29 Jan 23
@no1marauder saidI imagine it started with tribal/farming wars.
The real questions are:
How did we get from a reality where no one owned land to a situation where some do and some don't?
And is it morally justified that some own land that they cannot personally use but require others, who have been dispossessed of their liberty to go where they please and hunt and gather, to work for them?
Food and resources were claimed and protected for obvious reasons.
Then later, Kings claimed land and allowed the people to work it.
Then parcels were sold.
I'm guessing you would have been an advocate for the free range cowboys who wanted to use the land for their cattle regardless of who owned the land?
29 Jan 23
@no1marauder saidYou never answered by question. You have been vehement about the plundering and conquest by one peoples over another, that it is not fair or moral, nor are there rights. We get you thinking that.
Why would "planting a flag" imply exclusive use of the field?
Why would an "internationally recognized agreement" be binding on everyone including those who are not parties to it?
Obviously, this is a philosophical question, not merely a legal one.
So, given that mindset, Europeans took North America away from the American Indians. Should that not have happened? Then, what SHOULD have happened and how would we be situated now. We can agree that the Indians wanted nothing to do with Europeans. That is obvious, given the slaughter on both sides.
29 Jan 23
@no1marauder
Give me your address and I'll put my tent in your backyard and you'll quickly change your mind about all of this.
29 Jan 23
@averagejoe1 saidSo you're saying no one really owns anything because anyone stronger can rightfully take it away from them?
I don't know the tomes of UN rules, to gab about who can do what, here in 2023. But I would like this discussion, if you will not once again bring up rights in the Stone Age. Or in the 13th century in Scotland when identifying parcels and ownership became formal and legal.
To your question, there are no rights to just take Mars if you get there first. No rights (ex ...[text shortened]... e. This is of course subject to existing agreements which automatically include such acquiescence.
@averagejoe1 saidAs usual, I certainly did answer that question
You never answered by question. You have been vehement about the plundering and conquest by one peoples over another, that it is not fair or moral, nor are there rights. We get you thinking that.
So, given that mindset, Europeans took North America away from the American Indians. Should that not have happened? Then, what SHOULD have happened and how would we be ...[text shortened]... he Indians wanted nothing to do with Europeans. That is obvious, given the slaughter on both sides.
no1:What is conquest but stealing from others by force i.e. robbery?
p. 9 of the "Illusion of Lipstick" thread.
29 Jan 23
@booger saidI thought I already explained the distinction between personal and private property (as well as providing a quote from a site doing so).
@no1marauder
Give me your address and I'll put my tent in your backyard and you'll quickly change your mind about all of this.
I'm not going to keep doing so just because you aren't trying to grasp it.
29 Jan 23
@no1marauder saidI couldn't care less about what some wannabe anarchists definition of words may be.
I thought I already explained the distinction between personal and private property (as well as providing a quote from a site doing so).
I'm not going to keep doing so just because you aren't trying to grasp it.
Spunk.org?
Really?
- Joined
- 20 May 16
- Moves
- 41794
29 Jan 23
@shavixmir saidYes and no, to large and small extremes when you put this thought process together with all the other similar ones together in a box for understanding of this current time, movements, people and their combined involvement’s.
Neither here nor there. As per usual.
Get back in your closet.
Most of these peoples belief’s, yours, many, maybe most here are all the same in theory along with their current relationship to cancel culture.
Many small silly battles are being fought to break down the larger power(us) in separate directions for gains on acceptance in order for a greater combined future push with less resistance along with those whose do ridiculed and threatened with only silent responses like now.
Please don’t bring up individual examples to make a larger off topic point please.
29 Jan 23
@no1marauder saidLet's keep it simple, no weeds.
So you're saying no one really owns anything because anyone stronger can rightfully take it away from them?
Again we are not talking Og. And correct premise, please? You are saying that I say no one owns anything, which is stupid for you to say, and secondly, you are saying that someone 'cannot' own it because a strong person can take it away from him?
You are suggesting a premise that says no one owns anything, and you further muddy it all up by saying he does not own anything because it can 'rightfully' be taken away? I don't know what you mean, but what stands out is your suggesting that it can be rightfully taken away, when in modern times, (not the time of OG), that would be robbery or burglary or embezzlement or whatever.
Don't ruin your on thread, man.....
29 Jan 23
@booger saidThat's a good way to get shot.
@no1marauder
Give me your address and I'll put my tent in your backyard and you'll quickly change your mind about all of this.
No government involved.
29 Jan 23
@no1marauder saidAll due respects, but who cares what antarchists think, about anything? All we need to know is to be scared of them.
Anarchists prefer the word "possession" to "personal property" but the basic gist is the same:
"Anarchists define "private property" (or just "property," for short) as state-protected monopolies of certain objects or privileges which are used to exploit others. "Possession," on the other hand, is ownership of things that are not used to exploit others (e.g. a car, a re ...[text shortened]... 's own profit, it is property."
http://www.spunk.org/library/intro/faq/sp001547/secB3.html#secb31
Do you know that if you work hard for something, that anarchists, and Marauder, think that you should not have all that by yourself? That is the plainest way I can say it.
29 Jan 23
@athousandyoung saidQuit playing tough.
That's a good way to get shot.
No government involved.
You ain't shooting anyone or anything 😒
@booger saidYeah I believe in the type of property rights that don't require the government to enforce.
@AThousandYoung
Nice too see you believe in property rights.
Any comment towards No1?
This is exactly consistent with the concept of "personal property" no1 is referring to. It is the property I possess.