Serving the Poor: The Christian Virtue of Charity

Jack V Savage said:
I am focused. In this case, focused on your attempted distraction. Property rights are zero-sum so of course people want their own protected. They want the whole system--property protection, along with regulations to protect workers, the environment, and consumers, along with public education, public roads, parks, a safety net, etc. What you're proposing is essentially turning most of the population into serfs or slaves, and few want that (at the very least not for themselves--might be some sickos who want it for everyone else).
Click to expand...

Well we can get into the details of what's profitable, but I'd like to just point out your odd ball claim that government is required for a ubiquitous recognition of property. Why do animals bother staking out territory if that provides no advantage without its recognition?
 
Thycidides said:
You're not using the term property rights the same way I am. To be honest id be better off without property rights existing, as I pay more in rent each month than I get from private contracts being enforced and so on.

I'd be kind of screwed of there was no income tax or social security etc though.
Click to expand...

You still have property within the space you're protecting. And that property is protected by renters insurance more than it is by police. Call up each after your place has been broken into and see what each of them will do for you.
 
Greoric said:
Well we can get into the details of what's profitable, but I'd like to just point out your odd ball claim that government is required for a ubiquitous recognition of property. Why do animals bother staking out territory if that provides no advantage with its recognition?
Click to expand...

It's not an oddball claim. It's a historical fact and a logical necessity. Animals don't have patents or rent, and they don't will territory to heirs. If you're proposing that people get whatever property they can personally defend it for such time that they can defend it, then I'd agree that you are making consistent claims (in support of a bad, but not authoritarian, system).

Anyway, if we all agree that property rights are good (and I think we do), why does it need force behind it? Can't we just trust renters to give money to their landlords out of appreciation, companies to respect patents because it's the right thing to do, etc.?
 
Jack V Savage said:
It's not an oddball claim. It's a historical fact and a logical necessity. Animals don't have patents or rent, and they don't will territory to heirs.
Click to expand...

They don't have to. Your claim is that no property or its recognition exists without government. That's incorrect, and verifiably stupid even with anecdotes.
 
Last edited:
Greoric said:
They don't have to. Your claim is that no property or its recognition exists without government. That's incorrect, and verifiably stupid even by anecdotes.
Click to expand...

You're conflating territory with property, actually. So your pivot to personal attacks kind of blew up in your face.
 
Greoric said:
You still have property within the space you're protecting. And that property is protected by renters insurance more than it is by police. Call up each after your place has been broken into and see what each of them will do for you.
Click to expand...

I don't really have anything worth taking to be honest. My assets are in the bank, and the federal government protects it for me. Before FDR and the new deal, banks were a lot less secure places to store cash.

Like I said the banking sector needs a strong state to function well. Where are you getting your ideas from? I suggest you read the Economist and have a look at Capital In the 21st century.
 
Last edited:
Thycidides said:
I don't really have anything worth taking to be honest. My assets are in the bank.
Click to expand...

OK, that's still your property wouldn't you agree? Afterall you used "my". Who does more for you if someone makes fraudulent charges with your card? The police or the bank?
 
Greoric said:
Its no personal attack to say a stupid claim is a stupid claim.
Click to expand...

What about an indisputably accurate one--that property (a legal idea) is created by gov'ts?

Anyway, I know your pattern. When the discussion gets over your head, you ditch the arguments to make childish personal attacks.
 
Jack V Savage said:
What about an indisputably accurate one--that property (a legal idea) is created by gov'ts?

Anyway, I know your pattern. When the discussion gets over your head, you ditch the arguments to make childish personal attacks.
Click to expand...

You mean the indisputably accurate claim that's wrong by showing an anecdote? Ever not had the government around for a hundred miles? Amazing how everyone around you knows not to take all your stuff and rape your asshole huh?
 
Greoric said:
You mean the indisputably accurate claim that's wrong by showing an anecdote? Ever not had the government around for a hundred miles? Amazing how everyone around you knows not to take all your stuff and rape your asshole huh?
Click to expand...
Dude, why can't you just explain how property can exist without a government?

You do this shit all the time. You make arguments and when pushed you just get mad. It's tough to read these exchanges (and they'd be interesting if you made an attempt at substance).
 
Greoric said:
OK, that's still your property wouldn't you agree? Afterall you used "my". Who does more for you if someone makes fraudulent charges with your card? The police or the bank?
Click to expand...

Which police do you mean? The police that make sure the bank isn't ripping me off and can even exist or the police that will evict me if I don't pay rent and follow my contract with the landlord?

the only reason I have assets in the bank is because social security is a pittance and I want top be able to retire when I'm 60 and medicare doesn't kick in until 65.

Also id rather pay taxes and get medicare than rely on some private foundation for healthcare. Private healthcare tends to suck compared to public systems.
 
Last edited:
Fee fie foo fum, I smell a dump someone took in my thread.

@Greoric taxes are not theft. Take a dollar out of your pocket. It says "Legal Tender of the United States," not "Natural Law Property of @Greoric."

Kind of like this thread. Even though I started it, it is not my property, as is illustrated by your ability to scat your libertarianism all over the place. This thread is property of Sherdog because they create and maintain the platform itself.

Also, feel free to start your own threads for your political fantasies, so I can elect not to read them.
 
Last edited:
Greoric said:
Is it? Police agencies take more money than thieves do through CAF alone. Thats's not including any tax or any other means the government uses to extort you out of your money (and property).

If government creates property, why don't we require a ubiquitous presence of government to make sure people recognize something isn't theirs?
Click to expand...

The consequences for stealing property are determined and enforced by the government. Everyone is aware of this, so you could say there is a ubiquitous presence of government, at least in peoples minds.

Ever been to a party without a cop accompanying everyone there? How do people know if a drink is theirs or not? How do people know if a seat is occupied without government to tell them its reserved?
Click to expand...

It really depends on what people are around you and the risk/reward for the individual. Someone who is somewhat satisfied with their life simply may not be interested in stealing from you, or they may feel they stand to lose a a lot if they are caught.. so the law deters them. For people who have little to lose and are unsatisfied with what they have, the reward for stealing may outweigh the risk and so they steal.... which happens all the time.

But land is unique. Since you can't pick it up and run away with it, it cant actually be stolen, it can only be occupied. This makes it very easy for a strong government to enforce land/home property rights. Its highly unlikely that a few criminals could permanently occupy someones home because at some point they'd have to successfully fight off government/law enforcement to hold it. Therefore nobody does it... in other words the presence of government in peoples minds is enough to deter.
 
Last edited:
headkicktoleg said:
Doesn't Bill Gates the wealthiest man in the world spend most of his time and money to help with poverty?
Click to expand...

First thing that came to my mind.

I could have sworn I remember reading that he had pledged to donate 99% of his wealth. That was like 10 years ago. But on every Wealthiest in the World list he's still at the very top.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,680
Messages
55,434,189
Members
174,775
Latest member
kilgorevontrouty

Share this page

Back
Top