You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Stuck at the Hospital: Recap of the Larken Rose/Chase Rachels "Public Property" Debate (nobody really "wins" when self-ownership is off the table)
Absolutely agree. If it is not voluntary, then it is Illegitimate and immoral.
This creates situations where violence seems inevitable, as in the example with the hospital. But I think a solution in the spirit of voluntarism is in this case. The owner (regardless of his share in the property) will be right if his actions and intentions allow him to do without violence.
That is, in the case of the hospital, each "shareholder" can invite anyone to the hospital. And he will be right.
In the case of borders, at least one "citizen of the United States" should be willing to freely cross borders). And he will be right.
You're an "an"cap, aren't you?
That works out fine, and that's how I said it.
But when you have employment and no baseline ability to live, as well as private property, it is inherently involuntary as the only other option is to die, which is irrational.
Unless there was ample public land for homeless folks to go to and grow food, then the system is inherently not voluntary as you're forced to work for someone else to live.
Sorry, but English is not my native language. I can not catch what you are trying to say.
Heh, don't worry most English-speakers have no clue what I'm talking about :^)
I agree with what you said, however on the other hand I think I disagree on private property (property you claim to own but do not use) because in a world of private property you could essentially set up your own little state and generally be unjust and restrict travel and basic human needs simply because you don't want to.
To me that violates the NAP because it makes the traveler have to defy you to simply make it through your territory alive.
I think I understand what you're talking about. I think the questions arise because of the fuzziness, uncertainty, ambiguity of the term property.