Topic: Libertarians and gun rights activits here is how the rest of the world sees you - page 2. (Read 3830 times)

Oh come on you can do better than quoting phrases.

Leaving land empty for the ecosystem isn't utilization. Nature exists independently of human society and I find the "necessity" to "own" unoccupied land disgusting. It's not up to me to judge that, right, this decision has to make everybody themselves.

When it comes down to it every instance of ownership is related to the application of power, be it aggressive or defensive if not directly indirectly through past claims. And it is maintained by the application of power. (Why do you think fences are so popular)
Yes there are better and worse types of utilization for a type of resource. If you take the squatter example the squatters think that the land is better utilized they will make use of it on their own authority. Whatever authority an investor claims to have will not matter to them. Other squatters would need to share the resource or go somewhere else if the resource is too scare. Under this definition application of power is justified by the utilization and the need for that utilization. And since the squatters have greater need for a place to stay than the investor has for a park squatters win under anarchist rule of law.

Yeah, lots of gun rights activists are backwards wingnuts from Texas.

You realize that that is just a modern take on the original Texas state flag?
Read up on why Texas is a state

You are again confusing ownership with consumption (or utilization if you will). It is not necessary to own something in order to make use of it, it's just more or less the status quo in our capitalist society,
The great difference is ownership does not require utilization. Mind you my critique of Libertarianism comes from a classical Anarchist perspective.
I have chosen this perspective to highlight the discrepancies between Libertarianism and  Anarchism which it is claimed to be related to.

I propose that Libertarianism is more related to Neoliberalism and I even think it's the same thing, just radicalized.
From a Statist perspective lawful ownership is only possible because the monopoly of force, and I tend to agree with that. The Market can not provide an environment where ownership which is unrelated to utilization is possible.
For instance it would not be possible to invest in real estate and keeping it empty for later appreciation in value. In an Anarchist society no force would prevent squatters to occupying it without ownership.

I think that in an Anarchist society ownership would just mean utilization and nothing more.

Uh yeah The Market... much like the Ferengi Material Continuum sounds like an esoteric concept to me .

You are using a capitalist terminology here, just like I have previously excluded. But even if you didn't mean to and mean the social exchange of things and actions by which by Libertarian definition we participate if we like it or not.  (Much like the Continuum )
From the classical Anarchist point of view you just admitted to my point. From the Libertarian perspective the authority over property doesn't need justification because the Invisible Hand Of The Free Market will correct any injustice. Even if that were true (which I highly object against) you can't justify the claim of Authority with it just the happenstance of that property.

Ok, fine 
I'll get back at you this evening.

The thread was originally planned as me posting funny pictures about the topic but it turned out to be heavily debated which is fine, just unexpected. And I like a good debate

It's a start. But getting people to agree on something is hardly a proper justification. History has shown that people will agree to lots of things many of which we currently see as unjustified if they are coerced enough.

I guess the joke is on me since the guy who's unwilling or unable to give me a proper debate is Butthurt I deleted his post and you delete all your posts anyway and I can't really debate you that way either.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/electricmucus-so-afraid-of-admitting-fallibility-deletes-comment-instead-366520

Try again. Discussion is not allowed to continue until I get a proper response to my arguments.

Hint: My authority is granted by the forum and the fact that I came up with the thread, however I do not own it.

As previously said, I often read from the Libertarian standpoint that property supposed to be either a) natural or b) a "god-given" right or a mixture of both.
Analogies like "two people can't eat the same apple" are used.

When it comes down to it I have seen no proper justification for the authority to claim property at all. What I often see is muddling property with consumption (which is justified by need).
I have not seen any proper justification for the authority over ownership of land for instance, you might start with that if you don't know where to start. If you know better it's fine if you start somewhere else.

Ok so I would love to talk with you about this it is one of my favorite topics but before we move onto a new topic i need to make sure that the previous one is settled. Do you believe that i have made a convincing argument for how your previous statement with regards to whether libertarians believe that property ownership must be justified was incorrect? Not meaning anything rude by it, i often myself find that i have said things that are incorrect, i just want to be clear.

tip: Ownership can't be justified with a circular argument - as such not by any term used in describing capitalism.

But lets assume you are right and I haven't researched your position: Then I should be baffled by a fitting explanation of that position by you.
Yes just write it down in your own words and lets see where it leads us.

They have absolutely zero legal power within any community, Muslim or otherwise.

Whatever we think about them is irrelevant. The fact is that they have real legal power within the muslim communities - which are growing every day.

Keep in mind this is not the first time the english have been displaced. It happened about a thousand years ago when the vikings invaded and took over. Blood mixed, and the result is what we now know as brits. Language also mixed, with the result being what we now know as english.

History repeats itself. Trouble is, most people don't actually believe it does. We can discuss this again in 50 years. I'm done with it for now.

As nwbitcoin said, Sharia courts aren't in any way legitimate. They're literally pretend courts with make-believe verdicts and hold zero power. In fact, I or anybody else could create a court and it'd have the exact same legal powers as Sharia ones: None.

You're not one of those Immigration is White Genocide people, are you? The UK population is almost 70% White and Muslims make up a mere 5%.

What brand of tin foil do you use? ;-)

Firstly, caring as in professionally looking after people is a low wage economy kind of thing - not a job to aspire to so nobody wants to do it. That is where robots kick ass! Otherwise, we should ban pneumatic diggers, and employ hundreds of people to dig holes using spoons if jobs is the only thing that counts!

The irony of your sentence talking about technology destroying the bond between people written on an Internet forum where people chat but never meet in real life is almost beyond words!

Finally, a lower fertility is advancement, and the sign of a mature country.  Most European countries have a negative natural population - especially Germany - the most advanced country being Japan.  Statistically, we will see the population of the Earth dropping within the next 200 years as we get to a point where we don't need as many people to keep the species going.

The problem of immigration is a different issue for a different forum, although I can totally guarantee that while there are a lot of non British born people in London, they are not the majority and Sharia courts are not legal.  In fact a few nut jobs who were trying to set up Sharia areas in East London were jailed a week or so ago for spreading religious hate - The UK may not be Christian like the US, but it certainly isn't for any other religion either! ;-)

I like libertarians but they are so easily manipulated. Look at gmo labeling. Suddenly Monsanto was libertarian.

I used to say to them 'you never kicked up this stick over "may contain traces of peanuts"' - drove them mad.

what??? perhaps we are wrong about what does and does not justify acquisition, but your claim that we do not believe that property ownership must be justified is prima facie ridiculous. we are CONSTANTLY debating ad nausium amongst each other about what does and does not justify acquisition. If you actually believe that we do not believe that property ownership must be justified than you clearly have made very little effort to understand our position.

That's such a terrible option that I totally forgot about it.

It's not just the daily laundry and butt wiping that takes money, it's also medicine and actual medics to treat them. As the number of tax payers to tax receivers shrinks cuts will have to be made everywhere and taxation increased to cover rising costs in spite of inferior service.

Another problem with the robot revolution is that it takes away jobs from people. They will then have to find other work if they can, or go on the public teat further increasing public expenses. Using robots and automation in general instead of real humans also destroys the bonds between people. They become names on a screen instead of real humans, leading to an unemphatic society where people just don't care about eachother because their social interactions are limited. This is already happening in socialist utopias around the world.

And ultimately the real problem is the fertility level. Anything below 2.1 means the country is, in the most literal terms, dying. This is often coupled with massively increased immigration, which will eventually displace the native population. Look to England for fucks sake, they have Sharia courts that are fully legitimate and London has a minority of brits at this point.