Quote:
Originally Posted by MVW
Of course there is a contradiction. You are forcefully stopping someone from pursuing something that is not harming others.
|
But is that is the point, I believe it does harm people. It allows more monopolisation of natural resources and land by a minority and decreases the ability of most to get access to their own personal capital and therefore their autonomy and freedom is decreased.
Quote:
As for getting into nature. If your argument against property rights is that you dont own the materials ie. wood from the tree etc then , well, i wont even get into it because its utterly pointless. All I'd ask you is where do you live? so I can come and take all your possessions 
|
This is not a sound response at all. I did not argue against property rights but the basis you are giving for them and most importantly unlimited and absentee ownership of land.
Quote:
|
decentralist conservatism? What does that even mean? Conservatism is to conserve ... atleast in my understanding.
|
Paleoconservatism is an example.
Quote:
|
Again, Instead of just criticizing others, perhaps you could state how your superior , more radical, system would work(or link to it) Seems to me you just want to conveniently brush under the carpet the idea of ownership to make your system/ideas pertain to freedom. I could be wrong but thats how it seems.
|
I don't know what you mean by brushing the idea of ownership under the carpet. I don't believe in anything like "natural" rights to a lockean idea of private property but I think private property is important and that it should be more well dispersed and that the average person should have easier access to that which he needs for his own occupancy and direct use.