Re: Declaration of self-ownership CHALLENGE

I declare ownership of myself.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• challenge
• self
• ownership
• freedom
• market
• anarchy
• anarcho
• capitalism
• liberty

[UnderseaCaveman]

I have one question for the Anarchists (agree you own your body and labor, 100%.... that's the libertarian in me)...but specifically for you American Anarchists, how did you acquire your land property.... is there a statue of limitation on how that acquistion has been passed down the centuries... or am I being too idealistic for Anarchists (LOL)!

[XOmniverse]

I don't see why there would need to be. There's always land for sale.

[UnderseaCaveman]

No my point was that we Americans forcefully took much land in the US. If you are property owner, how would you know it wasn't taken by force? Hence, is there a statue of limitation to get over that non-idealistic kernel. In other words..."stolen land for sale"? or native americans didn't have self-ownership?

[XOmniverse]

They did of course, all humans do. Part of the difficulty, of course, is determining what belongs to whom, especially since many of the wrong doers and wronged (if not most) are dead at this point.

[StoicSentry]

Congratulations!

[crud4]

In reality, rent, wage slavery, interest and usury have only been possible by coercion via private property. Without this coercion no one would 'choose' wage slavery, to rent a home for sustenance, or to live paying off interest bearing loans. These coercive tenants of capitalism exist or are accepted solely because people have been excluded from the means of life unless they submit themselves to these things. They have never, in the history of man, been voluntary. Rothbard= wishful thinking.

[crud4]

You declare "self ownership" while reserving the right to force wage slaves into working for you by excluding them from the means of life via private property as this is the only way IN REALITY wage slavery , rent interest and usury has been facilitated. Rothbard was a revisionist as are you when you try to reconcile objectivism with anarchism.Capitalism is not compatible with anarchism. Anarchism does not represent wage slavery, interest, rent or usury as you do.

[JTickett]

And nevermind "rule of the jungle" is that the rules you use when you want to interact with humans? or is it state law that you use to make friends?

We interact in good ways when left to do it naturally, the same happens for 10 people, or 100 people or 1000's people. but larger communities of 1000000's of people are not supposed to exist, and they fail. I don't need to defend anarchism, you have the burden of proof to defend your *beliefs*. Prove govts are justified in being violent, just try.

[JTickett]

"Cavemen"

yes very accurate, but perhaps you're a few millenia out. Recheck your history, and you'll find there were no sabretooth tigers and dinosaurs 5000 years ago lol.

It would definetly be violent with people like you around who feel we need violent threats to stay in line, but not natural humans. The thriving happy cultures are free people, the malfunctioning ones with rape, murder, theft etc are the ones tht violent people rule. No wonder really.

[JTickett]

No, not neanderthal man, but us, what we are right now, same intelligence for thousands of years. We lived perfectly fine, then putting faith like your onto the govt allowed them to expand when it was clearly dysfunctional behaviour. Most people do have a desire to not be subjected to this treatment, but they also share your belief/superstition that govt is necessary to prevent people from wanted to commit mass-murder, theft etc, so we remain trapped.

[UnderseaCaveman]

that's pretty lame to think Cavemen didn't have "Government" .... certainly in their form!

Bird Gov? Dog Gov?.....WTF? Nature is Red-Toothed and -Clawed.... "Law of the Jungle"...most people are way too domesticated to return to the "Law of Jungle", nor have any desire to do so!

[JTickett]

Humans can be violent, there is no human nature though, only behaviour, which constantly changes. If you are a statist then you believe one group of people have the right to be violent,& others do not. This is moral hypocrisy. Its like saying men can kill women, or jews can enslave muslims but not vice versa.

Recognising violence is not acceptance of what we have, what we have is inequality. At least if you were anarchistic, ou would have right to defend your own life, liberty and property.

[JTickett]

Yes, new leader with an agenda, which people know they have a choice to follow or not. And if he doesnt not want followers but slaves, and seeks power through violence then he is opposed by the majority.

Reading up on voluntarism. organisation can exist, millions could follow Bush if they wanted, it just means Bush can't kill non-followers. Cant touch people unless they subject themselves to being touched by the state. That could have the benefit of protection in return.But who would want that.

[JTickett]

Perhaps therefore... woah slow down there cowboy. Dont go making solid statements on unfounded assumptions. Some call that the definition of BS.

"brief moment"? ok civilisation is 5000 years old, and we existed as home sapien sapiens for ~395,000 years without government structure.

If you feel govt is necessary to life, tell me, where are the dog govts, the bird govts. Perhaps the mentally handicapped need someone to lead them and hold their hand, but the majority of adults do not.