Some "Private Property"...

[redstar2000]

We see all too many posts in this forum from the pro-capitalists which demonstrate their gross ignorance of how their system actually works in the real world.

Consider this one...


Originally posted by The Economist
Despotism by stealth

You think America is a land where individualism holds sway and private property is sacrosanct? Next week, the Supreme Court decides whether that is true

NEW LONDON is an old Connecticut whaling town halfway between New York and Boston. The day before Thanksgiving 1998, Susette Kelo, a registered nurse, got an unwelcome holiday gift: an eviction order. Her house, and those of six other families living on an abandoned submarine base called Fort Trumbull, had been compulsorily purchased. She had five months to get out.

What is unusual about this is that her house is no rat-infested health hazard. She bought and spruced it up three years before. Nor is it being seized by a branch of government: the evictor is the New London Development Corporation (NLDC), a private non-profit body. The land is not going to be used for a public works project, such as a bridge or school. Indeed, it is not certain what her land is wanted for.

New London is trying to turn itself into a biotech hub. In 2000, it persuaded Pfizer to build its global research centre there. Now it wants Fort Trumbull for a biotech park, complete with hotel and fancy houses...The residents accuse the NLDC of behaving like the Gestapo, pointing bulldozers at their front doors, surrounding an old lady's house with klieg lights and using deafening stone-crushing equipment in their backyards...

Full text: http://www.economist.com/World/na/displayS...tory_id=3672769 (http://www.economist.com/World/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3672769)

Even the holy status of "individual private property" must yield to the greater power of BIG private property.

If I could, I would insist that defenders of capitalism on this board be made to read, not Marx, but The Economist -- let them hear what it's really like from capitalism's most intelligent and articulate advocate.

http://www.economist.com/

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

This of course wouldn't happen under laissez-faire capitalism, you understand.

With a tiny, underfunded (No taxes remember!) and overworked government, the well-funded corporations would of course abide by the sacrosanct rules of private property...

...Nah, I didn't think so!

What most LFCs don't realise is that most governments act like huge corporations, their monopoly is ruling over YOU!

[Hodgeh]

Imminent Domain. So fucking what?

[Edit] err, NLDC is private. Where is the rest of the news story detailing her lawsuit against them?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Imminent Domain. So fucking what?

When one pays money for something in a legal exchange that grants exclusive ownership, one expects to have the final say over what happens to said something.

Or not, in this case.

I believe the main tenet of capitalism just flew out the window <_<


[Edit] err, NLDC is private

Which is exactly my point. If corporations cannot be expected to respect property rights in the presence of Big Government, what the hell can LFC government do?

[Hodgeh]

Yes, notice my edit when I realized that NLDC is private.

What our registered nurse needs to do is call her lawyer, gather her neighboors, and go to court.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What our registered nurse needs to do is call her lawyer, gather her neighboors, and go to court.

The government will want it&#39;s cut. And corporations tend to provide more election money than individuals. Guess who will win.

[redstar2000]

Follow-up...


Originally posted by AP
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people&#39;s homes and businesses — even against their will — for private economic development.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/a...zing_property_2 (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050623/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_seizing_property_2)

Any of you scum-sucking cappies want to take a crack at this one?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Commie Girl]

Just....WOW :(

[Bannockburn]

What they probably failed to tell you is that as required by the US Constitution amendment 5 that “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”. Thus, while, “The Supreme Court…ruled that local governments may seize people&#39;s homes and businesses…for private economic development” probably signifies that the local government gave her something monetary, like the value of her property, then sold it to private corporations.

Thus, I honestly don’t think she’s now homeless, but nevertheless is distinctly shows that local and federal governments are willing to sacrifice individual rights, for corporate rights. For a long while governments have had a business mentality, where investors, and investor rights have had priority over individual citizens within the municipality, county, etc. After all, a big multinational corporation who wants an area of land who will bring millions in tax revenue on condition on having a certain area of land will always have priority over a single family who will bring not even close to that amount. Its not surprising.

Of course I don’t agree with any of it, and I find to sacrifice one right over another’s simply on monetary value is completely against classical philosophical liberalism of the establishment of Rights, and clearly shows the state inclination to pursue profit over people. Moreover, the idea of “outweighing” one’s rights over another is completely ludicrous. A complete false argument and completely contrary with the idea of rights in general.

[Publius]

My take?

The Federal Government shouldn&#39;t be able to take land and give it over to corporations.

Roads are one thing, but taking land to give to Wal Mart is another.

[Professor Moneybags]

Follow-up...


Originally posted by AP
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people&#39;s homes and businesses — even against their will — for private economic development.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/a...zing_property_2 (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050623/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_seizing_property_2)

Any of you scum-sucking cappies want to take a crack at this one?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

So if local governments protect private property rights, it&#39;s capitalism. However, if they violate those property rights, it&#39;s still capitalism ?

You don&#39;t believe in private property, so does that mean that you&#39;re a capitalist too ?

I guess this means you&#39;ll need re-educating after the revolution, comrade.

[Bannockburn]

Who are you replying to Professor Moneybags, and what statements? If you are referring to my comments, which I think I can infer, I don’t recall ever saying anything about private property, and if, or if I don’t agree with it, or it should be abolished along with capitalism. My argument was based since we live within a framework of private property, and the right to private property – that right should not take priority on condition on monetary value of the individual who owns that property.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 04:43 PM
Of course I don’t agree with any of it, and I find to sacrifice one right over another’s simply on monetary value is completely against classical philosophical liberalism of the establishment of Rights, and clearly shows the state inclination to pursue profit over people.
You don&#39;t get it. Redstar2000 will say anything (even if it&#39;s self-contradictory) if he think&#39;s it&#39;ll persuade you to hate capitalism. He is not an honest person.

[Bannockburn]

Well I can’t make that judgment since I’m relatively new here. However, your quoted stated that I made, I don’t understand what you are trying to infer.

[d-e-f-i-a-n-c-e]

i dont get the whole private property thing.....i mean...dude...it&#39;s not like an extention of your d*ck for f*ck sake.

[Bannockburn]

Well there have been countless arguments to justify private property. The most modern account that greatly influenced the writings of Jefferson was Locke. However, Locke seems to totally dismiss, or completely disregard his unilateral approach – something which I think is closely aliened with his idea of power.

[AK47]

Moreover, the idea of “outweighing” one’s rights over another is completely ludicrous. A complete false argument and completely contrary with the idea of rights in general.


We are all equal, just some are more equal than others.

[d-e-f-i-a-n-c-e]

dude...locke was like...way back in the 17th century or w.e.....humans HAVE TO have grown more intelligent than at that time...

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags
You don&#39;t get it. Redstar2000 will say anything (even if it&#39;s self-contradictory) if he thinks it&#39;ll persuade you to hate capitalism. He is not an honest person.

The contradiction is not mine, old bean, but lies rather in the system that&#39;s won your heart.

Private property is your "Holy Grail", not mine.

Now here we have some evidence to consider. I know you just hate that...you&#39;d much prefer that we just meditate on the virtues of "Pure Capitalism".

The kind of capitalism that really exists is...distressing to you.

Here we have a working class neighborhood full of people who&#39;ve done exactly what you advise people to do. They "worked hard", "saved their money", and bought private property to live in. (Note that this is not a "blighted area" full of "welfare bums" and "crackheads".)

Nor is the city that wants their property a "distressed area" -- like, say, Detroit. It&#39;s actually a modest success as small cities go. Even their public libraries are funded (which I know also distresses you...but most people really do think that closing all public libraries does not advance the cause of civilization).

So the city wants to seize these working class homes, demolish them, and then sell the vacant land to a private real estate speculator (or "developer" as those racketeers call themselves these days).

Note that this is not being done "for public use" -- the city does not need that land to build a school or a firehouse or even a public library.

They want it so that they can turn around and sell it to that "developer" who has promised to build a hotel, some condos, etc. (I can&#39;t imagine why anyone would buy a residence in that town anymore...you&#39;d be more secure living in an RV.)

And the United States Supreme Court is "just fine" with that.

Now consider the title of this thread -- Some private property is more equal than others.

Real capitalism makes complete hash of all your pissing and moaning about "communist theft".

Those homeowners played by your rules...and got robbed anyway&#33;

Not by "the red hordes" but by capitalist politicians, lawyers, and judges&#33;

When the county authorities take your house to build a Wal-Mart, you going to come crying to us for sympathy?

Don&#39;t bother.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Bannockburn]

dude...locke was like...way back in the 17th century or w.e.....humans HAVE TO have grown more intelligent than at that time...

Completely and yes we humans have further developed, but that doesn’t mean governments have. The US constitution is pretty rigid with the exception of the Bill of Rights. If you actually read US history – with the exception of Jefferson the founding fathers hated democracy. People like Madison, and Hamilton wanted a strong republic…its all in the federalist papers. People like Hamilton advocated an industrial society with merchant control

American democracy is a farce it has no aspects of Democracy in any sense whatsoever. The country if it is going to be described accordingly – is a Socialist-oligarchic-republic.

[Publius]

dude...locke was like...way back in the 17th century or w.e.....humans HAVE TO have grown more intelligent than at that time...

You and your broken syntax are evidence otherwise.

I kid, I kid...

[Publius]

The kind of capitalism that really exists is...distressing to you.

You finally get it&#33;

The &#39;kind of capitalism that really exists&#39; (Which really isn&#39;t capitalism at all, but a bastard offshoot), is distressing to us; that is why we would like to replace it with actual capitalism.

I&#39;m not going to defend anything the U.S. does economically under the guise of capitalism, because the U.S., as evidenced by this, is no longer a defender of strict capitalism.

THIS IS OUR PROBLEM WITH THE WORLD TODAY.

You can&#39;t point the flaws in todays psuedo-capitalist society and use it as a basis for deconstructing our arguments, BECAUSE OUR ARGUMENTS AREN&#39;T BASED ON THIS.

You are arguing from a falty premise and erecting a strawman, which you never fail to gleefully knock down.

It makes your &#39;victory&#39; look resounding, but also makes it non-existent.

[Guest1]

Problem is, while making the argument that this is not the capitalism you want is legitimate, it ignores the reality of the situation.

In this case, private corporations have themselves infringed on "property rights". What&#39;s going to stop them when there&#39;s no mediator? If it will generate profit, and they can hire a "private security firm" (mercenaries) to do the dirty work for them, why wouldn&#39;t they?

Private armies, police and other institutions of force will not act any more nobly simply because they have no government that needs to register a minimal effort at restraining them.

So, the question is, what in laissez-faire capitalism, or even stateless capitalism, would be different in such a situation? What is it that would prevent this from happening under your ideal capitalism?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by d&#045;e&#045;f&#045;i&#045;a&#045;n&#045;c&#045;[email protected] 23 2005, 05:26 PM
i dont get the whole private property thing.....i mean...dude...it&#39;s not like an extention of your d*ck for f*ck sake.
It&#39;s morally inseperable, though.

[Guest1]

You should probably get that checked out then.

Must be painful.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 05:51 PM
The contradiction is not mine, old bean, but lies rather in the system that&#39;s won your heart.


We&#39;re not living in capitalism, though. Sorry to upset the apple cart, but this is a mixed economy. A mixture of your ideals and mine. When the government siezes property for some alleged "greater good" (real or alleged) then they&#39;re acting on your ideals. Before you start the usual "there is no government under communism", it wouldn&#39;t make any difference if it was the government or the proletraiat that did the siezing- the fact is that property rights are being violated. Who is doing the violating is of little moral relevence.

It was your lot that put the ability to legally violate property rights in the hands of the government, not mine.


Private property is your "Holy Grail", not mine.

Then why are you complaining about it&#39;s siezure ? Why aren&#39;t you praising the government for destroying the "holy grail" of capitalism ?


Now here we have some evidence to consider. I know you just hate that...you&#39;d much prefer that we just meditate on the virtues of "Pure Capitalism".

The kind of capitalism that really exists is...distressing to you.

This isn&#39;t capitalism, though. It&#39;s anti-capitalism. By violating property rights, they&#39;re acting on your virtues- and you&#39;re *****ing about it.


Here we have a working class neighborhood full of people who&#39;ve done exactly what you advise people to do. They "worked hard", "saved their money", and bought private property to live in. (Note that this is not a "blighted area" full of "welfare bums" and "crackheads".)

What do you care ? Private property is a tool of the bourgeios.


So the city wants to seize these working class homes, demolish them, and then sell the vacant land to a private real estate speculator (or "developer" as those racketeers call themselves these days).

The siezure of property in the name of a special interest group ? Sound familiar does it ?


Note that this is not being done "for public use" -- the city does not need that land to build a school or a firehouse or even a public library.

And it would be okay if it was ?


Real capitalism makes complete hash of all your pissing and moaning about "communist theft".

What&#39;s "real" capitalism ? Is that anything like "real" communism, as found in the USSR ?


Those homeowners played by your rules...and got robbed anyway&#33;

By people behaving like communists ? Great; just think how often this will happen come the revolution.

Was the purpose of this to try and drag us down to your level ?

<snip the rest of the "noise">

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 23 2005, 08:10 PM
In this case, private corporations have themselves infringed on "property rights". What&#39;s going to stop them when there&#39;s no mediator? If it will generate profit, and they can hire a "private security firm" (mercenaries) to do the dirty work for them, why wouldn&#39;t they?
The government is the mediator that will stop it. In fact, actions like that should be the government&#39;s only role. I&#39;m a minarchists, not an anarchist.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 23 2005, 08:14 PM
Must be painful.
When your property is siezed, it will become painful for you too.

[Bannockburn]

The government is the mediator that will stop it. In fact, actions like that should be the government&#39;s only role. I&#39;m a minarchists, not an anarchist.

That is the thing. This verdict just showed that governments aren’t the mediator, and more then willing to give priority to corporate private rights than to personal property rights. See my earlier post. To be honest this verdict really isn’t controversial. What is controversial however is the ludicrous idea that some rights are worth more than others. Now this has always been a problem in classic liberal thought – contradictory rights.

This is the whole point of judges to weigh on these issues. They are supposed to be no biased and independent. However, since they are appointed rather than democratically elected than that line become fuzzy when you have aggression neo-cons like Bush appointing judges. Anyway, the question here is the question of “just compensation”. What does this mean? Granted this probably again, in an earlier post is the price of the property – its “fair” monetarily. However, this completely disregards other factors of why people live where they live. Good neighbourhood, good schools, low crime. By displacing families like this, it’s basically legally placing them in a subsidiary location within the city. We call these Ghettos, refugee camps. Don’t worry soon there will be a complete schism between public domains and corporate domains within a city, and we will have border police to pull anybody over and arrest them for coming over the corporate side. Its like the big/little brother sharing one room simplex. Big brother getting all the luxuries because he’s more important than little brother.

[Publius]

Problem is, while making the argument that this is not the capitalism you want is legitimate, it ignores the reality of the situation.

In this case, private corporations have themselves infringed on "property rights". What&#39;s going to stop them when there&#39;s no mediator? If it will generate profit, and they can hire a "private security firm" (mercenaries) to do the dirty work for them, why wouldn&#39;t they?

Private armies, police and other institutions of force will not act any more nobly simply because they have no government that needs to register a minimal effort at restraining them.

So, the question is, what in laissez-faire capitalism, or even stateless capitalism, would be different in such a situation? What is it that would prevent this from happening under your ideal capitalism?

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

[LSD]

The government is the mediator that will stop it.

Will it?

Why?

If the government is corrupt now imagine how corrupt it will become when corporate power is expanded even further.

Even if you keep a vestigal government that ostensibly enforced property "rights", how difficult will it be to bribe/intimidate those few remaining government officials?

The point is that as long as your system is one based in profit and predicated on maintaining inequality, there will always be motivation to prevent the government from "mediating" fairly and, more importantly, the means to do so.

As long as money exists as a means of value exchange, offials can be bribed / bought. And as long as there is poverty, there will always be people willing to do anything for money, including kill.

[Publius]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 23 2005, 09:15 PM




Will it?

Why?

If the government is corrupt now imagine how corrupt it will become when corporate power is expanded even further.

Extremely.

That&#39;s why we libertarians are trying to reduce corporate power over government.



Even if you keep a vestigal government that ostensibly enforced property "rights", how difficult will it be to bribe/intimidate those few remaining government officials?

Difficult.

Since these bribes couldn&#39;t get lost in bureacracy they would stick out like a sore thumb.

And why would you bribe someone who is unable to help you? Under a libertarian government, the government would not be able to give out favors.



The point is that as long as your system is one based in profit and predicated on maintaining inequality, there will always be motivation to prevent the government from "mediating" fairly and, more importantly, the means to do so.

There will always be incentive, but there won&#39;t always be oppurtunity.



As long as money exists as a means of value exchange, offials can be bribed / bought. And as long as there is poverty, there will always be people willing to do anything for money, including kill.

Right...

[LSD]

That&#39;s why we libertarians are trying to reduce corporate power over government.

:lol:

If you decrease government power and increase corporate power, what do you think will happen?


Difficult.

Since these bribes couldn&#39;t get lost in bureacracy they would stick out like a sore thumb.

Not really.

A few grand slipped under the table ...who&#39;s going to know?

Especially since the government is so much smaller and doesn&#39;t have the resources to properly monitor and investigate alledged bribery cases. The smaller government power, in a "free market" system, the easier for bribery to "slip through the cracks".

Besides, in a big bureaucray, there are many oversights and checks. If you want to bribe an official in such a system, you&#39;d better be prepared to bribe a whole bunch along with him&#33;

His supervisor, his supervisor&#39;s supervisor, the department VP, the VP for monitoring departmental activities, the VP for monitoring departmental ethics, the vice-chair for mintoring monitors...

Now this isn&#39;t to say that bribery doesn&#39;t occur in bureaucratic systems, of course it does. But it&#39;s a tricky proposition and takes a good deal of finesse and often a good deal of spreading around.

Once you eliminate all these people in the "bureacracy", bribery becomes a much simpler affair&#33;


And why would you bribe someone who is unable to help you? Under a libertarian government, the government would not be able to give out favors.

Sure it would&#33;

Moneybags already said that the government would acts as a "mediator" to ensure that transactions in the "free market" adhrered to libertarian purity or some such.

Having an official or two in your pocket ensures that those "mediations" will result in positive verdicts ...for you&#33;


There will always be incentive, but there won&#39;t always be oppurtunity.

The opportunity will always be present because if the economy is based on the accumulation of wealth those with wealth will always find those looking to accumulate it.


Right...

Right indeed.

Look at the actions of corporations in the third world. The hiring of private mercenaries is happening today. Do you really think it would stop if we gave the government less power?

[Professor Moneybags]

What is controversial however is the ludicrous idea that some rights are worth more than others. Now this has always been a problem in classic liberal thought – contradictory rights.

How are negative rights self-contradictory and why do you think I value some property rights more than others ? Either rights are protected or they&#39;re not.

[Professor Moneybags]

If the government is corrupt now imagine how corrupt it will become when corporate power is expanded even further.

How are they going to get power without a powerful government to grant it to them ?


As long as money exists as a means of value exchange, offials can be bribed / bought. And as long as there is poverty, there will always be people willing to do anything for money, including kill.

People have been doing that long before the exitence of money.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 24 2005, 01:23 AM
If you decrease government power and increase corporate power, what do you think will happen?



Who&#39;s increasing corporate power ? Or is this part of your delusion that we want corporations in charge of everything ?


A few grand slipped under the table ...who&#39;s going to know?

To do what with ?


His supervisor, his supervisor&#39;s supervisor, the department VP, the VP for monitoring departmental activities, the VP for monitoring departmental ethics, the vice-chair for mintoring monitors...

Is this something you eschew ?


Sure it would&#33;

Moneybags already said that the government would acts as a "mediator" to ensure that transactions in the "free market" adhrered to libertarian purity or some such.

No I didn&#39;t. Free trade means free from government interference. I was talking about issues relating to force.


Look at the actions of corporations in the third world. The hiring of private mercenaries is happening today. Do you really think it would stop if we gave the government less power?

Security gurards are "private mercenaries". But then in most of the third world, where property rights are pretty much an alien concept, they&#39;re necessary.

[Publius]

:lol:

If you decrease government power and increase corporate power, what do you think will happen?

We won&#39;t be increasing corporate power.

If anything, we&#39;ll be increasing consumer power.


Not really.

A few grand slipped under the table ...who&#39;s going to know?

Especially since the government is so much smaller and doesn&#39;t have the resources to properly monitor and investigate alledged bribery cases. The smaller government power, in a "free market" system, the easier for bribery to "slip through the cracks".

Besides, in a big bureaucray, there are many oversights and checks. If you want to bribe an official in such a system, you&#39;d better be prepared to bribe a whole bunch along with him&#33;

His supervisor, his supervisor&#39;s supervisor, the department VP, the VP for monitoring departmental activities, the VP for monitoring departmental ethics, the vice-chair for mintoring monitors...

Now this isn&#39;t to say that bribery doesn&#39;t occur in bureaucratic systems, of course it does. But it&#39;s a tricky proposition and takes a good deal of finesse and often a good deal of spreading around.

Once you eliminate all these people in the "bureacracy", bribery becomes a much simpler affair&#33;

A small, TRANSPARENT government will be easy to monitor.

Nowadays, they don&#39;t need to bribe anyone to get what they want.


Sure it would&#33;

Moneybags already said that the government would acts as a "mediator" to ensure that transactions in the "free market" adhrered to libertarian purity or some such.

Having an official or two in your pocket ensures that those "mediations" will result in positive verdicts ...for you&#33;

What could you bribe the government to do?

I don&#39;t think you have a concept of the role the government will play in the economy.

It&#39;s powers will be judiciously limited, and as you surely know, broken up into 3 branches.

If one person or branch falls to a bribe, he can be removed from office and his decision overturned by the other branches.


The opportunity will always be present because if the economy is based on the accumulation of wealth those with wealth will always find those looking to accumulate it.

Exactly.

They will be forced to compete in a market for their wealth.


Right indeed.

Look at the actions of corporations in the third world. The hiring of private mercenaries is happening today. Do you really think it would stop if we gave the government less power?

Look at the actions of governments in the world. The drafting of soldiers is happening today. Do you really think it would stop if we gave the government more power?

[xnj]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 09:36 PM
We see all too many posts in this forum from the pro-capitalists which demonstrate their gross ignorance of how their system actually works in the real world.

Consider this one...
Libertarianism is based on a false dichotomy between private capital and the state. This article shows that, in a society organized around the expansion of capital, the state is just a tool of the big capitalists.

The big capitalists don&#39;t behave according to the ideal of "property rights." They act according to their class interests, to expand their capital by any means necessary, including steamrolling over small property owners.

[Professor Moneybags]

Libertarianism is based on a false dichotomy between private capital and the state.

Do the contents of your bank account belong to the state ?

No ?

Well I guess the dichotomy is valid, then.


act according to their class interests,

The don&#39;t act according to "class" anything. Their acts are only what is percieved to benefit each of them individually.

You seem to think that capitalism is just a rival form of collectivism. Do I need to refute this again ?

[xnj]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 24 2005, 03:25 PM

Libertarianism is based on a false dichotomy between private capital and the state.

Do the contents of your bank account belong to the state ?

No ?

Well I guess the dichotomy is valid, then.
:lol: What a silly response.

I said the state is a tool of big capital, not equivalent to it. The state is used to create favorable conditions for big capital&#39;s longterm expansion. It&#39;s used to remove obstacles such as small property owners, trade unions, and governments in other countries--though all of these can also be incorporated temporarily into big capital&#39;s strategy when greater threats arise, like revolutionary movements.


The don&#39;t act according to "class" anything. Their acts are only what is percieved to benefit each of them individually.
And what is perceived to benefit each of them individually is the result of their position in society, their relation to the means of production. Being determines consciousness.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 03:46 PM
And what is perceived to benefit each of them individually is the result of their position in society, their relation to the means of production. Being determines consciousness.
Don&#39;t be retarded. All poor people would be communists and all rich would be LF capialists. They&#39;re not.

[xnj]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 24 2005, 05:11 PM
Don&#39;t be retarded. All poor people would be communists and all rich would be LF capialists. They&#39;re not.
You didn&#39;t address my point on the state. Are you conceding? :)

Anyway, rich and poor describe income levels, not how people relate to the means of production.

If a Fortune 500 CEO stopped behaving like a capitalist (stopped pursuing the expansion of the capital under his control), the institutional shareholders would move to get rid of him, the big banks would cut off credit to his company, and, ultimately, his enterprise would be overtaken by his competitors.

If, on the other hand, he brought record profits to the company through ruthless means (including relying on some very un-LF things like government subsidies), he would be hailed as a genius in the business press and the Board of Directors would look the other way should he choose to reward himself with a fat salary and a hefty retirement package.

His individual interests coincide with the interest of capital expansion, the interest of his class. It&#39;s really not that difficult to understand.

This doesn&#39;t have anything to do with the original debate (whether capitalists have any class interests), but since you brought it up:

Unlike the boss, the proletarian doesn&#39;t immediately see her interests in terms of class because all her life she&#39;s been indoctrinated in the ideology and the pseudoscience of neoclassical economics. The indoctrination tells her that she&#39;s an isolated individual, that there&#39;s "no such thing as society," that her only hope to keep slaving away for the boss. The ideas of every age are the ideas of the ruling class.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 06:11 PM
You didn&#39;t address my point on the state. Are you conceding?
No, you contradicted yourself:


The state is used to create favorable conditions for big capital&#39;s longterm expansion. It&#39;s used to remove obstacles such as small property owners,

The violation of property rights isn&#39;t creating favourable condition for the long-term expansion of anything other than dictatorship. Violation of property in the name of property rights is a contradiction in terms.

<snip the economic determinism/charicatures/other nonsense>


Unlike the boss, the proletarian doesn&#39;t immediately see her interests in terms of class because all her life she&#39;s been indoctrinated in the ideology and the pseudoscience of neoclassical economics.

I&#39;m afraid they haven&#39;t been indoctrinated with any particular ideology. Capitalism and the philosophy behind it certainly isn&#39;t the dominant ideology taught in either schools or colleges.


The indoctrination tells her that she&#39;s an isolated individual, that there&#39;s "no such thing as society," that her only hope to keep slaving away for the boss.

I&#39;m must have been playing hookey when they taught this, because I sure don&#39;t remember been told any such nonsense.

[xnj]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 25 2005, 04:51 PM
The violation of property rights isn&#39;t creating favourable condition for the long-term expansion of anything other than dictatorship.
It&#39;s called the dictatorship of big capital.


Violation of property in the name of property rights is a contradiction in terms.
My point exactly. As the case shows, the big capitalists don&#39;t care about all the "property rights" mumbo-jumbo that you libertarians go on about. The only thing they care about is expanding their capital, even if that means violating the "property rights" of other, smaller owners. I&#39;m sure Pfizer and its institutional shareholders and bankers are quite happy with the New London decision.

Besides the fake capital/state dichotomy, the case also illustrates something else wrong with libertarian thought. Private property isn&#39;t natural. Something becomes property only through state intervention, through the granting of recognition by the state and the willingness of the state to enforce that recognition through its courts and bodies of armed men.

[OleMarxco]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Jun 24 2005, 05:11 PM--> (Professor Moneybags &#064; Jun 24 2005, 05:11 PM)

[email protected] 24 2005, 03:46 PM
And what is perceived to benefit each of them individually is the result of their position in society, their relation to the means of production. Being determines consciousness.

Don&#39;t be retarded. All poor people would be communists and all rich would be LF capialists. They&#39;re not. [/b]

That&#39;s obviously not because A) They don&#39;t know how things could be else (About Communism) but they are highly possible B) A great potentional for being and harboring Anti-Capitalistic thoughts very likely due to their poor-state (even though they won&#39;t label so nicely) and the fact that C) a high-paid CEO with knowledge and access to radical things like theories of Communism whould be, at most, "intrigued" by as an interesting thing, but nothing more. It wouldn&#39;t "benefit" their profitious and buisness-killer-instinct lifestyle any much more than MAYBE supporting it in words, but not deeds - So they stay, practically, capitalists - And I don&#39;t give shit what they call themselves, that also goes for rich people who are not for some reason (lottery) CEO&#39;s and middle-class, such as most people here, HAH&#33; :)

Unregulated capitalism will pave us all over if we let&#39;em. Fuck monopolies....
And I&#39;m NOT sayin&#39; anythin&#39; just to convince you. Stick your goddamn head out
of a window and WATCH THE PROGRESS, for crissakes&#33; <_<

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 08:45 PM
It&#39;s called the dictatorship of big capital.




How can capital (big or otherwise) "dictate" anything ?


Besides the fake capital/state dichotomy, the case also illustrates something else wrong with libertarian thought.

You haven&#39;t refuted anything other than a straw man.


Private property isn&#39;t natural. Something becomes property only through state intervention, through the granting of recognition by the state and the willingness of the state to enforce that recognition through its courts and bodies of armed men.

And how does that makes it wrong ?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 09:32 PM
And I&#39;m NOT sayin&#39; anythin&#39; just to convince you. Stick your goddamn head out
of a window and WATCH THE PROGRESS, for crissakes&#33; <_<
Are you referring to some mythical revolution that has been supposedly "immenent" for the past 150 years ?

[xnj]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Jun 26 2005, 09:21 PM--> (Professor Moneybags &#064; Jun 26 2005, 09:21 PM)
[email protected] 25 2005, 08:45 PM
It&#39;s called the dictatorship of big capital.
How can capital (big or otherwise) "dictate" anything ? [/b]
Did you read the Economist article (http://www.economist.com/World/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3672769)? Here are some relevant excerpts:

"New London is trying to turn itself into a biotech hub. In 2000, it persuaded Pfizer to build its global research centre there. Now it wants Fort Trumbull for a biotech park, complete with hotel and fancy houses."

"In Lancaster, California, the city government condemned a discount store on the basis that a neighbouring retail giant, Costco, wanted to expand into it."

"In 1981, the Michigan Supreme Court let the city of Detroit raze a working-class Polish neighbourhood, Poletown, so that General Motors could build a new Cadillac plant."

In each case, big capital (Pfizer, Costco, GM) used the state to force small proprietors (homeowners and a discount store) to give up their property. So, it&#39;s pretty clear that big capital can "dictate." As for how it dictates, you&#39;d have to study each individual case to understand the particulars.



Besides the fake capital/state dichotomy, the case also illustrates something else wrong with libertarian thought.
You haven&#39;t refuted anything other than a straw man.
The facts from the New London case and other cases are doing the refuting, not me. But you don&#39;t want to address the facts because you know they&#39;ll cause you quite a bit of cognitive dissonance.



Private property isn&#39;t natural. Something becomes property only through state intervention, through the granting of recognition by the state and the willingness of the state to enforce that recognition through its courts and bodies of armed men.
And how does that makes it wrong ?
It shows that the libertarian belief in the sanctity and inalienability of private property is wrong. Because private property isn&#39;t natural and exists only because of state intervention, private property can be merely the institutionalization of theft. Anyone with enough influence over the state can expropriate things from others (like land or labor) and have it recognized as his own "property." Just ask the seven families at Fort Trumbull.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 11:07 PM
In each case, big capital (Pfizer, Costco, GM) used the state to force small proprietors (homeowners and a discount store) to give up their property. So, it&#39;s pretty clear that big capital can "dictate." As for how it dictates, you&#39;d have to study each individual case to understand the particulars.
Terrible isn&#39;t it ? Unfortunately, it isn&#39;t capitalism. In order to have the the state step in, the state must first want to step in and be allowed legally to step in. That&#39;s the problem with a mixed economy; committs criminal acts legally (such as taxation).



Besides the fake capital/state dichotomy, the case also illustrates something else wrong with libertarian thought.
You haven&#39;t refuted anything other than a straw man.


The facts from the New London case and other cases are doing the refuting, not me. But you don&#39;t want to address the facts because you know they&#39;ll cause you quite a bit of cognitive dissonance.

This isn&#39;t capitalism, though. It opposes the prinicple of capitalism and is therefore anti-capitalism.


It shows that the libertarian belief in the sanctity and inalienability of private property is wrong. Because private property isn&#39;t natural and exists only because of state intervention, private property can be merely the institutionalization of theft.

Please learn how concepts work. Without private property, nothing can be "stolen".

Plus, the idea behind private property rests upon the premise that each man owns himself and thus his own labor.


Anyone with enough influence over the state can expropriate things from others (like land or labor) and have it recognized as his own "property." Just ask the seven families at Fort Trumbull.

Except when the state actually enforces property rights instead of violating them.

[OleMarxco]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Jun 26 2005, 09:24 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Jun 26 2005, 09:24 PM)
[email protected] 25 2005, 09:32 PM
And I&#39;m NOT sayin&#39; anythin&#39; just to convince you. Stick your goddamn head out
of a window and WATCH THE PROGRESS, for crissakes&#33; <_<

Are you referring to some mythical revolution that has been supposedly "immenent" for the past 150 years ? [/b]
No, idiot, if you had paid any attention I were talking of the "progress" of Capitalism...regressing backwards. Now that we don&#39;t need the "growth" of Capitalism anymore, Technology and such (except for maybe the cure of Cancer, but I already covered that, who the hell needs all these mobile phones anyways?) it turns to create profit by "cutting down" on the corners, "unneeded" things, like THEM GODDAMN GREEDY WORKERS and HOLY SHIT, THEY&#39;RE TAKING ALOT OF PROFIT AWAY WITH THEM WAGES and THE THIRD WORLD IS A MARKET FOR THE RIPE and SWEAT-SHOPS RULE&#33; ...Nevermind the loss of humanity <_<

As for the revolution, yes, it&#39;s goin&#39; pretty slow, I never said that, but you like to take things out of context and, like I used to do, attack the straw-men? ;)

[xnj]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 27 2005, 01:53 PM
This isn&#39;t capitalism, though. It opposes the prinicple of capitalism and is therefore anti-capitalism.
It is capitalism, just not your personal conception of it. Capitalism is a system organized around the accumulation of capital, the placement of sums of money into capital circuits to transform them into larger sums. That&#39;s exactly what Pfizer, Costco, and GM were trying to do, and are supposed to do under the system.

In political economy, the term "capitalist" doesn&#39;t mean anyone who subscribes to certain "capitalist principles." It refers to someone who owns capital.

If the biggest capitalists (as in owners of capital) are violating some preconceived principles of yours, doesn&#39;t that mean the principles were unscientific to begin with? Doesn&#39;t that mean you should place your understanding of capitalism on a different basis, on one that actually coincides with their real behavior?

[Bannockburn]

How are negative rights self-contradictory and why do you think I value some property rights more than others ? Either rights are protected or they&#39;re not.

Well actually property rights are positive rights. So you’re wrong there. Moreover, I don’t know how you somehow placed yourself within my original writings, but I said nothing about you whatsoever. So by all means, I think you need to reread what I said. Finally, since property rights are protected – one reason for government in classical liberalism in Locke and Jefferson – and as a result all citizens are protection for this right, but as this ruling shows that an individual rights is worth more than someone else is absolutely false in the classical approach to rights. This goes as far back as Hobbes – the innovator of rights.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Mr. Moneybags, it&#39;s capitalism at its best&#33;
It&#39;s private companies controlling the means of violence &#39;cause they hold the purse-strings.
It&#39;s the way capitalism has always functioned and always will . . .

. . . it&#39;s the national guard gunning down strikers, it&#39;s the army in Iraq, it&#39;s the police protecting scabs, and the government condemning small business in the interest of monopoly capital.

Even in a "stateless" capitalist society, things would function this way. The only difference is that uniformed thugs would be Securicor and Pinkertons - the saeme shit sans the fascade of democracy.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 04:48 PM
No, idiot, if you had paid any attention I were talking of the "progress" of Capitalism...regressing backwards. Now that we don&#39;t need the "growth" of Capitalism anymore,
Because it doesn&#39;t exist anymore. Your comrades have replaced it with a mixed economy in the hope of getting the best of both worlds. It isn&#39;t working.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 10:44 PM
It is capitalism, just not your personal conception of it.
Ah, a straw man. I understand. I&#39;m not too keen on this modern mixed economy either.


Capitalism is a system organized around the accumulation of capital, the placement of sums of money into capital circuits to transform them into larger sums. That&#39;s exactly what Pfizer, Costco, and GM were trying to do, and are supposed to do under the system.

Supposed by whom and how does that refute LF capitalism ?


In political economy, the term "capitalist" doesn&#39;t mean anyone who subscribes to certain "capitalist principles."

Does that the USSR was communist, then ?


It refers to someone who owns capital.

Even if the owners happen to be communists/socialists/anarchists ? (Yes, people like this do exist).


If the biggest capitalists (as in owners of capital) are violating some preconceived principles of yours, doesn&#39;t that mean the principles were unscientific to begin with?

No, it suggests that they weren&#39;t capitalists.


Doesn&#39;t that mean you should place your understanding of capitalism on a different basis, on one that actually coincides with their real behavior?

You mean one the conveniently fits your staw-man argument, don&#39;t you ?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 12:09 AM
Well actually property rights are positive rights. So you’re wrong there.
How exactly does my right not to be robbed/murdered demand positive actions on your part ?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov [email protected] 28 2005, 01:07 PM
Mr. Moneybags, it&#39;s capitalism at its best&#33;


Does that mean that the USSR was communism at its best ? What about Cambodia ? Is there a communist state outside fiction where the initation of force was never employed ? Please tell me, because you&#39;re lacking in evidence.


It&#39;s private companies controlling the means of violence &#39;cause they hold the purse-strings.

Oh, the horror &#33; Private companies initiating force against people (just like you lot intend to do).


. . . it&#39;s the national guard gunning down strikers, it&#39;s the army in Iraq, it&#39;s the police protecting scabs, and the government condemning small business in the interest of monopoly capital.

Great mixture there. It&#39;s just another demonstration of your inability to tell the difference between initating force and retalliating.


It&#39;s the way capitalism has always functioned and always will . . .

Famines.
Police states.
Massacres.
Mass graves.
Economic stagnation.
Dictatorship.

It&#39;s all communism will ever be.

It&#39;s what happens when you put the mob in charge and legalise the initation of force.The only difference between that and fascism will be the color the shirt being worn by the thug who kicks you to death.

Big deal.

[Bannockburn]

How exactly does my right not to be robbed/murdered demand positive actions on your part ?

Not on my part per se, but the role of government is to up-hold and protect property rights. See you’re already contradicting yourself. Positive rights are when an individual or other entity has a claim of a good or service, and another individual or entity has a duty to uphold that claim. Thus, if I have a right to property, (as a good) the government has a duty to make sure that claim is protected through various laws. As an individual, I have a duty not to rob you, or murder you, because you have a right to life, and as a result, I have a duty not to interfere with you, thus being a negative right.

Moreover, we are not talking about being robbed or murdered. We are talking about property. Don’t try to shift the conversation. But if you truly must, the same principles apply. You have a right to life, thus I don’t have a right to kill you. This is a negative right, because negative rights imply the non-interference of another individual. However, property, which is good, is something radically different. If you want to get the basis of property rights for the foundation of the American constitution, then read the writings of Jefferson and Locke’s second treatise. Locke actually specifically says that the role of government and political power to is uphold the right to property and to establish laws to protect that natural right.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 01:59 PM
Not on my part per se, but the role of government is to up-hold and protect property rights. See you’re already contradicting yourself.
Erm...no. How does the existence of property rights demand positive actions on your part ?


Positive rights are when an individual or other entity has a claim of a good or service, and another individual or entity has a duty to uphold that claim.

So how have I contadicted myself ?


Thus, if I have a right to property, (as a good) the government has a duty to make sure that claim is protected through various laws.

So how is this demanding actions from you ? I&#39;m not saying that I must have property provided for me, I&#39;m saying that I have a right to that which I earn, trade or create.


As an individual, I have a duty not to rob you, or murder you, because you have a right to life, and as a result, I have a duty not to interfere with you, thus being a negative right

Yes, that&#39;s correct.


Moreover, we are not talking about being robbed or murdered. We are talking about property. Don’t try to shift the conversation.

I&#39;m not shifting anything; people are morally inseperable from their property. If you own yourself, then you own your own labor and thus you have a right to what you create, buy or trade.

So what&#39;s the problem ?

[Bannockburn]

Erm...no. How does the existence of property rights demand positive actions on your part ?

You still don’t get it do you. I already said it didn’t per se, however it does from government.


So how have I contadicted myself ?

Because you said property rights were negative rights, and I just showed that it is in fact a positive right. Thus, being inconsistent


So how is this demanding actions from you ?

Again, not from me, from government.


I&#39;m not saying that I must have property provided for me, I&#39;m saying that I have a right to that which I earn, trade or create.

That has nothing to do with the protection of property rights, and is completely off subject.


Yes, that&#39;s correct.

Just like everything else I’ve been saying.


I&#39;m not shifting anything; people are morally inseperable from their property. If you own yourself, then you own your own labor and thus you have a right to what you create, buy or trade.

That is crap. There is no morally some how correlated or not separable from property. People part with there property everyday. Besides, ethics has do to with right and wrong, property can hardly have a moral value simply on grounds that they are not a moral agent. Its like I’m some how ethically responsible for the quality of life for my car.

Okay, let’s assume a lot of things here. Firstly if you own yourself; that’s dubious to begin with simply on grounds that I am my own property. I hardly think of myself, or anybody for that matter will argue when they break their arm they say, “I broke my property”. Thus, logically your consequence to your conditional sentence doesn’t even apply. However, for my own amusement I’ll play along with you.

Okay, I own my labor. That is completely unilateral thinking. Something say Marx and Locke didn’t even think of or questioned. Why is it completely unilateral? That’s also assuming I own that which I manipulate, and then because of it, I earn a right. That’s completely ludicrous. You may own the process of labor, but anything more will take some thinking. Anyway, Rights generally are referred to a quality that innately, or inherently found within man of liberty, but to think I some how can shift that onto a world and transfer it to an inert object that has no inherent value and it becomes a “right” thus, having an inherent value or liberty is completely muddling the idea of Rights.

[LSD]

Erm...no. How does the existence of property rights demand positive actions on your part ?

Their "existance" does not, their enforcement, however, does.

Rights only exist within society. They exist to protect and serve the members of that society.

Accordingly, you have a right to live, therefore if I try to kill you, society has a duty to stop me, no matter how much your death would personally bennefit me. My actions are constrained when they violate your rights.

If you grow a bunch of crops and store them in a big wharehouse and I try to eat some of them, you will stop me because you "own" the crops. You are taking positive action which hurts me. You are taking action against me which violates my right to food, your claim of "ownership" over said food is irrelevent. Society has a duty to stop you, no matter how much your action would personally bennefit you. Your actions are constrained when they violate my rights.

Yes, you grew the food ...but so what?

You have failed to prove why, in a societal context, your control over the product of your labour outweighs my right to live.

The point that you&#39;re missing is that property is not a right, it&#39;s a concept. It&#39;s a concept that says that individuals can designate land, objects, etc... which are exclusive for their own use. This concept is predicated on positive actions to enforce it.

From a null state, property requires complex societal coersion (or simple coersion) to function.

Your calling something "yours" is not a positive action, but your preventing others from using it because you call it "yours" is. You are initiating force against them because they have breached a conceptual line which, in this hypothetical, they do not even acknowledge exists&#33;

You want to claim that property "rights" are "important" or "nescessary", fine, that&#39;s a different argument. But you dare claim that they aren&#39;t positive&#33;

[Professor Moneybags]

Their "existance" does not, their enforcement, however, does.

So what ?


Accordingly, you have a right to live, therefore if I try to kill you, society has a duty to stop me, no matter how much your death would personally bennefit me. My actions are constrained when they violate your rights.

Correct.


If you grow a bunch of crops and store them in a big wharehouse and I try to eat some of them, you will stop me because you "own" the crops. You are taking positive action which hurts me.

No, i&#39;m stopping you from stealing from me, just like I&#39;d be stopping you from murdering me in the above scenario. To paraphrase your argument :
"if I try to steal from you, society has a duty to stop me, no matter how much robbing you would personally bennefit me."


You are taking action against me which violates my right to food,

How many times ? :rolleyes: You do not have a right to food &#33; Nor a house, nor a TV, nor clothes, nor healthcare nor any other products and services that are provided by other people. By doing so, you are claiming a "right to other people&#39;s labor, enforced by a government (or whatever) gun", or "slavery" as it&#39;s better known.


your claim of "ownership" over said food is irrelevent.

Your claim of "ownership" over your body is irrelevent, so bend over. :D

<Snip the rest, I can&#39;t be arsed at the moment.>

[LSD]

No, i&#39;m stopping you from stealing from me, just like I&#39;d be stopping you from murdering me in the above scenario. To paraphrase your argument :
"if I try to steal from you, society has a duty to stop me, no matter how much robbing you would personally bennefit me."

I&#39;m only stealing because you say so; it&#39;s only your "property" because you say it is.

Again, it doesn&#39;t matter if you call it your "property", you are initiating force against me that infringes on my right to food.


How many times ? You do not have a right to food &#33; Nor a house, nor a TV, nor clothes, nor healthcare nor any other products and services that are provided by other people.

...because you say so? :lol:

Society has an obligation to maximize the bennefit to its members. That means keeping them safe and alive.


By doing so, you are claiming a "right to other people&#39;s labor, enforced by a government (or whatever) gun", or "slavery" as it&#39;s better known.

That is predicated on the assumption that the only way that people will share the product of their labour is if some coercive organization forces them to.

That is ludicrous. In a society in which everyone shares everything, there is no need for enforcement with "government (or whatever) guns". Everyone shares because they understand that it is the best option for everyone involved.

If someone, for whatever fucked up reasons, does not want to participate, they are free to leave society and go plant their own crops that only they can use because they "own" them. It would be immensely childish, but we won&#39;t stop them :rolleyes:


Your claim of "ownership" over your body is irrelevent, so bend over.

I don&#39;t make that claim. I claim that I am my body, not that I "own" it.


<Snip the rest, I can&#39;t be arsed at the moment.>

Translation: I can&#39;t address the points, so I ...um ....won&#39;t.

[Professor Moneybags]

I&#39;m only stealing because you say so; it&#39;s only your "property" because you say it is.

Again, it doesn&#39;t matter if you call it your "property", you are initiating force against me that infringes on my right to food.

You don&#39;t have a right to my food. You only have a right to it because you say so.


...because you say so? :lol:

Society has an obligation to maximize the bennefit to its members. That means keeping them safe and alive.

...because you say so ?

Advocating slavery isn&#39;t in anyone&#39;s benefit.


That is predicated on the assumption that the only way that people will share the product of their labour is if some coercive organization forces them to. That is ludicrous. In a society in which everyone shares everything, there is no need for enforcement with "government (or whatever) guns".

But you intend to bring it into being and enforcing it with "government (or whatever) guns".

""This conception you have of "freedom" is nice, but inpractical. In a community in which many interact and live together, "coercion" is inevitable and nescessary." Lysergic Acid Diethylamide, 2004"


Everyone shares because they understand that it is the best option for everyone involved.

Not necessarily. (It&#39;s not like you&#39;re giving them a choice, anyway.) It&#39;s not in my interest to share anything unless there is going to be some sort of reciprocity. There will be no guarantee of that, in fact it&#39;s highly unlikely.


If someone, for whatever fucked up reasons, does not want to participate, they are free to leave society and go plant their own crops that only they can use because they "own" them. It would be immensely childish, but we won&#39;t stop them :rolleyes:

Better still, why don&#39;t you leave ?


I don&#39;t make that claim. I claim that I am my body, not that I "own" it.

So do you or not ?


Translation: I can&#39;t address the points, so I ...um ....won&#39;t.

I&#39;ve addressed your points countless times and they get dafter every time, for instance :


Your calling something "yours" is not a positive action, but your preventing others from using it because you call it "yours" is.

You have not explained how this is the same as demanding actions and products from people.


You are initiating force against them because they have breached a conceptual line which, in this hypothetical, they do not even acknowledge exists&#33;

A rapist does not acknowledge a woman&#39;s claim that she owns her own body. Is she initiating force by running away ?