try to take over an animals land on which he sleeps with his family and you wont find natural law so silly but rather the origin of todays private property regime.
absurd of course animals share or trade meat routinely thus respecting other's rights to individual property, Got you yet gain.
so people who happily sell or rent property rather than own it are as misinformed as those who had bubonic plague. I'll bet you $10,000 you are the only human being on earth insane enough to believe that. What does that teach you about liberalism?
Once I bought it and ate it they obviously lost the liberty to buy it and eat it once I buy, rent, lease from govt, or steal land by force they similarly lose their liberty to use the land. Identical situations!! Sorry to rock your world. How embarrassed do you feel about your liberal scheme now? Did you know that liberals have 10001 schemes to deliver health care? Yep, every scheme imaginable except Republican capitalism.
Global Debt Hits Record $233 Trillion https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ecord-233-trillion-but-debt-to-gdp-is-falling
If push really came to shove, I don't think anyone would defend this system. 130 million smart phones or what have you, would you take a bayonet to the stomach for this system?
Equivocation. I said, a person owning a piece of land doesn't harm anyone else's body or property by owning this land, therefore there is no need for compensating anyone. You then move the goalpost to "it harms everyone's interests".
If forcible animal possession had been the basis of property in land, in would have existed since time immemorial instead of just a few thousand years in settled societies.
You either mean that they can't rightly be owned, in which case land is in the same category, or you mean they can't legally be owned, in which case that's just a matter of law in a particular time and place, and can be changed. Go back several thousand years, and everyone agreed that people could be owned but land could not. Now the law says land can be owned but people cannot. But neither is more rightful than the other, as both involve forcibly removing people's rights to make them into someone else's property. People most certainly can be owned if their ownership is recognized in law, as ownership of land is, and so could all the rest. And all of them equally rightly (i.e., wrongly).
animal possession of land on which to sleep was not forcible it was more voluntary. Probably the basic concept was first come first serve. You knew if someone had it it would require force to obtain it. Either way it hardly matters since any system requires common law or govt violence to enforce private property rights.
you mean private land for a few thousand years and the equivalent thereof for a few thousand before that and for 1 million years among our animal ancestors.
logically yes if the alternative was socialism which has already killed 120 million after starving them.
so owning a man and owning a piece of land are equal?Since you are the only one in entire world to believe that it makes you one insane liberal dude I'd say. Just saying.
Nope. First, that's again just factually false: by owning land they may well starve other people to death, as landowners have routinely done to the landless countless billions of times throughout history. And being forcibly starved to death by the landowner is certainly a harm to the starvee's body committed by the landowner. Proved false above. Ah, no, that is just more despicable and disingenuous garbage from you. It was YOU who tried to move the goalposts from "harm" or "abrogation of rights" to "harm to body or property." But you failed. Forcibly stopping someone from obtaining food by his own productive efforts using the opportunities nature provided harms his body just as much as forcibly stopping him from breathing the air nature provided. But worse, you even failed on your own terms, because there are many harms that justify compensation other than harm to one's body or property. If you forcibly stop other people from dealing with me, that does no harm to my body or property, but it is an abrogation of my rights that justly requires compensation. If you tell other people lies about me so that they shun me, that does no harm to my body or property, but is an abrogation of my rights that justly requires compensation. If you follow me around, scaring away game before I can catch it, that does no harm to my body or property, but is an abrogation of my rights that justly requires compensation. Etc. You just want to be legally entitled to abrogate my rights and harm my interests without making just compensation, in order to inflict injustice upon me. That is EVIL. Your views are evil. You are trying to rationalize and justify evil. I'm not sure there is any clearer or simpler way to explain that to you.
No. As we have already agreed, when you own a man, you own all of one person's rights, while when you own land, you own one of all people's rights. You "just say" a lot of false and disingenuous things.
If it is, then you should be able to identify another alternative. Prediction: even you even attempt it, it will be some absurd and disingenuous garbage equivalent to invoking the aid of the Tooth Fairy.
you said, "But neither[owning land or slaves] is more rightful than the other." 100% of the world disagrees with this liberal. All the liberals who own land are like slave owners to him. This is very wonderful liberalism though; just like Hitler Stalin and Mao felt equally free to reinvent the world for the world's own good but really just to serve their own insanity!!
They never had that liberty, because the Snickers bar did not exist until the producer and initial owner created it. So in what you are no doubt pleased to call your "mind," stealing is identical to buying or producing....? Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that... How horrid it must be to be you. Not. Which has given Americans by far the most expensive, but far from the best, health care in the world
They are even more misinformed, because it is far harder to educate them. <yawn> When are you going to pay off all the previous $10K bets you have lost to me?
Yes, they share or trade meat. That doesn't mean they trade it if they share it. See how that works? It's called, "logic." You could look it up. That has never been observed. Meaning that you made a false claim again.
Only when there was no attempt to exclude others. Sharing sleeping space is certainly far more common. Not an observable phenomenon. No, you knew that using it didn't mean they "had" it. Then why did private property in the products of labor antedate private property in land by millions of years?
