Activism: how far would you go?

[Proletarian]

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?

So cupcakes fall from the sky to feed you and keep you alive without your ever having to lift a finger?

[BenTucker]

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?

So cupcakes fall from the sky to feed you and keep you alive without your ever having to lift a finger?

no...one only has an equal access/use opportunity right to the natural commons as a negative right so long as one is not infringing upon the equal access opportunity rights of everyone else.

you then must attempt to sustain yourself or be gifted or purchase your sustenance from others.

requiring that cup cakes (made from labor) be provide is a positive right which I do not support.

[BenTucker]

Define "equal liberty."

no matter where anyone else has exclusive privileged rights of access to specific locations - no one can be economically disadvantaged.

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).

if everyone shares the economic rent directly and freely then we will have created the greatest amount of equal freedom for the greatest number of people.

remember if you pay out $5K in dues to your neighbors and they inturn pay you $4K in dividends - along with having individual ownership rights which include:

1. use
2. possession
3. exclusion
4. transferability

you therefore have an 80% homestead exemption on the economic rent.

at the same time a tenant would pay zero dues for acccess to land and receive $4K

[ladyattis]

Define "equal liberty."

no matter where anyone else has exclusive privileged rights of access to specific locations - no one can be economically disadvantaged.

Everyone is economically disadvantaged. Think of a time when anyone was a master in all trades? I can't. So, a chair maker should be equal to an inventor; an inventor to a guard? And so on? No, it does not follow that anyone has any equality in economic power or prowess. Some are better than others, other wise we would not need to depend on others to produce goods for us. Whether it's a farmer, doctor, or factory laborer, we can not do everything on our own.

if everyone shares the economic rent directly and freely then we will have created the greatest amount of equal freedom for the greatest number of people.

Nope, because one owes something one is not free. Your freedom is conditional because of the claim of intrinsic rights and intrinsic obligations. I don't owe you or anyone anything other than what I have contracted. Since I have not contracted with you, Benny, I don't owe you squat.

remember if you pay out $5K in dues to your neighbors and they inturn pay you $4K in dividends - along with having individual ownership rights which include:

1. use
2. possession
3. exclusion
4. transferability

you therefore have an 80% homestead exemption on the economic rent.

Nope, you claim one owes others something. And you have not proven the debt. You only prove that you are very good at circular reasoning and unable to refute my arguments.

at the same time a tenant would pay zero dues for acccess to land and receive $4K

Socialism never works, kiddo. So, what army are you going to use to impress these anti-concepts upon us? Remember, we all know how to use weapons. And we all are very willing to use them in defense of our life and liberty. Interfere with ours, expect reprisal intellectually[as I have done] and physically[as would happen if you attempted your acts by force].

So again, PROVE THAT HUMANS HAVE INTRINSIC RIGHTS. Do you get it? Prove, do not declare an argument automatically proven without qualification. By the way, I have stated this for probably the fifth time. And the other four times you have not qualified how one has intrinsic rights, which your argument is prefaced upon. Or do you even know how argumentation occurs?

-- Bridget

[bonerjoe]

QUIT IT YOU TWO.

Bitchslaps for both of you until you stop.

[Proletarian]

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?

So cupcakes fall from the sky to feed you and keep you alive without your ever having to lift a finger?

no...one only has an equal access/use opportunity right to the natural commons as a negative right so long as one is not infringing upon the equal access opportunity rights of everyone else.

you then must attempt to sustain yourself or be gifted or purchase your sustenance from others.

requiring that cup cakes (made from labor) be provide is a positive right which I do not support.

What is an equal access right?

If I own a plot of land, by right, I answer to nobody but myself when it comes to the use of that land. By that same right, by the fact that I own that plot of land, anyone and everyone else must answer to me when it comes to the use of that land. Likewise, I answer to anyone else who owns something, but they need not answer to me or anyone else when it comes to employing what they own.

Either you own something and you are master and sovereign of it (in which case, you own it 100% and nobody can tell you what to do with it), or you share ownership of it (in which case, ownership would have to be divided, you cannot share ownership and disclude other owners from the decisions made for the property), or you do not own it at all (in which case, you cannot tell the owner(s) what to do with that property -- you do not have that right).

I have a right to use my property (the things I own) as I please. Why?

Because I have a right to own things. Why?

Because I have a right to exchange and contract for things. Why?

Because I have a right to choose whether I produce labor or not with which to exchange. Why?

Because I own my own body. You don't own it, because you are not me, and you never will be me, so you never will own my body or anything else that I produce with my labor, unless I voluntarily exchange the product of my labor with you.

Ownership of property is derived from labor and freedom of choice. I chose to exchange labor for money. I chose to exchange money for land. I can then choose to do whatever the fuck I want to with my land, such as choosing to relinquish my ownership and rights to that land by exchanging it for ownership and rights to other property, like money. I wouldn't be able to engage in these transactions if it weren't for my choice to exchange labor. And rightfully so. Why would I receive something for something I didn't do? I didn't commit the crime, I won't receive the punishment. I didn't do the work, I won't receive the compensation. I committed the crime, I recieve the punishment. I did the work, I receive the compensation.

Logic. Reason. Think. But please, PLEASE, be sure to explain.

[Proletarian]

QUIT IT YOU TWO.

Bitchslaps for both of you until you stop.

OMG! How sad.

[bonerjoe]

You too.

[BenTucker]

Everyone is economically disadvantaged. Think of a time when anyone was a master in all trades? I can't. So, a chair maker should be equal to an inventor; an inventor to a guard? And so on? No, it does not follow that anyone has any equality in economic power or prowess. Some are better than others, other wise we would not need to depend on others to produce goods for us. Whether it's a farmer, doctor, or factory laborer, we can not do everything on our own.

I am referring to UNimproved land value on law-based property whereas you are referring to labor-based property.

Socialism never works, kiddo

socialism is generally the collective ownership of the means of production (land, labor, capital) whereas I am arguing for one aspect of land ownership (economic rent) to remain owned in common as an individual right inorder to insure people not owe "anyone anything other than what they have contracted for" and since there is no choice as to whether or not to occupy space inorder to exist & all land is legally occupied the contract between those that exclude and those being excluded is not valid.

[bonerjoe]

BenDover...
TomPaineintheass...

SHUT UP.

[BenTucker]

Because I own my own body

I agree...but the current form of land tenure violates this right because if you do not have a legal right to be somewhere then you don't have a legal right to exist because existing by definition means occupying space somewhere.

you never will own my body or anything else that I produce with my labor

you don't produce the economic rent with your labor that is why it is called the UNimproved land value...it is socially created when two or more people naturally compete for access to something that we all need to exist - a specific location to occupy.

I chose to exchange labor for money. I chose to exchange money for land. I can then choose to do whatever...I want to with my land, such as choosing to relinquish my ownership and rights to that land by exchanging it for ownership and rights to other property, like money.

but you can't choose not to occupy any space inorder to exist and if all land is legally occupied then you have no choice but to pay someone to occupy what is needed to exist and it can only be paid out of your labor violating your absolute property rights to your labor.

but if the excluder pays the economic rent (unimproved land value) of which they contribute no labor towards creating as it is socially created then can you tell me exactly where their labor-based property rights are being violated while the excluded's labor based property rights are being upheld?

remember in the system that I advocate - the sharing of economic rent directly and evenly between neighbors - there would be NO PURCHASE PRICE to land.

[BenTucker]

SHUT UP.

don't you believe that everyone has an equal access opportunity right to express themselves so long as they are not infringing on the equal access opportunity rights of others (an individual common right to freedom of speech)?

[rabidfurby]

Because I own my own body

I agree...but the current form of land tenure violates this right because if you do not have a legal right to be somewhere then you don't have a legal right to exist because existing by definition means occupying space somewhere.

If you don't have a legal right to land, you can't exist.
If you don't have a legal right to food, you can't exist (you'll die).

You are advocating that first statement, while rejecting the second. How is that consistent?

but you can't choose not to occupy any space inorder to exist and if all land is legally occupied then you have no choice but to pay someone to occupy what is needed to exist and it can only be paid out of your labor violating your absolute property rights to your labor.

You also can't choose to not eat food. If all the food is being eaten, you have no choice but to pay someone for food, which violates your right to life.

don't you believe that everyone has an equal access opportunity right to express themselves so long as they are not infringing on the equal access opportunity rights of others (an individual common right to freedom of speech)?

BonerJoe wasn't trying to violate your right to free speech. He was telling you to shut up. I agree with him.

I doubt you've convinced a single person on this board that what you believe is logically consistent, much less desirable. It's pretty clear that you are immune to reason. Really the only reason I respond to you is that exposure to such a fucked-up viewpoint as yours allows me to collect my thoughts on the issue and cement my knowledge of my own beliefs. That, and because it's entertaining as hell.

[Laetitia]

SHUT UP.

don't you believe that everyone has an equal access opportunity right to express themselves so long as they are not infringing on the equal access opportunity rights of others (an individual common right to freedom of speech)?

I'm sure bonerjoe does believe in free expression. He very thoughtfully takes time to add his opinions to most everything expressed here.
Surely you don't feel that his free expression infringes on your equal access opportunity to exercise your individual common right to fredom of speech? That would be a very sad state of affairs indeed.

[BenTucker]

If you don't have a legal right to land, you can't exist.
If you don't have a legal right to food, you can't exist (you'll die).

You are advocating that first statement, while rejecting the second. How is that consistent?

one involves labor (food) the other doesn't (land).

If all the food is being eaten, you have no choice but to pay someone for food, which violates your right to life.

if you have access to land you can grow your own food with your own labor

It's pretty clear that you are immune to reason

are the above answers not based on reason - if not why not?

can you please logically explain to me how you can have the right to self-ownership but not the right to stand somewhere to excercise that right to exist?