Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ask them to give you their wallets and see what they think about personal property then. I'm serious. in fact don't even ask, just take their wallets. If they say anything about it then they believe in property no matter what fancy worded crap they spout.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously I told one of them that I need his car more than him and jokingly took his keys.

Its so [censored] ing funny because we are all going to be so [censored] ing rich beyond what we really deserve that it is pretty stupid for them to keep being dirty commies.

We are all going to make more in a 10 week summer period of free lunches and ego blowjobs than my girlfriend makes in a [censored] ing year busting her ass off working overtime. I point this out to them and LOL at the hypocracy

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is the hypocrisy? You don't have to believe that property is a natural right to want to own property. In making that assumption, you and tomd look like fools in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to believe that property exists though. If you say that property doesn't exist but get upset when someone takes something of yours well I don't know what to say you're just a moron.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a terrible arguement. You are essentially saying that: getting upset = right being violating. If you get upset about your favorite team losing a game, does that mean you have to believe a right has been violated?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a necessary but not sufficient condition. If you don't believe in property and I steal your stuff how can you possibly logically be upset in any way? It's impossible. The analogy is that you say "I don't care about this team in fact I don't even watch this sport" then getting upset when that team loses.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ask them to give you their wallets and see what they think about personal property then. I'm serious. in fact don't even ask, just take their wallets. If they say anything about it then they believe in property no matter what fancy worded crap they spout.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously I told one of them that I need his car more than him and jokingly took his keys.

Its so [censored] ing funny because we are all going to be so [censored] ing rich beyond what we really deserve that it is pretty stupid for them to keep being dirty commies.

We are all going to make more in a 10 week summer period of free lunches and ego blowjobs than my girlfriend makes in a [censored] ing year busting her ass off working overtime. I point this out to them and LOL at the hypocracy

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is the hypocrisy? You don't have to believe that property is a natural right to want to own property. In making that assumption, you and tomd look like fools in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to believe that property exists though. If you say that property doesn't exist but get upset when someone takes something of yours well I don't know what to say you're just a moron.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a terrible arguement. You are essentially saying that: getting upset = right being violating. If you get upset about your favorite team losing a game, does that mean you have to believe a right has been violated?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a necessary but not sufficient condition. If you don't believe in property and I steal your stuff how can you possibly logically be upset in any way? It's impossible. The analogy is that you say "I don't care about this team in fact I don't even watch this sport" then getting upset when that team loses.

[/ QUOTE ]

Being upset has nothing to do with logic. That's the point. Most people don't get upset if somebody writes an equation that says 2=2=3, but most people get upset if their mother dies of cancer, which has absolutely nothing to do with logic.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ask them to give you their wallets and see what they think about personal property then. I'm serious. in fact don't even ask, just take their wallets. If they say anything about it then they believe in property no matter what fancy worded crap they spout.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously I told one of them that I need his car more than him and jokingly took his keys.

Its so [censored] ing funny because we are all going to be so [censored] ing rich beyond what we really deserve that it is pretty stupid for them to keep being dirty commies.

We are all going to make more in a 10 week summer period of free lunches and ego blowjobs than my girlfriend makes in a [censored] ing year busting her ass off working overtime. I point this out to them and LOL at the hypocracy

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is the hypocrisy? You don't have to believe that property is a natural right to want to own property. In making that assumption, you and tomd look like fools in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to believe that property exists though. If you say that property doesn't exist but get upset when someone takes something of yours well I don't know what to say you're just a moron.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a terrible arguement. You are essentially saying that: getting upset = right being violating. If you get upset about your favorite team losing a game, does that mean you have to believe a right has been violated?

[/ QUOTE ]

You arent serious with this are you? How about if he tries to stop you? By what authority or reason does he prevent you from taking his wallet?

EDIT: Sorry, THE wallet, not his wallet.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ask them to give you their wallets and see what they think about personal property then. I'm serious. in fact don't even ask, just take their wallets. If they say anything about it then they believe in property no matter what fancy worded crap they spout.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously I told one of them that I need his car more than him and jokingly took his keys.

Its so [censored] ing funny because we are all going to be so [censored] ing rich beyond what we really deserve that it is pretty stupid for them to keep being dirty commies.

We are all going to make more in a 10 week summer period of free lunches and ego blowjobs than my girlfriend makes in a [censored] ing year busting her ass off working overtime. I point this out to them and LOL at the hypocracy

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is the hypocrisy? You don't have to believe that property is a natural right to want to own property. In making that assumption, you and tomd look like fools in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to believe that property exists though. If you say that property doesn't exist but get upset when someone takes something of yours well I don't know what to say you're just a moron.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a terrible arguement. You are essentially saying that: getting upset = right being violating. If you get upset about your favorite team losing a game, does that mean you have to believe a right has been violated?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a necessary but not sufficient condition. If you don't believe in property and I steal your stuff how can you possibly logically be upset in any way? It's impossible. The analogy is that you say "I don't care about this team in fact I don't even watch this sport" then getting upset when that team loses.

[/ QUOTE ]

Being upset has nothing to do with logic. That's the point. Most people don't get upset if somebody writes an equation that says 2=2=3, but most people get upset if their mother dies of cancer, which has absolutely nothing to do with logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea what you are trying to get at here but it sounds pretty vacuous. The important part isnt that he gets upset, the important part is that he reacts in such a way that demonstrates that HE SURE FEELS LIKE THATS HIS WALLET

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]

You arent serious with this are you? How about if he tries to stop you? By what authority or reason does he prevent you from taking his wallet?

EDIT: Sorry, THE wallet, not his wallet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does he need authority or reason? Force can be just as effective, if not more so.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You arent serious with this are you? How about if he tries to stop you? By what authority or reason does he prevent you from taking his wallet?

EDIT: Sorry, THE wallet, not his wallet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does he need authority or reason? Force can be just as effective, if not more so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, so if in the OP somewhere he had mentioned that his friends ALSO agree with the principle that something isnt right just because I have bigger guns than you, are we back on track with this argument? I sort of have a feeling you think a legitimate response to just about any post in the entire world is "Yeah well what if I had a nuke?"

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why are you assuming that making more money is nore exploitive? It sounds like you are failing victim to the classical liberal fallacy of equating making less with helping people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, if you believe our system of property rights is exploitative of labor and unjust to the poor then you have to say that doing transactional work for [censored] ing Dow Chemical, Archer Daniels Midland, et. al is pretty [censored] ing exploitative work.

But really come on dude you can't argue that a certain social regime is unjust, then participate in the unjust institution on its own terms AND not be a hypocrite WITHOUT taking alternative actions to adjust or overthrow the institution AT LEAST when they are available.

But they passed on that because they dont want to be "poor." They want to do the best for themselves. And I am totally fine with that but I am a economic libertarian not a communist.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ask them to give you their wallets and see what they think about personal property then. I'm serious. in fact don't even ask, just take their wallets. If they say anything about it then they believe in property no matter what fancy worded crap they spout.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously I told one of them that I need his car more than him and jokingly took his keys.

Its so [censored] ing funny because we are all going to be so [censored] ing rich beyond what we really deserve that it is pretty stupid for them to keep being dirty commies.

We are all going to make more in a 10 week summer period of free lunches and ego blowjobs than my girlfriend makes in a [censored] ing year busting her ass off working overtime. I point this out to them and LOL at the hypocracy

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is the hypocrisy? You don't have to believe that property is a natural right to want to own property. In making that assumption, you and tomd look like fools in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to believe that property exists though. If you say that property doesn't exist but get upset when someone takes something of yours well I don't know what to say you're just a moron.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a terrible arguement. You are essentially saying that: getting upset = right being violating. If you get upset about your favorite team losing a game, does that mean you have to believe a right has been violated?

[/ QUOTE ]
For your analogy to hold, they would have to believe there was something wrong with being emotionally invested in teams. If they believe that AND get upset when "their" team loses, it sounds like there's some cognitive dissonance going on.

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ask them to give you their wallets and see what they think about personal property then. I'm serious. in fact don't even ask, just take their wallets. If they say anything about it then they believe in property no matter what fancy worded crap they spout.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously I told one of them that I need his car more than him and jokingly took his keys.

Its so [censored] ing funny because we are all going to be so [censored] ing rich beyond what we really deserve that it is pretty stupid for them to keep being dirty commies.

We are all going to make more in a 10 week summer period of free lunches and ego blowjobs than my girlfriend makes in a [censored] ing year busting her ass off working overtime. I point this out to them and LOL at the hypocracy

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is the hypocrisy? You don't have to believe that property is a natural right to want to own property. In making that assumption, you and tomd look like fools in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to believe that property exists though. If you say that property doesn't exist but get upset when someone takes something of yours well I don't know what to say you're just a moron.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a terrible arguement. You are essentially saying that: getting upset = right being violating. If you get upset about your favorite team losing a game, does that mean you have to believe a right has been violated?

[/ QUOTE ]
For your analogy to hold, they would have to believe there was something wrong with being emotionally invested in teams. If they believe that AND get upset when "their" team loses, it sounds like there's some cognitive dissonance going on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah but he could get angry and pop you in the face then what are you gonna do huh huh huh huh?

Re: Argh property rights debate
 

[ QUOTE ]

I have no idea what you are trying to get at here but it sounds pretty vacuous. The important part isnt that he gets upset, the important part is that he reacts in such a way that demonstrates that HE SURE FEELS LIKE THATS HIS WALLET

[/ QUOTE ]

What I'm saying is: whether he believes he has a "right" to the wallet or whether he actually has a "right" to that wallet is irrelevant; all that matters is either his ability to convince you that the wallet is his or his ability to take control of the wallet via force.