Nobody. why does someone have to own you? Who owns the bugs in your yard?
IMO, land ownership is inheritly wrong...it should not be bought and sold..
However all the fruits of a man's labor should be his, after taxes, of course.
You just said i still actually own myself, yhen you say this isnt needed. I dont understand your contradiction? I dont need to own myself in order to own myself? This makes no sense hah... Your saying ownership of myself is not needed to protect myself? Your confusing now
Air is not property, true, good job, but when you own yourself, and you have unhealthy pollution, you should be proected by property rights.
Property rights were essential to freedom, id have to find my history lesson to explain this lol, its too long, and really i had to shorten it up so i wouldnt be here all day
I'd agree. That was directed to the people that think we do NOT own ourselves.
Let's double-check that original post, shall we???Ummm posting that actually hurt your argument lmao... But okay... I'm not seeing how protection of persons and property has anything to do with altruism...
Nope! No "protection" requirement listed. That still leaves anarchy and anarchy/communism as viable options given the parameters above.We should shoot for a social order in which everyone is free to act in any way he wishes as long as he doesn't harm others or their property. This ensures the maximum freedom not just for some, but for all.
Let's double-check that original post, shall we??? Nope! No "protection" requirement listed. That still leaves anarchy and anarchy/communism as viable options given the parameters above.
Lying about the requirements then arguing that I'm not meeting them.
It's possible but is it probable in the next 1000 years? The human race still has a lot of growing up to do, so I seriously doubt it.I don't know what name you wish to apply, but I oppose any organization that violates the rules of civilized behavior. It is possible to live by rules without granting special privileges to rulers.
Now you have introduced the "protectionist" clause - at least it looks like you have - which, if true, is different than what you were saying before.I suppose that the most important question is what institutions are necessary to establish peace and justice in a society? And then, is coercive, monopoly government the only institution capable of achieving these goals?
But your original post doesn't demand government. Are you now saying you WANT government because you demand protection? I'm getting mixed signals here.As I said above, we should shoot for a social order in which everyone is free to act in any way he wishes as long as he doesn't harm others or their property. This ensures the maximum freedom not just for some, but for all.
As LibertyBurns pointed out, under such a system, the sole legitimate purpose of government agents is to facilitate the protection of life and property.
But your original post doesn't demand government. Are you now saying you WANT government because you demand protection? I'm getting mixed signals here.
I don't know what name you wish to apply, but I oppose any organization that violates the rules of civilized behavior. It is possible to live by rules without granting special privileges to rulers.
You used the term "government" in your second post. Between our posts that's the first time it's been used so what did you mean when you used it??I'm unclear of what you mean by government. It could mean any number of things and perform any number of functions. If you could provide some clarity around that, I could provide a better answer as to whether I see government as necessary.
You've created a whole legal system - book keeping, interpretation, judgement, and enforcement. Who will you trust to do the book keeping, interpretation, and judgement? You also seem to have established mercenaries.However, I'm proposing a social order in which the law states that no person may damage the person or property of another. If that is the law, then any person may legally protect his own person or property, or may delegate this task to an agent of his choosing.
Let's double-check that original post, shall we??? Nope! No "protection" requirement listed. That still leaves anarchy and anarchy/communism as viable options given the parameters above.
Lying about the requirements then arguing that I'm not meeting them. :lamo :lamo :lamo
Nobody. why does someone have to own you? Who owns the bugs in your yard?
RGacky3 said:if a group of robbers or vandals try and destory or take equipment, then yeah, you defend it
Thats not what I'm saying, lets say people's farms have been washed away due to a flood but one guys farm has been saved, I'd say the community has the right to that farm.
Me too, which is why I oppose Capitalism and capitalist private property.
I dont have a problem with communism in theory, its just when it comes into practice that i dont like it. If everyone voluntarily went into this system, i believe it could work, well maybe. Though communism failed miserably in the colonies.
Sounds like anarchism or minarchism. Its a system that requires perfect theoretical people.
It really doesn't require perfect theoretical people, merely a willingness to let people suffer the consequences of their own stupidity, or enjoy the successes of making intelligently sound decisions.
Because you kept invoking a protection requirement that was not present in the original post and then saying the systems offered didn't meet the original standard because there was no means of protection. You did this more than once even after I pointed out that protection wasn't part of the original post.Lying? In what way.
The original post only referred to not harming property it did not state that a system of property was required nor was it forthcoming about what kind of property, if any, it might be referring. Those with a "property mentality" often refer to personal possessions, which are present in an anarchy/communist system, as "property" even though the system itself does not use the word "property" or it's basic ideal.Their property, private property, that under the system you linked does not advocate.
Zgoldsmith pretty much hit it right on the button. Anyway, what do bugs have to do with ownership of ones own body? It just means that no one can take my property from me due to property rights, if my body is indeed my property, then ahhh no one can take me as a slave. Also you should not be telling me how to use my property, which is not the case any longer in the good ole U S of A...
People are making a false dichotomy here, that if you don't own yourself, then someone else has to own you. The bug example is proof of a third possibility, that nobody owns anyone, even themselves. That does away with the argument, which let's face it, was just trotted out as a means to define natural rights into existence.
The dirt my body came from owns me and is where my body is destined to return. All my life I have to satisfy the needs and wants of this body, so it owns me more than anything or anyone else. Is this body all that I am is yet another question but I am not its complete master making part of me feel separate.
Your body's composed of element that were created at moment of origin in the Big Bang. So, going by your logic, you should return to the universe.