I know perfectly well what I wrote. I’m asking where in those sentences there is any advocacy against property rights.
Anyway, I’ll translate for you : I was using irony and suggesting that while a bunch of narrow minded bigots can buy a couple of acres and indulge in their hatred of ‘gays’ or any other subhuman, and I would respect their right to not have their land trespassed, such conservative park is barely relevant in a discussion about a future libertarian industrial society.
But libertarians here seem to be obsessed with being free to have their little religious tribes. Fine. I’d bet 2 cents that the human race is heading somewhere else.
As to the rest of your ‘evidence’ I already explained my views on self-ownership. If all you can retort is that my not abiding by Rothbard’s sacred terminology means I’m a commie heretic, don’t bother.
I’ll only point out that ‘self-ownership’ is, logically speaking, clear nonsense and just a bad metaphor.
For your entertainment, I’ll also comment on this one :
No, that was an attempt to show that merely parroting “all rights are property rights” doesn’t explain much. It doesn’t mean I don’t support property rights.
All in all, you seem to be engaging in a little witch hunt against the reds, but I think you have a case of mistaken identity.
I don’t follow… why does this matter, aside from a possible majoritarian viewpoint?
IMO, it seems you are saying you would tolerate such, and then at the same imply intolerance based on a belief that “little religious tribes” (of which the generalization that every libertarian here is obsessed with seems crass) are going to viewed as not useful by the human race.
This could be either another assumption of the course of human evolution, or a remark implying that these “little religious tribes” should be opposed before market outcomes even have a chance at out-competing “little religious tribes”, which is where I take issue with, if that is the case.
Is it too much to leave a void in the crystal ball of market anarchy, to when it actually occurs, that one must repeatedly predict every nook & cranny until every detail is defined?
I’m saying that intolerant people who believe that ________ are ‘evil’ because GGGGOOODDDDD says so, are people who deserve to be ridiculed. I’ll also note that arbitrarily classifying non-aggressive people as ‘evil’…is stupid and evil. My ‘intolerance’ goes as far as speaking my mind.