“if you do not take positive action and labor enough to produce property tax come the end of the year the state will take your land. The point of a deed and or title is to provide the illusion of ownership. The government compensates individuals to prevent rebellion.”
Where is the legislation stating government owns all land?
why do you think that the government’s power comes from legislation? they don’t legislate your house away, they threaten you with a gun and or imprisonment.
Moral relativism makes me sick.
The slave master does not “have” a slave. The slave master does not own the slave because it is impossible to own another human being. The slave master only commands enough physical power to enable him to coerce another human being into carrying out his will. And that has nothing to do with “oughts” or “preferences”, but about what is.
“why do you think that the government’s power comes from legislation? they don’t legislate your house away, they threaten you with a gun and or imprisonment.”
Well if it is merely might and no legislation then they have no legitimate claim to land.
You pretend as if these are seperate issues when they are not. If the state did not legitmately aquire its title then it does not in fact own what it claims to own. A tief that steals my money to buy a luxury yacht does not get to enforce the rules on the said yacht, because that would imply he owns the said yacht when in fact by law it is me who owns it.
Spinn it all you can, but you are in revolt against sense. The state can not at the same time not own the money it spends on roads and own the roads built with it.
I said nothing about what is right and wrong. I think owning slaves is wrong, but I correctly identify that as a statement about my own mind, not about the universe. The universe won’t favor owning slaves or not owning slaves, it’s up to us to make the world we want to live in.
Wait a minute Nazgul, I think you are making a mistake here. You seem to be confusing the concept that various opinions can exist about what is right and wrong (a fact, they can and do), with the idea that there is no correct answer about what is right and wrong, or about who rightfully owns what.
Think on this - you say you believe owning slaves to be wrong. But do you believe owning slaves is wrong only inside your head? Do you think it’s only wrong for you, personally, to have thoughts about owning them? No, you think it’s objectively wrong, out there in the real world, to own slaves. Now, you could be incorrect in your belief, but assuming you are correct, that means that yes, it’s objectively wrong to own slaves. A similar argument could be made regarding actual ownership of slaves (as opposed to the rightness or wrongness of doing so), if you consider them separate issues.
that would be a textbook definition of “belief” yes.
I have a preference for a world without slaves. My ability to influence the world determines how much I can influence other people’s ability to have slaves.
No, that’s not any sort of definition of belief at all. If a religious person believes in God, they believe God actually exists, not that God exists as a concept inside their head. In fact, believing God exists only as a concept inside your head is synonymous with not believing in God! People have beliefs and opinions about objective reality, not just about their own inner thoughts.
A very true comment which has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is justifiable to own slaves or not.
I understand them pretty well. So again, why are they “meaningless”? What difference does it make if people disagree over them? They disagree over plenty of things without thereby rendering them “meaningless” or “witout referrent”; it’s usually taken to be the opposite, i.e. it is usually matters of fact where disagreement crops up. Perhaps you buy into the positivist (verification) theory of meaning, though. Pareto thought the same thing about value. At any rate, the fact that someone controls something does not mean they should… what have they done to warrant this control? Made a claim? So what? What connection does this create between them and the property? You may think this is meaningless, but it’s a pretty easy to comprehend notion.
The universe (as in, the world of objects) has little to do with it anyway.
It’s illegal to not use the roads? Nonsense.
And if I steal money from you to build a fireplace you don’t then have the right to move into my house, it’s that simple. The same applies to roads. You have the right to demand compensation. You don’t have the right to use the roads as if they were yours, because they’re not.
He does own the yatch, he just owes you the money for it and compensation. If you decide that you wish to receive the yatch in compensation then he can no longer set the rules for the yatch. However, if he steals the money from numerous people then the most you can do is ask for the money he stole from you to be returned. You can’t merely step on to his yatch as if it were yours, especially not if some of the money were legitimately his.
One night, I voluntarily chose to go to a brand-new grocery store after leaving work. Just as I was about to lock my bike up, a guy grabbed me from behind and put a knife to my throat. Since I had the freedom to choose to go to the store, and I could have not gone, by the statist reasoning I must have consented to nearly being robbed. And the woman who gets raped in a seedy area consented to the sex because she went to the seedy area and probably wore slutty clothes, too.
“You’re free to leave” in merely a blank check for the violation of rights.
Well spoken.
A reoccuring theme of Giles is a general inability to understand the involuntary nature of political systems.
Exactly. The question of legitimacy in ownership or decision-making power is begged. In my view, it’s the state that has no right to infringe on my property and hence should back off of my own domain as an individual (which generally is at least my person and my home). The argument essentially presumes legitimacy of state ownership over your particular portion of the land and to an extent your very person. It’s not you who should leave, it’s the state that should leave your property. You have no unchosen positive obligation to abandon your own property if you disagree with the state that arbitrarily claims partial dominion over it.
Treating the state as if it was a legitimate private property owner is ridiculous and not consistant as a libertarian view. It just sneaks legitimacy in through the back door and justifies completely arbitrary decision-making power over others.
Indeed, I’m quite the statist. Show me other instances of this “recurring theme”. By the way, I understand that it isn’t voluntary. You’re just not forced to use the roads, hence, use of the roads is voluntary.
By the way BP, I understand you haven’t the decency to decline the request for a debate in public (or at all) or to even respond, but do you lack the decency to address me directly at all now?
What seperates the state from a common thief?
Only the guise of legitimacy.
Correct, now BP has to explain why a common thief can own property and the state can’t.