Yes hate the state

GilesStratton:

Upon entering their road you agree to follow their rules. If you don't agree with the rules, don't drive on the road. It's relatively simple. On the other hand, if you believe that the road has been financed through stolen funds or whatever, that doesn't automatically prove you to be the owner of it and you cannot therefore treat the road as if it were your own. For the very same reason that if I walked into a hospital and grabbed a handful of morphine I couldn't begin selling it. Or, to take another angle. If you really want to follow your own line of reasoning then it is perfectly legitimate for me to smash up a government building. If you take that as correct, then I can disregard the property rights of anybody who has received any benefits from the state. Which is everyone.

The only problem I have with this entire line of reason is the application of private property rights to state owned roads.  The state is not a corporation nor a king.  Whatever rights it has come from the people and for that reason and that reason alone I can disagree with anything in the world that it does.  In this paticular case I eel I have a legitimate complaint. 

Juan:

False. Such nonsensical legal positivism has nothing to do with libertarianism and a lot to do with authoritarian conservatism.

Indeed, property rights have nothing to do with libertarianism? Your leftist colours are coming through here Juan.

I understand though, you're not so much a libertarian as you are stuck in a silly, childish and utterly revolt against all authority. Be it the church, the family or as you demonstrated above, property rights in general. Furthermore you entirely disregard forms of authority such as forum etiquette, hence the complete lack of civility and politeness on your behalf. Nonetheless, your extreme egalitarianism doesn't really suit your arrogance. It's a shame you couldn't really follow BP's example, who, despite the intellectual dishonest maintains a polite manner at most times.

Your predictability is most amusing.

ryanpatgray:

The road was at least partially stolen from me. Without driving on roads I would be reduced to the life of a hermit. Why should I deny myself the use of property that was forcibly stolen from me? I have no moral obligation to do so. I also, because it was taken from me by force, have no moral obligation to obey their rules. Let us suppose you owned a pleasure yacht and it was stolen by pirates (in the pre-personal computer sense) would you have a moral obligation to obey the rules of the pirates the moment they raised their Jolly Roger? Again, I am not arguing about the wisdom of this, only the morality of it.

So what, if it was partially stolen from you? There is nothing analogous to this in free market literature. If somebody steals $20 from you, you have no right whatsoever to go and smash their windows. Which is where your vandarchist line of reasoning follows. Moreover, I challenge you to prove that the money to finance any particular road has been stolen from you. There's no way you can prove that, anymore than you can prove the TV of a police officer was bought with money stolen from you, in which case  you'd have a right to it. Moreover, if you're going down this line of reasoning you'd have to admit that the other tax payers would have a legitimate say in this running of the road, which I do believe, would prohibit you ignoring the rules of driving on that road.

As I said, if you follow your own reasoning far enough you'd have to agree that you have the right to ignore anybody's property rights who has been complicit with the state. However, in today's democratic society this group is the whole populace. The corrollary of this being that you can break into whoever's house you wish. Rather unlibertarian I must say.

As for the hermit point, yes you're correct. Nonetheless such utilitarian reasoning doesn't get us too far. And the only way to resolve this is to, for the time being, accept that the state is owner of the roads and therefore we must abide by its rules. As the OP seems to have a problem with.

You have a moral obligation to respect the property rights of whoever else owns the road, which is every other taxpayer. This entails that you must follow the rules of the roads set by the state. Your analogy is fallacious. In the case of the pirate it is easy to establish who owns the boat and who has stolen it. There is a clear distinction, which isn't present in the case of the state and roads.

GilesStratton:

Indeed, property rights have nothing to do with libertarianism?

That's not what I said, so maybe your rhetorical question counts as strawman ?

The government does not own the roads and the idea that by using the roads one is agreeing to government rules is legal positivism. Better now ? It is you the one who is twisting what property rights mean and so disregarding them..

Your leftist colours are coming through here Juan.

Nonsense. I'd say your statists colors are showing. You just took the side the of the state using a typical statist argument, to wit : "love it or leave it".

Juan:

The government does not own the roads and the idea that by using the roads one is agreeing to government rules is legal positivism. Better now ? It is you the one who is twisting what property rights mean and so disregarding them..

You've just chosen to ignore everything else I've said and create a strawman. I've never said that the state can claim legitimate ownership of it's property. Rather, that while the state exists, we must accept its ownership of the roads, this entails agreeing to their terms. Just as with any other private property, the rights of which you seem to have an issue with.

Juan:

You just took the side the of the state using a typical statist argument, to wit : "love it or leave it".

How intellectually dishonest of you, nevermind I've come to expect it. I never said anything of the sort.

GilesStratton:

And the only way to resolve this is to, for the time being, accept that the state is owner of the roads and therefore we must abide by its rules.

So the state is the owner eh ? You as a 'libertarian' claim that, and people who disagree are leftists ? Sweet.

You have a moral obligation to respect the property rights of whoever else owns the road, which is every other taxpayer.

Sorry, didn't you say that the state owns the roads ? Now it's the taxpayers ?

This entails that you must follow the rules of the roads set by the state.

So, who owns the roads ? The state ? The taxpayers ? Both ? No one ?

Your analogy is fallacious.

Your whole position is a fallacy.

So the state is the owner eh ? You as a 'libertarian' claim that, and people who disagree are leftists ? Sweet.

May I ask why you chose to ignore the part where I questioned the state's legitimacy?

Sorry, didn't you say that the state owns the roads ? Now it's the taxpayers ?

The two aren't mutually exclusive, you do know that right? In any case, I was merely showing his position fails on its own grounds.

GilesStratton:

I've never said that the state can claim legitimate ownership of it's property.

So, why should its tyrannical rules be respected ?

Rather, that while the state exists, we must accept its ownership of the roads,

Non sequitur. It doesn't follow that because the state exists 'we' must accept its usurpations and thievery.

this entails agreeing to their terms.

Non sequitur. Unless you're a legal positivist.

GilesStratton:

Juan:

You just took the side the of the state using a typical statist argument, to wit : "love it or leave it".

How intellectually dishonest of you, nevermind I've come to expect it. I never said anything of the sort.

Of course you did. Your 'argument' is no different than claiming that if you live in country X you're are agreeing to be bound by the country's so called laws (legislation actually).

Juan:

Non sequitur. It doesn't follow that because the stat exist 'we' must accept its usurpations and thievery.

When have I ever said that? All I've claimed is that since the state owns the roads. Which, we are free (as your logic implies we must) to abstain from using. We must follow the rules of the state, or else violate the property rights of those who can claim equal ownership of the roads: fellow taxpayers. The alternatives all fall into contradiction with themselves. If you agree that the roads are unowned you can say they are legitimately yours to homestead. Only, you'd have to prove that nobody else has done beforehand, which is impossible. On the other hand, you also have to prove that your money went towards building the road in the first place, if you can't do that then you have no right to be on the road at all. Which is why, for pragmatic reasons, not in violation of any libertarian principles for voluntary services that the states it is perfectly legitimate to claim that we must accept state ownership of them.

Juan:

Non sequitur. Unless you're a legal positivist.

No, perfectly acceptable, unless you're not a libertarian but a Marxist.

 

Juan:

GilesStratton:

Juan:

You just took the side the of the state using a typical statist argument, to wit : "love it or leave it".

How intellectually dishonest of you, nevermind I've come to expect it. I never said anything of the sort.

Of course you did. Your 'argument' is no different than claiming that if you live in country X you're are agreeing to be bound by the country's so called laws (legislation actually).

No, you're just looking for strawmen now. Your argument so far has purely been one for the sake of it. You just like conflicy, funny that you're a libertarian given this, no?

 

GilesStratton:

When have I ever said that? All I've claimed is that since the state owns the roads.

But the state doesn't. Your claim is flat wrong.

Which, we are free (as your logic implies we must) to abstain from using.

Or are free to use it since we're taxed to pay for them.

We must follow the rules of the state,

That does not follow.

or else violate the property rights of those who can claim equal ownership of the roads: fellow taxpayers.

Oh, but we are all taxpayers, so unless you are for mob rule (and you are), then as a good libertarian you should realize that the rules 'democratically chosen' by the majority of road owning taxpayers are in violation of individual rights, and so are null and void. But in reality you know that the state is usurping the roads and that the rules are not set by taxpayers but by state gangsters. And again, unless the rules allegedly set by taxpayers had been unanimously chosen, they are void.

No, you're just looking for strawmen now.

No, you either don't understand what you are saying or else lack the intellectual honesty to openly admit what your position really entails.

If you live in country X you agree to its laws. If you use road Y you agree to its laws. Very same reasoning.

You just like conflicy, funny that you're a libertarian given this, no?

You mean, the proper way is to avoid conflict and just bow to any conservative dogma you come up with ?

Why would you hate the state if it didn't make unreasonable or dangerous demands?

Or better yet, the egalitarians can't answer why some people actually like the state, as an agent of redistribution and social justice [sic].

Juan:

But the state doesn't. Your claim is flat wrong

Of course it does. You're just not being intellectual honest enough to quote the bit where I say that it owns the roads but not legitimately. How typical of a leftist.

Juan:

Or are free to use it since we're taxed to pay for them.

No, that doesn't follow. If I steal your watch you can't then proceed to move into my house. You can claim compensation, but nothing more. Moreover, you must respect the wishes of those who have also had their money stolen, the other tax payers. Better yet, you can't even prove that any given road was built using money stolen from you, especially not if its in a different state. Since you can't prove this, by your own logic you can't use the road. In fact, the only way you can use the road and remain consistant would be to admit that the state owns the roads and grants you permission to use them.

The rest of your posts is your typical intellectual dishonest self, erecting strawmen and ignoring what I've previously said. In any case you're wrong, whilst the state exists it should seek to do as little harm as possible, the conclusion of this is simple, it should respect the property rights of those it has stolen from, in this instance that means upholding the roads agreed upon by the people it has stolen money from.

 

Juan:

No, you either don't understand what you are saying or else lack the intellectual honesty to openly admit what your position really entails.

Or, you are ignorant of reality. Which I already know. The desire the ignore the nature of things (in this case the state's monopoly over the roads) is typical of lefitsts all varieties.

Juan:

You mean, the proper way is to avoid conflict and just bow to any conservative dogma you come up with ?

Call it what you like.

 

GilesStratton:

Of course it does.

The state doesn't own a thing. It controls stolen goods at the point of a gun. That's not ownership, that's usurpation.

I'll try just one more time

GilesStratton:

I've never said that the state can claim legitimate ownership of it's property. Rather, that while the state exists, we must accept its ownership of the roads,

Now, the state has NO LEGITIMATE claim upon the roads (or upon anything else for that matter). So, why should/MUST state legislation be obeyed ?

How typical of a leftist.

You're defending the 'rights' of a tyrannical government and are trying to pervert the meaning of private property -- you are the true leftist here. Also, you're claiming that goods usurped by the state are to be controlled according to mob rule -- or else you must admit that absent unanimous consent, there are no valid rules for this 'collective' property.

No, that doesn't follow. If I steal your watch you can't then proceed to move into my house.

Please don't use fallacious analogies.

Moreover, you must respect the wishes of those who have also had their money stolen, the other tax payers.

I already addressed that. You're just pretending I didn't.

The rest of your posts is your typical intellectual dishonest self,

Really Giles, you're the only one lying here.

Better yet, you can't even prove that any given road was built using money stolen from you, especially not if its in a different state. Since you can't prove this, by your own logic you can't use the road.

Well, using that 'logic' nobody can use any road...despite having paid for them. And you go further in your absurdity : the people who paid for the roads can't use them, but a gang of criminals can act as if they were the owners...

In fact, the only way you can use the road and remain consistant would be to admit that the state owns the roads and grants you permission to use them.

Boy are you confused.

GilesStratton:

If I were to ask you to wear a silly hat whenever you went inside my house, I wouldn't consider that a reason to hate me. Anyway, I fail to see how their regulations in this regard were unreasonable.

Because he is not a guest on the road.

The state does not operate any property in way approaching how a market owner would operate it. He was given a ticket in order to finance the state. Period.