Total Posts:52|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Murder is capitalistic

OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 6:36:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Private property is crucial to maintaining a capitalistic society. It must be protected at all costs. Since the owner has full control over his own private property under capitalism, it follows that he should be able to choose who lives and who dies on his property. Capitalism only regards the individual as having value insofar as he is producing or consuming.

Moreover, it doesn't matter that no prominent capitalist economist has argued this - this is clearly a logical consequence of capitalism.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 6:42:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You could put it that way.

I can imagine a right-wing nut already thinking that killing another person is not capitalistic because it would undermine competition in the market.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 6:47:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://tinyurl.com...
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 6:51:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 6:47:46 PM, M.Torres wrote:
http://tinyurl.com...

Awesome.. That is pretty nifty..

...and you make a good point, although I don't really have a strong opinion either way.
Debate.org Moderator
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 7:19:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Wait. Troll thread, yes? Just saw DanT's.
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 7:21:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 6:42:51 PM, Contra wrote:
You could put it that way.

I can imagine a right-wing nut already thinking that killing another person is not capitalistic because it would undermine competition in the market.

Not if killing that person only occurs when the person has tried to take your property illegally. That's just self-regulated crime control.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 7:23:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 7:21:50 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/25/2012 6:42:51 PM, Contra wrote:
You could put it that way.

I can imagine a right-wing nut already thinking that killing another person is not capitalistic because it would undermine competition in the market.

Not if killing that person only occurs when the person has tried to take your property illegally. That's just self-regulated crime control.

Sh!t, technically it would even help competition by raising the costs of criminal free-riding which takes public resources to combat. People who would otherwise be criminals get jobs because the cost of being a criminal is being shot, not going on probation.
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 7:26:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 6:47:46 PM, M.Torres wrote:
http://tinyurl.com...

haha, never saw that but it's awesome.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,306
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 8:01:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I believe the people who have the guns gets to decide who lives and who dies, not some 90 pound weakling with a title deed to Marvin Gardens. (rent $280.00)
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 8:36:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 6:36:08 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Private property is crucial to maintaining a capitalistic society. It must be protected at all costs. Since the owner has full control over his own private property under capitalism, it follows that he should be able to choose who lives and who dies on his property. Capitalism only regards the individual as having value insofar as he is producing or consuming.

Moreover, it doesn't matter that no prominent capitalist economist has argued this - this is clearly a logical consequence of capitalism.

In capitalism one has a right to kill someone to defend your property. Killing in defense of property is not murder; murder is by definition unlawful premeditated killing. War is not murder, and defense killing is not murder.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
WriterSelbe
Posts: 410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 8:36:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 6:36:08 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Private property is crucial to maintaining a capitalistic society. It must be protected at all costs. Since the owner has full control over his own private property under capitalism, it follows that he should be able to choose who lives and who dies on his property. Capitalism only regards the individual as having value insofar as he is producing or consuming.

Moreover, it doesn't matter that no prominent capitalist economist has argued this - this is clearly a logical consequence of capitalism.

Is this in support of capitalism, against, or just an observation of yours?
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 8:39:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 8:36:01 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/25/2012 6:36:08 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Private property is crucial to maintaining a capitalistic society. It must be protected at all costs. Since the owner has full control over his own private property under capitalism, it follows that he should be able to choose who lives and who dies on his property. Capitalism only regards the individual as having value insofar as he is producing or consuming.

Moreover, it doesn't matter that no prominent capitalist economist has argued this - this is clearly a logical consequence of capitalism.

In capitalism one has a right to kill someone to defend your property. Killing in defense of property is not murder; murder is by definition unlawful premeditated killing. War is not murder, and defense killing is not murder.

Killing could be done for whatever reason - it's your property and you have absolute ownership over it. If you say otherwise, you are a socialist.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 9:32:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 8:39:11 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 4/25/2012 8:36:01 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/25/2012 6:36:08 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Private property is crucial to maintaining a capitalistic society. It must be protected at all costs. Since the owner has full control over his own private property under capitalism, it follows that he should be able to choose who lives and who dies on his property. Capitalism only regards the individual as having value insofar as he is producing or consuming.

Moreover, it doesn't matter that no prominent capitalist economist has argued this - this is clearly a logical consequence of capitalism.

In capitalism one has a right to kill someone to defend your property. Killing in defense of property is not murder; murder is by definition unlawful premeditated killing. War is not murder, and defense killing is not murder.

Killing could be done for whatever reason - it's your property and you have absolute ownership over it. If you say otherwise, you are a socialist.

Not really, killing someone on your property only relates to property rights, if you are defending your property. If someone trespasses you have a right to shoot them; if you invite someone over just to shoot them, than it's not related to property rights.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 9:37:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Since the owner has full control over his own private property under capitalism, it follows that he should be able to choose who lives and who dies on his property.
That's not murder, that's deterrence of trespassing.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 9:39:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Of course, by inviting someone you declare "I shall not object to your temporary use of my property in the time place and manner which I have invited you to partake of it."
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 9:59:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 9:39:40 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Of course, by inviting someone you declare "I shall not object to your temporary use of my property in the time place and manner which I have invited you to partake of it."

So what happens if, due to their tripping or a heart attack or some other emergency, they stay longer than you specified?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 10:06:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 9:59:02 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 4/25/2012 9:39:40 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Of course, by inviting someone you declare "I shall not object to your temporary use of my property in the time place and manner which I have invited you to partake of it."

So what happens if, due to their tripping or a heart attack or some other emergency, they stay longer than you specified?

Well, that all depends on the terms of the invitation.

The default rule where not specified, I'd say, should be that they can escort you off the premises but if they are not prepared to do so, well, they are aware that sometimes things happen that make it difficult to move, and so have to live with it without killing you.

Of course, it's not of dire importance what the default rule is as long as people know about it ahead of time and thus can make contracts to the contrary/ not go to parties with people who are likely to be such d***s.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 10:30:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 10:09:36 PM, Cermank wrote:
In Texas, it's legal to shoot someone entering your property without your consent.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 10:32:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 9:32:49 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/25/2012 8:39:11 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 4/25/2012 8:36:01 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/25/2012 6:36:08 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Private property is crucial to maintaining a capitalistic society. It must be protected at all costs. Since the owner has full control over his own private property under capitalism, it follows that he should be able to choose who lives and who dies on his property. Capitalism only regards the individual as having value insofar as he is producing or consuming.

Moreover, it doesn't matter that no prominent capitalist economist has argued this - this is clearly a logical consequence of capitalism.

In capitalism one has a right to kill someone to defend your property. Killing in defense of property is not murder; murder is by definition unlawful premeditated killing. War is not murder, and defense killing is not murder.

Killing could be done for whatever reason - it's your property and you have absolute ownership over it. If you say otherwise, you are a socialist.

Not really, killing someone on your property only relates to property rights, if you are defending your property. If someone trespasses you have a right to shoot them; if you invite someone over just to shoot them, than it's not related to property rights.

Capitalism still lets you do whatever you want on your property. That's what freedom is, and if you don't support that you don't support freedom making you a socialist.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2012 12:16:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 10:30:53 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/25/2012 10:09:36 PM, Cermank wrote:
In Texas, it's legal to shoot someone entering your property without your consent.

Your point being?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2012 9:43:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/26/2012 12:16:26 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 4/25/2012 10:30:53 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/25/2012 10:09:36 PM, Cermank wrote:
In Texas, it's legal to shoot someone entering your property without your consent.

Your point being?

They are violating your right to property
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2012 9:47:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 10:32:59 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 4/25/2012 9:32:49 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/25/2012 8:39:11 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 4/25/2012 8:36:01 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/25/2012 6:36:08 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Private property is crucial to maintaining a capitalistic society. It must be protected at all costs. Since the owner has full control over his own private property under capitalism, it follows that he should be able to choose who lives and who dies on his property. Capitalism only regards the individual as having value insofar as he is producing or consuming.

Moreover, it doesn't matter that no prominent capitalist economist has argued this - this is clearly a logical consequence of capitalism.

In capitalism one has a right to kill someone to defend your property. Killing in defense of property is not murder; murder is by definition unlawful premeditated killing. War is not murder, and defense killing is not murder.

Killing could be done for whatever reason - it's your property and you have absolute ownership over it. If you say otherwise, you are a socialist.

Not really, killing someone on your property only relates to property rights, if you are defending your property. If someone trespasses you have a right to shoot them; if you invite someone over just to shoot them, than it's not related to property rights.

Capitalism still lets you do whatever you want on your property. That's what freedom is, and if you don't support that you don't support freedom making you a socialist.

If you invite someone onto your property, you are giving them a right to be on your property. You are forming a short of business contract, allowing them to set foot on your property for the time being. Shooting them, after inviting them onto your property, would be anti-capitalistic, because you would be violating a contract in which you agreed to temporarily share your property, and therefore you would be violating their property rights.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2012 9:59:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/26/2012 9:47:02 AM, DanT wrote:
At 4/25/2012 10:32:59 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 4/25/2012 9:32:49 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/25/2012 8:39:11 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 4/25/2012 8:36:01 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/25/2012 6:36:08 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Private property is crucial to maintaining a capitalistic society. It must be protected at all costs. Since the owner has full control over his own private property under capitalism, it follows that he should be able to choose who lives and who dies on his property. Capitalism only regards the individual as having value insofar as he is producing or consuming.

Moreover, it doesn't matter that no prominent capitalist economist has argued this - this is clearly a logical consequence of capitalism.

In capitalism one has a right to kill someone to defend your property. Killing in defense of property is not murder; murder is by definition unlawful premeditated killing. War is not murder, and defense killing is not murder.

Killing could be done for whatever reason - it's your property and you have absolute ownership over it. If you say otherwise, you are a socialist.

Not really, killing someone on your property only relates to property rights, if you are defending your property. If someone trespasses you have a right to shoot them; if you invite someone over just to shoot them, than it's not related to property rights.

Capitalism still lets you do whatever you want on your property. That's what freedom is, and if you don't support that you don't support freedom making you a socialist.

If you invite someone onto your property, you are giving them a right to be on your property. You are forming a short of business contract, allowing them to set foot on your property for the time being. Shooting them, after inviting them onto your property, would be anti-capitalistic, because you would be violating a contract in which you agreed to temporarily share your property, and therefore you would be violating their property rights.

They never signed a contract saying I wouldn't shoot them.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2012 10:03:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 6:47:46 PM, M.Torres wrote:
http://tinyurl.com...

It looks like Torres really wanted the OP to know specifically how the tone of his reply was essentially him telling the OP all about himself.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2012 11:00:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/26/2012 9:59:10 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 4/26/2012 9:47:02 AM, DanT wrote:
At 4/25/2012 10:32:59 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 4/25/2012 9:32:49 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/25/2012 8:39:11 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 4/25/2012 8:36:01 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/25/2012 6:36:08 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Private property is crucial to maintaining a capitalistic society. It must be protected at all costs. Since the owner has full control over his own private property under capitalism, it follows that he should be able to choose who lives and who dies on his property. Capitalism only regards the individual as having value insofar as he is producing or consuming.

Moreover, it doesn't matter that no prominent capitalist economist has argued this - this is clearly a logical consequence of capitalism.

In capitalism one has a right to kill someone to defend your property. Killing in defense of property is not murder; murder is by definition unlawful premeditated killing. War is not murder, and defense killing is not murder.

Killing could be done for whatever reason - it's your property and you have absolute ownership over it. If you say otherwise, you are a socialist.

Not really, killing someone on your property only relates to property rights, if you are defending your property. If someone trespasses you have a right to shoot them; if you invite someone over just to shoot them, than it's not related to property rights.

Capitalism still lets you do whatever you want on your property. That's what freedom is, and if you don't support that you don't support freedom making you a socialist.

If you invite someone onto your property, you are giving them a right to be on your property. You are forming a short of business contract, allowing them to set foot on your property for the time being. Shooting them, after inviting them onto your property, would be anti-capitalistic, because you would be violating a contract in which you agreed to temporarily share your property, and therefore you would be violating their property rights.

They never signed a contract saying I wouldn't shoot them.

its a verbal contract
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle