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

[Rob Roy]

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.

Except government is NOT the will of the people, that is something you've been told, but it is demonstrably false.

If government IS the people, and no person has the right to use force against other people who are minding their own business and behaving peacefully, logic then insists that no collection of people, even if they call themselves government could possibly have that right either.

If you disagree with me, please tell me how you or anybody else could possibly delegate a right they do not possess?

 

[UncleBuck]

Except government is NOT the will of the people, that is something you've been told, but it is demonstrably false.

If government IS the people, and no person has the right to use force against other people who are minding their own business and behaving peacefully, logic then insists that no collection of people, even if they call themselves government could possibly have that right either.

If you disagree with me, please tell me how you or anybody else could possibly delegate a right they do not possess?

word salad

 

[Rob Roy]

word salad

 

[ttystikk]

Except government is NOT the will of the people, that is something you've been told, but it is demonstrably false.

If government IS the people, and no person has the right to use force against other people who are minding their own business and behaving peacefully, logic then insists that no collection of people, even if they call themselves government could possibly have that right either.

If you disagree with me, please tell me how you or anybody else could possibly delegate a right they do not possess?

Because the government derives its legitimacy from the governed. This is a foundational tenet of politics. I agree that it is imperfectly practiced in the modern age. The failing of some individuals or groups to live up to the responsibility of government does not mean the underlying idea is a bad one.

You agitate for anarchy and for millions of years, humans lived in just such circumstances. They chipped rocks for crude tools, froze in winter, were regularly killed by disease, accident and wild animals and most certainly did not develop the levels of creative and technical sophistication that modern political science has made possible.

If you hate government so much, go live in the woods and stop mooching off of its- and our- benevolent generosity. I'll await your reports from the edge of civilisation if you manage to survive the experience.

 

[Rob Roy]

Because the government derives its legitimacy from the governed. This is a foundational tenet of politics. I agree that it is imperfectly practiced in the modern age. The failing of some individuals or groups to live up to the responsibility of government does not mean the underlying idea is a bad one.

You agitate for anarchy and for millions of years, humans lived in just such circumstances. They chipped rocks for crude tools, froze in winter, were regularly killed by disease, accident and wild animals and most certainly did not develop the levels of creative and technical sophistication that modern political science has made possible.

If you hate government so much, go live in the woods and stop mooching off of its- and our- benevolent generosity. I'll await your reports from the edge of civilisation if you manage to survive the experience.

If I asked you to prove your points or offer evidence do you think you could? I'm pretty sure you know that platitudes aren't the same as evidence right?

Two examples of how human relations can be legitimate...

The first is consent.
Consent between the people interacting is critical. I.E. - If the interaction is mutually desired and no person is being forced or has another claiming the right to make their choices for another etc. Voluntary mutual relations are legitimate. Involuntary forced human relations are illegitimate.

The second is when defensive force is used, that kind of force is legitimate, since it repels a person seeking to control another person or that persons justly acquired property. (using offensive force)

Government does not abide by the two circumstances I detailed above and ironically, exempts itself from them. It is NOT legitimate.

You won't be able to prove me wrong, since the evidence supports my statements.

 

[UncleBuck]

when defensive force is used, that kind of force is legitimate

you call kicking black people out of a store based solely on their skin color "defensive force"

 

[Rob Roy]

Because the government derives its legitimacy from the governed. This is a foundational tenet of politics. I agree that it is imperfectly practiced in the modern age. The failing of some individuals or groups to live up to the responsibility of government does not mean the underlying idea is a bad one.

You agitate for anarchy and for millions of years, humans lived in just such circumstances. They chipped rocks for crude tools, froze in winter, were regularly killed by disease, accident and wild animals and most certainly did not develop the levels of creative and technical sophistication that modern political science has made possible.

If you hate government so much, go live in the woods and stop mooching off of its- and our- benevolent generosity. I'll await your reports from the edge of civilisation if you manage to survive the experience.

I don't advocate or demand people live a specific way. As long as they leave others alone, how they live is their business.

The reason why government is bad is it uses means that are bad. If something is bad for you or I to do, it's bad for a bunch of people calling themselves government to do. Stop worshipping false deities.

The rest of your post is a weak collection of disjointed thoughts which don't refute what I said in the previous posts. Nice try.

 

[UncleBuck]

I don't advocate or demand people live a specific way.

you advocated for people to hang "no blacks allowed" signs in their stores and said it was "reasonable and polite"

 

[Rob Roy]

you call kicking black people out of a store based solely on their skin color "defensive force"

No, I call property owners determining how they will use their own property and their own body people who are exercising a right. It doesn't matter whether you like what other people do with their own body, unless you're a prohibitionist.

If you don't think you have the right to determine the use of your own property and your own body, who's bitch are you ?

 

[Rob Roy]

you advocated for people to hang "no blacks allowed" signs in their stores and said it was "reasonable and polite"

 

[UncleBuck]

No

yes you did.

you have habitually called it "defensive force" when a racist white kicks a black person out of their store based solely on skin color.

should i post some screenshots of you doing exactly that, klantard?

who's bitch are you ?

WHOSE STUPID NOW?

 

[Rob Roy]

yes you did.

you have habitually called it "defensive force" when a racist white kicks a black person out of their store based solely on skin color.

should i post some screenshots of you doing exactly that, klantard?



WHOSE STUPID NOW?

Their store. Their body.

To force a person to serve you = Offensive force and a form of slavery.

To forcibly claim the use of another persons property specifically without their consent = theft.

Which part is inaccurate numbnuts?

 

[UncleBuck]

Their store.

whether it is their store or not, kicking black people out solely because of their skin color is not "defensive force". they are not defending anything, they are just being racist

only a real klantard would try to rewrite the meanings of words like you do in order to vindicate racists

the entire rest of your post was wrong too

 

[Rob Roy]

whether it is their store or not, kicking black people out solely because of their skin color is not "defensive force". they are not defending anything, they are just being racist

only a real klantard would try to rewrite the meanings of words like you do in order to vindicate racists

the entire rest of your post was wrong too

Again, the way a person uses or doesn't use their own property and their own body might meet with our disapproval, but it doesn't give us a right to force anybody to serve us against their will if they are on their own property.

You've never told me why you think it would be okay to make a black guy serve you against his will. Could you elaborate on why you're okay with that? Why don't you think black people have the right to reject your advances if they prefer not to associate with you?

 

[Justin-case]

Again, the way a person uses or doesn't use their own property and their own body might meet with our disapproval, but it doesn't give us a right to force anybody to serve us against their will if they are on their own property.

You've never told me why you think it would be okay to make a black guy serve you against his will. Could you elaborate on why you're okay with that? Why don't you think black people have the right to reject your advances if they prefer not to associate with you?

God damn you klan tards can't even take one day off from spamming on 4-20 ?

 

[UncleBuck]

Again, the way a person uses or doesn't use their own property and their own body might meet with our disapproval, but it doesn't give us a right to force anybody to serve us against their will if they are on their own property.

You've never told me why you think it would be okay to make a black guy serve you against his will. Could you elaborate on why you're okay with that? Why don't you think black people have the right to reject your advances if they prefer not to associate with you?

kicking black people out of stores based solely on their skin color is not "defensive force"

only a klantard would try to redefine words in order to vindicate racists like that

please stop spamming our forum with your white supremacy nonsense

 

[Rob Roy]

whether it is their store or not, kicking black people out solely because of their skin color is not "defensive force". they are not defending anything, they are just being racist

only a real klantard would try to rewrite the meanings of words like you do in order to vindicate racists

the entire rest of your post was wrong too

Actually they are defending their right to use their property in the ways they prefer. They are defending their right to use their body as they prefer. Everybody of every skin color has those rights, even racists.

Nobody has the right to make others serve them, certainly not you, me or a racist.

God damn you klan tards can't even take one day off from spamming on 4-20 ?

I miss you too.

 

[UncleBuck]

Actually they are defending their right to use their property in the ways they prefer. They are defending their right to use their body as they prefer.

they don't have those rights. kicking black people out of the store because of their skin color is illegal, and thus not a right.

it was made illegal because kicking people out of stores based on skin color caused harm. you do not have a right to cause anyone harm,

causing someone harm might also be known as "offensive force"

you fucking retard

 

[charface]

Don't matter what I think.
They said so.
Oh and they claimed the ground rights.

 

[Rob Roy]

they don't have those rights. kicking black people out of the store because of their skin color is illegal, and thus not a right.

it was made illegal because kicking people out of stores based on skin color caused harm. you do not have a right to cause anyone harm,

causing someone harm might also be known as "offensive force"

you fucking retard

Forcing other people to serve you (slavery) , was legal at one time, but it was never right. You are advocating for forced servitude.


If a person is seeking to distance themself from another person, it's pretty hard to make a case the person seeking NOT to have an interaction is the one using offensive force.

"Yes Officer I held her down and forced her to have an interaction with me, so I'd like you to arrest her for raping me " - Uncle Buck

Why don't you explain how leaving somebody alone is worse than forcing somebody to serve you ?