Difference between revisions of "Gemma Seymour quotes"
m (Mihali moved page Gemma Seymour to Gemma Seymour quotes without leaving a redirect) |
(→2) |
||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
=== 2 === | === 2 === | ||
| + | Private ownership of Nature is a denial of Liberty. You cannot be libertarian unless you believe in the equal and inherent natural dignity of all the living, and the equal rights to which all the living are entitled by virtue of existence. | ||
| + | |||
| + | If Nature can be owned, then all Nature can be owned, and the next person to arrive or be born within a territory could not be said to have even the right to set foot upon the Earth, to breathe its air, drink of its waters, or eat of its produce without the permission of some lord. Any belief in the private ownership of Nature is therefore an explicit denial of the rights to Life, Liberty, and Property, without which "libertarianism" does not exist. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Rights must be equal throughout all time and space, or they could not be said to be "rights", in the first place. | ||
| + | |||
| + | This isn't difficult to fathom, unless one is willfully refusing Reason, itself. But then, there really are only two kinds of authoritarian—the dominant and the submissive. The problem with the authoritarians who mistakenly believe they are libertarian in any way is that they all believe themselves to be dominant, when they are actually submissive. | ||
Revision as of 17:44, 29 January 2019
1
If you press a libertarian to justify the moral basis for private property in Nature, eventually he has to admit that his conception is based upon one or both of only two things:
1. "finders keepers" or
2. conquest
both of which are at their cores a denial of libertarian principles. Conquest is obviously a violation of the NAP, and "finders keepers" is a denial of the principles of natural rights which underpin the very idea of Liberty. There is no way around this obstacle. There are no other options. There are only two ways that Property can come into one's hands rightfully:
1. by virtue of creation or
2. by consensual transfer of a right
and it is obvious that in the second case, stolen property cannot be consensually transferred. There are no conditions under which an individual can possibly acquire a property right to any particular plot of Nature that he could morally transfer, in the first case, so the chain of custody is broken at the very beginning.
REFERENCE: https://www.facebook.com/kyle.giusti.7524/posts/225107198398247
2
Private ownership of Nature is a denial of Liberty. You cannot be libertarian unless you believe in the equal and inherent natural dignity of all the living, and the equal rights to which all the living are entitled by virtue of existence.
If Nature can be owned, then all Nature can be owned, and the next person to arrive or be born within a territory could not be said to have even the right to set foot upon the Earth, to breathe its air, drink of its waters, or eat of its produce without the permission of some lord. Any belief in the private ownership of Nature is therefore an explicit denial of the rights to Life, Liberty, and Property, without which "libertarianism" does not exist.
Rights must be equal throughout all time and space, or they could not be said to be "rights", in the first place.
This isn't difficult to fathom, unless one is willfully refusing Reason, itself. But then, there really are only two kinds of authoritarian—the dominant and the submissive. The problem with the authoritarians who mistakenly believe they are libertarian in any way is that they all believe themselves to be dominant, when they are actually submissive.
