What you buy is of absolutely no relevance to conflicts involving people who are not you.
That is nonsense!
Either you keep the stolen umbrella and the thief “goes away with the money”, or I reclaim my stolen umbrella and the thief “goes away the money.”
I was victum of theft, you were a victum of fraud. I am entitled to have my property returned, and you are entitled to have your money returned. The fact that you had direct dealings with the thief and willingly chose to purchase from him requires that you, not I, is responsible for reclaiming your money. I don’t even know who the thief was!
What is the implication of people being able to keep stolen property? They will be willing to buy property even though they know it is stolen. What is the implication of people not being able to keep stolen property? They will be careful about who they do business with.
I don’t see how a question can be nonsense.
Well, I’m only a victim of fraud if we accept your premise. I claim that I’m not a victim of fraud - that I actually did buy an umbrella, regardless of the thief’s lack of clear title. It’s only a justice system that you propose that makes me a victim of fraud.
Do we really want to force people to do background checks on every merchant they deal with?
I thought this was a thread about Mike Gravel joining the LP, not about the morality of people voluntarily segregating themselves.
I agree, mostly. What I said was partly, though not entirely tongue-in-cheek.
I believe that it is beneficial - necessary, even - to have “gateways” to anarchism in the mainstream, and a political party can be such a gateway. However, it is also the nature of political parties to become politically motivated, rather than ideologically motivated. And we’re seeing that with the LP, now. It is becoming more statist and less principled with every election cycle. No fault of the members of the party, I think, it’s just the nature of the game that the party must play.
While I understand and accept the role that a libertarian party can play in the grand strategy, I think that the Libertarian Party as it exists today has outlived its usefulness. I think that not long from now, the LP will resemble the “conservatism” of today. The whole picture has moved so sharply in favor of the state that a neocon who opposes the drug war is regarded as “libertarian”.
And in more general terms, while I see parties such as the LP and candidates such as Dr. Paul as good vessels for spreading the idea of liberty, I see them as impossible means of actually achieving it. I’m voting for Paul in the primary, but I’m not going to vote for ANYONE in the general election. Not even a LP member who, by the necessary nature of their role as a political actor, must have as one of their goals the perpetuation of the state, even if in a form radically different from the one we have now.
You’re misusing the word.
Do you really want to create a legal market for stolen goods?
True, but I don’t think the people I’m argueing with actually advocate voluntary segregation.
You’re right. I’m advocating that ending the Federal Government is a higher priority than accusing people of being polluted by “Paleo” thoughts.
Considering that people are not free to choose the market, I don’t see how you can loathe them for operating under the institutions governing them.
I would agree with all of the names you list except for P.J. O’Rourke. He an obvious supporter of capitalism, especially in his later writings (anything post 1990). From Eat the Rich to On the Wealth of Nations: Books That Changed the World, he a consitent capitalist.
Yes he is. I think the name for someone who believes in a free-market, but not personal liberties, and who supports the warfare state is conservative. If they support a really big warfare state, and their “free market” beliefs really mean corporatism, then there’s a slightly dirtier word that covers them.
P.J. O’Rourke seems to now be a self described anarchist. He is now also against the Iraq War, though I don’t doubt that he still has a belligerent, though not statist, attitude towards the outside world. Something many here are struggling with.
Allow me to make another tangent on our left-right discussion. It seems that many people often think that people are statists because they object to certain activities, that statism is derived from atolerant attitudes.
But people are not statists because they want the government in regulate lifestyles, they want the government to regulate lifestyles because they are statists. They see no moral dilemma in using the government to perform any task.
Prohibitions and redistribution are both able to exist because people believe that governments have a special moral status, that government violence is not immoral. If you removed government these people would find other ways to achieve their ends.
From O’Rourke:
“It was at this moment, in the middle of the Blatherboro sewer debate, that I achieved enlightenment about government… It wasn’t mere disillusionment that I experienced. Government isn’t a good way to solve problems; I already knew that. And I’d been to Washington and seen for myself that government is concerned mostly with self-perpetuation and is subject to fantastic ideas about its own capabilities. I understood that government is wasteful of the nation’s resources, immune to common sense and subject to pressure from every half-organized bouquet of assholes. I had observed, in person, government solemnity in debate of ridiculous issues and frivolity in execution of serious duties. I was fully aware that government is distrustful and disrespectful toward average Americans while being easily gulled by Americans with money, influence, or fame. What I hadn’t realized was government is morally wrong.”
The fact that the thief did not have clear title is what makes it fraud. Your contract was for the exchange of your money for title to the umbrella. However, he did not have a clear title to exchange. You were swindled. It would be the same as if I sold my neighbor’s house while he was on vacation. No one is quetioning your good faith in the matter, or stating that you don’t have a claim, but the claim is with the thief, not with the rightful owner.