• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Libertarians: Are public parks hurting your freedom?

RGacky3 said:
No it hasn't, property has NEVER been created, land has NEVER been turned into property through discourse, it's always been through violence and the threat of violence.
Click to expand...

You're simply wrong about this. Entire nations have won independence from one another without even a single shot being fired (like the velvet revolution).

Old old school colonization of uninhabited areas: When settlers went around to new areas, they didn't just say "right, this whole place is mine" and kill all the other settlers that came with them, because they know they can't survive on their own. One guy takes a bit of land to build a blacksmith's, another sets up a carpenters, and some other dude sets up a pub between them. It's the only way they can all get what they need. Self preservation is a factor of life even without threat of violence.

MoSurveyor said:
Plenty of private security forces in America.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the government won't allow any of them to help define the boundaries of my property in case of a dispute with my neighbor, so it's irrelevant.
 
ARealConservative said:
If it a sovereign political power, it is a state in the context of this discussion.

The community and the city meets the definition of state
Click to expand...

Would that include private property estates?
 
HumanBeing said:
You're simply wrong about this. Entire nations have won independence from one another without even a single shot being fired (like the velvet revolution).

Old old school colonization of uninhabited areas: When settlers went around to new areas, they didn't just say "right, this whole place is mine" and kill all the other settlers that came with them, because they know they can't survive on their own. One guy takes a bit of land to build a blacksmith's, another sets up a carpenters, and some other dude sets up a pub between them. It's the only way they can all get what they need. Self preservation is a factor of life even without threat of violence.
Click to expand...

Again, Nation's winning independance is NOT what I'm talking about, I'm talking about things that were not private property becoming private property, i.e. privitization of the commons.

About settlers, what they did is partion out the land to one another, and then killed the natives if they came in, also they didn't actually partion out the land, they got state grants from their home governments who backed up their claims with armies.

Also in europe, the turning of communal land into private plots happened by driving off the peasentry violently off the land.

This is just history.

Yes, but the government won't allow any of them to help define the boundaries of my property in case of a dispute with my neighbor, so it's irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Private security forces difining the boundries of your property in case of a dispute with your neighbor?

Take away the word private and what you have is old school war.

But we're getting away from the origional question.

Do public parks take away your freedom?
 
RGacky3 said:
Again, Nation's winning independance is NOT what I'm talking about, I'm talking about things that were not private property becoming private property, i.e. privitization of the commons.

About settlers, what they did is partion out the land to one another, and then killed the natives if they came in, also they didn't actually partion out the land, they got state grants from their home governments who backed up their claims with armies.

Also in europe, the turning of communal land into private plots happened by driving off the peasentry violently off the land.

This is just history.
Click to expand...
No, it's American history. It doesn't necessarily apply to the rest of the world. "Driving off peasantry" isn't initiation of aggression, the peasants initiated it.

Private security forces difining the boundries of your property in case of a dispute with your neighbor?

Take away the word private and what you have is old school war.
Click to expand...
Not at all. Why would I hire a company that would wage war on my neighbors, and how would it be profitable for any of us? War are expensive, they drag on, and there's rarely a "winner". I'd expect my defense company to bring in a third party arbitrater that we can both agree on, and voluntarily consent to abide by his ruling at the end of our hearing regarding our respective claim to the land. That would be far better for all of us :)

But we're getting away from the origional question.

Do public parks take away your freedom?
Click to expand...
I answered in my first post.
 
RGacky3 said:
libertarians always talk about economic issues, like socialism vrs Capitalism, as if it's an issue of freedom, I never Got that, I have a ton more freedom living in a country with public heathcare than I do where I'm beholdant to private for profit healthcare companies, or where I have a say through my union or through co-determination in my workplace rather than having none.

But libertarians, are the fact that public parks exist and are not privitized somehow taking away from your "freedom?" Why or why not?
Click to expand...

Freedom to do what?

Libertarianism is fundamentally about a specific set of rules regarding property ownership, namely the ideas of self-ownership and homesteading. The government violates property rights by taking money and/or property (say to build a park). Thus, as libertarian, I view the government as an unethical organization and I view the seizure of money/land by the government to be an unethical act.
 
Federalist said:
Freedom to do what?

Libertarianism is fundamentally about a specific set of rules regarding property ownership, namely the ideas of self-ownership and homesteading. The government violates property rights by taking money and/or property (say to build a park). Thus, as libertarian, I view the government as an unethical organization and I view the seizure of money/land by the government to be an unethical act.
Click to expand...

Lets say the government didn't take the land from a private land owner, just designated a swath of land to be a "public park," does that limit you're freedom?

Also you talk about "freedom to do what?" I don't know, it's not leftists that are throwing the "freedom" word around willy nilly not being specific on what exactly you mean, I'm asking you.

But as I said before, land property has ALWAYS been created by the state, private property was never made just by "homesteading," look at history, it's all government grants backed by the army.

But that doens't answer the question, city one has a large public part whome all can access, city 2 has a private park .... would you say city 2 has more "freedom?"
 
HumanBeing said:
No, it's American history. It doesn't necessarily apply to the rest of the world. "Driving off peasantry" isn't initiation of aggression, the peasants initiated it.
Click to expand...

No I'm talking europe as well, also it IS initiation of aggression, since the peasantry had been living and farming the common land plots for centuries, until they were fenced off .... When soldiers come and say "the land you've been farming on for generations is private property no you have to leave" the people there are not initiating aggression.

Not at all. Why would I hire a company that would wage war on my neighbors, and how would it be profitable for any of us? War are expensive, they drag on, and there's rarely a "winner". I'd expect my defense company to bring in a third party arbitrater that we can both agree on, and voluntarily consent to abide by his ruling at the end of our hearing regarding our respective claim to the land. That would be far better for all of us :)
Click to expand...

Why would you hire a company to wage war on your neighbors??? Because you want their **** ... and was IS Profitable ... it's always been profitable, especially if your enemy is weak.

Why would you bring in a third party arbitrater when you could just take the guys stuff?

Also if you are going to hire a third party arbitrater, won't the arbitrater just work for whoever pays him the most? Also why would the neighbor need to follow the arbitraters verdict?

You have an insanely utopian concept of how Capitalism ACTUALLY works ...

in Colombia Cokeacola doesn't "hire a third party arbitrater" to negociate with the union who wants higher wages ... they kill them, it's cheaper, and why wouldn't they? They are a multinational corporation, the union is just a couple of local workers, why on earth would Coke deal with them as equals?

I answered in my first post.
Click to expand...

Not really ....
1. Public parks are not monopolization's of an industry ...
2. It doesn't really make sense ... How is a public park different than a private park in terms of a claim to ownership backed by force?
 
RGacky3 said:
No I'm talking europe as well, also it IS initiation of aggression, since the peasantry had been living and farming the common land plots for centuries, until they were fenced off .... When soldiers come and say "the land you've been farming on for generations is private property no you have to leave" the people there are not initiating aggression.
Click to expand...
I'm not quite sure what you're arguing at this point. Are you suggesting that communities have never voluntarily asked to become parts of states and federations? If so, that simply isn't true. If you're arguing that states will always end up initiating aggression and asserting jurisdiction in the end regardless, then yes I agree, but that was my whole point.


Why would you hire a company to wage war on your neighbors??? Because you want their **** ... and was IS Profitable ... it's always been profitable, especially if your enemy is weak.
Click to expand...
You guys didn't even manage to make a profit out of Iraq, and the place was practically a gold mine. War isn't profitable, and the world's biggest wager of wars also has the biggest debt, by far. Petty theft may be profitable in the short term, but it's an initiation of aggression so I would be open to retaliation from everyone around me.

Why would you bring in a third party arbitrator when you could just take the guys stuff?
Click to expand...
We presumably live on a street full of neighbors. If I just go take your home, everyone else will see it. I won't be safe anymore, I will be seen as an aggressor. With a transparent third party arbitrator, everyone will know what happened and who was right.

Also if you are going to hire a third party arbitrater, won't the arbitrater just work for whoever pays him the most? Also why would the neighbor need to follow the arbitraters verdict?
Click to expand...
As I said, it would be a mutually agreed upon third party arbitrator. You're used to systems in which there is only one group that gets to arbitrate, and yes in those cases there will always be bias. Just another example of why artificial monopolization is bad. We would have a contract before the hearing agreeing to stick to the outcome. If you don't stick to it, then you committed fraud when signing the contract and have initiated aggression.

You have an insanely utopian concept of how Capitalism ACTUALLY works ...
Click to expand...
Of course it doesn't work like that, because there are no capitalist, free market economies in the world. There never have been. They all get raped by statism.

in Colombia Cokeacola doesn't "hire a third party arbitrater" to negociate with the union who wants higher wages ... they kill them, it's cheaper, and why wouldn't they? They are a multinational corporation, the union is just a couple of local workers, why on earth would Coke deal with them as equals?
Click to expand...
Right, because columbian worker's unions are internationally renouned for their peace, love, and diplomacy. Your claims are spurious.

Not really ....
1. Public parks are not monopolization's of an industry ...
2. It doesn't really make sense ... How is a public park different than a private park in terms of a claim to ownership backed by force?
Click to expand...
1. Public parks, as well as public spaces are part of state's monopoly ownership of land for which it has paid nothing. Individuals paid the taxes, so individuals should own it, not the state.
2. A public park is different from a private park because someone actually pays to own the land. They aren't just randomly declaring ownership.
 
RGacky3 said:
Lets say the government didn't take the land from a private land owner, just designated a swath of land to be a "public park," does that limit you're freedom?
Click to expand...

It limits my freedom to homestead any of that land myself. Also, if the city takes my money to pay for the maintenance of the park, that also limits my freedom.

Also you talk about "freedom to do what?" I don't know, it's not leftists that are throwing the "freedom" word around willy nilly not being specific on what exactly you mean, I'm asking you.
Click to expand...

I think what libertarians typically mean by "freedom" is the right to use one's body or property in any way they wish so long as they don't uninvitely change the physical integrity of another person's body or property.

But as I said before, land property has ALWAYS been created by the state, private property was never made just by "homesteading," look at history, it's all government grants backed by the army.
Click to expand...

Libertarians hold that the first user of any unowned resource ought to become the legal owner of that particular resource.

But that doens't answer the question, city one has a large public part whome all can access, city 2 has a private park .... would you say city 2 has more "freedom?"
Click to expand...

If the city with the public park confiscated money in order to buy/maintain the park, then I would say that that city has less freedom, since the city stole people's property.

But again, I'd say that libertarianism is more accurately described as a theory of property rights than it is a theory of freedom.
 
HumanBeing said:
Yes, but the government won't allow any of them to help define the boundaries of my property in case of a dispute with my neighbor, so it's irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Surveyors and judges do that, not the police. :)
 
RGacky3 said:
Once you do that, what's the diference between you and a dictatorship?
Click to expand...
On your own land there is little difference in our society from a dictator. The only trick is, you are still required to follow certain laws of the land - but that doesn't mean you can't set your own laws, too, punishable by banishment.
 
RGacky3 said:
Would that include private property estates?
Click to expand...

If it involves a social contract (one you are bound to, but did not formally agree to), then yes.

If it is a legal contract that you did agree to be bound to, then no.
 
HumanBeing said:
I'm not quite sure what you're arguing at this point. Are you suggesting that communities have never voluntarily asked to become parts of states and federations? If so, that simply isn't true. If you're arguing that states will always end up initiating aggression and asserting jurisdiction in the end regardless, then yes I agree, but that was my whole point.
Click to expand...

I'm saying the commons never became private property voluntarily.


You guys didn't even manage to make a profit out of Iraq, and the place was practically a gold mine. War isn't profitable, and the world's biggest wager of wars also has the biggest debt, by far. Petty theft may be profitable in the short term, but it's an initiation of aggression so I would be open to retaliation from everyone around me.
Click to expand...

It isn't profitable for the state, it's profitable for the corporations ... for which teh state works for, take the state oout of the picture, it's just the corporations and private security forces.

We presumably live on a street full of neighbors. If I just go take your home, everyone else will see it. I won't be safe anymore, I will be seen as an aggressor. With a transparent third party arbitrator, everyone will know what happened and who was right.
Click to expand...

Not if you have a private army, and wealth and my neighbors are poor.

As I said, it would be a mutually agreed upon third party arbitrator. You're used to systems in which there is only one group that gets to arbitrate, and yes in those cases there will always be bias. Just another example of why artificial monopolization is bad. We would have a contract before the hearing agreeing to stick to the outcome. If you don't stick to it, then you committed fraud when signing the contract and have initiated aggression.
Click to expand...

Why would I have to agree on a third party arbitrator? If you have the money and the power, why should you give a **** what I think?

Of course it doesn't work like that, because there are no capitalist, free market economies in the world. There never have been. They all get raped by statism.
Click to expand...

There never can be, because Capitalism is BUILT on statism.

Right, because columbian worker's unions are internationally renouned for their peace, love, and diplomacy. Your claims are spurious.
Click to expand...

That isn't an argument against what I said ... Its a red herring.

1. Public parks, as well as public spaces are part of state's monopoly ownership of land for which it has paid nothing. Individuals paid the taxes, so individuals should own it, not the state.
2. A public park is different from a private park because someone actually pays to own the land. They aren't just randomly declaring ownership.
Click to expand...

1. That doesn't make sense, individuals paid the taxes ... so they DO all own it, colelctively, they all have access to it ...
2. All ownership is randomly declaring ownership in the begining.
 
Federalist said:
It limits my freedom to homestead any of that land myself. Also, if the city takes my money to pay for the maintenance of the park, that also limits my freedom.
Click to expand...

Doesn't private property limit your freedom to homestead that land yourself to?

How does taxes going to maintaining a park limit your freedom?

Would it add to your freedom if that park was privitized and you no longer had access to it?

Also homsteading doesn't lead to property, homesteading PLUS state granted land ownership does.

I think what libertarians typically mean by "freedom" is the right to use one's body or property in any way they wish so long as they don't uninvitely change the physical integrity of another person's body or property.
Click to expand...

Ok ... and the park is the commons, its public property, so does that not limit your freedom?

Libertarians hold that the first user of any unowned resource ought to become the legal owner of that particular resource.
Click to expand...

Except in practice in Capitalism that's NEVER been the case ..... It's utopian.

If the city with the public park confiscated money in order to buy/maintain the park, then I would say that that city has less freedom, since the city stole people's property.

But again, I'd say that libertarianism is more accurately described as a theory of property rights than it is a theory of freedom.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with your laste sentance, it's honest, libertarianism is a theory of property.

The city doesn't "confiscatae money" it says, if yo uwant to be part of this community, we want to have a public park, if you don't, then leave. Any more than a corporations "confiscates" the products of labor.
 
ARealConservative said:
If it involves a social contract (one you are bound to, but did not formally agree to), then yes.

If it is a legal contract that you did agree to be bound to, then no.
Click to expand...

Ok then, so if a community doesn't agree to a private property estates property right over it,they don't have to accept it them do they?
 
RGacky3 said:
Ok then, so if a community doesn't agree to a private property estates property right over it,they don't have to accept it them do they?
Click to expand...

english please.
 
RGacky3 said:
Doesn't private property limit your freedom to homestead that land yourself to?
Click to expand...

Yes, of course it does. If another person has already homesteaded a particular resource, then I don't have the freedom to exercise control over that resource, as it is already owned.

How does taxes going to maintaining a park limit your freedom?
Click to expand...

It takes my property (money), and thus I am no longer free to exercise control of that particular piece of property.

Would it add to your freedom if that park was privitized and you no longer had access to it?
Click to expand...

In so far as the government was no longer taxing me to maintain that park, yes. I would then be free from taxes.

Also homsteading doesn't lead to property, homesteading PLUS state granted land ownership does.
Click to expand...

All societies have a system by which property rights are established. Libertarians propose a system with a simple and consistent set of rules to determine who owns a particular resource: each person owns his own physical body, and unused resources become owned by the first individual to homestead that resource. Such a system of property rights does not require a state (a group of people with a monopoly on the initiation of aggression in a given geographic territory).

Ok ... and the park is the commons, its public property, so does that not limit your freedom?
Click to expand...

If it's not my property, I am not free to use it.

I think I'm missing your point. Libertarianism is essentially about establishing a consistent set of property rules and then actually respecting those rules. Thus, in a libertarian society, no individual would have the right to violate another person's physical body or property. In such a society, a government that initiated aggression against others (as in forcibly collecting taxes) would be in violation of the established rules and simply could not exist. In a libertarians society, there could be no government-owned park, because there could be no government.

Except in practice in Capitalism that's NEVER been the case ..... It's utopian.
Click to expand...

Okay, but libertarians still hold that the first user of any unclaimed resource ought to be recognized as the legal owner of that particular resource.

I'd agree with your laste sentance, it's honest, libertarianism is a theory of property.
Click to expand...

Correct. Libertarianism offers a set of rules regarding how to establish ownership of resources and it also contends that it is wrong to initiate aggression against the body or property of others. That is libertarianism in a nutshell, in my opinion.

The city doesn't "confiscatae money" it says, if yo uwant to be part of this community, we want to have a public park, if you don't, then leave.
Click to expand...

You're not saying that the state merely "suggests" that one pay taxes are you? What happens in the scenario you described when the person chooses NOT to leave?

Any more than a corporations "confiscates" the products of labor.
Click to expand...

Confiscate the products of labor? I don't follow. Let's say that you hire me to bolt widgets to dongles for a day. You own the widgets, you own the bolts, and you own the dongles. I spend the day using my body to bolt the widgets to the dongles, and you pay me. Afterwards, you still own the widgets, bolts, and dongles (even though they are now all connected). What exactly have you confiscated from me?
 
RGacky3 said:
libertarians always talk about economic issues, like socialism vrs Capitalism, as if it's an issue of freedom, I never Got that, I have a ton more freedom living in a country with public heathcare than I do where I'm beholdant to private for profit healthcare companies, or where I have a say through my union or through co-determination in my workplace rather than having none.

But libertarians, are the fact that public parks exist and are not privitized somehow taking away from your "freedom?" Why or why not?
Click to expand...

I am more or less in the Libertarian faction of the Republican Party. I most definitely want to restrain government and limit its scope, because I believe like many others that the private sector has brought us many good things because as someone once said, “… it is the private sector, imperfect as it is, that has constantly created great things over the years--an abundance of food, housing, energy, and high tech medicine, and an astonishing amount of consumer goods that add comfort, value, and security that has improved human’s standard of living worldwide.”

Limited government does not mean no government and it does not mean no public parks. There still can be some public parks. Limited government is not anarchy and some seem to erroneously jump to the conclusion that is what Libertarians want. It reminds me about when I talk about lower taxes, someone always starts saying that we need roads and bridges that are built with tax money. And to that I say, well, no **** Sherlock, low taxes does not mean no taxes. Just like reducing government does not mean no government.
 
Federalist said:
Yes, of course it does. If another person has already homesteaded a particular resource, then I don't have the freedom to exercise control over that resource, as it is already owned.
Click to expand...

Ok, then public property doesn't restrict your freedom any more.

It takes my property (money), and thus I am no longer free to exercise control of that particular piece of property.
Click to expand...

your property is established by the state ... corporate taxes exist, because corporations are state structures, property taxes exist because its teh state that made the institution of property.

Without the state most of the earth is simply the commons.

In so far as the government was no longer taxing me to maintain that park, yes. I would then be free from taxes.
Click to expand...

And you'd loose the freedom to enjoy that area.

All societies have a system by which property rights are established. Libertarians propose a system with a simple and consistent set of rules to determine who owns a particular resource: each person owns his own physical body, and unused resources become owned by the first individual to homestead that resource. Such a system of property rights does not require a state (a group of people with a monopoly on the initiation of aggression in a given geographic territory).
Click to expand...

Each person IS his own physical body.

Such a system does require a state, because unused resources may have been used by someone earler that isn't using it any more, so what does he need to do, write his name on it? Also why should other people accept that it's that persons' because he used it a year ago or something?

Such a system has never existed nor could it.

If it's not my property, I am not free to use it.

I think I'm missing your point. Libertarianism is essentially about establishing a consistent set of property rules and then actually respecting those rules. Thus, in a libertarian society, no individual would have the right to violate another person's physical body or property. In such a society, a government that initiated aggression against others (as in forcibly collecting taxes) would be in violation of the established rules and simply could not exist. In a libertarians society, there could be no government-owned park, because there could be no government.
Click to expand...

Without a government, there is no property (beyond simple possession), and land would simply be the commons.

Land property ONLY existed with the advent of the state.

Okay, but libertarians still hold that the first user of any unclaimed resource ought to be recognized as the legal owner of that particular resource.
Click to expand...

The homestead principle is really Ad Hoc ... why only the first user? What establishes use? Why should simple use of something mean it now belongs exclusively to that person? It's simply Ad Hoc.

Correct. Libertarianism offers a set of rules regarding how to establish ownership of resources and it also contends that it is wrong to initiate aggression against the body or property of others. That is libertarianism in a nutshell, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I agree with that other than the body part, your body isn't property, you ARE your body, property is a relation between a person and an object, that person is made up of his body.

You're not saying that the state merely "suggests" that one pay taxes are you? What happens in the scenario you described when the person chooses NOT to leave?
Click to expand...

What happens in the libertarian scenario when a person chooses not to accept the property laws?

Confiscate the products of labor? I don't follow. Let's say that you hire me to bolt widgets to dongles for a day. You own the widgets, you own the bolts, and you own the dongles. I spend the day using my body to bolt the widgets to the dongles, and you pay me. Afterwards, you still own the widgets, bolts, and dongles (even though they are now all connected). What exactly have you confiscated from me?
Click to expand...

You didn't make the widgets you didn't make the bolts, you didn't make the dongles, someone else did, who had no right to what they made ... The ONLY reason you have those things and the frutis of other peoples labor is due to Capital property laws.

This is how Capitalism works.
 
ARealConservative said:
english please.
Click to expand...

It is english, if people in a community decide "you know what I don't think the owner of this estate has a right to it, we no longer agree that it's his" because I mean they didn't agree to it ... that he should own that, so why should they accept it?
 
RGacky3 said:
It is english, if people in a community decide "you know what I don't think the owner of this estate has a right to it, we no longer agree that it's his" because I mean they didn't agree to it ... that he should own that, so why should they accept it?
Click to expand...

"people in a community" seems like you are trying hard to avoid pointing out they are the township, county, or some form of government with a social contract attached making it a state.

if you are saying it is a home owners association, that involves a legal contract and works completely differently
 
RGacky3 said:
Ok, then public property doesn't restrict your freedom any more.
Click to expand...

Correct. I am not free to use any property that isn't mine.

your property is established by the state ... corporate taxes exist, because corporations are state structures, property taxes exist because its teh state that made the institution of property.

Without the state most of the earth is simply the commons.
Click to expand...

I disagree that property exists only in so far as a state exists. People can agree upon a system of resource ownership without allowing any particular group of individuals to initiate violence against others. In other words, it is possible for people to establish a system of law that precludes a "state".

And you'd loose the freedom to enjoy that area.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Each person IS his own physical body.
Click to expand...

Yes of course we ARE our own body. However, when I say that a person owns his physical body, I only mean to say that each person is the one who may control his own physical body. Nobody else may do so.

Such a system does require a state, because unused resources may have been used by someone earler that isn't using it any more, so what does he need to do, write his name on it? Also why should other people accept that it's that persons' because he used it a year ago or something?
Click to expand...

A state (people who may initiate violence) is not necessary. Only a system of establishing ownership over unclaimed resources and a system for recording ownership claims. Deeds can be recorded without the need for a state (people who may initiate violence).

Such a system has never existed nor could it.
Click to expand...

I suppose we'll have to see whether you're right or not.

Without a government, there is no property (beyond simple possession), and land would simply be the commons.

Land property ONLY existed with the advent of the state.

The homestead principle is really Ad Hoc ... why only the first user? What establishes use? Why should simple use of something mean it now belongs exclusively to that person? It's simply Ad Hoc.
Click to expand...

I don't agree it's ad hoc. I think it's a reasonable way to establish ownership of heretofore unclaimed resources.

I agree with that other than the body part, your body isn't property, you ARE your body, property is a relation between a person and an object, that person is made up of his body.
Click to expand...

Okay. But it is still unacceptable for other people to exercise control over one's body. If you don't want to call that ownership, fine, call it whatever you want. But ownership denotes the right of exclusive use, so I find it reasonable to say that each of us owns (has the right of exclusive use) of our physical body. But again, if you can come up with a better way to express that idea, please let me know.

What happens in the libertarian scenario when a person chooses not to accept the property laws?
Click to expand...

Then people would regard them as having committed a crime or tort and the victim would be legally justified to pursue legal action.

You didn't make the widgets you didn't make the bolts, you didn't make the dongles, someone else did, who had no right to what they made
Click to expand...

Of course, I don't have the right to other people property. However, I can buy widgets, bolts, and dongles from other people, if that is agreeable to them. Then the title to those items would transfer to me and I would become the legal owner.

... The ONLY reason you have those things and the frutis of other peoples labor is due to Capital property laws.

This is how Capitalism works.
Click to expand...

I have the widgets, dongles, and bolts because someone else gave them to me (transferred the title to me). The fact that someone then bolts the widget to the dongle does not mean that they are still not my property. I still am unclear exactly what items are being confiscated.
 
RGacky3 said:
libertarians always talk about economic issues, like socialism vrs Capitalism, as if it's an issue of freedom, I never Got that,
Click to expand...

It's pretty simple. Anything run by the government reduces freedom because the government is intent on increasing its power and control over the public. It does that by reducing choice. That has been going on since the constitution was developed. The private sector provides choice, the government has no competition. Your healthcare comments are pretty silly. Obamacare reduces your choices, forces you into taking actions and even increases the cost of healthcare for everyone as a side benefit. It's OK to support it but not OK to suggest that it increases your freedom because that is false.
 
ARealConservative said:
"people in a community" seems like you are trying hard to avoid pointing out they are the township, county, or some form of government with a social contract attached making it a state.

if you are saying it is a home owners association, that involves a legal contract and works completely differently
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter ... I'm saying a non-propertarian democratic institution, be it a town, city, county or whatever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom