Alert icon
We're changing our privacy policy. This stuff matters.  Learn more  Dismiss

Property Rights and the Non-Aggression Principle

Loading...

Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon
Upgrade to the latest Flash Player for improved playback performance. Upgrade now or more info.
6,281
Loading...
Alert icon
Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon

Uploaded by on Sep 23, 2011

An examination of libertarian morality using a recent critique of the NAP and property rights:

http://dbzer0.com/blog/why-the-non-aggression-principle-is-useless-as-a-moral...

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

License:

Standard YouTube License

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (296)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Are there any hot female anarcho-communists out there who reject the concept of self-ownership? I'm horny, and you don't have the right to say no.

  • @Deadwind002 You have no rights.Rights are make believe.Does this apply to poor people? Where I live the so-called free land is called Crown land, based upon theft with very little voluntary exchange.So at least we agree that nobody owns the land.

  • @bozolazic. In a spiritual sense, no one owns anything. As for surviving, we need property rights to protect the land that we USE, not OWN, that is justly acquired in order to protect other rights, like life and surviving.

  • @Deadwind002 Some of our chiefs make the claim that the land belongs to us. It is not what the Great Spirit told me. He told me that the lands belong to Him, that no people owns the land; that I was not to forget to tell this to the white people when I met them in council.

    ---Kanekuk - Kickapoo prophet

    Nobody owns the land.Simple.

  • @bozolazic: Yeah dumbass, voluntary exchange. Man are you seriously this hopeless.

  • @onaqui Stefans argument here says that he can choose freely between going alone, taking as many people as possible, not go at all or somewhere in between. The obvious moral choice here is to take as many as possible, because morality still applies and you're bound to save as many as possible.

  • @onaqui If there's no morality there then the person at gunpoint would do an equally moral choice to tell the murderer where his wife is, inflicting death upon her. Morality is in the consequences and saving her life is the moral superior choice. If there is no moral issue (and he can choose freely between two bads) then very weird things follow. Ex a captain on a sinking ship has a lifeboat he's the only one able to drive. It can hold 10 people but there are 11 on the ship.

  • I don't like the statement that morality goes out the window as soon as there's a gun in the room. Of course there is morality when you're at gunpoint and someone asks you where your wife is. If say you have two choises, lie or tell the truth. Telling the truth will probably get your wife killed and to lie would save her. However lying is as said immoral but killing is also immoral. The moral superior choice is the one that leads to saving as many lives as possible, meaning morality is to lie.

  • "There is no compulsion in belief/ way of life" Quran 2:256.

    Outstanding vid!

  • @RKAddict101 Yes, The Great Spirit which is part of the bigger whole called The Great Mystery.

Loading...

Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more