[vinman]

This guy sums up a lot of things that I've said about Republicans. They kinda remind me of a bunch of band nerds that just want to be liked by the cool kids.

http://gunowners.org/op0420.htm

[WesternCancer]

Paging Brian... Wait.

[Excelsior]

(12-19-2012 09:24 PM)WesternCancer Wrote:  

Paging Brian... Wait.

[Cincinnatus]

This is bound to be a productive thread...

[Rah]

Place your bets, how many RVF members get banned in this thread?

[Alpha Hunter Zero]

Oh boy. Here we go again with the politics. Looks like the Presidential threads weren't enough already.

[painter]

Looks more like a circle jerk, have fun!

[iknowexactly]

I'm a librul pinko, so I'll start my efforts to get banned.

To get "absolute right to property especially including 100 round banana clip AK-47" types ranting against soshulism, here's some hypothetical questions:

1) Who granted the right to land? This is a big problem no one discusses, or if they discuss it, they resort immeditately to pragmatism and not "rights." I know the government owned property in the Soviet Union and the Soviet Union sucked.
I'm asking in the abstract-- how do you really own it, by what right. I'm asking in the interest of determining how you figure out what's moral.

If you invent, say, the cure to polio, I believe you have a right to get a zillion dollars if you want. The benefit is huge.


Who made real estate? Obviously, it was always here except in the case of reclaimed land created by dredging and dumping. This really creates a huge problem which propagates outward to a lot of other forms of private property such as something like a house or factory. An argument that you own it because you paid someone for it doesn't really solve the issue because there really was no right to ownership in the first place, except the fact you had a bigger gun and chased somebody away, or more defensibly, somebody at some point got there first.

I think most land has been taken by force at some time in history. So after that, all owners ahve to defend their ownership in some other way.

So essentially the only argument for once-coopted land is "might makes right." I own this land because I have the correct connection to a legal system and have access directly or indirectly to sufficient armaments to prevent you from taking this land from me.

I guess I'd have to grant some exception to this, however, in the case that no human was using this land since the original owner made some use of it such as farming. Then if you could prove an unbroken chain, with no military takeover by force of then you could make a valid moral argument.

Now for the next debate about the right to property let's pose an imaginary scenario. Suppose one person was so smart, that they were able to, through legal dealings end up with all the property in the world.

I mean literally one person came to own all the land, food, every object in the whole world. Everyone else was essentially completely destitute and had no assets whatsoever. Now does this person have the right to let everyone start to death? After all they legally got everything, and they have no obligation to give anyone anything, correct?

So anyone be morally justified in forcibly taking some possessions from this person so they can survive?

The argument by ridicule "don't be ridiculous" etc. doesn't get any points. I'm more eager for more the argument by intimidation:
"Shut up, pinko! I worked for all this ( of course using the foundation of a society which created all the roads, telephones, everything that enabled you to become a billionaire) "

If you earned all of it truly on your own, you could have done it on a desert island right? Just bootstrapped yourself up from coconut farming through IC design to a massive software fortune. All on your own. You don't owe anyone ANYTHING, right?

[LowerCaseG]

The right to private ownership of land in capitalists society arises from the belief that capital translates into optimum use for land, thus, it is in the interests of society as a whole.

For example, one might argue that optimum use for a 100 acre parcel in the midwest is to farm corn or wheat. Said farming operation requires capital, and it is in the best interests of society for the owner of that parcel to invest in the property for its highest and best use. If that same parcel is owned collectively, it is unlikely to be as productive, because no one has the motivation to invest their capital or individual labor into it, if the products of the land are to be shared.

In sum...private ownership = greater production. I understand what "productive" means may be in dispute, but this is the answer to your question as to where the right to private ownership comes from.

[Ramon Zarate]

John Locke's labour theory of value, and the Lockean Proviso - read C.B. Macpherson (1962). This is usually where right wingers (but not libertarians like Rober Nozick, for example) will argue for private ownership of land under certain conditions.

[Duke Castile]

Guys don't even respond. Totally not worth it.

[Phil]

So discouraging that some people are smart enough to follow Roosh, but ignorant enough to still think the two parties in America are all that different.

Think pro wrestling. They go out in front of the cameras and put on a show to get the rubes who watch that crap fired up. Get the rubes fired up, channel their frustrations and energies into dead end directions, separate them from their money.

I'm not at all sympathetic to Marxists, but Emma Goldman came up with this gem: If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal.

[Ramon Zarate]

Edit: not arguing today.

[Ramon Zarate]

see above

[Screwston]

This thread is

[Phil]

So discouraging that some people are smart enough to follow Roosh, but ignorant enough to still think the two parties in America are all that different.

Think pro wrestling. They go out in front of the cameras and put on a show to get the rubes who watch that crap fired up. Get the rubes fired up, channel their frustrations and energies into dead end directions, separate them from their money.

I'm not at all sympathetic to Marxists, but Emma Goldman came up with this gem: If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal.

[vinman]

No takers? Damn! Maybe I should've waited until the 1st of the month? Oh well.......

[Samseau]

(12-19-2012 10:48 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

Guys don't even respond. Totally not worth it.

[Anon-A-Moose]

tl;dr.

[iknowexactly]

(12-19-2012 10:59 PM)Phil Wrote:  

So discouraging that some people are smart enough to follow Roosh, but ignorant enough to still think the two parties in America are all that different.

Think pro wrestling. They go out in front of the cameras and put on a show to get the rubes who watch that crap fired up. Get the rubes fired up, channel their frustrations and energies into dead end directions, separate them from their money.

I'm not at all sympathetic to Marxists, but Emma Goldman came up with this gem: If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal.

Yes, and all their kids go to the same prep schools.. not like yours...