Trump is a bad person. Why would anybody vote for him?

changing the goal posts again. I talked about real estate as including land and buildings or land

your attempt to pretend owning land is the same as slavery is the sign of an inane argument and extremism

 

No. Unlike you, I am able to distinguish facts from opinions. When you encounter a fact that proves your opinions are false and evil, you merely prevent yourself from knowing it by calling it an opinion because the preservation of your false and evil beliefs is more important to you than the truth.

I can and I have.

I have proved they are quite similar, and you cannot refute even one sentence of that proof.

 

you have no right to anyone else's property, real, or otherwise. that is not stealing from you. you labor under the delusion that your existence gives you some sort of claim on land. It doesn't. no one recognizes it

 

no you haven't. you merely made an assertion. cite the law that supports your claim.

 

Nope. You tried to change the subject from land to improvements because you knew you could not dispute what I said about land.

No, you tried to change the subject from land to real estate because you have to pretend that because my arguments do not apply to fixed improvements, they don't apply to land, either. But they do.

No, that is just another fabrication on your part. I have stated repeatedly that they are not the same, and I have described how they are different: when you own a slave, you own all of one person's rights, while when you own land, you own one of all people's rights.

 

I dispute your claim that you have any right to land that you don't own. I dispute your bullshit assertions that slavery is similar to owning land.

WTF? Own one of all people's rights? what sort of bullshit is that?

 

Wrong. Everyone has an absolute and indisputable right to use any "property" that consists of their rights, as landed property does.

It is indisputably stealing from me because it forcibly deprives me of what I would otherwise have, without just compensation. That is stealing by definition. It is merely legalized stealing. Legalizing stealing doesn't make it not stealing, sorry. Read and learn:

THE BANDIT

Suppose there is a bandit who lurks in the mountain pass between two countries. He robs the merchant caravans as they pass through, but is careful to take only as much as the merchants can afford to lose, so that they will keep using the pass and he will keep getting the loot.

A thief, right?

Now, suppose he has a license to charge tolls of those who use the pass, a license issued by the government of one of the countries — or even both of them. The tolls are by coincidence equal to what he formerly took by force. How has the nature of his enterprise changed, simply through being made legal? He is still just a thief. He is still just demanding payment and not contributing anything in return. How can the mere existence of that piece of paper entitling him to rob the caravans alter the fact that what he is doing is in fact robbing them?

But now suppose instead of a license to steal, he has a land title to the pass. He now charges the caravans the exact same amount in “rent” for using the pass, and has become quite a respectable gentleman. But how has the nature of his business really changed? It’s all legal now, but he is still just taking wealth from those who use what nature provided for free, and contributing nothing whatever in return, just as he did when he was a lowly bandit. How is he any different now that he is a landowner?

And come to that, how is any other landowner, charging rent for what nature provided for free, any different?

It most certainly does, because my existence gives me rights to life and liberty, which cannot exist without a right to use land.

Everyone who knows anything about property theory (i.e., doesn't include you) recognizes it.

 

No, I identified the relevant facts of objective physical reality and their indisputable logical implications, and you know it. Calling facts and logic "assertions" or "opinions" cannot alter them, sorry.

<sigh> That's nothing but more of the same "argument" slave owners offered to the abolitionists.

Haven't you understood yet that any "argument" that would justify slavery is already known in advance to be fallacious, dishonest, and evil, with no further argumentation needed?

 

I have already proved I do: I have a right to life and liberty, and they cannot exist without a right to use land, the same right our remote ancestors exercised to survive for millions of years. You merely prefer to be legally entitled to abrogate that right without making just compensation for what you are stealing from everyone else, as slave owners preferred to be legally entitled to abrogate the rights of their slaves.

No you don't. You merely deny my statements. Disputing them would require you to offer contrary facts and logic, and you can't.

I have proved that landowning is very similar to slavery in both its immorality and its practical effects on the victims, and you cannot refute a single sentence of that proof.

It is a statement of fact: when you own land, you legally own everyone else's liberty rights to use it. That's what makes owning land so profitable, and enriches the owners without their having to lift a productive finger. You know this. Of course you do. You merely have to contrive some way of not knowing it because you have already realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil.

 

that's bullshit. You can use land you own, you rent or that others let you use as well as public land.

that's because you have never offered anything other than OPINIONS-like the crap above

No you haven't. Your barren assertions are just that-barren.

that is an arcane and generally not-accepted understanding of ownership and liberty rights. And you are your claims about property owners is nothing more than pathetic envious nonsense

 

sounds like anarchist bullshit to me

 

The complete lack of morality liberals have astonishes me. Who in the hell taught them that they're entitled to whatever they want, even though they didn't earn it? Is this crap taught in schools now?

 

Yep, Taylor Swift teaches music. Robert DeNiro teaches acting. George Soros teaches business. Pope Francis teaches religion. Charles Barkley teaches Phys Ed.

 

So we can add anarchism to the long and rapidly growing list of ideas with which you are unacquainted.

 

Fact.

"Why, Tom, you have not been deprived of your right to liberty. You are perfectly free. You are free to save up your money to buy your right to liberty from your owner, or pay him your rental value to exercise your liberty for a limited time, or he might just decide to grant you your liberty of his own accord. What are you complaining about?"

Garbage. Public land is also owned, and people are not at liberty to use it to sustain themselves. Why do you think the homeless are routinely rousted out of public land they try to build shelters on? In the favelas of Latin America, the landless are able to use public and even private land to provide themselves with housing only because the authorities decline to enforce the removal of their rights to liberty.

Calling facts opinions cannot alter them, sorry.

I have identified the relevant facts, and you cannot refute them.

True, it is a minority view; but that doesn't make it any less objectively correct. The abolitionists also held a minority view that was considered arcane and not generally accepted by those who supported slavery -- until it became mainstream and accepted.

That is nothing but disingenuous, despicable, and evil ad hominem filth.

There are few acts a human being can commit that are more evil than to accuse those who oppose injustice of envy for those who profit from it.

 

That is a description of the privileged, not liberals.

Subservience to privilege is taught everywhere there are conservatives.

 

anarchy sucks and class envy sucks more

 

for a completely irrelevant response-see above

 

Liberalism as practiced today, is the never ending attempt to clothe class envy in the ephemeral threads of moral indignation

 

GARBAGE. By that evil and despicable criterion, no one could ever righteously have opposed institutionalized -- i.e., legalized -- indisputable historical injustices like feudalism, tax farming, or slavery. So your claim is already known in advance to be fallacious, disingenuous and evil, with no further argumentation needed. Indeed, it perfectly exemplifies the trenchant observation of a man who was incomparably your moral and intellectual superior:

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
-- John Kenneth Galbraith

The constant, despicable accusations of envy from the apologists for greed, privilege and injustice are just a predictable part of that exercise. As for the question of class and class warfare, which is another constant accusation, we have a much better authority than you to resort to:

“There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” -- Warren Buffett

 

yawn the opinions of left wing quasi socialists has no value to me. And Buffett is pretty much dishonest. His crap about his secretary's salary compared to his pretty much branded him a joke.

modern leftism is a quest by the untalented and unproductive to gain the wealth and power of the productive and talented through government rather than industry, while pretending they have moral superiority.

 

More accurately, honesty and truth have negative value to you.

He is known for his honesty and astute judgment. Unlike some people.

Nope. His point was perfectly valid.

No, it doesn't take any talent or productivity to privately pocket publicly created value through privilege. It just takes money and lack of scruple. After all, that's obviously how you have pocketed publicly created value that you falsely claim you created.

 

yawn, you completely reject widely accepted societal norms and the legal structure of this country. Buffett is FOS. he used to whine that he paid a lower tax rate than his secretary, That is because he purposely paid himself a very low SALARY (100K) and structured his compensation to lessen his tax rates while paying his secretary straight salary (over 300K) rather than structuring it the same way he did his own

 

Right. Exactly the same as the abolitionists did, and as every honest, righteous person does when societal norms and legal structures are based on massive, systematic, institutionalized, and wholly gratuitous injustice. You merely prefer injustice to justice, evil to good, just as the slave owners did, because it is in your own narrow financial interest. Simple.

No, his observation merely proved that you are.

No. That is GARBAGE. He couldn't "structure" it the same way he did his own because his secretary was a worker, not the owner. See how that works?

 

sorry dude-class envy and hatred of those who own property does not put you in the same moral category as abolitionists