[aminok]

People being able to exercise their right to freely contract and control their own private property is sickening?

You'd prefer people being thrown in prison for refusing to surrender their private property rights, or for engaging in a voluntary economic interaction that some other party created a prohibition against?

Please help me understand your preference for authoritarian violence against peaceful people.

[dang]

> You'd prefer people being thrown in prison

> your preference for authoritarian violence

We've banned this account for egregious ideological flamewar and repeated incivility. Indeed, you've been using HN for almost nothing else. That's a serious abuse which destroys the culture we're hoping to build—thoughtful discussion—and stokes the flames the rest of us are working hard to damp down.

It's not a matter of the politics you espouse, much as it doesn't matter what brand of matches arsonists use. The patterns of flamewar are invariant across ideological flavor.

If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [e-mail] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow HN's rules in the future.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13595551 and marked it off-topic.

[aninhumer]

>You'd prefer people being thrown in prison for refusing to surrender their private property rights

Yes, I'd prefer people be thrown in prison for refusing to feed the starving, rather than people starving to death.

I think property rights are valuable in-as-far as they improve overall utility, but insisting on enforcing them to the point where it could cause people serious harm is clearly beyond that point.

We can argue about the extents of property rights, but suggesting there be no limits is arguing for legalised economic murder.

EDIT: Just to note that I edited this quite extensively after posting.

[aminok]

>Yes, I'd prefer people be thrown in prison for refusing to feed the starving, rather than them starving to death.

So I guess you won't complain when some self-righteous modern-day Robin Hood engages in armed robbery against you to feed children in an orphanage in Africa. And if you resist? Well, the consequences fall on you. Who are you to deny others who are in need your income.

That actions that are unconscionable by any normal moral standard suddenly become socially acceptable to endorse when done through the political process shows how detached political ideology has become from humanity/morality. The political ideology you endorse is sociopathic and narcissistic to the extreme.

[aninhumer]

>So I guess you won't complain when some self-righteous modern-day Robin Hood engages in armed robbery against you to feed children in an orphanage in Africa.

An ad-hoc process controlled by an individual? Of course I'd complain.

A world-spanning democratic process? Well, it's hard to know if I would truly be willing to give up the standard of living that I'm used to, but in principle I would happy to do so if it would lift the entire world out of relative poverty.

>That actions that are unconscionable by any normal moral standard suddenly become socially acceptable to endorse when done through the political process shows how detached political ideology has become from humanity/morality.

Actions on behalf of a democratic system are different to actions of an individual, because they have the consent of a majority of the governed.

How do you intend that property rights be enforced? Who decides who owns what, and what gives them the right to make that decision? Would it be acceptable for an individual who disagrees (i.e. doesn't consent) to take action on their own to reallocate property as they see fit?

[aminok]

>An ad-hoc process controlled by an individual? Of course I'd complain.

Morally there's no difference. You just want the armed robbery to be done in a more organized and deliberative process. That doesn't change the moral quality of threatening you with violence to deprive you of your property, when you have not committed any offence to warrant such a violation of your rights.

>Actions on behalf of a democratic system are different to actions of an individual, because they have the consent of a majority of the governed.

Violating people's rights with the "consent of the majority" is just two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner. The justification is just an ideological cover for violating others rights.

>How do you intend that property rights be enforced? Who decides who owns what, and what gives them the right to make that decision?

Property rights would ideally be enforced by the government, with common law, which is based on protecting people's human rights (including the right to not be robbed to provide for the poor), determining who owns what.

>Would it be acceptable for an individual who disagrees (i.e. doesn't consent) to take action on their own to reallocate property as they see fit?

I don't know, because there are many factors to consider. If the judgment is unjust, but resisting it with force leads to far more violence against the innocent, then it could wrong to resist in such a manner. The best course of action in my opinion is to strongly argue for what one believes is justice as long as the freedom of speech exists.

[aninhumer]

>Property rights would ideally be enforced by the government, with common law, which is based on protecting people's human rights ..., determining who owns what.

And how exactly do they determine that? What happens when people disagree about ownership? What makes the government's decisions more valid than the individuals'?

>If the judgment is unjust, but resisting it with force leads to far more violence against the innocent, then it could wrong to resist in such a manner.

So it's okay to ignore property rights if enforcing them would cause harm?

>The best course of action in my opinion is to strongly argue for what one believes is justice as long as the freedom of speech exists.

And what will this achieve? What mechanism is there for government to recognise and rectify its mistake?

>is just two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner.

As opposed to two wolves agreeing that they own the grass, and enforcing that until the sheep dies. Power imbalances will always enable abuse, but democracy at least ensures that the power imbalance benefits more people than it harms.