In America today, who has it worse?

Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
MaleFeminist said:
"Justly acquired property" is a term that white men use to refer to things that spring from Mother Earth that they supposedly "own." The bounty that springs from our mother belongs to all of her children, not just thugs like you that think they can own the Earth.

We were meant to live communally and in balance with our ancient mother. All wars are based upon trying to take "property" from others.

Who dwelt upon this land before you "bought" it? What happened to those people? Who killed them? Who raped their womyn and children? How is this a just means of acquisition?

You are a rapist.
Click to expand...
I'm not a thug nor am I a defender of war as a solution. I hope when your period ends we can establish a better relationship for discourse. Peace.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
I don't believe I slur people racially and if I have it's not my intention. My hen house has many flavors of chicken and they all taste good.

"Civil rights" are a false construct in that they purport to "solve" one problem, but in that process they end up creating another.... government does those things often. Forcing people to associate is the flip side of not allowing people to associate, even those that wish to. Human interactions should be on a consensual basis or not at all, it is how peace is fostered.

Nobody has a right to make others serve them, but everybody has the right to be left alone if that is their choice. All word games aside, I think you are misguided when you believe by violating a persons right to control their own property you are accomplishing something positive.
Click to expand...
how am i controlling your property?

you are fully able to make your property a private club so that you don't have to serve "people you prefer not to serve" (black people).
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
MaleFeminist said:
"Justly acquired property" is a term that white men use to refer to things that spring from Mother Earth that they supposedly "own." The bounty that springs from our mother belongs to all of her children, not just thugs like you that think they can own the Earth.

We were meant to live communally and in balance with our ancient mother. All wars are based upon trying to take "property" from others.

Who dwelt upon this land before you "bought" it? What happened to those people? Who killed them? Who raped their womyn and children? How is this a just means of acquisition?

You are a rapist.
Click to expand...
stealing land from natives is just acquisition, but being paid to serve a black person a sandwich is rape and slavery.

thus spake robroy.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
how am i controlling your property?

you are fully able to make your property a private club so that you don't have to serve "people you prefer not to serve" (black people).
Click to expand...

Did it ever occur to you that if you call a flying pig an airplane, it's really not an airplane and still just a flying pig?

You use terms like private club and public business as if they are distinct and separate in how they are or should be owned. Those terms are manufactured terms (coercive government again) and attempt to make property into two kinds of things, when they really aren't from an ownership perspective. If you own something how you use it is not a component of the ownership right you have in it.

The primary thing people need to do is leave others alone, forcing a person to associate with you or serve you or use their property in ways they prefer not to in does not accomplish that .....it violates it.

Nobody has the right to violate another person or their justly acquired property.

Have a good nite....meathead.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
you're denying that you've compared serving a black paying customer to rape and slavery?
Click to expand...
Absolutely. Your degree in stupid is shining thru though.

I'm comparing the force used in both instances and declaring them similar. What the thug wishes his victim to do,doesn't lessen the fact that some kind of thuggery occurs does it?

When a person willingly serves another it is different than when a person is forced to serve another isn't it, Meathead?

When you force a person to use their body in ways they prefer not to, how do you personally justify that Comrade Stalin?
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Absolutely. Your degree in stupid is shining thru though.

I'm comparing the force used in both instances and declaring them similar. What the thug wishes his victim to do,doesn't lessen the fact that some kind of thuggery occurs does it?

When a person willingly serves another it is different than when a person is forced to serve another isn't it, Meathead?

When you force a person to use their body in ways they prefer not to, how do you personally justify that Comrade Stalin?
Click to expand...
so the "force used" by a black person who walks into a restaurant and wishes to pay the owner money for the sandwiches he is selling is similar to the "force used" in rape or slavery?

wow.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
so the "force used" by a black person who walks into a restaurant and wishes to pay the owner money for the sandwiches he is selling is similar to the "force used" in rape or slavery?

wow.
Click to expand...
Nope that's not what I said.

Which kinds of forced associations do you think are okay.....please list them if you would be so kind.
 
MaleFeminist

MaleFeminist

Member
Why is it that after white males used violence and war to unjustly steal land and resources from the indigenous people who dwell upon Gaia that they suddenly become a rigid people of laws that enforce their unjust acquisition of Mother Earth? Why is it that after you become privileged and steal Earth from others that you suddenly care about keeping people from gaining some of what you have through more peaceful means than you used?

If I steal a gold coin from somebody then sell it to you, is that gold coin now your property or the property of the person I stole it from?

You ignore the rights of others then try to create laws to keep others from getting what you stole.

Rob Roy said:
Absolutely. Your degree in stupid is shining thru though.

I'm comparing the force used in both instances and declaring them similar. What the thug wishes his victim to do,doesn't lessen the fact that some kind of thuggery occurs does it?

When a person willingly serves another it is different than when a person is forced to serve another isn't it, Meathead?

When you force a person to use their body in ways they prefer not to, how do you personally justify that Comrade Stalin?
Click to expand...
 
SmokeyDan

SmokeyDan

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
The level of destruction and forced control that a world of coercive governments can accomplish is far greater than what would result in the absence of coercive governments as a standard.

I am not advocating a world of "no rules". I am advocating that the first rule should not be that coercion is the basis for a systemic norm, which is the present paradigm. Laws that create crimes where there are none will always result from the present coercive systems.

A serious thought for you....You might consider reading a couple of books. The first is Healing Our World, by Dr. Mary Ruart. The other is The Market For Liberty, by Linda and Morris Tannehill. Peace.
Click to expand...
One cannot have a government without coercive measures.

The first thing needed is people who run the government. Unless there is 100% agreement on whom is in charge, then coercion is born.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
SmokeyDan said:
One cannot have a government without coercive measures.

The first thing needed is people who run the government. Unless there is 100% agreement on whom is in charge, then coercion is born.
Click to expand...
I'm being a little repetitive, so I apologize, but again you are wrong.

Actually you can have a government without coercion, but not in the same patterns as presently exist.

The first thing needed would be actual individual consent of the participants. Lysander Spooner called and said read my essay on "no treason".
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
MaleFeminist said:
Why is it that after white males used violence and war to unjustly steal land and resources from the indigenous people who dwell upon Gaia that they suddenly become a rigid people of laws that enforce their unjust acquisition of Mother Earth? Why is it that after you become privileged and steal Earth from others that you suddenly care about keeping people from gaining some of what you have through more peaceful means than you used?

If I steal a gold coin from somebody then sell it to you, is that gold coin now your property or the property of the person I stole it from?

You ignore the rights of others then try to create laws to keep others from getting what you stole.
Click to expand...
You sound like you've made some inaccurate assumptions, also you sound like you want to abandon conflict, which is a good thing.

Please define property, what it is, who can own it and how it can be justly acquired.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
kinda seems like you're comparing having to serve a paying customer who happens to be black to rape and slavery.

but you go on denying it, princess.
Click to expand...


If you "have to serve" somebody or you face some kind of violent threat, what would you call it ?

I think everybody has the right to define how they will use their own body as long as the use isn't to harm another person. You think it is acceptable to make somebody serve another under a threat. Who's the Princess now Diana?
 
SmokeyDan

SmokeyDan

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
I'm being a little repetitive, so I apologize, but again you are wrong.

Actually you can have a government without coercion, but not in the same patterns as presently exist.

The first thing needed would be actual individual consent of the participants. Lysander Spooner called and said read my essay on "no treason".
Click to expand...
Have you not given any thought into how that would work in practice?

It would have to be a one generational government, with 100% agreement on who the leaders and what the laws are.

If anyone was born and grew up they would get a voice in all past decisions that affected them. What happens the first time someone grows up who does not like an existing law or maybe someone changes their mind. Then you have coercion.

Rob, it's not a real world concept you have.
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
If you "have to serve" somebody or you face some kind of violent threat, what would you call it ?

I think everybody has the right to define how they will use their own body as long as the use isn't to harm another person. You think it is acceptable to make somebody serve another under a threat. Who's the Princess now Diana?
Click to expand...
if you opened a business that was open to the public and part of the American interstate commerce, then you shall follow the rules. Now if you don't want to follow those rule they have a great clause for that too...open a PRIVATE CLUB and then you can serve who ever you want or NOT
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
if you opened a business that was open to the public and part of the American interstate commerce, then you shall follow the rules. Now if you don't want to follow those rule they have a great clause for that too...open a PRIVATE CLUB and then you can serve who ever you want or NOT
Click to expand...
Following rules that initiate aggression against another person or their justly acquired property is not something I'm interested in doing. The rules I follow begin with respecting another persons right to peaceful self determination, how about you?
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Following rules that initiate aggression against another person or their justly acquired property is not something I'm interested in doing. The rules I follow begin with respecting another persons right to peaceful self determination, how about you?
Click to expand...
do you think you have the right to piss in the coffee in a coffee shop you owned:roll:. I mean you do own said coffee shop:roll:.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top