Imperator
Generalissimus
- 1 569
- 3 558
To byli właściciele niewolników powinni dostać odszkodowania za stracone mienie,a nie niewolnicy którzy mieli się lepiej niż robotnicy fabryczni w XIX wiecznej Europie.
-
Forum Libertarian ma swój regulamin.
Odszkodowania dla rodzin niewolnikow
- Thread starter libertarianin.tom
- Rozpoczęty
OP
OP
libertarianin.tom
akapowy dogmatyk
- 2 700
- 7 120
No oczywiscie. Niewolnicy byli traktowani bardzo dobrze, a wolni pracownicy byli wyzykiwani przez wrednych kapitalistow.
Wiesz co, jak juz nastapi AKAP to mozesz potem isc do Tuska, Komora, Millera i innych "wlascicieli" twojej osoby i zaplacic im "odszkodowanie". Mnie to rybka. Ale nie pierdol mi takich totalitarnych glupot na forum libertarian bo mi sie cisnienie podnosi.
W 1989 tez mielismy gruba kreske. Noi mamy tego skutki...
Roszczen dochodzi sie droga sadowa (oczywiscie w prywatnych sadach) a jak sie nie uda to najazdem. Po cholere ci od razu atomowka do tego?
Ja jestem libertarianem prawo-naturalistycznym wiec utylitarne "wartosci" efektywnosci i optymalnosci mam gleboko w d. Dla mnie liczy sie tylko moralnosc, a kradziez wlasnosci jest zawsze kradzieza bez znaczenia czy nastapila ona 100 przez twoja "gruba kreska", 1 godzine przed nia czy tez 5 lat po niej. Prawo wlasnosci jest zawsze to samo.
A
artur1978
Guest
Coz ja tego nie wymyslilem krytyka NAPu, zrodlo
http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Principle_of_non-aggression#Consequentialist_criticism
Autor nazywa taka postawe libertarianskim socjalizmem i chyba ma racje
Inconsistency criticism
The second type of criticism focuses on the difficulty of determining who exactly initiated force in many real-life conflicts. As a general rule, each side in a conflict claims that the other "started it". Sometimes it is plainly clear who initiated force - for example, when a mugger demands a person's wallet. Other times, however, the situation is more complicated. For example, one side may have been the first to threaten force and the other side may have been the first to actually use force, or the conflict began such a long time in the past that no one remembers who started it. Wars are a particularly difficult case, because very few of them begin with a country openly declaring that it wants to initiate force on another.
Libertarians usually respond by stating that such pragmatic issues are well dealt with already in today's legal systems. For instance, an example of a dissipative game is a situation where a person starts insulting another in a bar, the other person responds by shoving, the other throws a punch, and the situation dissipates into a fight. In such cases, both parties are simply guilty of aggression toward the other because the aggression clearly went beyond self defense.[citation needed]
A version of this second criticism is often upheld by libertarian socialists and others, who claim that almost every patch of land on Earth was stolen (i.e. obtained through initiation of force) at some point in its history. The stolen land was later inherited or sold until it reached its present owners. Thus, property over land and natural resources is based on the initiation of force. Among those who make this argument, some (such as followers of Henry George) claim that private property over natural resources is unique in being based on the initiation of force, while others hold that, by extension, private property over all goods derives from violence, because natural resources are required in the production of all goods.
Libertarians often reply to the "who started it?" problem by contending that the difficulty in determining who is the transgressor should not dissuade us from engaging in that process.
Furthermore, libertarians often reply to either variant of this last point with the "water under the bridge" argument: that transgressions of the past cannot all be rectified, and that an act of theft which happened very long ago can reasonably be ignored - since it is irrelevant to people living today. This, however, can generate more charges of inconsistency, because it implies that peaceful possession of property in the present legitimizes theft and/or trespass in the past – the principle known in some contexts as "squatters' rights" and in other contexts as "the right of adverse possession". This requires a "cutoff" point: a point in time when illegitimate property becomes legitimate property. Opponents argue that any such point is arbitrary.
One prominent anarcho-capitalist theorist, Murray Rothbard, argued that much private property in the U.S. southwest ought to be taken from its present private owners, and given to the lawful heirs of those who had claim to it under Mexican law before the Mexican–American War, although he also regarded this case as historically unique.
Another reply can be made on the basis of the existence of proof of possession and individuality of owners. That is: if current heirs of long dead property owners can identify the property that has been stolen and prove that the owner has passed down to him or her his initial right of property - then those persons must be recognized as the rightful owners. This is similar to the "innocent until proven guilty" proposition of modern law, that owners should be regarded as legitimate until proven differently.
Chris Cantwell argues, "[T]he NAP is quickly becoming as meaningless as the nihilists say it is. A meaningless term, subject to an infinite number of different interpretations. Building societies around it is completely hopeless, because based on how many negative messages a Facebook page gets, so does the interpretation of the NAP change."[16]
http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Principle_of_non-aggression#Consequentialist_criticism
Autor nazywa taka postawe libertarianskim socjalizmem i chyba ma racje
Inconsistency criticism
The second type of criticism focuses on the difficulty of determining who exactly initiated force in many real-life conflicts. As a general rule, each side in a conflict claims that the other "started it". Sometimes it is plainly clear who initiated force - for example, when a mugger demands a person's wallet. Other times, however, the situation is more complicated. For example, one side may have been the first to threaten force and the other side may have been the first to actually use force, or the conflict began such a long time in the past that no one remembers who started it. Wars are a particularly difficult case, because very few of them begin with a country openly declaring that it wants to initiate force on another.
Libertarians usually respond by stating that such pragmatic issues are well dealt with already in today's legal systems. For instance, an example of a dissipative game is a situation where a person starts insulting another in a bar, the other person responds by shoving, the other throws a punch, and the situation dissipates into a fight. In such cases, both parties are simply guilty of aggression toward the other because the aggression clearly went beyond self defense.[citation needed]
A version of this second criticism is often upheld by libertarian socialists and others, who claim that almost every patch of land on Earth was stolen (i.e. obtained through initiation of force) at some point in its history. The stolen land was later inherited or sold until it reached its present owners. Thus, property over land and natural resources is based on the initiation of force. Among those who make this argument, some (such as followers of Henry George) claim that private property over natural resources is unique in being based on the initiation of force, while others hold that, by extension, private property over all goods derives from violence, because natural resources are required in the production of all goods.
Libertarians often reply to the "who started it?" problem by contending that the difficulty in determining who is the transgressor should not dissuade us from engaging in that process.
Furthermore, libertarians often reply to either variant of this last point with the "water under the bridge" argument: that transgressions of the past cannot all be rectified, and that an act of theft which happened very long ago can reasonably be ignored - since it is irrelevant to people living today. This, however, can generate more charges of inconsistency, because it implies that peaceful possession of property in the present legitimizes theft and/or trespass in the past – the principle known in some contexts as "squatters' rights" and in other contexts as "the right of adverse possession". This requires a "cutoff" point: a point in time when illegitimate property becomes legitimate property. Opponents argue that any such point is arbitrary.
One prominent anarcho-capitalist theorist, Murray Rothbard, argued that much private property in the U.S. southwest ought to be taken from its present private owners, and given to the lawful heirs of those who had claim to it under Mexican law before the Mexican–American War, although he also regarded this case as historically unique.
Another reply can be made on the basis of the existence of proof of possession and individuality of owners. That is: if current heirs of long dead property owners can identify the property that has been stolen and prove that the owner has passed down to him or her his initial right of property - then those persons must be recognized as the rightful owners. This is similar to the "innocent until proven guilty" proposition of modern law, that owners should be regarded as legitimate until proven differently.
Chris Cantwell argues, "[T]he NAP is quickly becoming as meaningless as the nihilists say it is. A meaningless term, subject to an infinite number of different interpretations. Building societies around it is completely hopeless, because based on how many negative messages a Facebook page gets, so does the interpretation of the NAP change."[16]
D
Deleted member 427
Guest
W Ameryce już wypłacają pierwsze transze odszkodowań:
LachickieLibstwoPodziemne
Active Member
- 261
- 223
Pytanie co to znaczy (i jakie są jej granice) w praktyce pierwotne <<zawłaszczenie/zagospodarowanie>>
Analogiczny przykład:
Czy jak ktoś chce pierwotnie zawłaszczyć/zagospodarować niczyi las to wystarczy że pozbiera gałęzie ze ściółki czy raczej musi np. wyciąć spróchniałe drzewa? Samego ogrodzenia terenu nie liczę bo to tylko jest wyznaczona granica tegoż zagospodarowania. Według mnie samo ogrodzenie terenu bez zagospodarowania nie jest żadnym pierwotnym zawłaszczeniem/zagospodarowaniem.
Jeśli najpierw w niczyim lesie człowiek A pozbiera gałęzie, a po jakimś czasie człowiek B po wycina spróchniałe drzewa to który z nich może rościć sobie prawo do tego lasu? Może są współwłaścicielami?
Co jest w praktyce tymże zagospodarowaniem a co nie jest wydaje się względne.
I to niestety podważa autorytet własności prywatnej jako takiej...