Are they willing to let the world burn?

you are aware that your claim is false.

 

no

no

by having your arguments demolished? lol, ok.

you are fully aware that this is false.

 

Correct.

Incorrect, and you know it. If I own your right to breathe, I effectively own you.

<yawn> Everyone reading this knows that owning someone's right to breathe is equivalent to owning them, including you.

No, I just proved to you that it is true, and you can't dispute it. You can deny it, just as you can deny that 2+2=4, but you can't dispute it because that would require you to offer some contrary facts or logic, which you can't.

 

You are aware that I have proved to you that it is true, and so is everyone else reading this.

 

No. We can't get to more substantive content until you can find a willingness to grasp the basic concept that owning someone's rights is equivalent to owning their rights, whether it is their right to eat, to drink, to breathe, to keep the fruits of their labor, or to use what nature provided to survive.

 

Yeah, rahl does not seem merely innocently confused.

 

Of course not. None of them do. It's a conscious, deliberate choice to serve evil, to prefer evil to good, to want evil to win and good to lose. That's the genius of systematic, institutionalized evil: first it makes its victims participate in it in self-defense; then it makes them dependent on it; finally, it recruits them as its loudest defenders.

 

you georgists are so funny, lol. Your premise has been completely destroyed, and you along with everyone else reading knows this.

 

the problem is you do not, nor have you ever had a right to property that I own. If you want it, you will have to make an offer to purchase it. If I reject your offer you can go pound sand.

 

I'm not confused at all. It's why I'm able to point out that comparing owning a land parcel to owning a human being or retarded.

 

If that claim were true, slaves could never rightly have been emancipated. Therefore, we know your claim is false.

You think because property is legal, it is rightful. Chattel slavery proved that hypothesis false. I'm not sure there is any clearer or simpler way to explain that fact to you.

 

Of course not. Mere confusion could never produce such disingenuous, evil filth as what you post.

No, you claim that, but I have proved it false numerous times and in numerous different, independently conclusive ways. Why can't you ever remember that I have already proved many times that your evil, fallacious, and disingenuous garbage is evil, fallacious, and disingenuous garbage?

You know I have already proved to you many times that even though a human being is very different from the earth's atmosphere, owning the earth's atmosphere would be equivalent to owning all the human beings who need to breathe the atmosphere to live.

You know I have already proved to you many times that even though a human being is very different from a spring in the desert, owning the spring would be equivalent to owning a human being who needs to drink from the spring to survive.

You know I have already proved to you many times that even though a human being is very different from an island in the ocean, Crusoe owning the island, and giving Friday the option of either working as his slave or getting back in the water, would be equivalent to Crusoe owning Friday.

You know I have already proved to you many times that even though food is very different from a human being, owning someone's right to eat food would be not only comparable, not only similar, but equivalent to owning that person.

And you know that I have already proved to you many times that dividing up a person's rights among many owners does not alter the fact that their rights are owned by others, just as a slave's rights are. If one person owns my right to eat potatoes, and another owns my right to eat wheat, and another owns my right to eat apples, and another owns my right to drink milk, and so on, so that there is no life-sustaining type of food I have a right to consume, then I must offer myself as a slave to one or more of the owners of my rights to sustain myself, or starve to death.

As everyone must use land to exist just as they must eat to exist, you know this proves that even though a land parcel is very different from a human being, owning a land parcel is not only comparable to, not only similar to, but equivalent to owning human beings, as I have already proved to you by indisputable historical fact:

"During the war I served in a Kentucky regiment in the Federal army. When the war
broke out, my father owned sixty slaves. I had not been back to my old Kentucky
home for years until a short time ago, when I was met by one of my father's old
negroes, who said to me: 'Master George, you say you set us free; but before God,
I'm worse off than when I belonged to your father.' The planters, on the other hand, are contented
with the change. They say, ' How foolish it was in us to go to war for slavery. We get labor cheaper
now than when we owned the slaves.' How do they get it cheaper? Why, in the shape of rents
they take more of the labor of the negro than they could under slavery, for then they were
compelled to return him sufficient food, clothing and medical attendance to keep him well, and were
compelled by conscience and public opinion, as well as by law, to keep him when he
could no longer work. Now their interest and responsibility cease when they have
got all the work out of him they can."
From a letter by George M. Jackson, St. Louis. Dated August 15, 1885.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND, RAHL??? A man who ACTUALLY WAS A SLAVE JUST TOLD YOU THAT OWNING LAND IS THE SAME AS OR EVEN WORSE THAN OWNING SLAVES.

GET IT???

 

Can you even identify the premise you incorrectly claim has been destroyed...?

More accurately -- much more accurately -- you along with everyone else reading this knows that even though the earth's atmosphere is in no way comparable to a human being, owning the earth's atmosphere would be not only comparable, not only similar, but equivalent to owning all the human beings who have no choice but to breathe the atmosphere to survive.

You know this, and pretending to be retarded in order to evade the self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality that you know prove your beliefs are false and evil is despicable.

 

I have no idea why you keep bringing up slavery. Nobody is talking about owning a human being. I’m correctly pointing out that you do not, nor have you ever had a right to property that I own.

 

It does not matter how many times you insist on being wrong. Comparing owning a human to owning a land parcel is moronic, silly and retarded.

you georgists do make me laugh though.

 

Ignoring the incaccurate "georgist" label...do we make you laugh, rahl? Do we?

 

nothing was inaccurate. you georgists definitely make people laugh.

 

Keep telling yourself that, rahl. Keep telling yourself.

 

nah, I'll just keep telling you.

 

No. You are telling yourself; you have to, because you have to contrive some way to avoid knowing the fact that your beliefs have been proved false and evil. You know that your fallacious and disingenuous garbage is evil, and that you have taken the side of evil against good. You actually prefer evil to good, and want evil to win and good to lose, because you consider that to be in your own narrow financial interest. The terrible irony is that unless you are one of the top few percent of rich, greedy, privileged parasites, it probably isn't.

 

It is the inherent flaw in their marketing. I cannot find one of the elite mouthpieces who actually practices the prescriptions they would saddle everyone else with. When you see say Bill Gates winging around the world on his G6, or Leo hanging out on Larry's yacht, these aren't efforts at minimizing their footprint. They simply don't think it's any of your business, and what they demand of you is service not your opinions of their luxury...

 

Nothing I wrote was wrong, which is why you have never been able to offer any factual or logical argument against any of it , and never will.

Pretending to be retarded in order to prevent yourself from knowing the fact that owning other people's rights is owning other people's rights, no matter what legal form that ownership takes, is fallacious, disingenuous, and despicable.

You haven't laughed at a single post we have written, and you know it. That is why you have no choice but to repeat your fallacious, disingenuous and despicable tripe.

 

Yes, of course you do. You know I bring it up because it proves your claim that property is always rightful is incorrect. It proves your claim that no one ever has a right to take anyone else's property is just flat, outright false as a matter of objective, physical fact.

I am, because it proves your claim that you rightly own other people's rights to liberty is factually incorrect.

But as you know, that is not correct. I have an absolute right to take from you any property you may think you own that consists of my rights.

 

It seems you have created quite the little straw man here. First, you double down on the mentality that owning slaves is actually preferable to being free because you conflate uncompetitiveness against natural rights. In your description, the slave probably was never allowed to become educated, but surely, after being educated, and hence more competitive, these laments faded, didn't they. Which, again, is why folks like you formed organizations like the KKK because you couldn't stand folks becoming competitive with you. And you simply then retreat to the fundamental immoral ground that then allows you to then "own" others for their own good, because you believe in your own moral certitude and generosity. The fact that you cannot differentiate what you're currently arguing with what slave owners did in the 1850s seems remarkable here.

 

No. That is false.

No. That is a strawman fallacy.

No. It has nothing to do with competitiveness. Requiring people to pay landowners full market value just for permission to work, shop, and even exist is self-evidently and indisputably an abrogation of their natural rights. Competitiveness just means the payment has to be larger.

No, they did not. Education made very little difference to the condition of the landless worker in America -- black or white -- just as it had made little difference to the slave-like condition of the landless worker in Europe. See "The Abyss" by Jack London for proof.

That is just evil, disingenuous, and despicable filth. Then as now, racial antagonism is fanned by the privileged to divert white working people's attention from the fact that their disadvantaged condition is caused by privileged whites, not competition from racial minorities.

You seem to have become confused. I am the one who opposes ownership of others' rights to liberty. Remember?

No, what is remarkable is your refusal to know the fact that a man who ACTUALLY WAS A SLAVE just told you that I am right about how landowning is equivalent to slavery, and you are wrong.