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

Space_cadet · Apr 21, 2018

What thefucking fuck

see this why the world is the way it is everybody's aruguing about fucking dribble to do anything constructive.

londonfog · Apr 21, 2018

Rob Roy said:
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 ?

have you been drinking ? Your writing is saying such.
anyhow
Four words
OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

moving_shadow · Apr 21, 2018

Rob Roy said:
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.

well everything is sort of being forced onto us as the moment, with the existence of nation states and everything that supports the concept of borders

Z3r0Z3r0 · Apr 22, 2018

TL im high DR the rest lol

Rob Roy · Apr 22, 2018

moving_shadow said:
well everything is sort of being forced onto us as the moment, with the existence of nation states and everything that supports the concept of borders

I'm not a fan of nation states, since they falsely purport to have the consent of the occupants within their boundaries and they are usually the result of conquest rather than a natural occurrence of original occupation.

Borders, as in boundaries between your area and my area can be a different kind of border which has a greater possibility of being a boundary rooted in some kind of natural human relationship not reliant on phony consent as a justification. Since they don't default to a forcible hierarchy and instead can be based in something more natural such as original occupation combined with voluntary free trade..

Rob Roy · Apr 22, 2018

londonfog said:
have you been drinking ? Your writing is saying such.
anyhow
Four words
OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

I rarely drink anymore. Makes me forget where I hid the bodies.

I know what you are trying to say, it's what you're not saying or seeing that is causing you to contradict yourself and allow government speak to redefine the meaning of the word "owner" .

Your concept of what ownership is, asserts that nonowners of a given property (government) can set the terms of use of the property and not the "owner" themselves.

Which means you are saying two different things at once, that the owner is not really the owner and another entity actually determines the use of it. Which is a contradiction. The proper words in that relationship would be tenant and landlord.

Otherwise...

If a person really does own something and decides not to be open to the public, as in they've decided not to be interested in doing business with everybody for a variety of reasons of their own choosing, they couldn't possibly be "open to the public" , not of their own free will anyway, could they ?

So here are my 4 words. Which part do you disagree with?

Nobody owns other people.

Rob Roy · Apr 22, 2018

Space_cadet said:
What thefucking fuck see this why the world is the way it is everybody's aruguing about fucking dribble to do anything constructive.

Later this week I hope to begin constructing a new greenhouse and chicken coop. I hope the fuckingfuck rooster bangs the cluckingcluck hens and I get lots of baby chicks.

Which constructive things will you be working on?

Rob Roy · Apr 22, 2018

UncleBuck said:
then why have you spent years making thousands of posts trying to claim a non-existent right to kick black people out of stores based solely on their skin color?

Nobody has a right to use or threaten offensive force to compel another person to serve them. Nobody owns other people.

Everybody has a right to choose their own human associations and to evade offensive force or use defensive force to repel offensive force wielding people.

How people control their own property and their own body isn't up to me or you, it's up to them. Why are you a prohibitionist ? Why would you force a black guy to serve you against his will?

UncleBuck · Apr 22, 2018

Rob Roy said:
Nobody has a right to use or threaten offensive force to compel another person to serve them. Nobody owns other people.

Everybody has a right to choose their own human associations and to evade offensive force or use defensive force to repel offensive force wielding people.

How people control their own property and their own body isn't up to me or you, it's up to them. Why are you a prohibitionist ? Why would you force a black guy to serve you against his will?

you do not have a "right" to kick black people out of stores because of their skin color so stop spamming us with your shit

Rob Roy · Apr 22, 2018

UncleBuck said:
you do not have a "right" to kick black people out of stores because of their skin color so stop spamming us with your shit

So, I answered your questions and you can't / won't answer mine and instead you offer a conflating diversion to avoid the misery of me pummeling you again eh? Somehow this all feels familiar.

So, you're saying you DO have a right to force a black guy to serve you against his will? Would you use a gun to make him do it ?

Here this is for you...

UncleBuck · Apr 22, 2018

Rob Roy said:
So, I answered your questions and you can't / won't answer mine and instead you offer a conflating diversion to avoid the misery of me pummeling you again eh? Somehow this all feels familiar.

So, you're saying you DO have a right to force a black guy to serve you against his will? Would you use a gun to make him do it ?

Here this is for you...

View attachment 4125519

you do not have a "right" to kick black people out of stores because of their skin color so stop spamming us with your shit

none of your history revisionism will ever change this you racist cretin

Rob Roy · Apr 22, 2018

UncleBuck said:
you do not have a "right" to kick black people out of stores because of their skin color so stop spamming us with your shit

none of your history revisionism will ever change this you racist cretin

We agree that racists hold beliefs we wouldn't.

We don't agree on whether it's right to force people to serve us. I don't believe it's right. You do, and would force a black guy to serve you against his will.

UncleBuck · Apr 22, 2018

Rob Roy said:
We agree that racists hold beliefs we wouldn't.

We don't agree on whether it's right to force people to serve us. I don't believe it's right. You do, and would force a black guy to serve you against his will.

there is no such thing as being forced to serve someone against one's will because no one is forced to open a store that serves people you racist cretin

you do not have a "right" to kick black people out of stores because of their skin color so stop spamming us with your shit

londonfog · Apr 22, 2018

Rob Roy said:
I rarely drink anymore. Makes me forget where I hid the bodies.

I know what you are trying to say, it's what you're not saying or seeing that is causing you to contradict yourself and allow government speak to redefine the meaning of the word "owner" .

Your concept of what ownership is, asserts that nonowners of a given property (government) can set the terms of use of the property and not the "owner" themselves.

Which means you are saying two different things at once, that the owner is not really the owner and another entity actually determines the use of it. Which is a contradiction. The proper words in that relationship would be tenant and landlord.

Otherwise...

If a person really does own something and decides not to be open to the public, as in they've decided not to be interested in doing business with everybody for a variety of reasons of their own choosing, they couldn't possibly be "open to the public" , not of their own free will anyway, could they ?

So here are my 4 words. Which part do you disagree with?

Nobody owns other people.

If you decide to own a business and decide to run it Open To The Public you shall do as such
If you own a business you can also run it as not open to the general public. Why is that so hard for you to understand.
Just because you own something does not mean you don't have rules. I own guns, but if I don't follow the rules of a gun owner I will lose that right ( and rightly so ) You own a car does that mean you can drive on the side walk because it is your car ? You own your body, does that mean you can walk around butt ass naked in public ? We have rules in society, which helps us to be more civilized.
Hey if you still want to run your business like a racist or bigot you can still do so. Open it as a club membership, then you are not just open to the general public and get can still get your racist on....as long as your business is not breaking the law like serving drinks to underage children.

UncleBuck · Apr 22, 2018

londonfog said:
If you decide to own a business and decide to run it Open To The Public you shall do as such
If you own a business you can also run it as not open to the general public. Why is that so hard for you to understand.
Just because you own something does not mean you don't have rules. I own guns, but if I don't follow the rules of a gun owner I will lose that right ( and rightly so ) You own a car does that mean you can drive on the side walk because it is your car ? You own your body, does that mean you can walk around butt ass naked in public ? We have rules in society, which helps us to be more civilized.
Hey if you still want to run your business like a racist or bigot you can still do so. Open it as a club membership, then you are not just open to the general public and get can still get your racist on....as long as your business is not breaking the law like serving drinks to underage children.

if rob roy can't have sex with 11 year old boys on his own personal property, does he really even own it?

londonfog · Apr 22, 2018

UncleBuck said:
if rob roy can't have sex with 11 year old boys on his own personal property, does he really even own it?

according to Robbie the answer is no. He will ask " what is property and who owns it "

UncleBuck · Apr 22, 2018

londonfog said:
according to Robbie the answer is no. He will ask " what is property and who owns it "

this rob roy moore guy sounds like a pedophile if you ask me

londonfog · Apr 22, 2018

UncleBuck said:
this rob roy moore guy sounds like a pedophile if you ask me

If you defend pedophiles, does that make you a pedophile. Rob feels some 12 year olds are mature enough to have sex with an adult.

UncleBuck · Apr 22, 2018

londonfog said:
If you defend pedophiles, does that make you a pedophile. Rob feels some 12 year olds are mature enough to have sex with an adult.

i think rob roy moore has these pedophilic ideations because he listens to too much white music from pedophiles like kid rock and ted nugent

Rob Roy · Apr 22, 2018

londonfog said:
If you decide to own a business and decide to run it Open To The Public you shall do as such
If you own a business you can also run it as not open to the general public. Why is that so hard for you to understand.
Just because you own something does not mean you don't have rules. I own guns, but if I don't follow the rules of a gun owner I will lose that right ( and rightly so ) You own a car does that mean you can drive on the side walk because it is your car ? You own your body, does that mean you can walk around butt ass naked in public ? We have rules in society, which helps us to be more civilized.
Hey if you still want to run your business like a racist or bigot you can still do so. Open it as a club membership, then you are not just open to the general public and get can still get your racist on....as long as your business is not breaking the law like serving drinks to underage children.

In all of the poor examples you gave it was instances of people going off their property to do something you found objectionable. We're not talking about people going off their property, we're talking about people remaining on (their) private property.

Do you distinguish between your property and other peoples property ?

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

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member