Indictment Countdown...
- Thread starter NLXSK1
- Start date
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
It's good to see you are expanding your vocabulary.
I hope to see a couple of "cognitive dissonants" from you soon.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
As a last resort, you are now going to resort to ad hominem and point out that I receive disability benefits as if to suggest that I therefore support everything the gov't does, and that I have much of a choice. It completely ignores the debate, which you have now completely lost.
I'm not just attacking your character when I point out your support for segregation and how you believe that store owners should have the right to discriminate based on race. It follows that you would think this way, it is completely in keeping with your bullshit philosophy.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
He claims to be an "anarchist" (except for when he's not).
He hasn't reconciled the idea that some of his favored policies rely on the existence of a central authority, thus making him "not an anarchist".
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I think people have the right to self determine themselves and THEIR property, but not others property etc.
That doesn't mean I endorse what a person does, how they do it or why they do it. It means I recognize nobody has a right to force other people to interact with them or subjugate their justly acquired property. I respect your right to lay in a hammock and eat cheetohs, as long as the hammock is yours and you didn't steal the cheetohs.
Do you recognize that right or deny it? If you DON'T recognize it, you think OTHER people can subjugate as a matter of course, which contradicts your claim of being an anarchist.
By the way, you're losing.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I'm not the one who favors privatization, that is you.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Yet property rights come from gov't. You therefore support gov't. Capitalism can not exist in the absence of gov't.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I know, don't worry, everyone knows you're not an anarchist. But please, stop insisting you are one, it doesn't make anarchism better, it just makes capitalism worse.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Every person is "private" otherwise they are owned by somebody else claiming an authority over them.
Also, a person is a physical being and must exist somewhere, no two people can realistically occupy the same space at once can they ?
So at least in principle people have the natural right to claim some space and exclude others from it....or would you have everyone standing on top of each other ?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
If you believe this^^
Then why do you think children can consent to prostitution with adults?
Then why do you think children can consent to prostitution with adults?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
You've made that assertion, but it is incomplete and misleading.
Property rights can be denied by government (and often are) and ostensible "ownership" can forcibly be reassigned by government, but real property rights don't come from a central authority. Especially a central authority which is based in the denial of self determination.
The right to self determination is akin to a "property right" in your self.
Also, it's still a good idea to agree on or define what we mean when we say "government" .
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
This does not contradict the fact that property rights come from gov't. In fact it proves it to be true. It is the reason gov't exists. You can not be opposed to gov't and yet wish to retain property rights. What you propose is not to abolish gov't, but to privatize it.
People are not property. Human rights come from being human and property rights come from gov't. I know, in your little bullshit dystopia, people can be owned, but that's because you think property and liberty mean the same thing.
Get a dictionary. Words have meanings.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I'm surprised you are going the Chesus Rice route. I had hoped you could handle a real discussion.
The only people that can consent are those who possess the wherewithal to, wouldn't you agree ?
I don't believe the age "wherewithal" arrives is a constant for everybody. I have a cultural and personal bias to what you are trying to insinuate. Nice try though.
I am also opposed to your visiting child prostitutes, especially if you use stolen money to pay them.
So, why do you advocate for the nonowner of a given property, a "central authority" to control
other peoples property ? How do you reconcile that position with claiming to be an anarchist ?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Property is theft.
Every anarchist knows this.
Property rights come from gov't. If it weren't for gov't, you would not be able to lay claim to what is the common heritage of all. So how does your nonaggression principal reconcile with exclusive deed to what would not be yours if the gov't did not exist to give it to you?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I'm proposing that a central coercion based authority, which assumes automatic domain over people and the things they have justly acquired is illegitimate.
So, humans cannot create things, and create a kind of "property" which then belongs to them ?
Last edited:
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Good question. I'll answer it for you.
Original occupation of unowned and unoccupied property is one way.
Voluntary exchange of one thing for another thing, is another way.
I have some turnips, you have some cheetohs. Must a central government, who isn't us, be present to oversee our exchange of property or could we do it peacefully without them ? Yes, of course we could. Well maybe not you and me, but two peaceful people could. You'd skew it because your currency is tainted as it wasn't justly acquired....but you get the idea.
Was government necessary for me to "create" the turnip ? The answer is clearly, no.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
If property is theft, are you saying NOTHING may be owned justly ?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
You present this apropos of all property without regard for the fact that gov't is required in the first place, in order for land to become property. This is where you went wrong. Your following hypothetical is therefore non sequitur as you do not present it apropos of property rights. If you go onto someone's property and use materials from their land to create this "property" as you propose, you have created a moveable thing and claimed it as inherently yours. It was not yours in the first place. If it was, it was only because you had gov't granted rights to it.
Last edited:
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
This has not existed in recorded history.