Property...Is it fair? Is it necessary?

[Trolldor]

Secondly, wearing a tank-top is indicative of your personality. Wearing one to a restaurant is fucking stupid and I don't want to be eating my dinner while staring at your hairy armpits.

There's lots of things I wouldn't want to be looking at when eating. Other people's kids come to mind, but I can't see this as justification for initiating force against them.

Actually, they have to be asked to leave, they can only be forced out if they refuse. If you use too great of a force you risk being sued for assault.

Oh, man. Use of force. Ayn Rand in da house. The soul of libertarianism is the minimisation of tort law, and the reservation of the use of force to the police.

Too much force can be a gentle hand on the back. You're entitled to use force appropriate to the situation, nothing more.

[Surendra Darathy]

Too much force can be a gentle hand on the back. You're entitled to use force appropriate to the situation, nothing more.

When you figure out how to define the word "appropriate", let us know. Hint: It's socially-constructed and depends greatly on how well you grease other people's palms without getting caught doing it. Little wonder some parliamentary committee is called "Appropriations". For transactions not involving money, or involving firearms, understanding body language is crucial.

[Trolldor]

Domestically, it's only in self-defence, but ironically you can only apply enough force to stop their current actions. Knocking an assailant unconscious can get you charged with assault, tying them up can constitute assault, shooting them with the gun they tried to shoot you with can classify as assault and manslaughter. I don't recall it ever happening, but it can by law.

[RuleBritannia]

By property I am referring to the exclusive rights to ownership over a given material object (note that this does not include intellectual property in its various forms).

A hypothetical: Let's say I harvest lumber, stone, and all sorts of other materials to build a house. Let's also say I've built the house entirely by myself. Of course, most would recognize that this home is my property. In other words, I have to right to threaten or initiate violence against those who would attempt to destroy it or vandalize it in order to prevent them from doing so.

On the other hand, many people act as though as soon as you step on to someone else's property, half your rights disappear. When we walk into a crowded theater, we no longer have the ability to shout "fire" without being escorted off the premises, therefore our right to free speech has been muted. If I walk into an upscale restaurant wearing a tank top and jeans, likewise, force would be initiated against me to remove me from the property. Effectively, what we have here is a system in which those who do not own real property do not possess the full set of rights of property owners.

Is there a middle ground here? If so, I have yet to find it.

The right of property is an interesting and complex question, especially when inheritance comes into play. Do you distinguish between private and personal property? Who, in your mind, should own the means of production?

[Surendra Darathy]

Who, in your mind, should own the means of production?

I think the production line should be shut down until they can identify the design flaw. They keep fucking up, and nine months down the line, turning out bad widgets.

[RuleBritannia]

I would consider lying protected under free speech. Furthermore speech in itself cannot be considered aggression.

Would you consider libel and slander laws a stiffling of free speech?

It's a paradox in the libertarian universe. Everyone has a right to make a living, but no one is permitted to get in anyone else's way. If you trip and fall, you're automatically in someone's way. Your bad. Calvinism without god. Libertarians proclaim themselves kings of infinite space, with a universe bounded in a nutshell.

You're describing the crazy American libertarians, not what libertarianism actually is in the rest of the world.

[Surendra Darathy]

I would consider lying protected under free speech. Furthermore speech in itself cannot be considered aggression.

Would you consider libel and slander laws a stiffling of free speech?

It's a paradox in the libertarian universe. Everyone has a right to make a living, but no one is permitted to get in anyone else's way. If you trip and fall, you're automatically in someone's way. Your bad. Calvinism without god. Libertarians proclaim themselves kings of infinite space, with a universe bounded in a nutshell.

You're describing the crazy American libertarians, not what libertarianism actually is in the rest of the world.

Agreed. The problem is Calvinism. Explain to me how libertarianism anywhere in the world handles people who fall down. If the other varieties of libertarianism really can identify victimless crimes, let a thousand flowers blossom.

[RuleBritannia]

I would consider lying protected under free speech. Furthermore speech in itself cannot be considered aggression.

Would you consider libel and slander laws a stiffling of free speech?

It's a paradox in the libertarian universe. Everyone has a right to make a living, but no one is permitted to get in anyone else's way. If you trip and fall, you're automatically in someone's way. Your bad. Calvinism without god. Libertarians proclaim themselves kings of infinite space, with a universe bounded in a nutshell.

You're describing the crazy American libertarians, not what libertarianism actually is in the rest of the world.

Agreed. The problem is Calvinism. Explain to me how libertarianism anywhere in the world handles people who fall down. If the other varieties of libertarianism really can identify victimless crimes, let a thousand flowers blossom.

Well "libertarianism" is such a broad term it's almost meaningless, libertarians can be minarchists or anarchists, left wing, right wing, capitalists, socialists or communists, they can be Individualists or collectivists, religious, secular, green or just plain crazy.

Depending on which one of these worlds you live in you'll probably live a very different life.

[Surendra Darathy]

Well "libertarianism" is such a broad term it's almost meaningless, libertarians can be minarchists or anarchists, left wing, right wing, capitalists, socialists or communists, they can be Individualists or collectivists, religious, secular, green or just plain crazy.

Depending on which one of these worlds you live in you'll probably live a very different life.

Well, that's all well and good, but I'm not all that interested in a detailed taxonomy of belief systems, otherwise recognised as a means of placing meaningless labels on human beings. Calvinism is one such label, and it translates to believing that if you fall down, it's your fault, because nobody who would try to trip you up is deserving of anything but eternal damnation. So it goes with labeling, which is why "libertarianism" is meaningless, too, if you pick it apart.

Property is property. Some kinds of property are called "real" estate, or "real" property. God's little acre.

[Godless Libertarian]

I would consider lying protected under free speech. Furthermore speech in itself cannot be considered aggression.

Would you consider libel and slander laws a stiffling of free speech?

Absolutely.

[Godless Libertarian]

By property I am referring to the exclusive rights to ownership over a given material object (note that this does not include intellectual property in its various forms).

A hypothetical: Let's say I harvest lumber, stone, and all sorts of other materials to build a house. Let's also say I've built the house entirely by myself. Of course, most would recognize that this home is my property. In other words, I have to right to threaten or initiate violence against those who would attempt to destroy it or vandalize it in order to prevent them from doing so.

On the other hand, many people act as though as soon as you step on to someone else's property, half your rights disappear. When we walk into a crowded theater, we no longer have the ability to shout "fire" without being escorted off the premises, therefore our right to free speech has been muted. If I walk into an upscale restaurant wearing a tank top and jeans, likewise, force would be initiated against me to remove me from the property. Effectively, what we have here is a system in which those who do not own real property do not possess the full set of rights of property owners.

Is there a middle ground here? If so, I have yet to find it.

The right of property is an interesting and complex question, especially when inheritance comes into play. Do you distinguish between private and personal property? Who, in your mind, should own the means of production?

Well first let me just say that any physical object can be used as a means of production. If I fashion wood and stone to make a hammer, my hands are the means of production. If I then use that hammer to fashion other items, the hammer is a means of production, and so on and so forth. So I do not accept one common definition of "means of production" to include basically land and factories. I see no fundamental difference between those material objects and others.

So the question boils down to whether to abolish property in all external material objects such that nobody owns them exclusively, because they certainly cannot be owned "communally" in the sense that each person in the world has a 6 billionth of a share. Logically this is quite absurd.

Really, to get straight to the heart of your question: I don't know. I'm still trying to figure that out. Private ownership sits fine with me on some things but not on others. For example, I don't care if someone owns a shirt and punches out anyone who tries to steal it off his back, but at the same time, I don't think anyone should starve because all the land has been gobbled up and they can't even farm their own food.

Eh, long winded I know, but does that answer your question?

[camoguard]

By property I am referring to the exclusive rights to ownership over a given material object (note that this does not include intellectual property in its various forms).

A hypothetical: Let's say I harvest lumber, stone, and all sorts of other materials to build a house. Let's also say I've built the house entirely by myself. Of course, most would recognize that this home is my property. In other words, I have to right to threaten or initiate violence against those who would attempt to destroy it or vandalize it in order to prevent them from doing so.

On the other hand, many people act as though as soon as you step on to someone else's property, half your rights disappear. When we walk into a crowded theater, we no longer have the ability to shout "fire" without being escorted off the premises, therefore our right to free speech has been muted. If I walk into an upscale restaurant wearing a tank top and jeans, likewise, force would be initiated against me to remove me from the property. Effectively, what we have here is a system in which those who do not own real property do not possess the full set of rights of property owners.

Is there a middle ground here? If so, I have yet to find it.

Property is a tool to allow us each space and tools to conduct life our way as much as possible. This allows us to experiment a little and to see how those experiments work out (in a way that fails to identify all variables very well). I think property is important but there's a limit to how much property makes sense for any one person or single unified group whether it's a voting block or a family.