United States Empire

abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
How's that garden coming along ? You gonna raise up a big ol' crop of cheetohs or you gonna whine until somebody else feeds you?
Click to expand...
You seem upset, losing debates on RIU every single day obviously isn't making you happy.

Have you tried counseling or maybe a therapist?
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
This does not address gov't granted exclusive deed. Furthermore, you seem to be stuck in a utopian bubble of your own false reality. We are discussing the real world I am referring to property rights apropos of actual history. You occupy a space that was made as a result of the greatest genocide in history.
Click to expand...
Except I HAVE to occupy some space and so do you by virtue of our being physical beings. That fact exists in the absence of government and is a natural occurrence isn't it ?

If the previous long ago occupier is dead, I'm not depriving him / her of their right to occupy the space am I ?
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Except I HAVE to occupy some space and so do you by virtue of our being physical beings. That fact exists in the absence of government and is a natural occurrence isn't it ?

If the previous long ago occupier is dead, I'm not depriving him / her of their right to occupy the space am I ?
Click to expand...
This does not address gov't granted exclusive deed. Furthermore, you seem to be stuck in a utopian bubble of your own false reality. We are discussing the real world I am referring to property rights apropos of actual history. You occupy a space that was made as a result of the greatest genocide in history.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
People are not property, human rights come from being human. The right to own land is not a natural right, but a gov't granted right. This directly contradicts capitalism by definition, which is why you so vigorously defend it. It is no wonder you so often find yourself in the ideological company of racists, pedophiles, segregationists and white separatists, the diametrical opposite of anarchists.
Click to expand...

If human rights come from being human and humans are physical beings, who must exist somewhere and they are capable of mixing their labor with natural resources where they exist, are you saying the garden, the hut and the spear are NOT yours if you made them ?

Who owns them ?
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
If human rights come from being human and humans are physical beings, who must exist somewhere and they are capable of mixing their labor with natural resources where they exist, are you saying the garden, the hut and the spear are NOT yours if you made them ?

Who owns them ?
Click to expand...
Oh look, more hypothetical bullshit in a discussion apropos of actual history.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
If everyone were free to own only themselves, a lot of problems would be avoided. What do you find disagreeable about that?
Click to expand...
I don't find anything disagreeable about people owning themselves

I just don't think that paying taxes means someone owns you. I think paying taxes is part of living in a society that offers me the benefits of things like a public school system and a hospital and police protection. I know that stuff costs money, it's not going to come out of thin air, it has to come from somewhere, so I think it's fair to lay that burden across the collective society that all benefit from it equally. That's what makes the most sense to me from what I've heard. If someone like you wants to come along and offer a better idea about how we can all pay for this stuff we all use at some point or another, I'm all ears, man. Let's hear it! But if you can't, the absence of the programs like I just listed are going to end up being a detriment to society at large. Private citizens will end up paying more to fix the things that happen in the absence of a police and fire fighting force than they would had they just paid the taxes to begin with. Not to mention the personal torment private citizens who suffer from not having these services available will go through without them..
Rob Roy said:
Your philosophy says the collective can own the individual, which is absurd. Since whether it's a collective depriving a person of self ownership or a single person, the ACT of depriving a person of self ownership itself is wrong.
Click to expand...
Again, I don't see it that way. You need to explain why you believe paying taxes to provide for the things that everyone benefits from equally means "the collective owns the individual"
Rob Roy said:
If a person kills you using offensive force, it's murder, if two or twenty or a thousand people kill you using offensive force, it's still murder, even if you call it collateral damage.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I agree with that
Rob Roy said:
A society (yours) based in the idea that a gang violating an individuals rights is acceptable, assumes a consensus on a thing wrong can magically make that thing right. It can't.
Click to expand...
No, I think you're confusing 'democracy' with 'collectivism'. You won't find anyone who argues democracy is the best solution to the problem society at large faces to the questions you and I are asking, but you won't find anyone who argues it isn't the best solution we've found so far. If you have something better, we're all ears! But libertarianism faces considerable problems that require recognition of the state. It's foolish to assume one system fits all, be it "pure" capitalism, "pure" socialism, or "pure" libertarianism.. The perfect system exists within a combination of all of these. We take the good and reject the bad, by doing that we end up with something that caters to most of our needs at the expense of as few of us as possible. Nothing will be perfect, but part of existing within society is determining the right ratio for those kinds of numbers that actually affect people.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
@abandonconflict

believe it or not I've enjoyed this exchange, but I gotta go now.

Also, believe it or not, I share some
concerns with you, regarding unjust acquisitions of property.



So I am not opposed to a discussion of what can be owned and cannot be owned, ethically speaking, in the near future.
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Your inversion of the circumstances doesn't mean threats of force aren't present. The very existence of an intervening party, (government) who tells you which hoops you must jump thru if you DO open a business reveals force.

Force also exists in this way, ostensibly private property has been deemed "not private" by your government by virtue of changing the meaning of what private property was intended to mean. The fact you MUST declare yourself or your property anything to the government or suffer consequences, reveals force.

Hang on a minute, I gotta go tell my grandson to finish his beer if he wants to watch Sesame Street. Be right back.
Click to expand...
So you would allow and accept a business owner opening a club that lets in minors, parting among adults ? His business he can do as he likes ? Is this your thinking ?
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
So what gives you the right to your land in America since somebody before you owned it first?

People have the right to trade value for value on a consensual basis of their mutual choosing...free market exchange.
Click to expand...
What makes you think the US government didn't acquire the land it owns by a trade based on a consentual basis? If you don't recognize acquisition by conquest, aka most of the world, how can you possibly recognize legitimate borders? Europeans killed Native Americans and officially conquered the New World, then successfully colonized and occupied it for another.. going on 240ish years now.. So what does your philosophy say about that?
 
MrRoboto

MrRoboto

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
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.
Click to expand...
I must make gay wedding cakes.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
This does not address gov't granted exclusive deed. Furthermore, you seem to be stuck in a utopian bubble of your own false reality. We are discussing the real world I am referring to property rights apropos of actual history. You occupy a space that was made as a result of the greatest genocide in history.
Click to expand...
The "real world" ? Okay, let's discuss it then...

If a person exists in a physical state (they do) they MUST occupy some place, that's pretty self evident and "real world". That existence then offers proof that "nature" intended man to at least have some space he can call his own or mans existence COULDN'T be in a physical realm.

If as you posit, property is owned by the collective, wouldn't a person using ANY natural resource then have to ask EVERYBODY for their permission to use the natural resources needed to grow a garden, build a hut or create anything ?
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
What makes you think the US government didn't acquire the land it owns by a trade based on a consentual basis? If you don't recognize acquisition by conquest, aka most of the world, how can you possibly recognize legitimate borders? Europeans killed Native Americans and officially conquered the New World, then successfully colonized and occupied it for another.. going on 240ish years now.. So what does your philosophy say about that?
Click to expand...


The fact that "the US government" is a fictional entity in the sense that it's not a real person and the organization arose from involuntary means, wherein it assumed control of other people, resources etc. on an involuntary basis of its subjects etc.

Like you, I do recognize acquisition by conquest occurs, but acquisition of something via unjust means cannot create just ownership of something. There's that unjust means again, which I keep droning on about.

For instance, let's say @abandonconflict has a bag of cheetohs he has secreted under his spiderman sheet clad twin bed in the recesses of his mothers basement that he considers HIS PROPERTY.

For me to break in and take it from him, and leave him cowering in the corner sobbing and wetting his pants, could mean I had acquired the cheetohs, but since they weren't mine to begin with and he never agreed to a mutual exchange, my MEANS OF ACQUISITION was in error.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
What makes you think the US government didn't acquire the land it owns by a trade based on a consentual basis? If you don't recognize acquisition by conquest, aka most of the world, how can you possibly recognize legitimate borders? Europeans killed Native Americans and officially conquered the New World, then successfully colonized and occupied it for another.. going on 240ish years now.. So what does your philosophy say about that?
Click to expand...

Good questions.

Nation states don't HAVE legitimate borders, since a "nation state" is an illegitimate entity in the first place by virtue of the means it used in its attempt to come into existence. It's members are held captive rather than voluntarily acquired.

Oh, you say "but you can leave" ....which is no real answer, if the only OTHER places you can go would then claim you as THEIR captive. Exchanging one master for another does not equate to freedom.

Legitimate borders would be those formed when a person occupies previously unowned property or property which they acquired by engaging in mutual trade with a person who has ownership.

For instance, you live in the valley across from me and raise melons and I live on a plateau raising sheep. We both own the respective places we occupy and work on. You and I agree to trade places absent any duress placed on either of us. You now become a sheep farmer and I a melon farmer. Property has now been exchanged in a just way.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
I don't find anything disagreeable about people owning themselves

I just don't think that paying taxes means someone owns you. I think paying taxes is part of living in a society that offers me the benefits of things like a public school system and a hospital and police protection. I know that stuff costs money, it's not going to come out of thin air, it has to come from somewhere, so I think it's fair to lay that burden across the collective society that all benefit from it equally. That's what makes the most sense to me from what I've heard. If someone like you wants to come along and offer a better idea about how we can all pay for this stuff we all use at some point or another, I'm all ears, man. Let's hear it! But if you can't, the absence of the programs like I just listed are going to end up being a detriment to society at large. Private citizens will end up paying more to fix the things that happen in the absence of a police and fire fighting force than they would had they just paid the taxes to begin with. Not to mention the personal torment private citizens who suffer from not having these services available will go through without them..

Again, I don't see it that way. You need to explain why you believe paying taxes to provide for the things that everyone benefits from equally means "the collective owns the individual"

Yeah, I agree with that

No, I think you're confusing 'democracy' with 'collectivism'. You won't find anyone who argues democracy is the best solution to the problem society at large faces to the questions you and I are asking, but you won't find anyone who argues it isn't the best solution we've found so far. If you have something better, we're all ears! But libertarianism faces considerable problems that require recognition of the state. It's foolish to assume one system fits all, be it "pure" capitalism, "pure" socialism, or "pure" libertarianism.. The perfect system exists within a combination of all of these. We take the good and reject the bad, by doing that we end up with something that caters to most of our needs at the expense of as few of us as possible. Nothing will be perfect, but part of existing within society is determining the right ratio for those kinds of numbers that actually affect people.
Click to expand...
I'm pleased you don't find self ownership disagreeable. Thank you, I wish you would apply that consistently though.

Paying an entity such as a government which came into being by abridging the concept of self ownership I find a little contradictory though.


You said democracy is "the best there is" and few would disagree....which is inaccurate.
I know of many people who would argue that collective tyranny, democracy, ISN'T a solution at all and is the CAUSE of many, if not most, of the problems we see today.

Having a vote in choosing a master and then accepting the outcome of the vote as valid, because you got to participate, is a form of validating the concept that there OUGHT to be a master. A master who is many people or one person isn't the issue, the issue is, that there IS A MASTER.

Nothing will be perfect is correct, but if a thing is based in the idea that the collective can subjugate the individual on an arbitrary basis, it has ZERO chance of being exempt from imperfection. When I say "on an arbitrary basis" I mean even if you are willing to peacefully coexist and NOT participate, your democracy still will not allow that.

The answer lies in a clearer understanding of what is a legitimate use of force and what is an illegitimate use of force. Offensive force, the primary means of a democracy is illegitimate. Defensive force is not.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
The rest of us never volunteered to your exclusive deed over the land you call property, upon which you wish to practice racial discrimination. Just because gov't doesn't let you do something on the land gov't provided to you exclusively doesn't make you an anarchist, it makes you a racist hypocrite.

Inb4 pedophilia is described as a voluntary interaction.
Click to expand...

Do you imply that a person who creates something from natural resources has no right to claim exclusive control of that property he created or traded for on a mutual and peaceful basis?

Hmm, I guess I'll just show up and steal that 6 pack your mom let's you keep on the bottom shelf of her dorm refrigerator she allows you have in the basement then.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
The "real world" ? Okay, let's discuss it then...

If a person exists in a physical state (they do) they MUST occupy some place, that's pretty self evident and "real world". That existence then offers proof that "nature" intended man to at least have some space he can call his own or mans existence COULDN'T be in a physical realm.

If as you posit, property is owned by the collective, wouldn't a person using ANY natural resource then have to ask EVERYBODY for their permission to use the natural resources needed to grow a garden, build a hut or create anything ?
Click to expand...
You have this strange fixation on property, as if things do not exist if they are not property. It's kind of even fetishized. Like you think human rights come from "owning one's self" and then you make up this line about how I am positing collective property because I point out that property rights come from gov't. It's as if you can't imagine a thing just existing, not as property, but just existing.

There should be an entry in DSM for some kind of disorder that people like you can be diagnosed with.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
You have this strange fixation on property, as if things do not exist if they are not property. It's kind of even fetishized. Like you think human rights come from "owning one's self" and then you make up this line about how I am positing collective property because I point out that property rights come from gov't. It's as if you can't imagine a thing just existing, not as property, but just existing.

There should be an entry in DSM for some kind of disorder that people like you can be diagnosed with.
Click to expand...

A thought can "simply exist", however it is not property, since it can exist simultaneously in the minds of two or more people without depriving anybody of a tangible object. Therefore "intellectual property" is a misnomer.

A physical thing by virtue of its physicality is unique and can't exist in multiple places, that seems to be a component or characteristic of a thing in order for it to be property or potential property.

You, are a unique being, and a physical being, in that sense your existence depends on your being somewhere, except some would say typing on a crusty laptop from your mom's basement is really nowhere, man.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top