You have no rights, other than vague philosophical ones which don't do anything in a practical sense and which don't get in the way of me harming and exploiting you. If it does anything to protect you from me, it's not a right. And if I'm making a profit from what I'm doing, then it doesn't count as harming you.
>>538953413>lolberts genuinely believe it would be physically possible for them to protect rights or property *all by themselves* their entire 80 years of existence with no laws or external authority to back them up at all and entirely disregard the possibility of a mob just overwhelming them through sheer numbers (what can one gun do if you've got 20 thugs surrounding you and what do you do if you run out of ammo)Lol
>>538953413The belief in inalienable human rights is the same fantasy as leftist humanism
>>538954363Libertarians don't even have inalienable rights. As soon as one of those so-called inalienable rights actually benefits a poorer or less powerful person in any tangible way, then it's an entitlement which must be disqualified, it's not a right anyone has
>>538953413But, you see, I can give deflections about how bad governments are and how they can behave like monopolies too, and so on. There's no criticism of private capitalists you can give which I can't swat aside and ignore that way
>>538953413Intellectual Property theft is a crime buddy.>The internet knows the originators.
>>538953613A gun on full auto with enough ammo to waste can easily fix the problem of 20 charging thugs. Thugs in cover can be taken care of by switching to semi auto and aiming.An army sized gang of thugs can be taken care of with a nuke, given that you own all the land that would be impacted by the detonation. You should therefore own a large buffer zone around your house before you buy nukes.
>>538959069>You should therefore own a large buffer zone around your house before you buy nukes.Talking oceans or planets?
>>538955722You must be thinking of the lefties of the Chicago School. They will do big government stuff like ignoring a small farmer's property rights for the benefit of the big railway corporation in the name of the common good of society, because "it will be good for the economy".
>>538959168Are you saying an above average sized American ranch won't be big enough to keep the outcome of detonating a small, clean nuke inside the property's borders? Will I have to go to Australia to find something that big? If American ranches are small, Americans may have to stick to chemical explosives for self defense.
>>538959606No, the environmental impact of the nuke would not stay inside the property's borders, because a thing called wind exists. But it makes sense they would have to reason this way, so that the air and the water are not thought of as shared resources, and harming others by polluting them can't count as a form of aggression
>>538960152Pollution of the air and water of other people's property counts as aggression. You may have a self defense + collateral damage justification if a collectivist thug army attacked you, but you will still have to compensate those who's private property's air and water you polluted.If you can't keep the fallout on your own property on day without wind, forget nukes. If you plant enough conventional explosives in strategic locations on your property, you should still be able to take out the army of collectivists invading you.
>>538958462>Intellectual Property theft is a crime buddy.It is a crime under current laws, but it isn't theft. Intellectual Property is an artificial monopoly crated by the government. Me copying something doesn't make you lose the original.Some form of IP, like you not being allowed to defraud people and ruining my reputation by claiming to be me when you conduct businesses, is legitimate. Most Intellectual Property law is like the corporation – a fake government construct that should be abolished in the long term.
>>538960598>you will still have to compensate those who's private property's air and water you pollutedNot if, say, you're a corporation where the more profitable thing is to do the pollution. In which case you stop pretending to believe in the non-aggression principle, since something regulating you and making you stop it would be the worst thing of all and must be avoided at all costs. Since you're profiting from it, then it doesn't count as inflicting harm.
>>538959069Why go full retard when you can just teach your daughter to use mortars?
>>538963496*daughter-wife
>>538960598Who do you think supplies the funding behind libertarianism? Companies who profit from polluting the air and water, mainly. If some organization has the power to make your life miserable via pollution, it also will have the power to stop you from doing anything about it.
>>538963525Yep. Picrel is the most central and influential libertarian, and for their ideology to look more legitimate, the lowly non-oligarch ones have to avoid drawing attention to this
>>538963344Regulation is a horrible thing that must be avoided. If your neighbor is polluting your property, it should be resolved in court or by the two of you coming to an agreement. Regulation is how the powerful obtain permission to pollute regular people's private property with all sorts of horrible chemicals.
>>538963496Because firestorms look cool, and creating a firestorm with a non-nuke feels fake.
>>538963525>If some organization has the power to make your life miserable via pollution, it also will have the power to stop you from doing anything about it.In a Libertarian society, property rights would be respected by the courts, so you would have it on your side. If a Libertarian society is achievable with the current population is a different question.
>>538964303>>538965081It's contradictory to want an anarchic libertarian system where most of the state is gone, but you still have robust enough courts and law enforcement systems to sue those who behave badly. If the regulators are gone, then legal systems which can enforce rulings would be seen as the next form of state/democratic overreach which needs to be targeted for elimination. "Waaaah, you're suing me, it's unfair" would become the new "Waaaah, you're regulating me, it's unfair"
