This is gonna get interesting! Militia takes over Ore. federal building after protest.

UncleBuck said:

you think it should be legal to deny service to people based on race.

how is that not racist?

Click to expand...

It is a pro property right point of view.

It expresses the idea that REGARDLESS of race, the owner of a given property has the right to control it. As I've said before, the person that owns a given property may or may not be a racist, but my interest lies not in their belief, but in their right to determine their own body and their property. The distinction appears to be too difficult for you to grasp, Simpleton.



Aren't you the same guy that thought I should thank a "black person" for the work of long dead people based solely on being of the same race of those dead people? Isn't THAT racist ?

Rob Roy said:

It is a pro property right point of view.

Click to expand...

property owners already have the right to determine how their property is used. that right already exists.

why do you want to add an extra right that says that it is legal to kick people out of stores based on their race?

is it because you are totally not racist?

UncleBuck said:

property owners already have the right to determine how their property is used. that right already exists.

why do you want to add an extra right that says that it is legal to kick people out of stores based on their race?

is it because you are totally not racist?

Click to expand...

Property ownership has not meant determination of said property for a long time, that is self evident.
The right exists, but it is presently unable practically speaking to be exercised, due to government existence.


There is no such thing as an extra right. You imply that rights come from government, which is impossible, that would make them revocable privileges.

I do not believe a persons race is what makes them a good person or a bad person.

Rob Roy said:

Property ownership has not meant determination of said property for a long time, that is self evident.
The right exists, but it is presently unable practically speaking to be exercised, due to government existence.


There is no such thing as an extra right. You imply that rights come from government, which is impossible, that would make them revocable privileges.

I do not believe a persons race is what makes them a good person or a bad person.

Click to expand...

Your rights are revocable privileges. If the government collapsed tomorrow you would have none of the rights. The bill of rights protects you from the government. If there is no government then there is no bill of rights. If there is no government, there are no rights at all.

What is property? Land? Physicall stuff? How exactly do you 'Own' it anyway? Is it because your stuff is physically close to you that causes your ownership? If someone picks something up and walks away with it, is it still yours? Do you really ever actually own anything if you look at it outside the sphere of government?

My contention is that you dont even own your own body. It is a collection of stuff you are using right now for consciousness.

Outside of government you have no rights. You have no property. You own nothing. You can manipulate the physical world to one degree or another but it is all transitory.

NLXSK1 said:

Your rights are revocable privileges. If the government collapsed tomorrow you would have none of the rights. The bill of rights protects you from the government. If there is no government then there is no bill of rights. If there is no government, there are no rights at all.

What is property? Land? Physicall stuff? How exactly do you 'Own' it anyway? Is it because your stuff is physically close to you that causes your ownership? If someone picks something up and walks away with it, is it still yours? Do you really ever actually own anything if you look at it outside the sphere of government?

My contention is that you dont even own your own body. It is a collection of stuff you are using right now for consciousness.

Outside of government you have no rights. You have no property. You own nothing. You can manipulate the physical world to one degree or another but it is all transitory.

Click to expand...

Mark Twain

NLXSK1 said:

Your rights are revocable privileges. If the government collapsed tomorrow you would have none of the rights. The bill of rights protects you from the government. If there is no government then there is no bill of rights. If there is no government, there are no rights at all.

What is property? Land? Physicall stuff? How exactly do you 'Own' it anyway? Is it because your stuff is physically close to you that causes your ownership? If someone picks something up and walks away with it, is it still yours? Do you really ever actually own anything if you look at it outside the sphere of government?

My contention is that you dont even own your own body. It is a collection of stuff you are using right now for consciousness.

Outside of government you have no rights. You have no property. You own nothing. You can manipulate the physical world to one degree or another but it is all transitory.

Click to expand...

If the government collapsed, I would still have those 'rights' of which I am capable of defending. Still my property unless a trespasser shoots me first. No?

“And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure, when we have removed their only firm basis — a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? And they are not to be violated but with His wrath.” —U.S. President Thomas Jefferson

budlover13 said:

If the government collapsed, I would still have those 'rights' of which I am capable of defending. Still my property unless a trespasser shoots me first. No?

Click to expand...

But that is no longer called a right. That is simply survival. At that point a dog has as many 'rights' as you do and they are granted by nature, not by government or god.

Strange that people think rights are something other than an agreement to not fight over land and resources. First, societies that don't protect and foster its children fail. Second, societies with disparate groups that work together eventually overcome their difference and become stronger together..

undercovergrow said:

“And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure, when we have removed their only firm basis — a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? And they are not to be violated but with His wrath.” —U.S. President Thomas Jefferson

Click to expand...

Friend or mine emmigrated to this country from Iraq about 20 years ago. He still has family in Iraq. Lost his brother two years ago at a checkpoint set up by one or another militia. The whole car load of family and friends were murdered. All on the basis of their clan/sect. What he says is the biggest difference between US and Iraq today is that in the US, people don't kill others when they have a difference, or at least it rarely happens in the US. This compared to Iraq, where it happens every day and has been for a long time.

Rights that are not defended are lost. For the most part, we turn over defense of our rights to government but not entirely. There are two ways the US society enforces our rights, one via justice system the other via social pressure from friends, neighbors and family. Both are necessary. Government (ideally) defines and enforces laws which embody "rights" and society teaches and reinforces values that also embody "rights".

Those rights that you and Jefferson say come from the government via god are really due to people's behavior within the society. God has little to do with it. God fearing people in Iraq don't respect the right to life of others in a different clan and so, mayhem and chaos are always just around the corner. It's impossible to maintain, rebuild or mend society when its own people don't respect rights of others.

I've heard many people say they agree with the mission of the occupiers but almost nobody agreed with their method. Practically everybody says the armed take-over of the refuge was something they disagreed with. And so, even though we disagree over the issues, we agree that violence and lawlessness are not the avenue to be taken, not in the first resort and maybe never. Advantage to US.

Bundy crossed the line when he strapped on his gun and declared private ownership of public lands. Except for a fringe group, people of the US understand this.

Fogdog said:

Strange that people think rights are something other than an agreement to not fight over land and resources. First, societies that don't protect and foster its children fail. Second, societies with disparate groups that work together eventually overcome their difference and become stronger together..

Friend or mine emmigrated to this country from Iraq about 20 years ago. He still has family in Iraq. Lost his brother two years ago at a checkpoint set up by one or another militia. The whole car load of family and friends were murdered. All on the basis of their clan/sect. What he says is the biggest difference between US and Iraq today is that in the US, people don't kill others when they have a difference, or at least it rarely happens in the US. This compared to Iraq, where it happens every day and has been for a long time.

Rights that are not defended are lost. For the most part, we turn over defense of our rights to government but not entirely. There are two ways the US society enforces our rights, one via justice system the other via social pressure from friends, neighbors and family. Both are necessary. Government (ideally) defines and enforces laws which embody "rights" and society teaches and reinforces values that also embody "rights".

Those rights that you and Jefferson say come from the government via god are really due to people's behavior within the society. God has little to do with it. God fearing people in Iraq don't respect the right to life of others in a different clan and so, mayhem and chaos are always just around the corner. It's impossible to maintain, rebuild or mend society when its own people don't respect rights of others.

I've heard many people say they agree with the mission of the occupiers but almost nobody agreed with their method. Practically everybody says the armed take-over of the refuge was something they disagreed with. And so, even though we disagree over the issues, we agree that violence and lawlessness are not the avenue to be taken, not in the first resort and maybe never. Advantage to US.

Bundy crossed the line when he strapped on his gun and declared private ownership of public lands. Except for a fringe group, people of the US understand this.

Click to expand...

The original acquisition of that land was not for the benefit of the "public" as you claim.

Nor is the present day control of that land for the benefit of the "public" as you claim.

In both case the "owners" ,the Federal government, strapped on fire arms and threatened to kill anyone already using the land or more recently they DID kill somebody for challenging their claim to own it.

If the land were for the benefit of the public, it would be made available to homestead for people to mix their labor with the resources and create something of value.

The idea that bureaucrats act out of benevolence is where you go off the deep end into fantasy land.

Rob Roy said:

If the land were for the benefit of the public, it would be made available to homestead for people to mix their labor with the resources and create something of value.

Click to expand...

so you want them to make housing developments on BLM land?

empty land that will never be developed is valuable to me and something i'm glad to help pay for.

rkymtnman said:

so you want them to make housing developments on BLM land?

empty land that will never be developed is valuable to me and something i'm glad to help pay for.

Click to expand...

I'm not real big on housing developments personally.


I want people to stop believing in the superstition that other people (a federal government is just a violent gang of people after all) own them and that the gang has a right to first kill off the original occupants of land, then prevent other people from using that land today

I'd also like the gang to stop killing people in general, and specifically to apologize for the guy that was murdered when he was protesting the same government / gang that jailed some of the abutting serfs for being disobedient.

I want the federal gang to stand down and for land that isn't occupied to be able to be used by people who would occupy it, farm it, etc.

The term "public land" is a sleight of hand and designed to obfuscate, not illuminate.

Rob Roy said:

I want the federal gang to stand down and for land that isn't occupied to be able to be used by people who would occupy it, farm it, etc.

Click to expand...

if people want to occupy or farm land, then they should buy their own land. then they can do whatever they want.

BLM land is able to be used by all but there has to be restrictions on what people do with it or it will be abused.

if you can't afford to buy land to raise cattle, then you are in the wrong business. that's a personal problem, not a "we" problem

come out to CO sometime and enjoy the 10's of thousands of acres ofBLM land that we have. you'll appreciate it more if you see it in person

rkymtnman said:

come out to CO sometime and enjoy the 10's of thousands of acres ofBLM land that we have. you'll appreciate it more if you see it in person

Click to expand...

True that. At least there is something left to appreciate. The free use of public land ended around the turn of the 19th century into the 20th century. There is a string of abandoned mines in Co, left behind by private companies that showed exactly why the government needed to step in. Those mines today are threatening the water for the entire region. Also, over grazing. Today, all have access to land that is held in public trust. Mining, grazing and logging are all being done but other interests such as wildlife and recreational use are also represented.

Ironically, the Malheur is an example of how these interests came together to forge a plan based upon everybody's interests. Nobody got everything they wanted but everybody got what they needed.

rkymtnman said:

if people want to occupy or farm land, then they should buy their own land. then they can do whatever they want.

BLM land is able to be used by all but there has to be restrictions on what people do with it or it will be abused.

if you can't afford to buy land to raise cattle, then you are in the wrong business. that's a personal problem, not a "we" problem

Click to expand...

If land is occupied it should certainly be acquired thru consensual means.

How did the BLM gain control of it, did they buy it from somebody or was it unoccupied and they homesteaded it?

Rob Roy said:

If land is occupied it should certainly be acquired thru consensual means.

How did the BLM gain control of it, did they buy it from somebody or was it unoccupied and they homesteaded it?

Click to expand...

that's for the gov't to know and for you to probably never find out.

it is what it is...

are you against all of our national parks as well?

rkymtnman said:

that's for the gov't to know and for you to probably never find out.

it is what it is...

Click to expand...

I think we can agree that your answer fails to address my question.


The government is a gang of thieves writ large - an abolitionist with a cool long beard once said

rkymtnman said:

are you against all of our national parks as well?

Click to expand...

Misleading question, it implies without a gang in Washington D.C. nature would be a parking lot.

I love the wilderness, I do not agree with a forcibly organized and administered nation state as being the best source of protection for it.