abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
If only you could take it with you to the grave...
Likely, someone will take it since it was never really yours and give exclusive deed to someone else over it eventually.
is offering money to vendors in exchange for goods and services an act of war?
- Thread starter UncleBuck
- Start date
Likely, someone will take it since it was never really yours and give exclusive deed to someone else over it eventually.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Actually the gov't is not the obstacle regarding your property rights, the gov't granted you property rights.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I think I understand your point.
Until I'm dead though, I will respect your right to use / "own" what you have created and defend my right to do the same. Of course none of us created land, but we can create things from raw natural resources can't we?
I comprehend that "ownership" of land is an interesting concept and relies upon an understanding that the first person to be in a given spot has a higher claim on that spot than somebody else. I also understand that property and land can be two different things.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
They granted themselves property rights. If they granted me property rights, they would not insist on some kind of forced tribute.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I disagree. They granted you exclusive deed and you accepted the terms. Maybe you should mention slavery and rape a few times so that you express how it feels when white people have to sell things to black people.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
An acceptance of the terms implies that the terms can be rejected without a negative response. So, therefore I wouldn't say the terms were accepted. As the "offer" was made by an unwanted party (government) without any real possibility of an alternative.
Also, you're being a dick and combining two distinct things into one in an attempt to miscast my beliefs. I can accept that somebody else would not want to be forced to associate with somebody that I would freely associate with. You fail to acknowledge that.
You are the hypocrite here, not me. I am respecting a persons right to chose their interactions on a voluntary basis, you are not, you are in a sense, becoming the government when you champion a forced interaction.
I win AGAIN!!!
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
But you received exclusive deed. This is your right to property and is contingent upon the agreement that you made with the gov't so that you would have property rights granted to you. You could have given a negative response, but you opted instead to have the gov't grant you property rights.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
The "exclusive deed" term you use is flawed. It doesn't provide for any recourse against the government continuing to act as the owner. Also it doesn't provide any ability to exclude people they have determined can interact with you, with or without your consent.
An agreement with government is a misnomer of sorts too, it implies that other choices are available and you will not be harmed for failure to recognize their uni-lateral terms. The nature of government is not to make actual consensual agreements, it is to impose its will.
Property could be owned absent a central authority. In fact because of the existence of the central authority the evidence points to the idea that real owning of property is difficult if not impossible as their permission being required as a caveat prevents real ownership from happening.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
a non-existent figment of your imagination.
please name one person who was forced to make their store a public store rather than a private store.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
No. Property rights are granted by the gov't and the gov't exists to protect private property and serve the ruling class.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
If property rights are granted by the government, can they also be revoked or modified by them? If they can, wouldn't that make property rights actually property privileges?
(not saying that I agree property rights come from government)
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
It doesn't matter if you agree or not. Property rights are granted by the gov't and the gov't exists to protect private property and serve the ruling class.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Are you saying that stores that were private didn't exist prior to the civil rights act enactment?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
A person lives alone on an island, let's say his name is Robinson Crusoe. He makes a hut from palm leaves and maintains a garden on the back 40. Does he own that hut? Does he own the produce from the garden?
Did he create his own property in the absence of government? Why, yes he did.
As soon as the government shows up, they will make him get a permit and tell him his hut is not to code. They'll also tell him to give them half his turnips too if he doesn't want an ass kicking. How are they protecting his property again?.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Oh look, another hypothetical fiction created by the guy who hates reality since his arguments make no sense in the real world.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I think my post illustrated very well, that people can and have created "property" in the absence of a coercive government. Your diversion is your recognition of my point. Thank you.
The example would have worked had there been multiple people all doing the same kinds of things too, as long as they created some kind of consensual agreement or at least agreed to respect the other persons right to possess what he had created or occupied.
So what is property and who can own it?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
What your post illustrated very well was that you can not find any examples in reality which support your views and so you create hypothetical ones where you can design parameters that do. By pointing this out, I am in fact marking your diversion from reality. You're welcome.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I've noticed you don't answer questions very often. I will agree with you that government exists to serve the ruling class though.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
So, if a thousand people, rather than one person all occupy separate pieces of land and create things from the natural resources, houses, crops, etc. my example wouldn't work?
I say it would.
No thank you.