That’s not at all what I’m saying. What I’m saying is that the state does receive money voluntarily and hence they do own their property. Although, they have a lot of compensation to pay. If you disagree with this, stop using state roads, because it is theft by your own standards.
Only, I’m not a statist. I still oppose the state, I just disagree with the notion that we have the right to walk into a hospital and help ourselves to all the drugs we can find and perhaps sleep in their beds for a night or two if we need to.
But they aren’t. They are investing in the state, which is no different than investing in the mafia. You’re investing in a business model that relies on theft and coercion. Oh sure, somewhere, some moron actually donates money to government, and it’s called charity or a foundation or a grant.
But bonds and such, are strictly a business deal. If government also didn’t have a monopoly on money, no one would buy their bonds, because government is not a profitable enterprise without the ability to tax and inflate.
It doesn’t matter how you word it, government isn’t funded voluntarily in any conventional sense.
Well first you need to reconcile this with the fact you don’t believe groups can own property. And no matter how many times you repeat it, the state does not receive it’s money voluntarily. If you remove the state fiat on money, goods and services, people will stop dealing with the state.
That argument works on lesser minds, not me. Don’t try to play me like a child. State roads are theft. But they have a monopoly. Is your answer that if the state claims to own the air, I should stop breathing? Asinine.
Never claimed you were. You have started off with some badly flawed premises, and then pyramided incoherent ideas on top of that. We’re closer on this than you think, but you’re still wrong.
That (an arbitrary positive rights doctrine) is not what is implied by what anyone has said. “Common property”, in a libertarian context, would refer to a situation in which all of the people involved have previously contractually agreed to establish such a policy of inclusivity or sharing. So, for example, if people wanted to freely associate to form a friendly society for the purpose of health services (which essentially functions as a voluntary commune), this is perfectly consistant with libertarianism.
It doesn’t matter whether or not a good is economically scarce. IP is not scarce, and the state still claims control of it. And thus, my analogy is upheld.
One can only voluntarily withdraw from the state insofar as there is an alternative. Public roads are merely easements. Unfortunately, the state owns and controls all easements.
i am hesitant to put words in lib stu’s mouth, but i would be bewildered if he wasnt anti-ip.
still, his point on ip in this argument is valid and shows your conceit regarding helping yourself to government hopital supplies in the correct light.
just as the state has improperly gathered to itself medicines in a room called a hospital that it says you are obliged not to take yourself, and that you agree to refrain from taking.
so too do you agree that the government is correct that you should not download an mp3?
i hope you can see that just because the government claims you shouldnt download artists mp3s without paying them royalties this doesnt mean that they are right to claim it, or that the mp3 cant in libertarian law be downloaded and not paid for.
unless ive made a fool of myself in which case im sure libery student will set me straight in style!
You’re indeed correct. It’s cool. I checked Giles argument, it is a fail. Time to move on. He’ll either come around, or not. Stubborn people are high maintenance.
I fail to see how his argument holds. It misses the point. My point was that the state can be said to own the roads since it has put the scarce resources to use in creating it. Now one can imagine that this might be done by a private company quite easily. Now my argument is that the state has stolen from you to finance these roads and hence you are entitled to the money that the state has stolen from you. Their argument is that because the state has stolen from you, you are entitled to everything it owns.
It stole the resources. Also, scarcity can be artificially created. The reason why there are not competing roads, is because the state regulates the highway and road system. That’s artificial. As is IP. Also artificial. If the state passed a law that air was as illegal as pot, does that mean it can legitimately claim ownership of all air?
Come on now.
No one made that argument (unless I missed something).
And your argument is that because the state has stolen from you, you own none of it, and thus the state is now the lawful owner of stolen property? And now the state can take it’s stolen property, and use it to pay back bonds, which now validates investment in criminal enterprise with profits stolen from third parties as legitimate?
I don’t even know where you went wrong, but geez-o-pete, are you way down the rabbit hole now.
there is a subtle but important difference from this, and being entitled to homestead whatever you can that the state claimed for itself. if you are the greatest homesteader the world has ever seen than maybe you can end up with all the state currently has… neh?
Of course it could. It’s not theoretically impossible to imagine a state that somehow (donations, for example) owns (legally) more than it owes in compensation.
It also has to do with the fact that if you don’t like my argument you can get off the roads for the rest of your life, or at least until they’re provided privately.
You’re completely wide of the mark. To begin with, land is scarce, labour is scarce, capital goods to make roads are scarce. Roads will always be scarce. And yes, the state does regulate the highway and road system, so what? The state regulates the clothing industry, can I walk in to a clothes store and claim everything there to be mine?
It stole the resources, most certainly. And that’s where the problem lies, it stole the resources, namely money and. hence it owes those to the people it stole them from and not the roads themselves.
Yes, that is the argument. In less you want to claim that you can steal (for lack of a better word) from the state the exact amount it stole from you?
No, you owe what the state stole. The tax money you paid to it. You can, of course, choose to be paid this in the form of violating the rules for the state’s road. But then you accept that your actions are theft. This is the trap Juan fell into last time.