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

[Curried Goats]

Once again, I did not say it should be nor did I suggest it is a compelling reason. I just said it's a reason. That's it.

So your argument is that you have a legal claim but that it isn't a compelling reason?

No it's not.

It is. The law me and my brothers thought up is as objectively real as any religion or law imagined by any other human being. How do you imagine yourself to be in a position to tell me what the laws me and my brothers crafted say?

I insist it belongs to me because the documentation and cancelled checks prove I do.

Okay but what do those things mean to me? You haven't given me a compelling reason by your own admission. Are you just here arguing uncompelling reasons? That's a twist I didn't see coming.

No. You said you didn't respect my claim because I didn't buy it from you. Again, you said "Why should I?".

I didn't say I didn't respect your claim because you didn't buy it from me. You're misremembering. In post #973 I was responding to your argument that ownership is derived from mutual agreement like when you buy a house from someone and I responded: mutual agreement with everyone? That transaction was between you and that guy. You didn't pay me for exclusive rights. Meaning you paid that guy to respect your claim. The premise here isn't that I also own the property and that you need to pay me as well. My premise is that the natural world objectively belongs to no one and if you want to come to some agreement with others about them agreeing not to access or use said natural resources that that is an agreement between yall. We haven't come to an agreement and you've yet to describe a compelling reason for me to agree to not partake of these natural resources.

The implication is that you do not respect my claim of ownership even if it's provably legal.

Why should I? Is that a compelling reason? Your first argument of this post is that you're not saying that I should even respect the law so why do you keep going back to it?

I get hung up because I understand language nuance. You don't. This is why I say you can't express yourself worth a shit and that your reading comprehension sucks.

Do you? Me and other people are able to have arguments without discussing what the meaning of is is in every post. In fact in much earlier this very thread you confused yourself over the meaning of value in an argument me and another poster were having where we understood each other just fine. So far this seems to be a YOU problem.

What "natural resources", the nuts from my pecan trees? It's a fucking house on a three quarter acre piece of land. If you want my pecans, I give you permission to come gather them.

Who's asking for your permission? My question is of your authority to begin with and where it comes from.

Why would I need to come to some agreement with you for you to recognize and respect my legal ownership of my house and property? The fuck are you talking about?

Because the legality of your ownership in and of itself isn't a compelling reason to me.

You idiot. What does this have to do with respecting or not respecting your ability to walk and go places?

That you not respecting my natural innate freedom to go where I please requires physical force against me whereas me not respecting your legal claim to natural resources does not. That's just me agreeing to disagree with your point of view.

1.) Again, "freedom" is subjective. "Ability" is more apt in this context.

You make that argument as if you think that's objectively true when it's only subjectively true. Freedom is perfectly apt as far as I'm concerned which is why I continue to use it.

2.) "That piece of nature" is not all there is to my property. It includes a house that is not a piece of nature.

Is it situated within the natural world? That you put an obstruction there is supposed to mean what to me?

I said that because the way you expressed it made no sense. If there's a threat of force in law, it is not inherent in my reliance on law. Either there is or there isn't. My reliance on law doesn't determine the threat of force.

Its inherent in law. If you're relying on the law then you are relying on something that inherently uses acts of physical force to compel compliance.

Negative. You said: "If I don't respect your legal claim then what?"

"Then what?" what? Do you expect me to initiate some kind of action simply because you don't respect my legal claim? Until you apply force of your own in some way, the ball's in your court.

That's the thing. I don't have to use violence against you to not respect your claim to property. I am using force to propel me where I want to go but that isn't an objective physical force being used against you. Allowing me to go where I want all over property you claim to be yours without doing anything about it calls into question this claim to ownership. You're the one who has to use force against me to assert your property rights. I don't have to use force against you to simply disagree with your belief that you own something and to access that something provided it's not directly on your person. That's the only time I recognize objective possession. When something is in your physical possession. In that case I would concede it would require force to access it against your will.

Law. What else?

The law is the law. You can't explain what it actually is better than that?

When? Where? How?

The point I'm trying to make when I ask this is that the legal system uses physical force when physical force is brought against it, or rather, against a person, people, property, etc. Physical force is not always brought to bear when a law is broken. In fact, it is not always brought to bear when it should be.

How was I supposed to discern that point from you simply asking When? Where? And How? But whatever. Finally you attempt an actual counter argument with some detail and structure.

Let's put aside self defense. If someone is attacking you then you are responding to physical force you're not the initiator of force. My argument isn't about force in regards to self defense, it's about that other thing you listed, force against property.

1. Force against property isn't force against your physical person, objectively speaking.

2. Things only subjectively belong to you. Now before you claim that legal claims are real understand that I mean in the context of the law itself being a subjective set of morals and ideas as you admitted to previously. That you and the legal system are of the opinion that a piece of land belongs to you and that you and they have the authority to tell others where they can and cannot go in the world is only a subjective belief that is not necessarily shared by others.

3. When people disagree with these subjective beliefs your only recourse to assert your ownership over anything not on your person is to compel people through the use of force.

Our government/s (mostly Democrats and Democrat states and cities) are decriminalizing criminal behavior.


But the law does not.


They're not simple concepts. That's the point.

Maybe not for you. You've appeared to have gotten emotional over democrats for some reason and maybe that's the problem. You're trying to discern "good" law from "bad" law as if your feelings on the law make a difference about what the law fundamentally is. Striping it down to its core isn't at all hard because it's a human endeavor and what drives all human endeavor is self interest. Democrats craft laws you disagree with because they have different interests than you.

I imagine the concept of law was simple enough at its inception but it is hopelessly complicated today.

Interests have gotten more complicated, that's all. Not only does the law have to respect the interest of more people than just land owning white males but also but technology and the loosening of social restrictions and taboos allows for a wider, more complicated array of interests.

Negative. "Here we go again" as in, the issue is infinitely more complex than "Law is force".

Not when you boil it down to what it is objectively which is a framework for how, when and where society is to apply physical force to compel people to adhere to the subjective morals and ideas and interests of said society. What the hell is complicated about recognizing people have self interests as individuals and collective interests as a society?

Wrong. You're looking at this bass ackwards. Laws are ideas that are ultimately about creating a more harmonious society.

For everyone or for the people who's interests these laws are made to serve? Harmonious in this context doesn't appear to an objective standard. Slave laws might of created harmony among slave merchants but it didn't for the slaves themselves.

Not all penalties involve violence.

Which ones don't ultimately end in violence? If I keep ignoring fines or notices to appear in court I'm good?

Either way, the ones that enforce property rights do.

If that's true, you haven't either.

You say I have been unable to describe law if it's not about force but you have been unable to describe force.

I've describe force for you numerous times now.

"Tangible" has three definitions in Webster's:

1a : capable of being perceived especially by the sense of touch : palpable
b : substantially real : material

2: capable of being precisely identified or realized by the mind
her grief was tangible

3: capable of being appraised at an actual or approximate value
tangible assets
As you can see, the first definition is literal: physical touch. But the second definition is figurative. Therefore, "tangible" is subjective.

In some contexts, not the context I used it in guy. I even clarified it for you. This isn't a choose your own adventure novel. You making up whatever context you want for my arguments is just you arguing against Strawmen.

And what about how and where?

The reason you're having a hard time understanding where I'm coming from is that you insist on looking at the issue in strictly general terms, i.e., Law is always force and the manner of this force is always the same with every law, every person or entity and in every case.

Your perspective on this is overly simplistic.

Ok I see this claim. Can you defend it with something other than supposition? The reason I'm having a hard time understanding you is because you don't really try to explain how you think my perspective is too simplistic.

1. Is the law ever something other than a subjective set of ideas and morals?

2. Can people be made to adhere to morals and ideas that they don't want to without force or coercive threats of force?

Go ahead and try to make it more complicated than that. I welcome the challenge.

My "say so"? I specifically cited legal documentation you idiot.

So the say so of someone else? What's that supposed to mean to me? You already said up top that you didn't mean for this to be a compelling reason.

I'm not the one who said the law don't mean shit, you are.

I was. Explain how you make the law mean something to me when if it doesn't. Me and my brothers laws didn't seem to mean much to you.

You just contradicted yourself again dumbass. When you ask a question and I say the question and the answer are irrelevant to the topic, you bitch about it. At the same time you tell me you know my answers are going to be stupid even before you ask the question.

Goddamn you're a hypocrite.

No, you're just stupid....

You're argument is about pretending you speak for the topic, I'm just speaking for myself. I'm not forcing you to be fantasy role playing weirdo.

I'm saying that I never said the law has no bearing on anything.

So what are you saying? Is there some compelling reason I should care about your legal claims?

Is this the same daddy that's going to give you my resources?

What? Nature provides natural resources you moron.

Irrelevant. You claimed I was "Refusing to acknowledge that fact..." that there are physical consequences to breaking the law when it was clear from early on that I understood this.

And yet you seem confused when I say the law is force for those who don't agree to comply. Those physical consequences are the forces I'm referring to.

All this tells me is that you don't have much respect for law in general.

You haven't given me a compelling reason to yet. It's your argument guy.

No. Your arguments from the beginning were that, generally speaking, law is force. Now you're crawfishing to the specific physics of an officer using physical force to restrain a suspect.

That's what it always was, you just haven't understood it even though I've explained it as such repeatedly. The physical consequences for not adhering to the rule of law is the force of law I keep referencing. You're the only person I have this argument with that has trouble understanding this.

The nature of their existence is not force.


First describe force in all its contexts then we can can talk about what I think law is.

Me and Newton already have. F=MA

Anything with mass and acceleration interacting with another object is acting with force. This is an objective fact.

You asked me to name one thing that is objectively real that isn't part of the natural world. The context is that these things exist.

I said religions exist. I did not say or suggest that their beliefs are objectively real. Jesus what an idiot.

So in what ways do they exist? As thoughts and ideas? Humans having thoughts and ideas isn't a part of natural human biology? Where do you think your ideas come from if isnt human biology that allows you to have thoughts and ideas? Magic?

I just gave you a list in my last post. Religions objectively exist. They exist apart from my mind and they are not of the natural world. Therefore, there are two ways I can approach religion: with bias or objectively without bias.

In what way does religion exist apart from your mind or the mind of others since you already admitted religious beliefs aren't objectively real? Let's be specific because if religion can ultimately be boiled down to human thoughts and ideas then aren't humans having thoughts and ideas a natural result of human biology?

What would be the point if you know my answer will be stupid?

So I can understand the nature of your stupid.

Once again: religion; culture; fashions; politics...

You're talking about sensory stimulation which is something wholly different. The things that trigger our senses are not in and of our minds. Religion objectively exists even though the doctrine that makes up the religion is subjective.

Exactly. I'm talking about objective reality vs your subjective perspective. I have no clue what you were referring to previously about something existing outside of both.

What?


The fuck are you talking about? Statistically speaking, is it or is it not true that the majority of people who adopt a religion adopt the prevailing religion of their country and culture?

That's true but I don't see how that goes to making your previous point. In fact you are referencing truth, i.e. fact in your statement. Objective observations deal with analysis of truths and facts rather than subjective beliefs. It doesn't matter if the fact you're analyzing is about a subjective belief like religion because it's about which religion they believe in rather than the beliefs of the religion itself.

I will assume you would agree with this, yes? Assuming that you do, would this not be an objective argument in a discussion about whose religion is the true religion?

What? Now you've lost me.

How long are you going to hide behind your red herring of property acquisition by force?

That's not a red herring, that's my argument. Your counter was mutual agreement. My response was, with everyone? What about the people who disagree and don't recognize that piece of land as yours or the law as legit or compelling? And since then it's just been you waffling back and forth about whether the use of physical force is employed to make the dissenters comply.

I acquire property by paying for it. The payment record and documentation determine ownership, not the law.

That satisfies the person you paid for it and the legal system that you willingly adhere to. Now what about for those whom that isn't a compelling response?

That's about seven or eight times now. Do I need to tell you a ninth time or do you need to get stoned first?

And it's about the millionth times I've asked you about the people who disagree.

I never indicated in any way that law has nothing to do with my acquiring and owning property. I merely said (multiple times) that it does not determine ownership.

So what does? Your feelings? You seem to think I'm asking you what determines this for you. I'm asking what determines your right to a piece of property for someone not compelled by your legal claim.

Irrelevant. You said: "law itself is based on subjective feelings no one is inclined by nature to adhere to without the use of physical force."

When they don't want to. You keep forgeting that part.

It is entirely subjective opinion that no one is inclined to abide by laws without the threat or use of physical force. This is a broadbrush claim that you are not qualified to make.

No. It's you only wanting to focus on the agreeable. My argument is about those who disagree. If you have a counter argument for how to make people comply with you who don't want to without force then let's hear it.

Right, because you want access to my resources, whatever those are.

Have we agreed they're yours? Why do you think that's the start of the discussion? My argument starts with the people who disagree with that premise.

But you've said law is force.


That doesn't answer my question. You said: "That I'm not inclined by nature to adhere to your laws. What compels me to is force."

Are you speaking for yourself or was this a statement referring to people in general?

It's a statement about human nature. You can't force people to agree with you, i.e. you can't make people believe in something they dont believe in, you can only force them to comply with you.

Again, you said: "That I'm not inclined by nature to adhere to your laws. What compels me to is force."

If you were not referring to yourself then why word it that way? Wouldn't it be more apt to say "Some are not inclined by nature to adhere to your laws. What compels them to is force."?

Because that how I chose to word it. You word things however you want.