|
How would you respond to someone who rejects that property rights even exists, much less are the wellspring from which all other rights come?absolem posted:Not all american land was owned (you can use it and not own it by virtue of not wanting it). Prove that Native Americans did not want the land. This is a bald assertion with no backing.
|
#
¿
May 22, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 02:57 |
|
|
absolem posted:Many tribes had no concept of ownership Bullshit, prove it.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
Also, since you seem to respond to seperate posts between separate points, here's this again:Who What Now posted:How would you respond to someone who rejects that property rights even exists, much less are the wellspring from which all other rights come?
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
absolem posted:I'd rather just give it back, if its all the same to you So why haven't you? Come on, man, be the change you want to see.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
^^^^^^^^ Seriously, this post is exactly what he was talking about. If someone steals your stereo, sells it to another person for $1, and you can't objectively prove this happened with video surveillance then you're poo poo out of luck by your own admission. absolem posted:why are you even here? at least the other people berating me are largely intelligent... He's only taking what you've outlined and take it to its logical conclusion. If you dismiss it out of hand then so too can we dismiss your position out of hand. We already do. 
Who What Now fucked around with this message at 01:37 on May 23, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
absolem posted:except he was wildly wrong about what I even said, at least most other people are actually comprehending my arguments, this rear end in a top hat was just being almost as retarded as me... Reread my post.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
absolem posted:because the hiring of armies to rule by force and taxation involve aggression and are therefore unjustifiable. Who cares if it's unjustified? What are you going to do to stop them?
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
Can your objectively justified bullshit put food in your stomach? Can it put a roof over your head? Can it stop a mugger? Can it stop a bullet?
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
absolem posted:except that my proof of my ethics is still looking pretty ok even after a couple of you had a go at it, Your proof of your ethics started as worthless garbage and has somehow only gotten worse. But I'll ask again. What in your moral/ethical system can stop a roving gang of 600,00 Road Warrior marauders from rolling into any town they want, shooting all the able-bodied men in the face and enslaving the remainder?
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
Shibby0709 posted:Respect for the NAP, duh. If they took over a town and enslaved its inhabitants then people would refuse to trade with them, allowing the free market to prevail. It would be a lose-lose for all. In the land of the NAP the one gun owner is king. Or... something, I don't know.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 02:25
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:
absolem says he does. Caros posted:I've bolded the important part of it here. gently caress druids and their level 9 spells. Dude obviously played Fighters and was mad jealous of spellcasters.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 02:30
|
|
What the gently caress
|
I can't tell of this is better or worse than the Brony guy who tried to get campaign donations a few weeks ago. 
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
How about a system, any system, that doesn't encourage people to become despotic warlords?
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
absolem posted:I didn't make anyone do anything. Sassin' the mod's now, are we?  quote:the conversation seems to have taken an interesting turn (people are actually talking about ethics...) since I fell behind. Do you have anything to add? It got brought up in the other Libertarian thread, but I'll link it here too (credit to AnemicChipmunk). Are you familiar with Proffesor Walter Block and his views on Austrian Economics and the NAP? If you listen to that podcast, would you say that his views are similar to yours?
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 02:57 |
|
|
Sharkie posted:Yeah, stealing to save someone's life is moral. I've already explained my reasoning in an earlier post where I first gave my answer. Like for everything else I'm sure someone can always construct increasingly convoluted edge cases but that's the rule of thumb I go with. For the record I'm still honestly curious as to why you think either choice is immoral. I'd almost go far as to say that outside of a few very specific cases doing anything short of threats or acts of assault can be considered moral if they directly result in the saving of someone's life.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 21:06
|
|