Comments for Proprietarianism

Comment on Proprietarianism on Discrimination by LadyPhoenix

LadyPhoenix — Thu, 11 Aug 2011 13:39:00 +0000

The difference may be subtle in this case to you, but it isn’t to me. If property is sacred, he has every right to remain on his property and to keep his property so long as doing so doesn’t violate the property of others. He has absolutely no right to the property of others, ever. Refusing to permit him passage across your property is not the same as locking him in a cage where he’s beaten if he doesn’t go to bed on time.

With regard to the roads: That one person needn’t be permitted access to the road. The difference is simple: You don’t get to use the property of others who don’t consent for you to do so. Jail is different because it denies a man his own property in his body. You haven’t violated his body or his land by not allowing him passage from his own land.

And I think you have a narrow view of how roads would work… It doesn’t make sense that we would all pitch in now and never pay another penny until the road needed to be fixed. That’s not how it works today, even.

Comment on Proprietarianism on Discrimination by Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 05 Aug 2011 16:08:00 +0000

How is “not being allowed to leave his own property” different for being jailed for tax evasion? We’re talking about the same thing from my PoV. The government IS our neighbors, it is the combined will of all of us for protection, infrastructure, etc.

Let’s set aside security, since the associated benefit of the non-payer is harder to visualize. We all decide to build roads, and every house chips in. 20 years later, we decide the roads need repair, but one person doesn’t chip in. Explain to me how denying access to the road is any different from using threat of confinement in jail.

Comment on What is Proprietarianism? by LadyPhoenix

LadyPhoenix — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 12:04:00 +0000

Crap… My dictionary plugin is gone… There are no definitions! I’m so sorry. Let me work on this.

Comment on What is Proprietarianism? by LadyPhoenix

LadyPhoenix — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 12:03:00 +0000

You asked me what tyranny was. I said anything that violates what I’ve outlined in this post. Aggressive behavior (which really amounts to nothing more than the violation of rightful property ownership) is “tyranny.”

Comment on What is Proprietarianism? by snack boy

snack boy — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 02:35:00 +0000

I am not sure how this post forwards the discussion of tyranny.

Comment on Proprietarianism and the Issue of Abortion by LadyPhoenix

LadyPhoenix — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 12:36:00 +0000

Thank you. I have had a wonderful time with this discussion.

Comment on Proprietarianism on Discrimination by LadyPhoenix

LadyPhoenix — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 12:33:00 +0000

You shun him. He has no inherent right to either your association or passage through your property. If he’s entirely self-sufficient, he’s no concern of yours. If he’s not, he will be pressured by his neighbors to take part in the protection plan on pain of not being allowed to leave his own property. The difference between taxes and police is that he still has the option of not participating and his property is not compromised.

Comment on Proprietarianism on Discrimination by Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 02 Aug 2011 23:59:00 +0000

To this point, I don’t see us finding a way to agree:
“I simply expect people to learn to protect themselves against them rather than rely on others for their protection. ”
I submit that we have already done this. It started with settlers defending their land on their own. They quickly discovered that those that wished to harm them could still do so with greater numbers. It required that they work with their neighbors for protection.
The problem is that if 9 of 10 people agreed to help defend the area, the 10th person still benefited as a result, even without choosing to help.
If my neighborhood had its own private security force, and one member refused to pay, what then? Do we remove that person from our neighborhood, or use threat of violence to force him to pay? In either case, how does it differ from taxes & police?

Comment on Proprietarianism and the Issue of Abortion by Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 02 Aug 2011 23:53:00 +0000

Well, then I think I have exhausted my questions. If more people thought as you did, then the elimination of abortion would simply be a matter of improving our technology to the point that the transfer of a fetus to an artificial womb is realistic.

Comment on Proprietarianism and the Issue of Abortion by LadyPhoenix

LadyPhoenix — Tue, 02 Aug 2011 14:02:00 +0000

“How is the slavery of the mother different from the the slavery of the parents after the child has been born?”There is no slavery of the parents after the child is born. They merely have an obligation to the child as its guardians to find it new guardians. They my divest themselves of interest in guardianship of the child at any time, morally speaking. ”The only thing I see is that the father is unable to share the burden directly during that time, but he certainly can share some of the burden indirectly by assisting the mother as much as possible.” Certainly he can.

“My 1-month old child would require that I use my body to take care of it.”
Incorrect. The child would require *A* body, not your body specifically. If you are unwilling to give of your body, you are certainly free to find someone else who is willing to do so.

“So, is abortion different from giving birth to a baby in a trash dumpster & leaving the child there?”Yes, because generally by that point the child is able to sustain itself (with help) outside the mother’s womb. She would then have an obligation to at least find it another, more willing care-giver.