Message from @Grenade123
Discord ID: 476184938027417601
a judge may not rule in your favor. it's a harsh life.
so as i said, what is one person's private property is defined by what everyone around him agrees is his private property, even if everyone involved has the same standards
he may very well not
well yeah but it depends on the context
officially it has been ruled a certain way, and it's widely accepted. unofficially the truth might be different.
i guess it depends on how we define legitimate as well
unfortunately, life is subjective
no, it's just complicated
the closes thing you have to finding objective truth is what the most people agree on
even then, sometimes they are wrong
yeah basing your idea of objective truth on what the majority believes is not a good idea
thankfully morals are subjective so i dont have to worry about that
onto the majority no, but on a few people little by little, you stand a chance of changing the truth
if we were discussing black slavery, and you pointed out how unrealistic it would be to pick the cotton without them, and pointing out this or that logistical problem, and you made me see the light that the cotton manufacturing would just have to shut down or be left in chaos, and leave tons of people in poverty, it wouldn't do anything to change my abolitionist stance.
if we really cant figure out how to fund things voluntarily or organize things with a monopoly boss, then heck it, maybe chaos is the price we have to pay to live in a civilized society which isn't fundamentally based on things i consider human rights violations
what's the difference between chaos and freedom?
it depends, i guess
i kind of associate order with orderly performed executions of dissidents
order could be moral chaos
so maybe order and chaos are too vague terms
i posit that things are voluntary, mostly. That if there is nothing stopping you emigrating outside a lack of places to go you like, there is nothing keeping you here. That you were born here and opted not to move once you felt old enough to, and just because you do not like where you were borne, that does not make it illegitimate. Because private property is subjective, it is only your subjective belief that countries have no legitimate claim to land, because the society you were born in was just lazy, and rather than keeping infinite records of laws for each square inch of land, they made up a unified set of rules, long ago, that people liked, and that other people didn't disagree with enough to move. and as such, the rightful owners of different piece of land lend their land to a group of people that fall under the term state. And they agree that they need funding because they are providing various services and stuff.
ironically you can lose your passport if you engage in tax evasion
that doesn't stop you emigrating
no one is obligated to allow you entry, but that doesn't mean you are not allowed to leave.
yeah i respect your points, and i agree property rights are subjective, but i morally disagree with them, and most if not all countries have the same anti-freedom culture, but everything is relative of course
oh, i agree things can be fixed
you do have some choices, i cant deny that
and that perhaps we can move towards a more decentralized society
however, i don't think the state can be removed. at least not without it just returning, and nothing meaningful having changed
humans got here somehow, and i don't think we have evolved all that much to get rid of it
so perhaps just figure out smaller ways to do things better
like space flight is doing
i actually agree, i dont think simply removing government is a good idea. there needs to be a slow gradual careful replacement of public services with private ones, but only after the culture has shifted into emphasizing property and freedom principles
i dont think thats likely to happen for a couple of hundred years, maybe thousands
i would like to point out though, that the argument that you can flee the country if you dont want your rights violated isnt really a good positive defense of the status quo. but i dont think thats the argument you were making.
just saying
its not defending the status quote, but refuting the idea you have to be here
see, the problem i have with an-cap is the an part. because i don't see "the state" as anything really. outside a vague definition for authority. And that a parent commanding around a child is not really much different in than the state at the end of the day. its just a matter of scale
like the monopoly comment earlier.
if one person owns a small island, they have a monopoly of that island, and any person born there might dislike that
but just because the only surround area is water doesn't mean the current owner no longer has any rights to the land on the island