Topic: The message of liberty in less than one minute. - page 2. (Read 3271 times)

In Texas, if somebody tries to trespass on my property or steal from me, I can shoot them. Castle Doctrine.

Is this not private property without a state?

If I try to steal a farmer's cattle, I will be likely shot before I can get away. Again, is this not private property without using a state?

If an armed woman is about to be raped but she shoots the rapist, was it only her that protected her right to herself?

The state isn't here to personally protect our persons. We can only take action towards that. The only thing enforcing our right to ourselves is our own means. Easily, people can come in hurt us through their own freewill. The state guarantees nothing against that except after the damage has been done.

It seems only the individual and their own private means can sustain the right to themselves and guarantee it.

The point is that you do have property and that means you have a state.  You video talks about having private property without a state.  As I said, that is nonsense as the definition of what is private property comes from the state.

If you have problems with the efficiency of your local police, you have my sympathy.  The ones here are great - I had a non-molestation order on someone for a few years and the police were very fast to arrest her when she made her periodic appearances.  I suspect that if you had a need, you might find the help is there for you as well.  But that whole thing is off topic to your video.

The fact is the technology exists today for the individual to sufficiently protect their own property and themselves without a monopoly on force. We don't need governments to protect us.

The incentive for people to overpower many security-enabled citizens is absurdly low. Even today, most households are far from fortresses, police hardly monitor them constantly and they are still safe. They can only be better off with an alternative system that competes to meet their desires.

For instance, insurance coverage alone can easily provide enough incentive to keep criminals off the streets. Sure, you have freeriders that won't buy insurance but their property won't be covered from loss and damage.

Again, the state is irrelevant in this day and age.

How often do you think stolen property is recovered? Do you see the police constantly guarding your property?

Who do you we usually rely on for such things? Private security. Private investigation. Our own security cameras and security measures.

The state does very little for us when it comes to these things. Private insurance is the only thing we can sufficiently use to cover loss and the contracts are enforced on the basis that the parties involved will be out of business and worse off otherwise.

The state plays a very small role in all of this and when we need them most, they pool up cases of abuse and outright war against innocent people.

The good things we have such as an increased lifespan and a lower crime rate are mostly due to individuals voluntarily improving things through their own businesses and desires aka capitalism.

Also: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut/

Now you are being silly.  You can't find facts or theory to back up your argument so its a big "waaah the sky is falling in" cry.

Get a grip on yourself.  Private property is perfectly well protected in all modern states.  Crime falls every year.  Life expectancy rises every year.  Things are good - you should be looking for ways to make them better instead of filling your head with nonsense.

The state does not paint an alternate reality. It only fools its subjects into thinking so. The state fails at upholding ownership everyday.

Ownership and possession is the same according to you because the state will be just as poor as me defending my own property, at least in the US.

The courts are overpriced and bureaucratic. The police here have no obligation to serve according to the supreme court.

My firearms and my defenses can only be more powerful and of higher quality than what the state has to offer.

So you only have rights as long as you have more fire-power than the next guy?  And your neighbour only has rights as long as he has more fire-power than you?

What a pleasant picture you paint.  Sadly its got issues with the English language.  You have confused "possession" and "ownership."  Saying that you possess everything you can take by force is true.  That doesn't mean you own it.  It only means you have possession until someone takes it off you or kills you.

In effect, your Max Stirner makes the case for a state.  He speaks as one who robs old ladies of their handbags.  Only fear of punishment keeps that kind in check.  By the way when he says "His goods, the sensuous as well as the spiritual, are mine," I assume he is justifying rape ?

Hawker, if it is in my possession, it is my right. If I can commit the act, it is my right to do so. If I can sustain the possession, the ability or whatever it may be, it is my right. If I can do all of the former without a state, they are still my rights.

I do not need a state to maintain my rights as long as I have the might to do so myself and through my own virtue. Remember, might is what entails rights. It is my strength and my abilities that entail my rights. There is nothing more to this. A state guarantee is mere happenstance and could be argued as a ability of my own virtue: the rights are given to me out of my value to the institution.

To say otherwise is purely religious.

For instance, if a state won't care for you, if you can't feed yourself, clothe yourself or shelter yourself, none of these things are your rights. The UN can declare you are entitled to such things but that means nothing, for you have nothing but whatever strength and virtue you currently possess.

As the primitive men before you, you will only be able to attain these things through your own might.

But let the individual man lay claim to ever so many rights because Man or the concept man ‘entitles’ him to them, because his being man does it: what do I care for his right and his claim? If he has his right only from Man and does not have it from me, then for me he has no right. His life, for example, counts to me only for what it is worth to me. I respect neither a so-called right of property (or his claim to tangible goods) nor yet his right to the ‘sanctuary of his inner nature’ (or his right to have the spiritual goods and divinities, his gods, remain un-aggrieved). His goods, the sensuous as well as the spiritual, are mine, and I dispose of them as proprietor, in the measure of my — might.

- Max Stirner

Don't change the subject. PLEASE tell me that Afghanistan was conquered and made to submit by the likes of the Mongolian Empire, Soviet Union, or America. I'd love to see that. And the topic wasn't about healthcare, but the people's collective will and ability to defend themselves to the point that going to war with them is not worth it (example was specifically about Switzerland v.s. Nazi Germany, as well as earlier invaders.)

Exactly like Afghanistan.  The poor sods will never have peace as they don't have a state and every neighbour finances their tribal wars. 

Switzerland is a state.  It has private property and one of the best health systems in the world.

Just like places like Afghanistan, or hell, even Switzerland (where everyone is armed and everyone is an army) have bowed down and submitted to invaders for centuries, right?
There is NO amount of military power or nukes that can wipe out a determined insurgency using guerilla tactics, driven only by ideas. You are scared, and that's understandable, but fear does not create rights or freedom. Fighting to assert your own right to choose how to live your life is the only thing that does that.

You keep trotting that out.  What happens when your little nation state meets Attila the Hun or so more modern psychopath with millions of fanatical followers?

You bow down and serve him or you die.

Meanwhile you have to live without private property as you have no courts.  Its pointless talking about contracts unless you have enforcement.

Puke. Here we go again. It's the spin zone. It's semantics and 'is/ought' argumentation again. If you follow it to the nth degree you'll eventually realize that it boils down to the NAP. Everything else is some variant of that or worse.

I like the idea of me being a sovereign nation state (SNS). I am a nation of one (has a nice ring to it). If someone joins my society (of his own free will), we become a SNS of two or more. As long as we mutully agree beforehand on how we want to conduct ourselves, as to what we'll do or not do, I could care less if we're an SNS of 2 or 2 billion. I think it's entirely possible to do this with contract arrangements and without coercion, taxes, and expropriation (eminent domain).

"Private" is only there to separate it from "public," so you are correct, without a state creating the concept of "public" property and allowing you to own "private" property, private property wouldn't exist. Perhaps a much less confusing term to use would be "personal property"

Don't argue with Hawker about rights. From the many discussions on other forums, it's very evident that he does not believe in basic inalienable rights. He believe nobody really has any rights at all, and that anything that we may call "rights" is only something that was written down on paper after being agreed upon buy a certain number of elected individuals or crowned officials.
If you were to ask him, he would likely say that before government, and laws, nobody had any right at all. Likewise, anybody who is not afforded rights by law specifically, such a slaves or women a few centuries ago top, did not have any rights whatsoever, and the only reason they eventually were given rights was not because people decided that they really do have rights, and that the laws are infringing on those rights, but because the majority of people simply decided to give them rights just because.
In short, Hawker believes that right are only things that are specifically given by law, and never anything that somebody is born with or processes out of their own will and ability to reason. This has been discussed, to death, ad nauseum, on many other threads. So, arguing with him is pointless and you'll never win, since him arguing that rights come from laws because laws give is rights is pretty much like arguing with a religious fundamentalist who says the Bible proves god because the Bible says it's true.

Perhaps a trip to wikipedia would clear up your confusion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property

In case you find it hard work to read it all here is the money quote:

Which neatly leads back to my point about OP's video being nonsense.  No state means no private property so the whole thing falls apart from about 10 seconds in. 

No, I didn't mention "without the state". I said that with the state, there is no private property.

I like the way you put "owners" in quotes.  Their rights are legal creations of the state and not given to them unconditionally.  Without the state, the issue would not arise as the best you could hope for is possession until someone with more armaments than you comes along and takes it off you.

I think you are saying the same thing I am.  The OP's video is a crock.  Without the state, there is no private property.

Most property "owners" know that the property will be seized unless they pay the taxes that are assessed on it. And that if the state wants to put a freeway on their property, their "ownership" won't enable them to keep the property.

Do try to stay up.  The very idea of private property means there is a state.  As it happens, we don't need to theorise about this.  Turn your computer off and go outside.  If you can see a building that someone owns, you live in a state.

Do feel free to find the owner and tell them they don't own really it.  You may learn something from the reaction.