A gated community is not an industrial society either.
put a gate around some factories then its both.
I don’t think I see your point, though you sound as if suggesting that my position resembles that of an anarcho-communist ?
I think this landlordism can be compatible with liberty (depending on the small print I suppose). If I own a flat it is up to me who will I rent it out to and under what conditions. I can rent it for “free”, only under the condition that the tenants only hop around on one leg if I so please.
But I dont think these sort of arrangements would be popular at all (how would someone even come in possession of a whole town?), certainly not where I live, but if they were I wouldnt have a problem with it (albeit I would ridicule and fling mud at people living under such arrangements of course).
Also “manoralism” gives me goosebumps. Every time I hear it I`m half on my way to the shed to sharpen my scythe and hayfork.
Ha ha. Haven’t you noticed ? We live in a global industrial society.
I think Juan’s concerns are valid, not so much from the point of view of worrying of whether someone’s feelings get hurt by a group of folks that don’t like gay people. Rather, from the fact that such insular societies historically have not given rise to technological and economic flourishment. Imagine if the world still treated loaning for profit as a crime? And imagine what such declaration(s) would do to the economy at large. Almost no investments would be ‘legal’, almost no economic movement would be possible. It’s that sort of thinking that is often found in insular societies (religious or irreligious. The irreligious version of this would be the Soviets declaring genetics an evil “Western” pseudo-science.) that often stifle overall growth of that society.
I can’t imagine a society that would have put a Galileo Galelei to death for his ideas being able to create a rocket, or have vaccinations. It just doesn’t jive with logic to deny open discourse for one thing based on arbitrary conclusions of ir/religious sort, but demand open discourse on others. Anyone’s basic sense of knowledge would reject this proposition outright for the basis of any multi-industry society. Especially societies that may give rise to interplanetary industries (like ours).
What? Do you want to violate the property rights of some in order to spread “diversity” and “tolerance?”
Strawman ? Anyway, if a bunch of people are intolerant narrow minded bigots, can they complain, from a philosphical point of view, when other intolerant bigots want to wipe them out ?
That`s utilitarianism though. There is no right to flourish economicaly. And some might not want to.
When you go to the mall, you’re subject to the owner’s rules; when you sleep in a hotel room, you’re subject to the hotel’s rules, when you have a vodka in a pub, you’re subject to the owner’s rules. So in market anarchy there won’t be pubs, hotels, malls,… anymore?
If in a anarchy I decide to start my company to offer a great package of a neighboorhood to live in, with security services, what, this isn’t anarchy anymore?
Last, since when does anyone here worry about some companies becoming a monopoly over the time? Do we need a state to ensure that the competition will remain perfect between these “landlords”?
Every act of reason has some degree of utility, but it is not Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism has a specific theoretical framework, which is prefaced on the principle of “universal benevolence” (or greater good). There’s no greater good than that of the individual’s own pursuit of the good for his/her own purpose. And that is the basic tennet of an open civilization: to allow each and every individual to find the means to pursue the good in harmony of that others own pursuits of the same end. There’s no Utilitarianism that can be found in that argument. And it is the weak mind that attempts to shoehorn the term onto that which has not the shape nor the function of it.
Or in simpler terms: you make a fatal error in trying to understand my point entirely. If you want to understand why you made your error, ask yourself this question: what is the fundamental purpose of human society?
No. If I understood your post correctly, you were supporting the violation of the property rights of groups that would not want to have homosexuals on their land. You’re essentially saying you’re in favor of enforcing positive obligations on others to promote the non-existent positive “right” of homosexuals to tread on others’ property.
Irrelevant?
Where did I say I support the violation of property rights ?
Not at all. Why would intolerant religious bigots complain about intolerant secularists ?
Where you indicated you’re against churches &c. barring entrance to homosexuals and other unwanted visitors.
Also, here.
Let’s say you’re a conservative Christian anarchist. You believe that government is evil and immoral and you are a Christian. You believe that homosexuality is immoral as well, so you decide to not allow homosexuals enter onto your property.
It’s still irrelevant.
Again : Where did I say I support the violation of property rights ?
So ?
You know, it’s quite funny that, on the one hand, you’re denying that you support violating peoples’ property rights, while on the other hand, you’re actively arguing in a separate thread (that I linked to but you conveniently “overlooked”) that rights come from life and liberty, not self ownership, therefore invalidating property rights. On top of all of this, in the same post where you deny your anti-property statements, you act as if there’s no moral problem with violating the property rights of conservative Christians (or Muslims or Jews or anyone else for that matter) just to let homosexuals trespass their property. Irony much?
My advocacy of the violation of property rights exists only in your mind. You’re just ‘interpreting’ me in order to construct your fallacies.
Again, where in this thread did I say I advocate the violation of property rights ?
And no, I’m not ignoring the other thread either. In the other thread I said that property rights are an extension of the rights to life and liberty, a view shared, for instance, by Bastiat (who perhaps was a commie/cultural marxist? )
Keyword here being ‘if’…
I already pointed out before. But I might as well now:
Notice that in the above Spairon specifically says that whatever is rooted in property rights is libertarian and you counter in a manner that implies that there are some other rights above or beyond property rights.
Another example where you seem to be countering property rights and are implying that there are rights superior or above to property rights.
You explicitly denied self ownership in that post in favor for unjustified “rights” to “life” and “liberty.”
Another denial of property rights? If you’re denying the fact that landlords can decide what happens on THEIR property, you’re necessarily denying property rights.
Possibly another denial?
See above.
Ouch!