Percocet. Side effects of percocet. Generic percocet….

I misunderstood you. My apologies.

My hypothetical does not allow for a plan B.

Given that, how would you argue for the property in contention?

I'm open to argument and quite capable of being swayed.

"Propriety is the will of armed men, for better or for worse, not the will of Nature."

Lets try a hypothetical.

Assumptions:

1. There are no institutions. There are no governments or private institutional frameworks to enforce or adjudicate anything.

2. You cannot use physical force.

3. I've made a claim to a piece of property that you now very much desire.

On what basis will you attempt to convince me that I should relinquish my claim and allow you to use the property?

We are removing coercion and attempting to solve the problem of human cooperation through rational persuasion only. We are removing bestial man and replacing him with rational man.

What would you argue?

P.S. Some fun reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#From_other_gun_rights_organizations

Did you ignore the Second Amendment primer I, Vidyohs and others gave you on another thread?

I believe in being armed against aggression, but I don't care if you choose to have faith that others will defend you. I suspect that you'd like to force me into that faith with you, though.

'Enforceable property' has a nice ring to it, though. Enter or use my property with my permission only, or risk getting shot. Sounds reasonable to me.

BTW: I am a libertarian and a Life Member of the NRA.

Bravo! Ja, und? Oh, and the armed men? Creation of the state. Another artifact of man.

Of course, the state is an artifact. What's your point?

Regarding that computer that you were using to type out you comment. You aqcuired it through force?

I acquired it within a system of forcible propriety. Why would I deny it?

And you also used the threat of violence to force your ISP to allow you access to their service?

Why do you ask these silly questions? My ISP owns means of providing internet access, and its claims to these means are forcible. I own various means that I employ to earn the price of my access, and my claim to my means is also forcible. Precisely which claims are forcible and which are not is a matter of law, and legislatures, executive bureaucrats, judges and other officers of the state craft the law.

You're right, I suppose: aside from your violent nature to receive such things, your desire (our desire) to own things is unnatural.

The distinction between the "artificial" and the "natural" is conventional. An artifact is a product of man by definition. Do you have a problem with this distinction? Of course, titles to property are artifacts. I don't see lions, tigers and bears using them.

For instance, in a group where the rules are strictly and uniformly enforced, people have a very great respect for law. In societies with many laws that are not enforced, the response to something being against the law is "so, lots of things are."
That is the sort of disregard for law that is meant.

As my grandfather was fond of saying "You should never make something illegal if you are not willing to kill a man for doing it." We see the wisdom of this in things such as jay walking laws. They are nearly never enforced, but when they are, it makes no sense to anyone involved for a variety of reasons.

Regarding that computer that you were using to type out you comment. You aqcuired it through force? And you also used the threat of violence to force your ISP to allow you access to their service?

You're right, I suppose: aside from your violent nature to receive such things, your desire (our desire) to own things is unnatural.

Well done, Martin!

"We know the world cannot afford the illegal growing stronger than the legal, and taking over our nations"

So in our past here in the USA it could be said that the world could not afford the illegal (rebels) growing stronger that the legal (king of birtian) and taking over and creating the nation (USA)?

Do you have any f..king idea of what your're talking about? (at any time)

To an intelligent person the understanding comes easy that smugglers and black martketeers are viewed as criminals by the state, but as welcome businessmen by the needy public. It just all depends upon which side of the "state VS people" controversey one resides on.

"Propriety is a product of man, an artifact, not a product of nature."

Bravo! Ja, und? Oh, and the armed men? Creation of the state. Another artifact of man.

Great article, Mr. Boudreaux. Another reason I enjoy returning to this site.

.

Absolutely! The real difference between someone exploiting reasonably or unreasonably a patent awarded by society and someone using without authorization that patent in order to give to the society a lower price of the product is, as far as parasites goes, quite muddled.