must be consumed on the spot. You are not allowed to remove rocks, firewood or peat. Some shores in Norway have deposits of large, round stones shaped by sea and ice for thousands of years. These are popular souvenirs for tourists and as a result many such deposits have been emptied.

Canoeing, kayaking, rowing and sailing in rivers, lakes, and ocean are allowed. Motorised boats are only permitted in salt water. All waters are open for swimming.

Hunting rights belong to the landowner, and thus hunting is not included in the right of free access. In freshwater areas such as rivers and lakes, the fishing rights belong to the landowner. Regardless of who owns the land, fresh water fishing activities may only be conducted with the permission of the landowner or by those in possession of a fishing licence. In salt water areas there is free access to sports fishing using boats or from the shoreline. All fishing is subject to legislation to among other things protect biological diversity, and this legislation stipulates rules regarding the use of gear, seasons, bag or size limits and more.


[/ QUOTE ]

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


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

[/ QUOTE ]

The second comparison is really more fair, isn't it?...since AC itself only exists as a fantasy utopia.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it is a possible reality. There are other possible realities and they would all have conflicts all the time, just like todays reality does.

Compaing it to communism, whatever, is fair and reasonable. To suggest a scenario in which one individual would be unhappy as an objection to any of these possible realities and use that to claim that the system is therefore invalid is assinine.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

The behavior that is restricted is not any behavior that you had any right to engage in to begin with. So what's your objection?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is circular reasoning. You use your own opinion to validate your own opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Circular how? It's HIS reasoning, not mine. He admitted he has no right to be any particular place except where he already is. In that case, he has no right to move to any other location. Given that, how can he object in being restrained from doing something he has no right or entitlement to do?

Where's the circle?

[ianlippert]

[ 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 ]

Then why are you even arguing? I really dont see many people that dont believe in any sort of property rights. Even communists believe that the land is owned communally by the commune.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

Is a man allowed to lie down in bed 5 inches from your teenage daughter and 'not be assaulted'?

[/ QUOTE ]

So questioning your right to own your land equals questioning the right of his teenage daughter to be left alone? An example from Norwegian law on your rights when being on other man's property (uncultivated land):

[ QUOTE ]

Specific rules
A place is to be left at least as tidy as it was upon arrival. It is not allowed to leave permanent traces of one's presence or to be a nuisance to the land owner or other people. Traveling off tracks and roads is only allowed on foot or skis. On tracks and roads cycling and riding is permitted. A tent must be pitched at least 150 meters from a dwelling and a maximum of two days, unless the land owner's permission is obtained. Kindling and firewood may be gathered from dead trees and branches, but felling of live trees is prohibited. Fires are not permitted in or near forests between 15 April and 15 September. It is not allowed to tear down fences and enclosures. The land owner is permitted to expel persons damaging his property.

Gathering flowers, herbs, berries and mushrooms is permitted, but common sense dictates that it should not be for commercial purposes without getting permission from the land owner and that endangered species must be left in place. Nuts must be consumed on the spot. You are not allowed to remove rocks, firewood or peat. Some shores in Norway have deposits of large, round stones shaped by sea and ice for thousands of years. These are popular souvenirs for tourists and as a result many such deposits have been emptied.

Canoeing, kayaking, rowing and sailing in rivers, lakes, and ocean are allowed. Motorised boats are only permitted in salt water. All waters are open for swimming.

Hunting rights belong to the landowner, and thus hunting is not included in the right of free access. In freshwater areas such as rivers and lakes, the fishing rights belong to the landowner. Regardless of who owns the land, fresh water fishing activities may only be conducted with the permission of the landowner or by those in possession of a fishing licence. In salt water areas there is free access to sports fishing using boats or from the shoreline. All fishing is subject to legislation to among other things protect biological diversity, and this legislation stipulates rules regarding the use of gear, seasons, bag or size limits and more.


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not 'equating' those 2 things. I am asking in order to find out exactly what his belief system consists of.

I am still not clear on what his belief system is (other than there should be some shared land or land allowed to be used as indicated above if owned by someone else). What is the position on other things such as taxes, government, etc? Are all of those things 'necessary' as far as you are concerned, or morally correct, or whatever?

I ask provocative questions to raise points. That is my style sometimes. Now I am somewhat more clear on your position of property but still far from crystal clear. And I still have no idea where you stand on a host of other factor that arise in the world.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

Circular how?

[ QUOTE ]
The behavior that is restricted is not any behavior that you had any right to engage in to begin with.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's circular, you use your view of property rights to prove that he doesn't have the right to be on your property.