I have never seen capitalists able to defend this

Can you defend private ownership of natural resources (land, mineral deposits, lakes, trees)? There is no way you can defend that. The only way you can "own" these things is through force. Capitalists and right-libertarians always talk about how the initiation of force is unethical, and yet that's the only way they can own natural resources.

Other urls found in this thread:

hanshoppe.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/hoppe_ult_just_liberty.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

the weak should fear the strong

What is there to defend when you provide no arguments to defend against?

If you claim something its yours until someone else takes it from you. Might makes right.

There is literally no difference between these and other things other than they cannot or are harder to move. So immobility is a sign that we must have communism.
You should invest in a leaf proxy.

Does your ownership of chicken tendies require force? How can you defend that?

Why should we defend it? Defending implies there is something wrong with it, dear limpwristed cuck.

The initiation of force is unethical.

Which is why it is unethical for you to try to steal other people's property. Attempting to steal other people's property should be repelled with justified force.

Get fucked, poorfag.

It's better than cannibalizing your own children.

>initiation of force

That's the opposite of defending your property against someone who wants to take it. Your argument already fell, make a better thread, kthxbye.

this

land and mineral deposits and the things you listed there are not owned by private individuals
they are in fact owned by the country in which they are located, private groups just pay the governments of these countries to be able to use the terrain/ mine resources

Hi OP
Do you have the finances, man power and equipment to acquire and utilize these natural resources yourself ?

I really don't get this discussion, people have property, what about it? What is it about property that leftists don't understand?

>Might makes right.

Then why do all libertarians think that the use of force is wrong unless in self defense?

well the ownership of the animals, the land used to raise them, and the crops to feed them, all requires force to own, yes.

But how did they come to won the property in the first place? By force

>Can you defend private ownership of natural resources (land, mineral deposits, lakes, trees)? There is no way you can defend that.

A better question to ask is how you can defend any form of private ownership if you refuse to recognize private ownership of "natural resources".

But that's probably exactly what you want, you pinko leech.

>>But how did they come to won the property in the first place? By force
They were either already owned, then exchanged. Or they were not owned, in which case they were simply taken. If you want to call that force, why not, but that's not force initiated against anyone.

1) finders keepers

2) if you can't protect your valuables through physical or legal means to a sufficient degree to provide deterrence you don't deserve them and probably wouldn't hold on to them very long in the first place

Might makes right is not a moral statement, but a law of nature. Whether it is morally right or wrong is irrelevant.

Envy

Private ownership only makes sense in scarcity.
It there aren't enough resources for everyone. When we have enough resources, private ownership is what makes resources scarce.
We have 7 houses for every homeless person out there. How do you defend that?

have you seen how homeless people live?

They would ruin those houses

It's not that they own those resources, they pay for the right to explore them. You can pay for that right too.
The minerals underground don't belong to anyone, but once someone uses his own money and risk to extract, process and distribute it, then it belongs to them. Don't like it? Make a bid for the right to explore those resources.

You own it in the same way you own your car, retard. What's the fucking difference?

it's their problem, they will live there.

>I really don't get this discussion, people have property, what about it? What is it about property that leftists don't understand?
Envy. Sometimes they try the "intellectual" approach and come with various theories according to which the self is a social construct (or equivalent thing meaning that the self is secondary) so the collective has a right to take your stuff.
I'm not even into real ancapism but usually people on the "right" are much more honest and candid when they want to forbid you to do things and requisition your stuff.

They're just jealous, greedy parasites. They want the life the rich have but don't want to work for it. They want equality of outcome, not opportunity. This is why American liberals will scream oppression when realistically minorities have the same opportunities whites do. They don't want to have the same opportunities to succeed, they just want succeed.

>When we have enough resources, private ownership is what makes resources scarce.
>7 houses for every homeless person out there. How do you defend that?

Somebody funded, designed and constructed those structures, you fucking stupid cunt. They didn't do it for free.

Work, trading your time to earn currency to pay for the things you want, which are in turn products of the time, labor and capital inputs of others.

Is this so hard to understand? Why on Earth do you think other people want to carry the dead weight of degenerates like homeless people? It's not their burden to bear.

>It's not that they own those resources, they pay for the right to explore them.
>Don't like it? Make a bid for the right to explore those resources.

You refuted your own argument.

If I go to a restaurant, I have to pay money for food because the restaurant owns the food. There's no difference between paying for food and paying for the right to consume food.

If it's on our land then it's ours for the taking

>you have a rental property for income

>govt says "oh man you cant have extra houses goy, give that house to someone who needs it"

>some dude who thinks its fun to draw abstract impressionist murals with his own shit gets to move in

>you are either completely out of ownership of the house and the former productive property is ruined OR (in a more likely scenario) you still have to pay taxes and upkeep on it

You really think we live in a world where everything is fair, there is no corruption,and you get exactly the amount of money you deserve?
Most of those vacant homes are owned by banks. A bank can simply turn on a printer, print a shit ton of money and buy a home you worked hard to pay for.
We simply gifted 700 billion $ in 2008 to banks because they had too many vacant homes and could not tun them into a profit.
So gifting 700$ billion and a shitton of houses to banks is OK, but giving a house to a homeless person is a waste of resources?

We have inherent rights to life, liberty, and property. In the state of nature, all things and resources belong to mankind in common. It is by putting our labor into things, like picking an apple, that makes property. By labouring on land, we increase its value since the products of industry (labor) are inherently more valuable than things we find in common.

If I were to fence off land and do something like farm or build a house, I have increased the value of the land and, by putting my labor into it, have made it mine.

As for how a house increases the value of land, it can be said that the money that our house is valued at is in and of itself the value that is being added. This is to accept that money is a sort of condensed labor.

>Then why do all libertarians think that the use of force is wrong unless in self defense?
Because they're Libertarians, not Anarchists.

>You really think we live in a world where everything is fair

No, and I never implied that either. You know that, but you're addressing that strawman as part of your mental gymnastics to justify your parasitic ideology.

Life isn't fair. Get that through your fucking skull right now. Even in a true communist society, we are all different at a genetic level. You might be born a 6'3 meso blue-eyed chad, or you might be a 5'6 manlet sand-nigger. If the latter, do you really expect to go through life pulling 9/10 chicks consistently? Should all women just be required to accept you as Chad's equal and put out regardless? No. Get real.

Some people are born rich, sure. Their parents (grandparents, etc) still worked hard to accrue wealth, it's not your place to take it away from them, that's ridiculous. At least under capitalism, you can earn wealth through merit.

The only reason you would complain is a: the system has become corrupt and now resembles cronyism, or socialism. Or b: you just lack merit and can't compete with your peers.

>it's their problem
No, it's not.
Given that they have no risk vested in the property. The owner of the property however does.

>raw natural resources have no value

This is a good post

I did not initiate any force to own the trees in my yard.

Now I have a question for you. Why do you believe that you are entitled to things that are mine?

>A bank can simply turn on a printer, print a shit ton of money and buy a home you worked hard to pay for.

Also, I'll admit I didn't read past your opener first time round because your post was so retarded, so I'm genuinely surprised that it actually gets worse.

You know the bank doesn't print money, right? The government does that, a bank can't just pull wealth out of its arse.

I'm not saying that raw natural resources don't have value, just that raw natural resources are worth less than products of labor.

Bunch of rocks < stone tools

Nice strawman. Read it again.
>we increase its value since the products of industry (labor) are inherently more valuable than things we find in common.
"More valuable"
He never implied there was no value to start with.

You're illiterate.

THINN

You make a very good point actually. Force and the fear of said force are the ONLY things with any real & final meaning in the political & financial world.

This is why the Jews always push their anti violence narrative. And NO I AM NOT talking about right now, right now holding back is wisest while antifa fucks themselves into a police state crackdown. But in general, all this anti-violence, anti testosterone and anti-masculinity is all the same. A way to control the plebs.

>Do you have the finances, man power and equipment to acquire and utilize these natural resources yourself

No, but they want it anyway.

Look at South Africa.

>hurr durr we can govern ourselves
>establish affirmative action so electricity providers HAVE to hire black engineers, managers, workers
>turns out there are no black engineers, they can't manage anything and don't want to work

Nation wide blackouts every week kekeke.

The Federal Reserve is not part of the govt.

Well just because life isn't fair socially, it does not mean it should not be fair financially.
I know some people are lazy and irresponsible but should living in the streets be lowest point you can go to? Giving people some sort of security like a basic apartment, should lessen the negative effects of a corrupt society, there is nothing parasitic about that.
Parasitism is exactly what you preach: Rich people who leave their private property to their kids(whether it is earned in a fair way, or through corruption) thus spawning generation of retard parasites like Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian, while some actually smart and hardworking people could use that money for something productive.

Are you really that stupid and you don't know how Fractional Reserve Banking system works?

Go to school kiddo.

My big problem with current capitalist system is that it needs constant growth to keep the interest rates above 0.

This world economy is currently fairly limited in its ability to grow so basically, the higher ups try to turn anything and everything into a commodity. And one day, this won't work and eventually interest rates will be so low that the system will collapse.

I agree, you cant own natural resources, there for im coming to your house to extract all the water from your body. You do not own it.

Yeah, what you said is really that fucking stupid.

...

This.

>The only way you can "own" these things is through force.
Welcome to the real world faggot. By what other means should you own something?

>Rich people who leave their private property to their kids(whether it is earned in a fair way, or through corruption) thus spawning generation of retard parasites like Paris Hilton
paris hilton has a fraction of the worth her father generated. what in the fuck are you on about

>cigarette related deaths

exactly.
Just because it's on the land, doesn't mean it's yours by default. It's a resource in the first place because I has value. Not being extracted in some way, makes it worthless. If people were smart, they'd learn how to extract it themselves and share the wealth. But like most, there is a sense of entitlement and delusional ownership.

who cares
lmao

Its perfectly natural and yes when it comes down to it the only way you can defend it is through force. Force through self defense though.

If you want my land come kill me and take it if you can.

How does a lion get kicked out of his land? He gets killed or fucked up so badly by another lion that he leaves.

Natural

Also, capitalists rarely focus on scientific research required to further science rather than just create products based on the research from the 50's. Because of this, scientific progress has stagnated heavily in past 20 years

>The only way you can "own" these things is through force.

So if I buy wood from someone I used force? If i decide to trade some gold for some silver, I used force? Seems legit. Fucking retard.

>The Federal Reserve is not part of the govt.

Oversimplification. The government created the body to oversee US monetary policy long term, the board has always been presidentially elected.

I'm sorry, is your fucking mortgage with the Federal Reserve, Bank of England etc?

No? So what the fuck are you talking about.

Remember goys, the filthy capitalists exploit you for your labor! In a perfect communist society, all that labor you put in won't even be yours, as it belong to all your comrades! If you don't labor though, you can always just consent to being shot for not being loyal enough.

It's a perfect system!

Fpbp

Checkmate
hanshoppe.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/hoppe_ult_just_liberty.pdf

Can you describe capitalists without using marxism? If not, why should anyone explain anything to you, when you are operating such an obscure and flawed theory?

Of course some imbeciles, who understand shit and just want to be in opposition to communism will call themselves "capitalists" in reactionary effort. But are they really?

All I want is a little house in a remote area with a hundred or so acres with a little pond and no neighbors for miles. I would be armed and willing to deal with trespassers too if it came to it.

Fuck collectivism. I just want to be away from humans.

BLACKouts

The Fed is a privately owned and unconstitutional organization. The constitution specifically says the gov't shall not cede the issuance of currency to a seperate institution.

its only been done so through power broking and planted agents in the gov't.

> Can you defent private ownership of natural resources (...) The only way you can "own" these things is through force."
Actually, someone taking ownership over something doesn't necesseraily need force to do so. He/she only does if there is someone else actively defending it. That being said, even if someone declared ownership of land by force, and transfered it to his descendants, said descendants would "own" it without doing so through force (since only the original owner did so, with the transfer itself not relying on force).
The descendants could of course use force to defend "their" land as well - but it's not neccessary either: You could build an impenetrable Wall around your property, with a gate that can only be opened by solving logical Problems without emotion. That way you can keep at least most Left-Wing people from entering your property :D

Well, the legit questions are:
What if your wealth is built upon murders and looting your ancestors committed? What if the only way your culture can operate is undermining other nations and looting them? What if you believed your ancestor`s lies, that you are a special nation and actually create something, while in fact you are just leading your way to destruction? What if you did not believed this lies and soon you will destroy and loot another abled individuals?

How much sentient beings would you torture and ultimately sacrifice along with their prepubescent children on altar of satan for your wealth and your neighbors obesity?

>2 people find pencil on the ground
>person 1 takes pencil and says its mine
>person 2 comes in 10 seconds later
>says its his
>person 1 says he had it first
>no force was used to acquire this property
perfectly ok

force:
>person 2 attempts to take pencil from person 1 using violence
>violation of so called NAP
>therefore used force to attain private property
absolutely not ok

im not even libertarian

Solved with commons. Americans are too dum to have communal OWNERSHIP it all have to be private. Sadly cos of envirofaggots commons in Britain have fallen into disuse and are now just overgrown dogtrails.

>ownership is an application of force

you cant coerce non-sentience. owning land and means of production is not force. charging others a price to use/procure your property is not force. it requires force to protect, yes, but thats under self defence and would only be utilized if someone else broke the non-aggression principle against you.

> perfectly ok
> pencil was on dead body of 2nd persons father, that was poisoned by 1st person

> reee dont check my pockets for poison container, you filthy commie forced totalitarian! you literally want to poison me!

Yeah, the governing boards are still appointed by the President though.

Whether it's unconstitutional or not I honestly wouldn't know, but anyone who thinks it's operating independently of the government just doesn't understand the structure of a modern reserve bank.

Cpt. Bosnia was talking like the Federal Reserve would take his house away when he defaults on his mortgage. I think the word "bank" confuses people.

>The only way you can "own" these things is through force.

The only way to own ANYTHING is through force. If you have food I want and can't defend it, you are going to lose it. You can't have any possessions without force, let alone natural resources. You can't have a family without force because someone will come and fuck you up just to see your expression change. You can't have rights without force because someone with force will take them away from you.

Saying you can't have something because it requires force to defend it is retarded.

Everyone above and below this post has been trolled.

...

in that case person 1 is at fault

but i never said the pencil was on p2's fathers dead body, all we see is a pencil on the ground, most likely dropped by someone who isnt going to return.

To put this to real life: corp/government claim land (exploration) and all the resources there are theirs. HOWEVER if they claim it by violence (war, imperialism) then its not okay but can you stop them? no? well... too bad. we wish to stop all crime and wars but theres always conflict among humans and thats why you have to have peace through strength. Sometimes it comes down to violence unfortunately and we have to prepare

unfortunately the arguement that modern America IS a cronyist state is not only meritable, but most accurate. Hopefully trump will clean house eventually, but power really has to be taken back to the states from the fed if we hope to accomplish that

>they were already owned
So land was always already owned? Weve had land ownership for 4.6 billion years?

>said descendants would "own" it without doing so through force (since only the original owner did so, with the transfer itself not relying on force).
So what you're saying is that if I steal your property, sign off a will for that property to be given to my children. And die before you can seek legal recourse to retrieve what was previously your property, my children have a legitimate claim to the property?

This

>implying someone cant come to your house kill you and steal your body

This is so dumb. You write like someone who thinks they're smart but aren't. Here's Hoppe's proof:
>"Argumentation does not consist of free-floating propositions but is a form of action requiring the employment of scarce means; and that the means which a person demonstrates as preferring by engaging in propositional exchanges are those of private property. For one thing, no one could possibly propose anything, and no one could become convinced of any proposition by argumentative means, if a person’s right to make exclusive use of his physical body were not already presupposed. It is this recognition of each other’s mutually exclusive control over one’s own body which explains the distinctive character of propositional exchanges that, while one may disagree about what has been said, it is still possible to agree at least on the fact that there is disagreement. It is also obvious that such a property right to one’s own body must be said to be justified a priori, for anyone who tried to justify any norm whatsoever would already have to presuppose the exclusive right of control over his body as a valid norm simply in order to say, “I propose such and such.” Anyone disputing such a right would become caught up in a practical contradiction since arguing so would already imply acceptance of the very norm which he was disputing."

No, the president gets to nominate one member to the board, and that person has to be approved by the other members who are selected by the Reserve. I really encourage you to do some research because its my firm belief that every problem facing America/the world as far as shitty policy and war are at the very least indirectly related to the Central Banking system, even without the illuminati bs that usually goes with it. They (bankers) literally control the money supply and can set inflation or deflation as they please, and all Income tax is paid straight to the interest on the US debt to the FedRes on the cost of currency. im pretty inarticulate which is why you should google Andrew Jackson Banks. James Madison Banks, Abrahamn Lincoln, banks greenbacks, JFK Banks silverback, Woodrow Wilson banks. most eras of prosperoty in America were at times when there was no central bank chartered, read:Industrial revolution

>(land, mineral deposits, lakes, trees)?
it means they can be protected ie wildlife reserves

>one member to the board
>one

That's... Just not true though.

If you read my post the answer lies here.

The only way you can violate private property rights is by force. If you support violating private property rights, you support using force.

Prove me wrong then.

The same can be said about what you learn anywhere. Your language is not yours. Your vocabulary is not yours.

You were taught these things.

So if there's no such thing as physical property owner ship than there's no such thing as intellectual property ownership

Its a double edge sword but it's the underclassman that are next in the guillotine.

...and we're stuck here.

I own the mineral rights to ten Acres of land in South mobile county AL. Wells are popping up all about me. If one pops a quarter of a mile from my property I get royalties.

You can own MINERAL RIGHTS in THE USA.

OP stopped posting 2 hours ago.
Why are you guys still replying to this shitty bait?

Hobbes is talking about philosophical "rights" not about legal rights. Slavery would dispute his argument.
Laws are enFORCED by necessity.

...

>Then why do all libertarians think that the use of force is wrong unless in self defense?
Libertarians don't think the use of force is wrong, just that it should be avoided and everyone should be as capable of exercising force to defend his property as he can be.

>simply taken
Yes by force

Incorrect. I can squat on someones land without harming anyone. Its the landowners need to use force to protect his ownership

There were not belonging to anyone. If it doesn't belong to anyone, you can take it.

>libertarians dont thijk the use of force is wrong
Err yes they fucking do