On Thursday, March 22, 2018, 12:30:10 PM PDT, juan <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 17:43:27 +0000 (UTC)
jim bell <[email protected]> wrote:
> I notice that you don't distinguish between public (government)
> borders and private (private property) borders. Why is that?I oppose
> government borders. But I believe in the concept of private
> property, which amounts to the right to exclude others from that
> property. We live on the surface (2 dimensional, more or less) of a
> sphere (Earth) and we desire to travel and have goods (and
> information) brought to us. That will require that roads
> Come on Jim. I already refuted your right wing, fake
libertarian garbage.
Utter and complete nonsense.
> And it's quite funny how an engineer isn't
aware of the fact that there is AIR TRAVEL and SEA TRAVEL and
that right-wing fake 'anarchists' haven't claimed to own the
SEA and the SkY, at least YET.
I was not including air travel and sea travel because I didn't consider it
relevant to the current discussion.
> So, please stop defending STATE BORDERS like you did and stop
wholly misrepresenting libertarian philosphy.
I think I already said that I opposed government borders.
> For what it's worth, I also oppose it when government requires people
> to show some sort of identification in order to travel.
Do you really? But that's what happens when ICE DOES ITS JOB
eh?
>> But I
>> believe I cannot prohibit it if a private (non-governmental) company
>> such as an airline decides, for itself, that it will insist on
>> identification in order to allow passengers to travel.
> lawl - didn't your mommny teach you not to lie? You actually
> don't object to the police state as long as you can pretend
> it's 'private'.
If you don't believe in the concept of "private property" say so. But don't
pretend that everybody has the same opinion as you.
I am aware, of course, that SOME anarchists oppose the idea of private
property. See
http://www.infoshop.org/an-anarchist-faq-b-3-why-are-anarchists-against-private-property/
I consider that essay foolish, because it pretends that there is a valid
distinction between two forms of property:
"B.3.1 What is the difference between private property and possession?
Anarchists define “private property” (or just “property,” for short) as
state-protected monopolies of certain objects or privileges which are used to
control and exploit others. “Possession,” on the other hand, is ownership of
things that are not used to exploit others (e.g. a car, a refrigerator, a
toothbrush, etc.). Thus many things can be considered as either property or
possessions depending on how they are used."====================You will also
notice that in that essay, the author grandly used terms like "anarchists
believe" and "anarchists define". One of the most foolish forms of debate is
that in which a party effectively tries to define his position to be true, or
his opponent's position to be false, or make grandly sweeping statements that
over-state or mis-state reality. Pretending that no possible anarchist can
believe in private property (including by conveniently defining it away) is
nonsense. I consider there to be a major problem with that stance: What is
the alternative? If there is essentially no private property, then the most
obvious alternative is collective ownership. But that implies the need for a
big, controlling, and ultimately abusive government. But really, that's not
surprising: The label "anarchist" is more than occasionally used by people,
describing themselves, who really want to set up a big, abusive, controlling
government. They just find the term "anarchist" and "anarchism" to be stylish.
Jim Bell
