Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think a better question would be, "Do we really own our property?"
And the answer to that would be no. I paid for my car with cash, I have the title. However, if I fail to pay the state property taxes on the car, they can take it from me.
So no, I don't own my car, house, boat, whatever. The state owns it.
I think a better question would be, "Do we really own our property?"
And the answer to that would be no. I paid for my car with cash, I have the title. However, if I fail to pay the state property taxes on the car, they can take it from me.
So no, I don't own my car, house, boat, whatever. The state owns it.
Sad isn't it?
I paid for the bottle of oxycontin in my medicine cabinet, but it turns out I'm allergic to them. However, I can't sell them to others to recoup my costs or make a profit. I can only throw them away. I guess the trash is their true owner.
I actually typed out a long response to this and my computer froze and I lost it...really frustrating...but I referenced "Practical Anarchy" by Stefan Molyneux, free PDF to download on his website, where there's a section discussing this. Quick version is that there would be less reason to invade in the first place if there was no tax base or government already in place...compares it to a farmer wanting to expand his farm and resources. Does he invade the farm next door that already has fields set up for farming, livestock, etc. or does he go through the trouble of taking the undeveloped land nearby where he has to spend a significant amount of time and money making it suitable for farming? He goes into other details, so that isn't the complete explanation. In other debates I've seen people suggest having nuclear weapons to deter others from invasion, and they went into all the details of who would have the nukes and who would pay for it...interesting stuff I think.
But yeah, if you have a stronger military you can just kill everyone else. That's true with or without government.
Too bad that your computer froze and you couldn't give the response that you wanted. I've watched Stefan Molyneux videos before and while I think that he's a very logical person, he holds a number of false beliefs. If you start with a false premise, you can still formulate a very reasonable philosophy, but that philosophy crumbles once your premise is disproved.
Yes, the stronger can kill others and take whatever they want, with or without government. The fact that you know this makes me question why you don't see how anarchy couldn't work. There will always be someone who wants what you have and is willing to use force to get it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
I think any initiation of force is wrong, so I think it was wrong to force them off of their land when they had never done anything to provoke it. I do feel fortunate that things are more civil today (somewhat) and believe in continuing that path to civility...which I believe is getting rid of the belief that some people have the right to violently control others.
You are judging the past by modern standards. It's easy in these times of abundance and peace to make these pronouncements about valuing the rights of others. But life was not always so forgiving. Often times force was necessary because it was the difference between life or death, or sometimes simply, prosperity or squalor.
I paid for the bottle of oxycontin in my medicine cabinet, but it turns out I'm allergic to them. However, I can't sell them to others to recoup my costs or make a profit. I can only throw them away. I guess the trash is their true owner.
So? It's still a restriction - and that makes it not really property.
So, if I take your purse from you hammertime (im assuming you're a woman)...and if your a man...(if I take your wife's purse that have your balls in them) then its not stealing because its not really yours.
Is that what you mean to say?
Last edited by forestgump99; 12-07-2014 at 11:33 PM..
Only under American law is there a distinction between absolute ownership (private property) and qualified ownership (estate). Other country's laws just distinguish between government ownership and non-government ownership.
All American constitutions explicitly protect private property ownership - but tax qualified ownership of estate. (See: ad valorem tax)
So you should investigate your own state's constitution and laws to verify that private property is still a right secured, while estate is not. You might also ask your public servants to explain how and when your endowed right to absolutely own became a revenue taxable privilege.
FWIW - it appears that private property was abolished in 1933.
So, if I take your purse from you hammertime (im assuming you're a woman)...and if your a man...(if I take your wife's purse that have your balls in them) then its not stealing because its not really yours.
Is that what you mean to say?
Um, I was arguing from your position in order to show its faults. Did you not realize that?
(and I'm a man, and my husband doesn't carry a purse)
There are a lot of factors depending on the location and type of land. Just because you own it doesn't mean you get to put in a commercial space if it is zoned for residential.
My parents lived in a neighborhood where they had to get the approval of the neighbors around their house of they wanted to do any exterior work or painting to their house.
I do realize that the government won't allow you to do certain things on your property, so that's kind of my point. That means that they are the true owners, not you. If they have the final say and can overrule you, you don't own it. In your parents situation, that means that the neighbors also own their house. If your parents were the sole owners, they could paint it however they wanted. (But I'm assuming they knew beforehand that this would be the case and still moved there, so I'm not saying there's a problem with that. If the neighbors all of a sudden agreed that nobody could paint their houses a certain color, even when your parents never agreed to that, then I'd have an issue.)
If I own a condo and if I own a cigarette, can I smoke my cigarette in my condo if some of the smoke seeps into the unit above and "harms" a resident there who has emphysema? Would a restriction against me smoking in my condo be appropriate such that my cigarette and my condo are still my unencumbered property, or would it be an unjustified attack on my property rights?
(again, who decides what a harm is, and who decides the restrictions?)
Is there someone who owns the whole building/property its on? They would be able to stop them from smoking...but assuming each person truly owns their condo, I'd say the smoker has a right to smoke unless it is truly harming the other person. If they have emphysema and the smoke is endangering them, I think they have a right to stop the other person from smoking. Maybe first ask them to stop and explain why, or get neighbors together to guilt them into stopping...but if they still don't then there are other ways to handle it. I'd probably go to a dispute resolution organization (if we're talking about today, that would be the government police/courts). It is kind of a tough one...figuring out what is appropriate action in that case...but it's the same as my car example. If you use it to damage someone else's property, you are in the wrong. Use your property how you wish, as long as it doesn't violate other's rights.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
