Political Crossfire Forums

[RueTheDay]

tman_ndsu08 wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Thus, your entire philosophy is built upon a foundation of physical violence.

Yes...and?

Humans are violent entities.

So then don't complain when your "property" is forcefully taken from you.

[MplsBison]

RueTheDay wrote:
So then don't complain when your "property" is forcefully taken from you.

I don't complain, I call the police and they take the guy out of there or kill him. Both fine with me.

[Gus]

Hmm the Libertarian Party, in my experience, seems to be more philosophically diverse than almost every other party in existence...there are conservatives, liberals, hippies, geolibertarians (such as Rue, Roy L, or Geolibertarian), minarchists, Objectivists, anarchists, some of the Austrian school, some of the Chicago school, and a whole bunch of others. In the end, I think the best summary is that they advocate smaller government in general.

[Anarko-Kapitalizt]

Gus wrote: Hmm the Libertarian Party, in my experience, seems to be more philosophically diverse than almost every other party in existence...there are conservatives, liberals, hippies, geolibertarians (such as Rue, Roy L, or Geolibertarian), minarchists, Objectivists, anarchists, some of the Austrian school, some of the Chicago school, and a whole bunch of others. In the end, I think the best summary is that they advocate smaller government in general.

I would also say the political philosophy of libertarianism is probably the most diverse political philosophy.

[MplsBison]

At the same time, I'd say it pretty much follows the U Chicago ideals.

[Roy L]

tman_ndsu08 wrote: RueTheDay wrote:
So then don't complain when your "property" is forcefully taken from you.

I don't complain, I call the police and they take the guy out of there or kill him. Both fine with me.
And if the police were to forcibly remove you from what you consider your property but they don't, would that also be fine with you? If so, then we have no issue.

[Roy L]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Roy L wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote:

My point on land is thus as with natural resorces.

When a man develops that land or resorce is he not in the same way working wood or clay the way a potter or carpenter would?
No, because he is still depriving others of the unaltered resource, namely the location, whose area, latitude, longitude, etc. he is forever powerless to affect. When someone works with wood, clay, etc. there is nothing of the unaltered resource in the product (the exception would be, e.g., a sculpture in situ, like the Mount Rushmore monument).

Well for one you've noted the exeption, even then how is a potter using clay or a carpenter using trees 'not' depriving others of a unaltered resource? ??? It is obvious and self-evident that the carpenter or potter is using material that has been removed from nature and transformed into a product by labor. By contrast, everything under the surface of the Mount Rushmore monument is still just where and as nature made it, and is being denied to those who would otherwise be free to use it.
Quote:
Quote: You seem to be permanently refusing to know the fact that the relevant criterion is whether one inflicts a deprivation on others, not whether or how one uses any given resource.
And you like being pretencious and not thinking critically, good on you. Such statements amount to nothing but a personal attack, add nothing to the debate, and clearly merit nothing in response, other than a report to the moderators.

[thefranzkafkafront]

Roy L wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Roy L wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote:

My point on land is thus as with natural resorces.

When a man develops that land or resorce is he not in the same way working wood or clay the way a potter or carpenter would?
No, because he is still depriving others of the unaltered resource, namely the location, whose area, latitude, longitude, etc. he is forever powerless to affect. When someone works with wood, clay, etc. there is nothing of the unaltered resource in the product (the exception would be, e.g., a sculpture in situ, like the Mount Rushmore monument).

Well for one you've noted the exeption, even then how is a potter using clay or a carpenter using trees 'not' depriving others of a unaltered resource? ??? It is obvious and self-evident that the carpenter or potter is using material that has been removed from nature and transformed into a product by labor. By contrast, everything under the surface of the Mount Rushmore monument is still just where and as nature made it, and is being denied to those who would otherwise be free to use it.

Chirst thats tenous, so if you made a pot from clay literally while it was still in the ground, that woulnt count as property?

[Roy L]

Gus wrote: Hmm the Libertarian Party, in my experience, seems to be more philosophically diverse than almost every other party in existence...there are conservatives, liberals, hippies, geolibertarians (such as Rue, Roy L, or Geolibertarian), minarchists, Objectivists, anarchists, some of the Austrian school, some of the Chicago school, and a whole bunch of others. In the end, I think the best summary is that they advocate smaller government in general. True, and it makes the party's political task all but impossible.

FWIW, many years ago I was involved in a research project that examined the relationships between opinions on a wide variety of subjects and IQ. One of our strongest and most robust results was a positive relationship between IQ and sympathy with a broad range of libertarian positions, both left (on abortion, separation of church and state, drug prohibition, prostitution, censorship, etc.) and right (on income tax, welfare programs, regulatory burden, etc.).

Personally, my primary issue with the party and the broad run of libertarians is that they focus their attention almost exclusively on eradicating the government interventions designed to relieve the burdens of the poor, the disabled, the sick, racial minorities, etc., but utterly ignore the vastly larger government intrusions that unjustly enrich a wealthy, idle, privileged minority at the expense of the productive majority.

[Roy L]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Roy L wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Roy L wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote:

My point on land is thus as with natural resorces.

When a man develops that land or resorce is he not in the same way working wood or clay the way a potter or carpenter would?
No, because he is still depriving others of the unaltered resource, namely the location, whose area, latitude, longitude, etc. he is forever powerless to affect. When someone works with wood, clay, etc. there is nothing of the unaltered resource in the product (the exception would be, e.g., a sculpture in situ, like the Mount Rushmore monument).

Well for one you've noted the exeption, even then how is a potter using clay or a carpenter using trees 'not' depriving others of a unaltered resource? ??? It is obvious and self-evident that the carpenter or potter is using material that has been removed from nature and transformed into a product by labor. By contrast, everything under the surface of the Mount Rushmore monument is still just where and as nature made it, and is being denied to those who would otherwise be free to use it.

Chirst thats tenous, <yawn> About as tenuous as Mount Rushmore....

Quote: so if you made a pot from clay literally while it was still in the ground, that woulnt count as property? You cannot make a pot without removing the clay from where nature put it. I don't know any clearer way to explain that, and I don't think I can have any effect on your decision never to know it.

[MplsBison]

Roy L wrote:
And if the police were to forcibly remove you from what you consider your property but they don't, would that also be fine with you? If so, then we have no issue.

I would never be on property that I didn't own without permission.

But if I was, I'd deserve to be removed.

[thefranzkafkafront]

Roy L wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Roy L wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Roy L wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote:

My point on land is thus as with natural resorces.

When a man develops that land or resorce is he not in the same way working wood or clay the way a potter or carpenter would?
No, because he is still depriving others of the unaltered resource, namely the location, whose area, latitude, longitude, etc. he is forever powerless to affect. When someone works with wood, clay, etc. there is nothing of the unaltered resource in the product (the exception would be, e.g., a sculpture in situ, like the Mount Rushmore monument).

Well for one you've noted the exeption, even then how is a potter using clay or a carpenter using trees 'not' depriving others of a unaltered resource? ??? It is obvious and self-evident that the carpenter or potter is using material that has been removed from nature and transformed into a product by labor. By contrast, everything under the surface of the Mount Rushmore monument is still just where and as nature made it, and is being denied to those who would otherwise be free to use it.

Chirst thats tenous, <yawn> About as tenuous as Mount Rushmore....

Quote: so if you made a pot from clay literally while it was still in the ground, that woulnt count as property? You cannot make a pot without removing the clay from where nature put it. I don't know any clearer way to explain that, and I don't think I can have any effect on your decision never to know it.
With difficulty, but utilising a blow torch and working simply with the stuff just in the soil as it lay there you could.

How about this, your saying in essence a plowed field would be unownable.

If you dug all the soil up, lifted it 5 meters or so, put it back down ontop of the bedrock and then plowed the field could you then own it?

[Roy L]

tman_ndsu08 wrote: Roy L wrote:
And if the police were to forcibly remove you from what you consider your property but they don't, would that also be fine with you? If so, then we have no issue.

I would never be on property that I didn't own without permission.
But "own" how? And whose "permission"? Aye, there's the rub....

[Roy L]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Roy L wrote:
Quote: so if you made a pot from clay literally while it was still in the ground, that woulnt count as property? You cannot make a pot without removing the clay from where nature put it. I don't know any clearer way to explain that, and I don't think I can have any effect on your decision never to know it.
With difficulty, but utilising a blow torch and working simply with the stuff just in the soil as it lay there you could. As I predicted, you have chosen never to know the fact that you cannot make a clay pot without removing the clay from where nature put it.

Some forms of ignorance I am able to cure. Other forms I am not.

Quote: How about this, your saying in essence a plowed field would be unownable. No, only the location it exists in is unownable, as it is not a product of labor.
Quote:
If you dug all the soil up, lifted it 5 meters or so, put it back down ontop of the bedrock and then plowed the field could you then own it? Sure, but it would still be sitting on bedrock you would NOT rightly own, and occupying a location you would not rightly own.

[thefranzkafkafront]

Roy L wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Roy L wrote:
Quote: so if you made a pot from clay literally while it was still in the ground, that woulnt count as property? You cannot make a pot without removing the clay from where nature put it. I don't know any clearer way to explain that, and I don't think I can have any effect on your decision never to know it.
With difficulty, but utilising a blow torch and working simply with the stuff just in the soil as it lay there you could. As I predicted, you have chosen never to know the fact that you cannot make a clay pot without removing the clay from where nature put it.
Clay does exist direclty on the surface you know, you could with diffculty shape and dry it without it ever physically being detached or even leaving the ground.

You would then have a pot without extracting the clay.


Quote:
Some forms of ignorance I am able to cure. Other forms I am not.
You see this is what i was talking about earlier.

Quote:
Quote: How about this, your saying in essence a plowed field would be unownable. No, only the location it exists in is unownable, as it is not a product of labor.

A location is only defined by the objects that are present in it, your essentially saying that certain objects can be owned, but objects that are a part of the defintion of a location cannot?.

Quote:
Quote:
If you dug all the soil up, lifted it 5 meters or so, put it back down ontop of the bedrock and then plowed the field could you then own it? Sure, but it would still be sitting on bedrock you would NOT rightly own, and occupying a location you would not rightly own.
Cool beans, guess we better go out and tell thouse farmers to use my method, they won't own the land they work with otherwise eh?

[Revenant]

Roy L wrote: tman_ndsu08 wrote: Roy L wrote:
And if the police were to forcibly remove you from what you consider your property but they don't, would that also be fine with you? If so, then we have no issue.

I would never be on property that I didn't own without permission.
But "own" how? And whose "permission"? Aye, there's the rub....

Simple, the property would have to come from him. Therefore if he blew snot into his hand, it's his property. I'm sticking with the snot example simply because it's cleaner than other bodily fluids I could use as examples.

[MplsBison]

Roy L wrote: But "own" how?

He bought it from the previous owner.

Quote: And whose "permission"?

The owner's permission.

[RueTheDay]

Why in the hell was Roy banned? He was bending over backwards not to flame people, despite being flamed himself. I think some people on here need to grow some seriously thicker skins.

[Revenant]

edit

[Revenant]

RueTheDay wrote: Why in the hell was Roy banned? He was bending over backwards not to flame people, despite being flamed himself. I think some people on here need to grow some seriously thicker skins.




:lol: :lol: :lol: