The Decline of Violence

[Kshartle]

Given that, do you believe that your fairy tale could ever possibly come true? This is called “Poisoning the well or stacking the deck”?. It’s like me asking if you’ve stopped beating your wife yet.

You've created a consistent system in your own head and are baffled, BAFFLED why it doesn't work for absolutely everyone everywhere, and that anyone could disagree about it being the best thing ever ever. I’m not baffled why people support violence as a solution to their problems, they’ve been taught it as a solution their entire life. You're the one who's baffled because you've never heard the argument against violence as a solution to problems....it's new to you.

I would have thought I was on your side as opposed to Moda in this debate.  But every time you type something, you make me want to associate with your side less and less.  It's like you're being deliberately dense or something. Please don’t associate with “my side”?. Please just try to use reason and logic to figure what’s correct and support that. Please don’t type things like you just did because they make you sound dense. You sound like you don't have a mind of your own, you just take sides.

the only way to reduce force in the world is to use force.  Yes, it's a paradox, but the world is messy.  It just is. Well that's quite a case you make there. No way to debate that rock-solid argument. You make it without any support of any kind other than "It just is". I'm sorry but that is truly pathetic and I have to point that out.

...Now you're denying the existence of forests.  Do you not see how your desperation to "prove" your theory is leading you to ridiculous positions?  I mean, RIDICULOUS.  It's okay to admit you don't have all the answers all the time, it really is. What is a forest? is it two trees? Is it three? How many? If I disgree with how many, does that mean to you a forest exists and to me it doesn't? Can we disagree about whether or not something exists and both be right? You see, if we disagree about whether or not a tree exists there is objective critera which we can use to determine who is correct. We can agree on a scientific definition of a tree and determine whether or not the thing we are discussing is a tree. A forest is subjective. It's just conveinent language to describe a large group of trees and everyone generally understands what someone is talking about despite the potential for WIDE differences in opinions. That's because forests are just ideas. They don't actually exist. You can't reach out and touch the forest you are touching the tree. Whatever, you are probably too dense to get what I'm saying. 

[Kshartle]

I think a forest exists as an ecological entity.  There may be some debates as to the line that's drawn, but ecological systems are extremely important to recognize as systems more than the sum of their parts. As to our debate on property, I'll have to comment later tonight.

What is an ecological entity? People use the word forest when describing a large group of trees, but the forest isn't what actually exists in reality. It isn't the forest that's tangible, it's just a descriptive term for a group of trees (which actually exist).

Whatever, the practical point here is that there is no such thing as "government" or a "corporation" in reality. They are legal fictions or convenient ways to describe a group of people that have a relationship and use particular means to acheive particular goals. It's the people and their actions that really exist.

[Kshartle]

Kshartle, is it truly inconceivable to you that there are different definitions of property, and different ideas of what is and isn't ownable, and how to go about owning something?  And that therefore, two people can both have "legitimate" claims to the same property, whatever kind of property it may be?  Given that, do you believe that your fairy tale could ever possibly come true?

I've often heard leftists accused of immanentizing the eschaton, but never to the level that you're arguing for.  You're advocating a more extreme Utopianism than any Marxist I've ever heard.  You've created a consistent system in your own head and are baffled, BAFFLED why it doesn't work for absolutely everyone everywhere, and that anyone could disagree about it being the best thing ever ever.

I would have thought I was on your side as opposed to Moda in this debate.  But every time you type something, you make me want to associate with your side less and less.  It's like you're being deliberately dense or something.

Moda's point is like Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, which proved that something as logical and obvious as mathematics could never be consistent and complete at the same time.  In the same way, the only way to reduce force in the world is to use force.  Yes, it's a paradox, but the world is messy.  It just is.

...Now you're denying the existence of forests.  Do you not see how your desperation to "prove" your theory is leading you to ridiculous positions?  I mean, RIDICULOUS.  It's okay to admit you don't have all the answers all the time, it really is.

I've gotta say this post of yours is particularly nasty and childish.

If you disagree with me on something then say so. Calling my ideas "ridiculous, desperate, dense, baffled, a fairy tale" without providing any counter argument is the debating style of a 12 year old at best. If you are under 12......ok but if not please try to do better.

[Mountaineer]

I think a forest exists as an ecological entity.  There may be some debates as to the line that's drawn, but ecological systems are extremely important to recognize as systems more than the sum of their parts. As to our debate on property, I'll have to comment later tonight.

What is an ecological entity? People use the word forest when describing a large group of trees, but the forest isn't what actually exists in reality. It isn't the forest that's tangible, it's just a descriptive term for a group of trees (which actually exist).

Whatever, the practical point here is that there is no such thing as "government" or a "corporation" in reality. They are legal fictions or convenient ways to describe a group of people that have a relationship and use particular means to acheive particular goals. It's the people and their actions that really exist.

So, following your logic, I suppose it is not really people that exist ... it is the composite (which does not really exist) of electrons, protons, neutrons, bosons, and other subatomic particles (or waves) that just "happen" to be called a person because they are assembled by some "force" that does not exist either.  Right?

i cant believe that nobody has told kshartle "he cant see the forest for the trees".... was it just to obvious??

[Pointedstick]

If I could make a wish to get Kshartle to understand ONE THING, it would be that logic and reason are only two among many possible means of persuasion, and that not only are people who are less receptive to them not dumb or childish, but also that people who are receptive to them can nonetheless use them to come to different conclusions, and that this also does not make them dumb or childish.

And if that was too much for the genie to grant, maybe I would wish for Kshartle to gain an understanding of how much he inadvertently hurts the cause of liberty by coming off as a pedantic jerk.

IIRC, we went through this about a year ago with Rocketdog, who was also a jerky atheist libertarian so convinced he was right that alternative points of view were as inconceivable as they were worthy of ridicule.

[moda0306]

How does someone "enforce" a rule on themselves?

You're not.  You're enforcing it against others.  Others who may try to make the same claim you are making on resources. I don't understand the question then. Are you asking what happens when two people claim the same property? I thought you said what if someone enforces the rule of no property on themselves. If they go around trying to prevent other people from owning stuff well that's called theft.

It doesn't matter what your idea of a valid extension of your individual soverignty is.....it only matters what your actions are. If you try to hurt someone who hasn't aggressed against anyone or steal their property.....well that's a violation of their rights and you might pull it off, you might not. My argument is that people (us on this forum) should not choose this and not support this activity.

Your comment presupposes we know who has valid ownership of the property.  My whole point is that when said ownership isn't 100% clear, and violence arises, that my claim is being "enforced" by my defending said property as my own. How is it unclear? Who has owned it all this time? What property on Earth is not claimed by either an individual or a government? Antarctica? I don't understand the situation and I'm not trying to missunderstand deliberately.

As for the treehouse.....is it your property or not? Again it doesn't matter if you disagree it only matters what you do. Maybe you can work out hunting rights with the owner, maybe he'll compensate you for the treehouse, maybe not. Who's property is it? Did he buy it from the owner and you've just been using it? You shouldn't assume that the deal you had worked out with the previous owner is still valid.

He didn't buy it from anyone.  He built a tree-house on the land and has hunted on it for decades and his family before that for generations.  My question to you is "Is this a valid claim on property?  Does he own the tree house he built? Does he own the land he hunts on?"  He would own the treehouse if he built it upon his property. If he built it one someone else's property then that's kind of foolish. Did he think the rightful owner would never find out or sell the property to someone who would check? That is foolish and I would argue it's theft since the land doesn't belongs to someone else. Are you saying this land was unowned by anyone? Please show me the huntable land that is unowned by anyone. Again if you're talking about Anarctica and these two parties are willing to come to blows over an area without coming to an agreement....well ok

If it is a valid claim on property, he has a right to ask others to leave who wander onto it, correct?  This is "enforcement."  I, as a free person, may feel quite free to roam where I choose.  If this conflicts with his idea of property, what then?  His will is being enforced against mine.  Perhaps legitimately... perhaps not... who's to say?  Is it that clear?

If it is NOT a valid claim, why isn't it?

If because he hasn't built signs and fences indicating "this is mine," does that mean someone else can come along, build those signs/fences, and kick the guy out of his tree house because he's now on "someone else's property?"

On the last three....I can't really answer because I don't understand

Can you see where there'd be dispute as to where property starts and ends, and what claims new-comers might be able to make by occupying the land and/or building structures on it? No because I don't know anything about it. So far we know that you and your dad have hunted this area and built a treehouse and someone else has shown up and said they own the area. This is not enough to understand the situation. If they bought it from someone....why did they not check it out first and see you had a treehouse on it and talk with you about leaving?

K,

There is no claim on the land other than what I've mentioned. This example is independent of our current world political situation. This is an example of limited claimed property in society. All we have is what I've mentioned, and I'm wondering who has the valid claim to property, and what exactly establishes a valid claim to property. 

I don't see what's so confusing about my example. Usually someone else acts as a "translator" if we can't establish even ground to debate on.

Perhaps someone can let me know if I'm not being clear with my questions about establishment of property.  I've tried asking in many ways and to me all I see are circular answers or misunderstandings of what I think are clear questions.

[moda0306]

so there is no legitimate government role ..at all... we have more anarchists around here than i would expect.

i don't know maybe my grasp of semantics is off on this one, but if everybody except a exceptionally small percentage of the population  made up of true anarchists (except on this forum where they are more than well represented ) is a statist then to me the word means nothing, a minarchist = statist, a libritarian = statist, basically everybody= statist...    how about if  issue "A" is the defense of property and liberty.... statist.... 

A statist is someone who believes in the existence of a (or the) state, just as a theist is one who believes in a (or the) god. Of course, anarchists know that there are people who claim to be agents of a state, but disagree that those people are in fact the agents of anyone. Lysander Spooner clarified this issue very well.

Of course this means something like 99% of the worlds population are statists and even most anarchists are confused about the topic.

Whevener I hear people argue about religion or claim to be highly intelligent athiests I have to smile because i know they believe in a much bigger fantasy.

I'm an athiest but I can't say with 100% certainty that there is no God. I can say with certainty that the initiation of force is a violation of human rights so in that regard, a statist (common definition) to me is less rational than a theist.

How can you say with 100% certainty the initiation of force is a violation of human rights, especially if you don't know what our potential God has to say about it?  Maybe our creator sees us as all other animals, and that this is just a big game of survival of the fittest, in which case we have no moral rights...

I don't understand the certainty. I agree with the idea that humans have rights. But I'm not certain about it, I can't prove it, and I certainly can't assign it to the world around me with no doubt whatsoever.

[Rien]

Too much.... overload warning.... too much....

I simply do not know where to begin, so I just pick some points I'd like to make an observation on.

a) I agree with moda that something like ownership is inherently difficult, and in some cases impossible. I think the word ownership is best used in combination with productivity. You produce something, you own it. If no work was involved in the creation of the means of production, then no claims can be laid upon those means. An apple tree in the middle of nowhere is not owned by anybody. Picking the apples makes you the owner of the apples. Putting a gate around the tree to prevent others from picking the apples does not make you the owner of that tree. If however you ensure that the tree receives optimal growing conditions (i.e. you put in work before the apples are ripe) then you are the rightful owner of the apples that will be produced by the tree, so in all practicality that makes you the owner of the tree.

b) There will be cases where more than 1 person make a claim on the same thing. Violence to settle the dispute is a traditional solution, but so is negotiation. People do not exist in a vacuum, we are social animals and will in most cases look for a mutual beneficial solution. But there will be a small percentage left where violence will be used. I think it is important to realize that a NAP world will not be violence free. No more than today's world is violence free. It stands to reason that there will be (much) less violence, but it won't be free of it.

c) People do not survive on their own, but in groups. Just like humans are made up of atoms, societies are made up of humans. Humans are more than the sum of their parts, and I believe a society is more than the sum of its members. There are structures in society that fulfill useful roles. Humans are not "drop in" replaceable. It is our uniqueness that makes society more than our sum. I believe that this point is not sufficiently reflected in "mainstream NAP thinking". I know that I am still grappling with this. (Btw: a forest is also more than just a collection of trees, it appears that trees are communicating through their roots and can inform one another of infestations)

[moda0306]

Rien,

Thanks for replying in good faith.  While your definition of property seems like a good one, I don't know if I could ever be 100% sure it's correct.  If I had been using that apple tree for sustenance for decades, and my family was hunting on the land around it for generations, my internal moral compass would indicate to me the land was "mine," and that just because someone came along and started fencing off livestock and watering apple trees doesn't make them rightful owner.

Also, my modification of land beyond a certain standpoint depends on animals having no rights, or ecosystems having no value.  I think there are limits to which we can morally modify the world around us. I'm not a hippie... Or at least don't think I am... But we aren't simply watering apple trees anymore, if you get my drift.

[Kshartle]

If I could make a wish to get Kshartle to understand ONE THING, it would be that logic and reason are only two among many possible means of persuasion, and that not only are people who are less receptive to them not dumb or childish, but also that people who are receptive to them can nonetheless use them to come to different conclusions, and that this also does not make them dumb or childish.

And if that was too much for the genie to grant, maybe I would wish for Kshartle to gain an understanding of how much he inadvertently hurts the cause of liberty by coming off as a pedantic jerk.

IIRC, we went through this about a year ago with Rocketdog, who was also a jerky atheist libertarian so convinced he was right that alternative points of view were as inconceivable as they were worthy of ridicule.

PS,

I guess you didn't read Xan's post to me. It was just a slurry of insults that came out of left field. He basically called my ideas "ridiculous, desperate, dense, baffled, a fairy tale". The support he gave for this disagreement was " the only way to reduce force in the world is to use force.  Yes, it's a paradox, but the world is messy.  It just is."

Now you can see that's not a serious argument or a serious post right? It's called taking a personal shot at someone. Evidently you have no problem with that, but you have a problem with me pointing it out. Why the double standard? I see you didn't have a problem when Doodle said I was an idiot and not interested in reality, but for some reason you feel the need to police my posts. Since mine was only in response it's not even a double standard.

Speaking of double standard, you managed to call me a pedantic jerk and a jerky athiest libertarian in the same post. This is kind of rude, particularly since I was just responding to someone's insults and not initiating them. If I had responded to him that he was a pedantic jerk would that have been fine?

"so convinced he was right that alternative points of view were as inconceivable as they were worthy of ridicule." - Nope. They are worthy or scrutiny though. All I ask is if you have an alternative viewpoint please have some basis for it. If you tell someone you dissagree because they are dumb....this is just ad hominem and should be pointed out. If the crux of your argument is self-contradicting or just "that's the way things are", well, I'm going to point that out as silly so those arguments can be put aside. What good does it do to keep repeating or believing in false arguments?

[moda0306]

K,

Our viewpoint around the inevitability of force comes from the fact that we are physical beings competing for limited resources.  Defending those resources as my own means that I'm forcing you to stay off my land or not use them.  This pits us against each Other inevitably.  Imagine putting 10 people on a deserted island with very limited resources and watching the natural progression of things. Claims of property on that island to the detriment of others are de facto uses of force.

Nevermind the fact that you haven't proven that it's really morally incorrect to begin with, but simply claimed it's self-evident to not use force because we can choose our actions.

[Kshartle]

I think a forest exists as an ecological entity.  There may be some debates as to the line that's drawn, but ecological systems are extremely important to recognize as systems more than the sum of their parts. As to our debate on property, I'll have to comment later tonight.

What is an ecological entity? People use the word forest when describing a large group of trees, but the forest isn't what actually exists in reality. It isn't the forest that's tangible, it's just a descriptive term for a group of trees (which actually exist).

Whatever, the practical point here is that there is no such thing as "government" or a "corporation" in reality. They are legal fictions or convenient ways to describe a group of people that have a relationship and use particular means to acheive particular goals. It's the people and their actions that really exist.

So, following your logic, I suppose it is not really people that exist ... it is the composite (which does not really exist) of electrons, protons, neutrons, bosons, and other subatomic particles (or waves) that just "happen" to be called a person because they are assembled by some "force" that does not exist either.  Right?

People exist just like trees exist. Those words describe a particular collection of matter with certain characteristics in the physical world and they most certainly exist.

The forest does not. It's just an idea. There is no scientific definition of a forest that I'm aware of. It's a group of trees. Well, what's a group?

Definition of forest: 1. A dense growth of trees, plants, and underbrush covering a large area.

Well.....what's a dense growth? What's a large area? This will mean 100 different things to 100 different people. It's just word used for expediency, but the actual forest is not what exists in reality, it's the trees that exist.

I tried to use the forest to explain the government principle that Tech brought up. I thought it was an easy to understand example, I guess it was not. Evidently I'm not capable of explaining the principle very well. There is no such thing as the government per say. You can't fight the government, the government doesn't pass a law, the government doesn't arrest you, the government doesn't send you a bill, the government can't be overthrown etc....it's people that do all that.

A corporation doesn't pay taxes, the owners do.

A country doesn't "like" another country or "dislike" another country, The rurlers of one like or dislike the rurlers in another.

The Mexican border doesn't actually exist, it's just an idea, an imaginary line on a map. The fence is real though.

Maybe Tech can explain what he meant when he said Government doesn't really exist, or something to that effect.

[Kshartle]

K,

There is no claim on the land other than what I've mentioned. This example is independent of our current world political situation. This is an example of limited claimed property in society. All we have is what I've mentioned, and I'm wondering who has the valid claim to property, and what exactly establishes a valid claim to property. 

I don't see what's so confusing about my example. Usually someone else acts as a "translator" if we can't establish even ground to debate on.

Perhaps someone can let me know if I'm not being clear with my questions about establishment of property.  I've tried asking in many ways and to me all I see are circular answers or misunderstandings of what I think are clear questions.

Ok, I thought you were talking about this world, that's why I didn't understand.

If you're talking about a whole other world with unclaimed land, and some humans have built a structure out in the wilderness and have been hunting on it and living there for decades...well that belongs to them. Sounds like someone else showed up and wants to take it. There are plenty of people in our world who like to steal also.

If they can't work things out peacefully and neither backs down then it sounds like they will fight.

[Kshartle]

Perhaps someone can let me know if I'm not being clear with my questions about establishment of property.  I've tried asking in many ways and to me all I see are circular answers or misunderstandings of what I think are clear questions.

Incidently, this notion that property is somehow confusing is missplaced in my opinion. When you go to work, are you confused about who owns the computer in your office? How about the microwave in the break room? Were you confused about who owns the car you drove to work, or the clothes that you put on? Do you wander into your neighbors house, open his fridge and grab a beer and say "ohhhh I didn't realize you thought that was your property. I think it's mine now we have to fight over it". Do you know which house is yours? If someone wanders in and goes in your fridge, or starts unpacking their clothes and tells you it's their house...are you going to abide by the "property is theft" theory?

99.9% of people know 99.9% of the time what they own and what they don't own. They don't even have to know who owns the other stuff. They just need to know what they own and if they don't own something then assume it belongs to someone else. This stuff is not confusing, we learn it in elementary school.

I think the attempt to portray it as confusing is just to try and support the idea that: if there is some question at some point whether or not someone owns something that is evidence that property rights don't exist, property is theft from the collective, everything is owned collectively and we should have rulers decide who gets what based on the decisions of the rulers. That mindset convienently ignores that this just means the rulers are the defacto owners of everything since they now control and are responsible for all resources.

[Kshartle]

I agree with the idea that humans have rights. But I'm not certain about it, I can't prove it, and I certainly can't assign it to the world around me with no doubt whatsoever.

So then what exactly do you assign to the world around you? Do you only not take something because you think someone else might believe it's theirs and fight you? Do you only not attack other people if you think that there will be negative reprecussions?

[Kshartle]

K,

Our viewpoint around the inevitability of force comes from the fact that we are physical beings competing for limited resources.  Defending those resources as my own means that I'm forcing you to stay off my land or not use them.  This pits us against each Other inevitably.  Imagine putting 10 people on a deserted island with very limited resources and watching the natural progression of things. Claims of property on that island to the detriment of others are de facto uses of force.

Nevermind the fact that you haven't proven that it's really morally incorrect to begin with, but simply claimed it's self-evident to not use force because we can choose our actions.

When you own something and someone else tries to take it, you are not forcing them to not take it. That's like saying when I defend myself against an axe murderer I'm forcing him/her to not kill me. No you aren't. They don't have a right to steal from you or kill you so you aren't preventing them from doing something they have a right to do. You are defending your right to property and to your life.

The reason you don't believe it's morally wrong to inititate force against another person is because you don't believe in self-ownership. You don't believe in this despite that fact that you clearly control your own body and are responsible for yourself and your actions and the effects of those actions. Just like you use your body to type your arguments and you own the argument, no one else is responsible for it. You are denying the reality of what you are doing over there.

If everyone owns themselves then no one can own anyone else. Therefore no one controls anyone else. Attempts at forcing others to do what they don't want to (redundant) are attempts to control others. They are violations of the rights of others.

If you disagree please don't just repeat that I didn't prove this. That's argument by repetition. Please poke holes at what I wrote and the logic. Am I contradicting myself? Did I say something that's not true?

[Rien]

I don't know if I could ever be 100% sure it's correct.

The older I get, the more I like the pragmatic approach: we don't need 100% certainty in all things. The idea that we can achieve 100% probably stems from science, but has little application in our daily experiences.
Things like ownership are not an end in itself, but are means to an end. As long as we can achieve the end goal, it is imo useless to try an make a 100% determination of the means.

Sidetrack: What I see as one of the big problems of our day and age is that we try to achieve 100% clarity on social memes. But 100% is only possible in mathematical ideas. Politicians behave as we can achieve this elusive 100% and in doing so try to flatten the complexity of life. That will never work. We should enhance diversity, not try to do away with it.

[Pointedstick]

Kshartle, of course I read Xan's post. You're getting hung up on the content of his post rather than the underlying premise behind it, which is that your abrasiveness and pedantry alienated someone who was inclined to agree with you. If a potential supporter says, "you know, you're making me want to disassociate myself from you and your arguments," you should think, "oh jeez, what am I doing wrong here?" The correct response is NOT to respond in kind by insulting him for his skepticism. If you're not getting your point across--especially to potential supporters--it's not their fault for not understanding, it's your fault for not communicating it properly.

The reason why this irritates me so much is because I actually agree with much to most of what you say, but how you express it makes me cringe. You turn people off every time you open your mouth because you refuse to learn other means of persuasion and you blame your audience for not understanding your argument rather than blaming yourself for not communicating it properly.

[Kshartle]

If a potential supporter says, "you know, you're making me want to disassociate myself from you and your arguments," you should think, "oh jeez, what am I doing wrong here?" The correct response is NOT to respond in kind by insulting him for his skepticism. If you're not getting your point across--especially to potential supporters--it's not their fault for not understanding, it's your fault for not communicating it properly.

The reason why this irritates me so much is because I actually agree with much to most of what you say, but how you express it makes me cringe. You turn people off every time you open your mouth because you refuse to learn other means of persuasion and you blame your audience for not understanding your argument rather than blaming yourself for not communicating it properly.

It wasn't a skeptical post, it was an insulting one with the express purpose of dropping insults and hiding them with questions. I don't insult skepticism. I'm skeptical about anything that doesn't have a strong argument that I can't prove is false. If you just sling insults and say you disagree with me because you think I'm a doo-doo head, well I've gotta point out that this is nasty. I think letting that type of discussion style go unchallenged just encourages more of it. I've pointed it out when it's not been directed at me as well.

[moda0306]

K,

There is no claim on the land other than what I've mentioned. This example is independent of our current world political situation. This is an example of limited claimed property in society. All we have is what I've mentioned, and I'm wondering who has the valid claim to property, and what exactly establishes a valid claim to property. 

I don't see what's so confusing about my example. Usually someone else acts as a "translator" if we can't establish even ground to debate on.

Perhaps someone can let me know if I'm not being clear with my questions about establishment of property.  I've tried asking in many ways and to me all I see are circular answers or misunderstandings of what I think are clear questions.

Ok, I thought you were talking about this world, that's why I didn't understand.

If you're talking about a whole other world with unclaimed land, and some humans have built a structure out in the wilderness and have been hunting on it and living there for decades...well that belongs to them. Sounds like someone else showed up and wants to take it. There are plenty of people in our world who like to steal also.

If they can't work things out peacefully and neither backs down then it sounds like they will fight.

Even if I was talking about this world, claims on property are often made by governments or actors who have stolen land... and in your opinion this isn't legitimate... but let's stick to this hypothetical world to make things simpler to manipulate for the sake of our understanding the others' opinion.

What if there was no structure?

What if they have only been hunting/living there for a few years?

When/how does "stuff" become someone's property in nature, especially if it's to big to be moved or to fit in my satchel?

[Pointedstick]

It wasn't a skeptical post, it was an insulting one with the express purpose of dropping insults and hiding them with questions. I don't insult skepticism. I'm skeptical about anything that doesn't have a strong argument that I can't prove is false. If you just sling insults and say you disagree with me because you think I'm a doo-doo head, well I've gotta point out that this is nasty. I think letting that type of discussion style go unchallenged just encourages more of it. I've pointed it out when it's not been directed at me as well.

You seem to be studiously ignoring my point that Xan might have actually agreed with you had you been able to express your positions in a less abrasive and pedantic manner. The fact that Xan wrote you a frustrated, insult-laden post is actually largely on you for pushing away a potential supporter with poor communication abilities.

I mean, don't you see the damage you've done? You took a person who mildly agreed with your basic premise and turned him into a skeptic who felt compelled to insult you and your argument. That wasn't what you were intending to do, right? If not, can you see how you did it anyway?

Do you notice how nearly every thread you post heavily in gets highly charged and often devolves into insults and ridicule? What's the common denominator there? I'm trying to do you a favor, man. I'm trying to help you learn to communicate in a more effective way. I want you to be a better salesman of the ideas of liberty.

If you're not interested, then that's fine. You can keep inadvertently pushing away budding anarcho-capitalists and continue getting two-week bans. Your choice.

[Kshartle]

The fact that Xan wrote you a frustrated, insult-laden post is actually largely on you for pushing away a potential supporter with poor communication abilities.

I appreciate your perspective and concern. I still think someone should be responsible for their insulting post and the blame should not be re-assigned to someone else.

Regardless, we've had this discussion on property rights and human rights so many times. They are highly charged because they call into question morallity, right and wrong etc. If someone thinks rape and or murder/theft/assault is ok because they claim ignorance of the proof of rights.....well this is different from saying you disagree on where stocks are headed. Obviously it's going to be a very heated debate and everyone knows that. Many people get personally insulting, I know because I've been on the receiving end of it. When you make an argument that challenges people's closely held beliefs you're going to get flak. That's fine, just stick to the issue rather than get personally insulting with your arguments.

If someone says I'm wrong because I'm a jerk....again that's ad hominem and it's everyone's favorite. It would be nice if we could drop it as an argument though.

It's ok. I understand you want peaceful discussion and I completely agree. I think a good rule is to apply that standard all around and not just to people you agree with though.

[Kshartle]

I don't know if I could ever be 100% sure it's correct.

The older I get, the more I like the pragmatic approach: we don't need 100% certainty in all things. The idea that we can achieve 100% probably stems from science, but has little application in our daily experiences.
Things like ownership are not an end in itself, but are means to an end. As long as we can achieve the end goal, it is imo useless to try an make a 100% determination of the means.
.

+1
arguments about 100% moral certainty is a distraction that allows people with views that result in questionable or awful ends, to inject "moral relativism" into the conversation and relive themselves of facing the burden of the results their ideas lead to...  "sure government is violent but you cant prove the origin of property isn't violent so"... "what difference does it make"

  I think you guys just said in two different ways the same thing many of us have been saying since the start of the thread. A person's lack of understanding, or uncertainty, or the fact that there is theoretically some gray areas doesn't mean "everything is gray, there is no black and white and no way to prove it".

[moda0306]

I don't know if I could ever be 100% sure it's correct.

The older I get, the more I like the pragmatic approach: we don't need 100% certainty in all things. The idea that we can achieve 100% probably stems from science, but has little application in our daily experiences.
Things like ownership are not an end in itself, but are means to an end. As long as we can achieve the end goal, it is imo useless to try an make a 100% determination of the means.

Sidetrack: What I see as one of the big problems of our day and age is that we try to achieve 100% clarity on social memes. But 100% is only possible in mathematical ideas. Politicians behave as we can achieve this elusive 100% and in doing so try to flatten the complexity of life. That will never work. We should enhance diversity, not try to do away with it.

But getting this correct has HUGE implications for society.  Whether we have the right to claim trillions of dollars worth of resources from the earth while others starve to death is of pretty huge importance to those without the property.  It has huge implications on ecology and environmentalism, and it's especially useful to realize that we acknowledge that property can be illegitimately owned, and therefore CAN be a form of force against others who might want to share it, then we can get over this idea that government is illegitimate because it uses force, because it's pretty close to impossible for me to fully assert my moral claim on my own property, so force is just an inherant nature to our claims, rather than something independent of them.  It's just a part of nature, rather than something unique to government or "thugs."

One person might look at the current state of property and say that, in effect, the land we occupy is the Native American's land, and we have no right to claim it as ours, because we've simply bought it from thieves or can be traced back to thieves.

Another might look at the current state of property and say that some of our claims on property are FAR beyond any natural equilbrium with the world around us (far beyond a tree house and apple-tree), and therefore have no moral legitmacy.

Another person might see that an entity called "government" owns some property, and since this can't be legitimate, it is not really claimed property and should be the people's (though which people is yet another debate).

[Kshartle]

it's especially useful to realize that we acknowledge that property can be illegitimately owned,

What does that mean in a practical, real sense? What does illegitimate ownership mean to you?