White people, particularly men:
- Thread starter abandonconflict
- Start date
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Are you saying property doesn't exist unless government is present too?
My first question aside (above), you are still not addressing the issue of the persons (not the property) involved and the nature of and order of how the interaction takes place...
Your definition of neutral is in error. A person not seeking an interaction that is forced into an interaction by another person, is the neutral party. the person forcing the interaction is usually the aggressor.
Last edited:
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
So now you're going to follow me around demanding sensitive information. Get a life david, off my nuts please.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
When you put up a fence around an area and call it yours by threat of force, you're doing what governments do.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
We can argue what property is or isn't right after you define who can own it, what it is etc. I look forward to that.
However, even if property was what you say it is or isn't, you haven't addressed the point I made regarding the people involved.
You are advocating it is acceptable for some people to force other people to both serve them and make others engage in a forced association.
Your answer does not address that, you have failed to refute my assertion.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
No, when you do that and you do not exclude others from doing the same to other pieces of land or tax them etc. you are not doing what government does. Government insists all people in a given area belong to them, as well they insist they own all land that is unoccupied / unused / unowned by a private person in a given area, that is unnatural and not very nice.
Property owners, people, have to exist somewhere, therefore their existence somewhere is natural. Then the question moves to, who was their first? Does a persons existence somewhere, if they are the first person there, then confer some kind of ownership over the place they exist?
Also, you never addressed my previous post relating to some people forcing other people, regardless of anything to do with property / land.
Last edited:
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Oh of course, no need to reply to the same post twice (meltdown). To answer your questions for the millionth time, property is get a dictionary and who can own it is ask a lawyer.
Words have meanings, I wonder why you're so stuck on the notion that I meant something other than property when I said property.
You seem to get completely fixated on stuff, like when you get all jealous of my Veteran's disability.
Inb4 pedophilia is described as consensual.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
So are you going to admit that you advocate some people forcing others to use their body to serve them or will you just run to the absurd now?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Who is forced to have their private clubs made into advertised businesses with their wares available to the public?
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Wrote out a response, half way through realised that you wouldn't get it anyways so deleted it and left it at this.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Expand the question. All people that have either a private club or a pseudo private / public business are forced.
As far as the way you have framed the question, it misses the point. The point being, neither the private club owner or the pseudo private / public business owner are free from force as the coercive government insists they designate as one or the other.
Also you ignore my last question again just a couple of posts back. Can't answer it?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
What ever you do, don't fucking answer it though...
sheskunk
Well-Known Member
Are you going to meltdown again?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I think what really happened is that you were trying your best to type while sitting at the desk made for grown-ups and your tiny 4' 11" frame was straining and fatigued so you just gave up.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
All of them are forced. Do you deny that?
I'm sorry you are having a bad day too. You seem unable to participate in a discussion, and articulate your thoughts well. I'm thinking when you get stumped you flip the chess board over and shout incoherently. No need to get upset, son.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I think he's having one now.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
All private clubs are forced to have their wares available to the public and advertised. So there are no private clubs.
Just when you thought you heard it all, the cheetoh fingered, fedora wearing neckbeard who just finished reading The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand, strikes again.
Inb4 pedophilia is described as consensual again.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
When you insist that some people will interact with you under threat of force, backed by government, what are you doing then?
I think you will not answer that.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
No, the fact they are forced to define their property as a a private club, which is a form of seeking permission, means government permission must be part of the equation, therefore the existence of force is self evident. You are struggling and trying to redirect. That means you are losing.
Somehow I didn't think it would be this easy to own you today, I think I'll go smoke a heavy indica and see if I can dumb things down and help you out. I feel bad for you.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
What you keep ignoring is that government force is already involved by virtue of the fact that exclusive deed has been granted. You ignore this so that you can support racial discrimination as a peaceful act.
Then you send these loaded questions at me as if I deny that government force is the only way to get racist ass holes like you to stop discrimination against vulnerable minorities.