Libertarian Discussion Thread II - Don't Thread on Me

[The Liberated Territories]

Well, it seems one potential person running for the Libertarians is running for the Republican nomination instead: Bill Weld

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKCN1Q41QZ

well this means the libertarian party ain't breaking 1% this round.

[Free Arabian Nation]

Well, it seems one potential person running for the Libertarians is running for the Republican nomination instead: Bill Weld

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKCN1Q41QZ

well this means the libertarian party ain't breaking 1% this round.

OK, The Occupied States.

[Torrocca]

Sounds fine to me.

Because you're not rich?

"Lol ur a jealous poor xD"

Sounds fine to me.

But do ya see how (wrongly) accusing people of hating the poor when you proudly hate the rich makes you seem like you're projecting?

I don't hate the rich. I hate their greed and wealth accumulation that's come at the expense of the whole of society.

[Torrocca]

(Image)

As one of those people, I would actually agree with her to a great extant. One of the prime functions of a government is, to me, defending my property (no matter how little I may have) against those who would wish to steal it. Theft is theft, no matter if it is a mugger in a back alley or a socialist mob taking over my factory. I want the government to protect me against thieves.

So you're agreeing with this criticism aimed against the rich.

Nice.

[Elwher]

As one of those people, I would actually agree with her to a great extant. One of the prime functions of a government is, to me, defending my property (no matter how little I may have) against those who would wish to steal it. Theft is theft, no matter if it is a mugger in a back alley or a socialist mob taking over my factory. I want the government to protect me against thieves.

So you're agreeing with this criticism aimed against the rich.

Nice.

Not quite. I am agreeing that the proper function of a government is to protect personal property from theft. And since all property is owned by one or more persons, all property is personal property. I do not view her statement as a criticism but as a lesson in the proper function of a government.

[Torrocca]

So you're agreeing with this criticism aimed against the rich.

Nice.

Not quite. I am agreeing that the proper function of a government is to protect personal property from theft. And since all property is owned by one or more persons, all property is personal property. I do not view her statement as a criticism but as a lesson in the proper function of a government.

Business property is not personal property.

[Elwher]

Not quite. I am agreeing that the proper function of a government is to protect personal property from theft. And since all property is owned by one or more persons, all property is personal property. I do not view her statement as a criticism but as a lesson in the proper function of a government.

Business property is not personal property.

That is your definition. To me, any property owned by PERSONS is PERSONAL property, and that includes property owned in common by more than one person. Those persons might be a husband and wife owning a house in common, or thousands of shareholders owning a corporation in common. They are still persons, therefore what they own is personal property.

[Torrocca]

Business property is not personal property.

That is your definition. To me, any property owned by PERSONS is PERSONAL property, and that includes property owned in common by more than one person. Those persons might be a husband and wife owning a house in common, or thousands of shareholders owning a corporation in common. They are still persons, therefore what they own is personal property.

... Well then your definition's just wrong according to the given definitions of those terms.

[Petrolheadia]

That is your definition. To me, any property owned by PERSONS is PERSONAL property, and that includes property owned in common by more than one person. Those persons might be a husband and wife owning a house in common, or thousands of shareholders owning a corporation in common. They are still persons, therefore what they own is personal property.

... Well then your definition's just wrong according to the given definitions of those terms.

There is the problem with socialism and communism. When someone wants to make money, he or she is not allowed to.

[Torrocca]

... Well then your definition's just wrong according to the given definitions of those terms.

There is the problem with socialism and communism. When someone wants to make money, he or she is not allowed to.

I don't see the problem with that there.

[Elwher]

That is your definition. To me, any property owned by PERSONS is PERSONAL property, and that includes property owned in common by more than one person. Those persons might be a husband and wife owning a house in common, or thousands of shareholders owning a corporation in common. They are still persons, therefore what they own is personal property.

... Well then your definition's just wrong according to the given definitions of those terms.

Definition of personal
1 : of, relating to, or affecting a particular person : PRIVATE, INDIVIDUAL

Legal Definition of personal
1 : of, relating to, or affecting a person: as
a : of, relating to, or based on the existence or presence of a person

Merriam-Webster dictionary

What is your source of 'given definitions'?

[Petrolheadia]

There is the problem with socialism and communism. When someone wants to make money, he or she is not allowed to.

I don't see the problem with that there.

I do. Resources can't be used in a way that would benefit the users and the producer.

[Torrocca]

I don't see the problem with that there.

I do. Resources can't be used in a way that would benefit the users and the producer.

Apparently, "owning the fruits of one's labor," isn't beneficial to the producer of said fruits because, "muh scary Socializm!!1!"

... Well then your definition's just wrong according to the given definitions of those terms.

Definition of personal
1 : of, relating to, or affecting a particular person : PRIVATE, INDIVIDUAL

Legal Definition of personal
1 : of, relating to, or affecting a person: as
a : of, relating to, or based on the existence or presence of a person

Merriam-Webster dictionary

What is your source of 'given definitions'?

The Leftist distinctions between personal property (eg. homes, vehicles, money, and other personal belongings gained in a fair manner (AKA not through exploiting others for personal gain such as is done under Capitalism)) and private property (eg. businesses and land owned by the few at the expense of the many for personal gain).

[Elwher]

Definition of personal
1 : of, relating to, or affecting a particular person : PRIVATE, INDIVIDUAL

Legal Definition of personal
1 : of, relating to, or affecting a person: as
a : of, relating to, or based on the existence or presence of a person

Merriam-Webster dictionary

What is your source of 'given definitions'?

The Leftist distinctions between personal property (eg. homes, vehicles, money, and other personal belongings gained in a fair manner (AKA not through exploiting others for personal gain such as is done under Capitalism)) and private property (eg. businesses and land owned by the few at the expense of the many for personal gain).

I think Merriam-Webster is a less biased source of definitions.

[Petrolheadia]

I do. Resources can't be used in a way that would benefit the users and the producer.

Apparently, "owning the fruits of one's labor," isn't beneficial to the producer of said fruits because, "muh scary Socializm!!1!"

It isn't when the fruits aren't getting better because there is no competition.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I don't see the problem with that there.

I do. Resources can't be used in a way that would benefit the users and the producer.

That's just not true.

[Petrolheadia]

I do. Resources can't be used in a way that would benefit the users and the producer.

That's just not true.

Why?

[Torrocca]

Apparently, "owning the fruits of one's labor," isn't beneficial to the producer of said fruits because, "muh scary Socializm!!1!"

It isn't when the fruits aren't getting better because there is no competition.

>No competition
>Only competition makes things better

Lol, these fucking memes

For one, plenty of Socialist lines of thought would still have competition between worker-owned businesses, because, surprise-fucking-surprise, Socialism, at its core, is about the workers owning the means of production, which can fit under a multitude of different economic models.

Secondly, human civilization wouldn't exist if competition was the only thing that drove people toward improvement. We're a communal species, for fuck's sake, and that by nature necessitates cooperation, which is inarguably the more major driver behind the advancement of our civilizations than competition ever has been.

[Washington Resistance Army]

That's just not true.

Why?

Because, get this, it's possible to make things beneficial for both sides.

[Petrolheadia]

It isn't when the fruits aren't getting better because there is no competition.

>No competition
>Only competition makes things better

Lol, these fucking memes

For one, plenty of Socialist lines of thought would still have competition between worker-owned businesses, because, surprise-fucking-surprise, Socialism, at its core, is about the workers owning the means of production, which can fit under a multitude of different economic models.

Secondly, human civilization wouldn't exist if competition was the only thing that drove people toward improvement. We're a communal species, for fuck's sake, and that by nature necessitates cooperation, which is inarguably the more major driver behind the advancement of our civilizations than competition ever has been.

We do form communities, but those communities can compete against each other - businesses, for example.

Also, there are employee-owned businesses in capitalism. You know, partnerships, companies...

[Petrolheadia]

Why?

Because, get this, it's possible to make things beneficial for both sides.

Like with competition for the best products and best wages in business?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Because, get this, it's possible to make things beneficial for both sides.

Like with competition for the best products and best wages in business?

Not everything in the world needs to be a competition my guy.

[Petrolheadia]

Like with competition for the best products and best wages in business?

Not everything in the world needs to be a competition my guy.

It's better when it is.

[Free Arabian Nation]

Not everything in the world needs to be a competition my guy.

It's better when it is.

Not really, no.

For some things, it's better to work together as a team instead of a loose US-Soviet WW2 alliance.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Not everything in the world needs to be a competition my guy.

It's better when it is.

Sometimes sure, but not always.