Shooting a girl on your property

[Richard Garner]

To me, this is a matter of the nature of PROPERTY. Rothbard takes the position that a person can sell certain parts of property ownership. With his absurd logic, I could sell you a wooden plank, but NOT sell you the right to cut it. Rather than a contractual agreement NOT to cut it, Rothbard would say you actually don' OWN the right to cut it.

That is because all rights are property rights. So if I have a contractual right that you refrain from cutting the plank I sell you, I own that right.

That's a contractual agreement, not a right. It's also the dumbest contractual agreement ever.

Whether it is dumb or not is irrelevent. It is, as you say, a contractual agreement. And the agreement creates a right. That is what contracts do.

I disagree with that. Something about the nature of "ownership" is more absolute in my mind. One either has all rights to property, or one doesn't actually own it.

Really? So I can't sell fishing rights on my property, or I can't sell the right to collect fallen firewood on my property? Surely I don't own my property if I am not entitled to sell these rights.

That's just leasing.
[/quote]

No, leases have fixed terms. But even if it were just leasing, so what? It is still a right. If you come to me and say "I'd like the right to fish on your property, here is $100 to persuade you," and I say, "OK," you have the right to fish on my property, and I sold it to you.

[Dylboz]

I hope you will all have the courtesy to post a sign, so I will know where you stand on this. Then, I can choose to live far enough away that my children won't end up on your property. Please, include English on your sign so I'll know what language to teach my kids.
I will not use more force than that which is used against me. So your wife is safe from me should your child trespass on my yard.

and I don't care if you're little red riding hood dressed as a wolf...or a wolf dressed as little red riding hood...

perhaps you've forgotten those little Vietnamese kids throwing grenades into the medivac choppers?


I haven't...

That was not an initiation of force.

you're kidding right?

throwing grenades isn't an initiation of an explosion and flying shrapnel?

kids running up to choppers in vietnam=dead

(hey kid, you should be running away from gunships...not towards them)

Uh, Rob... get your shit straight. The kid in Vietnam was defending his home from aggression in the form of American gunships.

[Dylboz]

Shooting the girl is aesthetically displeasing. I wouldn't do it.

I'm a bit fuzzier now on what I think the ethical position of it is. I'm an absoluteist. Property is the result of self-ownership. Just as I believe a 0.00001% tax would be WRONG and would JUSTIFY the use of defensive force to prevent, I believe something as simple as TRESSPASS is a violation of property rights which is EQUAL in my eyes to any other assault on property rights (like setting fire to my house or stealing my car).

To me, this is a matter of the nature of PROPERTY. Rothbard takes the position that a person can sell certain parts of property ownership. With his absurd logic, I could sell you a wooden plank, but NOT sell you the right to cut it. Rather than a contractual agreement NOT to cut it, Rothbard would say you actually don' OWN the right to cut it.

I disagree with that. Something about the nature of "ownership" is more absolute in my mind. One either has all rights to property, or one doesn't actually own it.

So... With that said... IF I don't have the ability to defend my property from invasion, I don't own it. Since most libertarians would agree that I DO own my property, the question then is "is the use of force against an invasion of your property acceptable?"

Either yes, it is, and the girl should ethically be eligible for a bullet. Or "no, it is not ethical" and the arsonist wouldn't be either.

I'm not a pascifist but there's something wrong with the idea to me that an act of aggression makes you loose the right you agrees AGAINST. ALL "right" come from self-ownership, and ownership is absolute. There's no "little" crime.

Your post demonstrates why "absolutism" (fixed the spelling for you) is fucking stupid. Context is key, and determines how to apply a principle in the real world, in an actual setting involving living beings. And no, walking across your field is not the same in any reasonable person's mind as committing arson or rape. Again, it's this kind of simpleton bullshit that makes people think libertarians are hopeless anti-social lunatics.

[Dylboz]

Since no one seems to get the problem with this stupid hyper-propertarianism, I'm going to pose it as a question, something to think about. If every property owner has the "Royal Prerogative" over everything and everyone that steps onto their property, and need not respect their rights and can dispose of their lives as they see fit, then in what way have we improved upon the current statist situation? You get to be the evil statists yourselves? You get to privilege your property claims over the lives and rights of anyone who is within the geographical borders you claim and do all the terrible things that states do, but it's OK because you own the land? So, we've multiplied the problems of the state by several billion, solving nothing, while also dealing a profound blow to the liberty of anyone who doesn't own enough property to make a similar claim for themselves. You're saying they have no rights (save those you deign to grant them at your whim), when on your property, and you can kill them like they ARE your property, which is worse even than most states, who generally guarantee a minimum set of basic rights within their borders. If that's not the case, please explain it to me, because you child killers really sound like maniacs defending it.

[Andy]

Since no one seems to get the problem with this stupid hyper-propertarianism

Where did you get that notion?

[Dylboz]

Reading the thread. I meant a lot of the posters. In this thread.

[NHArticleTen]

why is it so "unreasonable" to extend exclusive/exclusionary property rights past...let's say...a vagina...for example(since rape is such a common crime against the property more commonly referred to as your "body")...

what part of "no trespassing" is so hard to understand with reference to the vagina?

what part of "no trespassing" is so hard to understand with reference to the clothing on your body?

what part of "no trespassing" is so hard to understand with reference to the covered wagon or motor-vehicle or boat or airplane you own and are on/in?

what part of "no trespassing" is so hard to understand with reference to the place you call home?

what part of "no trespassing" is so hard to understand with reference to your homestead?

your vagina, your clothing, your conveyance, your home, your homestead...these are all equally YOUR PROPERTY...

what part of "NO TRESPASSING" and "SHALL NOT INFRINGE" is so hard to understand?

what part of "everyone leaves everyone else alone" is so hard to understand?

The John Galt Solution is the only solution...

enjoy!

[Dylboz]

Everyone leave everyone else alone is fine. It refers to actual people, and jibes with our intuitions and common sense. What isn't fine is treating 40 acres of open land the same as the inside of your vagina, Rob. It's absurd.

[NHArticleTen]

Everyone leave everyone else alone is fine. It refers to actual people, and jibes with our intuitions and common sense. What isn't fine is treating 40 acres of open land the same as the inside of your vagina, Rob. It's absurd.

It's only "absurd" to those who don't understand property rights...or those who want to infringe upon them...some way...some how...

AND...

Everyone leaves everyone else alone refers to everyone's property as well...not just "actual people"...

[Dylboz]

Sorry, I don't want to infringe property rights, I just don't want idiots killing flower picking little girls and claiming they're "within their rights" because they happen to be inside some imaginary line on a map. You're irrational, Rob. Property is not the same as life. People aren't property. People own property. That's not the same thing. Property can be transfered, restored or replaced, lives cannot.

Besides, rights do not exist, they're simply reciprocal agreements between and among people within a given community. I would never agree to or wish to be part of a community that upheld that kind of right. Shooting innocent little girls who pose you no threat is simply unacceptable. And if a member of my community decided he had that right, well, I wrote about how I thought we should proceed above.

[NHArticleTen]

Sorry, I don't want to infringe property rights, I just don't want idiots killing flower picking little girls and claiming they're "within their rights" because they happen to be inside some imaginary line on a map. You're irrational, Rob. Property is not the same as life. People aren't property. People own property. That's not the same thing. Property can be transfered, restored or replaced, lives cannot.

Besides, rights do not exist, they're simply reciprocal agreements between and among people within a given community. I would never agree to or wish to be part of a community that upheld that kind of right. Shooting innocent little girls who pose you no threat is simply unacceptable. And if a member of my community decided he had that right, well, I wrote about how I thought we should proceed above.

your rights end at the beginning of my fence...then the tigers take over after that...feel free to feed yourself to the tigers anytime...they're always hungry you know...

[NHArticleTen]

oh, and there are alligators in the pond, lake, and moat also...

they're hungry too...if you'd like to go for a swim...

[NHArticleTen]

and, of course, there are always these:




hmmm....

[Ecolitan]

Everyone leave everyone else alone is fine. It refers to actual people, and jibes with our intuitions and common sense. What isn't fine is treating 40 acres of open land the same as the inside of your vagina, Rob. It's absurd.

Well, I couldn't make the objectivist objectively explain why two objects are both fully owned but different rules apply to them.  So, I'll settle for you.

Why is it absurd?  Why is the ownership of one physical object subject to different rules than the ownership of a different physical object?  Is there any other kind of object besides land that has special ownership rules?  What about ball point pens? 

[Dylboz]

Sometimes, you're such an idiot, NHAT. To the extent that you isolate your self (with land mines, really? Come on!) and have to create the goods you consume by your self or do without, you are POOR. Everyone CAN'T just leave everyone else alone ALL THE TIME. The market requires interaction, it requires commerce, communication, travel, what used to be called intercourse (of the non-sexual kind). So, when a girls scout knocks on your door with a wagon full of cookies, you don't just shoot her. If you don't want cookies, and you don't want her to come back next year, you say so, you don't hang her carcass from a tress at the end of your property line and roll her burning Radio Flyer down the hill into the village. You'd be RADed from that area poste haste, and with good cause.

Basic civility and the etiquette of market interaction require as much. And you're insane with your fixation on violence, it's as if all you want is an excuse to start firing and call it "defense," a reputation for which would likely be your undoing in a genuine free market. No one has hurt or threatened you by walking up your driveway asking for help because their car broke down up the street. It is NOT an act of aggression, until it becomes one (I'm a big fan of Clockwork Orange, so yeah, be careful, but don't just shoot first and ask questions later). Hopping your fence at night with a weapon and wearing a balaclava obviously is. The context is the key, and you're smart enough to know the difference, so don't give me this dumb shit about tigers, you don't have any fucking tigers, Rob.

And while we're talking here, "your rights end at the beginning of my fence..." is exactly the 'Royal Prerogative' problem I mentioned above. I have no rights at all if I'm on your property, so you're just a little absolute dictator on your mini-state. As I asked above, how is that NOT a multiplication of, as opposed to a solution to, the problems of the current statist horror? Go back and read my longer post and try and explain it to me. Otherwise, I'll just continue to think you're mostly nuts and mildly entertaining.