Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  Activism: how far would you go?
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 12   Go Down

Author Topic: Activism: how far would you go?  (Read 33988 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Proletarian

  • I am the opiate of the masses!
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 170
  • Thought Criminal
    • View Profile
Re: Activism: how far would you go?
« Reply #105 on: February 13, 2006, 11:52:31 PM »

I figured out BenTucker's angle. He's using reason to destroy reason. He's reasoning himself into absurdity -- yes, it's possible, and he's your proof.

The thing I see him overlooking is this: when one claims ownership of a piece of land, sure he might be excluding others from using it (I can't believe that's even an argument, but whatever), but he is pretty much excluding himself from owning another piece of land; he has to stay on that plot of land he has claimed, build whatever structures he wanted to build, and basically invest all his time and resources into that land -- enough so that he doesn't have time or resources to go out and claim any other land.

So, while nobody else may get a chance to claim the land that hypothetical person claimed, that person also won't get a chance to claim anything else before everyone else claims it.

Oh, sure, he can rent out the structures he built on that land and bring in profit from his labor (oh heavens no!) and then go about acquiring more land to build on, rent out, etc. But what's so wrong with that scenario? Without that person acquiring that land and producing something with it from his labor, he'd have nothing to rent out, and nobody would have a place to rent -- there would be NOTHING...except for some unused land. Woopdeefuckingdoo. At least nobody's excluded, right?

I'm not even going ask any more questions of you, BenTucker, nor do I want a response. Everything you write is absurd.
Logged
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

"If there is hope, it lies in the proles."

BenTucker

  • Guest
Re: Activism: how far would you go?
« Reply #106 on: February 14, 2006, 09:00:15 AM »

the point is that you can't have equal liberty for the greatest number of people when you make property rights to land absolute because the mere fact that exclusive use of a specific location forces a legal and monetary obligation on others (immediately for tenants and in the future for a buyer) which then denies those being excluded their absolute property right to their labor.
Logged

ladyattis

  • Guest
Re: Activism: how far would you go?
« Reply #107 on: February 14, 2006, 11:11:35 AM »

the point is that you can't have equal liberty for the greatest number of people...
Again there is no equal liberty. It's like saying we're liberally fat or partially pregnant. It doesn't follow and it implies an obligation that not one being or living thing is beholden. Also, it smacks of Stuart Mill and John Benthem, which of course means it's a utilitarian argument, which is bullshit from the get go.

Quote
when you make property rights to land absolute because the mere fact that exclusive use of a specific location forces a legal and monetary obligation on others (immediately for tenants and in the future for a buyer) which then denies those being excluded their absolute property right to their labor.

Bull and shit, kiddo. Land owners pay for the land and maintain it to keep tennets on it. If you don't think that occurs then you probably never rented in your life. I've had sewer problems, loss of heat, noisy neighbors, et al and guess what? THE LAND OWNER RESOLVED THOSE ISSUES AND IN FACT PAID TO RESOLVE THEM. Wow! How amazing, such an evil evil land lady I got that she fixes my fancets for free! Or checks on why a couple is fighting? Geeeeeeeeeeee, she should just shutup and pay me to live there, LOL!

Do you get it now or is your head so far up some Utilitarian/Marxist/Hegalian/Rationalizing-philosopher-wannabe's asshole to understand what is being said? Or do you just enjoy the smell of so much bullshit, Benny?

-- Bridget
Logged

BenTucker

  • Guest
Re: Activism: how far would you go?
« Reply #108 on: February 14, 2006, 11:30:48 AM »

Quote
there is no equal liberty

correct - not in the current land tenure system anyway...

Quote
It doesn't follow

if you don't use reasoning skills...

Quote
it implies an obligation that not one being or living thing is beholden

the obligation only appears when economic rent attaches to locations...

Quote
Land owners pay for the land and maintain it to keep tennets on it. If you don't think that occurs then you probably never rented in your life.

the purchase price for land is capitalized economic rent

Quote
I've had sewer problems, loss of heat, noisy neighbors, et al and guess what? THE LAND OWNER RESOLVED THOSE ISSUES AND IN FACT PAID TO RESOLVE THEM.

all improved land values via labor...whereas I am referring to unimproved values.
Logged

ladyattis

  • Guest
Re: Activism: how far would you go?
« Reply #109 on: February 14, 2006, 11:48:23 AM »

Quote
there is no equal liberty

correct - not in the current land tenure system anyway...
There is no equal liberty since it is a floating abstraction of two divergent concepts. Equality and Liberty. Equality means there is a sameness in quality or quantity between two things/beings. Liberty means there is a freedom to do things[positive or negative liberty]. There cannot be sameness in the freedom to do things since people do different things, want different things, and such. Your equality is like that of the short story Harrison Bergeron. You want to enforce equality because you feel the greatest good to the greatest number is morally substantiable without proving it. Thus, your whole argument yet again FAILS.


Quote
Quote
It doesn't follow

if you don't use reasoning skills...
Then prove that it does follow. Remember, you made the positive claim, therefore it is your job to prove it. And I will point out that you never have refuted any single argument made here by me or anyone else. You just keep spouting the same lines without qualitification. As such, you showing your claim of reasoning skills. I've explained why there cannot be equal liberty. I explained why land owners do not owe you anything. And I explained why private land ownership is superior in every way. You have not knocked down a single point. Thus, I can just regard you as defeated and akin to a Communist or a Fundie Christian.


Quote
Quote
it implies an obligation that not one being or living thing is beholden

the obligation only appears when economic rent attaches to locations...
Nope, try again. You say it does, but you do not show HOW IT DOES. SHOW HOW IT DOES!!!!!! DO NOT DECLARE IT DOES! Do you get it? It's not hard. It's like this: If P then Q. P, therefore Q. Got it or are you brain dead?


Quote
Quote
Land owners pay for the land and maintain it to keep tennets on it. If you don't think that occurs then you probably never rented in your life.

the purchase price for land is capitalized economic rent
No more bullshit lines. Provide a qualification of your claims, N-O-W.


Quote
Quote
I've had sewer problems, loss of heat, noisy neighbors, et al and guess what? THE LAND OWNER RESOLVED THOSE ISSUES AND IN FACT PAID TO RESOLVE THEM.

all improved land values via labor...whereas I am referring to unimproved values.

And you keep spouting lines that do not prove anything. First, explain your proposition. Second, explain how each point of the proposition follows from atleast two key viewpoints; moral and economic. Third, refute my counter-points without silly one liners which do not qualify how I am wrong or why I am wrong. Got it?

-- Bridget is getting tired of GeoLib-Fundies which cannot prove a fraking thing.
Logged

ladyattis

  • Guest
Re: Activism: how far would you go?
« Reply #110 on: February 14, 2006, 11:58:28 AM »

Here is my argument as follows.

1. Moral obligations do not intrinsically exist since humans do not have pre-existent knowledge of concepts and of Nature in general. Thus, we're are left with one possible course for all moral acts; Causality.

2. Because morality is prefaced on causality, in the form of acts with consequences, no one person owes another person anything than what they promised to fulfill.

3. Since promises in this view are extrinsic, meaning I derive them through external acts of my own will and that of others participating, they do not become inherited[sp?] by others without qualification(Or to take a phrase from the Bible: The sins of the fathers shall NOT be visited upon the sons.).

4. Because of this form of moral causality, and non-intrinsic inheritability of promises, all economic activities follow in similar form; being that no one is owed anything and no one owes anything to others.

5. When I control or own land, I am doing so of my own free will and thus I maintain the property as I see fit. No one is deprived of anything by one owning a parcel, even in a land starved nation since morality is causal.

6. And as such, economics is causal in turn. An individual can realize that the maintainance of a land property is non-arbitrary so long as the maintainance is for the good of the owner. Thus, a land owner will be driven to make the land useful for the maximal number of people simply because of the need to sustain one's own life[e.g. you got to eat and such, DUH].

7. From that land ownership betters society as a whole since it is labor[CAUSALITY] driven. Each person owns land to make something on that land and they maintain it to their maximal necessity[a businessman keeping the parking lot clean, and keeping prices low for customers. Or a home owner mowing the lawn, inviting the neighbors for BBQ, and such.].

8. Thus, no one owes anyone else land, or use of land intrinsically since the use of land IS LABOR[CAUSALITY] DRIVEN. Land does not stay fallow unless there is no viable use of the land, period and end of story.

9. And since I started my moral principle from that of no one person owing another anything, and vice versa, to say that anyone owes anything to anyone else is flawed since all actions of economic expansions are derived from labor[physical and mental]. Thus, your argument needs to the inverse of mine, and if it is, you must prove it is viable over mine. Because, remember, mine is not the mainstay of modern economic or moral life either. Yours is as fringe as mine. It's just mine can easily follow the current mainstay but without the need of governmental interference.

-- Bridget
Logged

BenTucker

  • Guest
Re: Activism: how far would you go?
« Reply #111 on: February 14, 2006, 01:20:28 PM »

Quote
no one owes anyone else land, or use of land intrinsically since the use of land IS LABOR[CAUSALITY] DRIVEN

but the creation of land itself is not and there is the rub...

therefore there is a blatant contradiction between (1) the notion that everyone has an equal right to "be" left alone and (2) the notion that everyone does not have an equal right to be -- "somewhere."

what makes this such a laughable contradiction is the fact that the very act of being alive isn't possible in the first place without access to land...you literally can't have one without the other.

Thus, to assert that those without land-titles have no right to land ("no one owes anyone else land") is to assert that an entire subset of the human population has no actual right to life itself.
Logged

BenTucker

  • Guest
Re: Activism: how far would you go?
« Reply #112 on: February 14, 2006, 02:12:30 PM »

Quote
There cannot be sameness in the freedom to do things since people do different things, want different things, and such

but we all derive our sustenance from the earth and we all need a place to stand inorder to exist...

Quote
I explained why private land ownership is superior in every way.

I agree except for the economic rent which must remain owned in common to assure equal liberty.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2006, 02:14:55 PM by BenTucker »
Logged

ladyattis

  • Guest
Re: Activism: how far would you go?
« Reply #113 on: February 14, 2006, 02:31:27 PM »

Quote
no one owes anyone else land, or use of land intrinsically since the use of land IS LABOR[CAUSALITY] DRIVEN

but the creation of land itself is not and there is the rub...
Nope, because land is valued by what one can do with it. For example, Pennsylvania, before the invention of the automobile or combustion engines that use petrol, vast tracks of land where oil seeped into the soil was useless save for a specific use of oil in other products. But before the combustion engine and the automobile, such tracks of land were worthless since it was farming and other industries that produced goods and services. So, land value is based on use aka labor. So your complaint is worthless.


Quote
therefore there is a blatant contradiction between (1) the notion that everyone has an equal right to "be" left alone and (2) the notion that everyone does not have an equal right to be -- "somewhere."
Nope, because no one has any rights. I never stated anyone had rights. Thus, your argument here is a non-sequitor.


Quote
what makes this such a laughable contradiction is the fact that the very act of being alive isn't possible in the first place without access to land...you literally can't have one without the other.
Nope, because you do not have rights. Rights come from the exercise of force. I can kill you and you can kill me, but we both don't want to die. So we make rules, aka morals, and codify them, aka rights and laws, thus we don't both die because of blantent stupidity. So again, Causality is the primacy of all moral functions as it is the primacy of epistemological functions.


Quote
Thus, to assert that those without land-titles have no right to land ("no one owes anyone else land") is to assert that an entire subset of the human population has no actual right to life itself.
Because there are no rights intrinsically. You assert that I am stating rights. I never stated as such. So again, you fail to see the point. You want rights but you cannot tell me how you derive them. I can tell you how to derive rights from my view of moral theory very easily[Hint: CAUSALITY].

-- Bridget pwns the n00b again...
Logged

ladyattis

  • Guest
Re: Activism: how far would you go?
« Reply #114 on: February 14, 2006, 02:33:21 PM »

Quote
There cannot be sameness in the freedom to do things since people do different things, want different things, and such

but we all derive our sustenance from the earth and we all need a place to stand inorder to exist...
To exist, yes, that is why we derive causality of our actions. But to live alone or in a group without moral theory[implicit] is impossible. Unless you want to live in the Hyborean Age of Conan....(BY CROM!)

Quote
Quote
I explained why private land ownership is superior in every way.

I agree except for the economic rent which must remain owned in common to assure equal liberty.

There is no economic rent since there are no rights intrinsically. You are appending extrinsic[causal] variables to human nature[nominal(intrinsic) essences].

-- Bridget
Logged

BenTucker

  • Guest
Re: Activism: how far would you go?
« Reply #115 on: February 14, 2006, 04:21:09 PM »

Quote
land is valued by what one can do with it...land value is based on use aka labor

yes land is subjectively valued but it has inherent value exclusive of any labor expended on it because literally inorder to exist one must occupy space.

and beyond a certain point and by it's very nature the exclusive use forces a legal and monetary obligation called "economic rent" (or the unimproved land value) upon others
« Last Edit: February 14, 2006, 04:26:13 PM by BenTucker »
Logged

ladyattis

  • Guest
Re: Activism: how far would you go?
« Reply #116 on: February 14, 2006, 04:30:58 PM »

Quote
land is valued by what one can do with it...land value is based on use aka labor

yes land is subjectively valued but it has inherent value exclusive of any labor expended on it because literally inorder to exist one must occupy space.
No duh.

Quote
and beyond a certain point and by it's very nature the exclusive use forces a legal and monetary obligation called "economic rent" (or the unimproved land value) upon others

Wrong, because again you are not being harmed by simply having to pay for housing rent. I hate to burst your bubble, but you keep going in circles. You haven't proven a damn thing. So, please consider critically what you are stating, because I honestly don't think you know what you're talking about.

-- Bridget
Logged

BenTucker

  • Guest
Re: Activism: how far would you go?
« Reply #117 on: February 14, 2006, 05:20:15 PM »

Quote
you are not being harmed by simply having to pay for housing rent

what do you call it when you are forced to pay for merely existing?
Logged

drewflax

  • Guest
Re: Activism: how far would you go?
« Reply #118 on: February 14, 2006, 05:35:52 PM »

Get a room, you two.  :lol:
Logged

Proletarian

  • I am the opiate of the masses!
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 170
  • Thought Criminal
    • View Profile
Re: Activism: how far would you go?
« Reply #119 on: February 14, 2006, 06:13:00 PM »

the point is that you can't have equal liberty for the greatest number of people when you make property rights to land absolute because the mere fact that exclusive use of a specific location forces a legal and monetary obligation on others (immediately for tenants and in the future for a buyer) which then denies those being excluded their absolute property right to their labor.

Define "equal liberty."

According to your "logic," when I am created, I am not free, because I am now occupying space and excluding the use of that space from everyone else, and therefore I owe everyone else "economic rent" for my body to occupy space; I am indebted (chained) to everyone else.

According to you "logic," when others are created, I am not free, because they are now occupying space and excluding the use of that space from me, and therefore they owe me "economc rent" for their bodies to occupy space; they are indebted (chained) to me.

According to your "logic," the only way for me to be free would be to not exist, because then I won't be  obigated to owe anyone else for my occupying space; zero chance of being indebted (chained) to everyone else.

According to your "logic," the only way for others to be free would be for them to not exist, because then they won't be obligated to owe me for their occupying space; zero chance of being indebted (chained) to me.

According to your "logic," occupying space is an unavoidable violation of "equality" -- owing everyone for your use of space is your only "remedy," but is in fact slavery.

Either one has a right to occupy space and has a duty to respect everyone else's right to occupy space and vice versa (equality in regard to rights of freedom) or one has no right to occupy space (because one owes everyone else for the use of space) and has no duty to respect everyone's non-existent right to occupy space and vice versa (equality in regard to being a slave to everyone else).

I will tell you this: I don't owe anybody a goddamn thing and nobody owes me a goddamn thing (unless there was a contract or agreement entered into voluntarily). To think otherwise is a childish notion.
Logged
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

"If there is hope, it lies in the proles."
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 12   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  Activism: how far would you go?

// ]]>

Page created in 0.019 seconds with 31 queries.