[alecbenzer]

You cite an example of enforcing private property rights. And you're right, violence is used to enforce private property rights.

I'll admit some libertarians might use "violence" to indicate "badness" a little too readily and/or implicitly in these kinds of analogies (because they likely would be okay with violence to enforce property rights), but both thinks are fundamentally enforced with violence.

This admission doesn't make the analogies meaningless. Eg, a libertarian might say "I'm okay with using violence to enforce property rights, but I'm not okay with using violence to do [other thing]".

[vacri]

Why is it okay to use violence (libertarian definition of) to protect private property rights, but not to protect public property rights? To take a concept from a libertarian elsewhere in the thread: why is the private individual 'magic' and the public not?

This is the irony of libertarianism: "Freedom for everyone, but I get to keep all my goodies!". It's not actually freedom for everyone; it enshrines privilege with the people who already have a lot of wealth. It works against levelling the playing field and against people advancing by merit. If you're born into wealth, you're protected by libertarianism - you'll get better schooling, better networking, better secret-handshake memberships. If you're born into poverty, libertarianism handwaves and mutters something about charity (which is always amusing, because private charities have never amounted to anything like public welfare), but really doesn't care about helping you improve yourself, giving you the tools to become wealthier. The poor don't have private property, so libertarianism flips them the finger. If the poor get shafted by someone's actions, the libertarian answer is "take them to (the skeletal remains of) the court system", something which the poor cannot leverage at all. Factory spewing toxic smoke into your house? Take them to court... oh, you can't afford a lawyer, or at least one that stands a chance. Pity - there are no regulations on air pollution, because that curtails 'freedom' and is 'big government' and so the supposed answer instead is 'take them to court'.

I watched your second video. It's funny that the creator gave libertarianism a great loophole: "Oh, wars of conquest make it alright if the losers have all been killed". It's basically hand-waving away the indicated moral issues about taking things by force and translated means "I get to keep my stuff". It's a bad video full of leading statements and bad assumptions, though it does have nice production values. The entire video frames libertarianism as a mechanism to keep your material goods all to yourself - unsurprising, really, since this is what really underpins the philosophy.

Fundamentally, libertarianism is about people who want to maintain their social privileges and wealth, and not actually about fair opportunity. It's an incredibly selfish philosophy, but it's wrapped in attractive-sounding rhetoric. In any case, to answer the libertarian question "Why should I help anyone else at all?"(paraphrased, but ridiculously clear on every discussion regarding tax), the answer is basically "Because you're human, and humans are social animals that rely on each other; they are not self-sufficient without extreme effort".

[alecbenzer]

> violence (libertarian definition of)

As I said, this is not a special definition of violence.

> Why is it okay to use violence (libertarian definition of) to protect private property rights, but not to protect public property rights?

This follows from the libertarian view of rights. People own themselves and the product of their labor and have rights to trade voluntarily. Public property rights (not sure exactly what you're referring to by that, but guessing) tend to conflict with private property rights.

> It's not actually freedom for everyone;

Whether or not what follows this is relevant/worth discussing, I'm not sure what any of it has to do with libertarianism not being freedom for everyone. From a glance it sounds like a mix of interesting (but common) discussion points and straw-men. I'll respond if I have some time later.

[eevilspock]

Libertarians claim far too much as "the product of their labor." Firstly, they immensely overvalue their individual contribution to a product and undervalue the contribution of all who came before them. Secondly, the finite natural resources and space (land) of the planet can NEVER be considered the product of anyone's labor, and thus can NEVER be treated as private property in any strict sense (exclusive ownership in perpetuity until sold, zero property or inheritance tax). The later point is conceded by Geolibertarians[1][2] and Georgists[3].

The notion of perpetual ownership of any finite resource is antithetical to the principles of the free-market, because it allows one to purchase an infinite amount of something (i.e. perpetual rights to a piece of land, including perpetual rent collection) for a finite sum.

If as a libertarian you cannot concede these points, we cannot have an intellectually honest discussion of what a libertarian world would be like.

-

[1] http://geolib.com/welcome.html

[2] Are you a Real Libertarian, or a ROYAL Libertarian?, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7076632

[3] http://povertythinkagain.com/controversies/a-word-from-the-s...

[alecbenzer]

> Firstly, they immensely overvalue their individual contribution to a product and undervalue the contribution of all who came before them.

Can you elaborate on this? Ownership is based on both owning the product of your labor and the ability/right to trade property.

> Secondly, the finite natural resources and space (land) of the planet can NEVER be considered the product of anyone's labor, and thus can NEVER be treated as private property in any strict sense

I think there are a wide range of views on this among people who call themselves libertarians. A popular view is homesteading, which says that you own land once you improve it/mix your labor with it. I think there's some subtle variations in the view with respect to things like whether you own the land itself or just the improvements to it or things like that. Personally I agree that land isn't really something that can be owned. Constructed houses and the like can be owned and people can have rights to these houses but not to the land itself.

> The notion of perpetual ownership of any finite resource is antithetical to the principles of the free-market, because it allows one to purchase an infinite amount of something (i.e. perpetual rights to a piece of land, including perpetual rent collection) for a finite sum.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you saying its antithetical to free market principles to own anything indefinitely? Or just land?