Beware the Marxist world of Kamalla Harris: "There’s a big difference between equality and equity."

[Curried Goats]

Can you even point out to me where I was objectively wrong? And I don't mean those times you assumed I thought the opinion or point was objective. Show me where I was objectively wrong.

Sure.

I also said "force", which is your word. If you can't prove property was acquired through the means you describe then, as I said, it just means you want to be given someone else's money.

I already have by arguing the nature of private ownership itself. Having exclusivity over land and it's resources requires you to have the ability to exclude others from accessing it. How is this exclusivity achieved without force?

Besides, you're not so fucking stupid as to not know that taking property by force or acquiring it illegally is unfair.

I don't know that. Fairness is a feeling. You feel things are unfair, you don't know it. Knowledge to me is objective. Also the force I'm advocating for is the force of government in the form of higher taxes, that implies legality.

My feelings are irrelevant to the ownership of your subjective accusation. The onus is upon you as the one making the accusation to prove it.

Then why do you keep arguing back your feelings to me in response to my objective arguments about ownership and force?

This is where we disagree. Notice I said "disagree"; this does not mean I'm confused or stupid or that I confuse objectivism with subjectivism.

I do not agree with your understanding of force as it applies to acquiring or keeping property. If the property is legally and fairly acquired through a monetary purchase or mutual agreement, it is not taken by force so force is irrelevant.

1. Property is protected by the force of law, is it not?

2. We've established that fair is subjective so asking me to make an objective argument to counter your feelings is nonsensical.

3. Changing the laws to raise taxes and social safety nets would legalize everything I want to do. If your standard is simply legality then everything I advocate for meets that standard. I'm not suggesting taking anything from anyone without the force of law.

After acquisition it is protected by law and force only comes into play when someone tries to forcefully take it. Then force is used to protect it and/or to apprehend the one trying to take it.

Haven't we already established laws are subjective? What if I don't care about your subjectively arrived at laws? It's OK to use force against me anyway according to you? See you're the one trying to justify uses of force based on nothing more than your feelings. I'm not doing that. I don't think laws and government give me some objective right to use force against others. I think forming a society and government simply give me greater numbers and thus a greater ability to impose our collective will.

I can, and in fact do, own my things without having used force and they were not acquired through force. I do not agree that someone who acquires property legally should have it taken from him because some idiot a hundred years ago took it from someone else.

Again, what should be is an argument about your feelings. You own things by the grace of the force of law which protects your ownership of said things. That's objectively true.

All this nonsense about force and law is just your justification for taking money from the rich and you need the power of the government to take it by force so you can suckle that teat.

Rich people also need the power and force of law to get rich so I don't know what objective distinction you imagine you're making here.

You'll have to define what "force" means. And since you say that word meanings are subjective, that would be a neat trick.

Words can mean whatever people want them to mean, that doesnt mean meaning itself can't be analyzed for its objectivity. For some reason stating this objective truth has triggered you in to imagining it's my subjective opinion rather than a reflection of objective fact.

As for what force is, it's one object acting on another. It's not subjective, it's objective. It's physics.

No, it is not. It's your subjective understanding of force within the given context.

My understanding of force is objective.

I'm not imagining that you've given reasons for your opinions about sharing wealth and eliminating billionaires. These are your justifications.

These are my opinions. There is no real objective meaning to what is just. When I think of justice I think of it in two contexts. One is simply a matter of legality. Justice for a nation is the upholding of its laws, whatever those laws may be. The second is in the same vein of morality. Something people imagine to have an objective component but that is ultimately, entirely subjective. I don't talk in terms of what is just or what is morally righteous because those things don't really exist. They're just veneers on your opinion. I don't feel the need to dress my opinion up as anything more than it is.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Sure.

So do it.

I already have by arguing the nature of private ownership itself.

Nope. Your argument on private ownership is your subjective take on it.

Having exclusivity over land and it's resources requires you to have the ability to exclude others from accessing it. How is this exclusivity achieved without force?

In a word: Law.

And no, in this context, law is not force in and of itself. It allows the use of force to repel an initiated outside force that seeks to invade or take.

I don't know that.

Yes you do. At the very least, you feel it is unfair just as I do. If you didn't, you wouldn't have said you don't think we should allow a few to possess the majority of resources.

Fairness is a feeling.

Fairness is not a feeling. Your feelings may dictate what you deem to be fair or unfair, but it is not a feeling.

You feel things are unfair, you don't know it. Knowledge to me is objective. Also the force I'm advocating for is the force of government in the form of higher taxes, that implies legality.

"Legality" does not necessarily equate to "fair", which is one of the purposes of law: to keep things fair.

Then why do you keep arguing back your feelings to me in response to my objective arguments about ownership and force?

Because your arguments about ownership and force are not objective. At least, I don't agree they are.

Not only is it not factually true in the manner you present it, you are not objective yourself on the topic.

Even if I allow for the possibility of resource and property sharing with the caveat that it be done fairly, instead of agreeing on fairness or acknowledging the word in its meaning or in any sense at all, including yours, you deflect to subjectivism. Add to that that force and violence seems to be your only understanding of property ownership even if a property owner did not acquire it by force.

1. Property is protected by the force of law, is it not?

It is protected by law, yes. But even that is subjective. My property is not protected by law, per se. It only means I have legal recourse if my property is stolen.

2. We've established that fair is subjective so asking me to make an objective argument to counter your feelings is nonsensical.

YOU asked ME to make an objective argument, dumbass. I asked you sarcastically in response to your request because, as I said, you hadn't given any.

A note about objective arguments. I've mentioned before in a previous discussion that an objective argument is not necessarily the truth. An objective argument is an argument or opinion that was arrived at without bias and through logic and critical thinking. That doesn't mean it's true.

3. Changing the laws to raise taxes and social safety nets would legalize everything I want to do. If your standard is simply legality then everything I advocate for meets that standard. I'm not suggesting taking anything from anyone without the force of law.

That doesn't assuage my doubts given that slavery was the law once and slavery and racism are two points you have broached as examples in your arguments already. This suggests to me that you want to make sharing wealth legal but at the same time you're not interested in fairness because slavery and institutional racism was not fair.
You've also said you want to tax billionaires out of existence, effectively taking away the right to be as rich as we choose. That borders on unconstitutionality and it's also why I have implied that you're real motivation is some form of retribution. That is the definite impression I get.

Haven't we already established laws are subjective? What if I don't care about your subjectively arrived at laws?

That's a rather pointless question. What if I don't care about yours?

It's OK to use force against me anyway according to you?

If you try to force my property from me, yes.

See you're the one trying to justify uses of force based on nothing more than your feelings.

I justify use of force if force is used against me. See the difference?

I'm not doing that.

Bullshit. Of course you're justifying force based on your feelings. Your feelings are precisely why you want to share wealth and it's why you want to eliminate billionaires.

I don't think laws and government give me some objective right to use force against others.

Who said that? Force against others to accomplish what?

I think forming a society and government simply give me greater numbers and thus a greater ability to impose our collective will.

Right. To impose laws that more accord with your feelings.

Again, what should be is an argument about your feelings. You own things by the grace of the force of law which protects your ownership of said things. That's objectively true.

Wrong. I do not own things "by the grace of the force of law which protects your ownership of said things." I own my property with or without the law. If someone steals my truck, I still own it. The law doesn't determine ownership, it only provides for legal action if someone takes or tries to take what I own.

And laws are created for the very purpose of supporting and protecting an idea of the way something should be.

Rich people also need the power and force of law to get rich so I don't know what objective distinction you imagine you're making here.

Irrelevant. The objective distinction is you're talking about changing the law to take away a basic right.

Words can mean whatever people want them to mean, that doesnt mean meaning itself can't be analyzed for its objectivity. For some reason stating this objective truth has triggered you in to imagining it's my subjective opinion rather than a reflection of objective fact.

That's just it: it's NOT an objective fact.

As for what force is, it's one object acting on another. It's not subjective, it's objective. It's physics.

Yes, that is force. Buying and owning a home is not.

My understanding of force is objective.

Not in this context, it isn't. You don't define when, where or how the force is applied.

The issue is exponentially more complex than "Law is force". But you have to keep it simple to make the argument work.

These are my opinions.

Wrong. The opinion is that we should tax billionaires out of existence. The justification or reason for the opinion is that you feel a few should not control most of the resources.

There is no real objective meaning to what is just. When I think of justice I think of it in two contexts. One is simply a matter of legality. Justice for a nation is the upholding of its laws, whatever those laws may be. The second is in the same vein of morality. Something people imagine to have an objective component but that is ultimately, entirely subjective. I don't talk in terms of what is just or what is morally righteous because those things don't really exist. They're just veneers on your opinion. I don't feel the need to dress my opinion up as anything more than it is.

Bullshit. You said that a few having control of resources is a "bad thing".