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

Rob Roy said:
Name one person who opens a store without being under threat of force. Can you?
Click to expand...
you're not even good at trying to change the subject

name one person who was forced to open a store

also, why did you call the illegal and harmful practice of kicking black people out of stores a right? no one has the right to harm others
 
UncleBuck said:
you're not even good at trying to change the subject

name one person who was forced to open a store

also, why did you call the illegal and harmful practice of kicking black people out of stores a right? no one has the right to harm others
Click to expand...

You sure are unable to articulate your position very well, prohibitionist.

I'm not changing the subject. I pointed out another pre-existing instance of government and systemic force. You default to the idea that government force / government sanctioned force somehow doesn't count and when it happens it is exempt from being called force. That's a pretty clear indication you have been successfully indoctrinated and DON'T believe all people are equal, since you'd have some people, be able to order others to obey them, with no recourse for the subordinate class of people.

So, if you aren't able to go to another persons property and force that person to serve you, how is that an instance of them harming you? People that want to leave you alone and won't interact with you are somehow not allowed to make that choice?

Are you saying people have some kind of obligation to obey other people, and that no person has a right to NOT have a human interaction if they prefer not to?

We're not arguing whether or not we like racism. I don't. You say you don't. ( although, you would forcibly control a black persons body to make them serve you against their wishes)

We are arguing whether or not every person has the right to control their own body and their own justly acquired property. I say they do. You say they don't. That makes me pro equality, meaning every person of every race, gender, etc. has the equal right to self determination. It makes you supporting inequality in favor of forced human interactions. If you could refute that you would, but it's plain to see you can't. That's why I'm winning. (again)
 
Last edited:
governments in their current form shouldn't exist, these nation states that we are forced to live within are effectively large scale prisons to control the masses on a global level

so in their current form, no governments shouldn't own anything in my view, but I do believe in the argument of collective ownership, especially if it is in the collective interest
 
Rob Roy said:
You sure are unable to articulate your position very well, prohibitionist.

I'm not changing the subject. I pointed out another pre-existing instance of government and systemic force. You default to the idea that government force / government sanctioned force somehow doesn't count and when it happens it is exempt from being called force. That's a pretty clear indication you have been successfully indoctrinated and DON'T believe all people are equal, since you'd have some people, be able to order others to obey them, with no recourse for the subordinate class of people.

So, if you aren't able to go to another persons property and force that person to serve you, how is that an instance of them harming you? People that want to leave you alone and won't interact with you are somehow not allowed to make that choice?

Are you saying people have some kind of obligation to obey other people, and that no person has a right to NOT have a human interaction if they prefer not to?

We're not arguing whether or not we like racism. I don't. You say you don't. ( although, you would forcibly control a black persons body to make them serve you against their wishes)

We are arguing whether or not every person has the right to control their own body and their own justly acquired property. I say they do. You say they don't. That makes me pro equality, meaning every person of every race, gender, etc. has the equal right to self determination. It makes you supporting inequality in favor of forced human interactions. If you could refute that you would, but it's plain to see you can't. That's why I'm winning. (again)
Click to expand...
word salad

racism is not your right. kicking black people out of your store is not "defensive" in any way. it is offensive and causes harm, thus it is not your right. no one has a right to cause harm to others
 
SunnyJim said:
You debate like a simpleton. Every time you state that you're 'winning' an argument, I'm reminded of Bush declaring "Mission Accomplished" in 2003 on the USS Abraham Lincoln. Saying something out loud does not make it so. You must try harder, nitwit.

View attachment 4124973
Click to expand...
No surprise that the Chump used this very phrase recently, then doubled down on it in another tweet a short time later.

The selfish leading the stupid.
 
SunnyJim said:
You debate like a simpleton. Every time you state that you're 'winning' an argument, I'm reminded of Bush declaring "Mission Accomplished" in 2003 on the USS Abraham Lincoln. Saying something out loud does not make it so. You must try harder, nitwit.

View attachment 4124973
Click to expand...


I do to try to make some of the concepts easy for simpletons to understand. You shouldn't feel bad though if it's hard for you to follow along. I'll try to dumb things down for your benefit.

Bush you say?

1982-yowie-bigfootbush-a.jpg
 
UncleBuck said:
word salad

racism is not your right. kicking black people out of your store is not "defensive" in any way. it is offensive and causes harm, thus it is not your right. no one has a right to cause harm to others
Click to expand...


Except a person can believe whatever they want. So while you and I believe racists hold stupid beliefs, we have no right to force them to believe what we do or don't. You believe you're a smart guy, when you're clearly not, yet I don't have the right to force you to believe otherwise do I ?

It's when people act that they become accountable. A racist remaining on his own property and seeking to distance himself from others isn't using offensive force, he's exercising his right of self determination over himself, not over other people. Of course whether the racist is black or white is irrelevant, people of all colors have the right to choose their associations and self determine their OWN property and body.

If people don't have the right to self determine, you are saying other people can make somebody serve them, which is a defense of slavery and provides evidence of why you are NOT a smart guy, smart ass. Since you are defending forced servitude while calling me a racist. I'm winning so much now I don't know where to store the trophies.
 
Rob Roy said:
Except a person can believe whatever they want. So while you and I believe racists hold stupid beliefs, we have no right to force them to believe what we do or don't. You believe you're a smart guy, when you're clearly not, yet I don't have the right to force you to believe otherwise do I ?

It's when people act that they become accountable. A racist remaining on his own property and seeking to distance himself from others isn't using offensive force, he's exercising his right of self determination over himself, not over other people. Of course whether the racist is black or white is irrelevant, people of all colors have the right to choose their associations and self determine their OWN property and body.

If people don't have the right to self determine, you are saying other people can make somebody serve them, which is a defense of slavery and provides evidence of why you are NOT a smart guy, smart ass. Since you are defending forced servitude while calling me a racist. I'm winning so much now I don't know where to store the trophies.
Click to expand...

word salad

racism is not your right. kicking black people out of your store is not a right. it is illegal. it causes harm. no one has a right to cause harm to others
 
moving_shadow said:
governments in their current form shouldn't exist, these nation states that we are forced to live within are effectively large scale prisons to control the masses on a global level

so in their current form, no governments shouldn't own anything in my view, but I do believe in the argument of collective ownership, especially if it is in the collective interest
Click to expand...

I have no objection to voluntary communist or socialist arrangements, where all people in that club are in it of their own free will. No reason that kind of setup couldn't exist peacefully beside individuals who decline to be in that club. Basically, "Panarchy" .

It's when people are subsumed into something and the individuals never consented that I would have a problem.

Voluntary vs involuntary etc.
 
UncleBuck said:
word salad

racism is not your right. kicking black people out of your store is not a right. it is illegal. it causes harm. no one has a right to cause harm to others
Click to expand...


That's a weak rebuttal. D-, no television for you tonight until you bring those grades up!
 
UncleBuck said:
you do not have a right to kick black people out of stores. that is illegal because it causes harm. no one has a right to harm others.
Click to expand...

You do not have a right to force ANYBODY to serve you. It's legal because some controlling government douche bag overlords thought the correction for government forced segregation was government forced integration.

In both instances offensive force is the shitty means used. All you are doing is changing who you are pointing the government gun at.

In both of those instances, blind squirrel, you are correct no one, including government, has the right to harm others by removing individuals rights of self determination.

The correction to forced segregation is to "allow" people who wish to associate to do so, as if they were free and self determining people.
 
UncleBuck said:
yes they do. that's why we passed civil rights ya racist cretin



no it isn't
Click to expand...

Except rights aren't created by government laws though.

If that were the case, when people were legally able to own other people 24 hours out of the day, instead of the hour or two you'd have people own others, it would have been making a "wrong" , a right, you part time wanna be force a black guy to serve you slave master, you.
 
Rob Roy said:
Except rights aren't created by government laws though.

If that were the case, when people were legally able to own other people 24 hours out of the day, instead of the hour or two you'd have people own others, it would have been making a "wrong" , a right, you part time wanna be force a black guy to serve you slave master, you.
Click to expand...

there is no such thing as a right to kick black people out of your store. that causes harm and you do not have a right to harm others. hence why it is now illegal.

please stop spamming us with your white supremacist shit, you racist cretin
 
UncleBuck said:
there is no such thing as a right to kick black people out of your store. that causes harm and you do not have a right to harm others. hence why it is now illegal.

please stop spamming us with your white supremacist shit, you racist cretin
Click to expand...

I'm not a white supremacist. I am an individual rights for everyone regardless of race supremacist, you prohibitionist control freak that would force a black guy to serve him against the black guys will lousy debater person.

You've never explained how declining an interaction with somebody is more egregious than forcing an unwilling person to serve you. Perhaps you could elaborate on why you think forced servitude is preferable to indifference ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top