[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If property is theft, who is being robbed? And what are they being robbed OF, exactly?

[/ QUOTE ]If you had been reading your grandfathers more diligently, you'd know that everybody owns everything. Which is the same as saying that nobody owns anything. This is the original meaning behind terms such as "common", "commune", "communism".

[/ QUOTE ]

I've read it. It's all a bunch of handwaving. If "everyone owns everything" then you've already got a concept of property.

[/ QUOTE ]Nope, you have a negation of property.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. You can't have it both ways.

If nobody owns resource X, then nobody has any legitimate reason to complain when resource X is consumed.

If someone does have a right to resource X, than that person has an ownership interest in that resource.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The people who claim property is theft are just generating slogans.

[/ QUOTE ]This is not an argument. Only, possibly, an expression of annoyance. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] "Generating slogans" could just as easily be said of your lot too, the ACists.

[/ QUOTE ]

My lot? Other people do it, so you want to accuse me of doing it?

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I'd rather discuss things with you rather than hurl broad characterizations.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I'm trying to do. You threw out the "property is theft" line.

You decry hurling broad characterizations, but you have a beef with me because "my lot" of ACists (not me specifically) might generate slogans.

I think I see where this is going.

[ QUOTE ]
So, you presumed everybody has read the classics and knows their positions, and you posted a strictly rhetorical question secretly hoping to "bait responses".

[/ QUOTE ]

No, YOU presumed anyone who questioned your edicts had NOT read them. I was actually presuming YOU had read them (and not making presumptions about anyone else) since you were, you know, name dropping.

[ QUOTE ]
Who's being condescending here, then? And a little trollish.

[/ QUOTE ]

If exposing inconsistent but slickly-phrased arguments is condescending and trollish, then guilty as charged.