I Am NineOneFour
europeanlibertarian:


You’re not paying attention.  I said there is no natural right to property, not that there is no state-backed right to property.  And just because I believe there is no natural right to property, doesn’t mean that I think that property is wrong.  That’s sloppy debating on your part.  So to tie back to your earlier point about property use, the state absolutely has the right (because ultimately might is right) to tell you what you can do with your property, as they are the ones who make it possible for you to claim a title to property, and they are the ones who protect that right for you.  If they didn’t, I could just waltz on over to your property with a tank and take if from you.

So you believe the state has an obligation to protect property rights when you like it, and to take from people when you feel it’s needed? Quite moral.

I know “social contract” is a dirty word to you libertarians, but that’s the reality of our societies.  The state guarantees (more or less) a host of rights.  Without the state you would have no entitlement to those rights and no expectation of defense of those rights.  That’s the reality.  If one social contract isn’t to your liking, then you need to move to another society that suits your ideals better.  But outside of Somalia, you’ll struggle to find one that isn’t based on a similar ideal of the social contract.

Oh, ad Somalium. What if the social contract developed in such a way because it’s better for governments, and not for people? And that is ignoring your absurd view that rights are only rights if the state enforces them, and no natural rights exist. I guess the third Reich was perfectly justified, then.

As you remind me of another libertarian we used to argue with way back, I’d be interested to know how far you would take the defense of your supposed “natural” rights to property.  If a democratically elected state with the proper mandate decided to take half of everyone’s property for the commonweal what would you do?  Would you accept that?  Would you fight it?  If so, in what way would you fight it?

I’d destroy everything in my possession, flee and come back when they inevitably failed, much like any other society that attempted public property for everything. My money is that things would still be as I left them.

Why don’t you do that now? You hate the state, and what’s the difference if it takes 50% or 25%?
Destroy all your possessions and go live off the grid somewhere.  Stop posting on a government invented system, regulated by the government, using government largesse.

europeanlibertarian:

You’re not paying attention.  I said there is no natural right to property, not that there is no state-backed right to property.  And just because I believe there is no natural right to property, doesn’t mean that I think that property is wrong.  That’s sloppy debating on your part.  So to tie back to your earlier point about property use, the state absolutely has the right (because ultimately might is right) to tell you what you can do with your property, as they are the ones who make it possible for you to claim a title to property, and they are the ones who protect that right for you.  If they didn’t, I could just waltz on over to your property with a tank and take if from you.

So you believe the state has an obligation to protect property rights when you like it, and to take from people when you feel it’s needed? Quite moral.

I know “social contract” is a dirty word to you libertarians, but that’s the reality of our societies.  The state guarantees (more or less) a host of rights.  Without the state you would have no entitlement to those rights and no expectation of defense of those rights.  That’s the reality.  If one social contract isn’t to your liking, then you need to move to another society that suits your ideals better.  But outside of Somalia, you’ll struggle to find one that isn’t based on a similar ideal of the social contract.

Oh, ad Somalium. What if the social contract developed in such a way because it’s better for governments, and not for people? And that is ignoring your absurd view that rights are only rights if the state enforces them, and no natural rights exist. I guess the third Reich was perfectly justified, then.


As you remind me of another libertarian we used to argue with way back, I’d be interested to know how far you would take the defense of your supposed “natural” rights to property.  If a democratically elected state with the proper mandate decided to take half of everyone’s property for the commonweal what would you do?  Would you accept that?  Would you fight it?  If so, in what way would you fight it?

I’d destroy everything in my possession, flee and come back when they inevitably failed, much like any other society that attempted public property for everything. My money is that things would still be as I left them.

Why don’t you do that now? You hate the state, and what’s the difference if it takes 50% or 25%?

Destroy all your possessions and go live off the grid somewhere.  Stop posting on a government invented system, regulated by the government, using government largesse.

  1. strawberryjammanufacturer reblogged this from skatetripfly
  2. jjoieaime reblogged this from skatetripfly
  3. epicleicaness reblogged this from ramblingsofanurbanjawn and added:
    Why do these idiots live? Really, why? You really think that a government taking care of their citizens is a bad thing?...
  4. patient-patient reblogged this from skatetripfly
  5. iamnineonefour reblogged this from alzati-prometeo and added:
    So you refuse to answer the question: that alone speaks volumes. You seem unwilling to accept your daughter dying...
  6. sapphiremomma reblogged this from skatetripfly
  7. softlybrutal reblogged this from maxlibertarios
  8. cdub-is-so-hot reblogged this from skatetripfly
  9. screamingjessopmonkey reblogged this from iamnineonefour and added:
    Ad Somalian and then uses a Godwin. I’M DONE. HONESTLY.
  10. revolutionist-ism reblogged this from alzati-prometeo and added:
    You’re not paying attention. I said there is no natural right to property, not that there is no state-backed right to...
  11. maxlibertarios reblogged this from alzati-prometeo and added:
    Haha
  12. relyonloveonceinawhile reblogged this from skatetripfly
  13. ramblingsofanurbanjawn reblogged this from swagandpassion and added:
    Did one of these comments equate a woman having to pay for her rape kit as simply “paying for her own stuff”? Is that...
  14. skatetripfly posted this