Your legal claim in an of itself isn't at all compelling to me. Is there some other reason you think it should be?
Once again, I did not say it should be nor did I suggest it is a compelling reason. I just said it's a reason. That's it.
It is according to our law.
No it's not.
When you claim ownership over a thing you're insisting it belongs to you.
I insist it belongs to me because the documentation and cancelled checks prove I do.
Just because I didn't use those exact words doesn't mean that isn't what I meant.
No. You said you didn't respect my claim because I didn't buy it from you. Again, you said "Why should I?".
The implication is that you do not respect my claim of ownership
even if it's provably legal.
You get hung up on that a lot.
And you get hung up on objectivism/subjectivism. So what?
I get hung up because I understand language nuance. You don't. This is why I say you can't express yourself worth a shit and that your reading comprehension sucks.
And I didn't say anything about buying it from me, that would suppose I had claimed ownership myself previously. For the sake of this argument, I'm questioning the very nature of ownership itself. I said you didn't pay me for it, meaning you didn't pay me so you could have exclusive rights to this natural resource that we would all otherwise have access to. If I'm not getting anything out of this deal why would I be willing to relinquish my natural and innate ability to partake in these natural resources?
What "natural resources", the nuts from my pecan trees? It's a fucking house on a three quarter acre piece of land. If you want my pecans, I give you permission to come gather them.
You spoke about buying it from someone else. That's an agreement between you and that person, not you and me. We have yet to come to an agreement in this scenario. I've clarified this argument for you repeatedly.
Why would I need to come to some agreement with you for you to recognize and respect my legal ownership of my house and property? The fuck are you talking about?
Yes. My objective innate natural ability. I made this pretty clear too. The libertarian understood it when I made the argument to them.
I DON'T CARE.
Through the use of force. Like when you threaten someone off natural resources you've decided belong to you, or you violently attack them when they don't comply, or you set up a legal system that allows you to call people to do the manhandling for you.
You idiot. What does this have to do with respecting or not respecting your ability to walk and go places?
If you mean right as in legal right then no that isn't my argument. If you mean right or freedom as I did as in my natural innate ability then I'm just stating an objective fact that my two feet can carry me across land. How you feel about it is indeed a subjective argument, but that I am capable through natural ability to traverse nature is simply fact. That a piece of nature belongs to you is only your subjective belief and the subjective belief of the legal entity you rely on to enforce that claim.
1.) Again, "freedom" is subjective. "Ability" is more apt in this context.
2.) "That piece of nature" is not all there is to my property. It includes a house that is not a piece of nature.
It makes perfect sense to people being intellectually honest. Aren't there physical consequences for not following the law? Those physical forces are the objective forces I'm talking about. They aren't subjective. When a police officer puts their hands on someone that's an objective use of force.
I said that because the way you expressed it made no sense. If there's a threat of force in law, it is not inherent in my reliance on law. Either there is or there isn't. My reliance on law doesn't determine the threat of force.
No. Its in yours. You claim legal ownership over a piece of land, I shrug my shoulders and keep walking where I please all over what you claim is yours, now what?
Negative. You said:
"If I don't respect your legal claim then what?"
"Then what?" what? Do you expect me to initiate some kind of action simply because you don't respect my legal claim? Until you apply force of your own in some way, the ball's in your court.
Existing as what?
Law. What else?
I understand them just fine.
No you don't. You don't even understand the complexities of objectivism/subjectivism and I've told you this before.
You're the one wishing to ignore the very real physical force the legal system uses to enforce itself on people when it suits your argument.
When? Where? How?
The point I'm trying to make when I ask this is that the legal system uses physical force when physical force is brought against it, or rather, against a person, people, property, etc. Physical force is not always brought to bear when a law is broken. In fact, it is not always brought to bear when it
should be.
Our government/s (mostly Democrats and Democrat states and cities) are decriminalizing criminal behavior.
Of course not you fucking Moron. Laws are ideas. The people who have those ideas do.
But the law does not.
Why do you insist on pretending not to understand these simple concepts or are you really this dumb?
They're
not simple concepts. That's the point.
I imagine the concept of law was simple enough at its inception but it is hopelessly complicated today.
You mean here we go against where you pretend the law is merely a friendly suggestion?
Negative. "Here we go again" as in, the issue is infinitely more complex than "Law is force".
Laws are ideas that are ultimately about violence.
Wrong. You're looking at this bass ackwards. Laws are ideas that are ultimately about creating a more harmonious society.
They aren't suggestions. They are a collectives threat to comply or else. That's what the penalties for violating them are about.
Not all penalties involve violence.
If the law isn't ultimately a threat of force then what is it exactly? So far you've been unable to describe it.
If that's true, you haven't either.
You say I have been unable to describe law if it's not about force but you have been unable to describe force.
No it's not. The police putting their hands on people and forcing them into confinement seems to meet the definition discernable by touch and objectively real, to me.
"Tangible" has three definitions in Webster's:
1a : capable of being perceived especially by the sense of touch : palpable
b : substantially real : material
2: capable of being precisely identified or realized by the mind
her grief was tangible
3: capable of being appraised at an actual or approximate value
tangible assets
As you can see, the first definition is literal: physical touch. But the second definition is figurative. Therefore, "tangible" is subjective.
When they are forced to interact with the legal system against their will.
And what about how and where?
The reason you're having a hard time understanding where I'm coming from is that you insist on looking at the issue in strictly general terms, i.e., Law is
always force and the manner of this force is
always the same with
every law,
every person or entity and in
every case.
Your perspective on this is overly simplistic.
Your say so isn't much of a reason.
My "say so"? I specifically cited legal documentation you idiot.
So then why do I care about your legal claims again?
Didn't say you did.
I'm trying to understand your argument here. If the law don't mean shit and isn't an authority here what reason do I have to respect your legal claim to anything?
I'm not the one who said the law don't mean shit, you are.
I don't mind clarification... why are you triggered by it?
I don't know, why are you so stupid you need clarification multiple times for the same point?
Unlike you who asks a question and then says the answer you were looking for is irrelevant I ask questions because I actually want to know your answer.
I asked the question because
your question was irrelevant. Dumbass.
I can be almost positive it's going to be stupid, but I like to know the exact nature of the stupid I'm dealing with because laughing at real things is funnier to me than laughing at figments of your imagination.
You just contradicted yourself again dumbass. When you ask a question and I say the question and the answer are irrelevant to the topic, you bitch about it. At the same time you tell me you know my answers are going to be stupid even before you ask the question.
Goddamn you're a hypocrite.
So what are you saying? Is the law a force to be recknoned with or not because if its not I don't see any reason to respect it.
I'm saying that I never said the law has no bearing on anything.
Same difference to me. It's the daddy you're running to to lend support to your claim.
Is this the same daddy that's going to give you my resources?
Guy, no one is questioning whether America has laws. You know that isn't the context in which I mean laws are subjective. Are you afraid to address that context or something?
Irrelevant. You claimed I was
"Refusing to acknowledge that fact..." that there are physical consequences to breaking the law when it was clear from early on that I understood this.
They are subjective in that all laws are born form the imaginations of people. When I make an objective argument about the nature of law it is that people are using real objective physical force to make people comply with the figments of their imaginations.
All this tells me is that you don't have much respect for law in general.
Ok, I acknowledge that you've claimed that, now make an argument for it. I say when the police put their hands on people that is indeed a natural physical force. People are a part of nature and we convert energy into mass and movement. When the police reach out to put their hands on people for breaking the law that is a literal representation of the physics equation of F=MA.
No. Your arguments from the beginning were that, generally speaking, law is force. Now you're crawfishing to the specific physics of an officer using physical force to restrain a suspect.
It's not. It's the strawman you'd rather it be about but I'm not questioning whether laws exist, I'm arguing about the nature of their existence. Something you've spent page after page trying to avoid addressing.
The
nature of their existence is not force.
Here is where you fail at providing context and fail at having a clearly defined argument just like your inability to describe what the law is.
First describe force in all its contexts then we can can talk about what I think law is.
Those things you listed are objectively real in the sense that they are ideas humans have had and humans having ideas is absolutely a part of human nature. Humans having the innate natural ability for abstract thought and imagination is part of the objective natural world.
Thats the context you meant that in isnt it?
You asked me to name one thing that is objectively real that isn't part of the natural world. The context is that these things exist.
Certainly you dont mean to argue angels and virgin births and the
claims made by religions were objectively real.....
I said
religions exist. I did not say or suggest that their beliefs are objectively real. Jesus what an idiot.
What? What exists outside the mind
and the natural world?
I just gave you a list in my last post. Religions objectively exist. They exist apart from my mind and they are not of the natural world. Therefore, there are two ways I can approach religion: with bias or objectively without bias.
I can't think of one thing and apparently you think anything can. Expand on this because I don't understand.
What would be the point if you know my answer will be stupid?
The thoughts knocking around your head are either figments of your imagination and feelings subjective to you (fantasies, day dreams, hopes, fears...) or thoughts related to stimuli (touch, taste, smell, sound, and sight) from one of your senses. That stimulus is the natural world knocking. What exists outside both of these?
Once again: religion; culture; fashions; politics...
You're talking about sensory stimulation which is something wholly different. The things that trigger our senses are not in and of our minds. Religion objectively exists even though the doctrine that makes up the religion is subjective.
Saying it and making a coherent argument about it are two very different things.
What?
What? How does that help explain anything you claimed above?
You're observing their actual beliefs in this scenario and not imagining what their beliefs are, right? It's the fact that you are observing
facts about their lives that makes that an objective observation. If you were making assumptions or imaging what their culture and family are like then it wouldn't be an
objective observation. Whether the beliefs themselves are objectively real is a separate question and has no bearing on whether your
observation is
objective in this scenario.
The fuck are you talking about? Statistically speaking, is it or is it not true that the majority of people who adopt a religion adopt the prevailing religion of their country and culture?
I will assume you would agree with this, yes? Assuming that you do, would this not be an objective argument in a discussion about whose religion is the true religion?
How long are you going to hide behind this red herring of a counter argument?
How long are you going to hide behind your red herring of property acquisition by force?
I see you repeating that claim over and over but I don't really see you expanding on that claim with any sort of logical argument.
I've expanded on them many times. You just disagree with me.
All your arguments are poorly defined or contradictory.
Oh that's rich.
If it isn't the legal system that you are relying to determine how you acquire property and to help you maintain your claim to it then what does determine property ownership?
Again? Fuck, man.
I acquire property by paying for it. The payment record and documentation determine ownership, not the law.
That's about seven or eight times now. Do I need to tell you a ninth time or do you need to get stoned first?
You said you legally purchasing it earlier in the argument but that's a transaction that takes place under the legal framework. If the law isn't ultimately who you're relying on then make an argument that doesn't rely on law or a legal framework. The implication of you being unable to is that you are reliant on the law for your claim. The law that you admit who's ideas and morals and structure are subjective.
I never indicated in any way that law has nothing to do with my acquiring and owning property. I merely said (multiple times) that it does not
determine ownership.
Guy, historical reality defeats that argument soundly. I hate having to come back to slavery but it's the most obvious example of the self interest at the center of all law. It is made to serve the interests of the people crafting it. Slavery wasnt a theft or robbery of a person's innate objective ability for independent thought and action because the people creating the law didn't want to recognize it as such. It doesn't matter that objectively it was because the law is about promoting subjective beliefs, not objective ones. It's why the State can execute people and it not be murder because murder isn't defined as the objective act of taking a life, it's taking a life in a way that violates the subjective legal system.
Irrelevant. You said:
"law itself is based on subjective feelings no one is inclined by nature to adhere to without the use of physical force."
It is entirely subjective opinion that no one is inclined to abide by laws without the threat or use of physical force. This is a broadbrush claim that you are not qualified to make.
And also distrust and disagreement. My argument is about the disagreements.
Right, because you want access to my resources, whatever those are.
Again, my argument is about those not inclined to agree with your assessment that they're robbers, cheats, thieves or murderers, that's who the law is for. The people who disagree with you.
But you've said law is force.
No.... my argument is that you can't use something that is ultimatelty subjective to argue an objective claim. People are only violators of law according to the law itself. Someone helping a slave escape is a thief but what does that mean to me objectively outside of the moral framework of legal system which you admit to being subjective? I don't care that the legal system is of the opinion that they're a thief. A thief in this instance isn't a bad person as far as I'm concerned and is doing nothing wrong. They're only doing something wrong according to the subjective opinion of the law and the people who wrote and agree with it.
Force is always the thing that compels people to do things they don't want to do. Otherwise why would they do them?
That doesn't answer my question. You said:
"That I'm not inclined by nature to adhere to your laws. What compels me to is force."
Are you speaking for yourself or was this a statement referring to people in general?
I'm at a loss as to what you're finding disturbing here. People don't need laws for agreement. We agree to things all day everyday without needing laws to govern them. We need laws to compel people who aren't complying with things we want them to. I'm only saying people don't do things they don't want to unless made to.
Again, you said:
"That I'm not inclined by nature to adhere to your laws. What compels me to is force."
If you were not referring to yourself then why word it that way? Wouldn't it be more apt to say "
Some are not inclined by nature to adhere to your laws. What compels them to is force."?
