property is a restriction and protection of freedom. the ideas are not exclusive.

You didn't answer my question.

Does this not apply to every situation in which property is recognized then? As in a king who owns everything has more freedom which offsets the lack of ability to own property of everybody else.



Your argument is circular because you are assuming property exists at the outset. Ownership only exists when we have societal rules governing it. Otherwise you just have what you can defend, and anybody can take it with greater force. That's not property or ownership, just defense. When we band together and create a system of rules for posession and restriction is when you have property and ownership.



This is a very rosey view that is fundamentally incorrect. Property was claimed with violence and is maintained with violence or at the threat of violence.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Apr 7 2022 02:32pm

i said that as an individual my lack of freedom to go anywhere is offset by my freedom for solitude on my own private property. through the 4th amendment this is extended to a domicile you might not even own.

i didnt say that 1 persons freedom can offset thousands of other people's freedom. i didnt answer it because it didnt make sense.

Maintained, yes. Claimed, generally not.

i'd argue claimed not at all, you can only claim property in the true sense by no one being there. unless we're counting violence against animals.

indians in a very alien sense to Europeans claimed land, then failed to maintain ownership tragically. once we left africa all we did was claim and claim, then maintain and maintain. although in fringe cases we settled, died out, then it was claimed anew by new settlers, still nonviolently.

Both maintained and claimed.

When you claim something you are threatening others with violence if they attempt to claim it themselves. This is independent of improvement or labor. I don't need to do labor on something to claim it as my own.

If nobody else is around you haven't claimed anything. You merely are on the land.



I'd say your system doesn't really make sense. You are offsetting thousands of others by claiming solitude on your own property.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Apr 8 2022 08:36am

no im not. not until you cross the number of land holdings that it makes land holding for others geographically impossible.

if each family in america owned an acre we'd be fine more or less, once you control for large cities where people seem to want to live and own no land.

there's plenty of land in america for everyone that would want land, geographically. it comes down to other factors like cost, agricultural allocation, govt owned land, corporate owned land, etc.

i mean i get the narrow lane of a point you're trying to make but even on paper its not strong and in practice its nonexistent. just seems like a massive reach for a gotcha on libertarians by cherry picking what you think libertarians value.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Apr 8 2022 08:53am

I'm not cherry picking anything about libertarians right now. I'm talking about the concept of freedom independent of american right libertarianism.

I'm also challenging you to make your thoughts on the subject more rigorous and less rooted in one particular system.


When you claim property you are reducing others freedom to use that property. The only way I would say that doesn't reduce others freedom is when there simply isn't anybody else who wants to use it. You are saying that your "freedom to exclude others from your property" offsets the freedom loss for everybody else who wants to use it. I don't really agree with that unless there is nobody else wanting to use your property.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Apr 8 2022 08:58am

a tenant of libertarianism is mutually agreed upon transactions as a control on freedom in the absolute sense. you're speaking of freedom in the absolute sense, freedom to do literally whatever you want with whatever you want including other people's property, aka a lack of real property. no one wants that, so to hold freedom by definition to a concept no one is really desiring seems silly.

freedom must always be controlled by privacy, whether to a small or large degree. even modern anarchists don't desire true lawfulness. maybe listen to Michael Malice on anarchy if you're interested in that.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Apr 8 2022 09:18am

Yes, I'm just saying we need to acknowledge that property is an inhibition on freedom. It's a really simple point, kind of like the genders as constructs from last week, or the idea that we haven't actually used gender as a stand-in for genitals from like last year.

It's not as complicated as you always seem to want it to be A lot of the time I'm just wanting acknowledgement of a very simple point so we can move to better discussions later.


In an absolute sense, it is an impeadment of freedom to restrict others from things (i.e. claiming something as your property). That's a pretty simple and not really controversial claim right?

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Apr 8 2022 09:28am