A property owner doesn’t need a reason to enforce his claim to exclusive use. Whether you consider it sensible or not is irrelevent.
The short skirt has nothing to do with the NAP, but refusing to leave the property after being asked to leave for any reason is.
This is rich. Being lectured about rights or morals or whatever, by a moral subjectivist or relativist or nihilist or whatever.
It is obvious that the discussion is about libertarian property rights and is not a discussion on the possibility of apriori ethics.
Context - learn to use it.
Thanks zefreak - I’m learning so much as of late.
It is rich, because he is right and exposed the fallaciousness of your argument.
Actually he didn’t. None of the people invoking property rights in order to play the petty tyrant can show how these property rights are being violated to begin with.
Is it possible to be a tyrant on your own property?
You can always try…
You haven’t been reading then, or perhaps you define property rights differently then what’s been put forth. How’s this? If I ask you to leave my property, for any reason, and you refuse, that is a violation of my property rights. Do you agree, or are we just talking in circles?
Not if you have conservative reasons.
well, I can see you’ve abandoned natural rights. Are you a statist now?
Puts on cannonball helmet
I stand prepared sir.
I think to answer this question we need to establish non-ambiguouity in the definition of tyrant. Is a tyrant merely someone who has excessive control or is it someone who has excessive control over that which he does not own.
I think it is benifical if libertarians start exploring the veneration of liberty beyond the natural rights in forms of non-state domination. Basic axoims are the foundation to what we aspire but it must be remembered that they are basic. An example: We have the action axiom, it works, its logically sound. However we cannot deduce whole economies based solely on this axiom. For how can the action axiom explain money? We must build upon the action axiom to make an explaination for this ‘device.’ Similarly, we must build upon the natural rights tradition to move beyond basic ambilivence [ If you are not being punched in the face then you are ‘free’ ] towards the goal of individual liberty.
It’s the person’s property. For whatever reason the owner wants, he can ask somebody to leave, if they don’t, then that person is trespassing. Can people really go onto anybody’s property and begin giving speeches to all that can hear and the owner of the property has no say? Property rights are clear.
Of course not but does that make someone a tyrant? To answer this we need to agree one what a tyrant is.
I guess you’re asking Juan.
Its an open question [:D]
He’s just a “thicker” libertarian than you.. [:P]
Yes, quite possible. People don’t suddenly lose their individual sovereignty just because they stepped onto your property.