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

[Rob Roy]

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

You likely paid a tax for those beers made from natural resources and when weed is legalized, it always seems to include some kind of tax too.

See? With just a little nudge you're on topic. That's probably because of the omnipresence of government parasites taxing nearly every natural resource.

Now, if you're out of herb, there's some great threads here with lots of helpful info. on how to grow it.

 

[ttystikk]

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.

It is a disgusting fact in 21st century America that in several States an adult can fuck a 13 year old and it's okay as long as they get married. I don't pretend to know which states they are because it's not something I'd have anything to do with, but there is indeed a movement in Congress to pass a national 'statutory statute' outlawing the practice.

Such legislation would have my full support, especially if it included a punishment clause involving castration with a rusty limb saw.

 

[Rob Roy]

It is a disgusting fact in 21st century America that in several States an adult can fuck a 13 year old and it's okay as long as they get married. I don't pretend to know which states they are because it's not something I'd have anything to do with, but there is indeed a movement in Congress to pass a national 'statutory statute' outlawing the practice.

Such legislation would have my full support, especially if it included a punishment clause involving castration with a rusty limb saw.

A rusty limb saw sounds like cruel and unusual punishment, and might hint that you view that punishment as being for the male in the hypothetical situation you described.

I have a couple of questions so I can understand your argument...

Your objection seems based In the idea that an adult penis or vagina is more harmful to a 13 year olds genitalia than another teens penis or vagina would be to the hypothetical 13 year old ? Is that the basis of your argument ?

 

[SunnyJim]

Your objection seems based In the idea that an adult penis or vagina is more harmful to a 13 year olds genitalia than another teens penis or vagina would be to the hypothetical 13 year old ?

What in the fuck?

 

[Rob Roy]

What in the fuck?

Not quite. In the question I posed, it would actually be "who in the fuck" .

Anyway, can you get ahold of that Abandon Conflict guy for me? He was doing so well, nearly answering questions about property and stuff.


Now back to your post...keep your pants on, there was a point to my question, if you'd just sit back a bit, you'll see. Don't be one of those premature emasculators with a boner saw okay?

 

[abandonconflict]

So now you appear to be trying to have both sides of an argument regarding property ownership.

No. I have been consistent,laser focused actually. I have repeated the same several premises and conclusions in different words because you are so desperate to evade them. The rest is your little fantasies from your nonexistent utopian world where capitalism is synonymous with liberty.

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.

For example, this nonsense. You don't have to make shit up, history is actually a thing. They had no concept of land ownership and hardly anything that could be called a government. Get a job.

 

[Rob Roy]

No. I have been consistent,laser focused actually. I have repeated the same several premises and conclusions in different words because you are so desperate to evade them. The rest is your little fantasies from your nonexistent utopian world where capitalism is synonymous with liberty.

I hear your proclamation, but I don't see your supporting argument. You seem to be purposefully avoiding my question.

Do original occupants (owners) have the right to use defensive force to keep other people from displacing them or not ?

 

[abandonconflict]

Anyway, can you get ahold of that Abandon Conflict guy for me? He was doing so well, nearly answering questions about property and stuff.

Is that why you ghosted your repetitive and banal nonsense from mises.org? Your below average, even for an ancap troll.

 

[Rob Roy]

No. I have been consistent,laser focused actually. I have repeated the same several premises and conclusions in different words because you are so desperate to evade them. The rest is your little fantasies from your nonexistent utopian world where capitalism is synonymous with liberty.

For example, this nonsense. You don't have to make shit up, history is actually a thing. They had no concept of land ownership and hardly anything that could be called a government. Get a job.

I'm not arguing against history, I'm attempting to get you to admit the obvious that your previous post had elements of trying to hold both sides of an argument.

 

[abandonconflict]

original occupants (owners)

False equation. Land ownership is only possible through government as I have repeated every single time you have tried to pass this nonsense off. Maybe if you had a job, you could pay that property tax that you voluntarily agreed to and then if anything is left get a dictionary.

 

[abandonconflict]

I'm not arguing against history, I'm attempting to get you to admit the obvious that your previous post had elements of trying to hold both sides of an argument.

Maybe try reading it before you respond.

 

[Rob Roy]

Is that why you ghosted your repetitive and banal nonsense from mises.org? Your below average, even for an ancap troll.

Except I'm not really a dyed in the wool Ancap, but that topic is beside the point.

Did the original occupants of land have a right to use defensive force to repel invaders from "their" land?

 

[abandonconflict]

Except I'm not really a dyed in the wool Ancap, but that topic is beside the point.

Did the original occupants of land have a right to use defensive force to repel invaders from "their" land?

Oh, I see that you have abandoned the use of the word property and I will take that as acceptance that it is a legal concept and that land is only made property through government.

They shared land as tribes and intertribal conflict was rarely over territory but when it was, it involved expanding empires such as the mesomerican states.

 

[Rob Roy]

Oh, I see that you have abandoned the use of the word property and I will take that as acceptance that it is a legal concept and that land is only made property through government.

They shared land as tribes and intertribal conflict was rarely over territory but when it was, it involved expanding empires such as the mesomerican states.

I see that you have abandoned answering or addressing what I posted in post #80 in this thread.

It's also possible property is a both a legal concept defined by government and a natural concept defined by nature and the physicality of beings.

You've never answered if original occupants have a right to repel others. Why have you avoided answering that?

 

[Rob Roy]

Is that why you ghosted your repetitive and banal nonsense from mises.org? Your below average, even for an ancap troll.

*You're

 

[abandonconflict]

I see that you have abandoned answering or addressing what I posted in post #80 in this thread

No I didn't. You're just a basic below average right-wing blowhard even for an ancap troll. Learn to read, it will help you find a job.

 

[abandonconflict]

*You're

I'm posting on a smartphone. Maybe if I was unemployed like you I could sit around jabbing keys on a dusty old Tandy like you.

 

[Rob Roy]

No I didn't. You're just a basic below average right-wing blowhard even for an ancap troll. Learn to read, it will help you find a job.

Well, you can't say I didn't give you a chance to provide a reason for why you hold two positions at once.

First you say land isn't owned by the original occupants who still reside there.

Then you decry others for displacing or killing the original occupants, presumably because the people being displaced are the rightful owners.

I'm not denying that government has attempted to define what ownership of property is. The fact they've done a ridiculous and contradictory job at that, doesn't refute my statements above now does it?

If I'm a below average blowhard, imagine how easily an above average blowhard could point out your views which conflict with your other views.

I learned to read at a young age, you probably did too, you had to do SOMETHING sitting all the waaaay back in the family station wagon while your little sister sat triumphantly in the shot gun seat she displaced you from.

 

[Rob Roy]

I'm posting on a smartphone. Maybe if I was unemployed like you I could sit around jabbing keys on a dusty old Tandy like you.

I'll give you that one.

 

[ttystikk]

Since government is an extension of the will of the people (however imperfectly), it has both the right to claim ownership of land and to regulate and tax its use, transfer and possession.

@Rob Roy you seem to forget essential connection between government and governed.

If the government does not reflect the needs and will of the people it purports to govern, that's a different issue than ownership of property.