abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
So now everyone is a government...
You're fucking weird bro.
You're fucking weird bro.
Teacher fired for breaking up fight.
- Thread starter ginwilly
- Start date
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
The problem isn't with people "governing themselves". It is when some people try to "govern" others.
The absence of a central authority, "anarchism" would create a multitude of self governing people.
I'm sorry they made you kiss your Aunts hairy mustachioed face.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
You just tried to slightly redefine anarchism. It means no rulers. It is clear however that you want to remove some of the hierarchical structure and leave the rest intact.
You don't want people to be free. You want to rule people that might be hungry enough to rent themselves out to you. Your master is the invisible hand of Adam Smith.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Nope. For a guy that is too afraid to state what is and isn't property, you sure seem good at telling others what they think.
I want to feed myself thru my efforts. I don't expect you to feed me, but if I was hungry and you did it would be appreciated. If I'm hungry I still have no right to the proceeds of your labor.
I would eat Adam Cartright's horse if it wandered off the Ponderosa and got into my garden.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I am an anarchist, wherefore I will not be ruled, and also others I will not rule.
You are asking an anarchist to dictate rules.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Segregation doesn't mean the same thing as freedom and property doesn't mean the same thing as liberty.
DonAlejandroVega
Well-Known Member
"No, I'm still a socialist." ???
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
here are all the "emotional" possibilities.
yes, blacks were harmed by denial of service (the stance of every single historian ever).
no, blacks were not harmed by denial of service (the stance of racist morons trying to justify their failed racist philosophies (you)).
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
being told that you can no longer harm blacks with your racist hostilities is nothing like what happened to the natives, you deluded racist fuckwit.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
like when they tell you the 4 year old boy you are trying to molest is not actually capable of consent?
they just made you their slave by not letting you rape that small child.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
No, I am asking YOU what a person can and cannot own. You are obviously uncomfortable with the question. It is pertinent to the discussion of when it is "morally permissable" to defend property etc.
It's good you don't want to rule others, but I'm not advocating anybody rule over others. I am declaring that property exists and that people that are the owners have a right to determine the use of it, and not the use of property they do not own.
The extent of what property is and is not then becomes the question.....which you avoid.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
The bathroom is out of order sir, I'm sorry we'd really like to be able to help you.........oh my god.....is THAT a gerbil coming out of your pants leg!!!???
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Cherokees owned slaves. I think the Cherokees were wrong, but not so wrong that they needed to have their land stolen.
Who's stolen land do you live on? What does gerbil times hamster equal?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
If a person is forced to associate with another person they prefer not to, has their freedom been taken away? Yes.
I thought Liberty was a horse?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
You keep defaulting to the same rhetoric about the fear that someone is going to make you sit next to a black person.
This totally ignores the realistic version of how liberty has been taken throughout history.
What really happens is that some privileged ass hole takes someone else's land, puts a fence around it and puts up a no trespassing sign. Then the ass hole excludes people from the resources which are the heritage of all of mankind.
DonAlejandroVega
Well-Known Member
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Your skull is probably four inches thick.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Why yes it is. Of course that doesn't answer the question of what is and isn't property does it?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I criticize what you think liberty is, you want to talk about property.Why yes it is. Of course that doesn't answer the question of what is and isn't property does it?
Liberty and property aren't the same thing kiddo.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
That's uncalled for. You are "Uncle Bucking" , you can do better than that.
It is my hope that you could state and argue your premise instead of defaulting to examples that could be true but are not examples of all the possible circumstances that could exist. You seem afraid of being trapped by stating your position and having to defend it.
The discussion is ABOUT property and whether a person can own property, it only seems fair if we are to have a discussion that we at least define what each of thinks property is.
Of course assholes steal land. That's why I've said "justly acquired property" numerous times.....
Assholes also try to make others do things they'd prefer not to do and threaten force to achieve it.