0
1

[–] FreeToLive 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Property amongst liberty types is seen as an extension to the individual. Amongst the capitalists the ability to own allows you to produce. And in religious context, the divine individual owns what one manifests into existence which Western society based its foundational ideas on (Hence Christian Judeao values).

Jeff claiming he owns the hut is false because he cannot own what he has not produced. Jeff cannot claim land rightfully as the only thing that is supporting his claim is ones own fear of Jeff and his threats of violence. Even if Jeff beat the guy up he would be infringing the other guys right of property and therefore would be in the wrong.

This is basically the golden rule. All human interactions should be voluntary. Any action that is involuntarly force on one should be met with equal and opposite force.

We expect this of children. Why don't we expect better for ourselves.

0
0

[–] Dortex [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I'm seeing a lot of "ought" statements here. I think we can all agree Jeff ought not to own any of these things, but, as I provided in the link as my response, Jeff is the sole user of this. And without a bigger Jeff saying otherwise, my question is left unanswered. A better question: what's the difference between Jeff owning the hut rightfully and Jeff not owning the hut but being fully in control of it? And yes, I'm aware Albin's the difference, but he's just been beaten out of it. I'm talking practical differences.

0
1

[–] FreeToLive 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

If you actually want to learn something about anarchism and Austrian economics go to the mises institution website. Something tells me you like to troll debate.

0
1

[–] FreeToLive 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Please tell me what I've said ought to be because the notion that something "ought" to be is at best someone's preference and not a principle.

I personally see why the other guy didn't put up with you. You're intellectually dishonest with yourself and others.

Now your playing a semantics game. If you own something you would control it. There is no "practical difference" because control in nested inside the idea of ownership.

Rightful ownership of land can be claimed through homesteading or by trading with someone who already owns lands.

You could be a secure guard for someone and still "control" the land.

That's why I think your semantic argument is dumb.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] Dortex [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Naww. Where would you get that idea?