tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33774205.post4050182750171517091..comments2024-03-28T10:24:28.426-05:00Comments on Kent's "Hooligan Libertarian" Blog: One of these things is not like the otherKent McManigalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05005964583189815410noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33774205.post-36563381876059163842022-07-22T22:30:54.429-05:002022-07-22T22:30:54.429-05:00I consider the natural rights of individuals prima...I consider the natural rights of individuals primarily important. Natural rights are inherent to each individual, including that of self defense and this is not dependent upon where the individual physically exists at any particular time. Simply possessing your intrinsic complement of natural rights is not a ‘use’ of anyone else’s ‘property’. The right of free association enables any individual to exclude those from their justly owned real estate if they so choose for any reason they choose. It does not accord them the right to pick and choose which natural rights others may possess on their property. A person who does this is a ‘force initiator’ because they believe that their opinions supersede and can circumscribe the inherent natural rights of others.<br /><br />As I noted in my original comment to Kent, due to the ‘apparently intractable confusion over the extent of both property rights and free association that this subject raises for some people, I won’t be holding my breath waiting for any unanimity of understanding on the point.’<br />R R Schoettkernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33774205.post-79022103093320993692022-07-22T18:37:46.747-05:002022-07-22T18:37:46.747-05:00The analogy isn't bad. The analogy is exact. Y...The analogy isn't bad. The analogy is exact. You either have permission to use property or you don't. Using it without permission is theft. And whether it's guns or anything else, excuses are like assholes. Everybody's got one (for the force initiation THEY want to enage in), and they all stink.Thomas L. Knapphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16271473384378782680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33774205.post-60540160941358520372022-07-22T18:21:38.543-05:002022-07-22T18:21:38.543-05:00Thanks.Thanks.Kent McManigalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05005964583189815410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33774205.post-48855617708156460982022-07-22T18:21:16.276-05:002022-07-22T18:21:16.276-05:00As I've explained over and over and over again...As I've explained over and over and over again, it has nothing specific to do with guns. I didn't even mention guns in my part of the post. Substitute anything else that fits the conditions I have set out: it never makes its presence known, it doesn't leak/radiate anything into the environment, it causes no damage/harm whatsoever by its mere presence. <br />It's the same regardless of what the object (or non-object) is. The fact that this keeps being ignored and made about guns just proves my point.<br /><br />Guns are the one category of object that people seem to grasp as an excuse to enslave others who are simply going about their business away from home. <br /><br />"force initiators"... Ignoring "IP" is "force initiation"? Where's the force? There is no force (nor any theft). Yes, I get it-- some people would prefer you respect their IP "rights", and it might be nice to do so, but it isn't an initiation of force to fail to do so. The argument is very similar to arguing that simply possessing something that never intrudes into the other person's space is an initiation of force.<br /><br />However, this is about the bad analogy being used to "prove" an erroneous point rather than about the object. If the analogy hadn't been so bad I wouldn't have bothered to respond, since I know it is pointless to do so.Kent McManigalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05005964583189815410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33774205.post-12363977035811885492022-07-22T16:16:15.903-05:002022-07-22T16:16:15.903-05:00Some people believe they have a right to the use o...Some people believe they have a right to the use of others' property without permission, if that permission is withheld over something they consider important.<br /><br />Others don't.<br /><br />The ones who don't are called "libertarians." The ones who do are called "force initiators."<br /><br />There's nothing special about guns that makes other people's property rights disappear. Nothing whatsoever. Guns are not magical objects, like victim disarmers, and apparently you, seem to believe.Thomas L. Knapphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16271473384378782680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33774205.post-23073818235237634322022-07-22T09:38:58.474-05:002022-07-22T09:38:58.474-05:00Kent:
An excellent restatement of this subject; wh...Kent:<br />An excellent restatement of this subject; which we have discussed previously. I hope this serves to further clarify the matter for your readers but given the past apparently intractable confusion over the extent of both property rights and free association that this subject raises for some people, I won’t be holding my breath waiting for any unanimity of understanding on the point.<br />RR Schoettkernoreply@blogger.com