re: Refuting the "homesteading" theory of property

[natritious1]

I think the fact that people have such a hard time with your language, shows that they would rather argue about your mannerisms than what you are saying. many of the below comments are good example of he adhom fallacy

[SecularNumanist]

FUCK!

[zeeblezorp]

The internet leads to this. People watch the news, these sorts of videos, and imagine they are intelligent.

Then the ranting starts. Amusing.

[xXTyroneBiggumsXx]

Faggot

[dubified89]

Wow you sure are badass

[dubified89]

Some of what you say has some credibility but your ridiculous mannerisms and arrogant delivery renders it irrelevant basically. The average person who views night's video and then yours would likely automatically side w/night just cause you seem like such a bigger asshole

[thorsmitersaw]

@dubified89

if they make judgement based upon emotion and presentation and not content or argument there in then they are likely to side with the EMOTIVE world of communistic society anyway.

[12talkcrazy]

I enjoy the notion of having a debate with the self contradicting author of this video, who 's greatest accomplishment shall forever b so eloquently mixing the " f " word so many times into one big campus like monologue, however my ethics prevent me form battling wits with an unarmed person

[thorsmitersaw]

@12talkcrazy

hit and run. classy.

where is the self contradiction? 

[organdva]

I will take my labor and mix it with your body. 

[thorsmitersaw]

@organdva

oh baby. Rape theory of acquisition

[organdva]

@thorsmitersaw Ask you ancestors. They will tell you are on the right way. Only you need to put you idiocy in practice. This will be problematic. Maybe civilization will allow you to heroically conquer (homestead) some desert land like Antarctica. Wannabe capitalist looser.

[thorsmitersaw]

@organdva

learn to spell

learn some grammar

[organdva]

@thorsmitersaw uuuuuuu lol That is all you got with your knowledge of English? I would be ashamed.

[thorsmitersaw]

@organdva

I can scarcely pull any sense out of your first comment.

[TheCeltiberian]

"Fuck you, you fucking commie, mother fucking assholes! And fuck the children! It's all about ME and what the benevolent market enables me to purchase! If you're poor and have no option but to be a wage slave at my business it's because you VOLUNTARILY turned out that way and VOLUNTEERED to work for me (aka create profit for me)."

No FUCK YOU, you little rockabilly faggot.

[Doomsage680]

DUDE awesome video. great tone as well, I hate anything resembling collectivism..."I can confidently say, Fuck the Children!" YES.

The Grand and Glorious People's Union of Red Anarchist FUCKS can go jump off a bridge. Thank you. I'm tired of hearing people act like those beliefs deserve respect. You did libertarianism justice. Anarchy Agora Action!!!

[thorsmitersaw]

@Doomsage680

I am really tired of their thinly veiled politics/ethics of duty to others, of self sacrifice, of mutual enslavement.

[PersianPaladin]

Under the Lockian ownership principle; it basically means that property ownership can only be granted to those who have laboured to produce that property. This makes Lockian theory opposed to rents, investments and even corporate ownership of land AT FIRST. However, the owner can then sell on the land to investors even if the investor does not labour or intend to use it. I THINK that is the point when anarcho-syndicalists start voicing their concerns about parasticial ownership :-)

[thorsmitersaw]

@PersianPaladin

if the only legitimate property is that which we labor upon OURSELVES and we are not permitted to transfer ownership in exchange or to give up the title to it voluntarily to others, then they are effectively supporting primitivism and a complete opposition to trade.

[thorsmitersaw]

@thorsmitersaw trade of ANY sort

[PersianPaladin]

@thorsmitersaw

I understand that to be correct. However, my principle concern is that those who have laboured on the land may accept the investors' liquidity as exchange. That liquidity in turn may well just be arrived from credit via wild-cat banking companies. The issue here is the investor never laboured on the land, and is never intending to labour on the land to improve it with intellectual or physical labour (e.g. architect/engineer). Should he hold title forever and earn more profit?

[PersianPaladin]

I spoke to a buy-to-let investor recently who basically said that he didn't put any of his own money in at all. He's basically profited from strategic timing and considerable risk in terms of acquiring the right properties adjacent to land-use areas that help to increase property-investment value over time.

[scienceandliberty]

mr1001nights is slave to a victimhood mentality and extreme sense of entitlement that compels him to spend his life trying to collect what he believes others owe him.

[Prometheusforliberty]

I missed your videos sir. I really enjoyed this one.

[Nphyx]

Bahaha, thanks so much for that man. The thing that really gets me is - we libertarians are content to leave communists in peace. It's a big world out there and there are plenty of places to set up communes, co-ops, syndicates, and corporations. Why can't we all do what we think is best and let the chips fall? Why does only the communist theory justify, "you've stolen from me by doing something with this land before I got here, get the fuck out before I kill you - it's the commune's now!"

[Sepero1]

To me, we can define slavery and exploitation to be anything. So I think my problem is that, I'm for whatever system results in the greatest wealth and life of the people in a society, whether it's a state or not. And because of that, most anarchists will always define me as being pro-slavery and pro-exploitation, which is why these words are irrelevant.

[thorsmitersaw]

@Sepero1

you can not define it to be anything. Are you going down some fucking homo pomo road of ambiguity in language in order to back up this shit? failtron

[Sepero1]

@thorsmitersaw

All I'm saying is that Ancaps define it one way, and Ansocs define another. To me, the definition of these words is irrelevant. My only concern is the actual outcome.

[mrtyles]

You still don't define what "mixing your labour" means. Anyway, capitalism does not require people to "mix their labour" with property in order to own it. All it requires is that they have some legal title to it. If you are given property by somebody, you haven't mixed labour with it, and therefore according to your "libertarian" standards it shouldn't be yours.

[mrtyles]

we can use your definition of slavery as an argument against wage labor.  One cannot consent to working for someone else if they are denied any other choice. This is exactly what capitalism does. It forces people to work for others by denying them the necessities of life unless they do what one or another boss says.

[mrtyles]

if you violate other people's right to live (by denying food, water, housing etc.) then you are obliged to provide for them. you are obliged not to take things from others that are necessary for their existence, and if you do, you are supposed to give up those things. That's why Proudhon said "all property is theft."

[mrtyles]

mr1001nights never said you owe anything by virtue of your existence.

[mrtyles]

I totally agree with you thorsmitesaw. There's nothing more wrong than robbing a man of the fruits of his labour. That's exactly what is wrong with capitalism. If I work in McDonald's making hamburgers, is my boss not stealing the fruits of my labour and selling it for a profit?

[mrtyles]

@thorsmitersaw you also confuse anarcho-syndicalism, the philosophy of mr1001nights and myself, with a state-run command economy, which are two radically different philosophies.

[mrtyles]

As for your libertarian standard of property, what does this even mean? Is any property "libertarian." Is forcing people to work on your property "libertarian"? Is imposing a "work for me or be deprived" framework libertarian

[mrtyles]

I find it hard not to lose my temper by listening to this. All I can say is you have a lot to learn. Clearly calling mountain folk "crackers" and Native Americans "cavemen" demonstrates that you're a racist dipshit. But I have to grant you the fact that you did recognize that this continent was indeed stolen from the Native American "cavemen" as you call them. That includes most capitalist property.

[mrtyles]

your complaining that so much land in Yellowstone National Park is being protected? Wow you are an angry, arrogant right wing prick. "2 million FUCKING acres, of prime resources" so that's all nature is to you? Prime resources? Oh yeah let's chop down all the trees for wood because that's all trees are good for. Let's destroy habitat for birds. Clearly you need to study biology, and natural sciences because you have no appreciation for nature whatsoever.

[mrtyles]

when did mr1001nights refer to you as a Lockean? Your foul language makes you seem like an arrogant prick. Not that I don't swear sometimes, but I only do it if I'm really angry. And anger has a way of making people irrational. You seem really angry and unwilling to have a rational dispassionate conversation.

[mrtyles]

holding a forest hostage? you gotta be kidding. in Canada where I live, they would call that protecting the trees from being cut down. You call keeping a forest from being developed (and cut down) hostage taking. Wow, when you say something that ridiculous, I don't know how one can continue to watch this video.

[mrtyles]

Exploiting others is using somebody else's labor or the product of that labor to make a profit when that person has no other choice. If you own "exploitative property" that means you can deprive a person of the tools of production which they need in order to make a living (and the products of those tools), and therefore they have no choice but to surrender their liberty to you the owner of the exploitative property..

[mrtyles]

ha ha red fucks. wow you seem really intelligent. lemme explain exploitative and non-exploitative for you and hope you don't lose your temper. Exploitative property is property that is owned for the sole purpose of profiting off of others (such as rental property, businesses, etc.) and non-exploitative property is stuff you use for yourself that does not involve profiting off of others such as your camera, or your computer. Okay? I hope that makes it better.

[thorsmitersaw]

@mrtyles

holy butt fuck mrtyles, if you want to write a fucking book, just make a god damn video so i can address your shit without writing another book in response. Fuck. This is youtube not a god damn forum. Be concise

[thorsmitersaw]

@mrtyles

what exactly is wrong with persons owning property in order to facilitate trade and exchange with others? If I paint a picture for the intent of sale, I obviously display no intent of keeping it for my OWN amusement, its sole purpose is to PROFIT OFF OF OTHERS! HOLY SHIT! I AM GOING STRAIGHT TO RED HELL!!!!

[fringeelements]

If you ever pay someone to do something, they are doing something that you usually value more than what you gave them in exchange. In fact, all exchanges are attempts by both parties to get something they value more than what they have, and exchanges tend to be this way - i.e. there tends to be "profit".

If you want to talk about firms getting artificially high profits, then that is something to be discussed at it's own length. But profit - be it in cash or tomatoes - is a fact of all exchange.

[hrosemd]

Good stuff.

[stealthswimmer]

i actually think enclosing resources does count as homesteading. The thing is if you end up never being there and/or using it, the societal norms concerning abandonment kick in.

[brainpolice2]

@stealthswimmer How can one even be said to abandon something that they never aquired in the first place?

[stealthswimmer]

@brainpolice2

they can't because it was never acquired. :p

But if someone encloses a resource, i think that *is* acquiring it. Like I said though, not being around for a while means abandonment kicks in after a while.

[thorsmitersaw]

@stealthswimmer

I do not think building a fence around a resource makes it yours. You never did anything to the resource itself, why would it become yours? It is like saying I own something because i built a sign next to it saying I do.

[stealthswimmer]

@thorsmitersaw

If you enclose it you physically put stuff up around it to claim it as yours through first-use. Now suppose you never did actually use the resources within the enclosure - that would be "forestalling" as Walter Block puts it(at least i think it would) but even if it's not then it's still not the same as a sign because a sign doesn't enclose anything. Now like i said, the societal norms on property abandonment kick in after a time.

[PersianPaladin]

@thorsmitersaw

Investors sometimes buy land and use it to fund real-estate developments. The investors are not labouring on the land, yet they have prime ownership. Is that justified property?

[thorsmitersaw]

@PersianPaladin

Who are they buying the property from? Was it previously labored upon? Or is it property that is untouched and basically apart of the wilds... if THAT is so, whoever is selling it to them never had real ownership of it in the first place and the purchasers claim is just as much a fantasy. If I purchase a car and then exchange in trade for other persons to paint it for me, I still own the vehicle, would you agree?

[PersianPaladin]

@thorsmitersaw

There are buy-to-let investors who own 900 houses that they never use or intend to live in. This has been shown to push prices of properties up over time which is often not helpful for the poorer class of first-time buyers.

Investors can simply pay for preliminary labour to clear the land of vegetation for property developers to then work on.

[PersianPaladin]

@thorsmitersaw

I agree with your car example.

I do think we agree that under the current situation; a bunch of building labourers would not end up owning the land they labour on in the wilds. They work for a company that employs them to do so; and the company is paid for by the investor who owns the greatest stake and decision-making power over that land (even though he didn't labour on it).

Do you agree that is not a Lockian paradigm?

[priapus512]

I have a theory, on why people still take Mr1001Nights seriously. It seems to me that on average 75%+ of the comments on any one of his videos would sound most at home coming from the mouth of a 7th-9th grader, and seeing as I would have considered myself a "radical" leftist in my youth I have come to the conclusion that Mr1001Nights appeals mostly to small children. What do you all think?

[deliciousmorton]

@priapus512 i think you have problems getting past 7th grade.

[christopher81818]

I think people like Mr1001nights just don't know the difference between the words pragmatic and idealistic. The idealistic ones like himself and Trotsky get exiled and shot, while the more pragmatic ones like Stalin and Beria get to live in the Winter Palace and the home ( i.e. mansion) on the Black Sea, while everyone else starves due to effects of some brain-dead bureaucrat's 5 year plan.

[Ilikenuman]

anyone with a job is a "wage slave". Anyone who pays someone money for services, is a "wage slaver". die you borgeoise pig dogs!

[steshaw71]

Great response. You certainly nailed the misconceptions. Unfortunately, you neglected to address the gnarlier issues such as private law and being born into a private law society. These concerns are also my own and are worth addressing.

[devourage]

Mr1001Nights is simply a council communist. He says taxation is compatible with anarchism, he wants property to be doled out by a centralized worker's union, he has a fanatical and truly insane opposition to trade of any kind. Even the most socialistic forms of mutualism are bourgeois according to him. Worst of all, he never ever replies to all the people calling him out on his bullshit. There's no real difference between him and a state socialist. Different names, same ideology.

[KathyGurl14]

Oh mah fucking gawd! You PWNED his ass!

[ajhinfairbanks]

You're unpleasant, but awesome (sorry just making fun of the other poster). Keep up the good work.

[thorsmitersaw]

@ajhinfairbanks

I enjoy being unpleasent

[MentalEclipse]

While I have nothing against the guy as a person, I think it's a shame that mr1001nights has become one of the biggest anarchists on youtube. He lacks a cohesive understanding of what he's arguing against and he often creates conflict where there isn't any. The perspective on ownership you've expressed in this video are in no way incompatible with any major branch of anarchism, and I think you're correct on this issue regardless of whatever my personal views on markets are.

[deliciousmorton]

you're unpleasant and full of shit.

[thorsmitersaw]

@deliciousmorton

thanks and up yours

[deliciousmorton]

@thorsmitersaw anytime.

[jsnki]

As far as I can see, being a communitarian anarchist/communist whatever at this point in time is just being fashionable.

[jsnki]

thorsmitersaw is back!

thank you for the video.

[JohnScott700]

I'm impressed. Good showing for Lockean property rights.

[PersianPaladin]

lol you ancaps and anarcho-syndicalists are having endless arguments and it just results in intellectual masturbation and factional circle-jerking faggotry

If you're all so smart, why the fuck are you not rich?

[abortabraham]

@PersianPaladin That's like saying "If you understand protons, neutrons, and electrons, why the fuck can you not create matter?" Its a non sequitur, it does not follow that an understanding of free market capitalism leads to becoming wealthy, not that you even cared to begin with.

[PersianPaladin]

@abortabraham

No. Economies are human constructs. Proteins, neutrons and electrons are not human constructs.

Your analogy is fail.

[abortabraham]

@PersianPaladin Protons are human constructs, unless you believe in objective existence. Is what you see to be a proton, objectively a proton? Obviously not, its your senses creating a model. Atoms are human constructs in that how we view them to function is based on our subjective values. Economics is a human construct in the same way we view an atom through our senses. Bashing economics is like saying "atoms are tools of the bourgeoisie". You still made a nonsequitur, and failed on impact.

[PersianPaladin]

@abortabraham

No, you dumfuck. Now you're just emanating horse crap from your mouth.

Humanbeings did NOT create their own bodies or these biological components you're talking about. However, our economic systems are social constructs. That's a fact. Now, go away.

[yeahwotevaman]

@abortabraham Sokal

[RadioFreeWisconsin]

Anarcho-Syndicalism is Mob Totalitarianism.

[thorsmitersaw]

@RadioFreeWisconsin

It really depends on who you are talking to.

[LaughingMan0X]

Spinney's proposition is tantamount to explicit vulgar propertarianism, which I know you disagree with (and said as much in the video).

[idontgiveashit0930]

@LaughingMan0X I would love to see you respond to spinney, that will be a good show. Libertarian left vs right(collectivistic vs individualistic standpoint) on propertarianism.

[NeutrinoideReturns]

@LaughingMan0X Not agains. That is bullshit. Then you will have to say that libertarian ethics are racist because they allow store owners refusing black guys. It is just Brainpolice2 and you refusing to bring the free-market to reality as usual. Sir, you have the vapor ethic syndrome.

[LaughingMan0X]

@NeutrinoideReturns

"Then you will have to say that libertarian ethics are racist because they allow store owners refusing black guys"

-Non-Sequitur & Slippery Slope

"you refusing to bring the free-market to reality as usual"

-Nice ad-hom, and why/how does that follow?

"Sir, you have the vapor ethic syndrome."

-Dude I'm essentially an error theorist rofl

[LaughingMan0X]

@NeutrinoideReturns

My point (which was directed at JacobSpinney, not Thors) was that: IT DOES NOT FOLLOW from the fact that I am on a bit of land someone claims (under Lockean property rights or otherwise) as property, that I automatically "consent" to whatever arbitrary rules they claim over that bit of land.

[brainpolice2]

@LaughingMan0X This is the sense in which I claimed that Spinney's position regurgitates social contract theory in propertarian terms, I.E. he argues that you implicitly consent to the will of the owner simply by being on their land. This is where "love it or leave it" returns with a vengeance within radical propertarianism.

[thorsmitersaw]

@brainpolice2

you smoke in my car, i am going to kick you out. I dont care if you consent to it or not. It is my car, my rules.

[mr1001nights]

@thorsmitersaw

A car, just like a home, a bed, a toothbrush or a pair of socks would qualify as non-exploitative property; so you do have a greater degree of authoritarian control.

You can't have the same degree of authority over places where people spend their working hours e.g. large swaths of land and means of production.

[thorsmitersaw]

@mr1001nights

Why? The factory or any other product is the product of my labor time and investment. If you started to spend a lto of time, with my permission, in my home or my vehicle, the vehicle or the home does nto by virtue of you being present within it, start to become "yours".

[thorsmitersaw]

@thorsmitersaw

sharing or contracting to do so does not imply or confer a transfer or division of ownership

[mr1001nights]

Managing portfolios does not constitute productive labor worthy of any remuneration (anymore than the accounting "work" of slave owners). Capitalists have the power to pay themselves a lot & just like slave owners, can pay ideologues to convince people they deserve it. But who decides that "the factory or any other product is the product of your labor and investment"? Wage slaves have no say--they can only rent themselves to capitalists, or if they're lucky become capitalist enslavers themselves

[PersianPaladin]

@thorsmitersaw

Do you use your car personally?

[brainpolice2]

@thorsmitersaw I don't disagree, but when you bring up this examples you are switching the context. Such examples aren't an argument for absolutism, I.E. they do not support total decision-making power regaurdless of the context. I'm not sure why it's so hard for you to aknowledge that neither absolute decision-making power or other people having license to your shit is reasonable, or why you act like these are the only options.

[brainpolice2]

@brainpolice2 When I reject "ultimate decision-making power" of the owner, this is meant to be a limit of that power against contexts in which such decision-making power would clearly be ridiculous and authoritarian. At root, it's simply the notion that being an owner doesn't grant you the right to literally do whatever you want to other people within your domain, nor does anyone have an obligation to obey what you tell them to do per se (at least outside of reason).

[brainpolice2]

@brainpolice2 So yes, you can kick me out of your home, but you can't start making demands or commands that infringe on my most basic personal liberties simply by appealing to the fact that I'm in your home. Your ownership rights do not extend to grant an absolute right of authority over other people. Your authority is limited by other people's liberty - which is not relative to property boundaries, but personhood.

[NeutrinoideReturns]

@brainpolice2 Ah So you only making strawman. Nevermind. Just ignore me.

[stealthswimmer]

@brainpolice2

Absolute decision making just might be the "optimal" solution.

:p

Within libertarian standards, the amount of force that can legitimately be used is that which is the "gentlest way possible." So there is a sliding scale. It's not that you get to shoot someone for taking one of your pencils. So even if you "positively" propose a libertarian society instead of a stateless one in which societal norms are established, possibly polycentric, there are limits to violence.

[brainpolice2]

@stealthswimmer Absolute decision-making power is hardly optimal - it's the essence of totalitarianism. Anyways, I'm not strictly talking about physical force, although that does enter the picture at some point. I'm talking about coercion and authority. The point is that granting land owners absolute authority inherently clashes with personal freedom.

[stealthswimmer]

@brainpolice2

"Absolute decision-making power is hardly optimal - it's the essence of totalitarianism. "

Kinda but not quite. The absolute decision-making power in totalitarianism comes from calling dibs, not actually acquiring property other than from expropriation or deals with OTHER states that also call dibs rather than legitimately acquiring property.

i think coercion = physical force, trespass, and/or threatening thereof. Problem is lots of folks think "social pressure" is coercion

[thorsmitersaw]

@stealthswimmer

having absolute say is not a problem. i agree. It is where that decision making power is not warranted or justified. I am sure BP has no problem having the final say over whether I put my foot up his ass or not.

**to all others : whoever is flagging peoples posts as spam needs to stop**

[stealthswimmer]

@thorsmitersaw

Yeah i think he wouldn't have a problem with that, but i think he does have a problem with a similar situation if it has to do with land.

[NeutrinoideReturns]

@thorsmitersaw I never heard this from anyone that you can just to kick out of the car the second the car owner see the guy smoking. I I Always heard the owner of the car will ask to stop smoking, If they don't consent , then ask him to leave the car. If the smoker keep smoking and stay in the car. Then you can kick out of the car. Why the smoker will have the right the smoke in other guys face?

[AlexAnCapAdvocate]

@brainpolice2 This is where "love it or leave it" returns with a radical propertarianism. --- Are you arguing that a homeowner cannot ask for sexual favors of a guest in exchange for the guest being allowed in, or are you saying the host cannot force the guest to have sex, and if the guest declines, they simply have to leave? I agree there is no implicit consent, the owner cannot force sexual favors; but the owner can certainly request any bargain. The guest can opt to agree, or must leave.

[dubified89]

The owner should get their fucking ass beaten or shot for even trying to force people into sexual things, that how a true just society would be

[NeutrinoideReturns]

@LaughingMan0X In free market you can't have arbitrary rule even is you want a dictatorship. You won't be able to keep your little kingdom land if no one want of your arbitrary rules. The only way I can see someone having a problem is that you are scare of the responsibilities of your own action. That is what JacobSpinney was explaining.

[brainpolice2]

@NeutrinoideReturns You're missing the point. The principle of the matter is questionable - that you should have to leave, to geographically uproot yourself, to avoid some dictatorship. No, the dictatorship should leave you the fuck alone. You're under no obligation to leave and you do not inherently consent to the dictator by staying in geographical boundaries. The reality of power is much more complicated than "well just leave!" addresses.

[brainpolice2]

@NeutrinoideReturns I've never claimed that libertarian ethics are racist. And I'm for libertarian ethics (or a particular formulation of them). So I don't see how you're drawing such conclusions. Anyways, this is all a sidetracking from the fundamental issues in contention here, which is property rights in general.

[NeutrinoideReturns]

@brainpolice2 I never claim you did claim libertarian ethics are racist. I claim you will have to come at this conclusion if you want to be logically consistent.

[brainpolice2]

@NeutrinoideReturns That's really a non-sequitor, especially if you understand the distinction I've made between political justice and non-legal ethics. No such conclusion logically follows if such a distinction is kept in mind.

[NeutrinoideReturns]

Blah blah blah you are making whoo whoo distinction agains.

[brainpolice2]

@NeutrinoideReturns Yea, you're really engaging in valid argumentation here by just plugging ears.

[NeutrinoideReturns]

@brainpolice2 If you gonna make up stuffs up. I don't see why I should keep listening.

[thorsmitersaw]

@LaughingMan0X

yes

[LaughingMan0X]

Good video; although I think part of the crux of this issue (which may have prompted 1001night's response) was when JacobSpiney claimed that a non-owner merely "residing" on an "owners" land makes it such that the non-owner by default "consents" to whatever bullshit arbitrary rules the owner claims over his plot of land, just by residing on it.

By that logic a battered housewife (in her husbands house) "consents" to her beatings so long as she doesn't flee; which doesn't make sense.

[idontgiveashit0930]

@LaughingMan0X Its sort of like the "love it or leave it" argument...often regurgitated by statists ie if you dont like america, fuck off to somalia. But sometimes moving out of someones property is not an option. ie if i live in an island and i cant afford to buy a boat to get out of it, i must adhere to arbitrary rules set by the owner of the island because by default im "consenting"...without a fucking choice. His definition of "consenting" is not only fucked up its also totalitarian.

[ladyattis]

@LaughingMan0X I tend to agree that one cannot consent to what is not stated. For me, ownership of property doesn't entail ownership of owning actions over others. All you get to do is stop others from using your property, and nothing more. No one gets the right to play mind games or any methods of manipulation to gain something for nothing.

[FiremanHurley]

@LaughingMan0X That is why people like 1001 and BP are ridiculous. They take absurd "scenarios" that could happen with lockean property and say stuff like "you're going to have to ok with men imprisoning and torturing house-guests if you accept this arrangement. It's gonna be a disaster you just wait!" As if decided upon property norms are a scary point of no return.

[brainpolice2]

@FiremanHurley You don't know what my position is, and I don't share mr1001nights's position, you dickwad.

[brainpolice2]

@brainpolice2 What I do is point out how there are things that are logically compatible with plainly stated propertarianism that clearly violate people's personal liberty. The argument cannot be refuted by simply dismissing it as "never gonna happen". The proper response is to either show how your position isn't logically compatible with those things or to modify you position to avoid that compatability. I suggest the latter to people.

[FiremanHurley]

@brainpolice2 No the proper response would be to not specify an absolute arrangement, leaving things open to be modified if people care. Not spending years writing hundreds of thousands of words on how particular arrangements are potentially authoritarian without ever stating how you have solved this.

[FiremanHurley]

@brainpolice2 I didn't say you shared 1001's position. His position sucks, but to his credit, people on earth actually know what it is.

[NeutrinoideReturns]

Roflcopter indeed Sir. /Take a sip of champagne.

[RaymondDundas]

Darrin made a video. What is this sorcery?

[x0TheJackal0x]

thor's mighty miter saw hath spoken

[JacobSpinney]

LMAO! Pure ownage. Liked. Faved. My response to him: watch?v=prttrjdqeiQ

[InTheEndIWasRight]

this video is win thor, im sick of hearing this mind-retarding shit from the reds

[Genowulf]

Heh, always major lulz listening to your rants.

[landofthefreemyass]

EXCELLENT.

Your rant made me feel a little less alone in my thoughts.

[Dadalama]

Was this to Mr1001nights? Why are you even bothering? He's shown time and time again that he will not listen.

[thorsmitersaw]

@Dadalama

because I have nothing better to do with my life at the moment.

[Dadalama]

@thorsmitersaw

ahhh good reason as any I suppose.