Manchester: Early Taproom Tuesday 5pm 6/14/2011

[Dave Ridley]

There will be a get-together of 'early Taproom Tuesday' attendees starting at

5 p.m. June 14.
Murphy's Taproom
400 N. Elm, Manchester NH - across from the the Verizon

They may end up in the back; I think they reserved it.   Show up early and poke around if you like.

There is expected to be a miniature open mike of some kind but I plan to videotape it, if you want, for the real audience.  Rant about whatever you like...it may eventually be a sort of weekly Soap Box Idol hopefully!

This event is likely to be very small at first but it is put on by the WinWin Party with plans to grow it and make it more regular.

http://WinWin.LeFora.com

[Luck]

* That's 494 Elm St. in Manchester.
- Next Taproom WinWin Party is after PorcFest on June 28, 5-6pm.
- The WinWin Party is a Party Party, for Partying together, not Fighting and Hating.
- Give up to 5 minute talks.
- Entertain and or Educate!
- Speak on Anything, but consider discussing principles for Ideal Society, such as at http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=23736.msg265663#msg265663.

[MaineShark]

- The WinWin Party is a Party Party, for Partying together, not Fighting and Hating.

Except for hating anyone who owns property, eh?

Joe

[Luck]

Except for hating anyone who owns property, eh?
Joe

Trying to say I hate anyone who owns property, eh?
You're lying. Why?
Your definition of property seems to rely on governments to say what is whose property, which is theft, just like taxes.

[Russell Kanning]

sounds like a good idea and a win win for attendees
how has it been going?

[MaineShark]

Except for hating anyone who owns property, eh?

Trying to say I hate anyone who owns property, eh?
You're lying. Why?

No, I'm telling the complete truth.  You've made it crystal clear that you are completely opposed to property ownership.

Your definition of property seems to rely on governments to say what is whose property, which is theft, just like taxes.

No, that would be your definition, where you state that "the community" owns all property, and all the real owners can do is "rent" it from the community.  That's so anti-liberty, it makes the current system look just and fair.

Let's repeat that: what you've proposed is worse than the current mess.  And that says a lot.

Joe

[Luck]

- I said: Your definition of property seems to rely on governments to say what is whose property, which is theft, just like taxes.
- You replied: No, that would be your definition, where you state that "the community" owns all property, and all the real owners can do is "rent" it from the community.
* You can't tell anyone what my definition of property or anything else is. Only I can. Do you deny me the right to make my own statements?
* Since everyone has the right to life and life requires access to food, everyone has the right to access enough food from land, water, or air for their survival. Governments are abusive when they tax land needed for survival, including people's homes too.
* Natural resources belong to everyone and by right everyone should have equal access to them, instead of some claiming they already own them [according to paperwork from abusive government].

[Luck]

- Russell said: sounds like a good idea and a win win for attendees
how has it been going?
* It's harder to get a quiet enough place in the Taproom on weekday evenings, so we'll probably phase out Tuesday evenings and switch to Sundays from 1-2 pm in the downstairs room. See my post at http://forum.nhliberty.org/index.php?topic=3471.0. We'll do Tuesdays a few more weeks yet too, though, I think.

[MaineShark]

- I said: Your definition of property seems to rely on governments to say what is whose property, which is theft, just like taxes.
- You replied: No, that would be your definition, where you state that "the community" owns all property, and all the real owners can do is "rent" it from the community.
* You can't tell anyone what my definition of property or anything else is. Only I can. Do you deny me the right to make my own statements?

You did make your own statement.  I read it.  You explicitly state that you believe in a coercive government, in many places, and that it should control others' property, demanding that they pay "rent" on the property that they own.

* Since everyone has the right to life and life requires access to food, everyone has the right to access enough food from land, water, or air for their survival.

Rights are negative.  Your right to life means that no one may justly murder you.  It does not mean that others must provide you with support.  The notion of "positive" rights is the polar opposite of liberty.

If the only food available is my arm (another piece of property that I own), are you going to saw it off, because you "require" food?

* Natural resources belong to everyone and by right everyone should have equal access to them, instead of some claiming they already own them [according to paperwork from abusive government].

From where do you derive this idea that "natural resources belong to everyone," exactly?  That usually derives from Locke, who in-turn derived it from his personal religious beliefs.  Unless you're proposing a theocracy, how am I bound by Locke's (or yours, or anyone else's) religious beliefs?  If you're going to try to impose a theocracy, well, again, that's completely anti-liberty.

Natural resources belong to no one.  That's because objects have no moral value.  They aren't even property, yet.  When some person homesteads a previously-unowned resource, he converts it into property, and it can be owned (namely, by him).  He has expended his labor (some portion of his life) to homestead it, and any theft of it from him is a theft of that portion of his very life which he invested in it.

That's how things exist in nature.  What you're proposing can only exist based upon "paperwork from abusive government" - it is wholly un-natural and anathema to liberty.

Joe

[Russell Kanning]

Sundays makes sense

I think I could live with Luck's system better than the current one.

It seems that governments are set up for bad people to steal from good ones, so they are never just. I have heard a lot of other ideas on how to look at land and they all sound better than the current one.

[MaineShark]

Luck's proposed system pretty much is the current system.  He's going to charge you property taxes, but just write "rent" on the bill, and whistle along, pretending it's difference.  It's still Statism.

And, in many ways, it would be worse.  At least, now, they pay lip service to you owning your own property.  They have to pay you back if they steal it, which is at least something.  They have to get a warrant to enter; not hard for them to do, but it's at least one little hoop they have to jump through.  In Luck's world, since you don't own your property at all, the cops would just show up whenever they wanted.  If some politician decides that they need your property for some pet project, they'd just take it and toss you out on the street with nothing (oh, I guess you'd still own the house, so as long as you could afford to hire house movers, costing a few dozen ounces of gold, you could save your house - if not, I guess you'd just be screwed).

Luck's proposal has all of the negatives we currently have, and none of the positives, however minor they might be.

Joe