I think you are right. For myself, I am looking into the sea steading idea.
However the news from Egypt is encouraging. I am still optimistic about NH as well.
Guys like Zhwazi surprise me. He reminds me of the traitor character in the first Matrix film. How can someone who knows the simple truths of liberty suddenly want collectivism?
His views are probably different to yours because he didn't *stop* thinking when he heard the "simple truths of liberty."
Thank you, thank you, thank you. You seem to understand
I think you are right. For myself, I am looking into the sea steading idea.
However the news from Egypt is encouraging. I am still optimistic about NH as well.
Guys like Zhwazi surprise me. He reminds me of the traitor character in the first Matrix film. How can someone who knows the simple truths of liberty suddenly want collectivism?
It's simple, I don't. I have repeatedly stated this. I am not a collectivist. I'm very much an individualist.
I don't reject the "simple truths of liberty". State your most basic and simple principles and I will probably agree with them. I reject where some people have taken them. The
basic and simple parts of anarchocapitalism I still agree with for the most part. It's some of the conclusions that anarchocapitalists draw and reinforce in each other that I disagree with. Some aspects of the nature of property and justly acquiring it I disagree with. The analysis of the root of all the problems in the world being the government I mostly agree with, but the government is a proxy for many other problems in society. The most general way to state the problem we face is "perpetual classes defined by drastic power disparity". Government is the biggest perpetual dominating class, but not the only one, and ignoring the others and going so far as what many anarchocapitalists do to defend the aggregated power of the rich and powerful as if they are better and smarter is something that I strongly disagree with.
Andy, property rights and the NAP are the basis of my simple truths of liberty. If someone isn't hurting someone else or me, what they are doing is none of my business.
If I were able to prove that some of what you believe is legitimately owned property could not be legitimately owned property, would you adjust your definition of property accordingly? If you did adjust it according to what I would explain as illegitimate, you would be adopting a position similar to the lefty "occupation, possession, and use" standard.
NAP is not the entire picture. It tells you how to avoid committing injustice yourself, it does not tell you how to deal with injustice after it has happened, and it does not allow for anticipatory defense (obviously because of the huge can of worms that would be that ancap's framework isn't ready to open). What is needed is a process for justice, not a guideline for avoiding injustice. A process for finding justice would make the NAP redundant if properly designed (and not referring to the NAP in it's design).
I don't like to type that much, when someone comes on this board and admits he wants to control people or wants to be cotrolled I don't feel like getting all that deep.
I didn't say that though. I explicitly denied it in fact.
Bah, the Lenin example is NOT the same line of reason as Hitler=evolution bad. It's a real world example of revolutionary socialist ideals proving unrealistic and sustainable except by force.
We should be able to discuss the "Capitalism cannot be contained" idea without regard to the fact that Lenin believed it. Lenin also believed in statist means to his ends, I do not. If nothing else, this important difference calls for a re-evaluation of the idea in its context.
Again, for a wonderful, in depth study of property, read Friedman's Law's Order.
Do you have a link to a PDF or something?
Finally, by your logic, I should let others in to freely use my kitchen while I sleep. I mean, as long as they're quiet, it doesn't interfere with me.
There's a small element of "yes you should", but the reasons for not wanting them in your house while you're asleep are more issues of distrust of why somebody you don't know would be in your kitchen while you are asleep, and possibly be using my ideas to defend their being there if challenged. If by "others" you mean friends that you have invited over, then of course you should let them freely use your kitchen while you are not using it. Would you not let me use it if you knew me and had let me into your house for a while, as long as I was bringing my own ingredients to cook food? I promise I'll clean up after myself.
The same thing goes for the salon my wife got her hair cut at today. The stylist was an independent contractor who paid the salon owner for use of her facility.
The salon owner is getting rent. Discussion of rent would take more time, but the income of rent over the life of the building should be approximately the same as the cost of the labor to build the building in the first place, plus the costs for duration-of-use of utilities. If the salon owner is making money by owning a salon and renting it out, the salon owner is a landlord abusing their position in the market to extract an unjust tribute from the stylist.
Does the first person who builds an innovation suddenly have a moral debt to everyone who follows after? Must they open their facilities to anyone who asks?
The question is too general for an answer. Were you implying that the salon owner was doing something innovative by renting the salon out, or are you thinking of something else?