So what if a thief steals my money, and buys a computer. I am the true owner of the computer, correct? If that is true, I should be allowed to choose who can and cannot have access to the computer. Could you really say the computer is unowned?
You’d think that, but if the state found a bogus charge against you, they have the “right” to seize it from you in the name of the law. Also when they’re done they may not give it back to for years to come, so, technically it is unowned, but because of coercive circumstances.
No, you’re not the true owner of the computer. The computer would revert to the store and the thief would owe you restitution.
Who made the rules though?
If the computer would revert back to the store owner, would the money the thief used to pay for the computer revert back to me? Or would the computer store owner get to keep the computer and my money? Also, if the computer would revert to the computer store owner, then the computer was not unowned when it was in the possession of the thief, right? It must have been owned by the computer store owner, in which case he should be the one who is allowed to decide who can and cannot use the computer.
From my experience, third world immigrants tend to be mostly culturally conservative. They believe in stongly in family and faith. They are polite and carry themselves with dignity and grace. They are also very sympathetic to democracy and redistribution. Many regard whites (mostly correctly) as culturally degenerate. Western intellectuals make various claims, as you know, of white males being oppressors, and many of these immigrants buy into it. So, they already have their beliefs (many, not all. Some have very conservative attitudes toward government) and you’re probably not gonna get through to them.
Actually, third world governments are worse than first world governments, which is why the third world is relatively poorer than the first world. Given that the power of government rests on the consent of the majority, what does this say about the attitudes of third world subjects compared to first world subjects with regard to the state?
Wow. That sounds realistic.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to suggest here.
The thief would have to pay you.
Right.
I’d hate to get into a my-government-is-worse-than-your-government kind of argument…I’d only point out that since third world governments are exceedingly inefficient they also fail at organizing mass-murder, unlike the american, german, british, etc, governments, which have collectively killed…what ? A hundred million of their own ‘citizens’ in wars ? More ?
But that’s not really my point. Are you going to show that my previous posts are fallacious ? Or did you finally see that your position is logically flawed ?
Of course what government is currently doing is unjust. Right now it is causing both forced integration and forced exclusion, both unjust. A foreigner is someone who is not a taxpayer nor have they established any easement rights to public property. In this respect, we can establish them as non-owners which is entirely relavant.
Ok, so when a government taxes in order to pay for a road, the road would not be considered unowned. Since a computer that was paid for with stolen money is not considered unowned, a road paid for with stolen money shouldn’t be considered unowned.
Universal citizenship is an intervention, just like closed borders.
Both represent state intervention so neither can be legitimate, yet Juan and Brainpolice laughably favor one over the other.
The thing is, the ‘lefty’ libertarians are, well, libertarians. But what about the nationalists…?
F A L S E. Besides, I said that the concept of citizenship is nonsensical…for anarchists.
blabity blah blah blah. I was just trying to establish a set of terms we could agree on, so we could debate in those terms. Why are you being such a stick in the mud? And you still don’t grasp the whole is/ought dichotomy.
I don’t know if “taxpayers” are a collective abstraction. I like to think of us as a class. Government agents are another class. Taxreceivers are another class. Criminals, victims, ect. How else do we go about social analysis in economics, ethics, or sociology than by making class distinctions?
If various taxpayers have disputes over how public property is used, it should be resolved by considering easements, so long as the state exists. In terms of recovering property, I think that each taxpayer has the right to recover up to an amount equivilant to the total taxes he has paid plus interest. And if there’s not enough to go around, tough luck for the late recoverers. But all this is a separate issue, and not necessary to resolve this debate.
Once again, easement rights. BTW, there should also be restricted migration within the country between various cities and towns for the same reason as between countries.
I do. ppl should be held responsible for negligence.
Some of them are, some of them aren’t. You think their all angels?
If someone is commiting a tort, it is reasonable to get an injunction.
I don’t think that people who want to open immigration using the state in the current scenario have a logically sound case.
They are also libertarians. Libertarians are just ppl in favour of liberty.
Not so sure. The thief owes restitution. But the store is holding money that doesn’t belong to them. If the computer can be recovered, the store should have to refund the victim and be allowed to go after the thief for fraud. But what about the case were the someone sells to the thief and can no longer be found. And the thief doesn’t have money to pay back his victim. Doesn’t it make sense that the computer is an asset that the thief possesses that the victim can go after?
I’m going to suggest you have a read of this: http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/twentyfour.asp
Might help you clear up some ideas.
It is in my nature ?
And I think it is you the one who doesn’t.
On the contrary. It’s central to the debate. You want to apply a system that relies on perfectly delimited property titles when in reality those property titles are missing. And you seem to be willing to have the state stop people (how ? shooting ?) who cross arbitrary political borders set up by that same state. And worst of all, you think that you’ve a libertarian justification for all this…
Still you miss or gloss over the point. There’s no unanimous consent among the taxpayer class. The taxpayer class can’t at all act collectively. And no libertarian in his right mind would use the state to enforce political borders…
Thanks, that shows that your whole argument is a strawman.