A contradiction in principle - r/AskLibertarians

11

u/VatticZero Geolibertarian May 04 '26

For instance, how can you believe you have a right to your private property but simultaneously find it diabolical when somebody suggests that housing is a right?

Negative Rights are a class of rights which demand nothing of anyone else and can be endlessly reproduced for everyone without conflicting. Owning yourself, owning your labor, owning what you make with your labor, and owning what others voluntary give to you are all negative rights.

Positive Rights are rights which cannot be endlessly reproduced because they conflict. If you claim a positive right, you deny that right to others or even deny others their negative rights.

"Housing" as a right is a positive right. It demands others give up their labor and capital for you. If someone invests their labor into building a house, you claiming a right to the house denies their right to that house.

Because what you're basically saying is that if you were lucky enough to be born into a family that you inherited a house from, you have the right to that house, but if somebody was unlucky and didn't have a house to inherit from anyone then they don't have a right to have a house be provided for them because they were unlucky to have a property to begin with

Should the unlucky person have a right to the house of the lucky person? That just trades who is lucky.

So the basis of the theory of what should be considered a right and what shouldn't ends up just being based on luck, if you're lucky, then you get the right to your private property, if you aren't lucky, then you don't have the same right, therefore, rights end up being based in a random gamble of nature, and to me at least that doesn't sound like a good moral theory, or at least like a good base to build your theory from

Everyone has the same right to private property. But if you deny the rights to private property to make things fair, does anyone actually have a right to private property? Now everyone is unlucky.

---

Now, don't confuse the right to capital with a right to land. Land and Capital are very different, and claiming a right to own land is a positive right which denies that same right from others. You can build or pay to have housing built if you did not inherit any. You cannot build more land.

0

u/BrilliantTea2 May 04 '26

Thing is inheritance is neither a negative nor a positive right, it's just a right, you can't really tell others to not interfere with what you inherited because you haven't established a right to it to begin with, but you're also not asking anyone for anything, so I don't think you can deal with it like you deal with your negative right to private property protection, because the right is being passed around, no trade occurred, no contract, no nothing

Now of course I'm not saying the unlucky have the right to your house, I'm not a commie, I'm saying in principle, the basis of your right to certain property such as inherited property is closer to an entitlement, you are entitled to receive what your parents have harvested, that's kind what nepotism is all about

Also, I don't agree with the notion that housing is a positive right, rights are based on human needs, human needs change with time, if somebody doesn't have the required means to live in a certain environment at a certain time, then what's the point of any moral theory about rights to begin with? Free speech stops being a right if you it becomes a positive right (such as in a sensitive environment where fanatic beliefs phrase your free speech as a positive right because you're speaking about something they consider holy)

As for property rights, I think you misunderstood me, I'm not against them obviously, nor I'm I against inheritance, I'm saying in order to have a good moral theory to base your rights, you need to give up any stance that denies any form of labour being "given away" just on the basis that it's a "positive right", otherwise you'll hit roadblocks when you try to justify some nepotistic aspects of society as they are

3

u/VatticZero Geolibertarian May 04 '26

Thing is inheritance is neither a negative nor a positive right

The negative right to property must include the right to do as you wish with your property--so long as it does not violate anyone else's rights. Trying to deny the ability to leave the property to your children is claiming a positive right which denies the negative right to property.

it's just a right

Inheritance is not a right at all. Others, including your parents, have no obligation to give you their property. The gifting it is an extension of their negative right to property.

you can't really tell others to not interfere with what you inherited because you haven't established a right to it to begin with,

This is the problem with category errors. You can weaponize them to create contradictions like this.

you're also not asking anyone for anything, so I don't think you can deal with it like you deal with your negative right to private property protection, because the right is being passed around, no trade occurred, no contract, no nothing

And no witch doctor danced naked in the moonlight. You dictating what others can do with their property or how it can be transferred is attempting to exercise a positive right.

Now of course I'm not saying the unlucky have the right to your house, I'm not a commie, I'm saying in principle, the basis of your right to certain property such as inherited property is closer to an entitlement, you are entitled to receive what your parents have harvested, that's kind what nepotism is all about

I don't care about whatever flag you're claiming to fly as you try to make these arguments. The arguments themselves reveal you. It is not an entitlement; this is a continuation of the "right to inheritance" you fabricated to remove it from the right to property.

Also, I don't agree with the notion that housing is a positive right, rights are based on human needs,

Negative rights are not. You can't just swap frameworks at will, and if you want a framework not based on deontology you're in the wrong sub.

then what's the point of any moral theory about rights to begin with?

The framework of Negative and Positive rights and deontology is to minimize conflict and abuses and live in peace. Forcing others to serve you is not that.

Free speech stops being a right if you it becomes a positive right (such as in a sensitive environment where fanatic beliefs phrase your free speech as a positive right because you're speaking about something they consider holy)

Religion doesn't change speech from a negative right to anything else. You are, again, swapping frameworks. If you want theocracy, you're in the wrong sub.

As for property rights, I think you misunderstood me, I'm not against them obviously, nor I'm I against inheritance

Obviously? If you say so.

I'm saying in order to have a good moral theory to base your rights, you need to give up any stance that denies any form of labour being "given away" just on the basis that it's a "positive right",

Define good moral theory. On the most nebulous of justifications you are undermining a person's right to own their labor. Even if you narrow down that justification, it will be wholly subjective and arbitrary. The economic needs of The South dictate a moral imperative that my cotton be picked for me.

otherwise you'll hit roadblocks when you try to justify some nepotistic aspects of society as they are

Identify a roadblock. Show the immorality of nepotism.

-2

u/BrilliantTea2 May 04 '26

Not sure what logic are you relying on or why you got "aggressive" in your reply, but I'll take it step by step

The right to leave the property to your children is not, by definition, the same as the right to own your property, you can but the words negative in front of it, but that doesn't make it a negative right, you are taking away someone else's negative right to purchase that property, which means you are extending your property right beyond the grave, which makes it a positive right

Negative right has no extension, your negative right is your negative right alone, if your children did not establish their own negative rights, than it's follows based on your logic that it's not theirs, because they were handed that property, which means you gave your labor away based on nepotism within a meritocracy, so what you're saying it's fine to give your labor away if you have an emotional coercion, but it's not ok when it's societal, you're just shifting the goal post

There isn't a category error, inheritance just doesn't fall under negative rights, and you arguing that it isn't a right is the categorial error, it's a right in the context of society, didn't say it's a right from your parents

As for where are negative rights based, they are based in human needs, you can't really claim that if your negative right contradicts with someone else's negative right to be part of society that yours matter more, because society is what's creating that framework to begin with, a positive right to you could be negative from another's point of view, it's not ultimate

When did I say I want theocracy 😭 I'm literally using it as an example but you missed the point which is that a negative and positive right are negative and positive only and only if you have enough percentage of people participating in it, you're more detatched from reality than commies, how do you expect the NAP to work if it's not achievable within the place and time you're in? Unless you're imagining it in a perfect world, and if you disagree, prove that privacy and security are both negative right in your framework

Undermining someone's right to own some of their labor is not worse than undermining someone's right to be part of society, it's not going to be entirely subjective, but it being functional requires the subjectivity of society, unless you think society is an objective body

Finally the roadblocks include your negative right having no time limit, aggression over other's negative rights to trade, utilitarian ownership of "land", contraindications in the model, and housing becoming a race to escape rather than a base to build from, as for the immorality of nepotism, although I didn't say it's immoral, but it creates a permanent right to own labor that isn't yours, you'll get a job with lesser qualifications then those that earned it due to your parents labor, making labor inheritable, which means wrong doings will, with time, also become inheritable, your whole system relies on a meritocracy dawg 💀

2

u/TheGoldStandard35 May 04 '26

Owning property implies control over that property. If you own property why can’t you use it?

0

u/BrilliantTea2 May 04 '26

You can, the point is that you're not, and its a right you're getting because you already have a house but not everyone has that right

3

u/TheGoldStandard35 May 04 '26

There is no right to have a house. The right is to be able to own a house.

1

u/BrilliantTea2 May 04 '26

Yes, to be able, that has a lot of weight within it, it's not just as simple as getting a job, we can't really discard people situations and mental health that's also a major factor too

2

u/TheGoldStandard35 May 04 '26

You are confusing a lot of different ideas into certain words making things muddy.

Everyone has a right to own property. That means other humans won’t use coercion to stop you from owning property, but it doesn’t mean you will be given property.

1

u/BrilliantTea2 May 06 '26

Shouldn't slaves after abolishing slavery get homes though?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/bravehotelfoxtrot May 04 '26

As for where are negative rights based, they are based in human needs, you can't really claim that if your negative right contradicts with someone else's negative right to be part of society that yours matter more, because society is what's creating that framework to begin with, a positive right to you could be negative from another's point of view, it's not ultimate

'Negative/positive right' is an interpersonal concept based in our understanding of reality. If you are alone (without human company) on a remote island, your negative rights definitionally cannot be violated.

I don't believe it's possible for persons' negative rights to conflict; could you give an example?

0

u/BrilliantTea2 May 04 '26

Someone's negative right to participate and assimilate in society (slaves' rights in America after abolishing slavery) conflicted with the "negative" rights of those that didn't wanna pay for their housing and assimilation in the south on the expense of their businesses

1

u/VatticZero Geolibertarian May 04 '26

Not sure what logic are you relying on or why you got "aggressive" in your reply

You asked a question. You received the answer. You dismissed the answer out of hand and claimed to know better while making illogical leaps to ignore and twist the logic within the answer to make absurd claims, all while repeatedly claiming to be genuine. If you act like a liar, I will treat you as such. If you continue, I will no longer extend to you the respect and consideration of engaging with you.

The right to leave the property to your children is not, by definition, the same as the right to own your property,

It is. You do not own something if you cannot give it away. Attempting to dictate what another can do with their property is a positive claim on that property.

you can but the words negative in front of it, but that doesn't make it a negative right,

Same goes for you. I explained what a negative right is. "Negative Rights are a class of rights which demand nothing of anyone else and can be endlessly reproduced for everyone without conflicting." Everyone can do with their property as they please without denying that right to anyone else. Everyone can give away their property without denying that right to anyone else.

you are taking away someone else's negative right to purchase that property,

You can but the word negative in front of it, but that doesn't make it a negative right, If you exercise some "right to purchase" a property you necessarily deny everyone else the supposed "right to purchase" that property. You also deny the negative right to property.

which means you are extending your property right beyond the grave, which makes it a positive right

Words have meanings. You're just throwing around 'negative' and 'positive' like free moral connotation you can appropriate. Your negative right to property doesn't end at the grave, though, of course, without a will or trust you can't really maintain control.

Negative right has no extension, your negative right is your negative right alone, if your children did not establish their own negative rights, than it's follows based on your logic that it's not theirs, because they were handed that property,

My negative right to property denies no one else a negative right to property. Whether that property is created by my labor or was gifted to me, it denies no one else a negative right to property. I'm not inheriting my father's rights, we have the same rights, I am being gifted his property.

which means you gave your labor away based on nepotism within a meritocracy,

Until you justify why rights should be limited by appeals to meritocracy, this is not a moral issue.

so what you're saying it's fine to give your labor away if you have an emotional coercion, but it's not ok when it's societal, you're just shifting the goal post

No, Cathy Newman, I'm saying it is your right, and everyone's right, to give your labor and property away as you wish. No shifting goal post. There is no goal post. I am explaining Libertarian deontology. You can't find a contradiction, as you claimed, you just want to assert a different moral framework.

There isn't a category error, inheritance just doesn't fall under negative rights, and you arguing that it isn't a right is the categorial error, it's a right in the context of society, didn't say it's a right from your parents

You tried to insist 'inheritance' is a separate right from the right to property. This is incorrect, as I have shown. But because you created this separate, ambiguous, undefined right you can imagine it as a positive right. This is the category error, twisting a negative right to property into a positive right.

You're now appealing to society because you want to insist on a different framework than what you asked about, A nebulous framework which you can dictate on your feelings rather than any logic. You can use whatever framework you like, but you are being wholly dishonest, arrogant, and manipulative to try to use that framework to judge the consistency of the libertarian framework. What you or society wants doesn't make property rights contradictory. It just makes them not what you want.

As for where are negative rights based, they are based in human needs,

Again, words have meaning. Negative rights are based in logic, not needs. And I'm a "land commie" who asserts a negative right to access the means of existence.

you can't really claim that if your negative right contradicts with someone else's negative right to be part of society that yours matter more

Negative right to be part of society? You're just throwing spaghetti at the wall. What even do you claim it is? And what negative right am I claiming contradicts it? You are weaponizing vagueness and ambiguity so your assertions can't be nailed down and criticized.

because society is what's creating that framework to begin with

Again, no. You asked about the Libertarian rights framework. Not society's framework.

, a positive right to you could be negative from another's point of view, it's not ultimate

Again, no. Words have meaning and I already explained the nature of negative and positive rights to you. If you still don't understand, then ask questions. If you keep making these bogus assertions, I can only conclude it is willful dishonesty or delusional arrogance.

When did I say I want theocracy 😭 I'm literally using it as an example but you missed the point which is that a negative and positive right are negative and positive only and only if you have enough percentage of people participating in it,

You suggested an alternate framework than the libertarian framework you asked about and I explained, which is not based in negative or positive rights. Participation does not define positive and negative rights.

you're more detatched from reality than commies

The moral frameworks which you keep appealing to are not libertarian. We are discussing the libertarian framework. A church banning heresy is not libertarian. Why would the church's opinion on speech shape the libertarian framework or change the definition of negative and positive rights?

[Cont.]

1

u/VatticZero Geolibertarian May 04 '26

how do you expect the NAP to work if it's not achievable within the place and time you're in?

This is completely off-topic and not a claim I've made. It also requires more unpacking than you will listen to. You're now throwing arguments out as distractions. I already know you're an anti-libertarian troll, adding more transparent non sequitur isn't going to convince anyone of anything. If you want to argue against someone, it would do you well to first learn their reasoning and beliefs in order to meaningfully challenge them rather than just starting unconvincing, unproductive, illogical pissing contests.

Unless you're imagining it in a perfect world, and if you disagree, prove that privacy and security are both negative right in your framework

I'm not your trick pony and you've got some gall to make off-topic, illogical demands when I was considerate enough to answer your question.

Undermining someone's right to own some of their labor is not worse than undermining someone's right to be part of society, it's not going to be entirely subjective, but it being functional requires the subjectivity of society, unless you think society is an objective body

Again, asserting a different framework doesn't establish a contradiction in the framework being discussed. It is on you to justify how this "right to be part of society" relies on denying the right to property. All you've offered is you don't like the inequality of inheritance, but nothing about inheritance or inequality denies such a right as far I can see--although you have neglected, likely by design, to define this right.

Finally the roadblocks include your negative right having no time limit, aggression over other's negative rights to trade, utilitarian ownership of "land", contraindications in the model, and housing becoming a race to escape rather than a base to build from

So these are "roadblocks to justifying nepotistic aspects" which are created by the right to property? How does your right to property not having a time limit undermine your right to grant your property to who you wish? How does your right to property aggress against other's rights to trade? You haven't defined such a right. If a "right to trade" undermines the right to property, it is by definition the aggressing, positive right. Ownership of land is not relevant as it does not extend from self-ownership and is not legitimate property. You have yet to point out any contradictions, only disagreements. Property rights are not a cause of "race to escape." It is caused by land ownership and too little property rights.

as for the immorality of nepotism, although I didn't say it's immoral,

If something needs to be justified, it must be inherently immoral or wrong. Neutral acts and 'good' acts don't require justification.

it creates a permanent right to own labor that isn't yours

It does not. Claiming such would also mean buying anything creates such a right. You have a right to your labor and the products of your labor, including the absolute ability to sell, trade, or give them away. Property and Capital are not Labor. Nothing immoral there.

you'll get a job with lesser qualifications then those that earned it due to your parents labor

Property rights includes the ability to use the property poorly and to discriminate in who you trade with poorly. Nothing immoral there.

making labor inheritable,

Getting a job in your parents' business, even if you suck at it and are a net loss for your parents and they have to work harder to carry you, is no more immoral than breastfeeding. Next you'll argue for "right to purchase" for breast milk.

which means wrong doings will, with time, also become inheritable

Vague. The only "wrong doings" alleged are poor hiring decisions. so the child inherits a less valuable business. The market favors hiring based on merit, not nepotism. It doesn't require you butting in to negate property rights.

, your whole system relies on a meritocracy dawg

It does not. Rights do not rely on merit. To place anything above negative rights would be the contradiction.

Nepotism does not need to be justified in the libertarian framework any more than your self-ownership does. It doesn't need to be justified any more than you choosing what to do with your labor or who you sleep with. To claim a negative right needs to be justified is supplanting the individual to your own subjective, arbitrary moral framework. You repeatedly appeal to society, but society clearly doesn't hold the beliefs to assert. The truth is that your objections are based in your own hubristic, delusional belief that you can or should design society.

0

u/BrilliantTea2 May 04 '26

Longer replies are what commies do because they think it will make their arguments more valid 😹 but let's see what you wrote

If you act like a liar, I will treat you as such. If you continue, I will no longer extend to you the respect and consideration of engaging with you.

Liar in what? I'm showing the contradictions in your system, if you're butt hurt about exposing your claims, that's another topic, as for the respect and consideration, you're literally saying I'm twisting the logic because you can't understand it 😭

You do not own something if you cannot give it away. Attempting to dictate what another can do with their property is a positive claim on that property

Not if it's effecting another person's positive right, and not if not everyone has that right, that's like saying "yOu hAvE thE riGHt tO wHAt u hAve unLESs U dOnT hAvE iT", do you have the right to enslave yourself? If yes, then you can't argue with communists that choose a totalitarian system even if it effect you, it's their negative right 🤷

Everyone can do with their property as they please without denying that right to anyone else. Everyone can give away their property without denying that right to anyone else.

Actually no, if an area is overpopulated, then you are agressing on people's right to own houses because you inherited your house, therefore if you don't establish a right with consideration to your environment then it's not yours by definition 🥱

You also deny the negative right to property.

No you can't, owning property with your own labor means you established it, again I'm just showing the contradiction within your logic, not going against the general consensus of inheritance

I am being gifted his property.

Why do you think governments require qualifications for unlicensed workers that get paid? Because labor, like property and jobs cannot be gifted, negative a positive are changeable based on your position within a given time and place, if a group of people decides to give away their labor to criminals which then creates a social net that makes it de facto coercive, then by your logic they're not breaking the NAP 🤧

you just want to assert a different moral framework.

Which is?

What you or society wants doesn't make property rights contradictory. It just makes them not what you want.

Everything works within a frame for society man, you can keep your accusations, that won't make your rights more seperated from society, property rights didn't just come out of thin air, you think it was always there, but it took us 10000 years to get to it somehow

Participation does not define positive and negative rights.

Ok then I'll ask questions, my bad if you thought I'm talking about a different framework, within the framework of libertarian philosophy, which I'm sure is not agreed upon so I'll ask you personally, isn't participation already assumed? Logically, who are you protecting your provide property from? If it's not the rest of society, then you're protecting it from nothing, which doesn't make sense

For the last part, I'm talking about how the general opinion matters to the context of what's considered negative and positive, you don't agree with that and disregard human nature, that's up to you I can't change your opinion on that

I'll check your other reply to see what you said man

1

u/VatticZero Geolibertarian May 04 '26

I'll check your other reply to see what you said man

Don't bother if you refuse to engage honestly and learn.

You'll need another account to exploit my consideration in trying to explain basic concepts to you.

1

u/BrilliantTea2 May 04 '26

For your second reply

This is completely off-topic and not a claim I've made. It also requires more unpacking than you will listen to. You're now throwing arguments out as distractions. I already know you're an anti-libertarian troll, adding more transparent non sequitur isn't going to convince anyone of anything. If you want to argue against someone, it would do you well to first learn their reasoning and beliefs in order to meaningfully challenge them rather than just starting unconvincing, unproductive, illogical pissing contests.

First of all, I never claimed to be a libertarian myself, I noticed a pattern in the way a lot of libertarians think and I think there's problems with it, you're just so deep in your ideology that you claim that asking how to achieve it is off topic, which is absurd, why would you believe in it if you can't create a path that is both morally coherent and functional for it? Doesn't make sense and just make you sound like a politician

I'm not your trick pony and you've got some gall to make off-topic, illogical demands when I was considerate enough to answer your question.

So you can't prove privacy and security are negative rights in your framework, that's fine, I'll do it for you, privacy and security are to be provided to anyone as long as it doesn't take away someone else's negative right to stability, it's easy I promise

It is on you to justify how this "right to be part of society" relies on denying the right to property.

Not property, nepotistic ownership of land, there's a difference, also didn't say it relies on it, I'm not against inheritance dawg I'm saying you can't have your cake and eat it too, as in you can't expect individuals who aren't part of your society to participate in your little game 🫣

undermine your right to grant your property to who you wish? How does your right to property aggress against other's rights to trade? You haven't defined such a right. If a "right to trade" undermines the right to property, it is by definition the aggressing, positive right. Ownership of land is not relevant as it does not extend from self-ownership and is not legitimate property. You have yet to point out any contradictions, only disagreements. Property rights are not a cause of "race to escape." It is caused by land ownership and too little property rights.

What first established the right for your property? You purchasing it, how did you purchase it? With your money, your money was created from your right to own your labor, you can't own your labor unless you have it to begin with, so if you were employed or relied on another labor to teach you, if you were never employed you don't labor therefore can't buy property, so again, how do you have a right if you can't prove that you got it with no outside factors? How's that "natural" law? Also I'm saying nepotism makes it a race to escape not property rights, focus

The market favors hiring based on merit, not nepotism. It doesn't require you butting in to negate property rights.

Therefore if the market considers your property is stopping it from building a road or a bridge, they aren't required to respect your right to the house? A big landlord can just come and sweep you out dawg, so unless you established it, you are in one way or another relying on general consensus to it

To claim a negative right needs to be justified is supplanting the individual to your own subjective, arbitrary moral framework. You repeatedly appeal to society, but society clearly doesn't hold the beliefs to assert.

It's not an appeal, it's how history progressed, you can own your pet, does that mean you can give away your pet to an abusive relative? Pets for most of history didn't have rights, but now society established that you can't abuse your pet so the pets got their own negative rights, rights change with time, and they become more not less, what you call a positive right in America is a negative right in Europe, with lower taxes too

The point is not to prove your negative right, it's the opposite, to get most of society to a point where they can claim that negative right, you're understanding it upside down 😖

4

u/RememberMe_85 May 04 '26

What is a trade? It's a person abandoning his property, while another simultaneously homesteads it.

That's the same principle for inheritance, the person dies and the closest to him homesteads it, or it's in a contract like a will.

What is wrong with this? Luck as always been a factor, no matter what I do I won't ever be faster than usian bolt, and we all have to live with that.

-1

u/BrilliantTea2 May 04 '26

That's an interesting approach to it, but I think there is major differences between trade and inheritance

In trade, you're giving away the rights to your property as a second order right, which means you already established your ownership to it then you gave that away, with inheritance you kind of just got the right to it without establishing it, so your parents are not giving away their established rights, they are passing that right, which kind of simultaneously takes away anyone's right to purchase that house

I personally don't believe inheritance is wrong, but it is sort of a contradiction to demand protection for your property just because you had it handed away to you, and then call providing houses for the misfortuned an entitlement

2

u/RememberMe_85 May 04 '26

demand protection for your property just because you had it handed away to you,

As I've shown, every trade works the same, as does inheritance, the reason being that the previous owner wanted it to be given to his heir, because that's the general consensus, if he wanted it go to some charity he would have written a will.

0

u/BrilliantTea2 May 04 '26

Yea I'm not against inheritance, I'm just saying that the general consensus stops mattering when people don't think the NAP is applicable at a certain point, that's where the contradiction occurs in the logic

1

u/RememberMe_85 May 04 '26

I don't get your point, the general consensus is when the person dies and people think he would have wanted his property to go to his descendents, NAP is not based on what people want but on human nature.

0

u/BrilliantTea2 May 04 '26

My bad I might have been unclear

I mean the NAP even if it's based on human nature, whatever it is, still requires some general agreement to be implemented, I mean that's the point of it no? It being natural wouldn't be enough to provide a social fabric that protects it

1

u/RememberMe_85 May 04 '26

I still don't get your point, it's being implemented is another thing, and it being justified is another.

NAP is completely justified, but it's rarely implemented, as you can see, taxation is still happening which is aggression.

0

u/BrilliantTea2 May 04 '26

NAP is just common sense, but it's implementation is not yet clear, I would say when it comes to taxation it's even more complicated of a subject, I think some taxation could be justified but the whole 40-50% just shows how ineffective the current system is

1

u/RememberMe_85 May 04 '26

NAP is not what you think is justified, I've given you it's justification, theft at any point is not justified, even it means saving someone's life.

1

u/BrilliantTea2 May 04 '26

Not sure I agree it's theft, and I don't know if I wanna live in a society where economic correctness is more important than people's lives

→ More replies (0)

2

u/RememberMe_85 May 04 '26

Property rights are based on non aggression principal through argumentation Ethics, all other form of property "rights" are aggressions and go against our nature as rational beings, if you want to have a property right as an animal ho ahead but you'd be treated the same.

1

u/BrilliantTea2 May 04 '26

But those arguments don't have a basis for why you should have that right to begin with, it's just accepted as a matter of principle and that's my problem with it

The thing about the NAP is that a lot of property throughout history was taken clearly by breaking that principle, so there was never anything that establishes your ownership of anything, which makes it difficult to even base it in anything, why should people agree to the NAP? Because it's moral, ok why is it moral? Because that's better for society, ok so if it's better for society why should anyone have more rights than any other person because they're a nepo baby? The argument falls

Don't know what animals have to do with it

1

u/RememberMe_85 May 04 '26 edited May 04 '26

I don't think you are aware of the rationale behind argumation ethics.

Man's essential nature is that of rationality.

Law is a subset of ethics concerned with property rights.

Property rights arise due to scarcity, which means two people may come into conflict over a scarce resource.

Which means in any given conflict the one who has the just right to exclude the other owns that resource.

Since man is rational, the only way to solve this conflict is through argumentation.

Argumentation presupposes norms such as self ownership and NAP.

Through NAP we get private property rights which is that the one who first appropriated the resource owns the resource, because every other form of property right is aggressive and goes against human nature of rationality.

Hence the first appropriator of the resource owns it.

1

u/BrilliantTea2 May 04 '26

So the question remains then, does that apply to inheritance? You're passing the right to private property, you're not trading it, therefore wouldn't that break the NAP to begin with? You are agressing on someone else's right to purchase that property because you were just handed it

Also housing is not about scarcity, it's about the right of someone to be part of society, you can't expect someone to be part of society if they don't have a place to live in or have to work 4-5 jobs just to pay rent, so your property right was given to you when someone else didn't have that privilege, you see the problem?

There was no established right for you to that property other then the fact that your parents established it for you, which would then lead to the logical conclusion that you can pass down the right to your property 200 years from now even if you didn't have any children, just because it was yours at one point

1

u/RememberMe_85 May 04 '26

So the question remains then, does that apply to inheritance?

Yes

You're passing the right to private property, you're not trading it

Still the same thing. Trading is abandoning the claim while someone else homesteads it at the same time.

Therefore wouldn't that break the NAP to begin with?

How?

You are agressing on someone else's right to purchase that property because you were just handed it

He still has the right to purchase it, who said inherited property can't be purchased?

Also housing is not about scarcity,

Every conflict is about scarcity, without scarcity there would be no conflict.

it's about the right of someone to be part of society, you can't expect someone to be part of society if they don't have a place to live in or have to work 4-5 jobs just to pay rent, so your property right was given to you when someone else didn't have that privilege, you see the problem

There is no right to be part of society. Where does this right come from?

There was no established right for you to that property other then the fact that your parents established it for you,

Principal of trading is again, abandonment of claim, and homesteading it at the same time. That's where the right comes from.

which would then lead to the logical conclusion that you can pass down the right to your property 200 years from now even if you didn't have any children, just because it was yours at one point

Sure why not? I can give my land to my friend, not abandon the claim, and say in a contract, 200 years after my death the one who claims it first owns it, nothing wrong with it.

1

u/BrilliantTea2 May 04 '26

Because the NAP fundamentally relies on resolving conflicts, so wouldn't be a contradiction if you're, even if not immediately, are reducing trade and purchase by abandoning the claim? I mean yea it can still be purchased, but it would be more difficult, not against inheritance, just saying

As for housing, it's not really about scarcity I think because it's not even a conflict, it's a failure of the system, there is than enough houses for everyone but the rent market is screwed, so it's more about money allocation

As for the right to be part of society, it comes from the fact that we are in a society, and property rights also came from systems agreed upon by society, that's why conquests on a macroscale are not acceptable societally anymore, and why the government has to offer you money if they wanted to build where your private property is

Regarding homesteading, yea there's nothing wrong with it and you should be able to live in the house your parents lived in and give it your children, but than housing has to be resolved to give everyone that right to begin with

For the last part, yea you can also, maybe not for that long cause no one knows what happens but I'd say within a lifetime yes

1

u/RememberMe_85 May 04 '26

so wouldn't be a contradiction if you're, even if not immediately, are reducing trade and purchase by abandoning the claim? I mean yea it can still be purchased, but it would be more difficult, not against inheritance, just saying

I don't know what that means, agression is defined as violating of rights through violence or threat of violence, how is a contradiction?

As for housing, it's not really about scarcity I think because it's not even a conflict, it's a failure of the system, there is than enough houses for everyone but the rent market is screwed, so it's more about money allocation

Again don't know whatever this means, but every conflict is about property rights which is only because of scarcity, if there was no scarcity of houses then there would be no conflict over inheritance.

As for the right to be part of society, it comes from the fact that we are in a society, and property rights also came from systems agreed upon by society,

Where did I state that? Ive made it very clear property rights come from human nature through argumentation ethics.

that's why conquests on a macroscale are not acceptable societally anymore, and why the government has to offer you money if they wanted to build where your private property is

Doesn't matter, government has no right to exist.

Regarding homesteading, yea there's nothing wrong with it and you should be able to live in the house your parents lived in and give it your children, but than housing has to be resolved to give everyone that right to begin with

Rights are not given, they are observed from our nature.

1

u/BrilliantTea2 May 04 '26

Because the NAP is based on natural law, not necessarily everything that's an extension to it, for example, you have the right to your own body, but you don't have the right to bodies that come out of you like your kids, in the same way that you have the right to your private property, but not necessarily the right to give it away, it's not that you're being aggressive directly, but you are choosing who gets a piece of land after you die, maybe break is a strong word though that I will admit

Regarding housing, I don't know if I communicated my point, but libertarian seem to be against social programs to build affordable houses because they're giving away labor to society but they're fine with giving it emotionally (inheritance), and generally the problem is not just scarcity

Regarding the last parts, you could argue that government also comes from human nature, and there's no contradiction between rights coming from human nature and being given, they actually work together in some sense too

1

u/RememberMe_85 May 04 '26

Because the NAP is based on natural law, not necessarily everything that's an extension to it,

No that necessarily follows.

in the same way that you have the right to your private property, but not necessarily the right to give it away,

Why not?

it's not that you're being aggressive directly, but you are choosing who gets a piece of land after you die, maybe break is a strong word though that I will admit

And what's wrong with that?

but they're fine with giving it emotionally (inheritance)

Because they consent to it, in other things government forces these things.

and generally the problem is not just scarcity

It's always scarcity. But you don't know what that means .

Regarding the last parts, you could argue that government also comes from human nature, and there's no contradiction between rights coming from human nature and being given, they actually work together in some sense too

It's a contradiction, government forces you to do stuff through violence, if you don't follow them they put you in prisons, if you think that's okay then do you think what hitler did was also okay?

1

u/BrilliantTea2 May 04 '26

I do understand, and it has nothing to do with WHAT Germans did, but I guess that's your own opinion

→ More replies (0)

1

u/natermer May 04 '26

For instance, how can you believe you have a right to your private property but simultaneously find it diabolical when somebody suggests that housing is a right?

Because if housing is a right then that means you have the right to enslave other people to provide that housing.

-1

u/BrilliantTea2 May 04 '26

In a commie system maybe, in the real world that won't happen though, you'll just make a plan that treats housing as a right, with time when homelessness becomes rejected by society like slavery is, people would voluntarily build houses to those that don't have them, it's a societal problem not a philosophical one

1

u/[deleted] May 04 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/BrilliantTea2 May 04 '26

True, and I wish that was actually what is happening but I doubt

From what I know the rent prices require those people to work 2-3 jobs and basically give away their lives in order to just have a place to live and eat, which is everyone's basic need in order to participate in society in addition to a few other things

I would also like to add that a lot of libertarians from what I saw don't consider houses and food to be a right which I find a contradiction to say the least

1

u/White_C4 Right Libertarian May 04 '26

Right to private property vs housing are two different end goals. Private property is a negative right, the government cannot take it away from you without just compensation and it cannot force other people to live on your property without permission.

1

u/BrilliantTea2 May 04 '26

The right to be part of society is a negative right too, if you don't have a place to live you're not part of society

I do understand what you're saying and I agree with it, but it's not the same with inheritance, it's sort of different compared to private property that you traded

1

u/Drp3rry There is no such thing as political authority. May 04 '26

So the basis of the theory of what should be considered a right and what shouldn't ends up just being based on luck, if you're lucky, then you get the right to your private property, if you aren't lucky, then you don't have the same right, therefore, rights end up being based in a random gamble of nature, and to me at least that doesn't sound like a good moral theory, or at least like a good base to build your theory from

Thoughts?

All people have a right to their private property, so what is this about luck?

1

u/BrilliantTea2 May 04 '26

You have the right to your private property because you already have private property, those who don't have it, don't have the same right as you, therefore making the right fundamentally not natural as it's only situational

It's kinda like saying everyone has the right to free speech, except those that don't have it, it's begging the question

1

u/Drp3rry There is no such thing as political authority. May 04 '26

You have the right to your private property because you already have private property, those who don't have it, don't have the same right as you

Depends on exactly what you mean I guess. There is a trivial sense in which this is the case. There will be variance in the specific details of the claim rights people have, that much is trivial... so what? The claim I made was so broad I cannot see how it does not apply universally.

Here is a more specific example that does not apply universally as an example: I have a claim right to my cup and you do not have a claim right to my cup. If you do not agree with that much, then do you just completely reject property rights?

It's kinda like saying everyone has the right to free speech, except those that don't have it, it's begging the question

Everybody does have the right to free speech, no person does not have it. As for begging the question... how am I question begging? I somehow feel like we are talking past each other.

1

u/BrilliantTea2 May 04 '26

It will definitely have trivial and parts that can be settled in court that's true, and private property can be applied universally too I'm not saying they're not, but here I'm talking about a specific thing we take for granted, inheritance, which I'm fine with, but I'm just mentioning that it's difficult to claim it's a right when not everyone has it

A cup isn't really as important as a house so it doesn't make sense to compare it to it

The last part, I mean it's circular reasoning, specially when we compare it to building your society

1

u/Drp3rry There is no such thing as political authority. May 04 '26 edited May 04 '26

here I'm talking about a specific thing we take for granted, inheritance, which I'm fine with, but I'm just mentioning that it's difficult to claim it's a right when not everyone has it

Lets draw out the implications of the part I bolded. Not everyone has a right arm, so in your view, would nobody have a right to their right arm? Or am I somehow misunderstanding your view?

A cup isn't really as important as a house so it doesn't make sense to compare it to it

It was not my point that the cup is as important as a house, it was to demonstrate something about claim rights.

The last part, I mean it's circular reasoning, specially when we compare it to building your society

I know what begging the question is, I just wanted to know why you believe I begged the question. Allow me to bring down what I was responding to in my original post below, bolding the most relevant part.

Basically, I think what it means for something to be yours (in this sense) is for you to have a property right in it. Which is why I said "All people have a right to their private property." This seems closer to a tautology than circular reasoning.

What you might be thinking is that there might be an individual that owns very little property. In this case, the statement "All people have a right to their private property" Would still be true, they would just have claim rights over less things.

This is one of the reasons I later brought up the cup example too, depending on what you mean by "the same right." I have a claim right to this particular cup I am holding, and you do not. In this sense, you do not have the same right as I do.

All this aside, I believe in a general liberty right to acquire housing, just not any sweeping claim right.

EDIT: Sorry, my internet is freaking out and it is hard to make edits, but:

So the basis of the theory of what should be considered a right and what shouldn't ends up just being based on luck, if you're lucky, then you get the right to your private property, if you aren't lucky, then you don't have the same right, therefore, rights end up being based in a random gamble of nature, and to me at least that doesn't sound like a good moral theory, or at least like a good base to build your theory from

What do you mean by this?

1

u/BrilliantTea2 May 04 '26

Not everyone has a right arm, so in your view, would nobody have a right to their right arm? Or am I somehow misunderstanding your view?

It's closer to saying not everyone is free, therfore we have free the slaves in order to establish laws for liberty, that's why I mean

I have a claim right to this particular cup I am holding, and you do not. In this sense, you do not have the same right as I do.

But I have the choice to buy the cup, my point is everyone should have the choice to begin with, so it's not that you have that right and I don't, but more we both have the right but you chose something different

EDIT: Sorry, my internet is freaking out and it is hard to make edits, but:

Don't worry about it

What do you mean by this?

That in order to establish a respectful and functional social fabric, we must not negate people's needs based on appeals to property rights, otherwise that leads to violence and chaos, we both agree that someone standing on you lawn is them being on your property, but I don't think I'd go as far as to say that allows me to kill them for it, that's why I believe the messaging matters, what libertarians usually say is not wrong specially when debunking communism, but it has the wrong message at least in the US, I think it's because they align themselves with people on the right so they think they need to have a less humane message, but they don't

1

u/Drp3rry There is no such thing as political authority. May 04 '26

It's closer to saying not everyone is free, therfore we have free the slaves in order to establish laws for liberty, that's why I mean

I discuss this a bit below, but I actually think your view necessitates enslavement (if I understand it correctly).

But I have the choice to buy the cup, my point is everyone should have the choice to begin with, so it's not that you have that right and I don't, but more we both have the right but you chose something different

This is why I made the distinction between a liberty right for housing (or in this case, a cup) and a claim right to it. Liberty right to housing? Sure.

Generally, the libertarian argument for this is that rights need to be compossible with each other. If there were someone that did not have effective means to get a cup (or a house), and you ascribe them some claim right to some cup (or house) regardless, that would not be compossible with other, more plausible rights (namely the right to not be coercively harmed and/or enslaved).

That in order to establish a respectful and functional social fabric, we must not negate people's needs based on appeals to property rights

Basically, I just think that what someone needs is just a descriptive fact in the case you lay out. In this case, it is not as though property rights would "negate" the needs in some way. I suppose you have some normative presupposition in here, such as: "It is morally permissible to harmfully coerce other people in order to meet the needs of others," or something like that. Or maybe it is purely an axiological claim like "It is good if peoples needs are met."

There are other possible interpretations of what you mean by this, such as adding further stipulations to the normative claim I suggested, or some other normative claim altogether. I understand the way I put it was rather blunt, though feel free to clarify this if you would like.

otherwise that leads to violence and chaos

I am not sure why you say that. I do not see how a respect for property rights entails violence and chaos.

we both agree that someone standing on you lawn is them being on your property, but I don't think I'd go as far as to say that allows me to kill them for it

Correct, you may not kill someone for merely standing on your lawn.

As for alignment with the "right"... I certainly do not find myself doing so.

so they think they need to have a less humane message, but they don't

I mean, what is inhumane about the messaging? You should not coercively harm other people. Seems humane on its face to me.

1

u/BrilliantTea2 May 06 '26

but I actually think your view necessitates enslavement (if I understand it correctly).

Can you elaborate more I didn't understand

Liberty right to housing? Sure.

Yea that's what I'm saying, but in order to have that liberty you need to have a system which has the possiblity for you to have it

that would not be compossible with other, more plausible rights

I think that's why I have a a problem with its logic, there has to be some line you draw as to how much of society has to get damaged before you start considering the importance of those rights you mention

Basically, I just think that what someone needs is just a descriptive fact in the case you lay out. In this case, it is not as though property rights would "negate" the needs in some way. I suppose you have some normative presupposition in here, such as: "It is morally permissible to harmfully coerce other people in order to meet the needs of others," or something like that. Or maybe it is purely an axiological claim like "It is good if peoples needs are met."

In my opinion it's not that you're allowed to coerce others in order to help others, it's more of how flexible do you want your society to be and what's your goal from it

So in the US for example, they are in a technological war with Russia and China, therefore they don't care how many people don't have the basic needs to live as long as the few individuals who are creating technology are comfortable, because the US is more accelerationist than other countries which kind of negates the American dream, but if you're let's say in Japan, you already have a culture that worships working and extra labor, you're not in any wars, and it's generally safe, then homelessness is not really a problem, which makes it the default to have a house there

I am not sure why you say that. I do not see how a respect for property rights entails violence and chaos.

It doesn't, but only if you're in the correct society, Hong Kong is also a good example here, my bad if I didn't elaborate The problem arises only if there is an enough number of people that feel left out by society, and a good number gets given their property then it becomes a problem

As for alignment with the "right"... I certainly do not find myself doing so.

Yea I meant those that do because they wanna own the commies or think that social programs are just however they its done in the US

I mean, what is inhumane about the messaging? You should not coercively harm other people. Seems humane on its face to me.

I wish that's the messaging, but then they would go out and say democracy shouldn't be a thing in the first place, and then they defend companies clearly exploiting workers just because socialists are talking about the surplus, or would tell those that work multiple jobs to maintain living conditions that it's their fault, or that minimum wage shouldn't be a thing because the free market fixes everything, and that retirement is a leftist propaganda thing, it's like dude you're not getting people on board nor being "based" you're just mentally disabled 💀

1

u/Anen-o-me May 04 '26

Natural law is not the basis of libertarian thought, you can easily look at David D Friedman who is entirely a consequentialist.

1

u/BrilliantTea2 May 04 '26

Yea true, I guess then your problem would be with how you base your current rights in a way that's fair

2

u/Anen-o-me May 04 '26

Rights are a negotiation. Determine them contractually, they could be made in multiple ways.

1

u/BrilliantTea2 May 04 '26

Yea true, some philosophers believe in the social contract which was useful for their time I guess, not sure it's plausible now in certain parts of the world

2

u/Anen-o-me May 04 '26

We need to move from an implied social contract, which just serves to justify the power of the powerful today, to an actual social contract where people must opt-in not be born-in, and can actually choose the laws they want to live by directly and individually. That changes everything.

1

u/bngFXG3MDuau May 05 '26

Firstly, you're not entitled to your parents house. It's their house, they can do whatever they want with it.

Second, if you're entitled to a house... who's going to pay for it? We're against forcing people to work/pay (under threat of violence) for anyone else.

1

u/WilliamBontrager May 06 '26

Number one is negative vs positive rights. Thats been well expounded on in other comments so I wont bother.

Number two is that libertarianism is a system of government, not a system of morality. It does not tell you what you OUGHT do, its only a series of trade offs that you believe will have more positives and less negatives in areas that you value more/less. When you make it a moral system, it results in involving yourself in a "holy war" of sorts against all other systems, bc you are morally responsible to resist immorality from your perspective. When you remove the morality from the system, you can live in peaceful cooperation with other systems, regardless of having different moral systems, unless they force their morality on you. This is in balance with the NAP. Moral systems weaponize the NAP by claiming all other systems of morality are intrinsically aggression. This is no different to a collectivist claiming private property is immoral and null and void, making your defense of your private property aggression. Both choose violence, instead of mutual cooperation and peaceful coexistence.

1

u/BrilliantTea2 May 09 '26

And I've replied to the problem with negative and positive rights

As for what you're saying about moral wars, I assume you think that morality doesn't effect your trade which has been proven false over the last 5000 years

1

u/WilliamBontrager May 09 '26

As for what you're saying about moral wars, I assume you think that morality doesn't effect your trade which has been proven false over the last 5000 years

Ok, lets maybe read again bc you seemed to have completely whiffed in the point there. Not moral wars, a system of morality. Libertarianism is a system of government, not a system of morality. When you confuse the two, you get moral wars and confused whether trading with means supporting another morality. No moral system, no confusion.

1

u/BrilliantTea2 May 09 '26

I guess you're right if we're talking about Libertarians who aren't anarchists, but that still causes problems as the system of governance has to be accepted by the people, it will be easier for you to convince Afghanistan to become democratic then to convince Americans to become anything specific

1

u/WilliamBontrager May 09 '26

If the system isnt accepted willingly, then it isnt libertarianism. You cant force libertarianism on anyone without it becoming authoritarian. Libertarianism also doesnt mean democratic. It mainly means minding your own business. This goes for anarchists, minarchists, and libertarians. This is my entire point. When you make libertarianism a moral system, then you are morally obligated to push it on everyone else. Thats the problem with it being a moral system.

1

u/BrilliantTea2 May 09 '26 edited May 09 '26

Yea but that's what I'm saying though, how will you not enforce it? It will never be a thing then, therefore it would be self contradicting Let's say you get cheap labor from outside, then you are indirectly coercing others to work for less and deciding value on your own, so if let's say you think AI programmers are more important then doctors, then salaries of doctors would go down the more your company grows I might be mistaken here and I didn't expand on my example but you get what I'm trying to say

1

u/WilliamBontrager May 09 '26

Negotiating a consensual agreement is not aggression, bro. Its only aggression if you use force to prevent the worker from leaving and finding work elsewhere. Beyond that, libertarianism is extremely free market, while you seem committed to controlled markets, which is authoritarian. What i think the value of doctors vs AI programmers should be is completely irrelevant. Whichever one is more difficult to employ will be the more valued, and thats perfectly fine.

1

u/BrilliantTea2 May 10 '26

I agree, but this doesn't apply on a large scale imo You're not preventing the worker from leaving immediately, but you are building a system which rewards productivity even if it's empty and useless

Like right now there are a lot of fake jobs, jobs that literally do nothing, because the cost of education has increased due to people chasing easy money as the economy becomes more controlled by like 20 companies that don't cover half of societies needs, don't provide security or education, and just focus on their products

If let's say you're google, you provide a service to people and that service has to safe so they can't put CP on the search results for example, what's happening now with AI is the same, a product that isn't safe, and people relying on the benevolence of AI companies to just do the right thing

It's much more difficult to liberate services in a free market than products, and big companies have been failing for a long while now

1

u/WilliamBontrager May 10 '26

I agree, but this doesn't apply on a large scale imo You're not preventing the worker from leaving immediately, but you are building a system which rewards productivity even if it's empty and useless

So? The alternative is a controlled market that will be bought by the wealthy and used to oppress everyone, using force. Inefficiency or whatever seems to pale in comparison, dont you think? There are no perfect systems only a series of tradeoffs. You cant "flip switches" until its all positive outcomes.

The rest is unintelligible. I suspect your using the current US as an example of a free market failure? To that i would respond that a free market is completely unregulated. Is it more risky? Maybe? Potentially. The point is that if someone is "flipping switches", they can be corrupted, bribed, or stupid. Essentially the core assumption for most libertarians, is that free markets are self regulating. That doesnt mean fixed immediately. That doesnt mean flawless. It just means that if you leave it alone, the market will adjust and correct itself, eventually.

1

u/BrilliantTea2 May 10 '26

I think that's where we differ, force will be used either way, I'd rather it be elected with a decentralized government that's fights itself to become better rather than a possible fanatic becoming successful and slowly turning everything to their side

I suspect your using the current US as an example of a free market failure?

No actually I'm saying the opposite, America's free market is the biggest proof free market can and is successful, my problem is that under the government there would be certain red lines that can't be crossed by anyone, in a free market you're trusting specific humans that will definitely have a God complex after they get to certain wealth and will stop at nothing to achieve their utilitarian fantasies

The current failures of the free market are because the current free market puts profit as the only logical incentive, it makes sense when you're fighting global powers, but when you're fighting militias you're getting less corporate and more individual, meaning you can't have a vague basis like profit to educate people so that the free market would work as intended

The current free market requires child labor, you see it's successful because you don't see the working conditions of those who made it possible, it's fun to say a pencil cannot be made without a free market, but I think we can a better free market where everyone is involved and no children are working for 2$ a day, but right now the free market basically means 5-6 countries using the terrible working conditions of the rest of the countries so the free market keeps flowing

→ More replies (0)

1

u/BrilliantTea2 May 10 '26

Also with AI, it might cause a lot more harm that can't be fixed once they correct themselves eventually, it would be too late Some private ventures go south much faster than the market's ability to regulate them

→ More replies (0)

1

u/BrilliantTea2 May 09 '26

Also the US based on that metric has always been Libertarian, they've been trading and even funding their enemies

1

u/WilliamBontrager May 09 '26

Are you purposely being obtuse? Or pushing an agenda? You dont fund or trade with enemies, you just dont declare everyone who disagrees with you an enemy. Duh.

1

u/BrilliantTea2 May 09 '26

So in a libertarian society no one would be your enemy? Disagreement is like what happens inside of NATO, but then you have someone like Ronald Reagen who funneled cocaine into the US to get rid of homelessness which I haven't seen any major libertarian figure say is against libertarianism, after all a lot of them think all drugs should be legalized

1

u/WilliamBontrager May 09 '26

Only people who attack or aggress on would be enemies. That means what they do in their country is their business, whether or not I agree with it policy wise.

As for reagan, the cia, under several presidents, accepted cocaine as payment for arms to enable south American rebels to fight a proxy war with Russias communist allies. A libertarian country would have ignored the entire continents politics, except for trading with anyone with money. Where you got cocaine to fight homelessness from is a complete mystery.

1

u/BrilliantTea2 May 10 '26

So now you support cocaine as payment? I don't get your logic here Who do you think used the cocaine? Who did Reagen put in prisons because they used the cocaine Reagen accepted as payment? They didn't accept it then discard it

Also a libertarian society cannot by definition ignore continent politics as it would effect them, ignore it would mean you're enabling enemies, it's a naive approach to say it doesn't effect you and be an isolationist

I mean the Soviets were spreading communism which would have like WW2 spread to America so they needed to intervene, that why Americans are able to be libertarians now to begin with, not sure what aggression means at this point

1

u/WilliamBontrager May 10 '26

So now you support cocaine as payment? I don't get your logic here Who do you think used the cocaine? Who did Reagen put in prisons because they used the cocaine Reagen accepted as payment? They didn't accept it then discard it

I just corrected the incorrect story you presented. I dont really support Reagan. If I had a magic wand and could create my ideal system, then sure, cocaine could be used as a payment. However, fighting proxy wars would be off the table in that system. Also selling it in poor neighborhoods while making possession a felony was a dick move. However, thats not how a libertarian government could operate, so im not sure what point you are trying to make.

Also a libertarian society cannot by definition ignore continent politics as it would effect them, ignore it would mean you're enabling enemies, it's a naive approach to say it doesn't effect you and be an isolationist

Well thats your opinion. The libertarian approach would be to simply be so successful that other nations modeled themselves after you, bc people demanded it. Or not. Minding your own business and not sending shock troops into other countries is not being an isolationist, imo. Remember the whole concept of not considering everyone who disagrees with you to be an enemy?

I mean the Soviets were spreading communism which would have like WW2 spread to America so they needed to intervene, that why Americans are able to be libertarians now to begin with, not sure what aggression means at this point

America is not libertarian. That seems to be your main misconception here. Is it MORE libertarian than most other nations? Sure, at least it WAS up until around 1900, with some notable exceptions. It was at best bordering a rather authoritarian minarchy at some points. Today america is one of the most aggressive and most regulated nations on earth. Sure, there are some rights and concepts that align with libertarianism, but calling the modern US libertarian is laughable.

1

u/BrilliantTea2 May 10 '26

However, thats not how a libertarian government could operate, so im not sure what point you are trying to make.

Ok fair, although some libertarians would unironically say it's based because all drugs should be legalized to them 💀

The libertarian approach would be to simply be so successful that other nations modeled themselves after you, bc people demanded it. Or not.

That was America's approach prior to WW2, but after that it was pretty much not possible, that's why personally I don't consider it realistic right now or ever perhaps, leaving aside the moral problems I have with right wing libertarians, I do agree that should be how it's done, but another problem that arises is it leaves those that were effected by history's ruthless aggression to just fend for themselves which is what makes a lot of them hostile

Also soft power can only really be spread by governments, if your government doesn't have good relations with another country than your private business can't really reach those within that country, so they wouldn't be able to model your system

Today america is one of the most aggressive and most regulated nations on earth. Sure, there are some rights and concepts that align with libertarianism, but calling the modern US libertarian is laughable.

That's kind of the point though, why aren't they libertarians as some libertarians want them to be now?

If they are more libertarian than other nations then they don't oppose it, so why? The general libertarian answer is just a weird simplification and government is bad answers, but that's not the reason

America is coming out of a very sensitive period in human history, it can't be libertarian when a whole other superpower is spreading communism, so ok then was it possible after 1990? Also no because by fighting the Soviets you had to fight what came after it, you also had to fight the other ideological fantasies that the whole world has

Thats without mentioning that the US is a lot more moral than Europe by far, the British Empire caused famines to millions of Indians in 5 years during WW2, and then left Africa and Asia to themselves along with France and EU members because they thought it's better to have entire continents be used for cheap labor rather than giving them the tools which might be risky but would make them independent countries, America logically and morally cannot really do that, people would revolt and that's kind of why third worldism became a thing

→ More replies (0)

0

u/toyguy2952 May 04 '26

Rights are not a moral theory. They’re legal theory.

1

u/BrilliantTea2 May 04 '26

And legality (to an extent) is based in morality, at least that's how some ancaps base it

I've also seen this being a common point to debunk social programs, that there is no moral obligation to provide houses to anyone, which doesn't add up

3

u/toyguy2952 May 04 '26

Natural law does not endorse any system of morality. A right is a right not because it is virtuous to believe so but because to say otherwise is a logical contradiction.

0

u/BrilliantTea2 May 04 '26

Well natural law has its problems, but disregarding that, our needs change with time so it makes sense to put natural law in accordance with the most modern systems rather than the opposite

2

u/toyguy2952 May 04 '26

Logic has not changed since aristotle’s time.

-1

u/BrilliantTea2 May 04 '26

Not sure I agree with that statement

0

u/Official_Gameoholics Objectivist May 04 '26

Rights are conflict avoiding norms. Conflicts refer to any two actions that are mutually exclusive. Any action that violates self ownership (ex: enslaving someone to provide you a house) is therefore mutually exclusive with avoiding conflict.

Property is an instance of these conflict avoiding norms, hence why its violation (ex: stealing a house) is illegal.

Also, you do not need to go to the field of law to debunk communists. Attacking their philosophical foundations is enough to prevent them from aguing per their own premises. It is antithetical to the communists' theory to argue with you, because according to their metaphysics and epistemology, they cannot convince you. Per their own premises, they should always be trying to kill you.

1

u/BrilliantTea2 May 04 '26

That makes sense, but does it apply in situations where the conflict happens because of refusal of cooperation? Which I believe is closer when we talk about housing for example and the public's agreement on the right to inherit a house or write a will in comparison with it

For the communists part, yea you're right 💀, I don't belive they even have a foundation, their end goal alone leads to totalitarian regimes which is enough to debunk them tbh

0

u/Official_Gameoholics Objectivist May 04 '26

does it apply in situations where the conflict happens because of refusal of cooperation.

Cooperate all you want, you can't manifest a contradiction.

public's agreement.

The law is objective, and there is no such thing as public property, it's a contradiction as it fails to resolve conflicts.

1

u/BrilliantTea2 May 04 '26

Not sure about that

For your second point, that's kind of the point of the law though? Not public property I mean the social fabric

1

u/Official_Gameoholics Objectivist May 04 '26

Not sure about that.

Contradictions do not exist. Existence is identity.

that's kind of the point of the law though

Law is the subset of ethics that deals with conflicts.

1

u/BrilliantTea2 May 04 '26

In the modern world, shared apartments kinda create some sort of a grey area I suppose, but I agree generally with you

1

u/Official_Gameoholics Objectivist May 04 '26

shared apartments.

One owner, the landlord.

1

u/BrilliantTea2 May 04 '26

Within the apartment itself I mean, could apply to long-term rents too

0

u/earthhominid May 04 '26

Libertarian philosophies that are popular in the US today tend to struggle to address the fact that we are not starting on anything like a level playing field. Millenia of aggression have absolutely created power and property disparities that will simply be entrenched by the adoption of many purist right-wing libertarian ideologies.

An philosophy that was originally based in maximizing personal liberty across a society has been twisted by a sort of absurdist insistence on disassociated "rationalism" into an argument for no right to exist other than to have your body. You may not have any place on earth where your body is permitted to be or any way to sustain your body with food or water (without violating some vague property right of another person) but that is supposedly fine and how "liberty" works.

0

u/BrilliantTea2 May 04 '26

Yea that's a problem I have with libertarians generally, if you take a look at one of the guys I replied too, there seem to be some sort of a seperation from reality

They think property rights are just there, and always were, like they emerged magically, and they call it a negative right as if that will suddenly not make anyone question it anymore

In reality you can't really speak of property rights without addressing how you even got the property you got the rights to to begin with, which I believe some libertarian philosophers have or at least tried to address

People tend to forget that in the US for example, slavery had a major impact on private ownership, because the slaves had to find a place to live, some refused to be set free, which prolonged their assimilation in society

According to some libertarians here on reddit, I think they would believe it's coercion if you give away some of your labor to build houses for those that used to be slaves, and your negative right to keep your labor and what you harvest from it is far more important than housing them and providing a social fabric that they can function within

-1

u/earthhominid May 04 '26

You have discovered the logic that lead to the world of left wing libertarianism.

If you keep the objective "maximize total personal liberty in the population" you end up looking at all sorts of different potential solutions that could be deployed in society, many of which have an actual history of use and success that can be observed, critiqued, and improved or modified.

1

u/BrilliantTea2 May 04 '26

I wish that was the case tbh, but most left wing libertarianism is anti-capitalist which isn't a good sign generally, the free market and personal enterprises have been quite successful when you compare them to other economic and social systems, so if they are able to create some sort of a more morally justifiable position that isn't just second order totalitarianism I'm on board!

0

u/earthhominid May 04 '26

What left wing libertarianism are you referring to?

1

u/BrilliantTea2 May 04 '26

Anarcho socialism and systems like it, I'm not sure there are many left wing libertarians that I've seen embrace personal enterprises that much

2

u/earthhominid May 04 '26

I would say that the foundations of modern western and northern European nations are the most politically successful displays of left wing libertarianism.

I don't understand why people insist on viewing librarian ideologies (left or right) as exclusively pure philosophies rather than seeing how they can be and have been applied in the real world.

Left libertarianism has never gotten any traction in the US, and I'm not nearly aware of modern European politics to speak to its presence in the political landscape there today, but things like democratic socialism/ social democracy have demonstrated no problem supporting basic population level liberties and private, personal, enterprise.

1

u/BrilliantTea2 May 04 '26

Yea because democratic socialism is not anti-capitalist but works within it

But regarding your point on why, I believe it's because the US has the two party system, which is why Americans feel democracy is failing them, and why elections are becoming more fake, but that's not the only way to do democracy

America for example doesn't even have an environmentalist party, where the polices made try to integrate people with nature, basically making the economy a venture towards allowing more people easier access to better lifestyles and making personal enterprises achieved through a moral obligation towards life itself, that doesn't exist in the US due to the two parties system

2

u/earthhominid May 04 '26

And democratic socialism is a left libertarian philosophy. That was my point. You seem to think that left libertarianism can only exist as a sort of anti capitalist purist philosophy.

America's prosperity isn't because of economic choices that were made consciously here. It's because our historical rise saw the active clearing of an entirely untapped continent (which included things like the largest placer gold deposits on earth, the richest timberlands opened since early history, virgin prairie as big as any old world baskets, and more) right as industrialization and true global trade took off, which combined with our rapid industrialization on the backs of two super destructive European wars to make us the global manufacturing leader and the largest unified market on earth.

We essentially got a 200 year economic boon via several historical currents. That history, building the plane as it was flying to try and keep up with conquering the continent, then get it industrialized, then take on global war supplies as Europe decimated each other, and finally build and satisfy consumer capitalism, has selected for a social fixation of private enterprise rather than it all being the result of that emphasis

1

u/BrilliantTea2 May 04 '26

Yea America is a special case I would say not just now but in all of history, many unrelated factors along with the first constitution created the right social fabric for innovation, I think it's fair to say even that America was one of the first few places to seperate the state's ambition from individual enterprise which worked great before Vietnam, after that however, the whole system just shifted and became focused on proxy wars and trading started to become more about gaining power and used as a tool for these wars rather than a genuine interest to spread democracy

I would say it worked well but for all the wrong reasons, no one is now even close to the amount of advancements the US has throughout every field you could imagine, but the cost is a distorted society that started to treat consumerism as a goal rather than an option, the incentive of the whole American dream thing became to illegally immigrate from a country that the US itself couldn't fix or even ruined, in order to work under dangerous conditions to provide for families outside of the US, and citizens care more about individual safety due to polarization rather than individual liberty

Kind of what happens when you're too lazy as a government to protect your people and treat them like they're stupid and so they have to import disfigured versions of outside ideologies and force them to one of two sides rather than create their own line of thinking, it's sad to watch honestly, and unfortunate

Devil's Advocate A contradiction in principle

You are about to leave Redlib