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 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 12   Go Down

Author Topic: Activism: how far would you go?  (Read 33969 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

fisher

  • Guest
Re: Activism: how far would you go?
« Reply #90 on: February 07, 2006, 02:44:15 PM »

You and all the other genetic males have to make a choice. Either YOU OWN HER BODY IN COMMON, being that she is scarce, being the only female left on Earth, or you accept the reality that her body cannot be owned by anyone but her since she is the current occupier.
So, if I kill her, I can own her former body since it is no loger occupied?
easy enough.
Logged

ladyattis

  • Guest
Re: Activism: how far would you go?
« Reply #91 on: February 07, 2006, 02:46:15 PM »

You and all the other genetic males have to make a choice. Either YOU OWN HER BODY IN COMMON, being that she is scarce, being the only female left on Earth, or you accept the reality that her body cannot be owned by anyone but her since she is the current occupier.
So, if I kill her, I can own her former body since it is no loger occupied?
easy enough.

If you can. That's if the other males don't kill you first for her. :shock:

-- Bridget
Logged

BenTucker

  • Guest
Re: Activism: how far would you go?
« Reply #92 on: February 07, 2006, 02:54:59 PM »

Quote
What obligation do I impose on you if I exclude you from anything?

if all lands are legally claimed (exclusive) and inorder to exist I must occupy land then I must pay someone to stand somewhere.

Quote
Your lien is force, get over it.

force is neither good nor bad but has to be measured against the ends it serves - all dominion over territory is based on force therefore it is a just use of force to overcome a forced obligation from the excluders (theft of their wages as private property and denial of their self-ownership)...

Quote
There is nothing in Nature that is conceptual

the first human being was literally born into a perfect state of nature

Quote
Liberty is the state of being free of obligations, period and end of story

and equal liberty is the state of having the greatest possible amount of liberty (maximal) for the greatest number of people.
Logged

ladyattis

  • Guest
Re: Activism: how far would you go?
« Reply #93 on: February 07, 2006, 03:02:43 PM »

Quote
What obligation do I impose on you if I exclude you from anything?

if all lands are legally claimed (exclusive) and inorder to exist I must occupy land then I must pay someone to stand somewhere.
And? What is the problem with that? What right do you have to stand on what is not yours? Again, prove natural rights are existent in Nature or retract claims okay? It's that simple.


Quote
Quote
Your lien is force, get over it.

force is neither good nor bad but has to be measured against the ends it serves - all dominion over territory is based on force therefore it is a just use of force to overcome a forced obligation from the excluders (theft of their wages as private property and denial of their self-ownership)...
Yet, Libertarianism is prefaced on the non-initiation of force, which means. If you leave me be, I leave you be. And we freely cohabitate as we wish, lest we live apart. Freedom of association and all that jazz. By your logic, any restaurant that charges you for the food you eat, has excluded you from self-ownership. Yet, you know you are trading for that food. When I rent my apartment, I am not renting the space, I am renting the time to use that space. Which also includes the time to the manager/owner of that property, especially in the form of space maintainance. That means she gives me services plus time to use a given space. Are you saying that is not a valid service or payment? If so, provide a reason that it is not and not more fallacious natural law theory. Try causality, not duty for your principle of the argument. What optimal causality requires the owner of my apartment to give me the space freely? 



Quote
Quote
There is nothing in Nature that is conceptual

the first human being was literally born into a perfect state of nature
That doesn't follow. The first human born was literally born. One cannot infer the other. One can only infer this. If P then Q. If first human is born, that is the first human. The first human is born. Therefore, that is the first human. You cannot infer perfect state of nature because it does not intrinsically exist. Even Hume and other GeoLibs acknowledge this fact.



Quote
Quote
Liberty is the state of being free of obligations, period and end of story

and equal liberty is the state of having the greatest possible amount of liberty (maximal) for the greatest number of people.
[/quote

Nope, there is no equal liberty. I am not equal to you. As I am not equal to the Sun. And the Sun is not equal to the Galaxy...And so on. Do you understand or are you smoking more natural rights hash again?


I ask you again to provide proof that natural rights exist, which is the core of your argument. If you cannot provide proof of natural rights as an existent in Nature, then retract the claim. NOW.

-- Bridget
Logged

BenTucker

  • Guest
Re: Activism: how far would you go?
« Reply #94 on: February 07, 2006, 04:12:54 PM »

Quote
What is the problem with that?

then I must pay a tribute to someone else simply by existing and thus no self-ownership is possible.

Quote
Libertarianism is prefaced on the non-initiation of force

and I am telling you in the natural world all dominion over a territory is either initiate or upheld by force.

beyond a certain point exclusive use forces a legal and monetary obligation on others.

Quote
By your logic, any restaurant that charges you for the food you eat, has excluded you from self-ownership.

in your example - food is labor-based property and outside of the scope of my inquiry.

Quote
When I rent my apartment, I am not renting the space, I am renting the time to use that space

and while you are "renting the time to use the space" you are also defacto either legally or physically occupying the space denying others the ability to occupy that same space.

Quote
That means she gives me services plus time to use a given space. Are you saying that is not a valid service or payment? If so, provide a reason that it is not

service presumes labor and outside the scope of my inquiry as it is labor-based property.

Quote
The first human born was literally born. One cannot infer the other. One can only infer this. If P then Q

fine...if the first person is born then there is no other human around thus only the natural world to interact with in a perfect state of freedom (sans any other humans).

Quote
I am not equal to you

I am suggesting we will then have equal opportunity access to nature's benefits...nothing more nothing less.
Logged

lepidoptera

  • Guest
Re: Activism: how far would you go?
« Reply #95 on: February 07, 2006, 04:41:10 PM »

Say, a genetic female, and the only one left alive. You and all the other genetic males have to make a choice. Either YOU OWN HER BODY IN COMMON, being that she is scarce, being the only female left on Earth, or you accept the reality that her body cannot be owned by anyone but her since she is the current occupier.

The smart thing to do in this situation is be the one to get her pregnant first. 
Logged

ladyattis

  • Guest
Re: Activism: how far would you go?
« Reply #96 on: February 07, 2006, 04:46:39 PM »

Quote
What is the problem with that?

then I must pay a tribute to someone else simply by existing and thus no self-ownership is possible.
So, you don't accept that where you rent a home from is someone that is providing a service? LOL, whatever n00b.


Quote
Quote
Libertarianism is prefaced on the non-initiation of force

and I am telling you in the natural world all dominion over a territory is either initiate or upheld by force.
Only force to defend, not initiated force.


Quote
beyond a certain point exclusive use forces a legal and monetary obligation on others.
I have no obligation to any other human being. If want to walk away from all that I do, I can. Simple as that. Idiots like you don't acknowledge that fact.


Quote
Quote
By your logic, any restaurant that charges you for the food you eat, has excluded you from self-ownership.

in your example - food is labor-based property and outside of the scope of my inquiry.
Nope, food is property like land, no different, and as such it comes under the same equal access clause.


Quote
Quote
When I rent my apartment, I am not renting the space, I am renting the time to use that space

and while you are "renting the time to use the space" you are also defacto either legally or physically occupying the space denying others the ability to occupy that same space.
And it is my right to exclude you from my place. I paid for it. Are you saying you own my body? If so, what army you got to back that up, pal?

Quote
Quote
That means she gives me services plus time to use a given space. Are you saying that is not a valid service or payment? If so, provide a reason that it is not

service presumes labor and outside the scope of my inquiry as it is labor-based property.
Idiot, all property is the same, sorry. Take your bundle of rights theory and natural rights theory, and stuff it up your arse. You must prove that these theories stand in Nature before asserting them. You don't get it, do you?

Quote
Quote
The first human born was literally born. One cannot infer the other. One can only infer this. If P then Q

fine...if the first person is born then there is no other human around thus only the natural world to interact with in a perfect state of freedom (sans any other humans).
No, there is no perfect state of freedom. No state of nature. And etc. The first human couldn't live forever. The first human couldn't eat everything. And the first human could not occupy all spaces and all times. Ergo, your logical FAILS for two reasons. One, you have not asserted what is perfect. Two, you have not applied those qualities to the argument. When you produce the definition of perfect freedom, then you can discuss further, but until then you are blowing smoke up our asses.


Quote
Quote
I am not equal to you

I am suggesting we will then have equal opportunity access to nature's benefits...nothing more nothing less.

I don't have equal access to be pregnant. I don't have equal access to fly an airplane. I don't have equal access to all knowledge in the world. I don't hav equal access to all places and times since I am temporally and spatially limited. Your argument is BULL since you assert intrinsic rights that do not exist apart of human interaction aka MORAL THEORY.

Provide proof, THEN we discuss how that proof validates your theory. NOT YOUR THEORY THEN MAYBE PROOF. You're like a Christian fundie that says Jesus exists because the Bible says so. Even after I ask you how do you know the Bible is true. The same is for Georgism. How do you know Georgism is true? PROOF? EVIDENCE? FALSIFICATION OF OTHER THEORIES?

-- Bridget
Logged

BenTucker

  • Guest
Re: Activism: how far would you go?
« Reply #97 on: February 07, 2006, 05:56:09 PM »

Quote
you don't accept that where you rent a home from is someone that is providing a service?

a lease payment is made up of two factors

1. access to the capital (labor-based property)
2. access to the specific location as measured by economic rent (law-based property)

Quote
Only force to defend, not initiated force

the legal and monetary obligation (economic rent) is forced upon those being excluded beyond a certain point (Locke's Proviso)

Quote
I have no obligation to any other human being

the simple fact that you occupy a space means someone else can't - if that was all that were required to live and people only owned the space they occupied there would be no economic rent until every inch of earth were covered and one more were added...

Quote
And it is my right to exclude you from my place.

yes and that right also includes an obligation not to allow your exclusive use force a legal and monetary obligation on those you are excluding.

Quote
you have not asserted what is perfect.


no other humans...

Quote
I don't have equal access to be pregnant. I don't have equal access to fly an airplane. I don't have equal access to all knowledge in the world. I don't hav equal access to all places and times since I am temporally and spatially limited.

you do have an equal access opportunity right to the air in the sky...
« Last Edit: February 07, 2006, 06:14:40 PM by BenTucker »
Logged

Cortaigne

  • Guest
Re: Activism: how far would you go?
« Reply #98 on: February 07, 2006, 09:47:56 PM »

Say, a genetic female, and the only one left alive. You and all the other genetic males have to make a choice. Either YOU OWN HER BODY IN COMMON, being that she is scarce, being the only female left on Earth, or you accept the reality that her body cannot be owned by anyone but her since she is the current occupier.

The smart thing to do in this situation is be the one to get her pregnant first. 

That's only half of it.  The other is killing off the competition.
Logged

lepidoptera

  • Guest
Re: Activism: how far would you go?
« Reply #99 on: February 07, 2006, 10:44:25 PM »

Say, a genetic female, and the only one left alive. You and all the other genetic males have to make a choice. Either YOU OWN HER BODY IN COMMON, being that she is scarce, being the only female left on Earth, or you accept the reality that her body cannot be owned by anyone but her since she is the current occupier.

The smart thing to do in this situation is be the one to get her pregnant first. 

That's only half of it.  The other is killing off the competition.

Well, if you can manage to sneak in early... on the other hand, everyone else is going to have the same idea and she'll get raped to death.  Really you need some sort of bunker to hide her in...
Logged

eukreign

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1615
    • View Profile
Re: Activism: how far would you go?
« Reply #100 on: February 07, 2006, 10:46:24 PM »

Well, if you can manage to sneak in early... on the other hand, everyone else is going to have the same idea and she'll get raped to death.  Really you need some sort of bunker to hide her in...

You're having too much fun with this...  :)
Logged

lepidoptera

  • Guest
Re: Activism: how far would you go?
« Reply #101 on: February 07, 2006, 10:49:55 PM »

Well, if you can manage to sneak in early... on the other hand, everyone else is going to have the same idea and she'll get raped to death.  Really you need some sort of bunker to hide her in...

You're having too much fun with this...  :)

You are probably quite correct ^-^
Logged

ladyattis

  • Guest
Re: Activism: how far would you go?
« Reply #102 on: February 07, 2006, 11:18:20 PM »

Quote
you don't accept that where you rent a home from is someone that is providing a service?

a lease payment is made up of two factors

1. access to the capital (labor-based property)
2. access to the specific location as measured by economic rent (law-based property)
Nope and nope. Rent here is not controlled, n00b. Only in the big socialist cities do they regulate rent. And oddly, when rent is regulated the safety of rented properties reduce.


Quote
Quote
Only force to defend, not initiated force

the legal and monetary obligation (economic rent) is forced upon those being excluded beyond a certain point (Locke's Proviso)
Nope, if I maintain myself I am not putting any obligation on anyone. You just can't come onto the land E.G. MY RIGHT TO PROPERTY AND PRIVACY.

Quote
Quote
I have no obligation to any other human being

the simple fact that you occupy a space means someone else can't - if that was all that were required to live and people only owned the space they occupied there would be no economic rent until every inch of earth were covered and one more were added...

Nope and nope. I have no obligation to pay anyone to occupy a space. Also, what means do you attempt to assert that occupation tax? A gun? Go ahead and try, you'll have a Shay's Rebellion part 2 in your own lifetime.


Quote
Quote
And it is my right to exclude you from my place.

yes and that right also includes an obligation not to allow your exclusive use force a legal and monetary obligation on those you are excluding.
I am not using any legal force but my right to privacy. Are you asserting I have no specific right to privacy? Try reading Amendment Four of the US Constitution. You don't have a right to encroach on my privacy without Due Process. Got it, child?

Quote
Quote
you have not asserted what is perfect.


no other humans...
No, provide a quality of perfection that we all can agree upon. Don't you notice that none of us agree for many reasons? First, many of us, particularly ME, don't agree with the terminology used. Second, others don't agree on the interpretation of capital as labor-based only. Third, a few just find the fact that Georgism requires governmental force to operate just plain daffy[Those being the anarcho-capitalists]. Three independent qualms, and three you HAVE NOT REFUTED. You're being like a fundie christian that has been refuted on ID. So, can you prove your claim that we have natural rights? PROVE OR SHUTUP.


Quote
Quote
I don't have equal access to be pregnant. I don't have equal access to fly an airplane. I don't have equal access to all knowledge in the world. I don't hav equal access to all places and times since I am temporally and spatially limited.

you do have an equal access opportunity right to the air in the sky...

Nope and nope. There are no rights intrinsic. Rights are MORAL WOULD-BEs, COULD-BEs, and OUGHT-BEs, NOT WILL-BEs and MUST-BEs.

Again read Rand's speech on Causality versus Duty in moral theory. Please prove your theory before asserting the conclusion of your theory. Do you get it or are you also a Christian/Muslim/Jew/Hindu/Buddhist/Tree-Hugger/Et-Al? Don't you know assumptionism FAILS?

-- Bridget
Logged

BenTucker

  • Guest
Re: Activism: how far would you go?
« Reply #103 on: February 07, 2006, 11:48:41 PM »

Quote
Rent here is not controlled

one price - two factors.

Quote
You just can't come onto the land

your exclusion creates the obligation.

Quote
I have no obligation to pay anyone to occupy a space

and what gives you the right backed by the state to have a legal claim on someone else's wages?

Quote
what means do you attempt to assert that occupation tax

the same means you will use when a tenant refuses to pay the economic rent portion of his rent...

Quote
I am not using any legal force but my right to privacy

great then you should have no problem with a lien to protect me against your claim to my wages which violates my privacy.

Quote
provide a quality of perfection that we all can agree upon

perfect freedom in a state of nature means there is no other human in existence and thus (you should be glad to hear) no need for the concept of rights

Quote
First, many of us, particularly ME, don't agree with the terminology used. Second, others don't agree on the interpretation of capital as labor-based only. Third, a few just find the fact that Georgism requires governmental force to operate just plain daffy[Those being the anarcho-capitalists].

what is trully daffy is that you (and apparently other ancaps) don't see that law-based property is based on government force.
Logged

ladyattis

  • Guest
Re: Activism: how far would you go?
« Reply #104 on: February 07, 2006, 11:58:54 PM »

Quote
Rent here is not controlled

one price - two factors.
Name those factors and reference source material for those factors.

Quote
Quote
You just can't come onto the land

your exclusion creates the obligation.
Nope, because you are not paying to be excluded. You just find somewhere else to stand. Jackass.

Quote
Quote
I have no obligation to pay anyone to occupy a space

and what gives you the right backed by the state to have a legal claim on someone else's wages?
I am not claiming anyone's wages for buying land and excluding you from it. What wages am I accruing for living on my own property and not renting it out. Also, those that do rent out properties do you know they provide services? Maybe you ought to study the history of house/space renting. You'll find it has more to do with quality control over services such as safety and etc. Without private ownership of land and its rent, there would be no demand for quality. Who will put down the powerlines, waterlines, gaslines, etc? The government? LOL.


Quote
Quote
what means do you attempt to assert that occupation tax

the same means you will use when a tenant refuses to pay the economic rent portion of his rent...
I already refuted your claim that a rentee is being punished. A rentee pays for services and time only in rent. Nothing else. You don't pay taxes, technically. And you don't pay for the preferences of the land owner. You just pay for the time and services of the rental property. Just like when you rent a car. You don't own the car, you own the time for the car and the service maintainance package with the car. Nothing more and nothing less. Same goes for housing rentals.


Quote
Quote
I am not using any legal force but my right to privacy

great then you should have no problem with a lien to protect me against your claim to my wages which violates my privacy.

Again liens are obligations to pay for something that I don't own. I own my property, thus you keep your lien off my property...OR ELSE, GOT IT KING TUCKER?

Quote
Quote
provide a quality of perfection that we all can agree upon

perfect freedom in a state of nature means there is no other human in existence and thus (you should be glad to hear) no need for the concept of rights
Nope. Non-human animals can have concepts if they are able to produce memories, namely the primates exhibit this trait. So your argument is a farce yet again.

Quote
Quote
First, many of us, particularly ME, don't agree with the terminology used. Second, others don't agree on the interpretation of capital as labor-based only. Third, a few just find the fact that Georgism requires governmental force to operate just plain daffy[Those being the anarcho-capitalists].

what is trully daffy is that you (and apparently other ancaps) don't see that law-based property is based on government force.

What law am I asserting? I just said you can't be on the land. I can use private security or just my own self with a shotgun. What law am I enacting?

Again, prove natural rights are intrinsic or STFU.

-- Bridget
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 12   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  Activism: how far would you go?

// ]]>

Page created in 0.057 seconds with 32 queries.