Topic: Private school is child slavery!!! - page 7. (Read 8717 times)

Where I live, all land is owned by the state. I guess this must be illegitimate ownership.

What if the dictator sells all the land to his nephew. Is that a voluntary transaction? Does it become an 'AnCap' state by virtue of this 'privatization'.

The nephew says "Well, before the state owned the land [of course, this is true of all land everywhere at some point]. Now I bought the land in a voluntary transaction. So all the land is mine. States are illegitimate. I am a good AnCap. So we are dissolving the state. Now you can give me all your property too and I will fuck your wives. There were laws against this before, but that was theft. So we are dissolving those. So pony up, or vote with your feet. You can make a swim for an illegitimate state if you like, but please don't trespass on my land or I will have to respond to your violence with my own violence. Let's keep our txns voluntary, m'kay?"

So the dictator's nephew is all good in AnCap circles? This becomes the first truly legitimate state feifdom [states are never legitimate slipped up there]? I think the dictator may be looking for new ideological consultants. He has a serious demand for democracy problem which you might be able to fix. Can I help you submit a resume?

Best minute of my day so far! (Considering that it started with a little baby Linda Blair moment, that's not a high bar, but still.)

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC4QtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DIeTybKL1pM4&ei=i0uqUPOPLIeO8wStqoDADA&usg=AFQjCNEDg7_ap8otqvRJxjUWZn4Bw2kP7g

That's what copies can do...

Very deep, very Zen. Unfortunately, also very flawed. If I come and take your stereo, you still have that idea, but I have your stereo. If I copy your book, we both have the book, and we both have the idea.

hmm. well in some ways I suppose they are slaves to their social status. I have had a student suffer a  nervous breakdown at the thought of having to go to Yale. Her family has gone to Harvard for over 100 years and the shame of going to Yale was just too much. Very sad. 

They have earned some very gilded cages; but, dammit, they are slaves without the liberating childhood or taxpayer funded public education!

LOL. I had no idea that I have been working at a child slavery institution. Considering their parents paid $90k for a sixth grade education we will surely be profitable renting them out as slaves. Many of my former slaves are now at elite universities around the world. Presumably working the fields until their Oxford degree comes through.

"Intellectual property" isn't property. You can't own an idea.

Yeah, I almost choked on my morning coffee on that one.  Copyright is, by it's very root definition, a limited term monopoly on the "right" to copy an intellectual work.  It's not even a monopoly arising from market forces (if such a think could really exist) without the intervention of governments that grant and support said monopoly.  Ayn Rand was not a libertarian.  Neither is Glenn Beck.

No.

By purchasing it in a voluntary transaction.

No.

I thought that would have been obvious, since it's right there in the statement... But Statism is brain damage, so I guess I shouldn't expect too much from you guys.

By purchasing it in a voluntary transaction.

Rip van Whitehorse was "less ridiculous"? OK. Sure.

... Are you actually claiming that AnCaps would be pro IP? I assure you we are not, and those few libertarians who are, haven't examined that part of their philosophy very well. IP law is an attempt to create artificial scarcity where there is none - in information. and since it requires government force to make it stick, no AnCap is going to support it. AnCap is not "fascism in disguise," you're confusing AnCap with American conservatism. We're not the republican party, no matter how much you would like to put us on that tidy little left-right line.

As for "might is right," How is AnCap, a system based on the philosophy that no person has the right to initiate the use of force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property "might is right," when Democracy, a system based on "there are more of us, so we get to force our opinions on you" and government itself, a system based on "we have the guns, so we have the power," are not?

Do you feel the cognitive dissonance yet?

I'm a bit confused. Isn't all land state land? How is something acquired legitimately? Wouldn't you need a state to legitimate ownership?
If the state determined ownership previously, and the state's allocations are illegitimate, how do they become legitimate when the state is dissolved?
Hmmm... I'm really not getting this.

Is there just a special category for people and groups we like called legitimate? And a special category for people and groups we dislike called illegitimate?
Seems like that would work. It is just like a strong state.

What if we have a case like Hawaii? Where almost all the land belonged to the royal family before the US gov't expropriated them for the public good.
[Thank you wise masters.] Was the Hawaiian royal family legitimate? Is the US gov't legitimate? Whose ownership is legitimate? All ownership claims stem from state action. It is quite confusing.

Here's the thing... I was talking about state land. Most private land was already acquired legitimately.


At work? Yeah, it will get you fired. Man, those guberment jobs are cushy.

Ya'll sure like these circle jerks. Reminds me of certain libertarian forums...

I was sleeping. I understand that is punishable offence in your libertarian vision of the world.

Hmmm... so everything owned is illegitimately acquired. How should it be divided, then? Hmm... even after we divide it, it seems that the legacy of illegitimate acquisition will have some impact on who gets what?
What do you propose we do?

That took a while. Did you have to go ask your supervisor about it?

Even if we were talking about marriage, which we're not, we're talking about dating, I'd hardly call stealing less money from them "support". Marriage is a contract. Between two people. The State has nothing to do with it.


Tell you what.. you find me some land which the state acquired without using force or the threat of force, and I'll consider your argument... for that land. All the rest of it is illegitimately acquired - stolen.

If people unanimously vote for the allocation of common resources, then we can allocate them to private owners. Is that right? To do otherwise would be theft. For example, there could be one hold out who still believes that he shares ownership in parks with the rest of society. We cannot steal the park from this holdout. It violates natural law. Therefore all commonly-owned resources must remain under common ownership, right?

Whatever the status quo is, it should be preserved, unless people unanimously agree to change it. The state's ownership rights should be respected except in cases of unanimous agreement of state members. Is that right? You seem to be advocating for is a stronger form of state power. It makes me a little uncomfortable, but maybe you are right.

Or is the idea to first steal everything from everybody and then prohibit theft once everything has been stolen? That sounds like a lot of violence and theft. Let's go with the first option. m'kay?

I'm sorry the institutions of marriage are supported through subsidization and taxation. I could have sworn that was monopoly force.
It isn't? That's good to know. I feel better than ever about paying taxes.

So now we're postulating a time-traveling Native American who doesn't know what an orchard is? If your argument needs Rip Van Whitehorse to wake up in an asshole's orchard, you must really be stretching. In addition, a beating and an overnight stay is pretty excessive for an apple or two. In an AnCap society, damages could be sought for the excessive force. If the arbitrator were in a particularly uptight mood, those damages would be less the price of the apples.


You asked me to prove that AnCap is objectively better. You can't do that with subjective perceptions. You have to deal with objective realities. The objective reality is that B is using force to get food from A. That is coercion, and you can't twist it into anything else.


Twelve. Maybe thirteen.

The statists in this thread have literally cranked their statism up to eleven.

Believing that a society can only be organized by a tiny omniscient and omnibenevolent cabal with the exclusive right to give everyone else orders and violently punish resistors, is religious-style brain damage. And it is clearly the product of forms of child abuse where the authoritiy who abused the child used threats and violence to make the child obey.

If you wanna teach an adult that obedience is morally good and disobedience is morally bad, just beat him up or otherwise abuse him when he is a child and disobeys. Do it often enough so that the child internalizes this abuse as righteous. When the child becomes an adult, he will be the perfect sheep, ready to even murder on his designated authority's behalf.

This comment will hit close to home for many of the statists in this thread, no doubt they were abused this way. They will claim "but I turned out okay"... but their behavior and belief structure tells us otherwise.