Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

"Private" Businesses are Public

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 11:12:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
A building in which hundreds of strangers frequently walk in and out of 12 hours each day, can hardly be described as "private." That's just absurd. In what way is it private?

And even if it were technically "private," why do Libertarians have the double standard view that the government isn't allowed to control you, but "private" businesses can? What happened to freedom? Just slapping the label "private" means you get to boss people around like the government?

I'm sorry, but a house a is private, Walmart is NOT.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 11:22:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 11:12:30 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
A building in which hundreds of strangers frequently walk in and out of 12 hours each day, can hardly be described as "private." That's just absurd. In what way is it private?
And even if it were technically "private," why do Libertarians have the double standard view that the government isn't allowed to control you, but "private" businesses can?
What happened to freedom? Just slapping the label "private" means you get to boss people around like the government?
I'm sorry, but a house a is private, Walmart is NOT.

If I wish to allow a bunch of people to pass in and out of my home, do I give up my right to exclude people from it? If a business only gets a few customers, does it become property that I can exclude people from? Where is the line, in your view?

The right to exclude does not depend on what type of building something is; it depends on how it was acquired. If I acquired my home through theft, then it would not be mine by right, and I would not have the right to exclude others from it. If I acquire my place of business legitimately, then it is mine. I have the right to use it as I see fit, and anyone forcing me to do differently is aggressing against me. My business is not yours, it is not the government's, and neither of you have the right to tell me how to use it.

The difference between me telling you what to do on my private property and the government telling you what to do on either of our property is the difference between night and day. I can bar you from my home or business because I earned those things, and you didn't. The government did nothing to justify it's right to, for example, tell you what substances you may or may not put in your body.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 11:24:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 11:12:30 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
A building in which hundreds of strangers frequently walk in and out of 12 hours each day, can hardly be described as "private." That's just absurd. In what way is it private?

Well, in that case, yer' mum is public.

(Sorry, had to)
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 11:25:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Wal-Mart is publicly owned
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 11:27:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 11:25:11 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Wal-Mart is publicly owned

Not that I'm aware. Last I checked, they wouldn't even allow their employees to unionize.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 11:34:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 11:24:18 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 11/21/2010 11:12:30 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
A building in which hundreds of strangers frequently walk in and out of 12 hours each day, can hardly be described as "private." That's just absurd. In what way is it private?

Well, in that case, yer' mum is public.

(Sorry, had to)

Win
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 11:37:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 11:27:58 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 11/21/2010 11:25:11 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Wal-Mart is publicly owned

Not that I'm aware. Last I checked, they wouldn't even allow their employees to unionize.

Wal-Mart is publicly owned
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 11:38:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 11:37:01 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 11/21/2010 11:27:58 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 11/21/2010 11:25:11 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Wal-Mart is publicly owned

Not that I'm aware. Last I checked, they wouldn't even allow their employees to unionize.

Wal-Mart is publicly owned

Proof?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 11:38:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 11:22:31 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 11/21/2010 11:12:30 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
A building in which hundreds of strangers frequently walk in and out of 12 hours each day, can hardly be described as "private." That's just absurd. In what way is it private?
And even if it were technically "private," why do Libertarians have the double standard view that the government isn't allowed to control you, but "private" businesses can?
What happened to freedom? Just slapping the label "private" means you get to boss people around like the government?
I'm sorry, but a house a is private, Walmart is NOT.

If I wish to allow a bunch of people to pass in and out of my home, do I give up my right to exclude people from it? If a business only gets a few customers, does it become property that I can exclude people from? Where is the line, in your view?

It doesn't matter how much business a business gets. It's that the purpose of a business is to allow the public to walk in and make an exchange. That's not the purpose of a house.

There's a definitional distinction between "home" and "business" and that's where the line is drawn.

I have the right to use it as I see fit, and anyone forcing me to do differently is aggressing against me.

I don't support the government controlling businesses either. I'm against all control whether it be government or private.

The right to exclude does not depend on what type of building something is; it depends on how it was acquired. If I acquired my home through theft, then it would not be mine by right, and I would not have the right to exclude others from it. If I acquire my place of business legitimately, then it is mine.
My business is not yours, it is not the government's, and neither of you have the right to tell me how to use it.

The difference between me telling you what to do on my private property and the government telling you what to do on either of our property is the difference between night and day. I can bar you from my home or business because I earned those things, and you didn't.

So people can earn the right to tell others what to do? And in what way did private corporations earn their right that the government did not? Propping up a government and sustaining isn't exactly effortless.

The government did nothing to justify it's right to, for example, tell you what substances you may or may not put in your body.

Yeah, I know that. I'm a Libertarian.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 11:45:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 11:38:45 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/21/2010 11:22:31 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 11/21/2010 11:12:30 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
A building in which hundreds of strangers frequently walk in and out of 12 hours each day, can hardly be described as "private." That's just absurd. In what way is it private?
And even if it were technically "private," why do Libertarians have the double standard view that the government isn't allowed to control you, but "private" businesses can?
What happened to freedom? Just slapping the label "private" means you get to boss people around like the government?
I'm sorry, but a house a is private, Walmart is NOT.

If I wish to allow a bunch of people to pass in and out of my home, do I give up my right to exclude people from it? If a business only gets a few customers, does it become property that I can exclude people from? Where is the line, in your view?

It doesn't matter how much business a business gets. It's that the purpose of a business is to allow the public to walk in and make an exchange. That's not the purpose of a house.

There's a definitional distinction between "home" and "business" and that's where the line is drawn.
And why is it drawn there? What is the moral difference between the two that makes one actual property and the other not?

I have the right to use it as I see fit, and anyone forcing me to do differently is aggressing against me.

I don't support the government controlling businesses either. I'm against all control whether it be government or private.
You're against private control of business? So people should just be allowed to come in and take whatever they want?

The right to exclude does not depend on what type of building something is; it depends on how it was acquired. If I acquired my home through theft, then it would not be mine by right, and I would not have the right to exclude others from it. If I acquire my place of business legitimately, then it is mine.
My business is not yours, it is not the government's, and neither of you have the right to tell me how to use it.

The difference between me telling you what to do on my private property and the government telling you what to do on either of our property is the difference between night and day. I can bar you from my home or business because I earned those things, and you didn't.

So people can earn the right to tell others what to do? And in what way did private corporations earn their right that the government did not? Propping up a government and sustaining isn't exactly effortless.
Either the business was built from the state of nature (building a farm on previously un-owned land, for example), or buying property that was originally acquired that way. Effort isn't enough--if it's immoral effort, like the government's efforts to steal from its citizens, it doesn't cause one to acquire rights.

The government did nothing to justify it's right to, for example, tell you what substances you may or may not put in your body.

Yeah, I know that. I'm a Libertarian.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 11:45:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 11:38:32 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 11/21/2010 11:37:01 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 11/21/2010 11:27:58 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 11/21/2010 11:25:11 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Wal-Mart is publicly owned

Not that I'm aware. Last I checked, they wouldn't even allow their employees to unionize.

Wal-Mart is publicly owned

Proof?

proof? It just is hah. I own Walmart stock
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 11:47:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 11:45:59 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 11/21/2010 11:38:32 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 11/21/2010 11:37:01 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 11/21/2010 11:27:58 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 11/21/2010 11:25:11 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Wal-Mart is publicly owned

Not that I'm aware. Last I checked, they wouldn't even allow their employees to unionize.

Wal-Mart is publicly owned

Proof?

proof? It just is hah. I own Walmart stock

That doesn't necessarily mean it's publicly owned. Publicly owned generally means there's worker's control. There's no such in in corporations such as Wal-Mart.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 11:47:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 11:47:12 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 11/21/2010 11:45:59 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 11/21/2010 11:38:32 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 11/21/2010 11:37:01 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 11/21/2010 11:27:58 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 11/21/2010 11:25:11 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Wal-Mart is publicly owned

Not that I'm aware. Last I checked, they wouldn't even allow their employees to unionize.

Wal-Mart is publicly owned

Proof?

proof? It just is hah. I own Walmart stock

That doesn't necessarily mean it's publicly owned. Publicly owned generally means there's worker's control. There's no such in in corporations such as Wal-Mart.

*no such thing in
OrionsGambit
Posts: 258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 11:49:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 11:38:32 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 11/21/2010 11:37:01 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 11/21/2010 11:27:58 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 11/21/2010 11:25:11 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Wal-Mart is publicly owned

Not that I'm aware. Last I checked, they wouldn't even allow their employees to unionize.

Wal-Mart is publicly owned

Proof?

It's traded on the stock market which anyone may purchase their stock from. By definition it is publically owned.
Noblesse Oblige
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 11:50:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 11:49:45 PM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 11/21/2010 11:38:32 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 11/21/2010 11:37:01 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 11/21/2010 11:27:58 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 11/21/2010 11:25:11 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Wal-Mart is publicly owned

Not that I'm aware. Last I checked, they wouldn't even allow their employees to unionize.

Wal-Mart is publicly owned

Proof?

It's traded on the stock market which anyone may purchase their stock from. By definition it is publically owned.

We obviously have different ideas of what public ownership is then since as I said in my last post, public ownership is worker's control.
OrionsGambit
Posts: 258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 11:51:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 11:47:12 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 11/21/2010 11:45:59 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 11/21/2010 11:38:32 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 11/21/2010 11:37:01 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 11/21/2010 11:27:58 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 11/21/2010 11:25:11 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Wal-Mart is publicly owned

Not that I'm aware. Last I checked, they wouldn't even allow their employees to unionize.

Wal-Mart is publicly owned

Proof?

proof? It just is hah. I own Walmart stock

That doesn't necessarily mean it's publicly owned. Publicly owned generally means there's worker's control. There's no such in in corporations such as Wal-Mart.

You're thinking of employee owned. Woodman's (local grocery super market) is employee-owned. All workers get a vote in how to run the store. Public-owned, anyone off the street can purchase stock in Wal-Mart and thus get a vote in operations.

Employee-owned =/= public-owned and vice versa.
Noblesse Oblige
djsherin
Posts: 343
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 11:54:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
"So people can earn the right to tell others what to do?"

You can earn the right to prevent people from doing with your property what you deem undesirable. You don't have the right to tell people what to do with regards to every other aspect of their life.

"And in what way did private corporations earn their right that the government did not? Propping up a government and sustaining isn't exactly effortless."

Private businesses homestead, governments steal. Both require effort. Merely exerting effort doesn't give you rights to anything.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 11:55:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Sorry if you take issue with the definition of a public company.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
djsherin
Posts: 343
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 11:59:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 11:50:47 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 11/21/2010 11:49:45 PM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 11/21/2010 11:38:32 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 11/21/2010 11:37:01 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 11/21/2010 11:27:58 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 11/21/2010 11:25:11 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Wal-Mart is publicly owned

Not that I'm aware. Last I checked, they wouldn't even allow their employees to unionize.

Wal-Mart is publicly owned

Proof?

It's traded on the stock market which anyone may purchase their stock from. By definition it is publically owned.

We obviously have different ideas of what public ownership is then since as I said in my last post, public ownership is worker's control.

In my opinion, the distinction between "worker" and manager (or entrepreneur) is arbitrary; all groups work for the company and put in labor. That said, when "workers" own something I usually think of that as a co-op. Publicly owned to me implies government ownership, whereas publicly traded is what Wal-Mart is (the ownership is still private). Just my 2 cents.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2010 12:04:47 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Your body is private property? Bull**** Geo you can't tell me what to do. ITS TIME FOR A ****ING.
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.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2010 12:07:39 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/22/2010 12:04:47 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Your body is private property? Bull**** Geo you can't tell me what to do. ITS TIME FOR A ****ING.

Sigged.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
OrionsGambit
Posts: 258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2010 12:10:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 11:54:38 PM, djsherin wrote:
"So people can earn the right to tell others what to do?"

You can earn the right to prevent people from doing with your property what you deem undesirable. You don't have the right to tell people what to do with regards to every other aspect of their life.

"And in what way did private corporations earn their right that the government did not? Propping up a government and sustaining isn't exactly effortless."

Private businesses homestead, governments steal. Both require effort. Merely exerting effort doesn't give you rights to anything.

Government takes ownership of unclaimed property.

Government rents property to private citizen/business represented by government.

Government uses rent to pay for services that said private citizen/business requested that they are unable to provide on their own.

Rent becomes thievery by government.

"One of these things is not like the other..."
Noblesse Oblige
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2010 12:13:24 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/22/2010 12:10:14 AM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 11/21/2010 11:54:38 PM, djsherin wrote:
"So people can earn the right to tell others what to do?"

You can earn the right to prevent people from doing with your property what you deem undesirable. You don't have the right to tell people what to do with regards to every other aspect of their life.

"And in what way did private corporations earn their right that the government did not? Propping up a government and sustaining isn't exactly effortless."

Private businesses homestead, governments steal. Both require effort. Merely exerting effort doesn't give you rights to anything.

Government takes ownership of unclaimed property.

Government rents property to private citizen/business represented by government.

Government uses rent to pay for services that said private citizen/business requested that they are unable to provide on their own.

Rent becomes thievery by government.

"One of these things is not like the other..."
There's the problem. Governments never legitimately acquired unowned property; they simply declared that it was theirs. If an individual builds a farm on unowned land, they have acquired the right to continue having exclusive control over that land. They didn't get ownership of that land by declaring that it was theirs, they had to mix their labor with it.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
OrionsGambit
Posts: 258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2010 12:22:10 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/22/2010 12:13:24 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 11/22/2010 12:10:14 AM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 11/21/2010 11:54:38 PM, djsherin wrote:
"So people can earn the right to tell others what to do?"

You can earn the right to prevent people from doing with your property what you deem undesirable. You don't have the right to tell people what to do with regards to every other aspect of their life.

"And in what way did private corporations earn their right that the government did not? Propping up a government and sustaining isn't exactly effortless."

Private businesses homestead, governments steal. Both require effort. Merely exerting effort doesn't give you rights to anything.

Government takes ownership of unclaimed property.

Government rents property to private citizen/business represented by government.

Government uses rent to pay for services that said private citizen/business requested that they are unable to provide on their own.

Rent becomes thievery by government.

"One of these things is not like the other..."
There's the problem. Governments never legitimately acquired unowned property; they simply declared that it was theirs. If an individual builds a farm on unowned land, they have acquired the right to continue having exclusive control over that land. They didn't get ownership of that land by declaring that it was theirs, they had to mix their labor with it.

Then you are seriously lacking in a history lesson.
Noblesse Oblige
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2010 12:27:27 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/22/2010 12:22:10 AM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 11/22/2010 12:13:24 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 11/22/2010 12:10:14 AM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 11/21/2010 11:54:38 PM, djsherin wrote:
"So people can earn the right to tell others what to do?"

You can earn the right to prevent people from doing with your property what you deem undesirable. You don't have the right to tell people what to do with regards to every other aspect of their life.

"And in what way did private corporations earn their right that the government did not? Propping up a government and sustaining isn't exactly effortless."

Private businesses homestead, governments steal. Both require effort. Merely exerting effort doesn't give you rights to anything.

Government takes ownership of unclaimed property.

Government rents property to private citizen/business represented by government.

Government uses rent to pay for services that said private citizen/business requested that they are unable to provide on their own.

Rent becomes thievery by government.

"One of these things is not like the other..."
There's the problem. Governments never legitimately acquired unowned property; they simply declared that it was theirs. If an individual builds a farm on unowned land, they have acquired the right to continue having exclusive control over that land. They didn't get ownership of that land by declaring that it was theirs, they had to mix their labor with it.

Then you are seriously lacking in a history lesson.
I'd like to hear an example of that happening--it certainly didn't in the United States.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
OrionsGambit
Posts: 258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2010 12:31:30 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/22/2010 12:27:27 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 11/22/2010 12:22:10 AM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 11/22/2010 12:13:24 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 11/22/2010 12:10:14 AM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 11/21/2010 11:54:38 PM, djsherin wrote:
"So people can earn the right to tell others what to do?"

You can earn the right to prevent people from doing with your property what you deem undesirable. You don't have the right to tell people what to do with regards to every other aspect of their life.

"And in what way did private corporations earn their right that the government did not? Propping up a government and sustaining isn't exactly effortless."

Private businesses homestead, governments steal. Both require effort. Merely exerting effort doesn't give you rights to anything.

Government takes ownership of unclaimed property.

Government rents property to private citizen/business represented by government.

Government uses rent to pay for services that said private citizen/business requested that they are unable to provide on their own.

Rent becomes thievery by government.

"One of these things is not like the other..."
There's the problem. Governments never legitimately acquired unowned property; they simply declared that it was theirs. If an individual builds a farm on unowned land, they have acquired the right to continue having exclusive control over that land. They didn't get ownership of that land by declaring that it was theirs, they had to mix their labor with it.

Then you are seriously lacking in a history lesson.
I'd like to hear an example of that happening--it certainly didn't in the United States.

So the first 100 years of US history didn't happen?
Noblesse Oblige
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2010 12:39:31 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/22/2010 12:31:30 AM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 11/22/2010 12:27:27 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 11/22/2010 12:22:10 AM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 11/22/2010 12:13:24 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 11/22/2010 12:10:14 AM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 11/21/2010 11:54:38 PM, djsherin wrote:
"So people can earn the right to tell others what to do?"

You can earn the right to prevent people from doing with your property what you deem undesirable. You don't have the right to tell people what to do with regards to every other aspect of their life.

"And in what way did private corporations earn their right that the government did not? Propping up a government and sustaining isn't exactly effortless."

Private businesses homestead, governments steal. Both require effort. Merely exerting effort doesn't give you rights to anything.

Government takes ownership of unclaimed property.

Government rents property to private citizen/business represented by government.

Government uses rent to pay for services that said private citizen/business requested that they are unable to provide on their own.

Rent becomes thievery by government.

"One of these things is not like the other..."
There's the problem. Governments never legitimately acquired unowned property; they simply declared that it was theirs. If an individual builds a farm on unowned land, they have acquired the right to continue having exclusive control over that land. They didn't get ownership of that land by declaring that it was theirs, they had to mix their labor with it.

Then you are seriously lacking in a history lesson.
I'd like to hear an example of that happening--it certainly didn't in the United States.

So the first 100 years of US history didn't happen?
I don't recall the American government ever homesteading land. Various governments (The British, Spanish, and French) claimed the land, but that's all they did to it. Saying that it was theirs didn't make it theirs, and the American revolution didn't transfer that claimed land to the American government, since it was never legitimate property in the first place. The farmers who ventured westward, building on that unowned land, were the rightful owners of that land.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
OrionsGambit
Posts: 258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2010 1:03:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/22/2010 12:39:31 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 11/22/2010 12:31:30 AM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 11/22/2010 12:27:27 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 11/22/2010 12:22:10 AM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 11/22/2010 12:13:24 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 11/22/2010 12:10:14 AM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 11/21/2010 11:54:38 PM, djsherin wrote:
"So people can earn the right to tell others what to do?"

You can earn the right to prevent people from doing with your property what you deem undesirable. You don't have the right to tell people what to do with regards to every other aspect of their life.

"And in what way did private corporations earn their right that the government did not? Propping up a government and sustaining isn't exactly effortless."

Private businesses homestead, governments steal. Both require effort. Merely exerting effort doesn't give you rights to anything.

Government takes ownership of unclaimed property.

Government rents property to private citizen/business represented by government.

Government uses rent to pay for services that said private citizen/business requested that they are unable to provide on their own.

Rent becomes thievery by government.

"One of these things is not like the other..."
There's the problem. Governments never legitimately acquired unowned property; they simply declared that it was theirs. If an individual builds a farm on unowned land, they have acquired the right to continue having exclusive control over that land. They didn't get ownership of that land by declaring that it was theirs, they had to mix their labor with it.

Then you are seriously lacking in a history lesson.
I'd like to hear an example of that happening--it certainly didn't in the United States.

So the first 100 years of US history didn't happen?
I don't recall the American government ever homesteading land. Various governments (The British, Spanish, and French) claimed the land, but that's all they did to it. Saying that it was theirs didn't make it theirs, and the American revolution didn't transfer that claimed land to the American government, since it was never legitimate property in the first place. The farmers who ventured westward, building on that unowned land, were the rightful owners of that land.

The US government did in fact homestead the land they acquired by the will of their citizenry. If you seriously consider the land unowned then you are merely ignorant and debating it with you is largely a waste time. Heck, you aren't even following your own supposed libertarian principles.
Noblesse Oblige
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2010 9:09:36 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/22/2010 1:03:49 AM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 11/22/2010 12:39:31 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 11/22/2010 12:31:30 AM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 11/22/2010 12:27:27 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 11/22/2010 12:22:10 AM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 11/22/2010 12:13:24 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 11/22/2010 12:10:14 AM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 11/21/2010 11:54:38 PM, djsherin wrote:
"So people can earn the right to tell others what to do?"

You can earn the right to prevent people from doing with your property what you deem undesirable. You don't have the right to tell people what to do with regards to every other aspect of their life.

"And in what way did private corporations earn their right that the government did not? Propping up a government and sustaining isn't exactly effortless."

Private businesses homestead, governments steal. Both require effort. Merely exerting effort doesn't give you rights to anything.

Government takes ownership of unclaimed property.

Government rents property to private citizen/business represented by government.

Government uses rent to pay for services that said private citizen/business requested that they are unable to provide on their own.

Rent becomes thievery by government.

"One of these things is not like the other..."
There's the problem. Governments never legitimately acquired unowned property; they simply declared that it was theirs. If an individual builds a farm on unowned land, they have acquired the right to continue having exclusive control over that land. They didn't get ownership of that land by declaring that it was theirs, they had to mix their labor with it.

Then you are seriously lacking in a history lesson.
I'd like to hear an example of that happening--it certainly didn't in the United States.

So the first 100 years of US history didn't happen?
I don't recall the American government ever homesteading land. Various governments (The British, Spanish, and French) claimed the land, but that's all they did to it. Saying that it was theirs didn't make it theirs, and the American revolution didn't transfer that claimed land to the American government, since it was never legitimate property in the first place. The farmers who ventured westward, building on that unowned land, were the rightful owners of that land.

The US government did in fact homestead the land they acquired by the will of their citizenry
There is no such thing as a general will. And that's not what "Homesteading" is anyway.

If you seriously consider the land unowned then you are merely ignorant and debating it with you is largely a waste time.
If you think that's an argument then you are merely ignorant and debating anything with you is largely a waste of time.

Heck, you aren't even following your own supposed libertarian principles.
Explain the contradiction. I don't think you know what libertarian principles ARE from what you just said.
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.
djsherin
Posts: 343
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2010 9:22:10 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/22/2010 1:03:49 AM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 11/22/2010 12:39:31 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 11/22/2010 12:31:30 AM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 11/22/2010 12:27:27 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 11/22/2010 12:22:10 AM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 11/22/2010 12:13:24 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 11/22/2010 12:10:14 AM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 11/21/2010 11:54:38 PM, djsherin wrote:
"So people can earn the right to tell others what to do?"

You can earn the right to prevent people from doing with your property what you deem undesirable. You don't have the right to tell people what to do with regards to every other aspect of their life.

"And in what way did private corporations earn their right that the government did not? Propping up a government and sustaining isn't exactly effortless."

Private businesses homestead, governments steal. Both require effort. Merely exerting effort doesn't give you rights to anything.

Government takes ownership of unclaimed property.

Government rents property to private citizen/business represented by government.

Government uses rent to pay for services that said private citizen/business requested that they are unable to provide on their own.

Rent becomes thievery by government.

"One of these things is not like the other..."
There's the problem. Governments never legitimately acquired unowned property; they simply declared that it was theirs. If an individual builds a farm on unowned land, they have acquired the right to continue having exclusive control over that land. They didn't get ownership of that land by declaring that it was theirs, they had to mix their labor with it.

Then you are seriously lacking in a history lesson.
I'd like to hear an example of that happening--it certainly didn't in the United States.

So the first 100 years of US history didn't happen?
I don't recall the American government ever homesteading land. Various governments (The British, Spanish, and French) claimed the land, but that's all they did to it. Saying that it was theirs didn't make it theirs, and the American revolution didn't transfer that claimed land to the American government, since it was never legitimate property in the first place. The farmers who ventured westward, building on that unowned land, were the rightful owners of that land.

The US government did in fact homestead the land they acquired by the will of their citizenry. If you seriously consider the land unowned then you are merely ignorant and debating it with you is largely a waste time. Heck, you aren't even following your own supposed libertarian principles.

He's saying it's not owned legitimately. How is that in conflict with libertarian principles?