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

A LOT will materially change if Trump is elected. Not for the better, I'm afraid. So "no change" would be a better alternative.

 

Those in jail can't reject it.
But you do you.

 

That is a bald falsehood. You are aware that I have identified the relevant facts.

No, that's just another bald falsehood from you. I mostly use accepted dictionary definitions and sometimes technical terms. Part of empirical science is having a vocabulary of such terms to enable clear communication.

That is the same complaint slave owners made about the abolitionists. When you have lived all your life in a lie, the truth seems extremist.

No, that's just another bald falsehood from you. I have stated the definition of privilege (from the Latin meaning "private law"): a legal entitlement to benefit from the abrogation of others' rights without making just compensation. The only relation that has to property rights is that some types of property -- slave deeds, land deeds, IP monopolies, etc. -- have that form. Some kinds of privilege are not property, such as living in a rent-controlled dwelling or union certifications. So your claim is objectively false.

Actually, some have, and I occasionally get fan mail.

 

that makes no sense

 

I'm gratified that we can finally agree on something.... Trump cannot get 270 Electoral Votes by any method or magic that I know of. So, in my view, our current "Highway to Hell" should be no worse, for a while, than it is now.

And now, to accompany our continuing national 'joy ride', here's one of Rock's best groups -- AC/DC!

."Hey, everybody -- THE MOSH PIT'S OPEN!"

 

who else supports your extremist claims.
again, all you have is your opinion. what right of YOURS is abrogated by someone else owning property?

 

If it's bad for someone like you, It must be good for America I suspect

 

Read the thread.

No, I have the indisputable facts of objective physical reality.

My natural individual liberty right to use whatever "property" they only own because government has granted them the privilege of owning it, and which I would otherwise have been at liberty to use.

 

when you post the next one, it will be the first. You wish to reject the entire structure of society to claim that you should be able to use anything you want. what you fail to understand is that ultimately unless you have the power to do that, you do not. People will defend what they own, whether or not society also will do that.

 

False and you know it.

False and you know it: people have a natural individual liberty right to use what they would otherwise be at liberty to use: i.e., what is naturally in the public domain. That does not, repeat, not include others' rightful property in the fruits of their labor. You know this. You just choose to falsely and disingenuously claim the opposite.

So, you offer the exact same justification for your legalized stealing that slave owners offered for their atrocities, and any number of other greedy, privileged parasites have offered for theirs. Check.

 

translation-you don't like the concept of private property. what do you claim is in the public domain that you are upset that you cannot use. All i see is a seething envy of private property owners.

 

complete psychobabble. slavery has no relevance to current property right laws

 

No, that is not a translation. It is an outright fabrication on your part, nothing but a baldly false claim about what I have plainly written in clear, simple, grammatical English.

As I already told you: people (and try not to constantly, deceitfully, and despicably pretend I am concerned only with my own rights) have a right to use whatever they would be at liberty to use if others did not abrogate their rights to do so, especially by law. These things -- mainly natural resources and the knowledge and ideas that people have contributed to human culture by communicating them to others -- are naturally in the public domain and available for everyone to use, as our remote ancestors were at liberty to do for millions of years to survive before their rights to liberty were forcibly removed by government and made into the private property of the privileged.

No, you simply made that up. Why do you always have to resort to despicable ad hominem filth? Is it because you have already realized that the facts I identify prove your beliefs are false and evil, and you have no relevant facts or logic to offer?

Every credible property rights theorist in history has recognized that there is a problem with justifying appropriation of natural resources as private property. Many have tried to offer defensible justifications for it (Aristotle even tried to justify chattel slavery, so you are in good company there). None has succeeded, and none ever will.

 

everything you post is an opinion/ society has decided that we have private property. You can whine until the cows man rockets to the moon, but all it is is whining.

 

Oh, but it does. Very much. There are many ways to prove that owning land is equivalent to -- indeed, in some ways, worse than -- owning slaves. Read and learn:

"During the war I served in a Kentucky regiment in the Federal army. When the war broke out, my father owned sixty slaves. I had not been back to my old Kentucky home for years until a short time ago, when I was met by one of my father's old negroes, who said to me: "Master George, you say you set us free; but before God, I'm worse off than when I belonged to your father." The planters, on the other hand, are contented with the change. They say: "How foolish it was in us to go to war for slavery. We get labor cheaper now than when we owned the slaves." How do they get it cheaper? Why, in the shape of rents they take more of the labor of the negro than they could under slavery, for then they were compelled to return him sufficient food, clothing and medical attendance to keep him well, and were compelled by conscience and public opinion, as well as by law, to keep him when he could no longer work. Now their interest and responsibility cease when they have got all the work out of him they can."
-- From a letter by George M. Jackson, St. Louis, August 15, 1883

Many people remarked at the time -- not without a certain mystification -- that emancipation had made almost no difference in the material condition of the former slaves' lives. What they failed to understand was that the material condition of black American slaves in 1860 was better than the condition of landless European peasants of the same period.

The only reason America had slavery in the 17th-19th centuries when Europe didn't was that in America, the removal of the indigenous population by disease and warfare had made so much good land available that if landless workers were ill-treated, they would just leave, and take up some good land of their own. Workers' rights to liberty had to be removed by force, through slave deeds, before they could be treated like slaves. In Europe, all the useful land was (or soon would be) privately owned, so landless workers could be treated like slaves without all the bother of actually owning them.

The only difference between owning slaves and owning land is that owning slaves forcibly removes people's rights to liberty one person at a time, owning land removes them one right at a time. Or to put it another way, 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.

 

No. You cannot alter facts of objective physical reality by calling them opinions, sorry.

So, you have nothing to offer but the same justification slave owners used for slavery. Check.

That is exactly what evil slave owners said to the abolitionists. Why do you choose to be on the side of evil? Why do you think evil is better than good?

 

OK how many people think owning real property is the same as being a slave owner.

 

again-everything yo post is an opinion based on an extremist view of property rights. what's wrong, did someone buy a piece of property you couldn't afford?

 

Tsk tsk. Notice how you always have to disingenuously try to change the subject from "land" to "real property"? Real property includes fixed improvements, land does not. You know this, but you have to disingenuously pretend that my arguments about land apply to fixed improvements because you know that you are trying to justify evil.

I didn't say it was the same. In fact, I explained exactly 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.

 

real property means real estate. it can be an open field or an apartment building. Your georgian Bullshit is just that-bullshit. You have no right to someone else's real estate or property. You labor under the extremist delusion that if you exist, you have a claim to land. You do not.

 

No. I have posted the relevant indisputable facts, and you have not even attempted to refute them.

And you know it.

What's wrong, are you getting uncomfortable because I have proved your most cherished beliefs are false, evil, despicable, Satanic filth?

Do you think it would be responsive for slave owners to ask the abolitionists, "What's wrong, did someone buy a slave you couldn't afford?"

Because of course, that is exactly the sort of thing they did say to them: "Go out and get a job, save up your money, and buy some slaves of your own. Problem solved!"

How do you like being the ideological soulmate of those who fallaciously and disingenuously tried to justify chattel slavery by attacking the motives and character of the abolitionists? Are you comfortable being on the side of the greatest evil that has ever existed, and against good?

 

Which is why you have to deceitfully and disingenuously try to pretend that they are the same thing when you know very well that they are not.

I guess that must be why I always conclusively demolish arguments to the contrary...

Like everyone, I have a right to liberty, which landowners forcibly violate without making just compensation.

That's just an indisputable fact, not a delusion, extremist or otherwise. If people have rights to life and liberty, they have a liberty right to use what nature provided to sustain their lives. You just want to be legally entitled to forcibly abrogate their rights to life and liberty without making just compensation for what you are taking from them, so that you can legally steal from them and they are not permitted to defend themselves against you.

Wrong. No one could ever have a rightful claim to own land, but everyone has a rightful claim to use of land. There is no other possible meaning of the rights to life and liberty. Proof:

Crusoe claims to own the island he was shipwrecked on. When Friday washes up on the shore, Crusoe points his musket at him and informs him that he can either get to work or get back in the water. By owning the land, Crusoe has forcibly removed Friday's rights to life and liberty. That is what you are trying -- and failing -- to justify.

 

so you claim real estate and open land are seen as different things by most people.

society has determined that people can OWN LAND. that means they have a RIGHTFUL CLAIM-it's called a DEED. Don't like it? TFB. your extremist nonsense is not accepted by 99% of the population. You don't have the rightful use of LAND I own.

 

You seem unable to fathom that your opinions are just that. Opinions. You cannot prove your opinions are factually correct. Your pathetic attempt to commingle slavery with land ownership is just that-pathetic.

 

By everyone. Everyone knows the difference between land and fixed improvements thereto. You merely pretend that you do not because you have already realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil.

So you have no justification for it to offer other than the exact same justification that slave owners cited for owning people. Check.

Exactly like a slave deed was a rightful claim. Check.

Why would I care that 99% of people are wrong? That doesn't change what is right. 99% of people used to think slavery was rightful. You apparently still do.

Sure I do. You just prefer to own my rights and not pay me for what you are taking from me so that you can legally steal from me and I am not permitted to defend myself against you. You like being legally entitled to steal, just as slave owners did, and for the exact same reasons.