Red_Dave

I guess main question I have to ask is what consitutes legitimately acquired property and how this is legitimate? For example did feudal lords in medieval europe have a right to their property because one of their ancesters effectively stole it?

One thing thats very ironic about the video is that it goes on about how the majority should not be allowed to use force to take away the "justly acquired" property of the minority. In reality the last few thousand years have been largely characterised by the opossite. Land that was owned collectively by tribal societys was stolen and ended up in the hands of the minority purely as a result of force. The very notion of individuals having a right to large abouts of private property only exists because it was insituted and sustained by the use of violence.

For example the situation in alot of Latin American countrys in the 20th century was that the vast majority of their land was owned by a dozen or so rulling familys who sold the land to, or worked in cooperation with corporations based in the developed world [E.G the united fruit company]. These familys were in this possition purely as a result of the legacy of Spannish colonalism and the use of force in perserving this system of ownership over the years.

When democratically elected governments came to power and tried to redistribute this land the normal result was their removal via a U.S backed coup. Proponants of an orthodox understanding of property rights tend to claim these actions were legitimate given how the majority was violateing the rights of the minoirty to private property. What im asking in a nutshell is why does a hierarchy that only exists as a result of violence have more legitimacy in deciding how this land should be used then a government that derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed? Ultimatley things like property rights need to be worked out by society as a whole and not a small group of individuals.

Mach

You just stated in your premise that "beating her for no reason".
By definition, there is no justification because there is no "reason" for beating her. Which is precisely why you can't evaluate such things without context.
Eminent domain, for example, not only has clear reasons, but "just" compensation.

I don't think it's at odds at all, it's the "system", and your "no initiation of force" is a rule in the system. You cannot have rules if you have no system. You want rules without a system, again, can't have it both ways.

I agree and I think it is over time, but there will be an equilibrium point that is reached due to public land, public works, and efficiency. (a good equilibrium)

And plenty of times when fraud and violence run rampant and no individual lifts a finger or has the means to control it.

These are the things that keep you up at night? Really?

Each one of these has basis in justice, and in some cases specifically include just in their wording. Eminent domain, before you buy something, you already know this law exists, so it's YOUR CHOICE to buy or not. And in the U.S. it's typical for public works to better your life AND you are entitled to just compensation. How is that so horrible, seems awfully fair and balanced.

Poor analogy.
#1 It's not written in public record
#2 you were not compensated.
#3, it was not for some public good which includes you

Sorry, you're projecting things that aren't true. The system is specifically built in this case to differentiate property from citizen.
If that's the crux, then good news, it's true, they are different, and treated differently.

We disagree here because you are claiming that ignorance of the law is a sufficient defense in all cases. That's a hard hill for you to attempt to climb, and I can assure as a general concept, it will not change. do you really want to argue that?

-Mach

__________________
Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is an illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and I am content.- Conan

Panache

Good. So we agree that simply having the option to leave does not excuse the use of force or fraud. Now we are getting somewhere.

Ok, so the husband beats the wife because he thinks it builds character. That is a clear reason. And he gives her a lolipop afterwards, that is just compensation. Does that make domestic abuse alright?

The clear reasons for eminent domain are "you have it, we want it, and we have the power to take it by force" and the "just" compensation you speak of is never just. The only just compensation for anything is compensation that both parties consent to.

I want a system of rules designed to protect individual liberty. Popular sovereignty is a system designed to pander to the whims of the majority at the expense of the minority.

I agree, and both are problems that need to be addressed.

Actually I sleep pretty well at night. These things just entertain me on internet forums.

Before you buy a car, you already know that theft exists, so its YOUR CHOICE to buy or not. Does that justify car thieves?

If I steal your car and leave you with a Maria Carey CD (which I have decided is "just compensation.") is it ok then? After I steal your car, I sell the parts and use the money to buy a new computer from a local retailer, putting money back into the local economy in a way that betters you life, along with everyone in the area. Now is it ok to steal your car? Doesn't that sound fair and balanced?

So? Are you claiming that it is some sort of secret that theft exists? That people don't know that there is a possibility their car might get stolen when they buy it?

Ok, so I leave you with whatever I decide just compensation for your car is. Maybe a tootsie roll, or a No 2 Pencil.

If the money I make from stealing your car is put back into the economy by way of consumer spending then it certainly is.

Good, then you can understand that this percieved collective decision regarding anything cannot be percieved as the decision of an individual within the society.

I never claimed that ignorance of the law was a sufficient defense for anything. I claimed that a law which initiates force is unjust, and that one against whom it is applied is justified in the use of force or fraud to defend themselves against it. Just as it is unjust to initiate the use of force or fraud to steal a car, but it is justified to use force or fraud to defend yourself and your property from car thieves.

Ethereal

There is plenty of room for pragmatism and environmentalism within libertarian ideology. We do assert property rights quite vehemently but it can be argued that pollution and ecological destruction are infringements of one's rights in so far as they result in the unwilling ingestion of poison and the like. Most libertarians are not so extreme that they would condone a massive outpouring of pollution in the name of property rights. It's all a matter of interpretation, there are, however, some issues which, most libertarians would argue, require no interpretation.

The idea of individual sovereignty does not preclude popular sovereignty. As long as popular sovereignty operates within the confines of the Constitution no libertarian would take issue with it.

Panache

Really? I suppose it depends on your interpretation of the constitution. I know of few Libertarians who take no issue with Eminant domain, the war on drugs, welfare, universal healthcare, etc...

Lachean

Wow... I unsubscribed to this thread a bit after I created it because I thought it was dead... What an interesting debate. I don't know where to start...

__________________
"The original, and still the best!" - Grifter

Ethereal

Those who interpret the Constitution in this way are sorely mistaken. Simply because one labels themself a libertarian does not make it so.

Panache

I am not sure I understand your response. Are you saying that you support all these things? Or are you saying that they are all specifically addressed in the constitution?

Goldenboy219

Due to the fact that a much more advanced means of communication exists, protection from ones government is non-important? If anything, advanced technology obtainable and/or even created by government allows for greater opportunity for it to spy as well as attempt to control its citizenry.

I beg to differ especially when considering lobbying power. You act as if governmental provision keeps business in check, when reality would dictate quite the opposite. Why is Microsoft allowed to keep its monopoly, when a greater occurrence of competition would inevitably allow greater benefit to the consumer? How about the FDA passing drugs on to the prescription consumer market even though they are falsely advertised (see vytorin)? One can even observe governments ability to arrest, seize property, and imprison an individual on the sole regards of possessing "contraband". Contraband that will not directly harm the population, but instead only the individual.

Whats next, will we be fining people based on metabolic genetics due to the threat of obesity in America?!?.

Power subjected to the deeds and desires of men will fail to realize its limits. You should thank your lucky stars the founders were quite aware of democratic manipulation, and therefore limited mans ability to make law based on populism. It should be noted the rule of law is subject to interpretation, which is why a federalist based checks and balances system is in place. We are a government based on law. We are not a democracy...


Care to explain why black markets and organized crime thrive in area's where governmental control is the strongest? For a more recent example, the Chicago drug gang wars...

__________________
Firing your head coach: -15 wins
Trading Ben Wallace: +5 wins
Youngest team in NBA: -6 wins
Drafting Derrick Rose no.1 overall: Priceless

Dezaad

One of the areas where I disagree with Libertarianism is its extreme notions about property rights.

I believe that property, the wealth of the nation, is ultimately owned by the people in common, and that a system of rights to it are granted to individuals because that is what works to induce people to efficiency and productivity. As a society, We let people own things as a result of their labors because it motivates people to get more stuff, or more money, to own by being more productive, not because there is some intrinsic right to own.

To the extent that private ownership rights leads to inefficiency, society has the right and responsibility to withdraw property rights. Taxation in all its forms is an example of this. Anytime society takes any tax from anyone through the force of law, society is abbrogating individual rights to property which were formerly granted by that society through law. From there it is merely a matter of where to draw the line, but it is of utmost importance that property rights are shown by this to be something far from absolute. In fact, the rights are shown to be quite arbitrary.

Now the libertarian of course recognizes this, except in the most extreme cases (perhaps where libertarianism overlaps anarchism). Yet their drawing of the line at a certain set of property rights and limits is one they hope serves their purpose. But in any case it is still arbitrary. And, the main point is that these limits are an admission that everyone in society has some claim upon the life of the other members of that society.

It is my view that society has a responsibility to see to the general prosperity of the individuals within it by granting limited, rather than absolute, property rights. It is in the fulfillment of this responsibility that society serves all the needs of its members including individual desire for liberty.

Despite the fantasies of free market extremists, free markets do lead to inefficiencies that compound over time. Society, through government, is the only mechanism to correct these inefficiencies. Without this correction, free markets fail, along with the governments that protect liberties, and become exceedingly inefficient.

It is my view that Liberals embody the correct balance of free market government intrusion so as to maximise and preserve individual liberty.