"I went to a fight the other night, and a hockey game broke out." - Rodney Dangerfield
***
Bizarre anarchist logic:
Crazy anarchist: You can state other definitions, you can come up with your own definition of property, you can define theft differently, you can define robbery differently, but we have to know what we are talking about first. These are my definitions. theft: the involuntary exchange of property between two people robbing: the involuntary exchange of property between people based on the threat of violence property:exclusive right of control of something
Me: Following your definitions, if I break the speed limit and am fined, this is robbery by the state.
If I take a leak in public and am fined, this is also robbery by the state.
Crazy anarchist: I do not think the state has a right to the roads, the parc, the frequency spectrum. They obtained their property by taking other people's property. That is inconsistent and inconsistent theories are wrong according to the scientific method. When some person or a group mixed their labor with the land and build a road, they rightfully own it. If they voluntary exchange it with other owners and build a road, they also own it. If they own the road, they can set any rules they want. My guess is that they will make reasonable rules, because they care for the business of their customers. So their will be a speed limit as well and if people do not keep to it, they can be prohibited to use the owners private property.
What people tend not to see with the government is the same thing they do not see with god. God said:"though shall not kill' and then he murdered the hole planet except for Noah. The rules he hands out are not for himself. The same happens with the government. They say:"though shall not steal" and to enforce that we will have to steal from you. The rules do not apply to us. For god you could say that there was a material difference between god and men that could explain the difference (although most of the time men did all the killing), but for the people in the gvt and me, there is no material fact in reality that could explain why they can steal from me, but not the other way around.
Someone: Correct me if I am wrong but you seem to be saying individuals have a right to property. My question then would be who gave those individuals right to those property in the first place?
Crazy anarchist: good question,
I don't have a lot of time now, but basically you already have control over your own body, just by the physical layout of your nerve system. So YOU own YOUR body by the way it operates. To argue against property would require the use of property, since you have to use your mouth or fingers to type your arguments. That is the first step. Freedom lovers think you own your body and can freely decide who it interacts with.
Me: Bait and switch: you are confusing different senses of ownership
Crazy anarchist: It would help if you mention your definitions of these 2 kinds of ownership.
What I mean with ownership of a thing is "the right to control a thing". So if the gvt has the right to control what happens with half of the productive output of my body, they own half my body. If Pavarotti owns his vocal chords (is the only one who controls them), he owns the music he voluntarily chooses to produce with them. If he needs help of others to do the marketing, lighting, audio visual effects, he has to give up some of that owner ship to get them to use their bodies in a way he prefers. All of this is under voluntary agreement.
Me: You are confusing the physical ability to control a thing with the moral right to control a thing.
Do quadriplegics have ownership of their bodies, since their nervous systems are not fully functional?
Crazy anarchist: I do not know, because I seldom debate with quadriplegics. But you tell me:If A asks you a question, do you answer B? If A hits you, do you get angry at B? Or do you say that A is responsible for that action?
This runs into the self defeating argument. You cannot argue against you owning your body without using your body.
Even if you could, it would be even be harder to prove that someone else has the moral right to own someone else's body. If you think it can not be proven that each owns is own body.
By debating someone you acknowledge they own their body and control it, otherwise you would debate with the person that DID own the body you are arguing with.
This is even worse than Ayn Rand philosophy.