Teacher fired for breaking up fight.

[Rob Roy]

If it weren't for the state, they would have no property.

Nope. Property existed and and will exist after the coercive state is abolished.

A state is just a gang that redistributes property. You confuse the object(s) with the redistributor / parasite.

A stateless person can own property. Do you "own" a computer Mr. Anarchist?

 

[Rob Roy]

people who own a gas station that kicks out black people are not "leaving others alone", they are causing harm.

this is documented historical fact you fucking retard.

What no crayon?

If a person can own something, ie "private property" then the person that remains within that property when it is clear they are not wanted is the aggressor. You have it assbackwards gerbil face.

 

[Rob Roy]

Putting a fence around an area and calling it yours is theft.

Maybe. the circumstances should be examined before a verdict is reached.


Was it occupied before you put up the fence might be something to consider. Also when a person improves unoccupied property, who owns the improvements (crops, lodges, tipis, huts, houses etc.) ?

 

[Rob Roy]

You aren't as tough as you think you are.

Peter Tosh - "I'm the toughest"

Had that one on vinyl many moons ago.

Me and Doer had an internet arm wrestling contest. It was close, I had him nearly pinned, then he exclaimed "squirrel" ...the fucker distracted me and he prevailed. I'm doing one handed internet pushups right now and vow to win the rematch.

 

[abandonconflict]

Nope. Property existed and and will exist after the coercive state is abolished.

A state is just a gang that redistributes property. You confuse the object(s) with the redistributor / parasite.

A stateless person can own property. Do you "own" a computer Mr. Anarchist?

But when you put a fence around an area and call it yours, you are initiating aggression and doing what states do.

So what you seek is only the privatization of the state apparatus.

 

[UncleBuck]

when it is clear they are not wanted

what part makes it clear that blacks are not wanted?

i'd say a big sign advertising the prices for your rooms or gas to the general public on the public highway gives the impression that the public is welcome.

but then again, i am not a retarded racist like you are.

 

[Rob Roy]

But when you put a fence around an area and call it yours, you are initiating aggression and doing what states do.

So what you seek is only the privatization of the state apparatus.

I see the dilemma.

However when you keep people from fully "owning" the fruit of their labor derived from natural resources you are also initiating aggression against the make or creator of a product.

 

[UncleBuck]

bob-baby's "justly acquired property" was justly acquired by killing and poisoning the natives and then violating treaties with them.

but don't try to tell him he can't kick blacks out of his place of business.

 

[Rob Roy]

what part makes it clear that blacks are not wanted?

i'd say a big sign advertising the prices for your rooms or gas to the general public on the public highway gives the impression that the public is welcome.

but then again, i am not a retarded racist like you are.

I don't mean to be rude, but I won't be entertaining questions from the resident floor shitter tonite. It's not that I don't want to honey, but it's that time of the month and you smell like gerbils too. I miss the crayon.

I apologize to Abandon Conflict as we appeared to be entering a valid discussion. Later, a day or two. I have to go feed the chickens now. Peace.

 

[abandonconflict]

I see the dilemma.

However when you keep people from fully "owning" the fruit of their labor derived from natural resources you are also initiating aggression against the make or creator of a product.

Employers keep the excess value of the product of laborers. The laborers are coerced to rent themselves out to the employers by hunger. Labor creates all wealth. Owning property doesn't.

 

[DonAlejandroVega]

Employers keep the excess value of the product of laborers. The laborers are coerced to rent themselves out to the employers by hunger. Labor creates all wealth. Owning property doesn't.

the Green Party has spoken.........

 

[Rob Roy]

Employers keep the excess value of the product of laborers. The laborers are coerced to rent themselves out to the employers by hunger. Labor creates all wealth. Owning property doesn't.

You speak as if those occurrences are the ONLY result. They are not. Certainly sometimes people get coerced, but not all labor relationships involve coercion do they?

Also, as an aside, labor does not always produce wealth. Some people can labor all day and produce very little or no value.


If a person is hungry and farmed their own land and got to keep the result they might not be hungry anymore.
Are you suggesting that people should be forced to give up food that they grew and labored over to others that provided no labor?

The Little Red Hen called. She said "cluck, cluck cluck, don't be like a uncle Buck....don't chicken out answer a question or three".

So what can a person own?

 

[Rob Roy]

let me ask you a simple question that you're too cowardly to give the obvious answer to: did the denial of service to blacks before civil rights cause harm?

You ask an emotional question without considering all the possibilities. You don't understand indifference and actionable harms are two distinct circumstances. One involves an act of aggression, the other does not.

That's okay, but when you argue from the premise that they are the same, the rest of your arguments are as worthless as a pile of digested french fries on a Wendy's floor.


The proper questions are:

"does initiating force against an indifferent person that does not want to associate with somebody and who remains on their own property create a victim? Yes. The person being forced to associate is the victim, Mr. Rapist.

Is it acceptable for a person of any color to be "allowed" to chose their associations and not have somebody else force them to associate? Why YES it is, all people have the right to control their own body and justly acquired property.

How many gerbils can one man hide in his rectum? I confess, you would have a better grasp on that deep question. I defer to your wisdom here.

 

[Rob Roy]

But when you put a fence around an area and call it yours, you are initiating aggression and doing what states do.

So what you seek is only the privatization of the state apparatus.

What if the land were unoccupied when you "put the fence up" ? What if you mixed your labor with the natural resources on that piece of land and created something of value, a hut, a patch of crops, a place to hang your spear etc. Who owns the things created?

 

[Rob Roy]

bob-baby's "justly acquired property" was justly acquired by killing and poisoning the natives and then violating treaties with them.

but don't try to tell him he can't kick blacks out of his place of business.

You contradict yourself....what a surprise.

Since it was an act of aggression when Indians land was taken from them, it would also be theft when another land owners property rights are taken from them when a coercive person or entity tells them how they must use their property and which associations they will have under threats of violence.

You simply point out that coercive government has always coerced against property owners. Sometimes you like it and sometimes you don't.

I'm against coercion in general. You employ it as a tactic when it suits your wants and oppose it when it doesn't.

 

[abandonconflict]

What if

What if my aunt had balls?

















She'd be my uncle.

 

[abandonconflict]

answer a question or three".

So what can a person own?

Why do you need my permission to own something? I'm not the government. You're not the government.

 

[Rob Roy]

What if my aunt had balls?



They would be her property.


I hope that is a hypothetical question too. Did she have a mustache too, were you forced to kiss her on holidays?

















She'd be my uncle.

 

[Rob Roy]

Why do you need my permission to own something? I'm not the government. You're not the government.

Actually, I am the government of me. You are (or should be) the government of you.

I would need your permission to use your stuff, reciprocably (sic?) you would need permission to use my stuff. Abiding by those behaviors helps to keep the peace.

 

[DonAlejandroVega]

Why do you need my permission to own something? I'm not the government. You're not the government.

we are granted the right to our property by the government......................