Yet again, you're turning to force first.

On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Zach Moore <[address removed]> wrote:

Guess we're just going to have to.fight it out. Gear up

On Mar 12,[masked]:43 PM, "Duff Means" <[address removed]> wrote:

Your ownership of any property that interferes with my access to food, water, medical care, or any other need constitutes a coercive force, in that it allows you to set a price higher than I can afford, in order for you to take ownership of my property. Competition would eliminate this coercive force, but once you have that property, you have established a monopoly and as such eliminated any opportunity for competition.

This is where regulation becomes necessary, and libertarianism fails.

On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Zach Moore <[address removed]> wrote:

Property is not using force is I own the property. I don't accept the concept of ownerless property. If you don't own it, you don't have a say over it.

On Mar 12,[masked]:31 PM, "Duff Means" <[address removed]> wrote:

"Doctors should be able to serve whoever they want - the richest or the most sick. It's the doctors prerogative."

Unless they have accepted a contract to provide services on an as-needed basis to any who come seeking aid. But it is their prerogative not to accept such a contract...

"Businesses should be able to tell gay people to go to Hell and get out of their store (good luck withstanding the social pressure but it's their prerogative.)"

Not sure if I disagree with you on this one - it's a gray area for me.

"A man with a fire extinguisher should be able to choose which houses on fire he wants to put out. It's up to him."

As it stands right now, he has that right, so long as he obtained that fire extinguisher on his own. And yet, failing to use it when it is needed represents a coercive force.

"You'd have to be specific. I could threaten them for trespassing. They could get something for free while suffering the danger of getting shot. :) 

Property rights tend to solve this small little problem. "

But now you're using force. Property rights in and of themselves represent a force, when the property in question serves a common interest.

On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Zach Moore <[address removed]> wrote:

You'd have to be specific. I could threaten them for trespassing. They could get something for free while suffering the danger of getting shot. :) 

Property rights tend to solve this small little problem. 

On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Duff Means <[address removed]> wrote:

"I'd probably let him use the roa

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Duff Means ([address removed]) from DC Atheists Meetup.
To learn more about Duff Means, visit his/her member profile
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]