less than infinity "anti-immigrant" is like calling someone who thinks there might be an optimal amount of calories consumed less than infinity "anti-eating."
Good reductio ad absurdum. Mine for restrictions on ways someone can use their property: "If I can't shoot people with my gun, then I don't really own it.".
Ancaps like Brock and Major.Fredom accept that expicitly. Many others do and when pressed waffle about how it's "more complicated" when that someone ia actually on you land.
I had warned rob about a dozen times to stop it with the "Oh, so what you are really saying is the government should regulate how many calories we eat?" kind of crap. This one was the last straw: I don't have time to correct his fanciful re-writings of my posts again and again and again.
Ancaps often declare, "All rights are property rights." I was thinking about this the other day, in the context of running into libertarians online who insisted that libertarianism supports "the freedom of movement," and realized that this principle actually entails that people without property have no rights at all, let alone any right to "freedom of movement." Of course, immediately, any ancap readers still left here are going to say, "Wait a second! Everyone owns his own body! And so everyone at least has the right to not have his body interfered with." Well, that is true... except that in ancapistan, one has no right to any place to put that body, except if one owns property, or has the permission of at least one property owner to place that body on her land. So, if one is landless and penniless, one had sure better hope that there are kindly disposed property owners aligned in a corridor from wherever one happens to be to wherever the...
In this paper , Hoppe, Hülsmann, and Block (HHB) make their ethical case against fractional reserve banking (FRB) based on the fact that "two individual owners cannot be the exclusive owner of one and the same thing at the same time." They then posit that since fractional reserve bank notes creates multiple titles or claims to the "same" gold, they are inherently fraudulent. In analyzing this claim, the first thing we will have to do is to turn it into a remotely sensible claim. No one who deposits money at a bank thinks they are entitled to the same money back. What they want, when they go to get their money out, is the same amount of money back. What a gold-backed fractional reserve note comprises is a claim to a certain amount of gold, not certain particular pieces of gold. I hope that change to their argument is uncontroversial! So their complaint comes down to this: if a bank issues pieces of paper that allow the bearer to claim a certain amount of gold...
Good reductio ad absurdum. Mine for restrictions on ways someone can use their property: "If I can't shoot people with my gun, then I don't really own it.".
ReplyDeleteAncaps like Brock and Major.Fredom accept that expicitly. Many others do and when pressed waffle about how it's "more complicated" when that someone ia actually on you land.
DeleteI can only imagine that those people are so far down the rabbit hole that there is no chance of saving them.
DeleteOk, rob, you've exceeded your stupid quota. Bye!
ReplyDeleteSpillover http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2014/09/potpourri-230.html#comment-941847
DeleteWhat an astonishing mischaracterization of your point.
I had warned rob about a dozen times to stop it with the "Oh, so what you are really saying is the government should regulate how many calories we eat?" kind of crap. This one was the last straw: I don't have time to correct his fanciful re-writings of my posts again and again and again.
Delete