How many people understand the US Constitution?

Rob Roy said:

So did those individuals own the things they made from natural resources ?

Click to expand...

You already lost one to @Justin-case in this thread and you always come out of these exchanges looking almost as ridiculous as you actually are. Really want to proceed with this?

Rob Roy said:

What do you think constitutes ownership of something ?

Click to expand...

A gang, government, or some powerful authority that backs up my own personal claims of ownership.

abandonconflict said:

You already lost one to @Justin-case in this thread and you always come out of these exchanges looking almost as ridiculous as you actually are. Really want to proceed with this?

Click to expand...

I must have missed that one.

Actually I think the history of these exchanges is they dissolve into personal attacks after I ask questions that others can't answer without revealing their duplicity.

DiogenesTheWiser said:

A gang, government, or some powerful authority that backs up my own personal claims of ownership.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the response. Interesting.

Couldn't a central authority also be responsible for negating ownership of something ?

Rob Roy said:

I must have missed that one.

Actually I think the history of these exchanges is they dissolve into personal attacks after I ask questions that others can't answer without revealing their duplicity.

Click to expand...

You've got to admit that your questions oftentimes are riddled with poor word choices and many are fallaciously complex.

Rob Roy said:

Thank you for the response. Interesting.

Couldn't a central authority also be responsible for negating ownership of something ?

Click to expand...

Without some central authority, the issue of ownership becomes moot.

DiogenesTheWiser said:

You've got to admit that your questions oftentimes are riddled with poor word choices and many are fallaciously complex.

Click to expand...

I'll try to dumb them down.

I'm curious which questions you've found fallacious ?

Rob Roy said:

I'll try to dumb them down.

I'm curious which questions you've found fallacious ?

Click to expand...

The ones that I ignore--there are so many--sorry, didn't keep a list. Your most commonly committed fallacy is of equivocation: http://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Equivocation.html

DiogenesTheWiser said:

Without some central authority, the issue of ownership becomes moot.

Click to expand...

Not in every instance.



WITH a central authority, ownership can be and is limited to the diktats of the central authority.
I think that is self evident.

Rob Roy said:

Not in every instance.



WITH a central authority, ownership can be and is limited to the diktats of the central authority.
I think that is self evident.

Click to expand...

Ok, so not in every instance. Can you provide an example to back up your claim?

DiogenesTheWiser said:

The ones that I ignore--there are so many--sorry, didn't keep a list. Your most commonly committed fallacy is of equivocation: http://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Equivocation.html

Click to expand...

Okay. I'll try to be more direct.

I think government is a logical fail, in that it assumes your consent with or without it actually being given and then it says "give us money or we'll hurt you, so we can protect you from people who will threaten you".

Would you agree that's about how it works ?

DiogenesTheWiser said:

Ok, so not in every instance. Can you provide an example to back up your claim?

Click to expand...

Eminent domain.

Rob Roy said:

Would you agree that's about how it works ?

Click to expand...

No, I wouldn't agree with that at all.

Rob Roy said:

Eminent domain.

Click to expand...

Who's claiming the eminent domain. Usually the government. If there were no government, the issues of ownership and property are moot. These issues would not apply because survival would be humans' only goals. See Hobbes.

DiogenesTheWiser said:

Who's claiming the eminent domain. Usually the government. If there were no government, the issues of ownership and property are moot. These issues would not apply because survival would be humans' only goals. See Hobbes.

Click to expand...

So, are you saying without government (as a central authority) that property ownership would not or could not exist ?

DiogenesTheWiser said:

No, I wouldn't agree with that at all.

Click to expand...

Which part is inaccurate?

Rob Roy said:

Which part is inaccurate?

Click to expand...

You stated an opinion about government, so it's not a question of accuracy that I disagree with. Rather, I disagree with your characterization of government.

Rob Roy said:

So, are you saying without government (as a central authority) that property ownership would not or could not exist ?

Click to expand...

I'm saying that without a government, gang, or some source of power legitimizing claims to property ownership, the issue would be moot. In other words, property ownership would not carry the same value.

DiogenesTheWiser said:

You stated an opinion about government, so it's not a question of accuracy that I disagree with. Rather, I disagree with your characterization of government.

Click to expand...

If an opinion is demonstrably true, would it be accurate to say those who hold a differing opinion are believing something that is false ?

How would you characterize government different than I have?

Rob Roy said:

If an opinion is demonstrably true, would it be accurate to say those who hold a differing opinion are believing something that is false ?

How would you characterize government different than I have?

Click to expand...

Your characterization of gov. is not representative of the sum total of all forms of government. Governments, for example, bestow rights upon people...rights that would not exist without government. For example, property rights.