abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Except property rights.
United States Empire
- Thread starter Rob Roy
- Start date
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I'm advocating there be no central authority which gains power thru coercion.
For property rights to be really protected by government* on a regular basis, you would need a proliferation of more governments, all the way down to the individual person level. That is evidenced by the fact property rights are also often DENIED by government, so your statement is somewhat misleading.
*An agreed to definition of "government" would be useful for our discussion. Generally speaking, when I say "government" I mean the kind that is most prevalent, the kind which assumes control over others via threats and gives itself approval to use offensive force. I think there should be less of that kind and more self governance.
Also, "anarchist" you are advocating for a central authority, I am not.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
If a person has a right to exist, which is akin to a property right in themselves, that didn't come from government. Since man invented government,he must also logically predate government. Therefore "property rights" also predate government.
If you plant and tend a garden on previously unoccupied (unowned) land is the product of that garden yours or mine ? Obviously it is yours.
Would the product of your garden labor be yours even if I attempted to form a government and take it ?
Last edited:
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I didn't say protected. I said that property rights come from gov't. For clarity, I am saying they originate from gov't. Even bignbushy, that mouth breather, understood what I meant.
Learn to read ya dingus.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
ROFL
Human rights do not come from being property, they come from being human. Humans are not property as you suggest. One does not own their self, they ARE their self. Seriously, you just keep repeating the same shit over and over hoping it will seem like a new argument because it is a different thread.
Inb4 civil rights are described as slavery.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I appreciate your clarification. Now we are onto something.
In a sense, I agree property rights can come from government, if a single person mixing his labor with natural resources can be considered a "governor" of himself and his labor etc.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I don't suggest humans are property, in the way you are trying to default to.
I said humans have a kind of right in themselves, which is akin to a property right.
Semantics aside, here is the crux of it...people are "self owners", therefore no person has a right to keep OTHER people from interacting if the other people chose to, and no person has a right to force other people to interact, if one of the people being forced declines the interaction. Would you agree or disagree ?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
@abandonconflict
You never answered who owns the product of your hypothetical garden and who owns the right to control that space ?
Why not ?
You never answered who owns the product of your hypothetical garden and who owns the right to control that space ?
Why not ?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Property rights can be exercised by a form of "governance" by an individual. They are more likely to be honored if the power of governance isn't held in a forcible monopoly and are available equally to people rather than thru favoritism bestowed by the monopoly.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
No, I'm not melting. A little hung over maybe, but some hydrating and exercise later today will take care of that.
Your avoidance of discussion and my salient points leaves me to believe you do think cheetohs can be grown. Very well, what do you recommend for nutes and should I harvest when they are still crunchy or should I wait until they are slightly stale and soggy?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
What I really are?
I self identify as a Sasquatch. Are you telling me I'm not one? Damn.
Also your thinly veiled allegation about me being a racist is baseless. I do support everyone's right to refuse a forced interaction though, even a racists, if he is on his own property. My respecting a racists property right isn't the same with agreeing with his point of view on racism though.
If the KKK showed up at your laundromat and began washing their garb in your machines, you should be able to tell them to leave, because your ownership of that property should be sacrosanct and respected or it isn't really ownership.
714steadyeddie
Well-Known Member
Lol stfu
londonfog
Well-Known Member
You are not a Sasquatch. You are a tax paying United States citizen, who attended public schools and raise his children to be and do the same.
You also are one who would agree to keep segregation. You would be on the side of a public store owner to deny me service just based on the color of my skin. You would be on the side of the public store owner if he denied your gay son service based on his lifestyle, Yes you support segregation.
Antidisestablishmentarian
Well-Known Member
You really don't understand this quote:
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
But but I "self identify" as a Sasquatch now, can't I get my own bathroom at your laundromat? What kind of discriminator are you?
A citizen is a subject, a subject is a slave, slave. If you can't stop forging your own chains at least stop forging them to put on others.
No, I am NOT on the side of a person who wouldn't serve you or my son for your race and his sexual preference. I would take my business elsewhere.
If it pissed me off enough, I might even try to open a business across the street from the discriminator, and show the discriminator the error of their ways by putting them out of business, by giving excellent service to the people the discriminator turned away.
However I would not use force to make anybody serve me, you would. I don't own them or their property and neither do you or my son, nor does your government.
The only problem with my plan is YOUR government sets up so many obstacles to a person opening a business, it ends up creating costly barriers to entry in a given area of customer service.
Last edited:
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Poignant and concise.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Your spider man meme sort of fucked this up, ya dingus. I thought you were supposed to be a smart guy?
Jim Crow laws often used legal force to prevent people who wished to associate, from associating. So if you were being honest, you would admit libertarians are FOR getting rid of Jim Crow laws. Libertarians think people of any race who wish to associate on a mutual basis, ought to associate.
Libertarians are not for replacing a restriction on people of different race from associating with an edict that says people MUST associate though.
Also, I'm curious, how you can claim to be an "anarchist" and advocate for things which require a central authority to oversee? It seems a little contradictory.
Last edited:
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
So you're for civil rights, so that you can racially discriminate...
Propertarians are contradictory as fuck.
Propertarians are contradictory as fuck.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Here let me reveal your blatant hypocrisy for you...
I'm for voluntary and peaceful human interactions and the rejection of offensive force all the time, you are only SOME of the time.
Jim Crow laws prevented some people who wished to associate from doing so. If two people BOTH want to get together, that's THEIR business. We probably agree on that point.
If the reason YOU are against Jim Crow laws is the same as mine, why do you then Abandon Logic when you do a flip and then support force after you rejected it when you rejected Jim Crow laws ?
We both, apparently, reject the idea that people shouldn't forcibly be prevented from associating, but you don't reject the idea that some people have the right to force another person to interact with them.
Here's why it's contradictory on your part
The primary thing we reject when we reject Jim Crow laws is the removal of the individuals choice to chose their associations on a voluntary and mutual basis. The same logic applies when a person is prevented from DECLINING an interaction, on their own property. Somebody is attempting to remove THAT individuals choice to chose their associations.
Now, don't you feel silly ?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Said the "anarchist" who advocates for a hierarchy wherein one party has the power to make another person associate with them. Fail.