jodih:
They are the same.
What property do you think you should have rights to other than your own?
Lib:
I kept asking because I hadn’t been answered. I concede the possibility that I lack the insight of a ten year old 
::still not letting you off the hook yet::
Let me see if I understand this correctly.
I would be allowed to murder them in their sleep. The only facts that are known is that these squatters are camped out illegally, and that I haven’t paid for police protection.
They might be completely innocent or they might be the worst thugs imaginable, but I would be allowed to kill them and get away with it based on my personal interpretation of the situation on my property, and based on
my judgement of the best way to protect myself my family and my property.
Is this correct?
Just go here, and many of your questions will be answered.
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html
Plenty there to show you what’s wrong with the libertarian ideas.
Scylla:
As you can see by the way I phrased my remark, I thought you thought I lacked it.
It is loaded, simplistic, and incomplete, but essentially correct.
Qualifiers:
Allowed by whom? If they were protected by my government, you would be arrest, tried, and if convicted, thrown in prison, and all your property given over to their survivors, if any, and to the prison owner.
That’s not many facts.
If you are not allowed to protect your family using your own best judgement, then your family is in great danger.
SCYLLA says:
I understand that, too. But it is Lib, not I, who defines a “right” (the only right, apparently) as “the right to be free from the coercion and economic fraud of others.” Self-evidently, you are coercing the squatters by making them leave your property at gun point, Lib’s implicit denial of this very basic point notwithstanding. Of course, under the circumstances, your coercion of them is justified – i.e., forced by their previous actions. But it remains a coercion nonetheless. As I have already said, the question then becomes: who decides when coercion is okay and when it is not? I have never succeeded in getting Lib to explain who makes these decisions.
I don’t think anyone took your hypothetical as anything other than just that – a hypothetical.
LIB says:
Deadly force is okay for the defense of life, then, but not the defense of property? I won’t quibble with that, but merely ask – AGAIN – who decides?
I said:
To which LIB replied:
See, this is where we’re back to everyone in your society being “good” and agreeing to work together. In reality, of course, a cross-section of society probably couldn’t unanimously agree on a trip to the bathroom, let alone all the details of a system of governance. Government by unanimity seems to me to be obviously impossible.
I said:
To which LIB replied:
If I begged, could you answer a direct question? Please? Because they don’t get any more direct than that one. So let me ask it again: If I point my gun at someone to compel them to do something (nevermind what), am I coercing them or not? I’ll even give you an example of how to answer a direct question: Where do I think rights come from? I believe fundamental rights are inherent, I would go so far as to say God-given. Whether they are written down is irrelevant, because they do not exist by societal fiat. That’s just my opinion, of course, but there it is. Where do you think rights come from? Notice that’s another direct question.
Please explain the difference, in your mind, between “force” and “coercion.” It seems to me that the difference, so far as I can see it, is in the justification, in that “force” is justified or justifiable, while coercion is not. Is that correct? (Another direct question.) If it is, then I would ask again – who decides when the use of force is justified and when it is not?
Yep; sure do. Please take a crack at all the direct questions I have posted for your attention. Thanks.
Jodi
Fiat Justitia
Trip Fall:
:rolleyes:
As if I haven’t seen that a thousand times. It’s sort of the political equivalent of a “Creationist Science” web site.
But I appreciate the link. At least maybe now I can argue against something besides giant squids and a moronic populace.
Jodi - Erratum was using the ‘commons’ nomenclature accurately. The term has come to be applied to any resource held in common by the people, not just land. The ‘tragedy’ of a commons occurs when its maintenance is voluntary: each person stands to gain from using up the commons, and stands to lose from contributing to its maintenance.
A military would be such a commons. And Erratum’s point needs addressing: if the Kansans don’t voluntarily chip in on the costs of a military, ultimately only the persons near the borders will - and will feel taken advantage of. And there are more bad ways the scenario could collapse in than Erratum’s invasion scenario. For instance, those maintaining the military, or the military itself, could decide to conquer the nation from within its own borders.
Lib - if you’re going to proselytize for libertarianism in such a way that most threads you participate in seem to become debates over libertarianism, you’re going to get some tough questions on how your proposed system of government will actually work in practice, from time to time. You can’t just ‘turn the question around’ at somebody; you’re the one who’s made libertarianism the issue, and if you’re not up to that, you should stop doing it.
Many of the questions you’ve been getting are very good, IMO. Erratum’s question is one that goes to the heart of the problems people see in libertarianism. Others, such as the donut question (where someone buys up all the land surrounding your land) raise important practical questions that need answers. How does the NP apply? If you can’t say, why should it be obvious to the citizens of a hypothetical libertarian state?
I might add that the reason people keep saying things that make you respond along the lines of, ‘I’m a libertarian, not an anarchist’ is because you fail to draw a clear distinction between libertarianism and anarchy.
The others (me too, btw) have been under the impression that we’re talking about a system of government that you believe should be the system of government.
On another subject, it goes without saying that asking someone if s/he’d like to be gang-raped, out of the blue, is the sort of thing that would get you dropped from future conversations, if this were IRL. Especially when you get snide when she tells you that you were out of line to say that.
You have, at times, been convinced I hated you, and I’ve never said anything quite that outrageous to you. So why should you think it’s OK to aim a remark like that at someone else?
LIB now says that absolute property rights are “the same” as the right to be free from coercion. Huh? The right to live unmolested is totally divorced from the right to hold property by absolute ownership. If they were “the same,” then only those who owned property would have the right to be free from coercion. I don’t think that’s what Libertarianism says at all.
The question is not who else’s property I have a “right” to (obvious answer: no one’s) but why I have rights to my own. Going back to my necklace example, my right to hold the necklace is dependent on whether I own it or not (property rights), not whether someone is trying to coerce it away from me (right to non-coercion). They are obviously not the same. And, implicit in any conclusion that property may be defended against trespassers (as in Scylla’s example) is the recognition of the right to absolute ownership of property.
Jodi
Fiat Justitia
jodih:
Could you listen if I begged? Please?
You have the right to defend YOUR property from ANYBODY. So you have to answer whose property is whose. You can’t murder people, but you can defend yourself. Hello? Anybody there?
jodih:
God help us.
I honestly believe that I could not possibly explain that to you. Did you not know that you and your property are one and the same? Do you not own your own body? Do you not own your own life? Do you not own what you have peacefully and honestly earned? Is your property not the source of your family’s sustenance?
I’ll sincerely check that link out later. Li b has done an admirable job with many objections, and I would like lib’s reactions before I delve into dogma.
Yes, it’s not much info, and it’s a tough question. I think we’ve refined it down though.
Do you realize that you’ve still given me two answers?
I would be tried and possibly convicted for my actions.
In the other I Have the right to defend my family and property as I see fit and am 100% justified.
Which one is it? Or is it both? Are my actions in a matter such as this subject to review by trial?
As a law abiding citizen am I supposed to report my actions?
If the police want to investigate (let’s say a neighbor called, and is paying for it, or a relative of the deceased,) do I have to let them on my property, or can I refuse their inquiry under the grounds that I’ve opted out of police service? Or can I just say it’s my property and refuse them access?
LIB – Nice use of bolding. Can you answer the questions THAT I ASKED??? I did NOT ask you whether a person has the right to defend their property; I recognize that they do. Here: I will cut-and-paste the questions so that you don’t have trouble finding them, and even number them for handy reference:
As I have told you before (in the thread you now accuse me of “trolling” in), I see little alternative but to deem your repeated refusal to answer direct questions as an inability to do so. So could you please answer these questions? THESE questions; not some other question I have not asked. Thanks.
Jodi
Fiat Justitia
RT:
Do you see the name in this OP? Is it mine?
You’re trolling me again, RT. Please stop.
Define ‘trolling’, please. I read all the posts, and spoke up. Is that now against the rules?
BTW, you make libertarianism the issue on a more or less across-the-board basis. It was this thread where the questions hit. I can’t see that which thread the questions came up in is all that relevant.
I begin to doubt that you could either.
On the literal level, we obviously are not. Don’t get carried away by hyperbole. I own my house. I am not my house.
Yep, but then those would both be “me,” and not “property belonging to me.” But, hey, we can define property that was if you want to. My question, of course, is what gives me (or anyone) the right to own real property, by which I mean tangible property, not just real estate. There is an obvious difference between real, alienable property and “property” that is really just a part of “me.”
So let me ask you this: If you include my real property (such as my house) as being part of me, then why is it not okay to defend my house with deadly force against all comers, as I would my own person? Or is it?
Jodi
Fiat Justitia
Scylla:
As I understand your hypothetical, you are an anarchist (in the hypothetical). It is you who will have to decide whether you will resist whoever comes a callin’.
But governments have really big guns, which is problematic for anarchists.
Your right to pursue your own happiness in your own way peacefully and honestly was given to you by God or nature, but you must be vigilant and make sober decisions, or else tyrants will try to usurp your rights. A prudent man with a family to protect will likely hire what he considers to be an ethical government. I know I would.
jodih:
What are you doing, pulling the ol’ “yes or no” stuff? 
Why, that’s beneath even you!
Here, I’ll number my reiterations for your convenience:
-
When you ask a question like “who decides”, it is not unreasonable to ask you to provide a predicate. Who decides what? About what? If you cannot extrapolate that peaceful honest people should be allowed to make decisions for themselves into an answer, then you’ll have to narrow down your question to at least a finite number of possible interpretations of it?
-
For the googolth time, it depends on the property issues. If you compel them to do something with respect to their own property, while they have been peaceful and honest, then you are coercing them. But if you are defending your own property from their coercion, then you are not coercing them.
-
The same place I have said so many times before. Rights come from God or nature.
-
In my mind, it is the same as it is explained at the link in the OP. Isn’t that, I don’t know, obvious?
I have so far found this conversation rewarding. If I could trouble Lib for an answer to my lat post (which may very well have gotten lost in the recent flood) I’d be appreciative.
RT:
Trolling, in this instance, means badgering.
I did not raise the issue of libertarianism in this thread, yet I am here answering the questions on a five against one basis as fast and as honestly as I can. If you have a question, I’ll do my best to get to it. But please don’t make badgering accusations that are patently unfair, not to mention false in my view.
Scylla:
Did you catch your answer? I’m going as fast as I can, but my wrists are starting to cramp up a bit. I think I’ll call it a day.
If you have any more questions, leave them here and I’ll pick them up in the morning. Thanks.
Sorry, no anarchy is implied I hope. In the hypothetical I didn’t opt for police protection (money, personal preferance, the reason doesn’t matter.)
I realize that In reality I’m free to do whatever I wish and must faces the consequences.
The context of the hypothetical only applies towards the lawfullness of my actions in a Libertarian society.
Could I lawfully do these things
-
Kill tresspassers because I believe they represent a danger.
-
Do I have to report it.
-
Do I have to lawfully submit to a police inquiry and give access to my property, or might I be able to refuse access in such a circumstance.