Well then it’s kind of voluntary isn’t it? They would factor it in as part of their business model. Raise the price of grapes a fraction to accommodate for the ones lost. They could persecute if they wanted, but again as the victim they have the right to decide if they want too. Naturally the bigger the theft, the increased incentive to retrieve the losses.
1.) Valuation is subjective, no one forces you to value $10 less than an hour of whatever you do instead.
2.) The question is not if you get caught, or if I care that you eat my grapes, the question is are you violating my property rigths. And that you do. It is totally up to me what action I take, or if any, to respond.
3.) If you go along the risk/reward line by employing unproductive or criminal actions as means to achieve your ends, you are a parasite, which is just a fact, not meant as an offense.
If there is a dispute, someone always has the ability to try and resolve it, however he or she sees fit. The best way is to get an arbitrator that both agree to.
Good points. [:)]
Of course. And if I find your course of action excessive, it is totally up to me what action I take, if any, to respond.
No, if I am stealing, I am not necessarily a parasite. Or do you think stealing from someone who has been granted a monopoly by the government is wrong? What if I steal from someone else who stole from another?
Regardless, the original question is ridiculous, given a free society. No one would starve in a free society, unless that was his or her choice. The only reason there is unemployment, is because of the government.
Yup 
Well, I think stealing is taking away ones rightful property. If you steal from someone who has stolen what you steal, you stole from the rightful owner :-). Another question is if that rightful owner can be found. Yet, that doesn’t change the fact.
A parasite is an entity that uses means he has not rightfully aquired to achive his ends. We all are parasites when we are children. Most of us, including me at times, might be parasites on one or another occasion. Agreed, if look at earthbeing an pseudo human entity we all, including the animal kingdom, are parasitic to gaya. But, frankly, from a human perspective, that is pure nonsense.
I fully agree
cheers
made a bunch of unsupported and thoroughly moronic claims. All one has to do to annihilate his idiocy is ask him upon what authority he has to write such posts in the first place. When he invariably responds with “my own authority”, he’s admitted self-ownership as a right. Period.
Oh please, BAAWA, you have yet to prove any such claims.
False, the fact that self-ownership exists does not follow from the control of property, even the article from the Libertarian Papers admitted that Feser was correct in that point. Rothbardian self-ownership is nothing but an unsound axiom.
The proof is that there is no sound argument for self-ownership as devised by Rothbard - Feser shows that not only did he not consider all of the possible options of ownership, but that self-ownership does not logically follow from control of one’s body, or human rationality.
Oh, but I did. It’s called “reading further”. You might want to look into it.
False. The fact that wherever you go, there you are–annihilates his claim. You have direct control over you. Without the you, you can’t do anything else. You can piss and moan all you like; I really don’t care. I haven’t the time for your faith-based lunacy or crocodile tears.
Self-ownership does not follow from control over oneself, pouting about it BAAWA won’t change the fact. Do animals have the right to self-ownership because they have control over their actions? From what you are arguing it follows that no only must the Rothbardian apply the non-aggression principle to his interactions with man, but now he must do so with his interactions with animals.
I am me, I don’t necessarily own me.
Look who’s being the hypocrite.
Yes, it does.
And by what authority are you making these posts? And about your hypocrisy claim–nice attempt at diversion. Won’t work.
So, if I steal an object of yours, because I have control over it, I own that object? Libertarians should apply the non-aggression axiom to animals because they have control of themselves, and therefore have self-ownership. If you say no to any of those questions, you do not accept the conclusions of your theory.
I am doing them, but it does not logically follow that I own myself.
I don’t need to have a diversion, your claim is already dead in the water.
And where did you get the authority to do so? Please stop being evasive. Denying your evasion will only make me laugh at you even more.
BAAWA, feel free to address my first point in the above post if you want to continue this. You can deflect all you want, but that still won’t save your little idol of a fallacy.
Feel free to demonstrate how you’ve come by this authority you have to type and such. You can deflect all you want, but that still won’t save you. I’ll hammer you like I hammered Max. Your choice. I suggest you make it now.
It does not follow that because I control my body in typing that I own my body - it is nothing but an unsound argument; in fact, you, everyone else, no one, or God could just as easily own my body - the fact that I am my body is a sufficient fact to explain why I can control it. Indeed, following your deduction of ownership: if I steal something, as long as I have control over it it logically follows that it is not mine. However, I doubt that the previous is a conclusion that would bode well for libertarianism.
Now, would you kindly address my previous issues; instead, of deflecting?
There’s more involved, but in a nutshell: it does. Now would you kindly demonstrate where you get the authority to type and such instead of deflecting?
BAAWA, I have already stated the obvious: I can type because I am my body, the end - no ownership theory necessary for the explanation.
Again, would you kindly address these assertions:
And where did you get the authority to type? Please stop being evasive.