Topic: What do you believe is moral? - page 16. (Read 17785 times)

Wrong.\/\/\/\/

I'm not worried about your time -- you got it, your reply proves it.  You simply ain't got what you so eloquently called "intellectual honesty" -- you still can't commit yourself to a straight answer.   Red swan.  Black herring.

First of all this is a red herring, it in no way disproves or even addresses anything in the comment it is intended to be a reply to.

Second, i totally agree with what you have written here yet you just assume that i dont.

wait the failure isnt even done yet, its worse than that still, it would be bad enough if you just assumed this without any information but i have already given you information that indicates that i would agree with this premise.

This is not just one failure, its not even two failures, what we are dealing with here is three failures layered on top of each other. Its madness.

you arnt talking with me, you are talking at me. i dont have time for that shit.

TL;DR: "Nobody built the land, thus nobody owns it or has the right to charge rent for it.  Tenant farmers owe their landlords nothing but the pointy ends of their pitchforks."
FTFY.

he was jumping all over the place before and all i asked was that we settle on one premise for me to defend and stay focused with a discussion that was intended to resolve questions relating to that one premise alone. if he had chosen that one and made it clear that this was the premise he was interested in discussing than i would have been perfectly willing to discuss it. instead he chose to make demands of me for which he lacked the leverage necessary to motivate my compliance.

the problem with discussions with statists is they lack focus and fly all over the place starting new unrelated discussions supposedly as a response to previous discussions. this causes the discussion to branch out exponentially into in finate trees never leading to the settling of any one point. i think the technical term is red-herring. i must admit my own guilt, im bad at getting suckered into following red herring arguments, i should have better self control. all i wanted was to bring the discussion back into focus, where i could attempt this time to be diligent in not letting myself become side tracked.

anyway if memory serves i did address this. i said something to the effect of, yes people are forced to pay rent, yes this is shitty. the thing is that there is a cost associated with living. people need shelter and someone needs to build that shelter, and inorder to have a reasonable expectation that people will build shelters those people who build shelters need to have some reasonable expectation that they will be compensated for their effort. so the effect of being forced to pay rent is the effect of a cost that is that imposed on people by proxy and originating in nature. the person who builds a house is using force to keep others out, but its justified because HE built the house. the state on the other hand did not build the earth it claims jurisdiction over. Their-for in contrast to a cost that is imposed on us by the laws of physics taxation is a cost that is imposed on us by the whims of man and not as a proxy for some natural and unavoidable cost. This is how rent and taxation are different.

now i should add as a caveat that there are MANY cases in practice in the word today where the relationship between a renter and land lord is much more akin to taxation than the idealized, over-simplified, example i provided above.

i have no need to talk to you. you have nothing to offer me. when i speak to you it is out of charity. therefor you have no leverage with which to dictate any terms to me. i hereby redact my offer for further discussion.

Sure, but before you dictate the conditions of our debate, i'd like an apology for your groundless accusation of "intellectual dishonesty," and an appropriate expression of gratitude for lessons you have received in American English & US law.
Once that's behind us, we could discuss a), b), and even c), if that's what you'd like

ok i want to try one more time with you friend but i have conditions. this is not working the way its going. we have to do a 180. you cant just wander around aimlessly. you cant reply to things i dont say. you have to pick a premise stay focused and organized, make sure every comment you make is directed SPECIFICALLY at supporting that premise BEFORE we move on to ANY new premises.

Remember in debate he who loses is the true winner, because he who loses is the one with the opportunity to improve himself by changing something about himself.

ok we need to start over and this needs to be organized. pick a premise that you would like to prove. i will tell you if i a) if i do not support it and b) if i am interested in the prospect of disproving it. if both conditions are met than we may proceed forward in an orderly fashion.

Let us reflect on "intellectual honesty."
About HERE you make a rather intellectual claim: The government takes your money at the point of a gun. On this you predicate your second intellectually honest claim -- "word theft ... [apparently] excludes individuals with very fine hats" (to exclude taxation from being caught in an overly-inclusive definition).

Ever eager to spread knowledge & hinder injustice, i've invited you to ponder my country of residence -- US of A.  Here, financial crime is dealt with by providing the criminal with free room & board in a secure gated community.  *Not* messy.

To help with your "fancy hats" conundrum, i've suggested the word "robbery," not "theft" is more appropriate in cases where force is involved, assuming that your appeal to "fancy hats" was rooted in ignorance of American English.  Not a native speaker myself, i have a soft spot for others who struggle with this language.

My thanks?  Surly accusations of "intellectual dishonesty"

What theft?

So are you saying that only tax payers (people robbed by the government) should use government services and roads?

And are you ok with theft?

i am lazy in some ways, very lazy in some ways, but the last thing i am in the world is lazy in my thought. hell i exhaust myself by thinking about so many things non stop all day. that and my intellectual honesty are basically all i have going for me because i'll be the first to admit that im not very intelligent.

i think this comment is pretty ironic also, you say tl:dr then accuse me of being lazy.

anyway im glad you are deciding to bring this to an end. i dont mind having conversations with people, even people who are relatively clueless but i cant standing talking to people who are not intellectually honest.

"with something that is not only completely ironious but assumes that i hold the exact opposite position of the position that was expresses in the comment it is supposedly a response to."

Oh, the erony.  TL;DR: you're too lazy to think.

Technically it DOES OWN EVERYTHING, and your ownership rights are just an overlay. Like an Administrator vs Guest permissions.

You own some patch of land only under agreement of you paying the state now and then, otherwise agreement is broken and you own nothing.

Only problem is - you were forced to sign that agreement the day you were born. Like a slave/battery in a matrix movie. We're all born slaves to our governments.

I think we have discussed this before. If you own an island, you can sell it, or you can charge rent (tax). With our current situation, you owning that island, or some property, for some reason doesn't change the fact that a state claims ownership to it, too.  Kinda like in Soviet Union the state owned everything, here in democratic societies the state seems to be claiming that it owns everything as well. Basically, even if I buy property from someone else who used to own that property, I give them money or something else in exchange for it, and they agree to give me all rights to this land, for some reason the state butts in and says "I own this too!" So what the hell is the point of buying land if the state owns it? And where does the state get the power to just decide to own land that it technically doesn't?

seriously how can you expect me to take you seriously when you respond to my statement "yes most "landlords" claims to they land they lord over are suspect at best but so what? that isnt any sort of argument against anything i said." with something that is not only completely irrelevant but assumes that i hold the exact opposite position of the position that was expresses in the comment it is supposedly a response to. We are dealing with multiple abstractions of fail layered on top of one another.

Sorry but im feeling way to lazy to dismantle this. especially when i know that you will completely miss the point of my response to this, just how this completely misses the point of what its supposedly responding too.

go find someone else to play your intellectually dishonest games with.

If you feel that a landlord leasing his land (his property) to a tenant farmer deserves to be payed just like the landlord who leases you his house (his property) deserves to be paid, your attempt to differentiate rent from taxation ("if you build a house ... you should get to decide who lives in that house.") fails.  If you feel that private property is a form of violence, you may be on the right track, though if that's the case, you should own it.


ORLY?  That's a wonderful way of seeing it, "discovered by frontiersmen."  Since subtleties tend to elude you, i'll spell it out: The frontiersmen did not "discover" anything.  No more so than my walking into your house & exclaiming "Whoa, check this shit out!  I discovered me a house! I dub it Crumbelia and lay claim to this dump!"  Of course, if you feel such discoveries are valid, feel free to PM your address & i'll send my "frontiersmen" right over


Don't worry so much about me & my God.  Simply answer the questions:

1. "So, according to your logic, tenant farmers, who rent land & farm it, don't need to pay rent?"  Answer: (Yes/No/Never thought about it/don't know)_________.

2. "If you feel the rent is too steep or otherwise unfair, the free market rules still apply:  GTFO & try your luck elsewhere."  Apparently, you don't see it that way.  Why?  Your answer: _____________________.

Fill in the blanks. ^^^^^

Wow. That's not what anyone implied.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nv9IvCpiHxA

yes most "landlords" claims to they land they lord over are suspect at best but so what? that isnt any sort of argument against anything i said.

your comment is so wacky i dont even know how to begin to dissect the absurdity of it. the state didnt turn that wilderness into shining win. the people who turned the wilderness into shining win turned the wilderness into shining win. the people who physically cut down the trees and built buildings and dug in the ground for iron and melted it down were not acting in a capacity as agents of the state except in extraordinary circumstances. The state may have marched an army across the continent but that's hardly "discovering" the continent, they maybe discovered the areas to the immediate left and right of the roads they happened to be traveling on, the rest was discovered by frontiersmen.

god help you friend, i think you are propagandized to the point of being beyond my help so that may be your last hope.