Does The Government Have The Right to Claim Ownership of The Earth's Resources?

What thefucking fuck see this why the world is the way it is everybody's aruguing about fucking dribble to do anything constructive.

Rob Roy said:

I'm not a white supremacist. I am an individual rights for everyone regardless of race supremacist, you prohibitionist control freak that would force a black guy to serve him against the black guys will lousy debater person.

You've never explained how declining an interaction with somebody is more egregious than forcing an unwilling person to serve you. Perhaps you could elaborate on why you think forced servitude is preferable to indifference ?

Click to expand...

have you been drinking ? Your writing is saying such.
anyhow
Four words
OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

Rob Roy said:

I have no objection to voluntary communist or socialist arrangements, where all people in that club are in it of their own free will. No reason that kind of setup couldn't exist peacefully beside individuals who decline to be in that club. Basically, "Panarchy" .

It's when people are subsumed into something and the individuals never consented that I would have a problem.

Voluntary vs involuntary etc.

Click to expand...

well everything is sort of being forced onto us as the moment, with the existence of nation states and everything that supports the concept of borders

TL im high DR the rest lol

moving_shadow said:

well everything is sort of being forced onto us as the moment, with the existence of nation states and everything that supports the concept of borders

Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of nation states, since they falsely purport to have the consent of the occupants within their boundaries and they are usually the result of conquest rather than a natural occurrence of original occupation.

Borders, as in boundaries between your area and my area can be a different kind of border which has a greater possibility of being a boundary rooted in some kind of natural human relationship not reliant on phony consent as a justification. Since they don't default to a forcible hierarchy and instead can be based in something more natural such as original occupation combined with voluntary free trade..

londonfog said:

have you been drinking ? Your writing is saying such.
anyhow
Four words
OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

Click to expand...

I rarely drink anymore. Makes me forget where I hid the bodies.

I know what you are trying to say, it's what you're not saying or seeing that is causing you to contradict yourself and allow government speak to redefine the meaning of the word "owner" .

Your concept of what ownership is, asserts that nonowners of a given property (government) can set the terms of use of the property and not the "owner" themselves.

Which means you are saying two different things at once, that the owner is not really the owner and another entity actually determines the use of it. Which is a contradiction. The proper words in that relationship would be tenant and landlord.

Otherwise...

If a person really does own something and decides not to be open to the public, as in they've decided not to be interested in doing business with everybody for a variety of reasons of their own choosing, they couldn't possibly be "open to the public" , not of their own free will anyway, could they ?


So here are my 4 words. Which part do you disagree with?

Nobody owns other people.

Space_cadet said:

What thefucking fuck see this why the world is the way it is everybody's aruguing about fucking dribble to do anything constructive.

Click to expand...

Later this week I hope to begin constructing a new greenhouse and chicken coop. I hope the fuckingfuck rooster bangs the cluckingcluck hens and I get lots of baby chicks.

Which constructive things will you be working on?

UncleBuck said:

then why have you spent years making thousands of posts trying to claim a non-existent right to kick black people out of stores based solely on their skin color?

Click to expand...

Nobody has a right to use or threaten offensive force to compel another person to serve them. Nobody owns other people.

Everybody has a right to choose their own human associations and to evade offensive force or use defensive force to repel offensive force wielding people.

How people control their own property and their own body isn't up to me or you, it's up to them. Why are you a prohibitionist ? Why would you force a black guy to serve you against his will?

Rob Roy said:

Nobody has a right to use or threaten offensive force to compel another person to serve them. Nobody owns other people.

Everybody has a right to choose their own human associations and to evade offensive force or use defensive force to repel offensive force wielding people.

How people control their own property and their own body isn't up to me or you, it's up to them. Why are you a prohibitionist ? Why would you force a black guy to serve you against his will?

Click to expand...

you do not have a "right" to kick black people out of stores because of their skin color so stop spamming us with your shit

UncleBuck said:

you do not have a "right" to kick black people out of stores because of their skin color so stop spamming us with your shit

Click to expand...

So, I answered your questions and you can't / won't answer mine and instead you offer a conflating diversion to avoid the misery of me pummeling you again eh? Somehow this all feels familiar.

So, you're saying you DO have a right to force a black guy to serve you against his will? Would you use a gun to make him do it ?


Here this is for you...

Rob Roy said:

So, I answered your questions and you can't / won't answer mine and instead you offer a conflating diversion to avoid the misery of me pummeling you again eh? Somehow this all feels familiar.

So, you're saying you DO have a right to force a black guy to serve you against his will? Would you use a gun to make him do it ?


Here this is for you...


View attachment 4125519

Click to expand...

you do not have a "right" to kick black people out of stores because of their skin color so stop spamming us with your shit

none of your history revisionism will ever change this you racist cretin

UncleBuck said:

you do not have a "right" to kick black people out of stores because of their skin color so stop spamming us with your shit

none of your history revisionism will ever change this you racist cretin

Click to expand...

We agree that racists hold beliefs we wouldn't.

We don't agree on whether it's right to force people to serve us. I don't believe it's right. You do, and would force a black guy to serve you against his will.

Rob Roy said:

We agree that racists hold beliefs we wouldn't.

We don't agree on whether it's right to force people to serve us. I don't believe it's right. You do, and would force a black guy to serve you against his will.

Click to expand...

there is no such thing as being forced to serve someone against one's will because no one is forced to open a store that serves people you racist cretin

you do not have a "right" to kick black people out of stores because of their skin color so stop spamming us with your shit

Rob Roy said:

I rarely drink anymore. Makes me forget where I hid the bodies.

I know what you are trying to say, it's what you're not saying or seeing that is causing you to contradict yourself and allow government speak to redefine the meaning of the word "owner" .

Your concept of what ownership is, asserts that nonowners of a given property (government) can set the terms of use of the property and not the "owner" themselves.

Which means you are saying two different things at once, that the owner is not really the owner and another entity actually determines the use of it. Which is a contradiction. The proper words in that relationship would be tenant and landlord.

Otherwise...

If a person really does own something and decides not to be open to the public, as in they've decided not to be interested in doing business with everybody for a variety of reasons of their own choosing, they couldn't possibly be "open to the public" , not of their own free will anyway, could they ?


So here are my 4 words. Which part do you disagree with?

Nobody owns other people.

Click to expand...

If you decide to own a business and decide to run it Open To The Public you shall do as such
If you own a business you can also run it as not open to the general public. Why is that so hard for you to understand.
Just because you own something does not mean you don't have rules. I own guns, but if I don't follow the rules of a gun owner I will lose that right ( and rightly so ) You own a car does that mean you can drive on the side walk because it is your car ? You own your body, does that mean you can walk around butt ass naked in public ? We have rules in society, which helps us to be more civilized.
Hey if you still want to run your business like a racist or bigot you can still do so. Open it as a club membership, then you are not just open to the general public and get can still get your racist on....as long as your business is not breaking the law like serving drinks to underage children.

londonfog said:

If you decide to own a business and decide to run it Open To The Public you shall do as such
If you own a business you can also run it as not open to the general public. Why is that so hard for you to understand.
Just because you own something does not mean you don't have rules. I own guns, but if I don't follow the rules of a gun owner I will lose that right ( and rightly so ) You own a car does that mean you can drive on the side walk because it is your car ? You own your body, does that mean you can walk around butt ass naked in public ? We have rules in society, which helps us to be more civilized.
Hey if you still want to run your business like a racist or bigot you can still do so. Open it as a club membership, then you are not just open to the general public and get can still get your racist on....as long as your business is not breaking the law like serving drinks to underage children.

Click to expand...

if rob roy can't have sex with 11 year old boys on his own personal property, does he really even own it?

UncleBuck said:

if rob roy can't have sex with 11 year old boys on his own personal property, does he really even own it?

Click to expand...

according to Robbie the answer is no. He will ask " what is property and who owns it "

londonfog said:

according to Robbie the answer is no. He will ask " what is property and who owns it "

Click to expand...

this rob roy moore guy sounds like a pedophile if you ask me

UncleBuck said:

this rob roy moore guy sounds like a pedophile if you ask me

Click to expand...

If you defend pedophiles, does that make you a pedophile. Rob feels some 12 year olds are mature enough to have sex with an adult.

londonfog said:

If you defend pedophiles, does that make you a pedophile. Rob feels some 12 year olds are mature enough to have sex with an adult.

Click to expand...

i think rob roy moore has these pedophilic ideations because he listens to too much white music from pedophiles like kid rock and ted nugent

londonfog said:

If you decide to own a business and decide to run it Open To The Public you shall do as such
If you own a business you can also run it as not open to the general public. Why is that so hard for you to understand.
Just because you own something does not mean you don't have rules. I own guns, but if I don't follow the rules of a gun owner I will lose that right ( and rightly so ) You own a car does that mean you can drive on the side walk because it is your car ? You own your body, does that mean you can walk around butt ass naked in public ? We have rules in society, which helps us to be more civilized.
Hey if you still want to run your business like a racist or bigot you can still do so. Open it as a club membership, then you are not just open to the general public and get can still get your racist on....as long as your business is not breaking the law like serving drinks to underage children.

Click to expand...

In all of the poor examples you gave it was instances of people going off their property to do something you found objectionable. We're not talking about people going off their property, we're talking about people remaining on (their) private property.

Do you distinguish between your property and other peoples property ?