American-liberals, socialists and statists, what is your idea of liberty?

[NghtRppr]

And Native Americans owned that land before anyone in your family 20+ generations removed even knew it existed.

Actually no, there weren't any Indians living on this land when my ancestors settled it.

The only reason you own that land is because the US government says you own it.

Keep drinking that Kool-Aid.

[1714914815]

1714914815

[1714914815]

1714914815

[1714914815]

1714914815

[AyeYo]

Keep drinking that Kool-Aid.

Ah, guess you have no real response to that one.

Just remember, natives the world over "owned" their land too... until they didn't.

[NghtRppr]

Just remember, natives the world over "owned" their land too... until they didn't.

If they can prove any theft they should have their land returned to them as well as paid restitution.

[AyeYo]

Just remember, natives the world over "owned" their land too... until they didn't.

If they can prove any theft they should have their land returned to them as well as paid restitution.

Well of course they should, but without any powerful government to back them up it's a lost cause.  The only think keeping me from taking your land right now is the fact that the US government is guaranteeing your ownership of it and the US government happens to have more firepower than I do.

[NghtRppr]

The only think keeping me from taking your land right now is the fact that the US government is guaranteeing your ownership of it and the US government happens to have more firepower than I do.

I bet I have more firepower than you do too.

[AyeYo]

The only think keeping me from taking your land right now is the fact that the US government is guaranteeing your ownership of it and the US government happens to have more firepower than I do.

I bet I have more firepower than you do too.

Thank you for implicitly agreeing with my point.

[NghtRppr]

The only think keeping me from taking your land right now is the fact that the US government is guaranteeing your ownership of it and the US government happens to have more firepower than I do.

I bet I have more firepower than you do too.

Thank you for implicitly agreeing with my point.

Yes, I agree that the only thing stopping you from stealing my property is that I have more firepower than you. Right now it's me and the government but under a libertarian society it will be Brinks or ADT or any other security company that I choose to pay.

[myrkul]

Yes, I agree that the only thing stopping you from stealing my property is that I have more firepower than you. Right now it's me and the government but under a libertarian society it will be Brinks or ADT or any other security company that I choose to pay.

But don't you see? Without the bigger guns of government, Brinks and ADT would be killing each other to protect you!

[AyeYo]

The only think keeping me from taking your land right now is the fact that the US government is guaranteeing your ownership of it and the US government happens to have more firepower than I do.

I bet I have more firepower than you do too.

Thank you for implicitly agreeing with my point.

Yes, I agree that the only thing stopping you from stealing my property is that I have more firepower than you. Right now it's me and the government but under a libertarian society it will be Brinks or ADT or any other security company that I choose to pay.

Right, so you don't actually have any property rights.  You just have bigger guns on that piece of land than I do.  So when someone with bigger guns than you comes along, your "ownership" is history, because you never actually owned anything, you just maintained your presence there with bigger guns than the next guy.

[FredericBastiat]

Right, so you don't actually have any property rights.  You just have bigger guns on that piece of land than I do.  So when someone with bigger guns than you comes along, your "ownership" is history, because you never actually owned anything, you just maintained your presence there with bigger guns than the next guy.

Interesting direction you're taking here. It sounds like, at least to me, unless your just being sarcastic, that the only thing you fear is the bigger "stick". That rights, which are theoretical constructs, are only derived from superior forces. That the only consequence there is, is pain, and were it possible that you could avoid this, if you had this "bigger stick", you would use it to acquire land and commodities.

Sounds like we are merely prey and predator. There is no right nor wrong. No justice or injustice. All of this garrulity is mere topic fodder for the weak. Might makes right. Moral relativism is pegged to nothingness.

Pain avoidance is the name of the game is it? Okaaayyyy.....

[NghtRppr]

Right, so you don't actually have any property rights.

I said the only thing stopping you, which has nothing to do with rights.

However, if we follow your logic then nobody has any rights at all. The only thing stopping you from murdering me is more firepower so according to your logic, I don't have the right to not be murdered. That's a pretty absurd viewpoint.

[AyeYo]

Right, so you don't actually have any property rights.  You just have bigger guns on that piece of land than I do.  So when someone with bigger guns than you comes along, your "ownership" is history, because you never actually owned anything, you just maintained your presence there with bigger guns than the next guy.

Interesting direction you're taking here. It sounds like, at least to me, unless your just being sarcastic, that the only thing you fear is the bigger "stick". That rights, which are theoretical constructs, are only derived from superior forces. That the only consequence there is, is pain, and were it possible that you could avoid this, if you had this "bigger stick", you would use it to acquire land and commodities.

Sounds like we are merely prey and predator. There is no right nor wrong. No justice or injustice. All of this garrulity is mere topic fodder for the weak. Might makes right. Moral relativism is pegged to nothingness.

Pain avoidance is the name of the game is it? Okaaayyyy.....

It would seem that way, wouldn't it?  If you go and read bitcoin2cash's post history, you'll begin to see the contradiction I've been talking about.

[NghtRppr]

If you go and read bitcoin2cash's post history, you'll begin to see the contradiction I've been talking about.

Why don't you prove your own point instead of engaging in obscurantism?

[MoonShadow]

Right, so you don't actually have any property rights.  You just have bigger guns on that piece of land than I do.  So when someone with bigger guns than you comes along, your "ownership" is history, because you never actually owned anything, you just maintained your presence there with bigger guns than the next guy.

Interesting direction you're taking here. It sounds like, at least to me, unless your just being sarcastic, that the only thing you fear is the bigger "stick". That rights, which are theoretical constructs, are only derived from superior forces. That the only consequence there is, is pain, and were it possible that you could avoid this, if you had this "bigger stick", you would use it to acquire land and commodities.

Sounds like we are merely prey and predator. There is no right nor wrong. No justice or injustice. All of this garrulity is mere topic fodder for the weak. Might makes right. Moral relativism is pegged to nothingness.

Pain avoidance is the name of the game is it? Okaaayyyy.....

It would seem that way, wouldn't it?  If you go and read bitcoin2cash's post history, you'll begin to see the contradiction I've been talking about.

This point of view would make you a sociopath.

[FredericBastiat]

Remind me to go out and buy a bigger gun (make that a howitzer attached to a tank), put a moat around my property and populate it with crocodiles, put a earth berm behind that, shore up ammo, and wait for the end of the world.

Wow. The things people are willing to believe these days. Scary thought.

I sure hope this is just a big misunderstanding. I'd hate to get in the middle of that conversation per chance I become somebody else's lunch.

[AyeYo]

Right, so you don't actually have any property rights.  You just have bigger guns on that piece of land than I do.  So when someone with bigger guns than you comes along, your "ownership" is history, because you never actually owned anything, you just maintained your presence there with bigger guns than the next guy.

Interesting direction you're taking here. It sounds like, at least to me, unless your just being sarcastic, that the only thing you fear is the bigger "stick". That rights, which are theoretical constructs, are only derived from superior forces. That the only consequence there is, is pain, and were it possible that you could avoid this, if you had this "bigger stick", you would use it to acquire land and commodities.

Sounds like we are merely prey and predator. There is no right nor wrong. No justice or injustice. All of this garrulity is mere topic fodder for the weak. Might makes right. Moral relativism is pegged to nothingness.

Pain avoidance is the name of the game is it? Okaaayyyy.....

It would seem that way, wouldn't it?  If you go and read bitcoin2cash's post history, you'll begin to see the contradiction I've been talking about.

This point of view would make you a sociopath.

That's my point exactly.  Keep in mind that I'm not the one arguing for might makes right, the libertarians are doing that, they just don't understand how.

[Babylon]

Right, so you don't actually have any property rights.

I said the only thing stopping you, which has nothing to do with rights.

However, if we follow your logic then nobody has any rights at all. The only thing stopping you from murdering me is more firepower so according to your logic, I don't have the right to not be murdered. That's a pretty absurd viewpoint.

Why?  Where do rights come from if not from enforcement by superior force?

[MoonShadow]

Right, so you don't actually have any property rights.

I said the only thing stopping you, which has nothing to do with rights.

However, if we follow your logic then nobody has any rights at all. The only thing stopping you from murdering me is more firepower so according to your logic, I don't have the right to not be murdered. That's a pretty absurd viewpoint.

Why?  Where do rights come from if not from enforcement by superior force?

You should stop and consider your own choice of words.  Rights come from our Creator, or if you reject that concept, from our basic humanity.  However, enforcement of rights comes from the justifiable use of superior force.  Just because you can violate the rights of another, should you have the bigger guns at the moment, doesn't mean that 'might makes right'.

[lemonginger]

Once upon a time, this thread looked like it might be going somewhere interesting. Now it's just the same-old same-old.

A discussion of where rights come from or whether they exist and what their relationship is to liberty/freedom (ie; can you have liberty with a non-rights based approach?) etc might be interesting....

[AyeYo]

Right, so you don't actually have any property rights.

I said the only thing stopping you, which has nothing to do with rights.

However, if we follow your logic then nobody has any rights at all. The only thing stopping you from murdering me is more firepower so according to your logic, I don't have the right to not be murdered. That's a pretty absurd viewpoint.

Why?  Where do rights come from if not from enforcement by superior force?

You should stop and consider your own choice of words.  Rights come from our Creator, or if you reject that concept, from our basic humanity.  However, enforcement of rights comes from the justifiable use of superior force.  Just because you can violate the rights of another, should you have the bigger guns at the moment, doesn't mean that 'might makes right'.

Obviously what does make right is whatever YOU say makes right, right?