The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Winning
32 Points
The Contender
Ragnar_Rahl
Con (against)
Losing
26 Points

Country landowners should have the right to enjoy their own private property as they see fit.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/8/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,377 times Debate No: 4621
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (29)
Votes (14)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

My family own a number of extensive rural properties, three in Europe and another in one of Britain's former North American colonies – the United States, where the natives rather quaintly refer to country estates as "ranches".*

Over in America, country landowners are quite entitled to use firearms to defend their property from trespassers and, furthermore, they are also permitted to exercise their right to hunt vermin such as raccoons, cougars and manatees using guns, traps or horses and hounds as they please.

However, here in England, if a landowner takes a pot shot at some errant rambler who has strayed off the public footpath and onto his property, he can find himself in pretty hot legal water.

Indeed, gentleman farmer Tony Martin was found guilty of murder simply because he shot a couple of trespassing teenagers in the back as they tried to flee his property. This travesty of justice disgraced the English legal system as the landowner, being a man of superior breeding, was brought up to expect such matters would be overlooked in the light of his elevated social status (and no doubt generous donations to the local police benevolent fund). Furthermore, he only killed one of the boys and in any case, they were frightfully common little oiks, one of whom had a distinctly foreign look about him. Thankfully, Mr. Martin was well connected socially and the judiciary duly ordered his release from prison. He now gives lectures on the menace of filthy little proles who think they have the right to wander willy-nilly over one's private property.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

Now I turn to the subject of hunting with hounds. Sadly, thanks to the loony-left British Government's ban on hunting with hounds, the days are long gone when a group of respectable sportsmen could set a pack of viscous dogs onto a defenceless fox and watch them humanely tear the animal limb from limb.

http://www.league.org.uk...

These days a gentleman mounted upon his horse, cannot even chase down and bludgeon to the ground anti-hunt protesters without being summoned to appear in court, such is the audacity of these so-called bleeding heart liberal-types who film our rural activities.

http://www.realca.co.uk...

Indeed, the fear of prosecution has obliged landowners to hire lackeys from the surrounding villages to track down and rough-up any do-gooders that may be in the vicinity, thus denying rural gentlefolk the pleasure of horse-whipping some sandal-wearing riff-raff to within an inch of their life.

http://www.realca.co.uk...

Put simply, the urban elite of Britain's Labour Government just don't understand the rural way of life and they certainly don't understand that a country landowner should have a right to do as he pleases on his own private property.

* Please follow the links listed hereunder to satellite images of the properties in question:

�England (Chigwell) http://maps.google.co.uk...

�Slovakia (Klastor) http://maps.google.co.uk...

�Slovakia (Ostrava) http://maps.google.co.uk...

�USA (Bradenton, FL) http://maps.google.co.uk...
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

Filthy bourgeious exploiter! How dare you defend the imperialist pigs who work hard building themselves a home when other's haven't enough brains to do so! How dare you claim they have a "right" to stop the perfectly good common man from taking what they need from the estate? All they need is everything the capitalist has, it's not their fault they didn't acquire as much, their minds are conditioned by the machines after all, and the capitalist was off gallivanting in the country instead of being in the city helping build machines to help us in the process of marxist social conditioning! What right does the rich man have to a moment's rest, what right to fear for his safety when a needy proletarian wants food and feels a mite tired to be working for it!
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

I say, it would appear my debate has been taken up by some snivelling leftie from a place in America called Seattle, which I believe is some sort of settlement beyond the old Western Frontier.

As you may be aware, the United States is known as "the land of opportunity" because the early colonists simply stepped of the ship and "claimed their stake" to a plot of land. Thus, ordinary people that had been in the employ of a country landowner in the Old World became landowners in their own right in the New World – a frighteningly socialist concept and, presumably, why my opponent thinks it is acceptable for commoners to gallivant around the countryside expecting noblesse oblige from rural toffs such as myself.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

"
I say, it would appear my debate has been taken up by some snivelling leftie from a place in America called Seattle, which I believe is some sort of settlement beyond the old Western Frontier."

Gosh golly Marx! I thought you bourgeious were supopsed to pride yourself on your "logic," but any fool can see that if there is a settlement beyond a place, that place ain't a frontier anymore... Unless... Wait, you're trying to deceive the poor working man so he'll buy into your "frontier tours" business. As we all know it's perfectly profitable to commit, since you keep all your customers so brainwashed they never realize what's going on, and never learn not to pay you pigs for such things. As we all know dictionaries are written by the collective consciousness, and thus must be obeyed, clearly this definition of frontier applies: "
2.
# A region just beyond or at the edge of a settled area."

http://www.answers.com...

Unless your imperialist lies run deeper, and you are trying to argue you are "just beyond" the national border. Even proletarian logic recognizes, however, that the third definition does not apply.

"
As you may be aware, the United States is known as "the land of opportunity" because the early colonists simply stepped of the ship and "claimed their stake" to a plot of land."
Thus depriving everyone else of that land, and depriving them of the oppurtunity to get money when they failed to turn over the profits from farming it! No doubt you hard-line righties always see starving citizens as a virtue!

"Thus, ordinary people that had been in the employ of a country landowner in the Old World became landowners in their own right in the New World – a frighteningly socialist concept"

Nonsense, you sound like the people trying to tell me the Soviet Union was a socialist country! Everyone knows all these programs that throw scraps to the common man are just imperialist tricks unless every single capitalist gets slaughtered in the process, and no new ones arise! And since your mind is collective property of the dictatorship-of-the-proletariat in exile, you are obliged to agree or you are guilty of stealing!

"presumably, why my opponent thinks it is acceptable for commoners to gallivant around the countryside expecting noblesse oblige from rural toffs such as myself."

Noblesse oblige! We are to treat the money from you as a gift? No! That would be surrendering. It is ours by right, and we will take it as someone takes anything by right! By slaughtering you if you disagree! You, of course, have no rights, after all, you are rich!
Debate Round No. 2
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"
You could avoid all taxation and the protection the government provides by purchasing an island and sustisting indepedently "
The government has not put up islands for sale. It regularly steals assets that could be used toward such purchases. It regularly steals such islands anytime someone tries such a thing, by sending in the military. Very few of the islands that would be on the market are even in the hands of legitimate owners. Any unclaimed island that shows up tends to be seized by governments without actually making use of it, i.e. without it being legitimate.

"or by purchasing a boat and living only in international waters."
Again, government steals the assets people might use for purchasing boats, and regulates the economy to such an extent it takes time to obtain the money to acquire a boat of any quality. And international law would still probably be enforced.

Besides, I'd much rather just have a legitimate government here. And that's the course of action that seems to have the best odds in the long run, short of a US repudiation of the antarctic treaty system, so I could set something up there with a few like minded people.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"I agree anarchy is preferrable to tyrrany, buy tyrrany would exist if a governement existed and no property rights were granted whatsoever."
Property rights are never "Granted," only recognized. And they are an absolute principle. If you retain a practice of seizing anyone's property when they have a right to it, you indicate that the term has no meaning to you, and you will seize it all once convenient.

"A human animal is not created to own property,"
Humans are not "created" for any purpose. Nevertheless, when property rights are not enforced, life is based on mercy and thus death is merely a matter of the time it takes for someone to regard it as convenient.

". Like I said, the only thing a person is inherrantly granted through the natural order is it's own existance, to which, governmental defined property rights should not supercede."

Government is no more capable of defining rights than it is of granting them. Either it acts in accordance with them or it does not.

Also, existence is not "Granted" through the natural order, but by the person's own actions. The natural order only grants the POSSIBILITY of existence, which possibility must be turned into actuality by means of human action, which is only possible to the extent property rights are recognized. Food is a requirement for existence, specifically it must go to the stomach of the one to exist, thus it must not be seized, or there will be no way to obtain existence effectively. Same with shelter, health care, and ultimately just about anything that keeps you happy and thus sane :D
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"
This is not meant to be as in a governmental sense, but as in a state of being."
What is an anarchistic "State of being" other than the state of lacking a government?

"
Who's doing this?! Walking across someones yard is in no way shape or form, threatening your 'material requirements'"

If they trample my crops in doing so, or attempt to burgle me, they certainly are. If they are just walking along the edge affecting nothing, I'd let them through. But once a yard is mine, it is I and I alone who can determine to what purpose it is to be used. Traipsing about in ignorance of this could indeed damage it's purpose, and thus it's value to my life.

"
What does "semi" civilized mean?

Def: Civlized; Showing evidence of moral and intellectual advancement; humane, ethical, and reasonable"
Only showing advancement of a partial advance, only partially moral?

Taxes are immoral, inhumane, and not derived from reason.

"
Just because you don't like taxation laws doesn't mean the elected government is illigitimate.
"
It does when it takes them from me anyway. Theft is illegitimate, therefore, the thief is.

"
Contracts are established by laws of the government"
They establish which contracts they will recognize. They do not establish the purpose of contracts, nor the moral justification for them, that predates it.

"The government says what property rights any individual or group may possess."
No, it states which it will enforce. That does not change the actual "Rights."

"Either you have government and abide by it's laws or you do not have governement and anarchy is the result."
Or establish a new government, the same way you got the current one.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"
What does this even mean?! No one 'creates' land."
They create a farm or a house FROM what was land.

"A contract is created with the government, with the understanding that you follow the government's laws in return for access to a parcel of land, paid for by an economic and social contract."
That's incoherent. The government never owned that land.

"If the government does not grant rights, then what rights would there be to enforce in the first place."
You misunderstand the term rights. Rights are limits on behavior toward a person, derived from needs both the observer and the observed share. E.g., we both need not to be killed, so we should not kill the other unless the other is going to try to kill us anyway. Derived from this and the fact we have to think to live, we should also not prevent people from using their mind (right to liberty), or keeping the products of the mind (right to property), unless again they are already going to violate these anyway, since otherwise we are going to encourage such happening to us, and that is suicidal.

"

Voluntary taxation was tried under the "Articles of Confederation" when the United States was first forming."

Don't be silly. The articles of confederation, first off, allowed states to engage in compulsory taxation. They also offered no motive for the states to even make payment to the federal government. Thus, this is not an attempt of a system comparable to what I am advocating.

"I highly doubt even the most free marketeer out there would trust corporations with either law enforcement or the military."
Governments tend to be owned by a group of people who set out in an agreement between themselves which functions they have charge of as share of ownership (they are often de jure owned by the populace at large, most of whom have no real share in the matter). With the exception of governments that are sole proprietorships, all governments are in essence corporations. Are you an anarchist?
Posted by attrition 8 years ago
attrition
"Modern societies, by the way, are not civilized, only semi-civilized."

What does "semi" civilized mean?

Def: Civlized; Showing evidence of moral and intellectual advancement; humane, ethical, and reasonable

Modern society shows evidence (being the key word) of all of these.

Just because you don't like taxation laws doesn't mean the elected government is illigitimate.

"Indeed, contracts result from property rights, not the other way around."

Contracts are established by laws of the government. The government says what property rights any individual or group may possess. Either you have government and abide by it's laws or you do not have governement and anarchy is the result. I agree anarchy is preferrable to tyrrany, buy tyrrany would exist if a governement existed and no property rights were granted whatsoever. A human animal is not created to own property, the government created by the human animal defines said property. Like I said, the only thing a person is inherrantly granted through the natural order is it's own existance, to which, governmental defined property rights should not supercede.

You could avoid all taxation and the protection the government provides by purchasing an island and sustisting indepedently or by purchasing a boat and living only in international waters. Good luck with the pirates.
Posted by attrition 8 years ago
attrition
"the act of creating an object is what gives you property rights in relation to that object. The government can only enforce or violate rights, not grant them."

What does this even mean?! No one 'creates' land. A contract is created with the government, with the understanding that you follow the government's laws in return for access to a parcel of land, paid for by an economic and social contract. If the government does not grant rights, then what rights would there be to enforce in the first place. You make an awful lot of assumptions. So my original statement stands.

"I am advocating a government that is voluntarily funded, i.e. one that makes money by charging for it's services and refusing to provide services to those who don't pay"

Voluntary taxation was tried under the "Articles of Confederation" when the United States was first forming. The federal government had no authority of taxation, the central government had request funds from the states. Although some things good came from the articles, it as a whole, failed miserably. The central government would go bankrupt and be unable to pay it's employees. No services, including law enforcement nor the military would or could exist. Arguably, the free market could take care of many governmental services, most I don't agree with, but arguable none the less. I highly doubt even the most free marketeer out there would trust corporations with either law enforcement or the military.

"An anarchistic state contradiction in terms."
This is not meant to be as in a governmental sense, but as in a state of being.

"If you destroy the material requirements of my existence, you are threatening my life."
Who's doing this?! Walking across someones yard is in no way shape or form, threatening your 'material requirements' That's a huge jump, and sorry to say, kind of a ridiculous statement.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Indeed, contracts result from property rights, not the other way around.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"If said populace in mass, say yes, each individual must defend and protect their own property, then it must be an anarchistic state."
An anarchistic state contradiction in terms. Each individual must indeed defend their own property, or pay for it's protection. IF a government exists at all, it is not an anarchy. I am advocating a government that fully protects the rights of paying customers within a certain jurisdiction that it chooses to cover (and allows other agencies to do so in other jurisdictions). Anarchy is therefore not what I am advocating, though that would be superior to tyranny.

"The right of the individual to live, supercedes any artificial contract a person has on property rights. "

Impossible, because property rights are not just a result of an "Artificial contract," they are a result of an individual pursuing his right to life by creating things required for it. A right to life without a right to property is not coherent, life is dependent on the ownership of certain material objects. And a right that is not an explicitly negative right, i.e. a "right" to enslave others, is a contradiction.

"The only time a person 'A' should have the right to take person 'B's life, is if person 'A's life is threatened by person 'B'. "

If you destroy the material requirements of my existence, you are threatening my life.

"Property disputes are civil actions. Although criminal penalties can be assessed on a person violating a civil code, in civilized, modern societies theft and trespassing are not enforced by the death penalty."
Why? They shorten the life of the victim. They make him more likely to die. They violate the victim's right to life, by way of the right to property which is it's practical implementation. He who violates rights has none. Modern societies, by the way, are not civilized, only semi-civilized.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"But to affirm the right of a landowner to do whatever they want on their land, to advocate that the rights of property supercede the certainly inalienable right to simply exist, is ludicrous at best."
Existence is dependent upon the action of creating the material needs of that existence. Property rights preserve the product of that action. Without them, existence cannot be guaranteed by the person who wishes to exist, it is provided at whim, as alms, from a tyrant. The lack of property rights means the lack of any rights. The "right to exist," is a negative right, specifically, it forbids actions taken that go AGAINST someone's existence, it does not however demand that others live as slaves to support your existence. Rights are not "inalienable," they only exist for those who recognize them and do not violate those of others first. In short, I am not advocate property "superceding" the right to exist, rather, property is the only implementation of the "Right to exist" possible, because for a person to exist they must both produce the objects required for existence and not have such objects taken away from them.

"A government cannot and should not wait for a potential threat to the populace to which it is primarily dedicated to protecting, within it's own borders to mass before counter action is taken."

A government that steals from it's citizens should not exist. And it has to prove that such a threat actually exists. This may not mean action, it is sufficient to find out the purpose for which the army is formed. If the purpose is an illegitimate one or one the government already covers, it does indeed have the right to dissolve that army by any means necessary, but if not, then it does not.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"
The government is what gives the populace their "property rights"

False, the act of creating an object is what gives you property rights in relation to that object. The government can only enforce or violate rights, not grant them.

"ou are assuming that the general population has some inalienable right to land"
To land that they have sowed. Not before.

"They do not. Who gives that right? The government does"
The government did not own that land, so, impossible.

"On what basis do you give to say any particular government is illigitimate?"
On the basis that it robs from it's citizens

"A government provides many things to it's people in return for taxation (ie roads, utilities, public education and in some cases healthcare, and defense from outside invaders)"
A government can provide defense by charging for the enforcement of claims in court, landlines to 911, etc. Education, utilities, and roads, are all easily providable by private industries who charge for their services. In any case, it's not a valid trade unless both sides agree, and taxation is not voluntary.

"If you are advocating anarchy then just say it."
No, I am advocating a government that is voluntarily funded, i.e. one that makes money by charging for it's services and refusing to provide services to those who don't pay (as opposed to what it presently does, kidnapping those who don't pay and sticking them in a cage).
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
brian_egglestonRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Ped-X-ing 8 years ago
Ped-X-ing
brian_egglestonRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
brian_egglestonRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
brian_egglestonRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Killer542 8 years ago
Killer542
brian_egglestonRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by ecstatica 8 years ago
ecstatica
brian_egglestonRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by attrition 8 years ago
attrition
brian_egglestonRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by bexy_kelly 8 years ago
bexy_kelly
brian_egglestonRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by lorca 8 years ago
lorca
brian_egglestonRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Xera 8 years ago
Xera
brian_egglestonRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30