Obviously if someone walks onto my property I can’t force him to stay there and abuse him. I don’t think you understood the question..
Is it possible to be a tyrant by enforcing ones legitimate property right?
Yes.
We are going to keep having these semantics errors if no one defines what tyrant means in this situation.
I think it’s complete nonsense to expect such a black & white response to trespassers in the advent of a stateless society, & this goes for both pro “tyrannical” property rights responses to trespassing, & anti- “tyrannical” property rights responses.
The assumption that people will become “tyrants” of their own property, towards others trespassing, completely ignores the fundamental cultural shift required for a majority of a population to accept fundamentals for stateless society: non-coercion, voluntaryism, anti-statism, etc.
I would argue that currently, in today’s society & generation of entitlement, irresponsibility, & massive rational ignorance brought upon magnified specialization & the divide & conquer effect of the state has on it’s “citizens”, that yeah, it might not work and you’d have tyrannical property masters.
But culture is not static, & it’s not unreasonable to view that decades from now, all the radical preaching done by anti-statists might eventually seep through to the mainstream & begin shifting it, albiet watered down.
Stateless society could occur without a culture change in the blink of an eye, & may not last more than a few months until a majority of people get angry & organized to prop up the State that gave them false comfort, security, entitlements, distractions from reality, etc.
That’s not argument against the stateless society as a possible goal, but it’s a modifier to the assumption that everyone would desire that as a culture.
Quite frankly, culturally, I think the Free Software Foundation is doing a far better job at shifting a sizable portion of the population & work force towards facing off against some of the illusions state society entails, such as intellectual property, intervention into commerce, etc.
It (the argument of tyrannical property owners) also ignores that communities would obviously form some sort of voluntary oversight for property owners (by property owners) to ensure that everyone won’t go off killing everyone that get’s lost in the woods & winds up on someone’s property.
You’d think with some of the alarmism over people becoming “tyrants” over their own property, that the only solution would be massive RFID monitoring of every individual & piece of property to ensure no one “offends” another by “trespassing”.
(I look forward to painting the town red with RFID dust, for freedom & lliberty of course.)
Even in state-society, people realize & value (to some extent) the realistic proposition of the average person not being able to know, with 100% certainty, whose property is who, which is why laws are established (if they are statist laws).
“Tyrannical” property masters; who is to say that would be absolutely certain under a stateless society, where the individual is required to be far more responsible then they are under statist society?
Yes yes, not everyone is going to rational nor irrational, but not everyone is atomized & incapable of communicating with others and/or incapable of comprehending the multitude of voluntary & polycentric law that would emerge in stateless society, just like how I don’t need to constantly call my friends up and/or drive to see them to say hi & see what they are doing.
I have Facebook to help me catch up on those “highlights”; who is to say an entrepreneur wouldn’t realize the possible problem of navigating your local community in the stateless society & not knowing the property laws, & make some sort of social networking tool for reference?
Better yet, since Facebook is already stale, some sort of another platform utilizing technology currently in infancy or unavailable?
It’s also hilarious to think communities wouldn’t have a self-interest in communicating to one another where their property begins & ends (as well as a multitude of other things that can be done voluntarily & non-coercivley), but I suppose that sounds way too reasonable & doesn’t stir up the debate enough, though.
I don’t think anyone claimed that.
There is a libertarian business idea. Providing inter-state legal compatibility analysis and delivering to cars via satellite and GPS. Everyone wants to start a PDA. There are way cooler libertarian business ideas out there like this one!
Is this the ‘I don’t care face’? [:P]
I think it’s more so the “Wait a second, I actually won? I need a smoke…”
Sorry, I think I posted without seeing the broader context. What is meant by “tyrant”?
Light up Obama, we need you sucking those things down to make the taxes go away.
I don’t disagree with you, but these rambles I don’t find much value in.
I believe this is an incorrect analysis.
Or rather because only one side is heard, audiences are taught how to regard certain positions. That distinction is important.
I have no clear recollection of your challenge, unless it was back in a thread I was discussing Hoppe with Giles. You have a habit of inserting yourself in my discussions with others.
Whether or not some social values are more compatible depends on how thick your conception of libertarianism is. It depends on how you define compatible. What is your desired outcome? What if it differs from mine?
There are no universal values because no two people value the same things, the same way. We could say that breathing is a universal preference, because those who choose not to breathe aren’t around to argue otherwise. But to say that social values can be homogenized I think is terribly short-sighted and narrow. I also think it is the breeding ground for elitism and conflict.
The position that some preferences are better than others based upon individual subjective valuation works for me. But I can’t endorse a universal ethic, such as the LL conception of thick libertarianism, where if I tolerate a boss with poor social skills, they determine I am a victim, while I have calculated it into the net benefit of having the job and pursue it voluntarily. This is why I support a claim made by a prominent national anarchist that LLs as anarchists are actually a repulsive sect to the people they practice victimology on, namely straight women and minorities. From my observation, the LLs are a very middle and upper middle class caucasian crowd. As someone who is a visible minority, I can tell you their conception of anti-racism is the sort of white male paternalism no one with any sense of self esteem is interested in. I can easily see how their feminism may also appear that way to straight women.
No one likes being told that they are a victim, when they may feel empowered by making their decisions (even poor ones), regardless of how they appear to those making judgments on them.
That is the man who can stop the bombings of women and children in third world countries but doesn’t. That is the man that can stop the looting by Wall Street, but does not. That is the man who smokes pot, but will incarcerate you in a rape room for doing the same.
He is a tyrant.
You will have to go back and read Juan, Wilderness and AC.
I used the term “petty tyrant”.
http://media.mises.org/mp3/Long/Long-9.mp3
A great defence of ‘thick’ libertarianism by Roderick T. Long.
A good lecture to listen to for those who are already thick libertarians and even good for thin ones.
I’m not going to be surprised if and when anyone who decides to not bothrt with these two terms will be instantly called “thin” anyways.
I’ve tried listening to this before & frankly it didn’t do much for me.
Perhaps I’ll give it another go on my mp3 player.
I think it is very relevant to what we are discussing.