is offering money to vendors in exchange for goods and services an act of war?

[cc2012]

LoL!! True,true..

 

[abandonconflict]

You've miscast what the issue is. In order for there to be a voluntary exchange, all parties to the exchange must consent or the exchange becomes involuntary.

Handing a person money in your scenario represents two different possibilities.

If a person wants to interact with you, the act of handing them money consumates a voluntary exchange / agreement.

If the person doesn't want to interact with you handing them money and also setting the terms of the interaction on a uni-lateral and forcible basis is a much different thing. You advocate this method as a good method to use. It's not, as it creates a bias towards one person being able to force an interaction.

To privately own a piece of land with productive resources which many rely upon also requires consent, or in the case of our society, gov't force. Being granted exclusive rights to extract wealth from the earth therefore implies consent on the part of the owner to make said resources equally available to paying customers.

You don't live in a vacuum, you live in a society and upon benefaction of it. Society is left at the mercy of markets to supply sustenance and life and your position is exclusionary as if you feel that your right to property is divine and not granted by the gov't. Your argument belies your values regarding property as trumping life.

Inb4 my Veteran's disability check gets compared with rape.

 

[UncleBuck]

It's not, as it creates a bias towards one person being able to force an interaction.

who has ever forced anyone to open a public store rather than a private one?

can you name one single example, ever?

 

[Rob Roy]

To privately own a piece of land with productive resources which many rely upon also requires consent, or in the case of our society, gov't force. Being granted exclusive rights to extract wealth from the earth therefore implies consent on the part of the owner to make said resources equally available to paying customers.

You don't live in a vacuum, you live in a society and upon benefaction of it. Society is left at the mercy of markets to supply sustenance and life and your position is exclusionary as if you feel that your right to property is divine and not granted by the gov't. Your argument belies your values regarding property as trumping life.

Inb4 my Veteran's disability check gets compared with rape.

Nice story, but it doesn't offer a rebuttal, it's more of a diversion.

Nobody is "granted" exclusive right to make property or "extract wealth" in the matter at hand. They are asserting a right to THEIR property, not yours or anyone else. You fail to distinguish that.

When the first hunter gatherer filled a basket with fruit, for her consumption or her families was she stealing from anybody? Not likely.

When Ogg made his first spear tip, he "created wealth" in that he mixed his labor with a previously unowned raw natural resource. He then made "property" that he can determine the use of. Not some other cave man.

When the first people engaged in agriculture, didn't they "own" the crops they produced? I think they did. Other people had no right to the proceeds of their labor, especially using force. to make them interact.

In your example you imply that one persons creating property of their own somehow excludes others from doing the same, which can be the case, is often not. It isn't the case in the modern day "problem" where people are concerned with discrimination.

You didn't refute or even address the example I posted regarding voluntary exchange either. You believe in "involuntary exchange", which is exclusionary as it deprives one party of their right to chose their own associations . If you are honest, you will admit you can't argue that.

Nice try though.

 

[abandonconflict]

Nice story, but it doesn't offer a rebuttal, it's more of a diversion...

Ogg

You didn't refute or even address the example I posted regarding voluntary exchange either.

Irony.

 

[schuylaar]

some people are trying to characterize the act of a gay person handing money to a vendor in exchange for goods and services as a "war on religion".

is giving people money in exchange for goods and services an act of war, or is it what vendors and store owners wanted to happen when they opened their stores?

is the act of handing over money particularly egregious, or is it more egregious to tell someone that they are not welcome somewhere because of their sexual orientation?

is this really a war on religion, or is it a war on homosexuality being perpetrated by supposedly peaceful, totally non-bigoted christians?

how the hell do people even think they pretend to know if someone is gay or not coming into their store?

a hetero test?(hint: just tell them you stick your boys pee-pee in a girls pee-pee)

gay-dar?

 

[schuylaar]

lol you fucking muppet i've been on this site much longer than buck

ask fdd

isn't that the guy who pretends to be a woman after his incarceration? to throw off the feds for violating his parole by being on a weed site?

nope, never heard of him..

 

[abandonconflict]

Nobody is "granted" exclusive right to make property or "extract wealth" in the matter at hand. They are asserting a right to THEIR property, not yours or anyone else. You fail to distinguish that.

Yes, the gov't and banks grant exclusive property rights to extract wealth. We're talking about reality, not caveman stories. You just basically affirmed the assertion that my previous argument included which is that you think your property rights are divine and innate rather than granted to you.

 

[ttystikk]

some people are trying to characterize the act of a gay person handing money to a vendor in exchange for goods and services as a "war on religion".

is giving people money in exchange for goods and services an act of war, or is it what vendors and store owners wanted to happen when they opened their stores?

is the act of handing over money particularly egregious, or is it more egregious to tell someone that they are not welcome somewhere because of their sexual orientation?

is this really a war on religion, or is it a war on homosexuality being perpetrated by supposedly peaceful, totally non-bigoted christians?

What? Peaceful, non bigoted Christians being hypocritical?

Nawwwwww, say it ain't so!

 

[Rob Roy]

Yes, the gov't and banks grant exclusive property rights to extract wealth. We're talking about reality, not caveman stories. You just basically affirmed the assertion that my previous argument included which is that you think your property rights are divine and innate rather than granted to you.

What is innate is to create property, "tool making". What is also innate is to protect the things YOU create. Haven't you ever created something and felt a sense of ownership ?

If you combine your labor with natural resources are you saying that somebody else has the right to claim what you produced, your hut, your crops etc. ?

The government and banks created strategies to extract wealth from other people and their property. Can we agree that, people that extract from others forcibly are parasitic and people that create things generally are not?

Also since we are talking about "property rights" it might be a good time for you to assert what property is and who can own it.
If you can't even define what you believe it is, what's the point in trying to talk about something, if you can't describe it?

 

[abandonconflict]

If you combine your labor with natural resources are you saying that somebody else has the right to claim what you produced, your hut, your crops etc. ?

The gov't does, since they were the ones who took it from the indigenous people and granted exclusive deed.

 

[Rob Roy]

The gov't does, since they were the ones who took it from the indigenous people and granted exclusive deed.

A piece of paper isn't what "creates property". It can attempt to define it, but it doesn't create it.

Just like a title to a car doesn't create a car. Two separate things.


Also, if you would describe what you think property is and who can own it, I'd take your arguments more seriously.

It seems like you want to hold other people to making valid arguments, use consistent terms etc. when you don't hold yourself to the same standard. Is that because you have a hard time discussing what property is etc. ?

 

[abandonconflict]

A piece of paper isn't what "creates property". It can attempt to define it, but it doesn't create it.

Just like a title to a car doesn't create a car. Two separate things.

That's nice but how does it have anything to do with the discussion?

 

[Rob Roy]

That's nice but how does it have anything to do with the discussion?

Governments don't grant "exclusive deed".

Governments pervert the outright ownership of property and appropriate the things people produced in a parasitic fashion. That means government doesn't really allow ownership, for individuals, they deny it.

Also, you seem reluctant to commit to revealing what you believe property is and isn't. If you can't go there, does that mean you are unsure or just being smug?

 

[abandonconflict]

Governments don't grant "exclusive deed".

What ever you say homes.

 

[Rob Roy]

What ever you say homes.

 

[Rob Roy]

To privately own a piece of land with productive resources which many rely upon also requires consent, or in the case of our society, gov't force. Being granted exclusive rights to extract wealth from the earth therefore implies consent on the part of the owner to make said resources equally available to paying customers.

You don't live in a vacuum, you live in a society and upon benefaction of it. Society is left at the mercy of markets to supply sustenance and life and your position is exclusionary as if you feel that your right to property is divine and not granted by the gov't. Your argument belies your values regarding property as trumping life.

Inb4 my Veteran's disability check gets compared with rape.

You didn't allow for the discussion of previously unoccupied or unowned land. Who would you ask consent from and who has the authority to deny it?

 

[Rob Roy]

who has ever forced anyone to open a public store rather than a private one?

can you name one single example, ever?

What would you call the forcible government action that converted an already in business store from a private store to a public store?

 

[abandonconflict]

You didn't allow for the discussion of previously unoccupied or unowned land. Who would you ask consent from and who has the authority to deny it?

Let me know if you find some land like that.

 

[Rob Roy]

Let me know if you find some land like that.

Scarcity of unoccupied land is not the problem. Although it is a finite thing and eventually scarcity will be a bigger factor.

The government that provides you money is the obstacle. They claim ownership over lots of unoccupied land, while at the same time preventing people from occupying it. The land that is already occupied, and ostensibly "owned" by private individuals is in reality a tenancy at best, held by one of the nationalist gangs...but you already know that.

What I don't know is which things you consider property to be and why.