Perhaps you mean property rights? Commie.
My position doesn’t contradict economic incentives. Your position, however, contradicts libertarian ethics and justifies monarchies.
Come now. You’re not even rationally responding. Calling me a child doesn’t prove your conservative position.
No, you’re just posting red herrings.
Of course not, he’ll employ people.
Why do I get the impression you’re still pissed off at the fact that you’re parents sent you to bed too early?
Surely a libertarian should know better than to make THE LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT ARGUMENT, which presumes the legitimacy of the territorial claim. You have to prove the person’s ownership before making a love it or leave it argument, and a monarch doesn’t have just ownership by a libertarian theory of property rights. Hence, saying love it or leave it is laughable.
My views are not communist and when I encounter communists I usually disagree strongly with them.
So would it be valid to say that this hypothetical town has no claim of territory, therefore, people may disregard all of their laws & land?
Wouldn’t the “don’t like em, don’t live there” abide with the concept of free-association?
Yes, it does. You’ve just not read the literature.
What’s this? It violates free association.
A town, as a whole, is owned by noone in a free society. Different portions of it are owned by different people, but a claim on the entire town by a single person simply isn’t justifiable by any libertarian property theory that I know of, given the practical barriers to a single individual somehow voluntarily aquiring the entire thing. A claim over the entire town by someone who did not voluntarily aquire it would be a defacto monarch. So no, it’s not that people may disregaurd the property of everyone in the town, it’s that a monarch’s claim to the entire town has no legitimacy. The monarch’s claim to the town, in fact, is what disregaurds the individual owners within the town.
In anarchy, people will coalesce into communities of shared interest. This process will be facilitated thru risk-spreading tools like insurance and private defense agreements, by which the underwriting parties will group similar risks so that, e.g., conservative Sikhs don’t have to subsidize promiscuous atheists, etc.
Unless you are someone who believes in enforcement of a uniform libertine standard on everybody, this concept should not trouble you in the slightest.
But that’s the point, such an associate would be between consenting individiauls. So, you’re wrong.
You’re just making an arbitrary claim without specifying. I’ve read plenty of the literature, and none of it logically justifies what you argue for.
Well, there’s the problem.
A monarchy is not a free association. Where you get this idea that it is or can be is mystifying to me.
I don’t see how this addresses any of my points, or how it proves that a monarch’s claim over a city is somehow legitimate and consistant with libertarianism. Furthermore, it is you and your conservative brethern in this thread who are argueing for a uniform legal standard for everybody, only a culturally conservative one. In either case, you haven’t demonstrated why anyone should accept the externalization and enforcement of the terms of a contract onto people who never agreed to the contract.
No. We’re just arguing that people who want to live in a town with conservative values should be free to do so. You in turn are free to live in the community that allows child pornography, abortion on demand, prostitution, and homosexuality. Maybe you should go picket an Amish village.
You are being misleading, because your arguments imply more than just a desire to be free, it implies the legitimacy of a communitarian law that uniformly bans certain non-violent cultural practises. Implicit in your argument is the assumption that such standards will apply to everyone in the community, but that doesn’t make sense unless the entire community is owned by a single person (which would be a monarchy, not a free society). Otherwise, these cultural norms will only apply on the property of the people who favor them, not the entire community, and it is naive to act as if a community is going to be purely constituted by people with the exact same cultural standards as you. Why your hypothetical libertarian society assumes a uniform cultural standard is beyond me. You have also tried to justifying the initiation of violence against non-violent cultural “deviants”.
In a free society there would be no subsidizing so you’re (purposely) misrepresenting things.
That’s another misrepresentation. What you call ‘libertine’, which is a smear term of sorts, is the default position in a free society. If you don’t like X don’t do X, that’s all. The anti-sex league mindset is a typical conservative thing. Wait. Wasn’t 1984 about commies ? Hm…
Which is why we don’t favour monarchies? Is this so difficult or are you going to carry on with this dishonesty?
People voluntarily move to communities that covenant against certain non-violent practices all the time. That is part of the process of economic grouping of risks. What infuriates you about anarchy is that (1) people will be able to remove themselves from the ambit of enforced political correctness and (2) they will enjoy higher property values and more market clout by doing so.
Really now BP, you’re just lying. Unless, a person who owns a house and rents out rooms is a monarchist?