NationStates Jolt Archive

Neu Leonstein made the following post in another thread. As we were heading off-topic to what is a fascinating discussion, I've decided to start another thread. NL is asserting that only two rules should apply:

1. Everyone should be free to live as they want (necessitating a right not to be encroached upon by the needs/wants of others).

2. There is no such thing as a right not to be offended.

Almost. When you call it "your belief system" you're adding an idea of subjectivity that isn't really there. The system I'm talking about has just two rules: everyone should be free to live as they want (necessitating a right not to be encroached upon by the needs/wants of others), and there is no such thing as a right not to be offended.

That's not subjective or relative, it's the objective foundation that is required for a society in which people are free to be subjective.

Any other system necessarily requires the imposition of a certain belief on people who disagree with it. I seek to minimise interference with the freedom of people to do what they want, which is ultimately the only way for anyone who doesn't claim to be the ultimate holder of all truth to go. Ironically, capitalist libertarians (objectivists in particular), as much as they believe that they are in fact correct and there is only one correct way of living, are also the only ones who are consistent in their appeal to letting everyone live the life they want to. Even left libertarians have never really been able to convince me that their system doesn't in some way necessitate the subjugation of the individual to society, because in many ways I consider property rights as the first, last and only line of defense we have against everyone else. An actually inviolable property right would make all forms of crime, murder and oppression impossible (notwithstanding the somewhat metaphysical problem of the guy buying a ring of land around the property of someone else).

The problem is if violence is introduced and property rights are no longer inviolable. I don't have a whole lot to answer to that, no one does. But I think the existence of people who are apparently content to live a life by the gun is no reason to submit or, worse, use this as an excuse to promote a government that imposes my beliefs on everyone else.

I think his belief system (he may dispute this descriptor) is naive. Life is about power. Power is about one person or group asserting their will upon others. Politics is a system to regulate the exercise of power. People with the beliefs of NL will be sidelined in the process. What to other people think?

As I've argued to NL in the past, I don't think (1) makes any sense (or, at least, says very much) within the framework of individual rights and freedom.

Most freedom in society is competitive: I want something, someone else wants something, we can't both have it. Whose (or which) freedom do we affirm? Simply advancing "freedom" doesn't answer that question--not, at least, until we take the step of conceiving of a collective freedom in which we are free to decide, as a society, the rules by which such disputes can be resolved.

1) Not practical.

2) Agree.

(1) is a meaningless statement. It is impossible to not be encroached upon by the needs/wants of others.

(2) is a true statement because it is also impossible to guarantee lack of offense.

What I don't get is how these two rules are supposed to work together or relate to each other in order to cover all possible conditions so as to be the only two rules one needs.

Too vague

NL is asserting that only two rules should apply:
1. Everyone should be free to live as they want (necessitating a right not to be encroached upon by the needs/wants of others).
So do many others, not just NL. Yes, what's the problem?

It's vague, but it's a principle, not a proposed law.


2. There is no such thing as a right not to be offended.
In a way, there is. When you see Goatse, you have two choices: be offended or not be offended.
But in application to rule 1, there isn't, because it's impossible to predict what would offend someone and what wouldn't.


Life is about power. Power is about one person or group asserting their will upon others.
Just because the Soviet Union had more power than certain democratic countries, doesn't mean they were right. As Korea has proven, the Soviets (NK) were wrong, and the US (SK) right.
So, just because IRL people, particularly successfully third world dictators, constantly assert their will upon others, doesn't mean we should support it.

...Just because the Soviet Union had more power than certain democratic countries, doesn't mean they were right. As Korea has proven, the Soviets (NK) were wrong, and the US (SK) right.
So, just because IRL people, particularly successfully third world dictators, constantly assert their will upon others, doesn't mean we should support it.

Although I would agree with your judgement about the Soviet Union, your judgement is subjective. Neu Leonstein is claiming that his principles are objective.

Further, in the end, the Soviet Union collapsed because forces within Russia, led by Boris Yeltsin, gained the upper hand in the scramble for power.

Anyway, getting back to Neu Leonstein, the corollary of his argument, and he states it explicitly at times, is that, if a law doesn't meet his two principles, then he feels no obligation to abide by it.

As Korea has proven, the Soviets (NK) were wrong, and the US (SK) right.

Korea hasn't proved anything of the kind.


In response to the OP: The 'two rules' are very useful. If you are Neu Leonstein. They're (unfortunately) useless for the purpose for which they are allegedly intended, though.

...In response to the OP: The 'two rules' are very useful. If you are Neu Leonstein. They're (unfortunately) useless for the purpose for which they are allegedly intended, though.

Yes, indeed. He uses them frequently, hence they are useful.

Although I would agree with your judgement about the Soviet Union, your judgement is subjective. Neu Leonstein is claiming that his principles are objective.
Everything we know is subjective to some degree. GDP and HDI are two measures that at least come close to objectivity. And by these, the democratic world is far ahead.


Further, in the end, the Soviet Union collapsed because forces within Russia, led by Boris Yeltsin, gained the upper hand in the scramble for power.
Yeltsin came to an already economically dead country.


Anyway, getting back to Neu Leonstein, the corollary of his argument, and he states it explicitly at times, is that, if a law doesn't meet his two principles, then he feels no obligation to abide by it.
So do a lot of people. I can be careful not to get caught, but don't feel obliged in the slightest to abide by oppressive legislation.

As to why it is oppressive: Laws can, very broadly, have one of the two purposes: 1) Protect the rights of the people, 2) Oppress people. An example of former is property laws, of the latter censorship and prohibitionism.

I have disagreed with with NL's assertion that his system doesn't necessarily require the imposition of certain beliefs on people who disagree with them. It most certainly does. Take for example: a green libertarian who claims ownership over a virgin forest to protect it for ecological friendly reasons. A Lockean libertarian comes along and sees the virgin forest as unowned land, since ownership is conferred by mixing labor with natural material, and proceeds mix his labor with 20% of the forest. The two claim mutually exclusive property rights over the same area. In Libertarian Land a minarchist state or private security firms will solve the dilemma with enforcement being backed up by men with guns.

As to why it is oppressive: Laws can, very broadly, have one of the two purposes: 1) Protect the rights of the people, 2) Oppress people. An example of former is property laws, of the latter censorship and prohibitionism.

True, but demonstrating which rights are the correct ones is impossible. What looks like protecting the rights of people for some looks like opression to others.

The two rules would be useful in select places like Galt's Gultch.


Korea hasn't proved anything of the kind.

North and South Korea ≈ West and East Germany

I have disagreed with with NL's assertion that his system doesn't necessarily require the imposition of certain beliefs on people who disagree with them. It most certainly does. Take for example: a green libertarian who claims ownership over a virgin forest to protect it for ecological friendly reasons. A Lockean libertarian comes along and sees the virgin forest as unowned land, since ownership is conferred by mixing labor with natural material, and proceeds mix his labor with 20% of the forest.
That's not exactly libertarianism. In all but the purely anarchist or most leftist interpretations (which are more along the lines of non-oppressive communism), property rights aren't claimed or asserted, they simply are. The owner of the forest is the one who is recorded in the books as the owner.


True, but demonstrating which rights are the correct ones is impossible. What looks like protecting the rights of people for some looks like opression to others.
It's easier than it seems. Rights in libertarianism are what is called "negative" rights; most "positive rights" are not included.

Thus, for instance, the right to privacy exists, and "protecting the rights" by tracking people via police cameras is its violation.

That's not exactly libertarianism. In all but the purely anarchist or most leftist interpretations (which are more along the lines of non-oppressive communism), property rights aren't claimed or asserted, they simply are. The owner of the forest is the one who is recorded in the books as the owner.

Actually to to libertarians who believe in natural rights whoever is recorded in the book is irrelevant since the owner listed in the books may or may not be the legitimate owner.

]It's easier than it seems. Rights in libertarianism are what is called "negative" rights; most "positive rights" are not included.

Thus, for instance, the right to privacy exists, and "protecting the rights" by tracking people via police cameras is its violation.

Prove it.

Let me present a RL dilemma that has actually exercised me in my RL job.

A child molester finishes their prison sentence and moves across the road from a family with a child. The molester has a history of recidivism and is listed on the sexual offender's register. (In Victoria, only police have access to the register - so they can monitor the former offenders.) The molester befriends the child. A policeman illegally informs the mother that her neighbour is on the register. The mother freaks. She wants the former offender locked up.

So, Vault 10, please sort all this out in terms of positive and negative rights of: the former offender, the child, the mother and the policeman. Whose rights take precedence?

Prove it.
Axioms don't require proof, nor can they proven. Natural rights are axiomatic.


A child molester finishes their prison sentence and moves across the road from a family with a child. The molester has a history of recidivism and is listed on the sexual offender's register. (In Victoria, only police have access to the register - so they can monitor the former offenders.) The molester befriends the child. A policeman illegally informs the mother that her neighbour is on the register. The mother freaks. She wants the former offender locked up.

So, Vault 10, please sort all this out in terms of positive and negative rights of: the former offender, the child, the mother and the policeman. Whose rights take precedence?
Well, it's pretty simple.
If it's legal for the former convict to befriend the child:

Right to perceived security (mother's) - Positive right, low priority.
Right to freedom (former convict's) - Negative right, takes precedence.

Now, if the terms of offender's release involve no contact with children, that's a contractual obligation. Since the obligation has been offered as a part of conditions for release, it supersedes the right to freedom in the current rights system.

Axioms don't require proof, nor can they proven. Natural rights are axiomatic.

Your axioms are wrong.

Edit: Do you see my point? People believe in axioms that are mutually exclusive with the axioms of other people. Since axioms are unprovable we're kinda fucked.

Axioms don't require proof, nor can they proven. Natural rights are axiomatic.



Well, it's pretty simple.
If it's legal for the former convict to befriend the child:

Right to perceived security (mother's) - Positive right, low priority.
Right to freedom (former convict's) - Negative right, takes precedence.

Now, if the terms of offender's release involve no contact with children, that's a contractual obligation. Since the obligation has been offered as a part of conditions for release, it supersedes the right to freedom in the current rights system.

Thanks. What about the child's rights. What about the policeman who broke the law?

Thanks. What about the child's rights. What about the policeman who broke the law?
The child's rights are two here:
1) Personal freedom (absolute negative rights) that allows him to meet with whomever he/she considers necessary.
2) A non-absolute positive right to security, as perceived. In this case, it doesn't apply if their relationship is voluntarily.

Of course, below a certain age there's also a question of age of consent, i.e. whether his decision is recognized. Although it doesn't change much. It would be a conflict point if the offender's terms of release forbade contact with children.


As for the policeman, his right to free speech is overridden by the contractual obligations of his security clearance or NDA. He broke the law which explicitly required him not to disclose the information.
I don't really see a dilemma here.

Your axioms are wrong.
Axioms can't be wrong or right. They define right and wrong.

Situations can match them or not. In this case, your morals don't fit with the axiom of natural human rights.


Edit: Do you see my point? People believe in axioms that are mutually exclusive with the axioms of other people.
That's why people have to agree on a few things they all believe in, and make them policy. And have a right to leave if they disagree.

The concept of natural human rights is the most universal one we can use as axiomatic.

Axioms can't be wrong or right. They define right and wrong.

Untrue. Axioms can be wrong or right in the sense of being true or false.

Situations can match them or not. In this case, your morals don't fit with the axiom of natural human rights.

Also false. Natural human rights covers any number of mutually exclusive axioms. There is no way to prove which ones, if any, are the correct ones.


That's why people have to agree on a few things they all believe in, and make them policy. And have a right to leave if they disagree.

So does that mean taxation isn't theft as long as one can emigrate?

The concept of natural human rights is the most universal one we can use as axiomatic.

And its one of the most disputed group of axioms ever when it comes to specific rights unless there very abstract such as don't murder, murder being illegitimate killing, or theft, which implies but does not define legitimate property rights.

Untrue. Axioms can be wrong or right in the sense of being true or false.
The axiom that any two points can only be connected by a single straight line applies on a flat surface, but doesn't apply on a spherical one.

It's not the axiom that's true or false, but spaces that are defined by their sets of axioms. If you postulate as an axiom that a square has no corners, then the square becomes a shape without corners.


Also false. Natural human rights covers any number of mutually exclusive axioms. There is no way to prove which ones, if any, are the correct ones.
It's not something that should be "proven". Axioms aren't subject to being proven, they're subject to being set. So it's something that should be established. By a constitution, for instance.


So does that mean taxation isn't theft as long as one can emigrate?
Taxation is theft and extortion as long as the taxed populace doesn't agree to it contractually. If they do, said contract surrenders their right to a set amount of private property.

The legitimacy of an implied agreement to a contract defined by the place of birth is questionable.

The child's rights are two here:
1) Personal freedom (absolute negative rights) that allows him to meet with whomever he/she considers necessary.
2) A non-absolute positive right to security, as perceived. In this case, it doesn't apply if their relationship is voluntarily.

Of course, below a certain age there's also a question of age of consent, i.e. whether his decision is recognized. Although it doesn't change much. It would be a conflict point if the offender's terms of release forbade contact with children...

I don't know the offender's terms of release so let's concentrate on the child.

I have had a couple of full-on arguments with the MP I work for on this issue. Essentially I've taken your point of view, without the negative/positive/absolute/relative terminology you use.

It's a very emotional subject. The MP, a mother of two young children, is completely on the other mother's side. She would happily lock up the former offender and throw away the key. She believes that the child's safety is absolutely paramount and that the gravity of the offender's crimes takes away any rights they may have had. I suspect that if it were subject to public opinion then my MP would have the majority on her side.

The axiom that any two points can only be connected by a single straight line applies on a flat surface, but doesn't apply on a spherical one.

Except this is more like one person saying above while another saying the opposite. Given that they are mutually exclusive only one can be true.

It's not the axiom that's true or false, but spaces that are defined by their sets of axioms. If you postulate as an axiom that a square has no corners, then the square becomes a shape without corners.

Again, its more like one person saying a square has four corners and another says it has none. Since they are talking about it in the same sense only one can be true since they contradict each other.

It's not something that should be "proven". Axioms aren't subject to being proven, they're subject to being set. So it's something that should be established. By a constitution, for instance.

Axioms are supposed to be true or false. When people talk about mutually exclusive first principles of the same reality only one can be true.

Taxation is theft and extortion as long as the taxed populace doesn't agree to it contractually. If they do, said contract surrenders their right to a set amount of private property.

The legitimacy of an implied agreement to a contract defined by the place of birth is questionable.

How is it theft? Either taxation is agreed to by implicit consent or all property rights are theft given that no mutually agreed property rights exist anywhere to my recollection.

Except this is more like one person saying above while another saying the opposite. Given that they are mutually exclusive only one can be true.
Then the another gets to leave the country, that's it. What other solution is there?


How is it theft? Either taxation is agreed to by implicit consent or all property rights are theft given that no mutually agreed property rights exist anywhere to my recollection.
Read my post:
Taxation is theft and extortion as long as the taxed populace doesn't agree to it contractually.

As I've said, the validity of contract implied by birth is questionable. But it can easily be an explicit one.

Then the another gets to leave the country, that's it. What other solution is there?

One could try to convince other that one's axioms are the correct ones. Other than that not much.

Read my post:
Taxation is theft and extortion as long as the taxed populace doesn't agree to it contractually.

As I've said, the validity of contract implied by birth is questionable. But it can easily be an explicit one.

I know. One could say that all property rights are invalid unless agreed to contractually. What would a valid contract be like? If the government kicked out all who didn't sign the contract would that be a valid contract? Why or why not?

I think his belief system (he may dispute this descriptor) is naive. Life is about power. Power is about one person or group asserting their will upon others. Politics is a system to regulate the exercise of power. People with the beliefs of NL will be sidelined in the process. What to other people think?
It is naive and it is idealistic. I never said otherwise, and I'm not one of those who think there is any chance of it happening. But that doesn't mean that they aren't principles that are worth promoting.

Most freedom in society is competitive: I want something, someone else wants something, we can't both have it. Whose (or which) freedom do we affirm?
Property rights sort that problem out though. They very clearly define a person who would be doing the taking, and another who would be taken from.

The question is: how does one gain the property right to something, and you know my view on that as I do yours.

Simply advancing "freedom" doesn't answer that question--not, at least, until we take the step of conceiving of a collective freedom in which we are free to decide, as a society, the rules by which such disputes can be resolved.
I really don't think such a thing as collective freedom could possibly exist. To me it just sounds like an excuse to gain power over others.

Too vague
That's kinda the point. I don't want to tell anyone what to believe, what to do or how to do it. The rules themselves aren't vague, they're pretty clear-cut. But the world they prescribe could be anything to anyone.

Yes, indeed. He uses them frequently, hence they are useful.
They're the best effort I've been able to come up with so far to bring everything I know under one roof without contradictions. As such they're the only sane alternative to "might makes right", which in itself is an insane idea to hold on to.

Take for example: a green libertarian who claims ownership over a virgin forest to protect it for ecological friendly reasons. A Lockean libertarian comes along and sees the virgin forest as unowned land, since ownership is conferred by mixing labor with natural material, and proceeds mix his labor with 20% of the forest.
The motives for which someone claims ownership aren't really important. The green libertarian is more than welcome to own a forest and leave it as it is, but he needs to go through a process of securing ownership first. He can build a fence around it, he can work and buy the property right from the rest of the community (ie pay them not to trespass) or any other number of things that in effect combine his labour with this piece of land. He doesn't necessarily have to physically alter it.

The two rules would be useful in select places like Galt's Gultch.
And Galt's Gulch is a utopian fantasy. But the reason everyone there was free to seek happiness was because of these two rules.

Since axioms are unprovable we're kinda fucked.
Axioms have a definition. And by definition, it's not really possible to disagree about them.

It's a very emotional subject. The MP, a mother of two young children, is completely on the other mother's side. She would happily lock up the former offender and throw away the key. She believes that the child's safety is absolutely paramount and that the gravity of the offender's crimes takes away any rights they may have had. I suspect that if it were subject to public opinion then my MP would have the majority on her side.
Yes, you're entirely correct. But that doesn't justify any infringement on the rights of the molester.

We don't get to pick who else gets to live, and where. We only get to pick where we live and how.

I would agree with #2, but while I wouldn't necessarily argue against #1 I don't agree with it either.

As to why it is oppressive: Laws can, very broadly, have one of the two purposes: 1) Protect the rights of the people, 2) Oppress people. An example of former is property laws, of the latter censorship and prohibitionism.Property laws can absolutely be used to oppress people.

I don't know the offender's terms of release so let's concentrate on the child.
It's not about the child really, but about the penalty.


It's a very emotional subject. [...] She would happily lock up the former offender and throw away the key. She believes that the child's safety is absolutely paramount and that the gravity of the offender's crimes takes away any rights they may have had. I suspect that if it were subject to public opinion then my MP would have the majority on her side.
It's not about child safety. Basically, she's arguing for DP or LS for sex crimes. That's it.

...Yes, you're entirely correct. But that justify any infringement on the rights of the molester.

We don't get to pick who else gets to live, and where. We only get to pick where we live and how.

Did you leave a word out of that sentence?

The motives for which someone claims ownership aren't really important. The green libertarian is more than welcome to own a forest and leave it as it is, but he needs to go through a process of securing ownership first. He can build a fence around it, he can work and buy the property right from the rest of the community (ie pay them not to trespass) or any other number of things that in effect combine his labour with this piece of land. He doesn't necessarily have to physically alter it.

The motives weren't meant to be important. What was important was that people, including different types of libertarians, have different ideas of legitimate property rights. The green libertarian does not, in my example, think acquiring property from unowned natural resources requires the mixing of labor, and even if one believes that what constitutes mixing labor? If I build a fence around the forest does that I mean I own the forest or just the ground under the fence. Bribing others to stay off a piece of land counting as mixing labor seems pretty far fetched to me particularly since people didn't recognize the green's right to the forest in the first place.

Take another example: Austrian school libertarians think that IP laws for patents and copyright are examples of rent seeking monopolists. Randian libertarians on the other hand usually call unlicensed use of their IP, theft. Hilarity ensues if when engaging in an argument they call the other side a bunch of collectivists. *has seen this here and on a couple other forums*

Axioms have a definition. And by definition, it's not really possible to disagree about them.

I know. Of course it doesn't stop axioms from being mutually exclusive.

Property laws can absolutely be used to oppress people.
The fact that they can be used to result in oppressive behavior doesn't make them oppressive per se, as they serve a legitimate purpose of protecting property rights.

But prohibition laws, for instance, don't serve any other purpose than to restrict freedom.

I know. One could say that all property rights are invalid unless agreed to contractually.
Yes.

What would a valid contract be like? If the government kicked out all who didn't sign the contract would that be a valid contract? Why or why not?
Depends. Technically, if all the land is government's property, it has the right not to admit there anyone who doesn't agree to a contract of its whim.

To extend that to the private property of the citizens, it has to be less than completely private property, i.e. under dual ownership. This is the case with "private" property IRL, its "owners" don't really own it in full, only have certain rights to it. On pure private property, government would have no power.

In a system where private ownership of land is possible, ideally, the contract for taxation should be explicit. It's not all that hard really. And since it would be virtually impossible to live in the country without said contract, it's pretty much obligatory.

There's also an alternate view that the government shouldn't have the right to collect taxes, but rather should hold default ownership to land and/or resources, and raise funds by selling/renting them to individuals.

There's also an alternate view that the government shouldn't have the right to collect taxes, but rather should hold default ownership to land and/or resources, and raise funds by selling/renting them to individuals.

It's an...interesting theory, but one that's fairly absurd.

Depends. Technically, if all the land is government's property, it has the right not to admit there anyone who doesn't agree to a contract of its whim.

To extend that to the private property of the citizens, it has to be less than completely private property, i.e. under dual ownership. This is the case with "private" property IRL, its "owners" don't really own it in full, only have certain rights to it. On pure private property, government would have no power.

In a system where private ownership of land is possible, ideally, the contract for taxation should be explicit. It's not all that hard really. And since it would be virtually impossible to live in the country without said contract, it's pretty much obligatory.


I don't see pure private ownership and some kind of state/government existing given that by definition the state reserves the authority to regulate property rights within its territory.


There's also an alternate view that the government shouldn't have the right to collect taxes, but rather should hold default ownership to land and/or resources, and raise funds by selling/renting them to individuals.

I know, though the justification for the above is generally similar to some justifications for taxation, thus its often pretty flimsy given its axioms.

It's an...interesting theory, but one that's fairly absurd.
It's effectively land tax, only more market-based.


I don't see pure private ownership and some kind of state/government existing given that by definition the state reserves the authority to regulate property rights within its territory.
Regulate the property rights, yes. But according to the constitution, not on a whim.

And constitutionally, the role of state can be reduced to just that and arbitrage. I.e. where the government only serves to protect the property and contractual rights. It's basically the concept of anarcho-capitalism.

Regulate the property rights, yes. But according to the constitution, not on a whim.

It depends on the constitution and how effective the constitutions enforcement mechanisms are.

And constitutionally, the role of state can be reduced to just that and arbitrage. I.e. where the government only serves to protect the property and contractual rights. It's basically the concept of anarcho-capitalism.

In anarcho-capitalism market forces and social convention determine property rights, unlike most places where its government plus social conventions. Not quite the same thing. Also, I don't find it likely that any libertarian state would stay libertarian for long, either the constitution would be amended or the constitution would be interpreted more and more loosely.

Did you leave a word out of that sentence?
I did. Guess which one. :wink:

The motives weren't meant to be important. What was important was that people, including different types of libertarians, have different ideas of legitimate property rights.
They do, but that doesn't imply that they're all valid. Some people seem to believe that there exists a right to something by "virtue" of needing it.

The point is that any such rights can't be enforced without taking from others against their will. If a "property right" requires that you take my stuff and therefore interfere with my ability to live my life as I see fit, then it's not really a right.

It's the same for the green vs the Lockean. For this green's right to the forest to exist, it seems to me like a perfectly reasonable thing to look for the connection between the forest and the person. That means the labour applied in order to secure it and make it scarce or unique in some way. Once he's done that, the Lockean can't claim it for himself, and wouldn't. But had the green not applied any labour to substantiate a property claim, then all this claim consists of is an "I want" - an imposition on others, or a right not to be offended by the interference of others with nature.

And you can extend the same logic to IP for that matter. One can apply one's labour and brains (the two are never distinct from one another) to something and sell it on. The new owner can do whatever he wants with this thing, including taking it apart and trying to replicate it. That doesn't interfere with the original creator in any way. On the other hand, if the person was to break into the inventor's home to steal or photograph the blueprints, that would be a different matter.

Does that mean IP rights can never exist? Of course not, because beyond the two rules people are of course free to make up additional rules. It's only important that the two are never broken, that is any additional laws are never enforced on those who don't want them. I have enough faith in the ability of people to resolve their differences to be able to form separate communities together with the people they get on with, protected from each other by property rights.

I know. Of course it doesn't stop axioms from being mutually exclusive.
Of course it does. If an axiom is actually axiomatic, it's not possible for anyone not to accept it. To use an age-old example: if A is A, then no one can possibly disagree, because in order to say "A is B" one must first use the concept "A" and therefore invoke the axiom. And unless the world itself is contradictory (which I have a hard time believing) no two axioms can ever contradict each other.

It depends on the constitution and how effective the constitutions enforcement mechanisms are.
That is technical issues. For theoretical purposes, assume fully effective.


Also, I don't find it likely that any libertarian state would stay libertarian for long, either the constitution would be amended or the constitution would be interpreted more and more loosely.
If it was created today out of a random group of people? Yes.

Social concepts don't change overnight. A few centuries ago, the notion of regarding n-ggers as humans was ridiculous. Today the opposite notion is ridiculous.

That is not to say the world is moving towards libertarianism; on the contrary, freedoms are increasingly being stripped away from the people. But the reverse movement is not theoretically impossible, it would just require a change in culture.

The point is that any such rights can't be enforced without taking from others against their will. If a "property right" requires that you take my stuff and therefore interfere with my ability to live my life as I see fit, then it's not really a right.

That invalidates all forms of libertarianism that have a tax funded state. If to enforce your rights to property why do I have to pay for the police to enforce said rights?


It's the same for the green vs the Lockean. For this green's right to the forest to exist, it seems to me like a perfectly reasonable thing to look for the connection between the forest and the person. That means the labour applied in order to secure it and make it scarce or unique in some way. Once he's done that, the Lockean can't claim it for himself, and wouldn't. But had the green not applied any labour to substantiate a property claim, then all this claim consists of is an "I want" - an imposition on others, or a right not to be offended by the interference of others with nature.

Actually all it requires is a Nozickean lockean proviso, not just an I want, and I don't see labor to secure an illegitimate property right as being true mixing especially when to Lockeans mixing generally means developing property rather than letting it stay fallow.

And you can extend the same logic to IP for that matter. One can apply one's labour and brains (the two are never distinct from one another) to something and sell it on. The new owner can do whatever he wants with this thing, including taking it apart and trying to replicate it. That doesn't interfere with the original creator in any way. On the other hand, if the person was to break into the inventor's home to steal or photograph the blueprints, that would be a different matter.

Why would one have to accept that logic? To hardcore Randians or anyone else who believes in IP replicating it would be a violation of property rights.

Does that mean IP rights can never exist? Of course not, because beyond the two rules people are of course free to make up additional rules. It's only important that the two are never broken, that is any additional laws are never enforced on those who don't want them. I have enough faith in the ability of people to resolve their differences to be able to form separate communities together with the people they get on with, protected from each other by property rights.

Which property rights? What if some people disagree with them? How isn't that enforcing some people's beliefs on others?


Of course it does. If an axiom is actually axiomatic, it's not possible for anyone not to accept it. To use an age-old example: if A is A, then no one can possibly disagree, because in order to say "A is B" one must first use the concept "A" and therefore invoke the axiom. And unless the world itself is contradictory (which I have a hard time believing) no two axioms can ever contradict each other.

It doesn't always work that way. See multi valued logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-valued_logic) and Some controversies in logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic#Bivalence_and_the_law_of_the_excluded_middle). Also this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism).

That's not exactly libertarianism. In all but the purely anarchist or most leftist interpretations (which are more along the lines of non-oppressive communism), property rights aren't claimed or asserted, they simply are.
There's a long history of non-anarchist/non-left justification of property rights.

Just because the Soviet Union had more power than certain democratic countries, doesn't mean they were right.
I don't see how you can say the above, then go on to say:
As Korea has proven, the Soviets (NK) were wrong, and the US (SK) right.

The fact that they can be used to result in oppressive behavior doesn't make them oppressive per se, as they serve a legitimate purpose of protecting property rights.
You're begging the question here; assuming property rights to be non-coercive.

Here's a paper on mutually exclusive and mutually inconsistent mathematical axioms (http://catb.org/~esr/writings/utility-of-math/)

Some people seem to believe that there exists a right to something by "virtue" of needing it.

The point is that any such rights can't be enforced without taking from others against their will. If a "property right" requires that you take my stuff and therefore interfere with my ability to live my life as I see fit, then it's not really a right

Property rights define which stuff is yours - so if it requires that I take "your" stuff, it's not your stuff but mine.

Also, the property rights of others interfere with my ability to live my life as I see fit (for example I'd really like to use a car currently owned by someone else, but they won't let me). So all property rights are not really rights?

Property is not a natural aspect of the universe, but something that was invented because it was convenient (I imagine caveman A got tired of B eating the food A caught every time A went to the bathroom). To what extent something becomes yours because of your work, and what exactly is included in that something, is all a matter of convenience, and people disagree on what is most convenient.

For example, one person might say that under all circumstances it is OK to shoot someone who steps on land clearly marked as yours without asking first, whereas another would say there are circumstances under which you must allow another to pass over your property at no cost and at any time.
I think the latter is right - otherwise, what if I buy all the land around your house? Do I get to shoot you if you try to leave without my permission? EDIT oops shouldn't have speed-read the OP, now it looks as if I'm being unoriginal

So you see, making property rights (or any type of rights for that matter) absolute can be very unhealthy and unreasonable. EDIT There are plenty of other ways to abuse property rights other than the ring of land trick. Pretty much everything that is referred to as a monopoly. Unfortunately opinions differ about what is and isn't abuse of monopoly - the ring of land is just the most obvious and therefore easiest to use in debates.

With property rights not being absolute, there is nothing against involuntary taxes, as long as they are spent in a sensible way. Unfortunately people will always disagree about what is "sensible", but that doesn't mean the ideology that can be summarized as "hey, let's all become antisocial" is right just because through making rights absolute it leaves less room for disagreement.

To respond to the OP:

1 - Not possible. Nobody is ever going to agree about what exactly makes something belong to one person and not another.

2 - Sure there is a right not to be offended. That doesn't mean people are always going to respect it. Very much like property rights :) .

As I've said, the validity of contract implied by birth is questionable. But it can easily be an explicit one.

Irrelevant.

If you keep staying, you've consented.

That was YOUR model.

North and South Korea ≈ West and East Germany

Err... you noticed that, huh?

:rolleyes:

The fact that they can be used to result in oppressive behavior doesn't make them oppressive per se, as they serve a legitimate purpose of protecting property rights....
Of course, property rights serve the purpose of protecting property rights.
And while the intention of creating property rights might not be to oppress people, that is inevitably the result (for better or worse).

But prohibition laws, for instance, don't serve any other purpose than to restrict freedom.Or, alternatively, they provide people with freedom from imposition by drunk people.

They do, but that doesn't imply that they're all valid. Some people seem to believe that there exists a right to something by "virtue" of needing it.There is; indeed, need is the basic source of rights.

It's the same for the green vs the Lockean. For this green's right to the forest to exist, it seems to me like a perfectly reasonable thing to look for the connection between the forest and the person. That means the labour applied in order to secure it and make it scarce or unique in some way. Once he's done that, the Lockean can't claim it for himself, and wouldn't. But had the green not applied any labour to substantiate a property claim, then all this claim consists of is an "I want" - an imposition on others, or a right not to be offended by the interference of others with nature.Not at all.
If nobody has the right to touch the forest, then the aims of the green - that the forest remain untouched - are reached.
Of course, you could argue that if something is unowned, that you have the right to touch it, but that would require greater justification than the mere fact that it is unowned.

Of course it does. If an axiom is actually axiomatic, it's not possible for anyone not to accept it. To use an age-old example: if A is A, then no one can possibly disagree, because in order to say "A is B" one must first use the concept "A" and therefore invoke the axiom. And unless the world itself is contradictory (which I have a hard time believing) no two axioms can ever contradict each other.Perhaps two axioms cannot contradict each other, but an axiom can contradict with reality.

Property rights sort that problem out though. They very clearly define a person who would be doing the taking, and another who would be taken from.

No, they don't: you still haven't given us a standard by which to decide which set of property rights to adopt.

The point is not, "Socialist or capitalist?", the point is, how do we decide--and how can we justify coercing others into respecting the rules?

I really don't think such a thing as collective freedom could possibly exist.

It's impossible to make decisions as a group? It's impossible for such decisions to ever be reflective of the wills of the people within the group?

In answer to the title: "Yes."

1. A bit vague, but overall, I agree.

2. Yeah.

1. Everyone should be free to live as they want (necessitating a right not to be encroached upon by the needs/wants of others).

I wish

2. There is no such thing as a right not to be offended.

I've never understood that. What does that mean?

I probably just don't understand it's underlying meaning.