Does The Government Have The Right to Claim Ownership of The Earth's Resources?

Rob Roy said:
London is one of my favorite people here. I wish him the best and just hope someday he'll get permission from his wife to get a real motor cycle.

His lips get tired sometimes from making vroom vroom sounds on his present bike.

598156.jpg
Click to expand...
I don't think the old lady is going to break anytime soon. I will again be renting a bike for the summer. Either the BMW R 1200 RT or the GS.
Don't tell
 
londonfog said:
case closed
Click to expand...


What's funny is one of the reasons I said depends in answer to your "gotcha" question, is the age of consent in reality and in legal land varies from place to place depending on the whims of the particular Government Plantation.

So why do you have all those Angolan travel brochures anyway?

Also, you didn't define adult either.
 
Z3r0Z3r0 said:
Well both of you seem to be at odds and I dont think I can say my stance would share either one of yours.

Most ppl like buck are just jumping on a bandwagon and really cant think for themselves. Just another trendy one he is. But Ill say same for die hard NRA supporters, yes there has to be some form of moderation when it comes to firearms or any weapon be that. But truth is a weapon can be made from anything. Attacking without a weapon can be lethal too.

Its like the war on drugs, did banning them work? No, whats needed is education and ethics. I dont even want a gun or need one, but a tool is a tool maybe if I was in fucking medocino mountains worred about mountain lions and bears and wolves and all that yeah.
Click to expand...
In Mendocino mountains people are more likely to be endangered by stumbling upon an illegal pot grow. No wolves, or Grizzly bears. Something like two mountain lions have attacked a person in all of California over the past decade or so. Parts of Montana and the bush in Alaska are what you are thinking about. Yes, most people own guns there.
 
Rob Roy said:
What's funny is one of the reasons I said depends in answer to your "gotcha" question, is the age of consent in reality and in legal land varies from place to place depending on the whims of the particular Government Plantation.

So why do you have all those Angolan travel brochures anyway?

Also, you didn't define adult either.
Click to expand...
I gave you the exact scenario. Can a 12 year old consent to sex with an adult age 18 or over in America
 
londonfog said:
I gave you the exact scenario. Can a 12 year old consent to sex with an adult age 18 or over in America
Click to expand...


I'd guess that statutorily no, but that's a guess.

So if the age a government decides a person is an adult were lower or higher, that would mean peoples physiology and mental capacity automatically adjust to accommodate the law ? Is that how it works?
 
Rob Roy said:
I'd guess that statutorily no, but that's a guess.

So if the age a government decides a person is an adult were lower or higher, that would mean peoples physiology and mental capacity automatically adjust to accommodate the law ? Is that how it works?
Click to expand...
No, you cannot legally fuck children, even if you get enough candy to secure the child's consent.

Did you enjoy your "Rape Day" yesterday? We thank you for your $109.
 
londonfog said:
Plus slavery and rape if he is forced to serve a black person at a store open to the public
Click to expand...

Well actually the race of a person your forced to serve against your will isn't what makes a person enslaved.

Thought you would be able to figure that out, but your daily mind raping by government schools is probably pretty hard for you to shed eh?

Troll-Friend_o_127859.jpg
 
Rob Roy said:
Thank you for providing a good example of the kind of thing I was talking about Mr. Twisty Mcword Abuser.

I don't think anybody doing business with another person on a mutual and peaceful basis is "offensive force", so your allegation is flaccid. It's only when one party would prefer not to engage in a human interaction and the other party forcibly insists on it, that rapey tactics like the ones you champion and "offensive force" come into play.

So correct me where I'm wrong... but your views include using guns to take away guns from black people who you'd then force to serve you, on his/her own property no less, and if they didn't want to, you'd use a gun, which nobody but your beloved government stooges would be allowed to have, to force them to serve you?

Is that about right ?
Click to expand...

so you call it offensive force when a black person shops at a store, but not when a racist white kicks a peaceful black person out of their store based on their skin color?

nice racist philosophy, pedophile
 
Ohh god this place is hilarious so lets see the derailing is strong here, from earths natural resources to pedos, lol you guys are high, Im having some beers cause im out of herb
 
UncleBuck said:
stefan molyneux is an avowed neo-nazi. why are you quoting avowed neo-nazis?
Click to expand...

Isn't if funny when a person we don't like says something that actually makes sense?

An idiot would disparage what was said even though it's accurate, due to their dislike of the person who said it, wouldn't they?
 
abandonconflict said:
It is not possible to own land in the absence of force, thus privatisation is only possible through government.
Click to expand...


Invalid conclusion. It assumes that force used to defend occupied land, is always offensive, when it could be defensive.

You are conveniently ignoring the idea that people are physical beings and if a person occupies a place prior to another person, and another person comes along and tries to displace the original occupier the person seeking to displace is the aggressor. The aggressor is the one using offensive force.

In nature that is known as, "I was here first" and is a physical fact of nature, since no two physical things can occupy the same space at the same time can they?

If it were not true, when your little sister routinely boxed your ears and made you exit the prime shotgun seat in the family jalopy to the losers seat in the waaay back of the station wagon your sniveling plea to your mom, "I was here first", would have been a non sequitur instead of a whiny, but valid plea on your part.
 
Rob Roy said:
Invalid conclusion. It assumes that force used to defend occupied land, is always offensive, when it could be defensive.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter. That has no effect on the fact that I stated. Besides, your land "property" only came to your exclusive legal deed by the genocide of the original inhabitants thereof at the hands of the gov't which in turn granted it to you, for which you voluntarily agreed to pay a tax.
 
So now you appear to be trying to have both sides of an argument regarding property ownership..

First, you deny the idea that people who are the original occupants are using defensive force when they attempt to repel other people who are trying to move them off the land they are occupying.

Then you speculate in my case that I am using offensive force (aided by government) and that my possession of a given piece of land has deprived "the rightful owners" of the land.

If the genocide you speak of is accurate in regards to the piece of land I occupy, you are admitting that the original owners did have a right to use defensive force, which means they were the owners. Which is an admission that a given piece of land can be "owned" and that original occupation is at least part of the means to do it.

If you can admit to this that would be noble of you. If you can't or won't please tell me where I am in error.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top