|
Who arms criminals with guns? Why, gun owners and gun sellers, of course. Nobody else.
|
|
|
|
|
Rassah,
You are woefully uneducated when it comes to the environment, ecology, the experts in the field, its purpose, or the far reaching consequences of failing to acknowledge its importance.
Sadly, you get your information from libertarian sources, which is a politically motivated movement about rights and taxes, not ecology or science.
I get my information about the environment and ecology from scientists.
Here's some advice: let science motivate your political ideals, as opposed to letting your political ideals motivate your views on science.
|
|
|
|
Above post pretty much decimates Rassah's reverence for a timber company in Chile.
Really? Because that company establishing itself in Chille, away from any endangered species, and figuring out how to continue logging on an ever DEcreasing plot of land at an ever INcreasing rate is doing an excellent job at protecting your spotted owls, by making sure less and less logging is needed elsewhere in the world. There's no need to go after those owl's homes, and risk bad publicity for your company, when you work on increasing and optimizing your profits elsewhere. Also, seriously, what incentives do you believe regulators have to keep that spotted owl safe? What will happen to the politicians if they remove it from the list of endangered species? What will happen to a regulator if he/she overlooks some company's logging activity? As I understand it, it's "not much" in both cases. Worst case, they lose their job and have to go work elsewhere. On the other hand, someone who actually owns the land will be help personally responsible if they do something that harms those spotted owls. Remember, government laws and regulations are ( supposed to be) the reflection of the will of the people living in a society. It's not some wishes conjured up by the regulators themselves. So if someone starts to own the land those spotted owls reside on, the will of the people to protect those owls isn't going to just magically disappear. They will continue to have just as much interest in keeping those spotted owls safe. Now, how can they enforce that forest owner's respect for those spotted owls is another issue, and I think there are way better methods of doing this than regulations no one is personally responsible for enforcing. Chille is a commune in the Jura department in Franche-Comté in eastern France. It's Chile, not Chille. Anyway, you keep mentioning the spotted owl. Do you know why there is a big deal in preserving the spotted owl? And on another point: you keep saying that taxes go to waste in such matters as the type we're discussing. That is woefully incorrect on your part and crumbs touched on it. Taxes pay for experts to study such cases, but apparently not enough to compete with the lawyers hired by private industry. The last thing we want is less taxes to hire less competent experts. I'll tell you absolutely what we want less of. We want less money from Exxon/Mobil funding a property rights lawyer masquerading as an expert on climate science publishing a libertarian rag known as Environment & Climate News from the libertarian think tank Heartland Institute, which contains propaganda generated by a few lone cowboy sellout scientists to the oil companies. The true enemy on these matters are the deliberate liars whom hold the same views you do on taxes and government. |
|
|
|
|
Above post pretty much decimates Rassah's reverence for a timber company in Chile.
|
|
|
|
I can't expect you to do your own readin', so i plucked this out for you  ..."I do not believe that land is private property, to be bought, sold or leased." (yes/no)
Corollary: "A tenant farmer owns his landlord nothing -- his landlord can not charge rent for something he has not built & can not own." (yes/no)[/b]
... Yes. Yes. Yes. Yessssss. Oui. Ci. Is that strong enough for you? ...I think a person has a legitimate claim to the things that he builds ontop of land, and so while he doesnt own the land per se, he does own the right to restrict other people from putting their wrecking balls in the place that his house is located with out his permission. ... You are conflating the idea of private property ownership and land ownership. You are trying to make it seem as if they are the same thing when they are totally different things. you can have a world with private property that doesnt have private land ownership.. if you go out into land that is in a state of nature and you plant a crop, you dont own the land you own the crop. do you understand? You can have it so that if you dont plant a crop there next year it is no longer yours, while still having it so that the person who planted the crop has the right to prevent people from lighting it on fire, and the right to trade the produce with his neighbor. so incase you didnt figure it out. if the world worked the way i outlined above, farmers would never pay rent to land lords for the land that they farm. This is just such idiocy (what anon is saying), that it becomes impossible to have a discussion with these people. If he were willing to educate himself on things he knows nothing about, then it might be worthwhile, but he refuses to believe he needs to know more about land usage. Changing an ecosystem is a serious matter. It has far reaching consequences, related to water quality, biodiversity, erosion, general ecosystem resources, etc. I pointed out to him a post I wrote a long time ago, but he just closes his ears. I'll just repeat the post here, for the lazy, such as Anon: To begin with, many species do not reproduce well in captivity. It took 112 years to yield a successful Sumatran rhino calf. Furthermore, poachers are simply not likely to expend such efforts, even if sanctioned, as it's much more profitable to simply poach, i.e. go out into the wild and kill. One need only look at the case of shark fins to understand the cost dynamics. Secondly, you are failing to acknowledge the public backlash in breeding megafauna for the cruel purpose of maiming (or in the case of pelts) killing the animal. Before we go on, let's enumerate some well known cases of poaching: - Gorillas for bushmeat - Elephants for ivory - Sumatran rhino for their horns - Sharks for shark fins - Tigers (and other big cats) for their pelts Cattle are not killed for their horns or hooves alone. Cattle is an industry, and it does not analogize well. Most of the public accept the cattle industry. Most of the public do not accept killing animals which are endangered for specific parts, usually decorative. All of a cattle's parts are used when killed. This includes muscle tissue, organs, bones, hides and hooves. As an example, did you know that gummy bears are made from cow hooves? I can sense that at this point, you might feel poised to counter some of the points I've made, and if you took one or two individually, you might feel that you'd have a case. But we haven't even begun, as I haven't yet shared with you what the real reason is for why I declared your statement to be based on false assumptions. So let's begin. Some of the following material is derived from posts I have written in the past, but I think it will have greater effect if I merge it together here with a few edits and additions. Please read it through thoroughly. Ever heard of the Spotted Owl and the controversy surrounding it? What was all that about? The Spotted Owl is a top level predator in the northwest. It was declared an umbrella species (otherwise known as a keystone or flagship species), and listed as endangered. The timber industry had an issue with this. Here's why. The purpose of listing the Spotted Owl as an umbrella species was because in order to preserve the Spotted Owl population, the old growth forests in the northwest would have to be preserved as well. That meant the timber industry would not be allowed to harvest existing old growth forests. Why are old growth forests important? Because they offer what are called ecosystem services. Secondary growth forests do not offer all those ecosystem services, nor at the same level that the old growth forests do. And that's it in a nutshell. It has been demonstrated that the Spotted Owl can live in secondary growth forests, but it cannot viably breed in secondary growth forests. Thus, species such as the Spotted Owl are declared umbrella species to act as a protective umbrella for their respective environments as a way to protect those environments in perpetuity, because once they're all gone, the possibility of regaining all those ecosystem services that those ecosystems provide is pretty much nil. Biodiversity, it's very definition, implies diversity, which arises from the existence of thousands, tens of thousands of species within any given ecosystem. This then results in the ecosystem being able to provide its services, known collectively as ecosystem services. The goal is to protect biodiversity by protecting ecosystems. A general technique for doing so is to declare a top level species within its respective ecosystem as endangered (because it is endangered or will become extinct if its ecosystem is destroyed) as an umbrella species. The ecosystem is then preserved under the umbrella of the umbrella species. This protects biodiversity. Myrkul provided an example of relocating the Scimitar Oryx to a Texan hunting preserve as an example of species preservation, but it is not a case of protecting biodiversity. As long as we don't disrupt natural ecosystems, they will provide everything listed below: - Freshwater supply and flood control - Generation and maintenance of soils - Ocean flood protection - Natural pest control - Amelioration of the weather - The cycling of nutrients - Pollination of plants The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, published in 2005, breaks it down like this: Supporting Services:- Nutrient cycling - Soil formation - Primary production - Preservation of genetic resources Regulating services: - Climate amelioration - Flood control - Agricultural pest control - Water purification Provisioning services:- Food - Timber and fiber - Fresh water - Fuel Cultural services:- Esthetic - Spiritual - Educational - Recreational Other disruptive effects to the ecosystem services enumerated above include harvesting resources (collateral damage), toxic waste, atmospheric pollution, garbage waste, over harvesting (fish), pesticides, noise, etc. What disrupts the above? Reduction in the number of top level predators. Top level predators, such as raptors, wolves, cats, etc. regulate the ecosystem by preventing overgrazing of vegetation, which plays a role in providing habitat to the smaller organisms, all the way down to the microscopic level, which in turn plays a role in nutrient cycling, water purification, soil formation, etc. In other words, top level predators ultimately affect the health of the entire ecosystem. This process, where top level species affect the environment as a cascading effect are known collectively as trophic cascades. As an example, let's examine the case of wolves. Numerous species of wolves were eradicated in the twentieth century (by cattle ranchers, incidentally). As it turns out, it was determined that they played a role within the dynamics of the ecosystems. Their elimination resulted in a deleterious effect on the ecosystem services, due to the removal of a trophic cascade effect. When in the presence of wolves, ungulates generally do not browse in riparian zones. Riparian zones are the areas of rich vegetation along the banks of streams, creeks and rivers. The reason ungulates do not browse in such areas when wolves are present is because their escape route is hindered by the slopes of the river bank, the body of water itself, and the denser vegetation. When wolves are removed, ungulates in general decimate the vegetation in these riparian zones, which in turn results in habitat loss for numerous species, typically beginning with rodents, and cascading all the way down to the microscopic level, where numerous species exist within the soil. This loss of habitat within the riparian zones results in a huge loss of ecosystem services, including nutrient cycling, soil formation, flood control and water purification Edge effects are another disrupting process to ecosystems and the ecosystem services they provide. Typically, property ownership is the cause. The fracturing of an ecosystem disrupts its viability, by inhibiting migration, reducing territorial area needed by top level predators (see above), and this ultimately reduces biodiversity, which reduces genetic information, a resource required for medicine, material science, engineering, computer science, etc. Edge effects are a direct result of ecosystem fracturing, which will be defined and discussed. There is a whole cascade of effects and interrelated issues that apply here. They are: - The importance of wildlife corridors - The dangers of ignorance - Exploitation via corporations - Lack of regulation - Solutions via private enterprise - Habitat loss - Information loss - Bioproductivity loss - Natural capital - Water quality - Trophic cascades - Policies The list goes on. And on. The whole substrate upon which humanity, society, and life depend on begin in the soil and water (essentially our planet), as nourished by the incoming sunlight from above. Here's a thought for you: the very complex systems which naturally occur within the soil and above the soil define everything we have to support ourselves and they define everything we have available to educate ourselves (outside cosmology and related fields). There is more going on here than you think. Humanity thus far has been built from those systems, but humanity itself is also depleting, fracturing (and thus destroying) the very systems which allowed it to come this far. Edge effects: What are they? Imagine a parcel of land that is fairly large and of a particular shape, mostly undisturbed. Let's say it's unspoiled rainforest. We'll begin with a circle 100 miles in diameter. The circle: A circle 100 miles in diameter has an edge that is 314 miles long. It's area is a little more than 7,500 miles. The ratio of area/edge is 7,500/314 which equals about 24. The fractal shape: A fractal shape with an area of 7,500 miles but with a ragged edge that is 1,000 miles long has a ratio of area/edge of 7,500/1,000 which equals 7.5. Among the two shapes described above, each say being a rainforest ecosystem, the circle will generally be healthier and more viable. What does this mean? The circle, will in general, be richer in all of the following: - Number of species - Lower extinction rate - More nutrients within the soil - Lesser vulnerability to drought, heat, cold, etc. - More information, complexity and potential knowledge to be discovered within - Greater productivity within: (i.e ability to nourish, support and grow) - Ability to support larger fauna A circle was used above as an example. One could just as easily substitute a square instead and get similar results. Therefore, consider a square 100 miles on a side. It has a ratio of area/edge of 10,000/400 which equals 25. Assuming that square contains rainforest (but it could just as easily be another type of ecosystem), let's now fracture it. We'll turn it into a checkerboard of 64 black and white squares. Black are rainforest squares. White are squares burned to remove the trees, and then tilled for agriculture. Our total area of rainforest within the checkerboard is now half what it was. The original square contained 10,000 square miles of rainforest. It now contains 5,000 square miles of rainforest. But look at the change in rainforest edges. The original square had only 400 miles of rainforest edge. The checkerboard has 1,600 miles of rainforest edge. And so we can get a sense of the difference between these two extents of land. Recall that the unspoiled square had 10,000 square miles of rainforest and total edges measuring 400 miles with a ratio of 25. Look at the ratio of the fractured checkerboard to get a sense of how less rich its potential is. It's ratio is 5,000/1,600 which equals 3.125. Compare the two numbers: 25 vs. 3.125. What are some cases which cause edge effects? Repurposing of land: Examples include agriculture, urban and suburban sprawl, etc. Clearcutting: Clearcutting by the timber industry creates edge effects. Make no mistake about it - the ecosystem has been changed, and replanting of trees will not revert the area back to the original ecosystem in a period equal to the time it takes for the newly planted trees to mature. The original forest was an old growth forest, and when the newly planted trees finally mature, the resulting forest will be a secondary growth forest, which does not provide the same environment as the original old growth forest. Roads: Going back to the circle example, if a road is placed through the center, then an edge effect is created. Depending on the type of road and how busy it is, the effect is dramatic. Essentially, you end up with two areas, each half the area of the original circle, and each area having an edge length not much less than the original circle. This is one of the reasons (among many) why there is such opposition to the idea of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It's not just the idea of potential damage from oil spills (which is real), but the road systems which would need to be built to access the enterprise. Fences: Land left in its natural state, but fenced, also creates an edge effect. A very damaging example would be the fence proposed along the U.S./Mexico border by certain politicians. That's a start. Let me know when you want more, as there is plenty more... |
|
|
|
Why do you believe it is your right to have absolute dominion over the land you just purchased?
Because I negotiated for its trade, gave up something of mine that I have spent a lot of time and labor on, and was the one who purchased it? You negotiated for its trade? What does that mean? You traded money for what exactly? Certainly not absolute dominion over the land being purchased. Tell me, did the owner you bought it from have absolute dominion over it prior to him selling it to you? I suspect not. So, how exactly did he sell to you what he never had? Or are you just gullible? Absolute dominion only exists by having the power to back it up. Did the owner sell you his reputation and standing army as well? I don't think so. Because, as long as whatever I'm doing on it doesn't affect my neighbors, it's none of my neighbors' business regarding what I do with it?
Most people don't know what the fuck they're doing on their land. In prior conversations I've had with you, it's clear your understanding of land usage, preservation, and conservation is quite a few notches below mine. Best you just adhere to some basic regulations. Because I am actually involved with purchasing, and later maintaining that land? A better question is, why do you believe people who come together and call themselves "government" should have absolute dominion over my land, even when they have nothing to do with it? Why does the Queen of England have absolute dominion over a large chunk of land on the other side of the planet, just because a sailor stuck a flag on its beach? Why can I claim absolute dominion over your land just by being hired to work for the government?
They were there before you, for one thing. And, as I pointed out a few sentences ago, they can and do back it up with force. The Queen of England lost in that department, but it took a revolution, which is decidedly a bit more than Rassah's bitcoin forum complaints. Let's back up a bit and see where you've gone wrong. You might say, "I purchased the land, and therefore own it." Where you're going wrong is in the usage of the word "own". To you, it means absolute dominion, as if you just purchased a Barbie doll. Just because the same word is used, does not mean the same type of transaction occurred. You must think about that.
I gave up something of value in exchange for something else of value. Why does it matter if that something of value is land or a doll? Why doesn't government claim absolute dominion over Barbie dolls, and charge property tax on those? You'll have to explain to me why land property is different from doll property. Because Barbie dolls are not a resource worth controlling or preserving. If you bought a condo, do you own what's inside the interior walls of the condo? No, you don't. Another entity does. It works in layers. Same with land ownership within a preexisting nation. Why is it this way with condo ownership? Why is it this way with land ownership? The reasons are pretty simple. To maintain and preserve the quality of the property in such a way that the product as a whole (the sum of all condos in the development, or the sum of all property within the nation) remains viable.
The entity that owns what's inside the walls actually built what was inside the walls. They spent their own time and labor on it. At the same time, they don't own and have no right to control what's actually between those walls. There are some basic rules against doing things that will damage those walls and what's inside, but just because the inside of the walls belong to someone else, doesn't mean that someone else can dictate to me what I do with my money, my body, and the stuff residing inside my apartment. It's that thing I mentioned where your landlord can't force you to pay for someone else's health insurance or pool, remember? We already addressed this. Why do you keep erroneously thinking a landlord isn't forcing you to pay for their own healthcare? Do you have some contract that stipulates that the rent money you pay must go 100 percent back into building maintenance? They are in it for profit, and do indeed use those profits to buy whatever the fuck they want, such as dinners, automobiles, health insurance, or pools for their own home. So, with land ownership, I'm fine with government claiming what's above my land, below my land, and around my land, just like your inside of walls example, but they shouldn't be able to claim ownership of the land itself or what's on it. Even their claim of land ownership is specious, since they didn't actually do anything to build our create it. Even more so, they shouldn't be able to claim ownership to my body and to my time, labor, and money, as they do with restrictions on what I can do on my own property, how I spend my money, and taxation.
Do we define "above your land" as one centimeter above the topsoil? Do we define "below your land" as one centimeter below the ground surface? If so, you're left with less rights than have actually been granted you. It seems you just admitted that you're "fine with government" (your own words) making claims, without specifying the details. Now you've gone and admitted that there are details, and you're fine with them. As for them not doing anything to build or create it, what exactly do you call surveys, inventories, mapping, land usage doctrine, road building, border defense, etc? I know they do, and I know they are able to get away with it. My point is that they shouldn't. Partly because it's not ethical, not any more than the earlier bully and jungle gym example, and partially because such power apparently always leads to extreme corruption without a possible fix.
Why is it not ethical? How is it less ethical than a landlord telling you to pay up so he can go spend your rent money on luxuries? |
|
|
|
Yes, of course I know that there are third parties involved. That's why I am asking about those third parties. Questions like "where does the private transaction between myself and the prior owner of the property accords the government some special rights to butt in and say, 'I have ownership too!'" I'm not asking how things are in this world, I'm asking why are they like that, why do people think they are ethical and just when they are seemingly not, and what can we do to change them. If your answer is that they are ethical and just, and that nothing should change, then you have nothing to add to the discussion, and we're done.
Why do you believe it is your right to have absolute dominion over the land you just purchased? Let's back up a bit and see where you've gone wrong. You might say, "I purchased the land, and therefore own it." Where you're going wrong is in the usage of the word "own". To you, it means absolute dominion, as if you just purchased a Barbie doll. Just because the same word is used, does not mean the same type of transaction occurred. You must think about that. If you bought a condo, do you own what's inside the interior walls of the condo? No, you don't. Another entity does. It works in layers. Same with land ownership within a preexisting nation. Why is it this way with condo ownership? Why is it this way with land ownership? The reasons are pretty simple. To maintain and preserve the quality of the property in such a way that the product as a whole (the sum of all condos in the development, or the sum of all property within the nation) remains viable. |
|
|
|
he is a troll, and a lousy one at that, however, is entirely his fault.
i dont think hes a troll. hes vastly more intellectually honest than firstassent. now that's a troll. Strange. From my point of view, I've found FirstAscent to be honest, but just really dumb. Funny - everything you've posted here recently smacks of dumbness. For example, your naive assumptions that property transfer of land from one owner to you (recorded by a government institution) accords you the up until transfer nonexistent rights that should somehow materialize upon the transfer. Please point out where it is stated that your purchase of land from the prior owner accords you these rights you so vehemently believe in. If you want to call me dumb, then let's have at it. The onus is on you to show where the extra rights come from. The only rights I care about are the previous owner's legitimate claim to the property he is selling to me, and his willing to give up that claim to me in some provable manner, such as with a signed document. By the way, it doesn't matter if this document is recorded by a government institution, some private institution, or just something that only he and i have that we signed with our PGP keys. From that point on, it's up to me to secure my property, either by showing proof that the previous owner has given it to me, or if need be by secure doors and walls, or by force. Please point out where the private transaction between myself and the prior owner of the property accords the government some special rights to butt in and say, "I have ownership too!" [/quote] I already explained it in the island example in a prior post in this thread. You are the one adding in your fantasies to the realities of this world. Your notion that "ownership of land" means sovereignty is just that, a fantasy. I can't imagine how it is that you believe that an agreement between you and the prior owner means what you think it does within the context of this world. There are other parties involved, and you and the prior owner know it. Perhaps on the terminator of planet Mercury, you and others can enact your fantasy precisely because there would not be other parties involved. Ultimately, your views are a product of your inability to acknowledge the existence of already existing third parties (or a singular third party). Again, my island analogy serves as an example, where I illustrated this rather clearly. |
|
|
|
when i was a kid my dad showed me a tape of a movie called the doberman gang i immediately loved it just recently i purchased the dvd set with the first and second doberman gang movie but ive been unable get the amazing dobermans they have it on vhs on amazon i suppose i could buy it but i havent owned a vhs in since the 90s lol http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074130/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2On the first page, I listed a couple of films. Among the first ten, which ones might you be inclined to watch? |
|
|
|
|
The last movie I saw, which wasn't a movie which I have seen before was The Life of Oharu, largely considered to be Kenji Mizoguchi's third masterpiece. Like his other two, Sansho the Bailiff and Ugetsu, it starred Kinuyo Tanaka.
And, as I'm sure you're all aware of, all three of these films won major awards at the Venice Film Festival three years in a row.
|
|
|
|
he is a troll, and a lousy one at that, however, is entirely his fault.
i dont think hes a troll. hes vastly more intellectually honest than firstassent. now that's a troll. Strange. From my point of view, I've found FirstAscent to be honest, but just really dumb. [/quote] Funny - everything you've posted here recently smacks of dumbness. For example, your naive assumptions that property transfer of land from one owner to you (recorded by a government institution) accords you the up until transfer nonexistent rights that should somehow materialize upon the transfer. Please point out where it is stated that your purchase of land from the prior owner accords you these rights you so vehemently believe in. If you want to call me dumb, then let's have at it. |
|
|
|
What would you like to know? (limit: one thing. No cheating)
Why can't you write coherent sentences? He's an ex-Soviet, communist immigrant who's native tongue is Russian, who grew up in the severely brainwashing propagandist statist socialist state, where the concept of "property" and "good work" hasn't existed for almost a century. It's all "why should I do it, when someone else can do it for me" over there. Not entirely his fault. That he is a troll, and a lousy one at that, however, is entirely his fault. i dont think hes a troll. hes vastly more intellectually honest than firstassent. now that's a troll. Please point to any intellectually dishonest material I have posted. I challenge you to. At best you'll find that your own interpretation of what I have posted leads you to believe that I'm intellectually dishonest because of your own preconceived biases (and lack of knowledge in certain domains). You've been challenged. Put up or shut up. |
|
|
|
...
To me forced funding is one of the defining characteristics of government. The moment it becomes voluntary it becomes a mutual aid society or an insurance company or a security firm or something, just not a government.
You own an apartment (again). You complain about the mandatory building maintenance. You call it "government," 'coz it's not voluntary. Is it government? Does your landlord force you to pay for building maintenance, local school (despite you not having kids), medical insurance, local libraries, roads that aren't on the building's property that you never use, insurance for elderly who don't live in your apartment, and a slew of other services that have absolutely nothing to do with your apartment nor things you actually receive? Or does your landlord force you to pay for only the specific services that have to do with the apartment you live in, all of which affect you directly? If building maintenance has to do with the property you reside on, services you receive, and is something you are buying directly, it's not government. If building maintenance includes things that have nothing to do with what you want, need, or actually receive directly, it's government. Same question to you. You are thirsty and need to buy a bottle of water. You complain about the store clerk forcing you to pay for that bottle of water, which you have to buy, because there isn't any other water around (let's say you're stranded somewhere). Is it government? Actually, let me take another stab at your question. The landlord sure as fuck does charge me for stuff I don't need or want, and I have no choice. They choose the improvements, the carpet, when the place is painted, what kind of paint, what the appliances are, etc. Furthermore, they give me no breakdown of where my rent money goes. In fact, the rent money goes to buy them dinners, make their auto payments, etc. In other words, they turn a profit on the rent money and spend it in ways both unknown to me on things which benefit me in no way at all. Does that answer your question? |
|
|
|
...
To me forced funding is one of the defining characteristics of government. The moment it becomes voluntary it becomes a mutual aid society or an insurance company or a security firm or something, just not a government.
You own an apartment (again). You complain about the mandatory building maintenance. You call it "government," 'coz it's not voluntary. Is it government? Does your landlord force you to pay for building maintenance, local school (despite you not having kids), medical insurance, local libraries, roads that aren't on the building's property that you never use, insurance for elderly who don't live in your apartment, and a slew of other services that have absolutely nothing to do with your apartment nor things you actually receive? Or does your landlord force you to pay for only the specific services that have to do with the apartment you live in, all of which affect you directly? If building maintenance has to do with the property you reside on, services you receive, and is something you are buying directly, it's not government. If building maintenance includes things that have nothing to do with what you want, need, or actually receive directly, it's government. The Home Owner's Association does indeed charge for things that many people don't use, like swimming pools, etc. |
|
|
|
So, just to confirm, do we all agree that we essentially live in a communist world where the government owns everything, even if you buy that thing from someone else claiming to own it, and that you statists believe it's perfectly OK for government to own everything and everyone, including the money you earn, just so you can feel safe?
Cause that's the sense I get from talking to you guys, and frankly, it's quite upsetting. Especially the part about you wanting to use violence to make sure that none of us who wants freedom tries to attain it.
Just to confirm, you voluntarily chose to move to the U.S., correct? Incorrect. I was 10 at the time, and wanted to stay in Italy. Ahhh. I understand. |
|
|
|
|
Furthermore, I addressed your question.
|
|
|
|
as much as all of the other comments have frustrated me this one pleases me proportionately libertarians (of which i count my self) often try to oversimplify property systems into basic universal axioms and pretend as if these axioms interpret themselves and draw neat boxes around every conceivable right related to a given piece of property. I try not to fall into this trap. All property systems related to land use are going to be maddeningly complex, even those predicated on overly simplified axioms. we would need legal professionals to sort out the fine detail on precisely where rights begin and end just like we have an entire industry currently dedicated to determining exactly what sorts of circumstances allow people to sue each other. We need to hire professionals for this for the same reason that you hire a doctor to give you medical advise instead of giving yourself medical advise. In other words, "It's real complicated, don't worry about it... Real smart people will hash out the details." You then use the doctor/medical advice analogy to drive the point home. All analogies fall short, but the "call the doc for medical advice" fails from the gitgo. I'm generous to a fault, i'll FTFY: A girl walks into Anoncare clinic, complaining of migraines. Anon, with an air of self-assuredness, tells her: "Let's cut off your head, put it on a shelf until it's all better, and, once the problem's solved, we'll put it back on." The girl, not entirely convinced of the cure's plausibility or eventual outcome, asks Anon to further elucidate the procedure. Nonplussed, Anon replies: "Sweetheart, it's all very scientific and complicated! I pride myself on not bothering with all the busy details -- i leave those up to the doctors who know what they're doing. I suggest you do the same."I mean if you build a house do i have the right to vibrate the air on your property? inotherwords can i listen to music in my house which happens to cause atleast some amount of vibration of the air in your house. well most of us would say yes we can vibrate it some but not too much. You cant use any libertarian axiom to paint a clear box around how much is too much. and thats just one of a zillion possable questions as relating to conflicts of property rights. there is no way around having an industry that is specialized in solving these problems.
You'd be surprised how much of your question is answered, to the decibel & minute of the day, in legal code. Saying the problems will be worked out by clever folks who do that sort of thing is no better than saying "my business plan is to succeed & make money" -- only of value to those still amused by the "got your nose!" trick. So wait. Since i dont have every answer to every conceivable question relating to the best trade off between every conceivable conflict of rights my arguments are invalid? It's not that your argument is invalid, there's simply no argument there. You stated what you would like to happen, and left the rest to smart people & imagination. Let me make an analogy: I would like to live in lollipop forest & mary Tinkerbell. Show me my "argument" is invalid I'm sorry but i disagree because while i cant answer all of these questions directly (im not a god) i can tell you about a process for returning answers that can be expected to improve with time. If we had a market in the provision of law than we could expect that service to improve with time for reasons similar to why computers get smaller and faster every year.
I see what you mean, but i'm sticking with my lollipop forest & hawt Tinkerbell "argument." i have a general idea about what i think is right and wrong and i know other people who have the same general ideas that i have. we will have some miner disagreements on the specifics but i believe that we will be able to employ specialists to help resolve these disputes over the details so long as most of us agree on the over arching concepts. We would use shared idiology to paint in broad brush strokes what we would like our society to look like, and then create a market in law to draw sharper specifically where regrettable and unavoidable trade offs in rights should take place. and hey I'm very open to the possibility that the whole idea is a "lollipop forest & hawt Tinkerbell"fest. I will be the first to admit that i might be totally wrong, i dont care, im personally willing to take that risk and im personally willing to accept the consequences of being wrong to the point of my own demise if it comes to that and I dont ask you to join me. All i ask is that you support my right to be free, including the freedom to make what you believe are mistakes so long as im not hurting anyone. and also i want to point out that you were right, i hadnt up until that point made a real argument for how i thought society should function. i was previously just discussing my personal opinions on what constitutes legitimate acquisition. ok so you still probably want more detail on the techical specifics of how a market in law could work. which i will be happy to provide if you are interested but im going to let you digest this first. I have absolutely nothing against getting rid of oppressive laws, government thuggery and land ownership. I think most folks would like that, they just can't quite work out how to go about it. If you get something good going, i'll even donate my horn of plenty & the 3-stroke perpetual motion engine to your project For some reason, i still like Tinkerbell (sans that whole ridiculous possy -- eww!) better, but your idea is nice too -- closer to my lollipop forest than what some of the local libers might like, but that's a good thing awesome! the only thing stopping me from doing this is the fact that the government would murder me if i tried it. so my immediate goal, and one of the goals of this conversation, is to convince people, such as yourself, to be of a state of mind that would lead you, and others, to become sufficiently outraged by the news of my demise at the hands of the state over this matter, so as to make it politically untenable for the government to murder me in the event that i should attempt this. wow sorry that sentence was a mouthful and could probably benefit from that linguistics lesson we talked about earlier.  Did you read the post I linked to, and then factor in the depths I went to in that post, and the consequences of traipsing off into the wilderness to do your thing? Maybe your traipsing in of itself is no big deal, but collectively, is not such a good thing. rofl i see your post now. it reminds me why i blocked you and makes me call into question my choice to reveal a few of your comments in this thread. I know you arnt as stupid as this comment would have people believe. so lets get this on the record. now im going to try to take out as many variables as possible so that no ones thought will be clouded. lets say my friends and i go out into the middle of no where and build ourselves some log cabins to live in. lets say that land is a national park. lets say that it is illegal to build a house on a national park. lets say that we went through EVERY proper channel to attempt to get permission to build our houses but were denied. lets say that we ad hear to every other regulation (bear cans, pouring water on our camp fires, w/e). lets say that we practice sustainable techniques when harvesting our timber. we select it from different areas spaced out and we plant 4 new trees for every one we harvest. do you condone the state murdering and or kidnapping us at gun point over this? its a yes or no question. if you still dont feel ok with a yes or no we can revise the premise to fix what you see as any holes or ambiguities. the national parks are my land (yours too), and as such, if you trespass If I trespass on my land? you do understand the concept of a paradox dont you? We both own the land, and we have regulations regarding it. Do you understand why your actions are undesirable for the rest of us? Do you understand the whole 'tree' thing, and how replanting is not a substitute? Do you understand how if you can do it, then everyone else can, and what is then left is a reduction in ecosystem services? Do you understand the ecological ramifications, among others? You have demonstrated that you do not. You can reverse that situation, though. This is why i cant talk to you. you are SO intellectually dishonest that you will not even admit that you made a mistake when i point out a paradox so blatant so simple so obvious as "trespassing on ones own land". im sorry but i just cant do this. i dont ignore people just for being pig headed staists, i haven't yet ignored crumbs or blablabla or a dozen other people, but i will not tolerate your level of dishonesty. im not expanding any more of your messages, ever. So your argument is based on that, rather than facts and knowledge? |
|
|
|
...so lets get this on the record. now im going to try to take out as many variables as possible so that no ones thought will be clouded. lets say my friends and i go out into the middle of no where and build ourselves some log cabins to live in. lets say that land is a national park. lets say that it is illegal to build a house on a national park. lets say that we went through EVERY proper channel to attempt to get permission to build our houses but were denied. lets say that we ad hear to every other regulation (bear cans, pouring water on our camp fires, w/e). lets say that we practice sustainable techniques when harvesting our timber. we select it from different areas spaced out and we plant 4 new trees for every one we harvest.
do you condone the state murdering and or kidnapping us at gun point over this? its a yes or no question. if you still dont feel ok with a yes or no we can revise the premise to fix what you see as any holes or ambiguities.
You're starting with a faulty premise. The statist thug you're likely to encounter first would be an unarmed forest ranger, who'll tell you that building of log cabins is not allowed, because it shits up the park. He'll most likely simply ask you to "GTFO by the same time, next day." If you choose to disobey & escalate this Yogi Bear encounter, a slightly more serious looking crew will show up the next day, and, if you resist, might tase you, bro. And then zip-lock you and give you a ride into town. Guns won't enter the picture unless you convincingly try to use a weapon first -- no one's got time for all that. ok ill accept that. lets revise the premise and replace the word gun with tazer. In that case the drama's all gone. Too petty for the media to even pick it up. Just another vagrant booted from a state park. And even that you had to work at -- remember, at first you were politely asked to leave. *Not* newsworthy. No different from a bum who refused to move his cardboard box.  In short, takes too long, too boring, you're seen as a vagrant who resorted to violence when confronted by Ordinary Joe park rangers. Some of us disagree that the drama is all gone at this point. some of us think that it is very bad for people to attack people who are causing no harm with electrocution devises and then lock them away in a homosexual rape dungeon. some of us feel that this is very dramatic, some of us feel that this behavior would be morally reprehensible. I would like for more people to feel this way. But you're missing my point. No one will attack you unless you willfully instigate it. Please understand that. No one will taze you for camping in a park, or even for trying to build a cabin there. You will simply be asked to stop. Force will be used if you fail to comply, doing it in a way which prevents the statist thug from performing his duties, or putting him in danger. I'm not nitpicking, there's a night & day difference: You jaywalk, and a cop tries to stop you. You feel that jaywalking is your god-given right, which you proceed to defend by sticking out the middle finger of your left hand, while puling out a Glock from your vest pocket with your right & leveling it at the cop. The cop beats you to the draw & drops you. Please understand that you weren't shot for jaywalking, you were shot for resisting arrest & pulling a gun. Would you try to argue that it was your jaywalking that led up to you getting shot? Sure, it set the chain of events in motion *but it's what you chose to do then (you could have chosen differently)* that resulted in a shooting. Imagine there is a big tough kid on the playground. I attempt to play on the jungle jim. He says "oi this is my jungle jim i was here first". I say "but its big enough for both of us". He says "no it isn't". I say "well im going to play on it anyway". He says "ok but if you do I'm going to hurt you". I play on it anyway. He hurts me. Now you chime in and say "You instigated the fight by trying to play on the jungle gym when he specifically told you not to". you see whats wrong with this right? the one thing that could make the bully not the instigator of the fight is if he is the rightful owner of the jungle gym. is the state the rightful owner of land that is so remote that it has never even been seen by human eyes? You're just naive, man. You have no idea about what goes into conservation, studies, mapping, land management, land usage studies, species counts, predator/prey studies, water table studies, ecosystem services management, trail usage, etc. But with all that said, there is nothing more valuable than untouched wilderness. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
