abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Property rights come from government.
I just might start shopping at Walmart
- Thread starter MuyLocoNC
- Start date
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Fascism is a form of capitalism, hence the privatization.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
So, in the absence of government (a central authority) there would be no kinds of property?
No mutual exchanges of property by consenting individuals could occur?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Please define the parameters of the term "privatization" (your definition of the word)
Please define free market.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
So, no property can ever be owned unless government is in the equation?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Look at the meltdown you're having over fascism being a form of capitalism.
FYI, Fascism is a form of capitalism, hence the privatization.
FYI, Fascism is a form of capitalism, hence the privatization.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
When you put up a fence around an area and call it yours by threat of force, you're doing what governments do.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
So you're saying that there would be tax payers even if there was no gov't?
Your utopia sounds like feudalism.
THCbreeder
Well-Known Member
Gotta love fascism !!! Fucktards can't comprehend such things with close minds!
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
No. What government does is takes land and claims ownership over both the land occupiers and the land itself.
Government assumes authority over every one without their consent. A land owner can assume control over land by occupying it, using it etc. The proper way of course would be not to assume control over land that is presently occupied by somebody else.
All that aside, I was asking about a consensual exchange of property, not necessarily land, between two people, you seem to have avoided that discussion. I say when people exchange things that they own, they are exchanging property and this can be done absent government, what do you say? Isn't that an example of a free market or "privatization" that can occur absent government?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I'd say you have melted down to the point that you are avoiding questions again....gee....what a surprise.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
If you put a fence around an area that you have crops growing in, and nobody was there occupying that land, (unowned) are the crops yours?
Is the land, in some sense that you are using now "yours" ?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
No, I posted that because for a laugh and it kicked government. I always wear my government kicking boots.
You shine their boots or at least lick them so they will drop a check to you every month.
Your "anarchism" sounds like dependency on that which you claim to oppose.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
I can imagine, filed under 'cautionary tales.' I'm not sure I'd trust the judgement of any modern politician who HASN'T read it. Have you? How about Animal Farm?
So tell us, how do you like the fact that the Koch brothers are picking your presidential nominee for you? They recently announced they were backing Scott Walker- with $900 million. Sounds like democracy to me... NOT!
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Yours = the things that belong to you.
Not sure I understand the context of your question concerning unoccupied land. Please clarify.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
define belong
hunter gather societies take up large tracts of land to support themselves. these tracts of land look to untrained eye to be unoccupied.
how do you decide that any given piece of land is unoccupied? are you suggesting you put your crops in middle of somebody elses hunting range?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Look for a mailbox? Okay just kidding.
You bring up a good point about what can constitute ownership. Scarcity or lack of scarcity could be a factor. Certainly occupied and in use is another factor.
What do you think about property ownership? Who can own property and how is it achieved?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Animal Farm eh? I like the part where the men and the pigs become indistinguishable.
It reminds me that whether there is a single master (the Farmer) or a group of elites (pigs) backed by sychophantic animals (the voting and gullilble masses / "democracy") that masters are hard for the individual to shed.
What makes a tyranny of a majority any better than a tyranny of a sole tyrant?
Last edited:
THCbreeder
Well-Known Member
You sir hit the nail on the head !! Scott walker will be our next president. Koch brothers own politics . Obviously money and greed fuel America . You want change? We need to reform the whole freaken political system .