Beware the Marxist world of Kamalla Harris: "There’s a big difference between equality and equity."

[Freedomisneverfree]

Kamala whips out her FAKE black accent again...

 

[Curried Goats]

No you’re not. Your perspective on property is subjective to your feelings about slavery.

They aren't. You're just too stupid to understand them. You don't understand the difference between subjective make believe and objective reality. Objectively, all notions of property and ownership are made up. They are imaginary. The only way to make people participate in this make believe, objectively, is through force.

Not today it isn’t.

Have governments and people stopped forcing their imaginary beliefs on people?

Who said anything about a perfect world? All I said was that property is not acquired that way today and it isn’t.

I don't care about your red herring. I don't care how you acquired it because it doesn't change the objective fact that what protects your ability to own anything is force.

You’ve already said your views on sharing wealth are subjective and you’ve said my arguments are based on my feelings. Now you’re denying that we’re comparing or arguing subjective views?

My ideas on how force should be applied are subjective my argument on whether force is inherently necessary to impose ownership over a thing is an objective fact.

More accurate compared to what? If we’re arguing amounts of net incomes you might have a point. But we’re not.

If a person wants to be a millionaire, they can do so while paying taxes. If that same person wants to be a billionaire, he can do so while paying taxes.

First of all your argument wasn't whether or someone has a right to be a millionaire or billionaire, I would concede that currently they do. What your argument was, was that people have a right to be as rich as they want to be and that simply isn't so. They have a right to be as rich as they want minus taxes. That's not me arguing people don't currently have a legal right to be millionaires or billionaires that's me saying not matter how much money they make or want to make they still owe taxes after the fact. You have a right to make how ever much the tax code and rates allow you to make.

Paying taxes is irrelevant to this fact.

It's pertinent to that fact. Pretending your legal obligations don't exist doesn't make them disappear.

Irrelevant. I brought up fairness but you somehow think you know my idea of fairness is “an expression of lack of awareness of this reality” even though you specifically asked what my idea of fairness is - supposedly for clarification - and I did not answer.

You did the exact same thing in the Charlie Kirk discussion. You ask a question for “clarification” and when no answer is given, you assume the answer anyway.

Because I already know the answer you fucking moron, my purpose for asking you is to discern whether or not you do.

I know fairness is a silly subjective measurement that objectively doesn't mean jack shit.

The truth is that you already think you know the answer to these questions. The only purpose for the question is to set me up for a THAT’S. SUBJECTIVE!! response.
Then you further assume that I think my answer is objective so you can give yet another nauseating lecture about objectivism/subjectivism.

Hey, I'm not forcing you to come at me with arguments about your fucking feelings but I will take the opportunity to laugh at you when you do. Sue me.

Irrelevant. That it is subjective is a given. That doesn’t explain what my idea of fairness is. But you assumed anyway.

I don't care what it is. Whatever it is is irrelevant to the fact that all they represent are your feelings which I don't care about. Not on a personal level and certainly not as a sufficient counter argument to my objective arguments.

Your arguments with a libertarian in another thread are wholly irrelevant to this discussion

Because you're intellectually incapable of understanding that argument and so you'd rather interject with your feelings like I give a shit.

All you do is talk about my feelings, so what’s the difference?

That's all you present.

It’s fucking hilarious that you think your arguments are objective.

It hilarious that you still don't understand what they are.

Irrelevant. You asked a question and I answered.

You: “So force then? Yes?”

Me: “If force is used against me, yes.”

If you expected a different answer then you should have asked a different question.

I don't ever expect you to quit with the red herrings when you know you have a loser argument. We were ultimately talking about force to assert property rights not force against your person and you didn't give a real clear answer. You gave what I would describe as a little bitch answer where you say that you didn't say you wouldn't not use force but there was a limit to the force you could use and that there would be some record or some such. Whatever it was it was fucking meek. Property rights can only be asserted through force because they are ultimately made up. Nature doesn't compel other people to agree to whims of your imagination, force does. Objectively.

Yes, it is. Whatever agreement I make with someone is between us. But you said it doesn’t mean anything to you. These are two different considerations.

Exactly my guy. Just because you came to some agreement with someone that they would give you exclusive rights to some land or resource that transaction doesn't have anything to do with anyone else. That guy can't give away my desire to that land and those resources or anyone else's other than his own.

You’ve made it clear you do not respect my claim to ownership of my property in spite of the fact it is legal and I paid for it.

Why should I have to care about the law? It is also entirely made up. You might as well be claiming to me that Yahwee himself came down to earth in the form of a prostitute's burning bush to tell you that you're the king of all you survey. Those are equally imaginary to me. What makes either of them applicable is how much force you're willing to use against me to force me to comply.

The distinction you make for your lack of respect for my claim of ownership is merely that I didn’t pay you for it.

No, it's that the respect you feel I should have for that transaction you made with someone else is entirely imaginary and only achieved through force.

And I don’t care how you feel. So? I thought that pointing out your feelings about slavery in the context of current law would obviate the fact that I don’t care about yours. I guess you didn’t catch that.

You attempted to convey that message but in practice you've done nothing but call my objective arguments irrelevant as you ask me over and over again for my opinions while desperately taking the opportunity to share yours like anyone cares.

So now that we’ve established that neither of us cares about the other’s feelings, what’s next?

You continuing to hilariously not recognize objective arguments? See the libertarian understands the difference between objective and subjective or rational and irrational arguments. It's the thing libertarians like to be most proud about. They are the rational ones. Supposedly. That's why when dblack attempted to make a rational argument about natural rights I saw an opportunity to pin him down and it went exactly as predicted. See unlike your amateur debating ass dblack and most decent libertarians don't start from the premise of legality because it is entirely subjective. What they start with is nature and natural rights. In other words they start building their argument on the foundation of objective reality. It doesnt last very long but at least they attempt to start out on the objectively (not literally) right foot. The argument goes... well let me just quote the man himself.

That's the thing liberals get hung up on. Natural rights have nothing to do with laws, or whether a given government honors those rights. They're just the basic freedoms we all start with, our capacity to think and act. That's it.

The problem is you don't get a natural right to property from this. Life and liberty objectively exist within human nature but property does not. It does matter whether or not you agree that someone is alive because objectively they either are or they aren't. And you don't have to agree that people have the ability (minus a mental of physical impairment) to think and act on their own behalf because again, objectively they do. Property and ownership on the other hand requires agreement with others and if they refuse to agree then your only recourse is force.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

They aren't.

Yes, they are.

You're just too stupid to understand them. You don't understand the difference between subjective make believe and objective reality. Objectively, all notions of property and ownership are made up. They are imaginary. The only way to make people participate in this make believe, objectively, is through force.

Bullshit. Slavery was an objective reality. Your perspectives on sharing wealth, property ownership and laws are not.

Have governments and people stopped forcing their imaginary beliefs on people?

Are they still preventing blacks from buying homes? No? Then it is irrelevant.

I don't care about your red herring. I don't care how you acquired it because it doesn't change the objective fact that what protects your ability to own anything is force.

Irrelevant. You keep citing examples of property acquisition from over a hundred years ago. Property is not acquired that way anymore.

My ideas on how force should be applied are subjective my argument on whether force is inherently necessary to impose ownership over a thing is an objective fact.

No, it is not. Ownership is not “imposed” on anything. It is determined through an exchange of currency.

I told you already, I’m not buying your arguments on property ownership. To me they are cynical, pessimistic and hopelessly fatalistic.

First of all your argument wasn't whether or someone has a right to be a millionaire or billionaire, I would concede that currently they do. What your argument was, was that people have a right to be as rich as they want to be and that simply isn't so.

Yes, it is. If one desires to be a billionaire, they can be. Paying taxes does not stop one from becoming a billionaire.

They have a right to be as rich as they want minus taxes. That's not me arguing people don't currently have a legal right to be millionaires or billionaires that's me saying not matter how much money they make or want to make they still owe taxes after the fact. You have a right to make how ever much the tax code and rates allow you to make.

Wrong. The tax code does not “allow” us to make a certain amount of money. It simply determines how much taxes we owe based on the money we make.

It's pertinent to that fact. Pretending your legal obligations don't exist doesn't make them disappear.

The fuck are you talking about?

Because I already know the answer you fucking moron, my purpose for asking you is to discern whether or not you do.

Why wouldn’t I know the answer to my own idea of fairness? Dumbass.

I know fairness is a silly subjective measurement that objectively doesn't mean jack shit.

So then, your arguments about slavery don’t mean jack shit, correct?

Hey, I'm not forcing you to come at me with arguments about your fucking feelings but I will take the opportunity to laugh at you when you do. Sue me.

I notice you don’t refute the allegation that your questions are tactical setups. This means your claims of looking for clarification are lies.

I don't care what it is. Whatever it is is irrelevant to the fact that all they represent are your feelings which I don't care about. Not on a personal level and certainly not as a sufficient counter argument to my objective arguments.

Irrelevant. You preach about opinions being subjective and therefore worthless. Then you say you ask for clarification (on subjective and worthless opinions). On top of everything else, you say repeatedly you don’t care about my feelings.
After all this you nevertheless ask me what my idea of fairness is (that you think is subjective and worthless), then you bitch that I wouldn’t clarify my subjective and worthless opinion.

You don’t even know what you’re trying to say.

Because you're intellectually incapable of understanding that argument and so you'd rather interject with your feelings like I give a shit.

Irrelevant. You’ve interjected with your feelings multiple times. Which either means that both of us are intellectually incapable or maybe, just maybe, like everyone else on this planet, both our views are formed by our feelings.

That's all you present.

Then why are you whining about me talking about your feelings?

It hilarious that you still don't understand what they are.

It’s hilarious that you still think disagreement is confusion.

I don't ever expect you to quit with the red herrings when you know you have a loser argument.

Irrelevant. Once again you ask a question to elicit a subjective and worthless response and then bitch about the answer.

We were ultimately talking about force to assert property rights not force against your person and you didn't give a real clear answer. You gave what I would describe as a little bitch answer where you say that you didn't say you wouldn't not use force but there was a limit to the force you could use and that there would be some record or some such. Whatever it was it was fucking meek.

Subjective opinion. And if any answer I gave was going to be subjective, what difference does it make?

Property rights can only be asserted through force because they are ultimately made up. Nature doesn't compel other people to agree to whims of your imagination, force does. Objectively.

Okay, what’s your point?

Exactly my guy. Just because you came to some agreement with someone that they would give you exclusive rights to some land or resource that transaction doesn't have anything to do with anyone else. That guy can't give away my desire to that land and those resources or anyone else's other than his own.

So, again, you don’t respect my claim to ownership because I didn’t pay you for it.

Why should I have to care about the law? It is also entirely made up. You might as well be claiming to me that Yahwee himself came down to earth in the form of a prostitute's burning bush to tell you that you're the king of all you survey. Those are equally imaginary to me. What makes either of them applicable is how much force you're willing to use against me to force me to comply.

So, again, what’s your point?

No, it's that the respect you feel I should have for that transaction you made with someone else is entirely imaginary and only achieved through force.

I did not say, suggest or imply that you should respect my claim. I just said you don’t.

You attempted to convey that message but in practice you've done nothing but call my objective arguments irrelevant as you ask me over and over again for my opinions while desperately taking the opportunity to share yours like anyone cares.

Irrelevant. The point is our regard for the other’s feelings.

And why do you insist on ignoring the fact that you have conveyed feelings as well?

You continuing to hilariously not recognize objective arguments?

I continually do not recognize your arguments as objective.

See the libertarian understands the difference between objective and subjective or rational and irrational arguments. It's the thing libertarians like to be most proud about. They are the rational ones. Supposedly. That's why when dblack attempted to make a rational argument about natural rights I saw an opportunity to pin him down and it went exactly as predicted. See unlike your amateur debating ass dblack and most decent libertarians don't start from the premise of legality because it is entirely subjective. What they start with is nature and natural rights. In other words they start building their argument on the foundation of objective reality. It doesnt last very long but at least they attempt to start out on the objectively (not literally) right foot. The argument goes... well let me just quote the man himself.

Ah, the standard So-and-So-Agrees-With-Me fallacy.

I’m sure I can dig up someone who agrees with me too but his views will be just as subjective and irrelevant as the libertarian’s is to this discussion.

If you want to crow about some imagined victory in another discussion, do it there.

The problem is you don't get a natural right to property from this. Life and liberty objectively exist within human nature but property does not. It does matter whether or not you agree that someone is alive because objectively they either are or they aren't.

And if someone thinks you don’t have the right to live or ignores that right?

And you don't have to agree that people have the ability (minus a mental of physical impairment) to think and act on their own behalf because again, objectively they do. Property and ownership on the other hand requires agreement with others and if they refuse to agree then your only recourse is force.

So, for the third time, what’s your point?

 

[Curried Goats]

Yes, they are.


Bullshit. Slavery was an objective reality. Your perspectives on sharing wealth, property ownership and laws are not.

You're missing the point while making mine you Moron. Slavery was imposed by force. Ownership over something can only be made objectively real by force.

Are they still preventing blacks from buying homes? No? Then it is irrelevant.

Inequality of wealth and opportunity is irrelevant to you, obviously, not to me, my argument or the majority of black voters.

Irrelevant. You keep citing examples of property acquisition from over a hundred years ago. Property is not acquired that way anymore.

Another red herring. I've also argued today that laws are maintained through force. Whether you and someone else willingly come to some deal over a piece of property doesn't mean anything to my argument because my argument is about all the people who don't give a shit about your agreement with someone else. For them, your only recourse is force.

No, it is not. Ownership is not “imposed” on anything. It is determined through an exchange of currency.

And the force of law.

I told you already, I’m not buying your arguments on property ownership. To me they are cynical, pessimistic and hopelessly fatalistic.

I don't care if you buy them or not you fucking Dope, they're objectively true.

Yes, it is. If one desires to be a billionaire, they can be. Paying taxes does not stop one from becoming a billionaire.

Again, another red herring. I didn't say paying taxes prevents anyone, currently, from being a billionaire.

Wrong. The tax code does not “allow” us to make a certain amount of money. It simply determines how much taxes we owe based on the money we make.

Why put "allow" in question marks there? Are taxes optional?

The fuck are you talking about?


Why wouldn’t I know the answer to my own idea of fairness? Dumbass.

The question isn't about whether you know what you mean by fair, the question is whether or not you know fair itself is subjective and the implications that go along with that. That I can't be sure you understand because you've displayed such a poor understanding of it so far.

So then, your arguments about slavery don’t mean jack shit, correct?

Depends. Some are reflections of my personal sentiments, some are objective fact. I don't argue that slavers were wrong because that's not an objective argument. I say that I find them and their idolaters deplorable but that's a personal sentiment and that what they fought for and created was a Slave State. That is an objective fact.

I notice you don’t refute the allegation that your questions are tactical setups. This means your claims of looking for clarification are lies.

That's not what a lie is you moron. I'm not telling you a falsehood, I'm asking you leading questions so you can find your way to understanding, though I'm beginning to suspect you're simply incapable.

Irrelevant. You preach about opinions being subjective and therefore worthless.

They are worthless for the purposes of trying to make objective arguments, they aren't worthless as insights into people's perspectives and opinions. At least not to me.

Then you say you ask for clarification (on subjective and worthless opinions). On top of everything else, you say repeatedly you don’t care about my feelings.

I'm just looking for you to acknowledge that your notion of fairness is worthless as far as objective arguments go.

Irrelevant. You’ve interjected with your feelings multiple times. Which either means that both of us are intellectually incapable or maybe, just maybe, like everyone else on this planet, both our views are formed by our feelings.

You asked for them guy. I don't put forth my feelings as objective counter arguments. I use objective reality to counter other people's arguments.

Subjective opinion. And if any answer I gave was going to be subjective, what difference does it make?

The point that makes is that you don't have an objective counter argument. All your counters are subjective opinion and therefore worthless for the purpose of this debate about the role force objectively plays in the creation and maintenence of property rights.

So, again, you don’t respect my claim to ownership because I didn’t pay you for it.

Why should I? Without the force of law what does your transaction with someone else have to do with me?

I did not say, suggest or imply that you should respect my claim. I just said you don’t.

Great, but that affirmation of my argument really isn't a counter to my objective argument that without me choosing to respect it your only recourse is force.

Irrelevant. The point is our regard for the other’s feelings.

No.... that's your point because you want to focus on feelings. My point is about objective uses of force.

And why do you insist on ignoring the fact that you have conveyed feelings as well?

I'm not ignoring it it's just not relevant to my objective argument.

I continually do not recognize your arguments as objective.

I can't even be sure you understand the distinction.

And if someone thinks you don’t have the right to live or ignores that right?

I don't understand what you're asking. What do you mean by thinks I don't have a right to live or ignores it? If I'm alive who gives a shit what they think? It won't change the fact that objectively I am alive.

So, for the third time, what’s your point?

It's mainly to libertarians like dblack that you can argue a natural right to life is just the collective organization of force to protect that which already objectively exists in nature, life and liberty, but property does not objectively exist in nature without imposing it on others by force.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

You're missing the point while making mine you Moron. Slavery was imposed by force. Ownership over something can only be made objectively real by force.

Negative. Ownership is not made real by force. It is made real by virtue of mutual agreement between two parties and subsequent documentation.

Inequality of wealth and opportunity is irrelevant to you, obviously, not to me, my argument or the majority of black voters.

I don’t care about your feelings.

Sound familar?

Another red herring.

It’s actually the truth.

I’ve also argued today that laws are maintained through force. Whether you and someone else willingly come to some deal over a piece of property doesn't mean anything to my argument because my argument is about all the people who don't give a shit about your agreement with someone else. For them, your only recourse is force.

Are we talking about thieves and fraudsters or just people like you who want to be paid for other peoples’ property?

And the force of law.

I disagree.

I don't care if you buy them or not you fucking Dope, they're objectively true.

No they’re not.

Again, another red herring. I didn't say paying taxes prevents anyone, currently, from being a billionaire.

You said that paying taxes means we can’t be as rich as we want to be. This is patently false.

Why put "allow" in question marks there? Are taxes optional?

Wow. You mean you actually noticed the quotation marks this time?

The question isn't about whether you know what you mean by fair, the question is whether or not you know fair itself is subjective and the implications that go along with that. That I can't be sure you understand because you've displayed such a poor understanding of it so far.

Bullshit. Your question was: “What does fairness mean to you?”

It was nothing more than a setup for another stupid lecture on objectivism/subjectivism.

If you want to know whether I think it’s subjective or not then just fucking ask me instead of playing these ridiculous games.

Depends. Some are reflections of my personal sentiments, some are objective fact. I don't argue that slavers were wrong because that's not an objective argument. I say that I find them and their idolaters deplorable but that's a personal sentiment and that what they fought for and created was a Slave State. That is an objective fact.

Right, arguments from your own feelings on fairness which means they don’t mean jack shit.

That's not what a lie is you moron. I'm not telling you a falsehood,

Yes, you are. You’ve said numerous times in this discussion (including your last post that I’m replying to now) that I don’t understand the concept. If you “know” I don’t understand the concept then your claim of asking for clarification is a bald faced lie. At best it is disengenuous.

I'm asking you leading questions so you can find your way to understanding, though I'm beginning to suspect you're simply incapable.

You’ve already said I AM incapable. So this is just more disengenuous horseshit.

They are worthless for the purposes of trying to make objective arguments, they aren't worthless as insights into people's perspectives and opinions. At least not to me.

Don’t try donning that crown of virtue now after weeks and pages of you pouncing on and dismissing everything I say as subjective and based on my feelings.

As if you give a shit at all about my perspectives. Who the fuck do you think you’re kidding?

I'm just looking for you to acknowledge that your notion of fairness is worthless as far as objective arguments go.

Do you acknowledge that your notion of fairness is worthless, specifically in regards to slavery? If you do, why do you bring it up?

You asked for them guy. I don't put forth my feelings as objective counter arguments. I use objective reality to counter other people's arguments.

Bullshit. I never asked you anything that prompted you to express your feelings on slavery. You brought that up on your own in response to something I said about law.

The point that makes is that you don't have an objective counter argument.

Irrelevant. Your claim that my response was weak was subjective opinion and thus not an objective argument.

All your counters are subjective opinion and therefore worthless for the purpose of this debate about the role force objectively plays in the creation and maintenence of property rights.

Your arguments on the role force plays in the creation and maintenance of property rights are subjective. They are not objective because you say so.

I’ve told you many times I do not agree with your perspective on property ownership. This means I DON’T THINK YOU’RE RIGHT. Got it?

Any more comments about your so called objective arguments are wasted here.

Why should I? Without the force of law what does your transaction with someone else have to do with me?

For the second time, I didn’t say you should, I said you don’t.

Are you gonna try for a third time or are you gonna let it go?

Great, but that affirmation of my argument really isn't a counter to my objective argument that without me choosing to respect it your only recourse is force.

That was no affirmation of your argument, dumbass.

No.... that's your point

Yes, it was my point. What’s your point in pointing out that it was my point?

because you want to focus on feelings. My point is about objective uses of force.

Yes, your feelings regarding property ownership. You think your views of law and property ownership are objective and I think they’re based on your feelings. At the very least, your reasons for putting forth your arguments are based on your feelings for rich people and sharing wealth.

It’s like I said in the Kirk discussion: you’re all about objective arguments but your approach to issues is never objective.

I'm not ignoring it it's just not relevant to my objective argument.

Then why do you bring them up and then tell me mine are irrelevant?

I can't even be sure you understand the distinction.

Irrelevant. It’s a difference of opinion.

I don't understand what you're asking. What do you mean by thinks I don't have a right to live or ignores it? If I'm alive who gives a shit what they think? It won't change the fact that objectively I am alive.

You idiot. I’m talking about someone deciding to kill you.

It's mainly to libertarians like dblack that you can argue a natural right to life is just the collective organization of force to protect that which already objectively exists in nature, life and liberty, but property does not objectively exist in nature without imposing it on others by force.

I’m not libertarian. So what’s your point?

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

'Equity' is hideous, and should not be tolerated in a free capitalistic society!!

We all should be on board for 'equality'. We know, that has not been the case in the past, but the goal starting today, is that everyone should have an equal opportunity.

'Equity' on the other hand, is a whole different animal, and is very un-American!

Not surprisingly, a Marxist will always be for 'equity', where you take and give depending on their needs. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". Sound familliar? This is the world that Kamalla Harris wants for America.

"The government cannot deny rights to certain people because they are black, female, Muslim, etc.—this would be unequal treatment. A mandate to foster equity, though, would give the government power to violate these rights in order to achieve identical social results for all people. In accordance with this thinking, the authorities might be justified in giving some people more rights than others."

Kamala Harris Says Equal Outcomes Should Be the Goal of Public Policy​

"There’s a big difference between equality and equity."​

Kamala Harris Says Equal Outcomes Should Be the Goal of Public Policy

Democratic vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris provided narration for a short animated clip that appeared on her Twitter feed Sunday. In the clip,

reason.com

Since the USA is clearly moving rapidly towards Socialism, then Communism, what "should be" is not near as important as "what is"

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Kamala whips out her FAKE black accent again...

For all the deception and evil in the Democrat party, they stand a better than 50/50 chance of grabbing absolute power in November thanks to a perfect storm of mixed idiocy, poor judgement and bad choices ie low information voters like the young, and Maga people believing Trump was a good choice for a candidate. (Although Harris is even worse)

 

[Curried Goats]

Negative. Ownership is not made real by force. It is made real by virtue of mutual agreement between two parties and subsequent documentation.

First of all, virtue of mutual agreement? Sounds like you're describing make believe to me.

What does documentation and agreement have to do with anything? If my brothers and I agree to divide the world into four parts for each of us to own and we document it does that make the world ours now? Is that how that works?

Also you take for granted agreement. What about the people who disagree with you and that other guy or me and my brothers. What then?

Are we talking about thieves and fraudsters or just people like you who want to be paid for other peoples’ property?

We're talking about the nature of property, try to follow along. I'm not even talking about being paid right now, I'm just trying to pin down where you think your ability to maintain a piece of land as your own property comes from beyond the force of law.

Who is or isn't a thief is only a matter of law which is ultimatelty subjective. It's the same as the meaning behind the phrase one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. When slavery was legal in this country, people like Tubman who helped slaves escape bondage were thieves. In fact escaping from slavery herself made her a thief because she herself was property. Now don't let the mention of slavery trigger you, I only bring it up to make an overtly obvious objective point about the nature of law which is that it is subjective. Made up. In fact you're the thief according to me and my brothers law.

You said that paying taxes means we can’t be as rich as we want to be. This is patently false.

Its not. You can be as rich as you want minus the taxes you owe. Are we going to do the thing where I have to ask you what minus means again?

Your arguments on the role force plays in the creation and maintenance of property rights are subjective. They are not objective because you say so.

They are provably objective which is why you resorted to calling people names instead of answering the question about what's to be done with the people who aren't in virtuous agreement with you.

I’ve told you many times I do not agree with your perspective on property ownership. This means I DON’T THINK YOU’RE RIGHT. Got it?

I understand that you feel that way, you're still wrong. Objectively. I'm not talking about feelings, I'm talking about force which is something that can be measured objectively.

Any more comments about your so called objective arguments are wasted here.

Only on you.

Yes, your feelings regarding property ownership. You think your views of law and property ownership are objective and I think they’re based on your feelings.

Then show where I'm objectively wrong in my argument about force without the name calling. What's to be done with all the people not in virtuous agreement with you and your buddy, coming and going as they please, on land you claim is yours?

At the very least, your reasons for putting forth your arguments are based on your feelings for rich people and sharing wealth.

As are everyone's feelings for all the positions they take, what of it. Why do you insist on going back to feelings when there is a perfectly fine objective argument there for you to try and tackle?

It’s like I said in the Kirk discussion: you’re all about objective arguments but your approach to issues is never objective.

I don't even know what the fuck that means in this context....

No guy, I'm not a Robot. You're very perceptive.....

You idiot. I’m talking about someone deciding to kill you.

Then they would be using force to end my life. I don't need to use force to have life or to have liberty, those are inherent in being a living human being without mental or physical impairment. Not so with property. You don't own property by nature of being a human being but as you said through virtue of mutual agreement with those that agree and force for those who don't agree as I argue, objectively.

I’m not libertarian. So what’s your point?

That you're less likely to understand the point above. The libertarian should because natural rights are at the very foundation of libertarian philosophy.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

First of all, virtue of mutual agreement? Sounds like you're describing make believe to me.

Tell you what, if you think the purchase of your own house is make believe, give it back to the previous owner. Be sure to tell him his ownership is also subjective and he’ll have to give it back to whoever he bought it from.
The guy he bought it from will have to give it back to the guy he bought it from and so on until nobody owns anything and Curried Goats is left standing on a rotten stump preaching about objectivism/subjectivism.

What does documentation and agreement have to do with anything? If my brothers and I agree to divide the world into four parts for each of us to own and we document it does that make the world ours now? Is that how that works?

Do I really have to explain legal documentation to you?

Also you take for granted agreement. What about the people who disagree with you and that other guy or me and my brothers. What then?

Get a lawyer or call the cops? What do you think?

We're talking about the nature of property, try to follow along. I'm not even talking about being paid right now, I'm just trying to pin down where you think your ability to maintain a piece of land as your own property comes from beyond the force of law.

The law only serves to recognize ownership. It does not determine ownership.

Who is or isn't a thief is only a matter of law which is ultimatelty subjective. It's the same as the meaning behind the phrase one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. When slavery was legal in this country, people like Tubman who helped slaves escape bondage were thieves. In fact escaping from slavery herself made her a thief because she herself was property. Now don't let the mention of slavery trigger you, I only bring it up to make an overtly obvious objective point about the nature of law which is that it is subjective. Made up.

You idiot. The broaching of slavery doesn’t trigger me. The problem is your hypocrisy of arguing from feelings (about the unfairness of slavery) while demanding I define fairness and telling me it’s based on my feelings.

In fact you're the thief according to me and my brothers law.

Except, if you know you don’t have a legal claim yourself, you would know that’s not true.

Its not. You can be as rich as you want minus the taxes you owe. Are we going to do the thing where I have to ask you what minus means again?

I don’t know, do I have to explain to you again that a person can be as rich as they want while paying taxes?

They are provably objective which is why you resorted to calling people names instead of answering the question about what's to be done with the people who aren't in virtuous agreement with you.

No, they are not provably objective. You fail to define force in this context: when, where, how, how much, who, etc..

Neither the law nor force determine ownership.

You also do not understand the complexities of objectivism/subjectivism. A thing does not have to be objectively true in nature to be objectively true. Laws are objectively true and so are the consequences of breaking them.

I understand that you feel that way, you're still wrong. Objectively. I'm not talking about feelings, I'm talking about force which is something that can be measured objectively.

And yet you have failed to do so.

Only on you.

Then why do you keep repeating it?

Wait, I know; it’s because I’m incapable of understanding the concept. So I’ll ask for clarification to get insight into your perspective and then scream that it’s subjective anyway. Fair enough? Or do I need to define “fair” for you?

Then show where I'm objectively wrong in my argument about force without the name calling.

You of all people whining about name calling. Goddamn you are full of shit.

What's to be done with all the people not in virtuous agreement with you and your buddy, coming and going as they please, on land you claim is yours?

Answer this first: does people not in virtuous agreement with me about the ownership of my property mean I don’t own it?

As are everyone's feelings for all the positions they take, what of it.

It means you are not objective in your approach to the topic.

Why do you insist on going back to feelings when there is a perfectly fine objective argument there for you to try and tackle?

If I thought there was an objective argument to tackle, I would. But alas…

I don't even know what the fuck that means in this context....

I figured as much.

No guy, I'm not a Robot. You're very perceptive.....

So you think being objective means you have to be a robot?

Then they would be using force to end my life. I don't need to use force to have life or to have liberty, those are inherent in being a living human being without mental or physical impairment.

Two things here:

1.) Irrelevant. Inherent rights can be taken as easily as subjective ones.

2.) Based on your arguments thus far, liberties are just as subjective as the laws that (the Constitution and Bill of Rights) guarantee them.

This argument contradicts everything you’ve said about the subjectivity of laws.

Not so with property. You don't own property by nature of being a human being but as you said through virtue of mutual agreement with those that agree and force for those who don't agree as I argue, objectively.

You said you don’t respect my claim to my property because I didn’t pay you for it. That is personal opinion based on feelings and is hardly an objective argument.

That you're less likely to understand the point above. The libertarian should because natural rights are at the very foundation of libertarian philosophy.

I don’t care.

Sound familiar?

 

[Curried Goats]

Tell you what, if you think the purchase of your own house is make believe, give it back to the previous owner. Be sure to tell him his ownership is also subjective and he’ll have to give it back to whoever he bought it from.
The guy he bought it from will have to give it back to the guy he bought it from and so on until nobody owns anything and Curried Goats is left standing on a rotten stump preaching about objectivism/subjectivism.

I'm not preaching at you, that's you getting all in your feels. Nor am I suggesting anyone voluntarily give up their property. I'm not personally against the use of force in this regard, I'm just making a rational point about what property actually is, which is a make believe entity that we use force to make real.

Do I really have to explain legal documentation to you?

If that's your counter argument, yes. Laws are entirely made up. Slavers had documents documenting their ownership of other people. Me and my brothers can go to a Kinkos and print up whatever documents you like detailing how we actually own the Earth. The only objectively real difference between us are our various abilities to force others to recognize their validity. Arguably the American government can bring more force to bear than me and my three brothers or than slaves were capable overcoming.

Get a lawyer or call the cops? What do you think?

I think you're describing the force of law exactly as I've been arguing.

The law only serves to recognize ownership. It does not determine ownership.

And that red herring has nothing to do with whether or not you are relying on the force of law to maintain property rights. How you and a group of people decide to play make believe doesn't address the fact that it is make believe that you are forcing on non believers. It's make believe when America does it with land as property, or Slaver Founders do it with people as property or me and my brothers do it with planets as property. Whoever has superior force is who determines ownership.

You idiot. The broaching of slavery doesn’t trigger me. The problem is your hypocrisy of arguing from feelings (about the unfairness of slavery) while demanding I define fairness and telling me it’s based on my feelings.

I'm not arguing feelings. I'm using slavery because its typically easier for the indoctrinated to recognize that documents detailing how you can own a woman and her children and even her fetus is a make believe system that was forced on to those people. It's the same with property if you stop and think about it. The economic system that allows you to own land is as made up as the economic system that allowed People to own other people. I understand you didn't have to use force to purchase your house anymore than a slaver had to use force against someone to sell him slaves. There were many willing slave merchants. My argument is about the unwilling and the force required to compel them.

No, they are not provably objective. You fail to define force in this context: when, where, how, how much, who, etc..

I can absolutely define force. It is an influence that causes an object to change its velocity. The when, where and how and how much come into focus when we enforce property rights, like the police coming to remove someone fishing in your hypothetical pond.

Neither the law nor force determine ownership.

They enforce ownership.

You also do not understand the complexities of objectivism/subjectivism. A thing does not have to be objectively true in nature to be objectively true. Laws are objectively true and so are the consequences of breaking them.

Then let's discuss those complexities. In what ways is the law objectively true? In that the American government will use force against me if I break them? Because that's my argument. The only thing objectively true about them is the ability of the government to force others to comply.

Wait, I know; it’s because I’m incapable of understanding the concept. So I’ll ask for clarification to get insight into your perspective and then scream that it’s subjective anyway. Fair enough? Or do I need to define “fair” for you?

You're the one who keeps going back to fairness. I'm arguing objective reality and physics. When you put your hands on someone, that's force. Objectively speaking.

You of all people whining about name calling. Goddamn you are full of shit.

You seem triggered. You good?

Answer this first: does people not in virtuous agreement with me about the ownership of my property mean I don’t own it?

Depends. Can you force them to respect your property rights? If so then yes, but by the virtue of force.

It means you are not objective in your approach to the topic.

Are we as a society not using force to maintain property rights?

If I thought there was an objective argument to tackle, I would. But alas…

Those admissions only amuse me. I understand that you have yet to recognize it....

Two things here:

1.) Irrelevant. Inherent rights can be taken as easily as subjective ones.

Whether they can be taken really has nothing to do with my argument the life and liberty objectively exist in a way property does not.

2.) Based on your arguments thus far, liberties are just as subjective as the laws that (the Constitution and Bill of Rights) guarantee them.

You're confusing my use of the word liberty with the legal liberties afforded by made up legal documents. I referring to the objectively real biological capability to think and act on your own behalf.

This argument contradicts everything you’ve said about the subjectivity of laws.

It does you just misunderstood it.

You said you don’t respect my claim to my property because I didn’t pay you for it. That is personal opinion based on feelings and is hardly an objective argument.

Did the appearance of the word care there trip you up? It's why I put it there. God, I love to amuse myself....

Anyway.... no, whether or not you paid me for exclusive rights to that property or whether you and I came to some agreement about your exclusive rights to that property (which is the real gist of this argument) is not subjective. We either did or we didn't. Again, my argument is about those who disagree.

I don’t care.

Sound familiar?

It sounds like the poor man's version where your use serves no purpose other than to make you look petulant.

 

[Foxfyre]

'Equity' is hideous, and should not be tolerated in a free capitalistic society!!

We all should be on board for 'equality'. We know, that has not been the case in the past, but the goal starting today, is that everyone should have an equal opportunity.

'Equity' on the other hand, is a whole different animal, and is very un-American!

Not surprisingly, a Marxist will always be for 'equity', where you take and give depending on their needs. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". Sound familliar? This is the world that Kamalla Harris wants for America.

"The government cannot deny rights to certain people because they are black, female, Muslim, etc.—this would be unequal treatment. A mandate to foster equity, though, would give the government power to violate these rights in order to achieve identical social results for all people. In accordance with this thinking, the authorities might be justified in giving some people more rights than others."

Kamala Harris Says Equal Outcomes Should Be the Goal of Public Policy​

"There’s a big difference between equality and equity."​

Kamala Harris Says Equal Outcomes Should Be the Goal of Public Policy

Democratic vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris provided narration for a short animated clip that appeared on her Twitter feed Sunday. In the clip,

reason.com

Just saw this thread. Everyone should understand that Marxist 'equality' means everybody enjoys the same results no matter how hard they do or do not work or individually contribute to the collective. According to Marx/Engles, humankind will do this naturally and automatically once a totalitarian government has stripped everybody of their former values, culture, mindset, ambitions, liberties, property etc. so that all are on equal ground.

The outcome is totally unrealistic to anybody who has ever observed human nature. Few who receive without working will be inclined to work much if at all. Few who work without reward will be inclined to work much if at all. The result is equal misery and deprivation for all.

Ands one huge truth in the whole concept is that it has never been tested because no government having achieved the totalitarian stage has ever willingly given up that power. Those at the top are greatly enriched. The rank and file citizens much less so. The only purpose of the rank and file citizen is to use at will for the advantage of the state.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Just saw this thread. Everyone should understand that Marxist 'equality' means everybody enjoys the same results no matter how hard they do or do not work or individually contribute to the collective. According to Marx/Engles, humankind will do this naturally and automatically once a totalitarian government has stripped everybody of their former values, culture, mindset, ambitions, liberties, property etc. so that all are on equal ground.

The outcome is totally unrealistic to anybody who has ever observed human nature. Few who receive without working will be inclined to work much if at all. Few who work without reward will be inclined to work much if at all. The result is equal misery and deprivation for all.

Ands one huge truth in the whole concept is that it has never been tested because no government having achieved the totalitarian stage has ever willingly given up that power. Those at the top are greatly enriched. The rank and file citizens much less so. The only purpose of the rank and file citizen is to use at will for the advantage of the state.

Oh shit…Here we go again! Aren’t you the one who claims to be a professor of Marxism? But here you are twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to conflate the concept of equity the we progressive speak of with the equality of outcome in Marxist theory. Yes Marx envisioned a society where everyone is totally equal in all respects. “As you put it: everybody enjoys the same results no matter how hard they do or do not work or individually contribute to the collective.” Marx’s end game, as you -the professor should know, was a dictatorship of the proletariat- not really a dictatorship of government but in fact a withering away of the state in favor of a stateless utopian society governed by the people. Of course that never happened because to get there society must endure a period of autocratic rule in order to eradicate the old order, and not self professed Marxist was ever willing to let go of that power.( as you rightly point out) . It is for that reason. I am not a Marxist and neither is Harris or Walz. In fact , I doubt if any real Marxists still exist

Now having said that, when we talk about equity with the goal of equality of outcome- in the context of liberal/progressive DEI initiatives we are not advocating Marxism. As we have said, Marx did in fact advocate equality of outcome , However , while that equality of outcome is a Marxist principle , all those who advocate for equality outcome are not Marxists. Equality of outcome in the context of an open society and free market economy takes on a different meaning then in a closed and controlled society. Marxism entails state enforced equality. With DEI in the context of a free market democracy as promoted by Democratic Socialists , we are talking about maximizing the possibility of equality of outcome with the recognition that that will never actually be the case. No matter the extent to which you level the paying field with additional resourced for the disadvantaged there will always be differences in individual abilities and motivation and thus different outcomes. Unlike Marxism, DEI does not destroy incentive or- as you put it- “strip people of values, culture, mindset, ambitions, liberties, property “ So please “professor: cut the bullshit already

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh shit…Here we go again! Aren’t you the one who claims to be a professor of Marxism? But here you are twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to conflate the concept of equity the we progressive speak of with the equality of outcome in Marxist theory. Yes Marx envisioned a society where everyone is totally equal in all respects. “As you put it: everybody enjoys the same results no matter how hard they do or do not work or individually contribute to the collective.” Marx’s end game, as you -the professor should know, was a dictatorship of the proletariat- not really a dictatorship of government but in fact a withering away of the state in favor of a stateless utopian society governed by the people. Of course that never happened because to get there society must endure a period of autocratic rule in order to eradicate the old order, and not self professed Marxist was ever willing to let go of that power.( as you rightly point out) . It is for that reason. I am not a Marxist and neither is Harris or Walz. In fact , I doubt if any real Marxists still exist

Now having said that, when we talk about equity with the goal of equality of outcome- in the context of liberal/progressive DEI initiatives we are not advocating Marxism. As we have said, Marx did in fact advocate equality of outcome , However , while that equality of outcome is a Marxist principle , all those who advocate for equality outcome are not Marxists. Equality of outcome in the context of an open society and free market economy takes on a different meaning then in a closed and controlled society. Marxism entails state enforced equality. With DEI in the context of a free market democracy as promoted by Democratic Socialists , we are talking about maximizing the possibility of equality of outcome with the recognition that that will never actually be the case. No matter the extent to which you level the paying field with additional resourced for the disadvantaged there will always be differences in individual abilities and motivation and thus different outcomes. Unlike Marxism, DEI does not destroy incentive or- as you put it- “strip people of values, culture, mindset, ambitions, liberties, property “ So please “professor: cut the bullshit already

I've never claimed to be a professor of Marxism.

As for whether we are dealing with Marxists, all we have to do is see what their agenda has been, what their tactics have been, what they push, what they promote, what they advocate for and then go to the old maxim: if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, they can call it democracy or whatever name they want to put on it, but it's still a duck.

 

[dblack]

Oh shit…Here we go again! Aren’t you the one who claims to be a professor of Marxism? But here you are twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to conflate the concept of equity the we progressive speak of with the equality of outcome in Marxist theory. Yes Marx envisioned a society where everyone is totally equal in all respects. “As you put it: everybody enjoys the same results no matter how hard they do or do not work or individually contribute to the collective.” Marx’s end game, as you -the professor should know, was a dictatorship of the proletariat- not really a dictatorship of government but in fact a withering away of the state in favor of a stateless utopian society governed by the people. Of course that never happened because to get there society must endure a period of autocratic rule in order to eradicate the old order, and not self professed Marxist was ever willing to let go of that power.( as you rightly point out) . It is for that reason. I am not a Marxist and neither is Harris or Walz. In fact , I doubt if any real Marxists still exist

Now having said that, when we talk about equity with the goal of equality of outcome- in the context of liberal/progressive DEI initiatives we are not advocating Marxism. As we have said, Marx did in fact advocate equality of outcome , However , while that equality of outcome is a Marxist principle , all those who advocate for equality outcome are not Marxists. Equality of outcome in the context of an open society and free market economy takes on a different meaning then in a closed and controlled society. Marxism entails state enforced equality. With DEI in the context of a free market democracy as promoted by Democratic Socialists , we are talking about maximizing the possibility of equality of outcome with the recognition that that will never actually be the case. No matter the extent to which you level the paying field with additional resourced for the disadvantaged there will always be differences in individual abilities and motivation and thus different outcomes. Unlike Marxism, DEI does not destroy incentive or- as you put it- “strip people of values, culture, mindset, ambitions, liberties, property “ So please “professor: cut the bullshit already

But what it does is contrary to equal rights. Equal rights demands that government treat everyone the same regardless of "station", regardless of wealth, race, gender, etc .... regardless of who they are. However, it leaves the rest of us free to treat others according to our own judgement, our own biases, to decide for ourselves who deserves favor and act accordingly.

Equity turns that on its head. It tasks the government with ensuring that we all treat each other more or less equally. It seeks to intervene and correct social and economic biases that the state finds inequitable.

The problem is that government can't do that without treating people decidedly unequally. "Equal rights under the law" is sacrificed so that the government can impose its idea of equity on society.

Trading equal rights for equity is a bad idea in my opinion. One that we'll regret if we go down that road.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I've never claimed to be a professor of Marxism.

As for whether we are dealing with Marxists, all we have to do is see what their agenda has been, what their tactics have been, what they push, what they promote, what they advocate for and then go to the old maxim: if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, they can call it democracy or whatever name they want to put on it, but it's still a duck.

Well, I made a very cogent argument that-while Marxism promotes equality of outcome, those of us who promote equality of outcome in the context of a free and open society and a free market economy ( albeit with regulations) are not Marxists . You have failed to mount a counter argument, but rather , you just dig in your heals and insist that Harris and those who promote DEI are Marxists. That amounts to an appeal to ignorance logical fallacy . Along those same lines, your premise – that our support “equity” is tantamount to Marxism is a non sequitur logical fallacy,,, ,that premise does not support your conclusion. Lastly you equating DEI with Marxism is- for the reasons stated, is a false equivalency logical fallacy . At least your good at something-Logical fallacies in lie of any actual argument

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I'm not preaching at you, that's you getting all in your feels.

You’re the one preaching.

Nor am I suggesting anyone voluntarily give up their property. I'm not personally against the use of force in this regard, I'm just making a rational point about what property actually is, which is a make believe entity that we use force to make real.

This argument might have had some merit if you hadn’t already said multiple times that you don’t respect property ownership. In fact, when I specifically asked if you don’t respect my claim to my property because I didn’t pay you for it, your response was basically “Why should I?”.

If that's your counter argument, yes.

Whether or not it’s my counter argument has nothing to do with your understanding of legal documentation.

Laws are entirely made up.

But they are objectively real.

Slavers had documents documenting their ownership of other people. Me and my brothers can go to a Kinkos and print up whatever documents you like detailing how we actually own the Earth. The only objectively real difference between us are our various abilities to force others to recognize their validity. Arguably the American government can bring more force to bear than me and my three brothers or than slaves were capable overcoming.

Irrelevant. Someone trying to take my property doesn’t mean I don’t own it.

I think you're describing the force of law exactly as I've been arguing.

Not exactly, no. Your arguments thus far have said or implied that my property ownership is subjective. It is not.

And that red herring has nothing to do with whether or not you are relying on the force of law to maintain property rights.

It does if one suggests that the law determines ownership, which is exactly what you said earlier.

I respond to and refute things you say and then you claim I’m tossing red herrings.

How you and a group of people decide to play make believe doesn't address the fact that it is make believe that you are forcing on non believers. It's make believe when America does it with land as property, or Slaver Founders do it with people as property or me and my brothers do it with planets as property. Whoever has superior force is who determines ownership.

No, it does not. Stealing property doesn’t make it yours.

I'm not arguing feelings.

Yes you are. You’ve been doing so from the beginning.

I'm using slavery because its typically easier for the indoctrinated to recognize that documents detailing how you can own a woman and her children and even her fetus is a make believe system that was forced on to those people. It's the same with property if you stop and think about it. The economic system that allows you to own land is as made up as the economic system that allowed People to own other people. I understand you didn't have to use force to purchase your house anymore than a slaver had to use force against someone to sell him slaves. There were many willing slave merchants. My argument is about the unwilling and the force required to compel them.

This argument too might have had merit if you hadn’t already said numerous times that slavers were deplorable mutants.

I can absolutely define force. It is an influence that causes an object to change its velocity. The when, where and how and how much come into focus when we enforce property rights, like the police coming to remove someone fishing in your hypothetical pond.

You also said this force determines ownership but it does not. You also cited how land and property were taken by force in the past but ignore that it no longer is.

This is why questions of when, where and how force is used is pertinent. Today, force is not used in the (private) acquistion of property.

They enforce ownership.

You’ve already said they determine ownership.

Then let's discuss those complexities. In what ways is the law objectively true?

Do laws objectively exist?

In that the American government will use force against me if I break them? Because that's my argument. The only thing objectively true about them is the ability of the government to force others to comply.

Right, but it doesn’t determine ownership.

You're the one who keeps going back to fairness.

I mentioned fairness once and you were all over it. You’re the who pounced on it and asked me to define what it means to me. If you hadn’t, we wouldn’t still be talking about it.

I'm arguing objective reality and physics. When you put your hands on someone, that's force. Objectively speaking.

Objectivity does not only apply to physics.

You seem triggered. You good?

You’re the one who bitched about name calling, not me.

Depends. Can you force them to respect your property rights? If so then yes, but by the virtue of force.

Whether or not I can force them is irrelevant to the actual ownership of my property.

Are we as a society not using force to maintain property rights?

Are we talking physics or law?

Those admissions only amuse me. I understand that you have yet to recognize it....

Admissions of what?

Whether they can be taken really has nothing to do with my argument the life and liberty objectively exist in a way property does not.

Negative. Liberty is a concept.

You're confusing my use of the word liberty with the legal liberties afforded by made up legal documents. I referring to the objectively real biological capability to think and act on your own behalf.

That would be the ability to think and act on our own behalf. It does not mean we always have the liberty to do so.

It does you just misunderstood it.

If so, explain it better next time.

Did the appearance of the word care there trip you up? It's why I put it there. God, I love to amuse myself....

What? The point was you arguing from feelings.

Anyway.... no, whether or not you paid me for exclusive rights to that property or whether you and I came to some agreement about your exclusive rights to that property (which is the real gist of this argument) is not subjective. We either did or we didn't. Again, my argument is about those who disagree.

That’s not what you said before. You said, in so many words, that my claim to ownership means nothing to you because I didn’t pay you for it.

It sounds like the poor man's version where your use serves no purpose other than to make you look petulant.

And what purpose does your discussion with someone else serve in this discussion?

I say it serves no purpose here hence, I don’t care.

Simple, isn’t it?

 

[WilmerV]

Harris said "everybody should end up in the same place." Yes, that is communism.

 

[Curried Goats]

You’re the one preaching.


This argument might have had some merit if you hadn’t already said multiple times that you don’t respect property ownership. In fact, when I specifically asked if you don’t respect my claim to my property because I didn’t pay you for it, your response was basically “Why should I?”.

My argument either has merit or it doesn't. It doesn't lose merit because you're butt hurt over a previous argument. When I said you didn't pay me for it, that's me arguing that you and I have not come to any agreement over this property. You and the other guy you paid for it did.

Whether or not it’s my counter argument has nothing to do with your understanding of legal documentation.

I understand laws to be made up and as I said me and my brothers can make up documents too. Legal documents have no teeth without the force to enforce them.

But they are objectively real.

By virtue of force.

Irrelevant. Someone trying to take my property doesn’t mean I don’t own it.

Like someone trying to free a slave from a slaver? Again, what's maintaining your property rights is force.

Not exactly, no. Your arguments thus far have said or implied that my property ownership is subjective. It is not.

Because laws are ultimately subjective in that they are entirely made up.

It does if one suggests that the law determines ownership, which is exactly what you said earlier.

Laws by way of force. If my brothers and I were able to bring to bear superior force over the American government then your deed backed by the power of the American government would be as useful to you as toilet paper.

No, it does not. Stealing property doesn’t make it yours.

Possession is ownership, isn't it? When slavers stole people didn't they become someone's property? If you can use force to maintain it as yours or force to take it and claim it as yours then it's yours.

This argument too might have had merit if you hadn’t already said numerous times that slavers were deplorable mutants.

Again, you being butt hurt over my feelings about slavers has no bearing on whether my arguments regarding slavers have merit. Stop being a big bitch and address the arguments.

You also said this force determines ownership but it does not. You also cited how land and property were taken by force in the past but ignore that it no longer is.

I just used slavery to demonstrate the validity of that argument.

This is why questions of when, where and how force is used is pertinent. Today, force is not used in the (private) acquistion of property.

But it used to maintain it. Try addressing that point rather than this red herring.

Do laws objectively exist?

In the sense that governments will use force against you if you break them. How do you think they are objectively real?

Right, but it doesn’t determine ownership.

Force does.

Objectivity does not only apply to physics.

It kind of does. Physics is the study of the physical world. If it exists objectively in nature then it has to do with physics.

Whether or not I can force them is irrelevant to the actual ownership of my property.

No... again that's pertinent. If you can't force people off your property and anyone is free to come and go as they please and benefit from is natural resources, in what way does that property actually belong to you?

Are we talking physics or law?

Both.

Negative. Liberty is a concept.

In the context of law, sure. That's not how I meant it though.

That would be the ability to think and act on our own behalf. It does not mean we always have the liberty to do so.

Because of force or physical or mental impairment. I mentioned those already.

That’s not what you said before. You said, in so many words, that my claim to ownership means nothing to you because I didn’t pay you for it.

It's the same argument. That's me saying to you that we never came to any agreement over the property, its just worded differently. The concept is the same. I could in fact not want any payment at all. Maybe I don't even want exclusive rights to said property and I just want to be able to freely access it. No one has to pay me for that. Nature provided all this abundance readily without asking anything of me.

And what purpose does your discussion with someone else serve in this discussion?

My original discussion was with them. You injected yourself into it but have no concept of the law being able to be boiled down to its base property which is force. Libertarians recognize law as force. Or at least they should. It's why many of them are for open borders. They don't believe in using force to prevent people traveling freely along public roads and spaces so I find it easier to have intellectual arguments with them on this matter. You're more like an amusing gerbil.

I say it serves no purpose here hence, I don’t care.

Simple, isn’t it?

Yes. You are quite simple.

 

[SweetTea]

No matter the extent to which you level the paying field with additional resourced for the disadvantaged there will always be differences in individual abilities and motivation and thus different outcomes. Unlike Marxism, DEI does not destroy incentive or- as you put it- “strip people of values, culture, mindset, ambitions, liberties, property “ So please “professor: cut the bullshit already

Your response was well written, just not well founded.

For example, in the excerpt above you state that DEI won’t destroy incentive. DEI doesn’t stop at getting into college, or getting into graduate school or getting that first job. Harris is the perfect example of that. She was vaulted from an unknown Senator to VP because of her race and gender. Biden explicitly stated that he was going to pick a minority woman as his running mate, thus excluding many qualified candidates from the running. DEI can do the same thing at the corporate level. A DEI hire is promoted up the management chain, thus excluding other qualified, perhaps more qualified candidates. It is discrimination, pure and simple.

To your point that there will always be differences in individual abilities and motivation, that is true, however, the motivation and incentive for those with higher abilities are most certainly damaged if they are passed over for acceptance, hiring or promotions in favor of DEI. To say that it does not potentially destroy incentive is disingenuous at best.

Harris is the epitome of why DEI is bad. There is no possible way a person with her lack of ability and sensibilities would even be in consideration if not for DEI, as evidenced by her performance when she ran for the Democratic nomination. Everybody knows it, even most Democrats, but they are willing use DEI as the reasoning for their decision to “hire” her for one of the highest and most important and influential positions in the entire world. Many Harris voters state their reason for voting for her is that she is black and she is a woman. That is VERY dangerous and that is where DEI has taken us. Implementing this idealistic, utopian perspective in our society is a recipe for complete disaster.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

But what it does is contrary to equal rights. Equal rights demands that government treat everyone the same regardless of "station", regardless of wealth, race, gender, etc .... regardless of who they are. However, it leaves the rest of us free to treat others according to our own judgement, our own biases, to decide for ourselves who deserves favor and act accordingly.

Equity turns that on its head. It tasks the government with ensuring that we all treat each other more or less equally. It seeks to intervene and correct social and economic biases that the state finds inequitable.

The problem is that government can't do that without treating people decidedly unequally. "Equal rights under the law" is sacrificed so that the government can impose its idea of equity on society.

Trading equal rights for equity is a bad idea in my opinion. One that we'll regret if we go down that road.

Sorry. Not buying it. There is no conflict between equity and equal rights. One does not preclude the other. Equity requires that those at a disadvantage be given the tools and resources needed to maximize their potential to achieve equality. Yes equal rights demands that government treat everyone the same in terms of their worth and dignity as a human being. It does not mean that some can’t be given etra help when needed to level the playing field . So this dichotomy that those who seek to discredit equity is a false one writ large

I must also take issue with your contention that only government is obligated to treat people equally. If that were the case, we would not have laws against discrimination by individuals and businesses cover things like housing, public accommodation and finance. The added concept of equity has no effect on that reality. There is no trade off. They are complimentary