Is it ethical for a wealthy land owner to let the rest of the people in his country starve to death during a famine because its his private property?
>>73193338
Do you support me being shot?
>>73193338
There's a difference between being ethical and acting within your rights.
>>73193338
Not an argument.
>>73193538
It's an argument, you just don't know how to argue back. This fellow right here >>73193511 understood the argument and knew how to argue back against it. I thank him for that.
>>73193338
those who can't compete should die. If only
>>73193338
I don't like this whole "The government is going to kill me" bullshit that everyone is parroting from Ben Shapiro.
They won't kill you, you'll just go to jail. If you resist arrest they might kill you...
>>73193663
Neither >>73193338 nor >>73193511 are arguments.
>>73193758
Because you say so? Please explain why they are not arguments?
>>73193338
Sure senpai. The guy better have lots of guns though. Because those people are definitely going for blood.
>>73193663
>Calls a question an argument
So you're admitting that your OP was a leading question and you're not interested in an answer, but only in cirlejerking?
Fuck off
>>73193338
If people are dead they can't buy your food, meaning you'd go bankrupt, so you'd sell your food to them
This situation has nothing to do with private property
>>73193831
Do you want me shot?
>>73193511
This.
>>73193922
It's a question where I use a statement to support a proposition. That's the definition of an argument. Is this "Not an argument" meme some way Stefancucks are avoiding hard questions like my OP post?
>>73193338
Stefan is the only libertarian that actually does have an answer to this. The YAD principle. Sure you can deprive thousands of people of food for fun, but when those people break into your house and kill you, know one will defend you, because you're a dick
>>73193952
But when the prices of property goes down because so many property owners died, you can scoop it all up real cheap with the money you already have.
I mean, look at the south after the civil war. After they got rekt for their treason, real Americans came in and bought up the cheap land.
>>73194322
Bit like in Somalia.
>>73194407
pretty sure that's like the opposite of Somalia, since in Somalia people get offered food to stay loyal to the ruling warlord
>>73194322
So coerce him?
The people deciding what makes you a dick would essentially be a government.
>>73194397
It wouldn't matter how cheap the land is. If the people in a country are dying, there would be economic downfall. So whatever way you make money will disappear, meaning you can't buy the property
>>73194824
Economies recover.
>>73194668
you can act in a way that a libertarian would deem morally correct while still being a massive twat, and if you do that, people who are freely associating with you can choose to look the other way and be happy if something bad happens to you, because you're a sadistic twat regardless of whether or not what you did is morally wrong
>>73194824
Or even if you buy the property, you won't have money to maintain or develop it
>>73194888
Not when vast swaths of the population are dying or dead because of starvation
>>73194939
But we see people don't really care if someone is a sadistic twat if they gain from it.
See your own post here
>>73194577
>>73194735
>>73194758
Thanks germanbro, I'll be sure to post these in every single Stefan thread I see. Got more?
>>73195194
the op was positing a situation where no one benefits from him being a sadist but him though. Limiting food so that people are dependent on you is different from straight up starving people because you think it's funny, and in any case like this it feeds back to another argument Stef uses, where he says that if the worst outcome of a stateless society is that someone forms a quasi-state and abuses people through it, then why not shoot for a stateless society?
>>73195526
how do you form a stateless society?
do you think majority will ever give up on centuries of tradition and social evolution simply because some Canadian faggot is spewing his idiotic philosophy online?
libertarians and ancaps are literally boring retards
commies and anarchists at least had balls, historically
>>73193338
Why aren't these people, whom I presume lease land from the landowner just eating from the national stockpile + offering their military services to the lord?
>>73195526
The impression I got was that he wasn't giving it to people who couldn't give him anything in return but were in desperate need of it.
It is supremely moral and just in terms of the laws of nature which is the law of the strong.
It is the natural law that the weak die and the strong survive.
>>73195826
it was worded vaguely so you might be right, but I assumed he meant pointlessly letting people starve because muh property rights
>>73195673
stop beating your kids and associating with single mothers or you support me getting shot
>>73195526
>the worst outcome of a stateless society is that someone forms a quasi-state and abuses people through it, then why not shoot for a stateless society?
Because some states are better than others. A state that protects a free society and has a system of courts to resolve disputes and a military to protect the society is better than a despotic warlord or a lynch mob.
>>73193338
>>73193663
>>73193831
>>73194203
>>73194407
Not an argument.
>>73195195
>>73193338
Ethics pro here.
No, it's not ethical for a rich landowner to withhold food from starving people. It's not ethical for an angry mob to just rob the food either though.
What's ethical are either of two situations
>landowner allows his food to be eaten by starving people, the starving people either repaying the debt when capable or the food being free if the landowner so decides
or
>the starving people take food, but only enough to not starve, make sure the land owner has enough food to not starve himself, turn themselves over to authorities once the famine is over, and make sure the land owner is fairly compensated for any food he lost
An emergency might take desperate measures but justice must still be upheld.
>>73196166
It's a statement in support of a proposal so it's an argument.
Claiming it's not is just avoiding a question you can't answer. Stefan doesn't want you to engage in arguments, because he knows you would change your minds.
