Conservatism And Libertarianism Both Have No Dogma

[bripat9643]

You're thinking of property in narrow terms. One can say that an individual has a property right in their own body, for example, so a law that says we can't smoke marijuana is a violation of everybody's property right in their own body. But we might also say that local laws that forbid smoking in restaurants or bars are violations of the property rights of the owners of the restaurant or bar.

Except that none of your examples are examples of property rights, much less the law violating property rights.

Of course they are. That you think of property rights in only narrow terms doesn't change the fact.

That you consider a human body to be property doesn't change the fact that it is not.

The fact is your body is your property. If it isn't, then the concept of property is nonsensical.

Property can be bought and sold. The human body cannot legally or ethically be bought and sold, and thus is not property. You 19th centurions really should get up to speed; Clue - this is the 21st century.

So what you're saying is that if someone has a back of marijuana, it's not his property? How about in India where you can sell your body parts?

Your error is in thinking that government defines what property is.

 

[bripat9643]

Where the law violates property rights the law is aggression.

Not supporting your extraordinary claim with facts is just lame. Try again.

You want me to support my opinion with facts? I might as well ask you to support your statement that property rights shouldn't be open-ended. You can only do so by resorting to your opinion. Regardless, individuals own their own bodies, because there is no other logical choice, and private property flows from the idea of self-ownership. So if I am the sole owner of my body, it must constitute aggression for somebody to tell me how I must then use my body. Drug laws, for example, constitute aggression against an individual's property right in themselves.

Yes, when having a discussion, it is, in fact, useful to present facts to support a claim. And yes, even opinions should, when possible, be supported by the facts. You didn't know this? Huh. My statement was that property rights are not open-ended, as demonstrated by the legal concept of eminent domain. Ever hear of it?

Hmmmm . . . wrong. Eminent Domain is a violation of your rights. Whoever said there was anything valid about it? Legal concepts are one thing. RIghts are another.

As to your absurd argument that if someone tells you what to do with your body they are committing an act of aggression, do you consider it an act of aggression when your doctor tells you to lose weight?

Since he didn't make that claim, you're just knocking down a straw man.

The entire premise of your argument comes down to your suggestion that a person's body is considered to be property. Sorry, that 19th century concept just doesn't hold water in the 21st century. Try again.

Most concepts of rights come from the 18th century, so they must be all wrong, eh? Does the First Amendment hold water in the 21st century? Valid concepts do not become obsolete. That argument is just a cheap leftwing ploy.

Eminent Domain (The right of the government to take private property and convert it into public use. The Fifth Amendment provides that the government may only exercise this right if they provide just compensation to the property owners. see, e.g. Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. 458 US 419 (1982).) is entirely legal, as indicated by numerous Supreme Court rulings.

As for the gentleman's premise, using your logic, human slavery is still entirely legal and moral. Since that is not the case neither here in the states nor anywhere else, non-sequitur.

All you've said is that government has the authority to violate your property rights.

Slavery may have been legal, but it was never moral. Neither is eminent domain. You make the mistake of thinking that rights are whatever the government says they are.

 

[Wildman]

Except that none of your examples are examples of property rights, much less the law violating property rights.

Of course they are. That you think of property rights in only narrow terms doesn't change the fact.

That you consider a human body to be property doesn't change the fact that it is not.

The fact is your body is your property. If it isn't, then the concept of property is nonsensical.

Property can be bought and sold. The human body cannot legally or ethically be bought and sold, and thus is not property. You 19th centurions really should get up to speed; Clue - this is the 21st century.

So what you're saying is that if someone has a back of marijuana, it's not his property? How about in India where you can sell your body parts?

Your error is in thinking that government defines what property is.

........................
bripat, libercrats, liberfools, dummycrats, etc., etc., are incapable of "thinking".., they are a FEEEELY group of fools, idiots and America hating traitors

 

[Wildman]

DOGMA ????????

dog·ma
a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted

if there is any group in that category it has got to be the libercrats who unquestionably believe every word that flows from the mouth of Obola, a muslime mulatto who wants the entire citizenry of America infected with the Ebola virus, why else is he allowing the infected vermin into our country ?

AND.., liberfools, don't tell me he has no authority to stop it, if he can make up an EO to legalize illegals he can do the EO to stop any person from these infected countries from coming here !!

 

[orogenicman]

Except that none of your examples are examples of property rights, much less the law violating property rights.

Of course they are. That you think of property rights in only narrow terms doesn't change the fact.

That you consider a human body to be property doesn't change the fact that it is not.

The fact is your body is your property. If it isn't, then the concept of property is nonsensical.

Property can be bought and sold. The human body cannot legally or ethically be bought and sold, and thus is not property. You 19th centurions really should get up to speed; Clue - this is the 21st century.

Of course it is. Do you not work for a living? Are you not then selling your labor, an extension of the property right in your own body?

I don't know on what planet you live, but on this one, that isn't how it works.

 

[orogenicman]

Not supporting your extraordinary claim with facts is just lame. Try again.

You want me to support my opinion with facts? I might as well ask you to support your statement that property rights shouldn't be open-ended. You can only do so by resorting to your opinion. Regardless, individuals own their own bodies, because there is no other logical choice, and private property flows from the idea of self-ownership. So if I am the sole owner of my body, it must constitute aggression for somebody to tell me how I must then use my body. Drug laws, for example, constitute aggression against an individual's property right in themselves.

Yes, when having a discussion, it is, in fact, useful to present facts to support a claim. And yes, even opinions should, when possible, be supported by the facts. You didn't know this? Huh. My statement was that property rights are not open-ended, as demonstrated by the legal concept of eminent domain. Ever hear of it?

Hmmmm . . . wrong. Eminent Domain is a violation of your rights. Whoever said there was anything valid about it? Legal concepts are one thing. RIghts are another.

As to your absurd argument that if someone tells you what to do with your body they are committing an act of aggression, do you consider it an act of aggression when your doctor tells you to lose weight?

Since he didn't make that claim, you're just knocking down a straw man.

The entire premise of your argument comes down to your suggestion that a person's body is considered to be property. Sorry, that 19th century concept just doesn't hold water in the 21st century. Try again.

Most concepts of rights come from the 18th century, so they must be all wrong, eh? Does the First Amendment hold water in the 21st century? Valid concepts do not become obsolete. That argument is just a cheap leftwing ploy.

Eminent Domain (The right of the government to take private property and convert it into public use. The Fifth Amendment provides that the government may only exercise this right if they provide just compensation to the property owners. see, e.g. Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. 458 US 419 (1982).) is entirely legal, as indicated by numerous Supreme Court rulings.

As for the gentleman's premise, using your logic, human slavery is still entirely legal and moral. Since that is not the case neither here in the states nor anywhere else, non-sequitur.

You're not very good at making analogies or following logic, apparently. Slavery is an act of aggression whereby one individual violently aggresses against the property right another individual has in their own body. Slavery is a violation of the idea of self-ownership, in other words. As for eminent domain, even if it were constitutional that says nothing about whether or not it constitutes aggression. Slavery was also constitutional in the beginning, and yet it was still aggression.

I note, however, that you failed to respond to either of my previous posts attempting to clarify your views.

No place on the planet is slavery defined in the way you describe. You do not get to define your own terms. Make up shit Thursday was yesterday, dude.

 

[orogenicman]

Except that none of your examples are examples of property rights, much less the law violating property rights.

Of course they are. That you think of property rights in only narrow terms doesn't change the fact.

That you consider a human body to be property doesn't change the fact that it is not.

The fact is your body is your property. If it isn't, then the concept of property is nonsensical.

Property can be bought and sold. The human body cannot legally or ethically be bought and sold, and thus is not property. You 19th centurions really should get up to speed; Clue - this is the 21st century.

So what you're saying is that if someone has a back of marijuana, it's not his property? How about in India where you can sell your body parts?

Your error is in thinking that government defines what property is.

That practice has been made illegal in India (though I am sure the black market there is still strong). The error is in you trying to define the human body as something it is not. Make up shit Thursday is over, dude.

 

[orogenicman]

Not supporting your extraordinary claim with facts is just lame. Try again.

You want me to support my opinion with facts? I might as well ask you to support your statement that property rights shouldn't be open-ended. You can only do so by resorting to your opinion. Regardless, individuals own their own bodies, because there is no other logical choice, and private property flows from the idea of self-ownership. So if I am the sole owner of my body, it must constitute aggression for somebody to tell me how I must then use my body. Drug laws, for example, constitute aggression against an individual's property right in themselves.

Yes, when having a discussion, it is, in fact, useful to present facts to support a claim. And yes, even opinions should, when possible, be supported by the facts. You didn't know this? Huh. My statement was that property rights are not open-ended, as demonstrated by the legal concept of eminent domain. Ever hear of it?

Hmmmm . . . wrong. Eminent Domain is a violation of your rights. Whoever said there was anything valid about it? Legal concepts are one thing. RIghts are another.

As to your absurd argument that if someone tells you what to do with your body they are committing an act of aggression, do you consider it an act of aggression when your doctor tells you to lose weight?

Since he didn't make that claim, you're just knocking down a straw man.

The entire premise of your argument comes down to your suggestion that a person's body is considered to be property. Sorry, that 19th century concept just doesn't hold water in the 21st century. Try again.

Most concepts of rights come from the 18th century, so they must be all wrong, eh? Does the First Amendment hold water in the 21st century? Valid concepts do not become obsolete. That argument is just a cheap leftwing ploy.

Eminent Domain (The right of the government to take private property and convert it into public use. The Fifth Amendment provides that the government may only exercise this right if they provide just compensation to the property owners. see, e.g. Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. 458 US 419 (1982).) is entirely legal, as indicated by numerous Supreme Court rulings.

As for the gentleman's premise, using your logic, human slavery is still entirely legal and moral. Since that is not the case neither here in the states nor anywhere else, non-sequitur.

All you've said is that government has the authority to violate your property rights.

Slavery may have been legal, but it was never moral. Neither is eminent domain. You make the mistake of thinking that rights are whatever the government says they are.

Your rights in this country are what "we the people" agree that it is. Try reading the constitution, bubba. The government has clear jurisdiction on land needed for the public good. And the property owner has clear rights to receive compensation. This is the law, dude.

 

[dblack]

You want me to support my opinion with facts? I might as well ask you to support your statement that property rights shouldn't be open-ended. You can only do so by resorting to your opinion. Regardless, individuals own their own bodies, because there is no other logical choice, and private property flows from the idea of self-ownership. So if I am the sole owner of my body, it must constitute aggression for somebody to tell me how I must then use my body. Drug laws, for example, constitute aggression against an individual's property right in themselves.

Yes, when having a discussion, it is, in fact, useful to present facts to support a claim. And yes, even opinions should, when possible, be supported by the facts. You didn't know this? Huh. My statement was that property rights are not open-ended, as demonstrated by the legal concept of eminent domain. Ever hear of it?

Hmmmm . . . wrong. Eminent Domain is a violation of your rights. Whoever said there was anything valid about it? Legal concepts are one thing. RIghts are another.

As to your absurd argument that if someone tells you what to do with your body they are committing an act of aggression, do you consider it an act of aggression when your doctor tells you to lose weight?

Since he didn't make that claim, you're just knocking down a straw man.

The entire premise of your argument comes down to your suggestion that a person's body is considered to be property. Sorry, that 19th century concept just doesn't hold water in the 21st century. Try again.

Most concepts of rights come from the 18th century, so they must be all wrong, eh? Does the First Amendment hold water in the 21st century? Valid concepts do not become obsolete. That argument is just a cheap leftwing ploy.

Eminent Domain (The right of the government to take private property and convert it into public use. The Fifth Amendment provides that the government may only exercise this right if they provide just compensation to the property owners. see, e.g. Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. 458 US 419 (1982).) is entirely legal, as indicated by numerous Supreme Court rulings.

As for the gentleman's premise, using your logic, human slavery is still entirely legal and moral. Since that is not the case neither here in the states nor anywhere else, non-sequitur.

All you've said is that government has the authority to violate your property rights.

Slavery may have been legal, but it was never moral. Neither is eminent domain. You make the mistake of thinking that rights are whatever the government says they are.

Your rights in this country are what "we the people" agree that it is. Try reading the constitution, bubba. The government has clear jurisdiction on land needed for the public good. And the property owner has clear rights to receive compensation. This is the law, dude.

OBEY!!!!

 

[kaz]

Of course they are. That you think of property rights in only narrow terms doesn't change the fact.

That you consider a human body to be property doesn't change the fact that it is not.

The fact is your body is your property. If it isn't, then the concept of property is nonsensical.

Property can be bought and sold. The human body cannot legally or ethically be bought and sold, and thus is not property. You 19th centurions really should get up to speed; Clue - this is the 21st century.

Of course it is. Do you not work for a living? Are you not then selling your labor, an extension of the property right in your own body?

I don't know on what planet you live, but on this one, that isn't how it works.

That in your world your body belongs to government neither means that's right or we need to accept it

 

[orogenicman]

That you consider a human body to be property doesn't change the fact that it is not.

The fact is your body is your property. If it isn't, then the concept of property is nonsensical.

Property can be bought and sold. The human body cannot legally or ethically be bought and sold, and thus is not property. You 19th centurions really should get up to speed; Clue - this is the 21st century.

Of course it is. Do you not work for a living? Are you not then selling your labor, an extension of the property right in your own body?

I don't know on what planet you live, but on this one, that isn't how it works.

That in your world your body belongs to government neither means that's right or we need to accept it

Since that is not what I said, non-sequitur.

 

[kaz]

The fact is your body is your property. If it isn't, then the concept of property is nonsensical.

Property can be bought and sold. The human body cannot legally or ethically be bought and sold, and thus is not property. You 19th centurions really should get up to speed; Clue - this is the 21st century.

Of course it is. Do you not work for a living? Are you not then selling your labor, an extension of the property right in your own body?

I don't know on what planet you live, but on this one, that isn't how it works.

That in your world your body belongs to government neither means that's right or we need to accept it

Since that is not what I said, non-sequitur.

So if your body does not belong to you, who do you think it belongs to?

 

[Bfgrn]

DOGMA ????????

dog·ma
a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted

if there is any group in that category it has got to be the libercrats who unquestionably believe every word that flows from the mouth of Obola, a muslime mulatto who wants the entire citizenry of America infected with the Ebola virus, why else is he allowing the infected vermin into our country ?

AND.., liberfools, don't tell me he has no authority to stop it, if he can make up an EO to legalize illegals he can do the EO to stop any person from these infected countries from coming here !!

In one short post, behold the child like brain of the right...

 

[Bfgrn]

Actually it was much more personal...I was talking about you...

Actually, you just quoted Noam Chomsky. You weren't talking about anybody.

No, I quoted David Korten, and you merely quoted reactionary crap from the Austrian school of mass destruction.

So you admit to having said nothing, and merely copy and pasting something completely irrelevant.

I see that when confronted with facts, you are unable to do anything but punt. Ironic that your reply is to a post that is 100% my writing.

I will REPEAT it for you...

Thank you Kevin. Your reply has exposed who and what you really are. You are not for liberty or freedom, you are for creating the ultimate tyranny of robber barons. Here is where your true far right wing corporatism reveals itself. And your idea of freedom is to create a iron fisted hierarchy to rule over the masses. With stated SEVERE punishment for any lowly worker who doesn't submit to total submission. Pining for and embracing of the LEAST free eras in American history, the Gilded Age. Worker freedom to strike is criminalized, yet monopolies would be welcomed.

You are beyond ignorant. You have ZERO understanding of human nature, power and how it manifests. You support the exact same tyranny that these far right wing pea brains support...

Kevin Kennedy and cohorts...

When you actually post something of substance I'll respond to it. "You're evil and want to turn people into serfs" doesn't make the cut. Perhaps you should stick to copying and pasting what others have to say.

In the context of the thread title, you have proven beyond doubt that your ideas are pure dogma.

Tell me Kevin, how does your corporate run, no government utopia deal with crime? Are there laws? Are there police?? Are there courts???

How does your utopia address pollution? Are there any standards? Are there any rules?

I could go on for years confronting you with questions that you haven't even spent a second ACTUALLY contemplating.

The framework of any civilized society has to have basic human rights protections, rules and consequences for breaking those rules.

Let's hear it Kevin?

 

[bripat9643]

Actually, you just quoted Noam Chomsky. You weren't talking about anybody.

No, I quoted David Korten, and you merely quoted reactionary crap from the Austrian school of mass destruction.

So you admit to having said nothing, and merely copy and pasting something completely irrelevant.

I see that when confronted with facts, you are unable to do anything but punt. Ironic that your reply is to a post that is 100% my writing.

I will REPEAT it for you...

Thank you Kevin. Your reply has exposed who and what you really are. You are not for liberty or freedom, you are for creating the ultimate tyranny of robber barons. Here is where your true far right wing corporatism reveals itself. And your idea of freedom is to create a iron fisted hierarchy to rule over the masses. With stated SEVERE punishment for any lowly worker who doesn't submit to total submission. Pining for and embracing of the LEAST free eras in American history, the Gilded Age. Worker freedom to strike is criminalized, yet monopolies would be welcomed.

You are beyond ignorant. You have ZERO understanding of human nature, power and how it manifests. You support the exact same tyranny that these far right wing pea brains support...

Kevin Kennedy and cohorts...

When you actually post something of substance I'll respond to it. "You're evil and want to turn people into serfs" doesn't make the cut. Perhaps you should stick to copying and pasting what others have to say.

In the context of the thread title, you have proven beyond doubt that your ideas are pure dogma.

Tell me Kevin, how does your corporate run, no government utopia deal with crime? Are there laws? Are there police?? Are there courts???

How does your utopia address pollution? Are there any standards? Are there any rules?

I could go on for years confronting you with questions that you haven't even spent a second ACTUALLY contemplating.

The framework of any civilized society has to have basic human rights protections, rules and consequences for breaking those rules.

Let's hear it Kevin?

You'll find the answers to all your questions here:

The Idea of a Private Law Society - Hans-Hermann Hoppe - Mises Daily

You'll discover that people have thought out theses issues quite thoroughly.

 

[bripat9643]

Of course they are. That you think of property rights in only narrow terms doesn't change the fact.

That you consider a human body to be property doesn't change the fact that it is not.

The fact is your body is your property. If it isn't, then the concept of property is nonsensical.

Property can be bought and sold. The human body cannot legally or ethically be bought and sold, and thus is not property. You 19th centurions really should get up to speed; Clue - this is the 21st century.

Of course it is. Do you not work for a living? Are you not then selling your labor, an extension of the property right in your own body?

I don't know on what planet you live, but on this one, that isn't how it works.

wrong. That's exactly how it works on this planet.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Of course they are. That you think of property rights in only narrow terms doesn't change the fact.

That you consider a human body to be property doesn't change the fact that it is not.

The fact is your body is your property. If it isn't, then the concept of property is nonsensical.

Property can be bought and sold. The human body cannot legally or ethically be bought and sold, and thus is not property. You 19th centurions really should get up to speed; Clue - this is the 21st century.

Of course it is. Do you not work for a living? Are you not then selling your labor, an extension of the property right in your own body?

I don't know on what planet you live, but on this one, that isn't how it works.

So you have nothing of substance to add to the discussion, in other words.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Property can be bought and sold. The human body cannot legally or ethically be bought and sold, and thus is not property. You 19th centurions really should get up to speed; Clue - this is the 21st century.

Of course it is. Do you not work for a living? Are you not then selling your labor, an extension of the property right in your own body?

I don't know on what planet you live, but on this one, that isn't how it works.

That in your world your body belongs to government neither means that's right or we need to accept it

Since that is not what I said, non-sequitur.

So if your body does not belong to you, who do you think it belongs to?

Well I wouldn't hold your breath waiting on any actual answer.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Actually, you just quoted Noam Chomsky. You weren't talking about anybody.

No, I quoted David Korten, and you merely quoted reactionary crap from the Austrian school of mass destruction.

So you admit to having said nothing, and merely copy and pasting something completely irrelevant.

I see that when confronted with facts, you are unable to do anything but punt. Ironic that your reply is to a post that is 100% my writing.

I will REPEAT it for you...

Thank you Kevin. Your reply has exposed who and what you really are. You are not for liberty or freedom, you are for creating the ultimate tyranny of robber barons. Here is where your true far right wing corporatism reveals itself. And your idea of freedom is to create a iron fisted hierarchy to rule over the masses. With stated SEVERE punishment for any lowly worker who doesn't submit to total submission. Pining for and embracing of the LEAST free eras in American history, the Gilded Age. Worker freedom to strike is criminalized, yet monopolies would be welcomed.

You are beyond ignorant. You have ZERO understanding of human nature, power and how it manifests. You support the exact same tyranny that these far right wing pea brains support...

Kevin Kennedy and cohorts...

When you actually post something of substance I'll respond to it. "You're evil and want to turn people into serfs" doesn't make the cut. Perhaps you should stick to copying and pasting what others have to say.

In the context of the thread title, you have proven beyond doubt that your ideas are pure dogma.

Tell me Kevin, how does your corporate run, no government utopia deal with crime? Are there laws? Are there police?? Are there courts???

How does your utopia address pollution? Are there any standards? Are there any rules?

I could go on for years confronting you with questions that you haven't even spent a second ACTUALLY contemplating.

The framework of any civilized society has to have basic human rights protections, rules and consequences for breaking those rules.

Let's hear it Kevin?

I haven't spent a second contemplating any of these ideas, huh? Proof? No. It's unwise to state what other people have or have not done, when you have no idea.

The truth is that I've discussed these ideas on this very board, probably many times over now. For starters, nobody is claiming any kind of utopia, merely a private property society where there is no centralized agency given a monopoly on the use of violence, aka the state. That doesn't mean all problems suddenly disappear, but you knew that. Buzzwords like utopia aren't meant to be logical, are they?

Secondly, it's not "corporate run," whatever that means. What you have now is collusion between the state and corporations, and it's naive to think that you can ever change that without abolishing the state. So long as there is an organization with a monopoly on the use of violence there will be corruption and corporatism to go along with it. In the free market, however, the consumer is king. If their wants aren't satisfied then they take their money elsewhere.

As for pollution, private property rights would be far more stringent in regulating pollution than the licenses to pollute and exceptions and so on and so forth that exist under the state. Simply put, if you're pollution affects my property you no longer have the right to continue producing pollution. That means air, land, water, etc...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

That you consider a human body to be property doesn't change the fact that it is not.

The fact is your body is your property. If it isn't, then the concept of property is nonsensical.

Property can be bought and sold. The human body cannot legally or ethically be bought and sold, and thus is not property. You 19th centurions really should get up to speed; Clue - this is the 21st century.

Of course it is. Do you not work for a living? Are you not then selling your labor, an extension of the property right in your own body?

I don't know on what planet you live, but on this one, that isn't how it works.

wrong. That's exactly how it works on this planet.

Considering he seems to be unable to articulate how it runs, at least in his opinion, I'm forced to conclude he doesn't really know.