Property Secures all rights

[2Parties]

Thanks for the research opportunity folks. I thought some of this stuff had less government ties than it did...

Now I have more ammo for idiots.

And even IF you add up the deaths and destruction of these "private evil companies" it's less than 1/10th of 1 percent of the death and destruction of the wars caused by the governments many of you bow to...

 

[Bfgrn]

If control of your property isn't absolute then your property isn't your property.

You and I are neighbors, and a river runs through our properties. That river is the source of drinking water for your livestock and your family. I live upstream from you and dump poisonous PCBs in the river that kills your animals and family. It is my property, so fuck off.

Which doesn't appear to be relevant to what I said at all.

Then WHAT are you saying Kevin? I subscribe to many libertarian beliefs about privacy and invasion of our freedoms by government, but I also subscribe to limiting corporations from invading and polluting our environment and stealing and destroying the 'commons'

THAT responsibility falls on government.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Control of your property is not absolute. Don't open a hog farm in a residential area. The city will close you down, and the neighbors will be eating a lot of bacon and sausage a gratis thanks to you.

If control of your property isn't absolute then your property isn't your property.

Then no one owns property, and for that matter no one has free speech, or freedom of religion, or the right to bear arms,

because none of those are absolute.

 

[JakeStarkey]

2parties is simply unbalanced, so I will leave it at that.

 

[2Parties]

2parties is simply unbalanced, so I will leave it at that.

So you got nothing? Got it.

 

[2Parties]

Then no one owns property, and for that matter no one has free speech, or freedom of religion, or the right to bear arms,

because none of those are absolute.

Ok. Please give me your address so I can take all of your stuff. It's not stealing since it's not really yours.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nope, 2Parties, you have not proven your premise. Far from it. The counter evidence contradicts your nonsense.

 

[2Parties]

Nope, 2Parties, you have not proven your premise. Far from it. The counter evidence contradicts your nonsense.

That every single actual case had a huge government like was very much proven. Because you reject the facts does not make it nonsense.

Please refute RFC's link to Asbestos.
Please refute the role Rockefeller's (owners of Standard Oil/Exxon) have had in government.
Please refute the Niagra Falls school board knowingly bought a toxic waste dump and built a school on it.
Please refute the FDA did not follow it's regulations in the ConAgra peanut butter case.

I took the time and did a little actual research. You learn nothing just telling me "the counter evidence contradicts your nonsense". OK? That's like me saying "man has never been in space, just trust me"...

 

[JakeStarkey]

You were unable to refute the counter-evidence that the government is not the major player in this premise. Until you can do that, you fail; your other evidence does not matter if you can't refute the counter-evidence. You have not done that.

 

[2Parties]

You were unable to refute the counter-evidence that the government is not the major player in this premise. Until you can do that, you fail; your other evidence does not matter if you can't refute the counter-evidence. You have not done that.

I'm the only person in this thread posting factual data giving actual names, dates, and locations. I've posted a few links even.

This is exactly what I hate about forums. If counter-evidence (of which ZERO of it has been posted) exists that the government is not a major player (all my information in each of these cases show it is) than please link me to any of that evidence. I've got evidence just in a few minutes of research showing the ties all of these incidents/corporations have to government. If this research is faulty please show me some counter-evidence. Until then you are just like a drooling teabagger ranting about mexicans taking our jobs...

 

[JakeStarkey]

The evidence has been posted. But if you don't like the form of its posting, who cares?

You have not carried your premise at all.

 

[2Parties]

*drools* THEM DAMN MEXICUNS R TAKIN OUR JOBZ!!!!!!1111111

Understood.

 

[MikeK]

Property is your bit of control over the physical world. When you possess it you possess all rights to it which allows you to manipulate it anyway you want. From these basic right of property you direct its use by your thoughts which are naturally free and when you lose the right to do with your property as you want you lose that control over your existence. What you want to do is now subject to the community's will which is deprives you of your individual control of your own existence.

Now you might say that you can have all the freedom you want without controlling property but how so? When the government can tell you what cloths to wear, what car to drive, what color to paint your house, how many hours a day you can use the computer then what meaningful freedom do you have?

You have the freedom of thought but no way to make it happen so your free-will is being denied to you simply because you can't control your piece of the physical world.

This is Libertarian reverie and like a bubble it floats along nicely until the sharp point of reality pops it.

The worship of property is dehumanizing. It fosters greed and promotes a social concept that emulates royalty. Where once there were nobles and commoners the uncontrolled distribution of property (unbridled capitalism) gradually produces castes of the rich and the poor with nothing in between, as we see happening in America today.

The accumulation of assets (property) occurs by exploiting the material and human resources of a nation. Inequitable distribution of wealth is destructive to democracy. Whereas accumulation of reasonable wealth is tolerable the accumulation of excessive wealth is not.

Excessive assets should be confiscated by government and equitably redistributed for the purpose of nourishing and sustaining a healthy democracy.

 

[2Parties]

Why must you resort to violence to institute what you believe is fair?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The damage by mining far exceeds the idea "of a few rogue miners." Study what logging did to the upper midwest, logging and coal extraction to West Virginia's mountains, a 95% cut of the virgin Texas forests (20 million acres) by the 1930s, to our rivers and lakes and communities and wetlands and, you name it.

Please give me specifics and not just throw random shit at the wall. I can't just type that into Google and find anything. Give me names, corporations, specific damages, years.

It's like the arguments "kids died in the industrial revolution in factories"

Big business must be regulated. Its behavior over the last 150 years leave no other alternative.

Big business is big business because of government.

Illinois Central Railroad, BP, Amtrak

You're denying that kids died in factories in the industrial revolution?

lol

 

[2Parties]

The damage by mining far exceeds the idea "of a few rogue miners." Study what logging did to the upper midwest, logging and coal extraction to West Virginia's mountains, a 95% cut of the virgin Texas forests (20 million acres) by the 1930s, to our rivers and lakes and communities and wetlands and, you name it.

Please give me specifics and not just throw random shit at the wall. I can't just type that into Google and find anything. Give me names, corporations, specific damages, years.

It's like the arguments "kids died in the industrial revolution in factories"

Big business must be regulated. Its behavior over the last 150 years leave no other alternative.

Big business is big business because of government.

Illinois Central Railroad, BP, Amtrak

You're denying that kids died in factories in the industrial revolution?

lol

YES THATS EXACTLY WHAT I MEANT ROFLROFLEFOROFLFFLLOLOLLO!!1111

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Control of your property is not absolute. Don't open a hog farm in a residential area. The city will close you down, and the neighbors will be eating a lot of bacon and sausage a gratis thanks to you.

If control of your property isn't absolute then your property isn't your property.

That Guiding Principle of colonists; History-wide.​

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You and I are neighbors, and a river runs through our properties. That river is the source of drinking water for your livestock and your family. I live upstream from you and dump poisonous PCBs in the river that kills your animals and family. It is my property, so fuck off.

Which doesn't appear to be relevant to what I said at all.

Then WHAT are you saying Kevin? I subscribe to many libertarian beliefs about privacy and invasion of our freedoms by government, but I also subscribe to limiting corporations from invading and polluting our environment and stealing and destroying the 'commons'

THAT responsibility falls on government.

And yet it is private property rights that would be the best defense against pollution and destroying the commons. Government is wasteful, inefficient, and hobbles private industry. None of which is necessary to protecting the environment, as evidenced by the fact that government has clearly failed in this mission to date.

But the point of my above post was pretty clear. If what Jake says is true, that control of your property is not absolute, how is it your property? If somebody else can tell you what you must do with your property then you don't really own it.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Control of your property is not absolute. Don't open a hog farm in a residential area. The city will close you down, and the neighbors will be eating a lot of bacon and sausage a gratis thanks to you.

If control of your property isn't absolute then your property isn't your property.

Then no one owns property, and for that matter no one has free speech, or freedom of religion, or the right to bear arms,

because none of those are absolute.

Now you're starting to see the extent of the problem.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Property is your bit of control over the physical world. When you possess it you possess all rights to it which allows you to manipulate it anyway you want. From these basic right of property you direct its use by your thoughts which are naturally free and when you lose the right to do with your property as you want you lose that control over your existence. What you want to do is now subject to the community's will which is deprives you of your individual control of your own existence.

Now you might say that you can have all the freedom you want without controlling property but how so? When the government can tell you what cloths to wear, what car to drive, what color to paint your house, how many hours a day you can use the computer then what meaningful freedom do you have?

You have the freedom of thought but no way to make it happen so your free-will is being denied to you simply because you can't control your piece of the physical world.

This is Libertarian reverie and like a bubble it floats along nicely until the sharp point of reality pops it.

The worship of property is dehumanizing. It fosters greed and promotes a social concept that emulates royalty. Where once there were nobles and commoners the uncontrolled distribution of property (unbridled capitalism) gradually produces castes of the rich and the poor with nothing in between, as we see happening in America today.

The accumulation of assets (property) occurs by exploiting the material and human resources of a nation. Inequitable distribution of wealth is destructive to democracy. Whereas accumulation of reasonable wealth is tolerable the accumulation of excessive wealth is not.

Excessive assets should be confiscated by government and equitably redistributed for the purpose of nourishing and sustaining a healthy democracy.

This is socialist reverie and like a bubble it floats along nicely until the sharp point of reality pops it.

In no way shape or form is the accumulation of property exploitation of anything. And who is to decide what is "reasonable" wealth, and excessive wealth? This ideology requires the violence of the state to serve some fictional sense of "justice" for some fictional group of "oppressed" to create an untenable system that will ultimately collapse because the state cannot distribute resources more efficiently than the market as history has shown time and again.