CDZ Squatter Rights

[Onyx]

It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree

you cannot claim someone else's property as your own

And you cannot claim ownership over that which you are not entitled.

Third time I am saying it, but you are really slow to grasp the concept. They'd have to recognize it as someone else's property for it to be stolen, and property is merely a social construction. In this case, there is no actual backing to ones claim outside government recognition. That is ill sufficient.

 

[Onyx]

We don't care stupid.

What good is intellectual discourse if you are committed to remaining in an echo chamber?

Your defense mechanism is noted.

Can I just claim anything you own, that you haven't used?

Anyone can claim anything already. It is a matter of respectable recognition within a civilized society.

If squatters take over your residence while you are away for the weekend (which is a fantasy that does not happen ), then the squatters would be the abusive party. If the police drive away squatters who formed a community in a 20 year old abandoned building, then the state is the abusive party.

You are a big boy. Apply your general principles.

It's their land.

Conjecture.

It's their land. The fact they are not using it, and have not used it in decades, doesn't mean anything.

The fact that they claim ownership does not mean anything either.

What part of "it's not yours" do you not get?

The part where it is somehow theirs.

Moron.

Resorting to insults as a final defense mechanism?

Don't worry, I would do the same if I were in your shoes.

 

[Andylusion]

We don't care stupid.

What good is intellectual discourse if you are committed to remaining in an echo chamber?

Your defense mechanism is noted.

Can I just claim anything you own, that you haven't used?

Anyone can claim anything already. It is a matter of respectable recognition within a civilized society.

If squatters take over your residence while you are away for the weekend (which is a fantasy that does not happen ), then the squatters would be the abusive party. If the police drive away squatters who formed a community in a 20 year old abandoned building, then the state is the abusive party.

You are a big boy. Apply your general principles.

It's their land.

Conjecture.

It's their land. The fact they are not using it, and have not used it in decades, doesn't mean anything.

The fact that they claim ownership does not mean anything either.

What part of "it's not yours" do you not get?

The part where it is somehow theirs.

Moron.

Resorting to insults as a final defense mechanism?

Don't worry, I would do the same if I were in your shoes.

Really......... YOU who started off with the insults....

"that makes you guys dicks."

... is trying to take the moral high ground and saying it's a final defense mechanism?

Hypocrite much?

I don't care what you think about our "defense mechanism", especially when you resort to repeating yourself (echo chamber) and insults yourself.

Practice what you preach first. Then talk to us.

 

[Andylusion]

Ah, but my family's right to the property I mentioned earlier is backed up by more than just a deed.... its,backed up by GUNS and a significant willingness to use them on other human beings when necessary.

Okay, now that brings up a question of ethics.

If your family has been siting on unused land hundreds of miles away since 1788, that makes you guys dicks. Period.

Look, we're in the CDZ.
I prefer if you get back to the arguments. I am in no mood for intellectually dishonest deflection or childish behavior. You are a big boy, and I made some fine arguments which you are seemingly incapable of answering.

 

[Onyx]

It's ironic that you talk about realtors that own land no one can use, when the largest land owner in the entire country, is the Federal Government, which prevents people from create a livelihood. The moment someone tries to argue with that, people call them crazy criminals in Nevada.

That is off topic.

Start another thread about it, because I am against government ownership of land as well.

While you say there is a difference between taking over an abandon build, and taking someone's home while they are away, I highly doubt squatters are checking out the property history before taking over.

Right, well you would be wrong.

Squatters are exclusively moving into long abandoned buildings where I live, and it is the same in other places. Many of the buildings are from the fifties and sixties.

Lastly, buildings are usually abandoned for a reason. The endless regulations and insane corporate tax code, causes some buildings to be worth more to a company empty, than to be rebuilt, or fixed up, or demolished.

I'll stop you right there.

The primary reason in most places is due to population decline. Residential and commercial property becomes abandoned, and becomes worthless on the market. The structural damage to these places becomes so great overtime, that often it becomes more cost effective to just build new property rather than renovate the old ones.

These buildings that have been abandoned for decades, could very well be abandoned for decades more. Squatters reclaim and reoccupy these buildings, as they have every moral right to do so, and often improve conditions in the community and property values. Squatters are better than the homeless after all.

 

[Onyx]

Look, we're in the CDZ.
I prefer if you get back to the arguments. I am in no mood for intellectually dishonest deflection or childish behavior. You are a big boy, and I made some fine arguments which you are seemingly incapable of answering.

So if a family is sitting on abandoned property for over 200 years and threatening to kill those that take residence on it, that would not be a dick move?

I strive for the day when inhumanity will no longer be an acceptable standard for society.

 

[Andylusion]

Look, we're in the CDZ.
I prefer if you get back to the arguments. I am in no mood for intellectually dishonest deflection or childish behavior. You are a big boy, and I made some fine arguments which you are seemingly incapable of answering.

So if a family is sitting on abandoned property for over 200 years and threatening to kill those that take residence on it, that would not be a dick move?

I strive for the day when inhumanity will no longer be an acceptable standard for society.

Inhumanity is saying that you can steal other people's property.

If it was your land, that had been in the family for generations, you wouldn't be making this argument. That is the only reason you are making it, is because you don't.

My ancestor came from Germany as Eichelburgers. In Germany, we have land, and a castle, that has been in the family for longer than hundreds of years.

Now as far as I know, the castle is empty at the moment, and I think only a part of the land is leased for farming.

So here's the deal. I don't care at all about all your lame rationalizations about how stealing is ok under certain circumstances. No... it is not.

You try and squat on our family land, you will be shot. I promise you.

 

[Onyx]

Inhumanity is saying that you can steal other people's property.

You would have to recognize it as theirs for it to be stolen.

If it was your land, that had been in the family for generations, you wouldn't be making this argument.

If I had family land that had been passed down for generations, I would of never abandoned it.

My ancestor came from Germany as Eichelburgers. In Germany, we have land, and a castle, that has been in the family for longer than hundreds of years.

Your family probably has several hundred thousand members. That isn't your land just because another guy has the last name Eichelburger.

My ancestors used to have a fiefdom in Normandy. The estate that used to be there is long gone, and of the 200,000 people that share my surname, one of them probably has the deed.

Now as far as I know, the castle is empty at the moment, and I think only a part of the land is leased for farming.

Yes, an immoral theft scheme that is protected by our worlds corrupt governments.

Leaching off the land that others labor on, when you have no right to be collecting rent in the first place.

You try and squat on our family land, you will be shot. I promise you.

I doubt it. You were not even completely sure whether or not "your land" was being leased. Talk about being full of shit.

 

[Andylusion]

Inhumanity is saying that you can steal other people's property.

You would have to recognize it as theirs for it to be stolen.

If it was your land, that had been in the family for generations, you wouldn't be making this argument.

If I had family land that had been passed down for generations, I would of never abandoned it.

My ancestor came from Germany as Eichelburgers. In Germany, we have land, and a castle, that has been in the family for longer than hundreds of years.

Your family probably has several hundred thousand members. That isn't your land just because another guy has the last name Eichelburger.

My ancestors used to have a fiefdom in Normandy. The estate that used to be there is long gone, and of the 200,000 people that share my surname, one of them probably has the deed.

Now as far as I know, the castle is empty at the moment, and I think only a part of the land is leased for farming.

Yes, an immoral theft scheme that is protected by our worlds corrupt governments.

Leaching off the land that others labor on, when you have no right to be collecting rent in the first place.

You try and squat on our family land, you will be shot. I promise you.

I doubt it. You were not even completely sure whether or not "your land" was being leased. Talk about being full of shit.

Agreed, I never said "my land". It's in the family, and we know them. But I didn't mean to imply that I could walk over and hang out in the castle.

Second, it's not abandoned. Unused, not maintained at the moment perhaps, but it's not abandoned. Our extended family owns it. They don't have a direct use for it at the moment. Doesn't mean it's abandoned.

There is no immoral theft scheme. Even if you attempt to claim that there is, then if that's the case, then you should never call police, because all your ownership claims are just immoral theft schemes.

In fact, you shouldn't own anything. After all, everything you have came from ownership of land somewhere. In which case, by being on this forum, you are a benefiting from the immoral system you claim to be against. How dare you. Stop being a hypocrite.

 

[Onyx]

Agreed, I never said "my land". It's in the family, and we know them. But I didn't mean to imply that I could walk over and hang out in the castle.

Right, and you are going to conscript yourself to go fight in Lord Eichelburger's army if squatters enter his land?

Second, it's not abandoned. Unused, not maintained at the moment perhaps, but it's not abandoned. Our extended family owns it. They don't have a direct use for it at the moment. Doesn't mean it's abandoned

That is a fine line which takes some context.

How long has it been dormant? What significance does it have to the Eichelburger family? Does your extended families liberty to sit on a piece of unused land supercede someone else's right to create a livelihood on it?

Morality is not black and white. I cannot stress that enough.

There is no immoral theft scheme. Even if you attempt to claim that there is, then if that's the case, then you should never call police, because all your ownership claims are just immoral theft schemes.

I would never call the police. Not if my life depended on it.

Economic activities like leasing artificially produce wealth for one faction that does no labor. Middlemen of that nature are either crooks or thieves, and they are dangerous to the sufficiency of the economy.

In fact, you shouldn't own anything. After all, everything you have came from ownership of land somewhere. In which case, by being on this forum, you are a benefiting from the immoral system you claim to be against. How dare you. Stop being a hypocrite.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

This site was created and is being sustained, and therefore I respect the right of the site owner to dictate the flow purely out of civil principle. As long as someone else sustains the site, I view myself as a guest.

Likewise, anyone that sustains land should consider their occupation akin to borrowing. The idea that you can draw some lines on a map and claim a piece of the earth as your own is beyond ridiculous. Ownership needs to be based on something substantive.

 

[Desperado]

Bottom line in America is that Squatters have no rights.

 

[Onyx]

Bottom line in America is that Squatters have no rights.

So what?

That doesn't mean they should not have rights. And actually, squatters do have rights in certain cities.

 

[Andylusion]

Bottom line in America is that Squatters have no rights.

Not true. Many states have extensive squatters rights. I'm arguing they shouldn't. I know a guy who had rental unit, and rented it out to some jackass, who brought his shackup female playmate. They had a blow up (shocking), and yet she refused to leave. Finally the guy left, but she still refused to leave. She refuse to pay electricity, but he was not allowed by law to turn the power off. She refused to pay for heat, and he was not allowed by law to cut the heat.

It required almost a year to finally prove everything, and have the leg-spreader removed from the building. He almost went bankrupt over it.

I heard another story on the radio about a guy who walked out to garage one day, and found a guy in the garage. Broke a window to get in. Had a tent, and sleeping bag, inside the garage. He got physical with him, and then called the police. The police almost arrested him for trying to remove the tramp from his own garage.

It was 6 months to get him gone.

Yeah, I wish squatters have no rights in America, but you are wrong. They do.

 

[Andylusion]

Agreed, I never said "my land". It's in the family, and we know them. But I didn't mean to imply that I could walk over and hang out in the castle.

Right, and you are going to conscript yourself to go fight in Lord Eichelburger's army if squatters enter his land?

Second, it's not abandoned. Unused, not maintained at the moment perhaps, but it's not abandoned. Our extended family owns it. They don't have a direct use for it at the moment. Doesn't mean it's abandoned

That is a fine line which takes some context.

How long has it been dormant? What significance does it have to the Eichelburger family? Does your extended families liberty to sit on a piece of unused land supercede someone else's right to create a livelihood on it?

Morality is not black and white. I cannot stress that enough.

There is no immoral theft scheme. Even if you attempt to claim that there is, then if that's the case, then you should never call police, because all your ownership claims are just immoral theft schemes.

I would never call the police. Not if my life depended on it.

Economic activities like leasing artificially produce wealth for one faction that does no labor. Middlemen of that nature are either crooks or thieves, and they are dangerous to the sufficiency of the economy.

In fact, you shouldn't own anything. After all, everything you have came from ownership of land somewhere. In which case, by being on this forum, you are a benefiting from the immoral system you claim to be against. How dare you. Stop being a hypocrite.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

This site was created and is being sustained, and therefore I respect the right of the site owner to dictate the flow purely out of civil principle. As long as someone else sustains the site, I view myself as a guest.

Likewise, anyone that sustains land should consider their occupation akin to borrowing. The idea that you can draw some lines on a map and claim a piece of the earth as your own is beyond ridiculous. Ownership needs to be based on something substantive.

If I lived there, I would. You bet. If anyone asked me to help remove some squatters, I would volunteer as much time as I possibly could to complete the task. Absolutely. Stealing is wrong. Period.

How long has it been dormant?
Doesn't matter.
What significance does it have to the Eichelburger family?
Irrelevant.
Does your extended families liberty to sit on a piece of unused land supercede someone else's right to create a livelihood on it?
Absolutely.

I can use a car to make money. I know people right next door to me, that owns a mint condition, less than 10k miles on it, 250hp, Type S, RX-8 sports car. I could rent that sucker out and make money.

Instead he keeps it in the garage, and I haven't seen him drive it one time.

It's been dormant since it was bought. Has no significance to the family.

Does his right to sit on his property and not use it for anything, supersede someone else's right to create a livelihood with it?

Yes. Specifically because there is no "right to create a livelihood" with other people's property, whether it is land, a house, a business, a car, or anything else.

You don't have the right to 'create a livelihood with other people's stuff" period. You have the right to work for what you want, and earn it. That's all.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

You made a general claim that property rights were "immoral theft scheme that is protected by our worlds corrupt governments".

If that's true, then everything in this world, is immoral and built on theft. The computer you are using, was built by an immoral theft scheme. It should not exist in your ideology.

Right? Who owned the land where the raw materials were collected to make the computer, the servers, the processors, the factories, the wires, the routers, and on and on and on and on.

This forum is hosted on a server, by a person or company that owns property. That land is according to you, immoral and theft. Then why are you here supporting an immoral government theft system?

 

[Onyx]

] Absolutely. Stealing is wrong. Period.

Again.... can't steal what isn't owned. You have yet to make a case on how something not occupied can be owned.

How long has it been dormant?
Doesn't matter.

It does for those with human sensibilities.

No one besides morally bankrupt government is going recognize your claim, unless you can prove that you are morally obligated to claim ownership.

Let's quickly distinguish a principled claim from a legal claim.

Does your extended families liberty to sit on a piece of unused land supercede someone else's right to create a livelihood on it?
Absolutely.

Right, because a piece of paper justifies this wildly inhuman and self serving injustice?

In the past, pieces of paper were used to justify human beings as property. You are worse at defending your case than slavery apologists.

I can use a car to make money. I know people right next door to me, that owns a mint condition, less than 10k miles on it, 250hp, Type S, RX-8 sports car. I could rent that sucker out and make money.

Instead he keeps it in the garage, and I haven't seen him drive it one time.

It's been dormant since it was bought. Has no significance to the family.

Does his right to sit on his property and not use it for anything, supersede someone else's right to create a livelihood with it?

If he bought it and it is sitting in his garage.

If that sports car were sitting abandoned by the side of the road for several weeks, then it is fair game.

Yes. Specifically because there is no "right to create a livelihood" with other people's property, whether it is land, a house, a business, a car, or anything else.

Do you know what a false premise is? You are repeatedly committing the same fallacy.

You have yet to make a single legitimate argument that abandoned property is owned, so any arguments established from that premise are immediately considered false for the purpose of debate.

Logic 101.

You made a general claim that property rights were "immoral theft scheme that is protected by our worlds corrupt governments".

If that's true, then everything in this world, is immoral and built on theft. The computer you are using, was built by an immoral theft scheme. It should not exist in your ideology.

No, you misunderstood me.

I made the claim that leasing land is "an immoral theft scheme that is protected by our worlds corrupt governments." It is the second form of modern day serfdom, after the practices employed with sharecropping.

Wow, I actually went out of the way to clarify that last post, and you still didn't comprehend.

 

[Andylusion]

] Absolutely. Stealing is wrong. Period.

Again.... can't steal what isn't owned. You have yet to make a case on how something not occupied can be owned.

How long has it been dormant?
Doesn't matter.

It does for those with human sensibilities.

No one besides morally bankrupt government is going recognize your claim, unless you can prove that you are morally obligated to claim ownership.

Let's quickly distinguish a principled claim from a legal claim.

Does your extended families liberty to sit on a piece of unused land supercede someone else's right to create a livelihood on it?
Absolutely.

Right, because a piece of paper justifies this wildly inhuman and self serving injustice?

In the past, pieces of paper were used to justify human beings as property. You are worse at defending your case than slavery apologists.

I can use a car to make money. I know people right next door to me, that owns a mint condition, less than 10k miles on it, 250hp, Type S, RX-8 sports car. I could rent that sucker out and make money.

Instead he keeps it in the garage, and I haven't seen him drive it one time.

It's been dormant since it was bought. Has no significance to the family.

Does his right to sit on his property and not use it for anything, supersede someone else's right to create a livelihood with it?

If he bought it and it is sitting in his garage.

If that sports car were sitting abandoned by the side of the road for several weeks, then it is fair game.

Yes. Specifically because there is no "right to create a livelihood" with other people's property, whether it is land, a house, a business, a car, or anything else.

Do you know what a false premise is? You are repeatedly committing the same fallacy.

You have yet to make a single legitimate argument that abandoned property is owned, so any arguments established from that premise are immediately considered false for the purpose of debate.

Logic 101.

You made a general claim that property rights were "immoral theft scheme that is protected by our worlds corrupt governments".

If that's true, then everything in this world, is immoral and built on theft. The computer you are using, was built by an immoral theft scheme. It should not exist in your ideology.

No, you misunderstood me.

I made the claim that leasing land is "an immoral theft scheme that is protected by our worlds corrupt governments." It is the second form of modern day serfdom, after the practices employed with sharecropping.

Wow, I actually went out of the way to clarify that last post, and you still didn't comprehend.

My car outside is not occupied. Is it owned? Is yours? Can I come and take your car?

You are not occupying it right now, right?

It does for those with human sensibilities.

To most people on the face of the planet, it doesn't. Thus either none of them are human, or you are using false definition of "human sensibilities".

Right, because a piece of paper justifies this wildly inhuman and self serving injustice?

Prove your claim that it is 'wildly inhuman' or 'self service injustice'.

Again, can I take yourself? It's wildly inhuman and unjust for you to claim ownership of what you have.

If that sports car were sitting abandoned by the side of the road for several weeks, then it is fair game.

LOL! Yeah try it. See how far that gets you. Enjoy the jail time.

Do you know what a false premise is? You are repeatedly committing the same fallacy.

So are you.

You have yet to make a single legitimate argument that abandoned property is owned, so any arguments established from that premise are immediately considered false for the purpose of debate.

I paid for it. That alone makes it my property.

Funny how you don't abide by the standards you are applying to me.

You have yet to make a single legitimate argument that abandoned property is magically fair game to everyone who wants to steal it. The "they have a right to make a livelihood from it" claim is clearly false since no such 'right' exists.

So how about you practice what you preach. Come up with your reasoning, or I consider it false for the purpose of debate.

I made the claim that leasing land is "an immoral theft scheme that is protected by our worlds corrupt governments." It is the second form of modern day serfdom, after the practices employed with sharecropping.

Really.... So if you rent your car to someone for the day, or rent a room in your house, you are magically engaged in "immoral theft scheme"?

Does that apply to your job? You realize that most jobs are in leased property? Most of the world would be unemployed and starving. What a brilliant ideology you have.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree

you cannot claim someone else's property as your own

And you cannot claim ownership over that which you are not entitled.

Third time I am saying it, but you are really slow to grasp the concept. They'd have to recognize it as someone else's property for it to be stolen, and property is merely a social construction. In this case, there is no actual backing to ones claim outside government recognition. That is ill sufficient.

I get it YOU think no one is entitled to own land

YOU are wrong and until the laws are changed that abolish land ownership you will be wrong and since those laws will never be abolished you will always be wrong

 

[Onyx]

My car outside is not occupied. Is it owned? Is yours? Can I come and take your car?

You are not occupying it right now, right?

So you opted to ignore all the ground that was already covered? Splendid.

If your personal property is on property that is being personally sustained, then your claim is valid.

To most people on the face of the planet, it doesn't.

Conjecture. What are you basing that on?

Prove your claim that it is 'wildly inhuman' or 'self service injustice'.

It was hyperbole. I see you are opportunistically using it to deflect unto semantics.

I asked you a question. What proof do you have that your claim of ownership is justifie? So far..... still nothing.

LOL! Yeah try it. See how far that gets you. Enjoy the jail time.

Right, the law protects inhuman scum.

The topic of discussion is whether that fucked up reality should be changed. Why not address that rather than committing to obvious fallacies?

So are you.

When?

I paid for it. That alone makes it my property.

Not if you abandon it.

Funny how you don't abide by the standards you are applying to me.

How so?

You have yet to make a single legitimate argument that abandoned property is magically fair game to everyone who wants to steal it.

It is an argument from a lack of opposition. My opening argument was axiomatic in nature, and if the original axiom is uncontested, then it stands (logic 101 m8)

Do you acknowledge that what is not owned cannot be stolen? If so, then the burden of proof is still on you to prove ownership, which you have yet to do.

The "they have a right to make a livelihood from it" claim is clearly false since no such 'right' exists.

Human rights are abstractions, that is true, but do you acknowledge the right to life?

Do you believe someone that is born should have the right to live without hindrance? If so, then the right to create a livelihood on unused parts of mother earth is implicit.

So how about you practice what you preach. Come up with your reasoning, or I consider it false for the purpose of debate.

Here is an idea. You could stop trying to desperately offload the burdens that you chose to take on yourself.

Really.... So if you rent your car to someone for the day, or rent a room in your house, you are magically engaged in "immoral theft scheme"?

Yes, it is economically unproductive behavior that produces an immediate bubble. Western economies have always been volatile due to the existence of scummy middlemen.

You cannot rent what you do not own, just because a piece of paper tells you so <--- I'll add that into my next track

Does that apply to your job? You realize that most jobs are in leased property?

The majority of Western jobs are based on middleman activity.

It is abominable economic behavior that has pillaged the third world, and brought violence and poverty to billions. The population is artificially sustained on the wealth of other countries and the economy is in a bubble 24/7.

Most of the world would be unemployed and starving. What a brilliant ideology you have.

Great point.

Many of the starving people in the third world are subjected to an informal slavery produced by rent and sharecropping schemes. Non productive mediums have also played a huge role in every recession in modern history.

Our artificial Western populations founded upon this sort of unproductive and immoral economic activity. Continuing it will only compound the terror of our inevitable depopulation.

What a brilliant ideology you have!

 

[Andylusion]

My car outside is not occupied. Is it owned? Is yours? Can I come and take your car?

You are not occupying it right now, right?

So you opted to ignore all the ground that was already covered? Splendid.

If your personal property is on property that is being personally sustained, then your claim is valid.

To most people on the face of the planet, it doesn't.

Conjecture. What are you basing that on?

Prove your claim that it is 'wildly inhuman' or 'self service injustice'.

It was hyperbole. I see you are opportunistically using it to deflect unto semantics.

I asked you a question. What proof do you have that your claim of ownership is justifie? So far..... still nothing.

LOL! Yeah try it. See how far that gets you. Enjoy the jail time.

Right, the law protects inhuman scum.

The topic of discussion is whether that fucked up reality should be changed. Why not address that rather than committing to obvious fallacies?

So are you.

When?

I paid for it. That alone makes it my property.

Not if you abandon it.

Funny how you don't abide by the standards you are applying to me.

How so?

You have yet to make a single legitimate argument that abandoned property is magically fair game to everyone who wants to steal it.

It is an argument from a lack of opposition. My opening argument was axiomatic in nature, and if the original axiom is uncontested, then it stands (logic 101 m8)

Do you acknowledge that what is not owned cannot be stolen? If so, then the burden of proof is still on you to prove ownership, which you have yet to do.

The "they have a right to make a livelihood from it" claim is clearly false since no such 'right' exists.

Human rights are abstractions, that is true, but do you acknowledge the right to life?

Do you believe someone that is born should have the right to live without hindrance? If so, then the right to create a livelihood on unused parts of mother earth is implicit.

So how about you practice what you preach. Come up with your reasoning, or I consider it false for the purpose of debate.

Here is an idea. You could stop trying to desperately offload the burdens that you chose to take on yourself.

Really.... So if you rent your car to someone for the day, or rent a room in your house, you are magically engaged in "immoral theft scheme"?

Yes, it is economically unproductive behavior that produces an immediate bubble. Western economies have always been volatile due to the existence of scummy middlemen.

You cannot rent what you do not own, just because a piece of paper tells you so <--- I'll add that into my next track

Does that apply to your job? You realize that most jobs are in leased property?

The majority of Western jobs are based on middleman activity.

It is abominable economic behavior that has pillaged the third world, and brought violence and poverty to billions. The population is artificially sustained on the wealth of other countries and the economy is in a bubble 24/7.

Most of the world would be unemployed and starving. What a brilliant ideology you have.

Great point.

Many of the starving people in the third world are subjected to an informal slavery produced by rent and sharecropping schemes. Non productive mediums have also played a huge role in every recession in modern history.

Our artificial Western populations founded upon this sort of unproductive and immoral economic activity. Continuing it will only compound the terror of our inevitable depopulation.

What a brilliant ideology you have!

Yes, all the ground that was 'already covered' by you, was based on false ignorant claims. Since they were completely false to begin with, they were not worth considering. Nor are they now in this post.

Yeah it was hyperbole. If you don't want to argue over it, don't say it.

Right so your claim is automatically assumed true, while my claim is automatically assumed false. You contradict your own stated logic. If when you make a statement, it is assumed true until proven otherwise, then that same rule should apply to all others, including my own. In which case my claim is as valid as yours.

But then that's not even true. You claim was contested before it was even posted here. Every country on the face of this planet, supports property rights, whether you agree with it or not. So the fact is, everyone contests your claim.

No, I do not believe someone has the right to live without hindrance. You can't come into my home and steal my food because "I have a right to live without hindrance." No sir, you don't.

You have the right to live without your life being taken. I can't kill you. But it's up to you to live, and to live you need to earn water and food. You have to work for that, and that is hindrance. No one promised you, that you could live off the hard work and effort of others.

Only someone who grew up with a silver spoon, think no one has to work in order to live. That's why spoiled brat rich kids, think socialism is so great. It's how they grow up with worthless doting parents who were failures at teaching their kids how to work.

 

[Onyx]

Yes, all the ground that was 'already covered' by you, was based on false ignorant claims.

Point them out.

Since they were completely false to begin with, they were not worth considering.

If a premise is false then you should point it out and explain why. I have afforded you that, so why can't you do the same?

Nor are they now in this post.

Unlikely.

You are just deflecting because you are incapable of answering them. I expect you will still fail to prove ownership over unused land in the rest of this post.

If you don't want to argue over it, don't say it.

I see no reason why not. Rhetoric is a fundamental component of debating. I wasn't suprised you focused in on my choice of adjectives, since you had to deflect away from defending your cases shortcomings somehow.

Right so your claim is automatically assumed true, while my claim is automatically assumed false

You contradict your own stated logic. If when you make a statement, it is assumed true until proven otherwise, then that same rule should apply to all others, including my own. In which case my claim is as valid as yours.

Do you acknowledge that you cannot steal what is not owned? If so, then you affirm my premise.

If your answer is no, and I suspect it isn't, then my premise is true by lack opposition. On the contrary, I have opposed your premise, and you have yet to prove its merit.

Every country on the face of this planet, supports property rights, whether you agree with it or not. So the fact is, everyone contests your claim.

Argumentem ad populum. Nice fallacy!

I support property rights too. I do not support ownership over unsustained land, which is an utterly baseless claim without merit. A moral entitlement needs to be derived from something substantive, and you have yet to prove your claim is based upon anything substantive.

No, I do not believe someone has the right to live without hindrance. You can't come into my home and steal my food because "I have a right to live without hindrance." No sir, you don't.

I can, but I would not if I believed you had a principled claim of ownership.

You have still yet to prove that you have a principled claim to unused land. It isn't stealing if you do not own it, and if you are just leaving it to rot, then you are not an owner in my eyes.

You have the right to live without your life being taken. I can't kill you. But it's up to you to live, and to live you need to earn water and food. You have to work for that, and that is hindrance. No one promised you, that you could live off the hard work and effort of others.

While this is all very conjectural, it is nonetheless irrelevant to the subject matter.

Explain why you have ownership over land which you do not sustain. If you cannot do that, then you can make no principled claim of property.

Only someone who grew up with a silver spoon, think no one has to work in order to live. That's why spoiled brat rich kids, think socialism is so great. It's how they grow up with worthless doting parents who were failures at teaching their kids how to work.

As I suspected, you did not make one argument defending your initial claim that you have a moral right to unused land.

Well, you did commit to another fallacy, which was argumentum ad populum. Oh, and lots of deflection, once again.