I’ve explicitly defined the boundaries of my statements, and yet you still insist upon ignoring them and strawmanning my position. Typically, Austrians are less likely to debate in this manner.
My share is a lot larger than that. 
They are necessarily limited, just as we use ceteris paribus when explaining economic theory.
Close enough.
If you can’t prove how much loot you are [sic] owed, then how will you know when you have gotten yours back, and when you start robbing someone else’s share? That’s the problem with your accounting for the unseen. You’re trying to solve a problem which as you said, there is no clear cut solution.
The problem with property rights is that they demand clear solutions or there is conflict. The resolution of a property rights conflict, cannot be a property rights conflict, as that is no solution at all.
If I have misrepresented your statements it is completely out of ignorance/stupidity and not out of any attempt to straw man your position. Would you be so kind as to point out how I have misreprresented you?
I was under the impression you were arguing that money distributed by the state can, to a limited extent (seen vs unseen), be redistributed back to those it was taken from and for this reason the ‘justified’ thing to do is give that money back to it’s rightful owners. The same way as if I am gifted a stolen car and can identify it’s rightful owner the ‘just’ course of action is to return the stolen car to the original owner.
Is my understanding of your position incorrect? If so, please explain how I am wrong so I can better understand you.
Note: I use the word ‘just’ and ‘justified’ above but perhaps they are a poor choice. At the moment I am unable to think of a better term but I am open to suggestions.
EDIT:
I just read the above quote and it sounds like (from this quote) you are arguing against accepting money from the state because it is not possible for an individual to account for where the wealth came from, therefore it is not possible for the individual to give it back. If this is an incorrect assessment again please stop reading here and correct me, the following assumes my understanding of your position is accurate.
The state has already stolen the money. It’s not possible for the recipient of the stolen money to return it to it’s rightful owners. The state is not going to return it to it’s rightful owners. Why then does it matter whether it goes to me or my neighbor? Both my neighbor and I are equally undeserving of the money and no one that is likely to receive the money is deserving (only the original owners are, which as previously established is impossible to determine for the individual receiving the money). Perhaps you believe that the state will reduce it’s theft if not enough people accept the handouts?
You are assuming you know what my motives are. No, I’m using whatever it is available at the moment to achieve my goals. It is not my desire to use the state.
Well if that is endorsing the state then there are no ancaps in this world as everyone uses public roads. Thats endorsing their stealing!
I may not be libertarian, but I never claimed to be one. Might does not make objective right, but I would probably do some of these horrible things you mentioned in lifeboat scenario just to survive.
I don’t see where I made any appeal, implicitly or explicitly, to the notion of objective justice. On the contrary, I completely agree that objective justice does not and cannot exist, and that we therefore only have opinions about what constitutes justice. However, my point was that, if you claim to adhere to the Non-Aggression Principle, you wouldn’t consider car theft to be justified. Since you do apparently consider car theft and (certain?) other crimes to be justified, you seem to be contradicting your adherence to the Non-Aggression Principle. Let me know if you don’t actually adhere to the Non-Aggression Principle, as I admit that I’ve made an assumption there.
While you now say that you think stealing is bad, what about financial fraud and computer hacking? Do those never entail aggression?
Why make mention of lobbyists now when you haven’t before?
“Banksters” engage in practices that I (for one) find fraudulent. Perhaps you disagree?
This is the same position that I have adopted. 
There’s a difference between living in a certain kind of society and advocating a certain kind of society. Likewise, there’s a difference between living a certain lifestyle and advocating a certain lifestyle.
I found the following essay by Rothbard helpful: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard63.html
My summary:
-
It is okay to live in a state-run world (walk on sidewalks, live in rent controlled apartments, etc), but it is not okay to lobby for more statism (complain to the state to force your private landlord to lower your rent further).
-
It is okay to work in a government monopolized position so long as the position would not be considered immoral if preformed outside of a government (okay to be a medical doctor or professor but not okay to work for the IRS or the Fed).
This is not quite correct. The whoel seen vs. unseen thing doesn’t belong in this discussion at all, because it is a red herring.
Also, I am not making value statements. I am merely saying that the monies taken by government can be traced back to whom they were taken from. None of this is controversial, although by the comments made by some here, you would think I have been promoting something extreme.
I am not making a value statement. Even with boniek I was merely pointing out that what they are doing (not their motivations, which are irrelevant economically) was X, Y and Z.
This is incorrect on two fronts. One, I am not making a value statement. Two, we all know government money is stolen, and regardless of who it was stolen from, we know it is not ours, and it is not the state’s to give away freely.
Relevance?
Assertion.
Assertion.
Couldn’t reply to the rest, all based off the same flawed premise.
To say you should not take government money implies that it is the rightful owner.
No, I don’t care what your motives are. They are irrelevant to your actions. I am only echoing back to you what you claim your reasoning is for pursuing those actions.
I’m not endorsing their theft. You are. You claim that it is ok for you to take, because the state is the one stealing, not you. I say it is not ok for us to take, because it is still theft regardless of who does it.
Fair enough. I am not judging you although I understand how the language can be taken as such.
However it is equally fallacious to imply that it is yours to take. Some of it is yours to be sure, but you need to find that out(Hence the prior discussion). Just ad-hoc exploiting the state for self benefit isn’t necessarily a way of getting back what was rightfully yours. It’s more likely that your geting a portion of someone else’s share, and your perpetuating and justifying the state in the process.
@liberty student
Perhaps you could state your position on the matter? So far I have tried several times to put your position down in my own words and each time you have told me I am wrong, and how I am wrong, but you haven’t provided me with your position on the matter in a concise manner. I am trying to figure out your position by piecing it together from all of the statements you have made but since those statements are spread out over 6 pages of dialog and some are related to your position while others are simply refuting other positions this is no easy task.
Perhaps you have provided your position somewhere in this discussion and I either missed it or didn’t comprehend it, ether is due to a failure on my part. I understand that it might be frustrating for you to have to restate your position, and even more so if you have to restate it in simpler terms but I think it would be valuable to do so at this point in the discussion since it seems that myself (and others by the look of it) don’t truly understand what your position is on the original topic.
So I guess the question is, can you answer this question in a concise manner please for those of us that are having trouble keeping up with you:
Is it acceptable in your mind for a proclaimed anarchist (libertarian, anarcho-capitalist, etc.) to accept handouts from the state? If not, why is it unacceptable to you?
My position is that by using accounting methods we can start to provide proof of ownership for things stolen by the state. This opposes the notion that once the state steals, title is erased.
That’s a value judgment. I’m not making those. I also have no idea what “acceptable” means in the context of the question.
If someone is for non-aggression, and they don’t regard the state as aggressive, then I think that is a failure to understand non-aggression.
If someone walks on a sidewalk, I’m not sure that is an explicit endorsement of the state. The state creates obstacles for us, I don’t see traversing those obstacles to pursue things we would otherwise be able to do in a free market as “using the state”.
Thanks! This position is clear to me and I think I understand where you are coming from and from here we can discuss the merits of such a position and why we disagree on the topic.
It seems to be a difference of title being effectively erased versus technically erased.
- A title is effectively retained if it is possible to access the title.
- A title is technically retained even if it is not possible to access the title.
Example: If I sign a contract with someone and that contract is launched into space with no other copies being made then the title is effectively erased since it is inaccessible but not technically erased since the title still exists.
As previously argued in this thread, proof of ownership of goods stolen by the state is only possible in the case of a collapse of the state. It is not possible to trace the money without a collapse of the current system. Because it is not possible to trace without collapse it logically follows that given the limitation of no-collapse, title is effectively erased.
I am not making an argument based on this distinction. Others have tried to do so, I have not participated.
The “effective” aka “reality” aka 'reality based" aka “real world” argument is not an argument. In fact, it’s an attempt at an emotional appeal or confusion resulting from haphazardously applying a reductio.
“Effectively, property rights are meaningless if aliens descend from the sky, revealing themselves to be the true creators of the universe, sharing with us a set of holy galactic commandments we must all obey.”
A follow up on my last post. This is a personal observation and tainted by bias, but it seems to me that people who play the “What if?” game are generally trying to avoid a conclusion, rather than challenge a premise. It’s a clever sort of rhetoric, if one continues to ask questions, one doesn’t have to establish a position.
I will have to think more on this point of view.
Currently, I am of the opposite opinion in that someone whose theories are not grounded in the real world is a utopian dreamer.
In your example of the aliens landing if they proved to be technologically superior to us and able to exert 100% control then yes, property rights would effectively have no meaning. However, such aliens have not descended upon us so that is of no consequence. However, a non-transparent state has descended upon us so that is of consequence.
Your argument against reality reminds me (to a very limited extent) of Russell’s Teapot. While it is technically provable whether or not there is a celestial teapot, it is not realistically provable therefore debating it’s existence is a waste of everyone’s time. If someone has a theory on how to prove it’s existence then such a theory is worthy of debate, but any other debate regarding it’s existence is not.
I know this is a bit abstracted from your original statements against reality but I feel the underlying theme is the same, acting based on a belief in something theoretical (but unprovable) is irrational. Acting based on reality is the rational course of action.
Note: I am pretty sure there is a better philosophical analogy than Russell’s Teapot and I am aware that it doesn’t apply in this scenario but I can’t think of a better one at the moment.
Edit:
I think the Nirvana fallacy is a closer approximation of what I am getting at, though it’s still not exactly what I am looking for.
This proof of ownership is good only for the sake of historical understanding. Nothing more. For example, it would be nonsense to say that great grandma was robbed of $100 back in 1900, so it is OK for her now at the age of 110 to get $100 back from the State. That money was consumed long ago and there is no way for her to get her money back without the State robbing someone else further. This is besides the fact that this $100 is worth much much more today and and any accounting method that would not at least attempt to estimate the loss in purchasing power would be a joke.
My point is that with this approach, there is no room for a middle of the road compromise as some here have suggested,i.e., take back only what they took from you in the past.