[Libertarian] Re: Purity

Sat, 29 Apr 2006 06:23:31 -0700

Right, collective property can only be if all parties involved
agreed, that is all parties who have mixed their labor with the land
and continue to use the land or sale or give the land to others
willingly. Now this can exclude guest and those that rent but those
who have rent for sometime still have certain rights on use and
privacy unless there is a lease agreement that specifies exceptions.
A man's home is his castle, his property is his kingdom, the state or
anyone must prove  their case if they are going to bother the kingdom
to deprive the king ( and I should say Queen) of his life, liberty or
property.--- In [email protected], <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> And your's fails where you assume that collective property is a
legitimate concept.  There is no such thing as collective property
absent an initiation of force.  And initiation of force is contra-
moral, and contra-libertarian.
>
> BWS
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Friday, April 28, 2006 10:33 am
> Subject: [Libertarian] Re: Purity
>
> > This is where your logic fails. 
> >
> > On an island without a government, people can legitimately band
> > together to defend rights, but not to violate them.  People do
have
> > the right to determine whether or not someone else will be
allowed to
> > sell goods within their combined and/or collective property.  This
> > means they can grant this power to government.  Nobody on an
island
> > has the right to tell another person what medicines they will or
won't
> > take, what weapons they will or won't own, or what religion they
will
> > follow.  This means they can't grant this power to government.
> >
> > Tariffs are legitimate.  Drug laws, gun laws, abortion laws, and
and
> > religious laws are not.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In [email protected], "Thomas L. Knapp"
> > <thomaslknapp@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Quoth Paul Ireland:
> > >
> > > > To determine whether any law is legitimate all one must do is
> > ask what
> > > > would happen if you didn't have a government.  If there were a
> > > > community of people who each owned land and these people
> > agreed to
> > > > protect each other from violence, attacks, etc., they could
> > also agree
> > > > that nobody from outside thier community would be allowed to
sell
> > > > goods within the community they own, without paying a fee to
> > the town
> > > > to cover the cost of having police, judges, lawyers, etc. to
> > ensure> > that the business they conduct isn't fraudulent, theft,
etc.
> > >
> > > And they could agree that decapitation is the proper penalty for
> > > possession of marijuana.
> > >
> > > And they could agree that having a handgun merits a prison
sentence.
> > >
> > > And they could agree that if the guy down the road has a 55-
gallon
> > > drum in his garage that may have something dangerous, it's okay
for
> > > them to go over and burn his house down, just in case.
> > >
> > > And they could agree that if someone floats, she must be made
of
> > wood,> and is therefore a witch, and therefore should be burned.
> > >
> > > They could agree on any or all of those things. They probably
> > wouldn't> try to portray their claims as "libertarian," though.
> > >
> > > Tom Knapp
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ForumWebSiteAt  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian 
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>







ForumWebSiteAt  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian



SPONSORED LINKS
Libertarian English language Political parties
Online dictionary American politics

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



Reply via email to