Pages: [1] 2 3 4 
|
 |
|
 Author
|
Topic: Free State Project Myths (Read 19855 times)
|
|
|
|
garthwaited
|
"But when intrusive governments shrink, the voluntary and peaceful aspects of our society are free to fill that gap. A desire for peaceful and voluntary cooperation is crucial for building healthy communities, and that’s exactly what the early movers of the Free State Project are already doing."
-Dalebert
I'm gonna quote you like that someday. That's a powerful way of stating things for me.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Porcupine The Godful Heathen
|
Perfect quote. Dale is awesome.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as judge in the field of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods." - Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
|
dalebert
|
"Free State Project--pretty funny, considering it's endorsed by the anti-gay, anti-immigrant Ron Paul, and it seeks to protect "property" as part of the "life, liberty and property" triage. Don't confuse Libertarianism with Anarchism." This was actually a comment on the Burning Porcupine cartoon, but I thought it might have been more appropriate under the Free State Project Myths cartoon. I must admit I'm not completely clear on what his point is. Maybe he's an anarchist who sees the FSP as only for political libertarians, an incorrect assumption, and therefore thinks I shouldn't support or participate in the FSP. Thought I'd ask before I respond. *shrug* |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Denis Goddard
|
Thought I'd ask before I respond.
Don't feed the trolls! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
"Don't confuse Libertarianism with Anarchism" Indeed. All anarchists are libertarians. Not all libertarians are anarchists. Some would say that anarchy is simply the most philosophically-rigorous form of libertarianism. Others would say that libertarianism is simple anarchy-lite. At Temperance League, a month or two back, Biker Bill and I offered to debate that chicken-or-egg problem for half an hour (I don't recall which of us was going to take which position), but there did not seem to be any resounding desire for us to do so among the attendees.  Joe |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
dalebert
|
Don't feed the trolls!
I kind of like that I have trolls. Makes me feel like someone out there considers me a threat. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
J’raxis 270145
|
"Free State Project--pretty funny, considering it's endorsed by the anti-gay, anti-immigrant Ron Paul, and it seeks to protect "property" as part of the "life, liberty and property" triage. Don't confuse Libertarianism with Anarchism." This was actually a comment on the Burning Porcupine cartoon, but I thought it might have been more appropriate under the Free State Project Myths cartoon. I must admit I'm not completely clear on what his point is. Maybe he's an anarchist who sees the FSP as only for political libertarians, an incorrect assumption, and therefore thinks I shouldn't support or participate in the FSP. Thought I'd ask before I respond. *shrug* The comments about Ron Paul shows he doesn’t understand the “big tent” nature of the FSP, nor that there are some anarchists who see supporting Ron Paul as a strategic move, because he’s so much better than the available alternatives. The anti-property jab is probably a reference to the “ Property is theft!” line of thought among leftist anarchists. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
The anti-property jab is probably a reference to the “ Property is theft!” line of thought among leftist anarchists. All human rights are inherently property rights. Anyone who disbelieves in property rights is, therefore, opposed to all human rights and is not actually an anarchist. Joe |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
B.D. Ross
|
All human rights are inherently property rights. Anyone who disbelieves in property rights is, therefore, opposed to all human rights and is not actually an anarchist.
Joe
No true Scotsman... The whole "property is theft" argument is just circularly ridiculous. But property rights, i.e. rights to exclude, are institutionalized threats of force, which violates the non-aggression principle. Depends on which flavor of anarchism you prefer. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
freestatelaw.com - Get plugged in with what you need to know about New Hampshire law and legislative efforts.
|
|
|
|
J’raxis 270145
|
The anti-property jab is probably a reference to the “ Property is theft!” line of thought among leftist anarchists. All human rights are inherently property rights. Anyone who disbelieves in property rights is, therefore, opposed to all human rights and is not actually an anarchist. Oh, I quite agree, but I can understand the arguments that the others make. The problem is usually that the arguments miss or misinterpret something, or start from the wrong place. The Georgist idea that since land is finite, it needs to be allocated and taxed “properly,” is another of these anti-property theories that sounds like it makes sense, at first, but it ignores that market forces can solve the problem better… and that land won’t be finite once we finally start colonizing the rest of the Universe. This describes the “Property is theft!” argument a bit clearer, and how they differentiate between used (“legitimate”) and unused (“theft”) property. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
J’raxis 270145
|
But property rights, i.e. rights to exclude, are institutionalized threats of force, which violates the non-aggression principle. Depends on which flavor of anarchism you prefer.
The right of self-defense is an “institutionalized threat of force,” too—neither violate the Non-Aggression Principle because whereas they’re threats of force, they’re not force initiated, and thus not aggression. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
All human rights are inherently property rights. Anyone who disbelieves in property rights is, therefore, opposed to all human rights and is not actually an anarchist No true Scotsman... The whole "property is theft" argument is just circularly ridiculous. But property rights, i.e. rights to exclude, are institutionalized threats of force, which violates the non-aggression principle. Depends on which flavor of anarchism you prefer. As Jeremy points out, while they are threats of force, they are not initiated force and, therefore, are not aggressive. No act, in and of itself (eg, "force" or "violence") has any moral standing. Acts only attain moral standing in context. Force may be used in an illegitimate context, by being used aggressively. Force may be used in a legitimate context, by being used defensively. Oh, I quite agree, but I can understand the arguments that the others make. The problem is usually that the arguments miss or misinterpret something, or start from the wrong place. The Georgist idea that since land is finite, it needs to be allocated and taxed “properly,” is another of these anti-property theories that sounds like it makes sense, at first, but it ignores that market forces can solve the problem better… and that land won’t be finite once we finally start colonizing the rest of the Universe. This describes the “Property is theft!” argument a bit clearer, and how they differentiate between used (“legitimate”) and unused (“theft”) property. No doubt. But I tend not to give demonstrably-incorrect theories equal showing, is all... Joe |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
Ron Helwig
|
Oh, I quite agree, but I can understand the arguments that the others make. The problem is usually that the arguments miss or misinterpret something, or start from the wrong place. The Georgist idea that since land is finite, it needs to be allocated and taxed “properly,” is another of these anti-property theories that sounds like it makes sense, at first, but it ignores that market forces can solve the problem better… and that land won’t be finite once we finally start colonizing the rest of the Universe. This describes the “Property is theft!” argument a bit clearer, and how they differentiate between used (“legitimate”) and unused (“theft”) property. Proudhon and non-libertarian Georgeists seem to not understand what "use" means. If a farmer leaves a field fallow, he is still using it. That is, just because you don't see something being actively used doesn't mean it isn't being used. To use a more direct/absurd example, I'm not in my bed right now (it isn't being actively used); so does that make it not my property anymore? From a geo-libertarian point of view, the proper distinction would be that man created things are the real property, and non man created things, like land, are turned into property through societal agreement (not necessarily government enforced agreement). Since land was not created by man, it isn't real property. We make it into property because that is a useful abstraction. (On a side note, I think calling land "real estate" or "real property" confuses the issue.) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
