United States Empire

[Rob Roy]

No one is forcing anyone to open a public business. If you want to keep certain people out your place of business keep it private.
So I guess asking you to protest against the racist store owner is a no for you. You believe the racist store owner has a right to be racist in his business that is open to the public. In short, you enable segregation.

You are failing to see what is right in front of you, the force is strong with you. I mean that in a slightly condescending and wise ass way, rather than a proclamation of your comprehension or logic extrapolation abilities, Mr. Storm trooper.

If, a person DOES own property and decides to do anything with it, but confines those actions to HIS property, why does he have to ask a nonowner for the list of allowable uses if he designates his property as one thing or another ? Will force happen if he fails to ask permission and simply acts like the owner, which he ostensibly is ?

 

[Rob Roy]

Nice word salad.

Inb4 pedophilia is described as consensual.

Thank you. I picked the salad greens from a garden somebody else labored over....thought you'd appreciate that.

 

[abandonconflict]

If, a person DOES own property and decides to do anything with it, but confines those actions to HIS property, why does he have to ask a nonowner for the list of allowable uses if he designates his property as one thing or another ?

Because property rights come from gov't.

 

[Rob Roy]

Because property rights come from gov't.

Nature disagrees with you.

A person exists in a physical realm, in order to do so, other people must necessarily be excluded from THAT physical realm ("property") or the person would suffocate etc .

A person in order to remain alive, MUST eat something. That something which is consumed comes from a natural physical realm.


IF that person wants to maximize his labor and mixes it with previously unowned natural resources, thus creating "food" from the mixture of his labor, the result of his effort has now become "his" property....where exactly was government in this picture ?

The fact government CAN attempt to assign who gets what property etc. doesn't mean the right is necessarily protected or denied by government, AND, doesn't mean "government" is required for property or in the absence of government, that a property right won't exist.

I think the right to use and manipulate justly acquired property comes from a persons existence, which requires some kind of property right with exclusionary features, unless you want to suffocate or be crushed.

Otherwise, I could stand on top of you and munch my word salad and you would have no valid reason to remove me....of course, you being an "anarchist" and all <smirk> you wouldn't NEED government to protect your right to exist would you?

 

[abandonconflict]

Nature disagrees with you.

A person exists in a physical realm, in order to do so, other people must necessarily be excluded from THAT physical realm ("property") or the person would suffocate etc .

A person in order to remain alive, MUST eat something. That something which is consumed comes from a natural physical realm.


IF that person wants to maximize his labor and mixes it with previously unowned natural resources, thus creating "food" from the mixture of his labor, the result of his effort has now become "his" property....where exactly was government in this picture ?

The fact government CAN attempt to assign who gets what property etc. doesn't mean the right is necessarily protected or denied by government, AND, doesn't mean "government" is required for property or in the absence of government, that a property right won't exist.

I think the right to use and manipulate justly acquired property comes from a persons existence, which requires some kind of property right with exclusionary features, unless you want to suffocate or be crushed.

Otherwise, I could stand on top of you and munch my word salad and you would have no valid reason to remove me....of course, you being an "anarchist" and all <smirk> you wouldn't NEED government to protect your right to exist would you?

I read about 4 words of this and then I knew all I would have to say is that none of the BS you listed requires exclusive deed, so no, nature does not disagree. Property is not a natural right, it is a gov't granted right.

 

[londonfog]

You are failing to see what is right in front of you, the force is strong with you. I mean that in a slightly condescending and wise ass way, rather than a proclamation of your comprehension or logic extrapolation abilities, Mr. Storm trooper.

If, a person DOES own property and decides to do anything with it, but confines those actions to HIS property, why does he have to ask a nonowner for the list of allowable uses if he designates his property as one thing or another ? Will force happen if he fails to ask permission and simply acts like the owner, which he ostensibly is ?

Oh I see.
So you saying that If a property owner decided to use his property as a place were minors and adults can meet for drinks and other things, it is quite alright because it is his property. So a 13 year old can meet a 33 year old at this property and have sex because it is confined to the property ? WTF

 

[ChesusRice]

Oh I see.
So you saying that If a property owner decided to use his property as a place were minors and adults can meet for drinks and other things, it is quite alright because it is his property. So a 13 year old can meet a 33 year old at this property and have sex because it is confined to the property ? WTF

Real life example of why this "utopia" would be harmful
If I live upstream from you and Dam your source of water
I have caused you harm.
But wtf. It's my property the stream is going thru. I should get to do what I want with it

 

[abandonconflict]

Oh I see.
So you saying that If a property owner decided to use his property as a place were minors and adults can meet for drinks and other things, it is quite alright because it is his property. So a 13 year old can meet a 33 year old at this property and have sex because it is confined to the property ? WTF

That's precisely how "anarchocapitalism" is designed.

 

[Rob Roy]

I read about 4 words of this and then I knew all I would have to say is that none of the BS you listed requires exclusive deed, so no, nature does not disagree. Property is not a natural right, it is a gov't granted right.

I bet you are afraid to define the term "property" .

Also, if "property" is a gov't. granted right, wouldn't a person then be able to extrapolate that property couldn'thave existed in the absence of government ?

 

[abandonconflict]

I bet you are afraid to define the term "property" .

Also, if "property" is a gov't. granted right, wouldn't a person then be able to extrapolate that property couldn'thave existed in the absence of government ?

Not at all afraid to define the word property, I just don't have time to copy/paste from the dictionary for you.

Please restate the second question, it is incoherent.

Inb4 civil rights are described as literal rape... oops, too late.

 

[Rob Roy]

Real life example of why this "utopia" would be harmful
If I live upstream from you and Dam your source of water
I have caused you harm.
But wtf. It's my property the stream is going thru. I should get to do what I want with it

Poor example. However, I'll throw in a teaser for you.... a dam does have an outlet and thru proper operation can IMPROVE the water situation down stream.



Also, you are attempting to find a gotcha in "my utopia" and say it must solve every conceivable problem, while ignoring that your "normal" situation where an involuntarily imposed hierarchy is seen as "good" has a list of problems that I could spend days compiling.

Yes, that is a plank in your eye.

 

[Rob Roy]

Not at all afraid to define the word property, I just don't have time to copy/paste from the dictionary for you.

Please restate the second question, it is incoherent.

Inb4 civil rights are described as literal rape... oops, too late.

Certainly. You say "property rights" come from government.

Can property rights exist in the absence of government ?


Please restate YOUR definition for "property". Your answer was not very definitive.

 

[Rob Roy]

Oh I see.
So you saying that If a property owner decided to use his property as a place were minors and adults can meet for drinks and other things, it is quite alright because it is his property. So a 13 year old can meet a 33 year old at this property and have sex because it is confined to the property ? WTF

Your post is nonsensical in that you have confused a persons right to control their own property, as a right to bone anyone on their property.

I suggest before you engage anybody sexually, their explicit consent be involved.

For instance if a person wanders into your laundromat, seeking directions to the nearest muffler shop, you shouldn't immediately get out your rope and mask and begin dragging them to your hidden lair in the basement, while fumbling with your zipper at the same time.

 

[abandonconflict]

Certainly. You say "property rights" come from government.

Can property rights exist in the absence of government ?


Please restate YOUR definition for "property". Your answer was not very definitive.

No, property rights come from gov't. I'm not sure why you're having so much trouble with the words, maybe it is because you think different people have different definitions for words.

Words have meanings. Just get a dictionary. You suck at trolling.

 

[Rob Roy]

No, property rights come from gov't. I'm not sure why you're having so much trouble with the words, maybe it is because you think different people have different definitions for words.

Words have meanings. Just get a dictionary. You suck at trolling.

So when a person is born, their right to exclusive occupancy of a particular space comes with a certificate from government approving of their physical presence ?

 

[abandonconflict]

So when a person is born, their right to exclusive occupancy of a particular space comes with a certificate from government approving of their physical presence ?

What are you talking about?

 

[Rob Roy]

What are you talking about?

If a person is a physical being, they must occupy some kind of physical space exclusively which another person doesn't occupy, since no people can occupy the same physical space at once.

 

[abandonconflict]

If a person is a physical being, they must occupy some kind of physical space exclusively which another person doesn't occupy, since no people can occupy the same physical space at once.

What does this have to do with gov't granted property rights? One does not need to own a place to fart in it dude.

 

[Rob Roy]

What does this have to do with gov't granted property rights? One does not need to own a place to fart in it dude.

Farts?

Once you fart, you've set it free and no longer own it, it returns to the great fartosphere chamber in the nether regions of the universe, someday to be reincarnated.

Upon returning as a holy fart in unified solidarity during a sacred floor shitting upon a public rest room floor, the fart will have reached nirvana. This is known as the "Wendy's effect" and on those rare historical times when it happens the emitter of the holy fart is then known as "the chosen one" . Holy be thy floor shitter. Amen.




On the other hand...

I'm saying a person's right to exclusive use, "ownership", of at least some things is self evident, because of the nature of their physical self. No two people can exist in the same place at the same time. So it follows that the person who occupies a given space has a higher level of "ownership" over the space they occupy than somebody a mile away does.

I am saying that right to exclusively occupy a space precedes government and can be exercised in the absence of a single central authority. I am saying a person who mixes his labor with natural resources owns the product of that labor, unless they are doing so while attempting to occupy a space which is already "owned" .

You were trying to talk about farts, until I enlightened you with the gospel of the fart.

 

[abandonconflict]

Farts?

Once you fart, you've set it free and no longer own it, it returns to the great fartosphere chamber in the nether regions of the universe, someday to be reincarnated.

Upon returning as a holy fart in unified solidarity...

So I obviously TL;DR'd you as always, I mean, nobody gives a fuck about what you say amirite? Anyway, up to this point, you were sounding pretty fucking collectivist, nay you were even sounding as though the concept of freedom is counter to the concept of property.

Of course, I stopped reading as any pot head would, so nobody will ever know if you continued with the wise words or went back to the tripe you're known for.