EPA: Environmental Protection Agency

[daveman]

I frankly don't know a soul who's against private property nowadays.

Your limited worldview proves only that your worldview is limited.

Are you against private property?

No.

Your limited experience is meaningless. There are people who support the abolition of private property. It's the first demand in the second section of the Communist Manifesto.

 

[daveman]

Modern conservatives are anarchists.

Only if you believe that limited government equals no government.

Out here in the real world, that's simply not true.

I am modern, and liberal. What do I believe that's not classic liberalism?

Name something you believe in that increases liberty for ALL Americans.

I believe that we are the freest people to ever inhabit the planet.

Unsurprisingly, that utterly fails to answer the question.

 

[PMZ]

Your limited worldview proves only that your worldview is limited.

Are you against private property?

No.

Your limited experience is meaningless. There are people who support the abolition of private property. It's the first demand in the second section of the Communist Manifesto.

What does the Communist Manifesto have to do with anything or anybody here?

Are you worried about the monsters in your closet again? Try warm milk.

 

[PMZ]

Only if you believe that limited government equals no government.

Out here in the real world, that's simply not true.

Name something you believe in that increases liberty for ALL Americans.

I believe that we are the freest people to ever inhabit the planet.

Unsurprisingly, that utterly fails to answer the question.

Actually, it answers the question perfectly by illustrating that it is meaningless. In fact I think that it was a Miss America question from the past.

 

[bripat9643]

Private property can't even exist without some form of coercive government.

That's just plain bullshit because it did exist for thousands of years before governments ever existed.



If it's "manufactured," then try taking a bone away from a dog and see what his view on private property is.

That leaves the kooks in a pickle, but that's their problem.

You can find an explanation of how private property came into existence here:

http://www.hanshoppe.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/hoppe_origin-family-2007.pdf

Government had nothing to do with it.

My browser recommends not opening your reference. What a cheap trick on your part.

''Government had nothing to do with it.''

Who enforced private property laws before government?

People protected their own property, just as they do now.

 

[PMZ]

My browser recommends not opening your reference. What a cheap trick on your part.

My browser -- Chrome -- opened it right up.

I suspect you yourself recommend not opening his reference.

''Government had nothing to do with it.''

Who enforced private property laws before government?

Private property owners.

So, you are an advocate of private property being defined as a right of power? If you can take it and defend it, it's yours?

That’s strange. I always thought that it was a legal concept.

But, I'm liberal and respect the laws of the land.

 

[bripat9643]

Private property can't even exist without some form of coercive government.

That's just plain bullshit because it did exist for thousands of years before governments ever existed.



If it's "manufactured," then try taking a bone away from a dog and see what his view on private property is.

That leaves the kooks in a pickle, but that's their problem.

You can find an explanation of how private property came into existence here:

http://www.hanshoppe.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/hoppe_origin-family-2007.pdf

Government had nothing to do with it.

My browser recommends not opening your reference. What a cheap trick on your part.

''Government had nothing to do with it.''

Who enforced private property laws before government?

That's an obvious weasel. it's a safe site.

 

[bripat9643]

My browser recommends not opening your reference. What a cheap trick on your part.

My browser -- Chrome -- opened it right up.

I suspect you yourself recommend not opening his reference.

''Government had nothing to do with it.''

Who enforced private property laws before government?

Private property owners.

So, you are an advocate of private property being defined as a right of power? If you can take it and defend it, it's yours?

That’s strange. I always thought that it was a legal concept.

But, I'm liberal and respect the laws of the land.

He obviously hasn't said anything of the sort. Private property comes into being when unowned property is appropriated by someone who uses it and makes it productive. The owner of the property then has to undertake his the business of defending it because no one is going to do it for him. The term "power" doesn't even enter into the discussion. That's purely a liberal attempt to impose their agenda on a purely non-liberal social process.

 

[Abraham3]

Big whup. Your source is more than likely a government subsidized left-wing professor.

Does the thought ever cross your mind of addressing the CONTENT of these articles rather than this pathetically childish ad hominem? It becomes more and more obvious to more and more of the readership, that you are simply incapable of reasoned debate. All your posts are simply the expression of your bitter anger.

18th century liberalism is the exact opposite of modern liberalism, which is indistinguishable from socialism.

The article (from Wikipedia of course) covered the history of liberalism. It still provided zero support for your contention.

How about you show us some actual experts in these sorts of fields: a sociologist or an economist, holding views with which yours align. Give us a link. Cause frankly, I wouldn't take your opinion on whether or not the sun is shining.

You're 0-2 on committing logic.

Ever had a class in logic Paddy? I have. Long time ago, but I remember a few things. For instance, I recall enough to know that the phrase "committing logic" is meaningless nonsense indicating that here, as elsewhere, you don't have a clue.

The fact is that without the institution of private property the division of labor is impossible and therefore civilization is impossible. Do you think farming started out as some kind of socialist endeavor? That has been tried time and time again, and the result has always been starvation.

I'm glad that you at least know enough to bring agriculture in to the picture. That was what started everything. It allowed people to become sedentary and provided excesses of food so that people could start doing things BESIDES looking for food 24/7. Governments formed to do a few things but one of the earliest functions (and this involved religion as well) was the stabilization of that labor force. I think its funny that you think the division of labor was most important. I'm quite certain that humanity's first efforts at growing crops didn't involve supervisors and peons. Everyone worked the fields because if you didn't you starved. The earliest agriculture was performed by family groups. Keeping the labor force around till harvest time was the major impetus for the codification of marriage.

Hunting and gathering is an inherent socialist lifestyle.

Really? Is that the division of labor you're talking about? The hunters and the gatherers? That division was more a product of biology than government.

When people started moving the plants and animals to where they were, rather than going out to find them, land ownership didn't change. It was the invention of government that brought about private property.

Groups of people began to define certain pieces of land as theirs when they put things on it that they valued and that they could not easily move. When people planted crops and built animal pens, they claimed the land they used. Government did not yet exist. Property ownership appeared concurrently with agriculture. Agriculture led to growing groups of people which led to cities which required government.

Every Democrat politician in Washington is the enemy of private property. Your hero Obama just ruled that property owners can't build coal fired power plants on their property. Telling people how they can use their property is an attack on their property rights.

How about the laws against robbery, assault, murder? Are those attacks on property rights? How about if I set up a facility to generate and release nerve gas? How about if I sit in my own backyard, minding my own business and build nuclear weapons? Do you believe the government should have no power over such behaviors? Where in the Constitution do you find support for this restraint on government you so desire?

I don't know why I bother debating you. Your contentions range from absurd to insane and you've yet to effectively defend a single one of them. Clean that little kid's face, tell him flipping people off is unacceptably rude and childish and follow him back to school.

 

[daveman]

Are you against private property?

No.

Your limited experience is meaningless. There are people who support the abolition of private property. It's the first demand in the second section of the Communist Manifesto.

What does the Communist Manifesto have to do with anything or anybody here?

Are you worried about the monsters in your closet again? Try warm milk.

Don't try to move the goalposts, boy. You claimed, based on your limited experience, that no one supports the abolition of private property.

Marxists do. The Communist Party of the USA is a Marxist organization.

 

[daveman]

I believe that we are the freest people to ever inhabit the planet.

Unsurprisingly, that utterly fails to answer the question.

Actually, it answers the question perfectly by illustrating that it is meaningless. In fact I think that it was a Miss America question from the past.

It is not a meaningless question, boy.

You claim to support liberty. I asked you to name a policy or action that you support that promotes liberty for all Americans.

You can't think of one.

Therefore, you don't support liberty. But that's to be expected -- you're a progressive. Progressives loath liberty.

 

[Abraham3]

No.

Your limited experience is meaningless. There are people who support the abolition of private property. It's the first demand in the second section of the Communist Manifesto.

What does the Communist Manifesto have to do with anything or anybody here?

Are you worried about the monsters in your closet again? Try warm milk.

Don't try to move the goalposts, boy. You claimed, based on your limited experience, that no one supports the abolition of private property.

Marxists do. The Communist Party of the USA is a Marxist organization.

So you do believe in boogeymen.

 

[daveman]

My browser recommends not opening your reference. What a cheap trick on your part.

My browser -- Chrome -- opened it right up.

I suspect you yourself recommend not opening his reference.

''Government had nothing to do with it.''

Who enforced private property laws before government?

Private property owners.

So, you are an advocate of private property being defined as a right of power? If you can take it and defend it, it's yours?

No. If you can purchase it or have other legal sanction for the transaction (inherit it, win it in a contest, etc.), and can defend it, it's yours.

That’s strange. I always thought that it was a legal concept.

But, I'm liberal and respect the laws of the land.

You don't respect the Constitution. Because you're a progressive.

 

[daveman]

What does the Communist Manifesto have to do with anything or anybody here?

Are you worried about the monsters in your closet again? Try warm milk.

Don't try to move the goalposts, boy. You claimed, based on your limited experience, that no one supports the abolition of private property.

Marxists do. The Communist Party of the USA is a Marxist organization.

So you do believe in boogeymen.

You bore me. Progressives, who support much of the Communist agenda, trying to claim there is no threat from the Communist agenda is old, tired, unimaginative, and simply not credible.

 

[Abraham3]

You bore me. Progressives, who support much of the Communist agenda, trying to claim there is no threat from the Communist agenda is old, tired, unimaginative, and simply not credible.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA... you're hilarious. Worried about the "Communist agenda"! Gonna give 'em both barrels? Boy, there aren't a lot of you folks left. Getting lonely?

 

[westwall]

My browser recommends not opening your reference. What a cheap trick on your part.

My browser -- Chrome -- opened it right up.

I suspect you yourself recommend not opening his reference.

''Government had nothing to do with it.''

Who enforced private property laws before government?

Private property owners.

So, you are an advocate of private property being defined as a right of power? If you can take it and defend it, it's yours?

That’s strange. I always thought that it was a legal concept.

But, I'm liberal and respect the laws of the land.

No, you're not "liberal", you're totalitarian theocratic rule just like our dear Sharia terrorists...

 

[PMZ]

My browser -- Chrome -- opened it right up.

I suspect you yourself recommend not opening his reference.

Private property owners.

So, you are an advocate of private property being defined as a right of power? If you can take it and defend it, it's yours?

That’s strange. I always thought that it was a legal concept.

But, I'm liberal and respect the laws of the land.

He obviously hasn't said anything of the sort. Private property comes into being when unowned property is appropriated by someone who uses it and makes it productive. The owner of the property then has to undertake his the business of defending it because no one is going to do it for him. The term "power" doesn't even enter into the discussion. That's purely a liberal attempt to impose their agenda on a purely non-liberal social process.

But, in the absence of government and therefore law, force and power is the only option for settling disputes.

 

[PMZ]

No.

Your limited experience is meaningless. There are people who support the abolition of private property. It's the first demand in the second section of the Communist Manifesto.

What does the Communist Manifesto have to do with anything or anybody here?

Are you worried about the monsters in your closet again? Try warm milk.

Don't try to move the goalposts, boy. You claimed, based on your limited experience, that no one supports the abolition of private property.

Marxists do. The Communist Party of the USA is a Marxist organization.

What does the Communist Manifesto have to do with anything or anybody here?

 

[PMZ]

Unsurprisingly, that utterly fails to answer the question.

Actually, it answers the question perfectly by illustrating that it is meaningless. In fact I think that it was a Miss America question from the past.

It is not a meaningless question, boy.

You claim to support liberty. I asked you to name a policy or action that you support that promotes liberty for all Americans.

You can't think of one.

Therefore, you don't support liberty. But that's to be expected -- you're a progressive. Progressives loath liberty.

Define liberty. Most conservatives define it as anarchy.

 

[PMZ]

What does the Communist Manifesto have to do with anything or anybody here?

Are you worried about the monsters in your closet again? Try warm milk.

Don't try to move the goalposts, boy. You claimed, based on your limited experience, that no one supports the abolition of private property.

Marxists do. The Communist Party of the USA is a Marxist organization.

So you do believe in boogeymen.

Conservatives worship the boogeyman. He's about the only support they have except for the blind date allegiance of other conservatives.