Political Crossfire Forums

[Gus]

Roy L wrote: David wrote: Somebody has to own something before it can be stolen.
Sorry, but that claim is flat false, and we have already disproved it many times.

You do not own your right to vote (because you are not allowed to buy or sell it). But that right can be stolen from you by fraudulent registration processes, etc.
No no, nobody "steals" a right to vote...a right is not something to be had, but rather is a condition. A condition, being a relationship between things, is a purely abstract thing that exists solely in our heads. It isn't something to be taken by someone else, it exists in the nonphysical expanses of the mind.

People may change things, thereby altering their relationship (their condition), but we have no direct access to a condition and so we can't alter it (or steal it).

Roy L wrote: Please don't have me banned for proving you wrong.
People aren't banned for arguing. We do regularly ban for trolling, however.

[MplsBison]

Roy L wrote:
Oh, yes they would. History proves beyond any doubt that when rent seekers get the privilege of exacting rents from the productive in return for nothing, the only way they will EVER give up that privilege is when it is removed by force.

Sure, but they'll never have received rent in the first place because they won't have the means to make billions of people pay for air when they've been getting it for free all this time.
Quote:
Sure there would. There are enough to make sure people don't use land without paying for it, aren't there? In fact, given the routine invasions of privacy now established to facilitate the "wars" on drugs and terror, it would be a trivial matter to enforce payment of air rents.

No way. There will never be enough people to enforce the ownership of air.

Simply can't happen.

Quote: No, the practical problem with owning the atmosphere is only that unlike the case of owning land, the atrocious injustice of such a privilege is too glaringly obvious ever to be tolerated.


If people were unable to enforce the ownership of land, other people wouldn't tolerate that ownership either.

Hell, you don't tolerate it now.

But there's certainly nothing you can do about it as there is enough enforcement to make sure you don't.

Quote: And you never give a thought to how he must ultimately have acquired it? The idea of "production" being somehow too outlandish to consider?

I don't really care how he aquired it. If I bought it from him, it's mine now.

Quote: I never cease to be amazed at how some people are able to prevent themselves from knowing the most self-evident and indisputable facts of objective reality.

There is no objective reality.

If there was, there would be no point in debating as the "correct" answer would be as simple as 1+1=2.

[MplsBison]

Roy L wrote:
The victims of such crimes are of course entirely justified in killing the perpetrators.

So someone who wants to squat on my land is justified in killing me for telling him to get off?

In your fantasy world this is true, obviously.

Not in our society.


Quote: Of course you did. Don't be silly.

He signed a contract saying he agreed to pay me to live on my land.

Don't know how you can view that any other way.

[bob.appleyard]

tman_ndsu08 wrote: Roy L wrote:
The victims of such crimes are of course entirely justified in killing the perpetrators.

So someone who wants to squat on my land is justified in killing me for telling him to get off?

In your fantasy world this is true, obviously.

Not in our society.

In another thread, you shrugged off the accusation of your moral philosophy being based upon physical violence with "well we're violent creatures." Now you're suddenly opposed to violence..

[MplsBison]

bob.appleyard wrote:

In another thread, you shrugged off the accusation of your moral philosophy being based upon physical violence with "well we're violent creatures." Now you're suddenly opposed to violence..

I'm only opposed to the thought that killing the owner of a peice of land because he told you to get off of it would be acceptable.

[Roy L]

Gus wrote: Roy L wrote: David wrote: Somebody has to own something before it can be stolen.
Sorry, but that claim is flat false, and we have already disproved it many times.

You do not own your right to vote (because you are not allowed to buy or sell it). But that right can be stolen from you by fraudulent registration processes, etc.
No no, nobody "steals" a right to vote... ?? Of course they do. That is exactly what happened to thousands of people's rights to vote when they were wrongly deleted from the register of voters because their names were the same as those of convicted felons. Their rights to vote were stolen from them. I'm not sure what you think you accomplish by denying such self-evident and indisputable facts.
Quote: a right is not something to be had, but rather is a condition. A condition, being a relationship between things, is a purely abstract thing that exists solely in our heads.
Oh, you mean like the right of private property in natural resources, patents and copyrights? OK. Thanks for clearing that up...

Quote: It isn't something to be taken by someone else, it exists in the nonphysical expanses of the mind. <yawn> Try going to a polling place in the November election and telling people they can't go in because their rights to vote exist only in the non-physical expanses of their minds.

But make sure your medical insurance is paid up, first.

Quote: People may change things, thereby altering their relationship (their condition), but we have no direct access to a condition and so we can't alter it (or steal it). Quote: <yawn> Let me guess: you're one of these clowns who claim that unauthorized copying of software is "stealing," but depriving people of their rights to vote (or even of air to breathe) isn't. That about it?

[quote="Roy L"]Please don't have me banned for proving you wrong.
People aren't banned for arguing. We do regularly ban for trolling, however. Yes, well, have you totalled up the number of locked threads to which JLB was a major "contributor," yet...?

[Roy L]

tman_ndsu08 wrote: bob.appleyard wrote:

In another thread, you shrugged off the accusation of your moral philosophy being based upon physical violence with "well we're violent creatures." Now you're suddenly opposed to violence..

I'm only opposed to the thought that killing the owner of a peice of land because he told you to get off of it would be acceptable. Look, it's very simple: What gives him any more right to kill someone for not getting off "his" land than they have to kill him for not getting off it? What makes him the land's "owner," other than someone's willingness to kill those who won't get off it on his say-so?

[Roy L]

tman_ndsu08 wrote: Roy L wrote:
Oh, yes they would. History proves beyond any doubt that when rent seekers get the privilege of exacting rents from the productive in return for nothing, the only way they will EVER give up that privilege is when it is removed by force.

Sure, but they'll never have received rent in the first place because they won't have the means to make billions of people pay for air when they've been getting it for free all this time.
Right. As I said, people would not tolerate such tyranny. At least, not if it were implemented all at once....
Quote: Quote:
Sure there would. There are enough to make sure people don't use land without paying for it, aren't there? In fact, given the routine invasions of privacy now established to facilitate the "wars" on drugs and terror, it would be a trivial matter to enforce payment of air rents.

No way. There will never be enough people to enforce the ownership of air.

Simply can't happen. There are lots of things that people thought could never happen that did (not to invoke Godwin's Law, or anything...).
Quote:
Quote: No, the practical problem with owning the atmosphere is only that unlike the case of owning land, the atrocious injustice of such a privilege is too glaringly obvious ever to be tolerated.

If people were unable to enforce the ownership of land, other people wouldn't tolerate that ownership either. By George, he's got it!
Quote:
Hell, you don't tolerate it now. I don't have much choice but to tolerate it. But I don't ACCEPT it.
Quote:
But there's certainly nothing you can do about it as there is enough enforcement to make sure you don't.
The idea is to change the role of the enforcer from a servant of plunder, privilege and injustice to a servant of liberty, equality and justice. Quote:
Quote: And you never give a thought to how he must ultimately have acquired it? The idea of "production" being somehow too outlandish to consider?

I don't really care how he aquired it. If I bought it from him, it's mine now.
Try telling the cops that when they bust you for stuff you bought from a fence. Quote:
Quote: I never cease to be amazed at how some people are able to prevent themselves from knowing the most self-evident and indisputable facts of objective reality.

There is no objective reality.
?? :rofl: Well, there you have it, folks: straight from the horse's... well, mouth, I suppose.... :wink:
Quote:
If there was, there would be no point in debating as the "correct" answer would be as simple as 1+1=2. Maybe it's only as simple as NY = NC + [[integral].sup.b.sub.0](tx)2[pi]xdx + P, and you just can't be bothered trying to understand it.

[Roy L]

tman_ndsu08 wrote: Roy L wrote:
The victims of such crimes are of course entirely justified in killing the perpetrators.

So someone who wants to squat on my land is justified in killing me for telling him to get off? No, only if you try to force him when he doesn't. After all, you have just as much right to be there as he does.
Quote:
In your fantasy world this is true, obviously.

Not in our society. <yawn> The view that whatever is, is right is one of the least persuasive I have encountered.
Quote: Quote: Of course you did. Don't be silly.

He signed a contract saying he agreed to pay me to live on my land.

Don't know how you can view that any other way. <sigh> Are you not familiar with the example of the air-compressing machine? Or have you merely chosen not to know the facts it identifies?

[MplsBison]

Roy L wrote: What makes him the land's "owner,"

Because he bought it.

And he could obviously prove this by making a call to the bank.

[MplsBison]

Roy L wrote: Right. As I said, people would not tolerate such tyranny. At least, not if it were implemented all at once....

It has nothing to do with tolerance.

It has to do with the lack of enforcement ability.


The natural state of man is to steal unless there is enforcement preventing it.

Quote: There are lots of things that people thought could never happen that did

Well I'm telling you it can never happen.
Quote:
The idea is to change the role of the enforcer from a servant of plunder, privilege and injustice to a servant of liberty, equality and justice.

Your statement is completely meaningless without definitions of liberty, equality, and justice.

Quote: Try telling the cops that when they bust you for stuff you bought from a fence.

I wouldn't buy it from someone who stole it.

Quote:
Maybe it's only as simple as NY = NC + [[integral].sup.b.sub.0](tx)2[pi]xdx + P, and you just can't be bothered trying to understand it.

The point is that if the situation was objective there would be a correct answer.

This is none. Only what appears correct to each of us.

[MplsBison]

Roy L wrote: No, only if you try to force him when he doesn't. After all, you have just as much right to be there as he does.

I have all the right to be there, it's my land.

He has no right without my permission, it's my land.

Quote:
Are you not familiar with the example of the air-compressing machine? Or have you merely chosen not to know the facts it identifies?

No idea what you're talking about.