Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Property rights are an arbitrary construct. Not all cultures adhere to the same ideas of ownership and property. And, yes, all those you named were full of BS. Good things, too. But there's a LOT of BS out there. So much BS.
You cannot ascribe an ideology where no social contract exists when we are living in a system guided by social contract. We have a system where we make compromises all the time for the greater good. That's what we do. And if you don't like it, that's too bad, because THAT is not going to change.
The social contract is fictional. To test it... climb inside a vagina, pop out, and tell us if you've automatically consented to the State's laws.
Property rights are natural law. See my last post.
And like my last post I bid you good luck getting in and out of that vagina.
Property rights are an arbitrary construct. Not all cultures adhere to the same ideas of ownership and property. And, yes, all those you named were full of BS. Good things, too. But there's a LOT of BS out there. So much BS.
Societies not based on self-ownership and property rights are inferior to those that do. Period.
Quote:
You cannot ascribe an ideology where no social contract exists when we are living in a system guided by social contract. We have a system where we make compromises all the time for the greater good. That's what we do. And if you don't like it, that's too bad, because THAT is not going to change.
The social contract, as it requires consent, doesn't exist without violence. It is a myth.
The "greater good" is also a myth, as the needs and rights of the individual ALWAYS take precedence. The greater good also requires violence to exist.
You misunderstand. I speak up. Just not on every thread on a largely anonymous comment board. In my community, with actual people, in the voting booth, etc.--that's where it matters. My comments here amount to not much, nor do yours.
Perfect, you've proven my point....you only speak when it benefits you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by leebeemi
My 17 yo plays violent video games, sees the movies--but he also doesn't behave like guns are an extension of his masculinity.
I'm sorry, where did I say anything about "masculinity" and where does that fit in this conversation? You're showing you have no clue what you speak of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by leebeemi
Some of his close friends don't know he hunts. Some don't know he has guns. When he wanted to show a friend the one that his grandfather left him, he asked permission. He is respectful of what they can do and what their purpose is.
So, you have no point here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by leebeemi
Congratulations?
Thanks?
Quote:
Originally Posted by leebeemi
Honestly, my family has talked this over time & again. I would be willing to give up SOOOOOOOO much more. I don't need to keep my guns at my home. I don't need access to virtually unlimited ammo. I don't need access to high-capacity magazines. There's so much, really.
Good for you, but why should you push your feelings/desires on me?
Quote:
Originally Posted by leebeemi
And you know what a lot of us HAVE given up? Our children. Thankfully, mine are safe. But there are so many that have been killed for the paranoia and vanity of a vocal group.
Yes, and you've already proven that you don't care, only when it interests you....sad...I feel sorry for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by leebeemi
Does filling out forms cramp your shootin' hand?
Not the point, but I would not expect you to understand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by leebeemi
When that's as painful as choosing a child-sized coffin, I'll feel sorry for you.
Once again, you are proving that you don't care, only when it may/might/or might affect you...don't feel sorry for me, you should feel sorry for your family.
Quote:
Originally Posted by leebeemi
I'm not moved by your arguments much.
Well, since you provided nothing....I'm not moved by your discussion either....
The social contract is fictional. To test it... climb inside a vagina, pop out, and tell us if you've automatically consented to the State's laws.
Property rights are natural law. See my last post.
And like my last post I bid you good luck getting in and out of that vagina.
Sigh. Just because something is in print doesn't make it "true." Even if it's "true," that doesn't make it workable. You are just talking about a philosophy--not a fundamental truth.
You cannot compare us to a wild animal. No, I cannot take a fish from a bear. But we have encroached on that bear's habitat and driven them to where we determine to accept them. If they encroach on our habitat, we remove them (sometimes permanently). That bear has no natural rights. Sorry.
I did not see that there was any extortion or demands made.
I do see that the OP is using the Trumpian method of attempting to smear and demean people who are activists for causes they do no agree with politically.
Nice try, but transparently false.
Yes, organize a protest and then call for the company you are protesting to donate money in order to stop further protests. Nothing like extortion at all, eh?
Semantics be damned, the little twit is practicing extortion just like the mob used to do.
Sigh. Just because something is in print doesn't make it "true."
And yet, I assume, you believe in the concept of government and legitimate authority. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by leebeemi
Even if it's "true," that doesn't make it workable. You are just talking about a philosophy--not a fundamental truth.
Whether it's "workable" or not is of no importance. Some things are because they are.
*1 + 1 = 2
*every person has the right to their mind, body, and any unused resource they mix their labor with which alters it (anything less is slavery)
*Nobody has the right to initiate force against you. The only legitimate use of force is defensive force (anything less is again...slavery)
All truths. There's nothing neither of us can do about it. I'm assuming you don't like the last two. I don't even like them a lot of the time but there's nothing I can about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by leebeemi
You cannot compare us to a wild animal. No, I cannot take a fish from a bear. But we have encroached on that bear's habitat and driven them to where we determine to accept them. If they encroach on our habitat, we remove them (sometimes permanently). That bear has no natural rights. Sorry.
Of course the bear has no natural rights. It doesn't have the cognitive ability to form binding personal contracts with humans. I'd point out here that you believe in the social contract (correct me if I'm wrong) where no cognitive ability to consent is present yet a contract is formed.
My advice to you would be to use logical and moral consistency and say the bear has no natural rights and a newborn can't consent to a contract of any kind.
My point about the bear was that property rights are observable in nature. A bear in a government costume doesn't go up to a regular citizen bear and demand tribute (in the form of the fish) and citizen bear complies. Likewise, you can't go up to him with a contract and negotiate for the fish.
Perfect, you've proven my point....you only speak when it benefits you.
That is not at all what I've said. You expect me to police the entire Internet to find all the connected subjects? Please. Don't be disingenuous in your arguments.
I'm sorry, where did I say anything about "masculinity" and where does that fit in this conversation? You're showing you have no clue what you speak of.
Oh, You've said quite a bit about it, loud and clear.
So, you have no point here?
You can choose to ignore what you like. Makes me no nevermind.
Thanks?
You had no point there, at least none I could discern. What does a description of a childhood picture add to the discussion? None. It was there to prove some sort of point, but it has no significance.
Good for you, but why should you push your feelings/desires on me?
Ooh, now how could you take THAT point and apply it equally to yourself? You want to impose your meaning system on me, but balk at my desire to do the same.
Yes, and you've already proven that you don't care, only when it interests you....sad...I feel sorry for you.
Balderdash. Nothing of the sort has been proven. I care deeply about this issue. This discussion? It's recreational. It hones the skills. You help me find ways to address arguments before they happen. No need to feel sorry for me. I am confident, I am focused, I am passionate. This is important to me, and I admire David Hogg for his confidence, focus, and passion.
Not the point, but I would not expect you to understand.
If it makes you feel better to insult my intelligence, be my guest. I am not intimidated by that. I am always disappointed by lack of respect in dialogue.
Once again, you are proving that you don't care, only when it may/might/or might affect you...don't feel sorry for me, you should feel sorry for your family.
I don't care? What am I doing here? I care. Deeply. I care for my family, and they care for me. We are good, thanks.
Well, since you provided nothing....I'm not moved by your discussion either....
You wrote a lot replying to nothing. Huh.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
