Senator Sanders, in his own words

abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
That was cryptic. Let me guess, you mean that defining property makes no sense,
Click to expand...
No, I just disagree with your definition and also your argument was a nonsequitur because no such definition was required. Your property is only so because the gov't made it so. It did not become your property because of the consent of anyone else who has previously occupied it or regularly crossed it.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
No, I just disagree with your definition and also your argument was a nonsequitur because no such definition was required. Your property is only so because the gov't made it so. It did not become your property because of the consent of anyone else who has previously occupied it or regularly crossed it.
Click to expand...
You might be right about how most property is held in the present, as it clearly has been muddied as to who has the rightful ownership of it, since history tells us that most property (land) transfers weren't done peacefully.

I was speaking more generically though, and trying to establish a basis of what you think property is or isn't so we could examine things from a macro perspective.

Do you think the original occupants of a given tract of land are the rightful owners of that land ?
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Thinking was never his long suit.
Click to expand...
I assumed he recently ran into a rather ripe pair of dryer left behind undies and the fumes temporarily damaged his cognitive function.

I hope his wife doesn't find his whole collection, it could be devastating to their relationship.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
You might be right about how most property is held in the present, as it clearly has been muddied as to who has the rightful ownership of it, since history tells us that most property (land) transfers weren't done peacefully.

I was speaking more generically though, and trying to establish a basis of what you think property is or isn't so we could examine things from a macro perspective.

Do you think the original occupants of a given tract of land are the rightful owners of that land ?
Click to expand...
Well, did the gov't come along and grant them exclusive deed?
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
Well, did the gov't come along and grant them exclusive deed?
Click to expand...
Original occupation can and did precede government. That is true since a government is formed by people. People needed to exist prior to there being a government. So "original occupation" could have occurred prior to government or at least the form of government we see today.

A persons existence, prior to government and after the formation of government is tied to their physicality and harvesting natural resources in order to exist right?

So, the answer isn't what did government do or not do, it is based in the idea that because we are physical beings we have to exist SOMEWHERE, the nature of our being insists that is so.

So do you think the original occupants of a given place could be termed the "owners" in the sense that their first and persistent occupation gives them right to make that claim?
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
So do you think the original occupants of a given place could be termed the "owners" in the sense that their first and persistent occupation gives them right to make that claim?
Click to expand...
They can only have a legal exclusive deed if granted by gov't. Privatization is only possible through gov't. Your entire argument hinges upon redefining the term property such that you can frame it as a natural right when in fact it is a legal term.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
They can only have a legal exclusive deed if granted by gov't. Privatization is only possible through gov't. Your entire argument hinges upon redefining the term property such that you can frame it as a natural right when in fact it is a legal term.
Click to expand...
Thanks for pointing that out as part of your rationale. Sometimes it's hard to get you to give your point of view.

So, what you're saying is "property" ownership or at least some kinds of property ownership is a government construct and until government came along, the things people created from natural resources WEREN'T their property until government came along ?

I want to make sure I understand your point of view, reason for the question above.

If that is so, why does a wolf defend it's "property", its den, its kill, its territory ?
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Thanks for pointing that out as part of your rationale. Sometimes it's hard to get you to give your point of view.

So, what you're saying is "property" ownership or at least some kinds of property ownership is a government construct and until government came along, the things people created from natural resources WEREN'T their property until government came along ?

I want to make sure I understand your point of view, reason for the question above.

If that is so, why does a wolf defend it's "property", its den, its kill, its territory ?
Click to expand...
You're still trying to redefine terms that have dictionary entries. It is banal and repetitive. You've had years to come up with new material. Get a job. The gov't is not taxing you for "owning" that old dusty Tandy that you're typing these boring ass diatribes on. We're talking about land. You didn't create it and ownership thereof is made possible only through gov't.
 
Last edited:
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
You're still trying to redefine terms that have dictionary entries. It is banal and repetitive. You've had years to come up with new material. Get a job. The gov't is not taxing you for "owning" that old dusty Tandy that you're typing these boring ass diatribes on. We're talking about land. You didn't create it and ownership thereof is made possible only through gov't.
Click to expand...
Well, that was good of you to further define things. It's helpful to the discussion. It's a dusty Dell btw that I'm typing my boring ass diatribes on mostly.

So don't the things man creates and use to exist come from natural resources that came from "the land" ? Isn't mans existence tied to land ?

Since that is so, wouldn't taxing land people occupy just be another form of taxing people to exist?

Also, I take it my wolf example (above) wasn't something you could sink your teeth into, since you didn't address the point it made ?
 
Last edited:
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
Yeah, write me a piece of legislation right here in RIU!

Fucking petulant bernouts, I swear.
Click to expand...
Detail a bill you will support. What will you actually support? You keep avoiding answering that question because you know that's where the country is heading on healthcare. Tell me what you will support. If you don't, you've made it clear you don't actually support universal healthcare.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Detail a bill you will support. What will you actually support? You keep avoiding answering that question because you know that's where the country is heading on healthcare. Tell me what you will support. If you don't, you've made it clear you don't actually support universal healthcare.
Click to expand...
ACA
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Detail a bill you will support. What will you actually support? You keep avoiding answering that question because you know that's where the country is heading on healthcare. Tell me what you will support. If you don't, you've made it clear you don't actually support universal healthcare.
Click to expand...
Deciphering...

"write a bill or else you will be admitting to this bullshit I just said and any further obfuscation will be considered forfeit."
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top