How is this theft?

How is this theft?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value
marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/proudhon/property/
yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
westernwildlife.org/gray-wolf-outreach-project/biology-behavior-4/#WOLF_HABITAT_AND_TERRITORY
hungerforculture.com/?page_id=1330
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_animal#Human_social_behavior
aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/08/exposing-great-poverty-reductio-201481211590729809.html
yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

...

It isn't. Is X wage labour?

easy, guy on the left is actually saying "do this for me or you'll starve"

Because he should do X for himself and keep the product. There is no need for top hat

Property rights

somebody post the leftypol version

Because the capitalist has to generate surplus value by under paying the worker for his work, and over charging the customer as much as possible.
Also because if the employee says no to the proposed arrangement he starves to death. So essentially his options are either:
A) Suck porkies dick for food
B) Die

There cannot possibly be any concent in this scenario since he can only choose to be a wage slave or starve to death.

...

anarcho capitalism was invented as a prank guys come on no one really believes that

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value

You are all fucking retarded.

Oh shit bro you disproved communism, pack it up people

Welcome to back to the real world

...

There is nothing wrong with this at all.

...

well generally he's being paid a wage to support his living. he must produce something which will sell for more than his wage. It's not so much that we want to outlaw such a thing as we want to create a society in which this sort of quid-pro-quo exchange is no longer necessary namely by a shift in the balance of power and the destruction of this artificially-imposed scarcity. Maybe I took this b8 post to seriously but people have a tendency to focus on the simple act of exchange and not the context around it. leftists are not generally concerned with the act itself so much as the surrounding context in which it exists.

I thought Nazis were supposed to be against parasitism

get a load of this dumb cuck

...

...

god is a communist.

He is just mad that they didn't pay the wages. God is most certianly not a communist. Simply because he is anti luxury/indulgence doesnt mean he is communist. As my quote shows "Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion"

Nice non-sequitur.

but that's not how value is defined here. This is about the same tier argument as when FDCK will simply handwave away all self-proclaimed socialist nations by saying "here's my totally correct definition of socialism" and just leaving it at that. "Wage labor and capital" explains Marx's concept of value pretty concisely if you don't have time for Capital (which is understandable). It's not simple moralism here (there's an aspect of that but that's not all there is to surplus value). It's a theory which explains why capitalism is unsustainable.

care to explain your point here? I'm not sure I follow. if you're emphasizing the giving freely bit, I agree. Communism does not mean high taxes on the rich. It is a society in which giving is not disincentivised. a society in which conflicts of interest have not fully saturated the whole of our communities. a society in which we may all pursue an ethical life.

Are you a christian by the way? what do you make of paul's anti-nationalism? what do you make of the fact that paul never actually renounced Judaism?

Jesus literally said to renounce all possessions and to follow him etc are you talking about?

also
it's funny that Hayek used to whine about how socialists and nazis were the same group of people considering the overlap between ancaps and neonazi filth. It's almost like fascism is the logical conclusion of anarcho-capitalism

The very existence of the rich is a theft of the worker's wages. When people give freely that means they are also cannot be compelled to give their wages to the rich.
the point is moot because god told me last tuesday he was a communist. Tough luck.

Judeo-Christian. The NT is all aesthetics to those broken people.

You aren't quoting anything and you certainly aren't making a point. The Buddha demanded the same thing but he wasn't a fucking communist either. Jesus wasn't preaching revolution and communist dogma.


Im using the Nazi flag to make you mad


Backwards thinking. They agreed to a certain wage, their wage isn't being given to the rich at all. Where the fuck do you people get this shit.

Where do you get this shit? You've been cucked for so long you think it's consent.

Me not giving you my money is not a threat of material deprivation retard. You make it sound like there is one guy who owns ever bit of food on the planet and won't give you any unless you work for him.

I think you're just scared of being bullied to death for having a trash ideology m8

true, but they did not agree about property rights, thus property is theft

Fuck, now I've forgotten my shitposting flag.

can you prove it yours?

if that was the case cucks would still say it was moral.

Reductionist apologetics.

It's not you personally or (X) capitalist. It's the general principle of bosses or deprivation that is the problem. It's not an equal exchange, it isn't one of merit or voluntary and only ideology can convince you otherwise.


The only thing about my statement that contradicted the subjective theory of value was the idea of "surplus value" contained within a workers labor. Otherwise you'll find that the subjective theory of value is a simplified version of things Marx and Anarchists were already aware of a century or so before. TLTV doesn't mean what you think.

If you are against property rights then you are saying that people cannot own property. How can something be theft (stolen) if nothing can be owned?

thats right, property is impossible, theft implies the imposition of arbitrary porperty rights over unowned property

That's the point, it can't. Hence the necessity of socialism.

The coercion is built into the system. The individual capitalist doesn't have to force you to be exploited because the structure of capitalism does it for him. Funny how that works, almost makes the NAP seem ideologically driven somehow :^)

Maybe expand on this? Like ya know… prove it.


I don't really see how property is impossible. With or without government property is totally viable in that I either purchase it from someone or from the state and then defend it as my own. I don't see how If I buy land from somebody else I have also magically stolen it from you.

I'm gone for about 30 minutes but thanks for all the you's leftcucks

Austrian economics are literally a giant straw man.

Property exists because hierarchies exist. The disenfranchised will be coaxed into believing they are without hope not because of the ramifications of accepting agency for their own actions, but because of unjust forces at-play.
If you despise private property so much, examine the nature of the wolf and his territory. It is unjust to have that territory, that advantage over other wolves, but to claim that all wolves equally have the same claim on the territory is to extend your own arbitrary sense of entitlement to the entire populous. If you wish to be rational, you don't argue in such proportions.

nice ragequit


ez
marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/proudhon/property/

because property ownership is theft, if we want to form a society based on voluntary agreements, we need to abolsih property

both of you are commiting theft

if property rights are a social constructs, then it means said social constructs can be deconstructed

because I could form my own goverment, my own money and my own property rule of law, hence this system taken to its logical conclusion ends in violence and exploitation

...

we understand that you are as stupid as a mere cane, but that is not what is being discussed here

Do you understand the concept of an analogy?
I am not saying that human beings are equivalent to wolves. I can extend the analogy if you are incapable of seeing it for yourself.

I utilize a plot of land for my benefit and generate more food than I can eat. I start selling the goods I grew to my customers. I am able to defend the land because I am powerful. My customers defend me because I provide a good/service they enjoy.
Like I said before: but to claim that all wolves equally have the same claim on the territory is to extend your own arbitrary sense of entitlement to the entire populous.


We are discussing property rights and how hierarchies exist, and how extending your own arbitrary sense of entitlement to the populations you wish to utilize in a revolution is not a substantive point.
If you want to ad-hom, that is fine. But calling others out on not sticking to the point when you intentionally deviate and call people poopy-head dummy pants because they bring up the opposite side from your argument isn't really making the case for your intellectual honesty.

right back at ya, extending your own arbitrary sense of entitlement to the populations you want to subjugate to your arbitrary set of property rights is not a substantive point, as such thing is theft and inherently violent

it is not in my self-interest to support nor theft nor violence, so it seems like your model is wrong

hierarchies are constructed by living forms, if that is the case, then they can be deconstructed

besides, it is not an adhom, as I am not using inults to prove my point, I am straight up calling you fucking stupid

It's the other way around, individualism completely ignores the greater socio-economic forces at play. Intentionally, it's an ideological justification for that socio-economic order that attempts get those who are under the boot of class society to blame themselves rather than the larger forces at play.

If this was really "law of the jungle", I should be able to kill my boss and then rightfully take his stuff.

As you are well aware, it doesn't work this way. Wolves don't fight to defend the positions of rival wolves.

Did volutnary exchange happen or did you use force?

Arbitrary: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
Entitlement: the belief that one is inherently deserving of muh privileges or special treatment.
The property rights are not arbitrary if they are demonstrable and objective. If they were arbitrary (random choice/personal whim over reason or system of nature), then we would not see the same pattens arise time and time again. From the flora and fauna to the dominion of the lion, we can observe the same system fall into place: the hierarchy is established and maintained because the powerful dominate the meek. Those that are incapable fall behind and those that can succeed, gain territory. The gazelle does not blame the cheetah for killing it, but blames its own legs for not being fast enough.
Theft: the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.
You are not the rightful owner of the keyboard I am typing on. I purchased it with the money I earned working. Because the ingredients were mined and constructed from the earth and on factories, which are on private land, does not mean everybody has an equal claim on it. I repeat myself: extending your own arbitrary sense of entitlement is not a substantive point. You, by definition, think yourself to be the equal owner of all things on property because we all have equal claims on land. Why, then, does the lion not forfeit his empire and share with the weak?

I'm sure you're a Christian, right?

"Mutumbo, you must collect fruit from fruit-bearing trees or else you'll get hunger pains"
"No, I have to work for that fruit and that's oppression"
"wat"

If that gazelle could it would blow that lions brains out tbh. Something which "weak" human beings are able to do. Like said "If this was really "law of the jungle", I should be able to kill my boss and then rightfully take his stuff."

Oh, so workers have free access to land and resources to collect from and produce as they please? No, capitalist own those resources and lands as private company and you have to be contracted by them to have access to their use?

Weird, almost as if that's the whole point.

I don't care what your self-interest is, hierarchies exist beyond the arbitrary alignment of the individual. You can disagree with evolution or not find it in your self-interest when the girl in the picture denies you mating rights, this does not change the fact that she denies you mating rights or that a hierarchy of mates exist.
So your logic is that anything constructed by living things can be deconstructed? That the only thing differentiating the capability to destroy is if it was created by a living form? There are species that have gone extinct which are, themselves, living forms. There are abiotic objects which have been turned to nothingness. I can burn plastic and deconstruct it via chemical reactions.
yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
By calling me a poophead dummy pants, you are saying that this person is a… dummy poopyhead idiot.


What greater socio-economic forces? What boot, there is no boot. You absolve agency from the individual when it is convenient to motivate a false sense of pride in the "disenfranchised". The gazelle must blame its own feet, not the cheetah, for its demise.

You can. Then the police force exercises justice and maintains the hierarchy.

What rival wolves. You mean competitors to the throne of the alpha wolf? You mean to say that there are no such thing as disputes over territory and women in the animal kingdom, specifically wolves? This is demonstrably incorrect: westernwildlife.org/gray-wolf-outreach-project/biology-behavior-4/#WOLF_HABITAT_AND_TERRITORY


Glossing over the false accusation that "you are a dummy and I am assigning political beliefs to you because this will make a case if I do it enough", yes. It is voluntary. I am not forcing you to buy my corn. I am not forcing anybody to buy anything, they purchase a good or service only because they choose to do so. Voluntary: one, given, or acting of one's own free will.


Like I said, you can, but superior force will be used to re-establish the hierarchy. The boss is not without defense, either. You cannot fight the man who is armed, he will shoot you. If he can afford a gun and you can't, you will be shot dead.

But it's not your money. It's society's money and society lets you use it as a signalling device to call on labor and uses it to call on yours. If you don't agree, the Secret Service might like to talk with you about "your" money.


You've stolen (primitively accumulated) the productive power of that land from society. Fee-simple ownership includes, among others, the right to lay unlimited waste to a piece of land, which is clearly a problem for people who outlive you. Having to clean up after your unlimited right to waste is clearly a reason for people to decline to recognize fee-simple title to land.


Entitlement derives from the concept of title, such as to property. Roll that one around in your head for a while and then come back when you're not a lying praxeological liberal.

I'm sorry, should I also adress you by the correct pronouns?

a government defending property rights is based on the random choice and personal whim of the proprietor, it makes sense that he would support said system, on the contrary, he would try to sabotage any system that tries to change his rule of law, thus showing the arbitrary notion of property rights

its easy to see how said system of governance is based on random choice and personal whim, as an objectively better system, one without theft and exploitation, cannot come into existance due to his arbitrary choice

explains perfectly the feelings of the proprietor, who belives he is entitled to own property, despite said action being theft, because of a repressive state apparatus supporting this legal arrangement

again, the discussion is not about the fact of you having similar intellectual capabilities as a tree or an ant, but if said constructions are of social origin, if they are, then the society can deconstruct them
feel free to provide an instance where flowers and lions created legal institutions to defend property however

sure, feel free it is your property first however, but remember if such proof is from legal origin, then it is invalid, as it is a social construct and such social constructs can be deconstructed

Again, feel free that you are the owner of said keyboard, but remember if such proof is from legal origin, then it is invalid, as it is a social construct and such social constructs can be deconstructed

worng, never in my posts did I implied i am the owner of everything, thats you projecting your inner envy


right back at ya

where?

I am the super human, I have trascended the necessity of reproducing capital by reproducing life

if the girls wants to shag or not makes no difference for me, shagging is a coercive action imposed by biology onto the individual, I do not care about reproducing human biology, as I would be reproducing man, and by consequence reproducing capital

also, hookers exist, what makes you belive I belive in love fairytales

absolutely, deconstruction is not destruction, you can deconstruct matter, however you cannot destroy it, however social constructs can be both deconstructed and destroyed, deconstructed in the sense that can be lay down fiber by fiber and see where the coercive action exist, in this case on property rights, and destroyed in the case of destroying it's subjective value given to it

yes, but I am not saying your argument is wrong because you are dumb, your argument is wrong because property rights are theft, arbitrary and because they originate from a sense of entitlement from the part of the proprietor

you are dumb because well, you are fucking stupid by comparing yourself to a mere cane or tree

If I were to be entitled, then I would take something which I do not deserve/have reasonable claims upon. One is entitled when one acts out of line and assumes the world owes him something when it does not.
You argue within your own ideology instead of arguing FOR your ideology. You are still assuming that it is theft which, by definition, assumes ownership. You are still extending your own arbitrary sense of entitlement, saying that you have ownership over all land. Why is this? What land do you own? In what way do you, personally, possess the land? Do you have a hierarchy that defends it on your behalf, or are you capable of defending it from invaders?
Humans are social and territorial animals. They congregate and form social spheres. We band together and form villages and tribes, defending each other from the elements and invaders. We use the land and give each other reason to maintain the land in our possession. If a neighbouring tribe comes and kills us all to take our land, then there is a hierarchy which is re-established. It isn't corporeal, literally drafted into being. It is simply a state of existence in which things operate under. The tribes which defend and use the land properly are said to possess the lands. Notice how I say "use". If they simply let the land grow dull and allow it to provide nothing which acts as sustenance, then that will make it all the easier for the neighbouring tribes to defeat them because it isn't hard to defeat a starving army. This finds its modern equivalent with businesses which cannot turn a profit and are bought out by bigger and more successful businesses.
Claiming that all tribes can somehow defeat the most powerful tribe that has defeated all others is both self-contradictory and, by extension, illogical. The tribes lose because they cannot win, they are not capable of defeating the powerful tribe. Their loss is, in no way, a win. So it cannot be said that they are ranked highly in the hierarchy. Assuming that they did win is extending their own arbitrary feelings of entitlement, that they deserve something for which they did not work to earn, to the conclusion simply because they did not reach the one they liked.

Mutumbo collects fruit from the tree. From his labor he plants other plants which bear fruit. Mogumbo wants some of the fruit too so he gives some. Later Mutumbo realises while he's doing all the hard work Mogumbo is basically being a lazy leech and not putting any effort in, so he tells him "help me create food or you cannot have some"
And Mogumbo screams "that's oppression"

If you want people to take your claims as being logical, you don't assert their stupidity THEN go on to make your point. It is making your conclusion before making your proofs. If you want to be illogical, keep going.

No, it isn't. You do not come to possess something "randomly". You think your ancestors "randomly" were able to maintain a family and breed? They earned it because they worked for it, showed that their work had merit.

You don't use proper punctuation so I don't get what you're saying. You just contradicted yourself by saying "he would support it, on the contrary". I don't really have anything to add other than the fact that we are not arguing why people support what. I don't care who supports what, we are discussing the merits of the claim, not who likes to talk about it. Argue within the bounds of the conversation, jumping from topic to topic to make it seem like you've made a point doesn't make it any more a point.

That which can be asserted without evidence can be denied without evidence. Repeating it doesn't make it real. You think that the primordial organisms which fought for domination of this planet came before their territory "randomly"? Darwin's theory of evolution and the concept of genetic fitness would like to have a word with you.

You do not own the land. It cannot be stolen from you. You are not being treated unfairly because you do not own something, every gain is not a loss at your expense. If you think that it is, this means that you believe you own these things which you would like to own but see in the possession of others. This does nothing to change reality. You can wish to possess something all you want, but this does not magically make you possess the thing.
You do not own the land. It cannot be stolen from you. You are not being treated unfairly because you do not own something, every gain is not a loss at your expense.
It is not entitlement, or some inherent claim, because you are not born with special muh privileges on all land.

You do not own the land. It cannot be stolen from you. Argue within the definitions set forth by the English language or cede that you have no points beyond manipulating language.

Wouldn't that make it illegal? Besides, the tribe of wolves cares not why you think they shouldn't win, they will just win. Together, they are more powerful at repelling invaders, like you, who believe they have claims on all land. Just because you think the hierarchy they have established is bad does not mean it doesn't exist.

Feel free you deserve or have reasonable claims over property tho

precisely, why should the world respect your arbitrary property rights then? they are theft, what makes you belive you are entitled to steal?

I don't follow any ideology, I am the creative nothing I simply follow my self interest, it is in my self interest to enjoy what I have been lucky enough to be born in, therefore it is in my self interest not to support property rights, as such arbitrary set of laws stops me from fulfilling my ego

wrong, i don't need to create a legal system to make possession of something, I do not want to become the woner of anything, no need to project your inner envy

I would possess the land if I had property rights over it, again, property is theft, therefore property is impossible, possession isn't, possession is the ability to control matter, in this case, land

I possess what others cannot take away from me, thus if we don't make possession of land, there would be no need for violence

citation needed

something something said by an old man "I teach you the overman. Man is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him?"

I am not making a direct comparison to humans, saying that we have the same intellectual capabilities as ants. I am comparing the nature of the organisms on Earth.
From:
"hierarchies are constructed by living forms, if that is the case, then they can be deconstructed"
I thought the factor was if they were constructed by living forms? Pick a story. Social constructs are created as a result of higher civilization converging towards a point of order that calls for high standards of living. Social constructs like respect and honesty are put into place. There are asocial animals, animals who do not congregate with each other, but still display territorial dominance or dominion over the women. My point, which has gone unaddressed (how convenient that you can gloss over the points which address the claims you are about to repeat, but I respond to all your sentences), is that this behaviour is observed in all walks of life, not just "social constructs" in human society. Arguing that it is dependent upon social constructs is refuted by simply observing the territorial dominion of species which have not converged towards the necessity of "social constructs".


I thought you said we can't have property because there is no first. How convenient of you to run away from that claim, perhaps you have seen that it resorts to an infinite regression (humans can't be the first owners, it was the dinosaurs. Wait, it was the forest-life which first inhabited and ruled over the land! Wait, it was Earth itself! Or the molecules, or the quarks, or the….).
So the validity of a "thing" is based upon who decides they can deconstruct it. If you think you can deconstruct the hierarchy of the wolf, then by all means, take his property. You will have tacitly established the hierarchy in your own name, thus preserving it despite your efforts. So law is not invalid because it is of social origin? Hospitals are socially constructed out of necessity for first aid/medicine. Universities are formed out of social constructs for higher knowledge of the world around us. You can make anything a social construct if you try hard enough because humans and all we have created can be classified under the social umbrella.

yes I can, this is the law of the jungle, isn't it? I could kill you and possess everything you claim property rights over, morality is a spook

ok, good for them, no one asked them to do such thing, they did it out of pure self interest, they did it as a service

meaning that, opossed to the idea that we would support a legal system that defends his arbitrary claim of possession over matter, he wouldn't support one that does not, dummy

oh but you should as one day the existing ruling class might not want to defend your "merits" that let you claim property

Oh, you are of slower capabilities, no wonder you compared yourself to a mere cane

precisely, feel free to use concrete evidence to support property rights, social constructs are a spook fam, they ain't real

if you support the law of the jungle, then you support the destruction of property rights,as I could kill you and claim your property as mine
between the rock and a hard place user..

moreover, the concept of genetic fitness is subjective, we have the power to destroy whole species, we have superated them, now its time to superate man

feel free to prove you do, but remember, property rights ain't real fam

I can make use of it without the necessity of property rights, I could plow a field without being the "owner" of it, however the proprietor, by making use of the arbitrary legal system, can stop me from making use of said piece of land, therefore, he is stealing my capability of making use of it

legal-illegal is a false dichotomy, the legal system only serves the proprietor class

our fight is not againts wolves, if wolves wanted a fight, we could make them go extinct, our fight is againts ourselves, the proprietor cannot win, as he needs the exploited classes to exploit, he cannot apropriate land and labour it just by himself, he needs living and dead labour

this is why the power rest on the labourers, as all they need to do is to dismiss property rights, claim the surplus value as theirs and disregard property rights

tssk tssk, projecting your envy again

I'm not asking you how you sell corn, I'm asking you how you aquired your land.

Except "Motumbo" in this analogy just owns the tree and "Mogumbo" does all the work of collection and harvesting but only gets a portion of the reward for his work since he doesn't own the tree.

By your own admission, ownership should only be based on who is making use of the resources. So basically, socialism. Congrats on coming to your senses.

So you are not directly inferring to equal rights of ownership for all when you say that all private property is invalid because it comes at a loss from others? This directly relates to ownership when you call it theft, which directly relates to an entitlement over said land. You are correct, you didn't imply it, I never said you implied it. It is a direct consequence of your claims, you inferred it.

Why don't you quote me in full instead of taking snippets which make it seem like I am saying something when I mean the opposite? I am not saying that I don't care about your personal self-interests, but that with respect to extending those self-interests to your claim, that does nothing to change the reality of the situation.

I already sourced the wolves and their territorial disputes. Hierarchies are established when the gazelle falls victim to the cheetah, when the slug falls victim to the crow, when the rabbit to the fox, when the predator to the prey, the weak to the powerful.

Arguing by stating that you have superhuman capabilities, knowing that such claims cannot be substantiated in this lens of discussion, is not pertinent to the topic we are discussing. I have a gremlin living in my small intestine has as much proof behind it and is as relevant to what we are discussing.

Female ejaculation exists. It is not coerced if both individuals take part willingly/consent, by definition.

Citation needed. Deconstruct the neutrino, please.
You cannot destroy the idea of something if it exists in nature. You can write it off, but once your legacy dies, it will just come back. You can deconstruct the biological urge to mate if you want, it will still rise back to the top.

You are deconstructing it through the lens of your own beliefs, if you cannot substantiate the "fibers", then you can't make assertions based on their behalf. You still have yet to substantiate your claims.

When you lay out your conclusion before your thesis, that is not a point to be made in your favour. You literally did that here:
That is exactly what you did, you said that I was dumb and offered no refutation to my claims. You still stick to "property rights are theft", even though theft relates to ownership, and claiming I "steal" from you when I make the choice to purchase something illustrates your entitlement complex, but wait you weren't saying that you have claim on things.

You said above that you were not making ad-homs, yet your core argument here is that I am stupid. No reasoning, no logic, just "you are dumb". Way to prove your point by refuting yourself so I don't have to.

I was until I read the bible cover to cover.

thats alright, feel free to compare the legal system created by man and the legal system created by lemon trees


All forms of livings forms cronstruct their own defined order, humans being social are not the exception

the social constructs of a fungus are different from the social construts of man, this does not mean the social constructs of man are in any way superior to the ones of the fungus by default, the superirority derives from force, not from an stablished fact, the strong rules the weak

human will be replaced, by force, by the superhuman, an entity that understands the arbitrary and coercive nature of property rights, you can call it however you want, the egoists, the superhuman, the commie, the NWO, it doesn't matter, what matters i that they are superior to the proprietor and this new living form will accomplish their historical role, this act can be found on act as simple as a petty thief stealing from you or something like global revolution

Dialectics do not care about your feelings, it is a fact that property is theft, its the dialectical nature of property, taken to its logical conlucision, property is the ability to stop others from enjoying, this act of aporpiation needs violence, and it is violence what will end it

"Reasonable" means nothing if it is according to you.

You do not own the land. It cannot be stolen from you. You are not being treated unfairly because you do not own something, every gain is not a loss at your expense.

What you believe in, or lack thereof absolutely, does not showcase the merit behind your claims. It is in my self-interest that the sun not rise every morning. This is a non-argument.

Do you own the device you are using to connect with my on the Internet?
You are using the Internet, you are taking away the data usage from the disenfranchised who have no access to the Internet. It is being consumed in your own name over others. It is theft from the others, it is their birthright which you are taking away from them.

If your claim falls apart under literally one minute of scrutiny, you need to re-evaluate your claims. You said that possession of land is possible if one has property rights over it, but property=theft, which is impossible, but possession is not impossible (it is possible). Then property rights are also possible by your first sentence "I would possess the land if I had property rights over it".

hungerforculture.com/?page_id=1330
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_animal#Human_social_behavior
There is a field dedicated to categorizing human social behaviour. Have you been unaware of it this entire time?

Nonsensical and irrelevant Nietzsche ramblings are not relevant to the substantiation of your claim.

Excellent, then the hierarchy is maintained. How did you come to possess the tools to kill me with? I am armed to the teeth, you cannot kill me with your bare hands.

You just contradicted your "random" point by agreeing with the statement.

You do not own the land. It cannot be stolen from you. You are not being treated unfairly because you do not own something, every gain is not a loss at your expense. If you think that it is, this means that you believe you own these things which you would like to own but see in the possession of others. This does nothing to change reality. You can wish to possess something all you want, but this does not magically make you possess the thing.
You have yet to substantiate your claims, repeating them over and over again does not make them true.

There are governments which have done this before, but if you just say that something might happen, that means nothing. If you want to make it a point, relate it to governments which HAVE done that in the past.

Weren't you saying above how you weren't using personal attacks to discredit the argument in lieu of actually discrediting the argument? You have refuted yourself, all I need to do is overlay your quotes.


It is not on my shoulders to improve your reading comprehension. If you bothered to read my posts, you would see that I have already addressed the issue of hierarchies and how they are related to the dominion of territories, how humans are territorial/social beings, how this translated to tribal conquest for land/proper usage of land to maintain the dominion, and how those who are indolent would do well to examine their own shortcomings than to conveniently absolve agency and blame an incorporeal misfortune for befalling them.

It is now your property. That does nothing to disprove reality, you still own the land you take from me. You can destroy it or use it, do with it what you will, you still own it by taking it away from me. Once you forfeit it, the cycle continues.

Then we are fit, superior over the others. It is the opposite of subjective if it is beyond the arbitrary whim of the individual, but it based in reality.
Humans are superior to the extinct dodo bird, it is not "subjective".

...

You do not own the land. It cannot be stolen from you. You are not being treated unfairly because you do not own something, every gain is not a loss at your expense. If you think that it is, this means that you believe you own these things which you would like to own but see in the possession of others. This does nothing to change reality. You can wish to possess something all you want, but this does not magically make you possess the thing.
You have yet to substantiate your claims, repeating them over and over again does not make them true.

Then I make use of it and overtake/replace you. If you allow me to use the land with you, then I, or any superior individual, overtakes you and forces you off. You use force to remove me from the premises… just don't call it private property!

Of course, serfs exist.

It is not based on the meaningless randomness of chance, if it is tried and true, crafted over millennia, then it is not "arbitrary". Legal systems are not "random" entities.
You are not entitled to use that land. You are not entitled anything in this life except your law of violence. You have your fists and your brain, use them wisely.

I'm saying that, if the repressive state was being all mean or whatever, that would make it a violation of international law, or illegal.

Establishing/maintaining the hierarchy… which you disagree with because we can deconstruct it into imaginary fibers and destroy it… until it rises again once we are usurped from the throne (establishing the hierarchy).

So the best job in the world is being a jeweller. Does this mean they deserve the jewels themselves? Or do Chinese kids making iPhones deserve the iPhones they make? They choose to be employed; with employment, entitlement complexes are not allowed. I cannot just "take" the tires I produce and say I own all of it if I did not take the risk to sell it, pay for its transportation, pay for the R&R, pay the regulatory fees, or any other background work.

I will quote yourself: property rights ain't real fam
You do not own the land. It cannot be stolen from you. You are not being treated unfairly because you do not own something, every gain is not a loss at your expense. If you think that it is, this means that you believe you own these things which you would like to own but see in the possession of others. This does nothing to change reality. You can wish to possess something all you want, but this does not magically make you possess the thing.

nope, as that means that everyone has a say over property, everyone being the owner fo everything means my keyboard belongs to everyone, and therefore everyone has legal right to decide over it

this is the complete opposite of what I am talking about, I know you have the intelligence of a cane, as you compared yourself to one, but this isn't hard

and I already pointed out how I do not care about lower beings like wolves, cheetahs or humans

all of these are social constructs that can be deconstructed

I have already substantiated
you claim your human nature is to possess, I claim mine has trascended that, I am therefore the superhuman

Heh, you really have not dare to look into the Abyss right?
Sexual pleasure is not real, it is bait, it is a necessity, otherwise humans would not replicate

Your biology corrupts your ego, the real, the imaginary and the symbolic, they all do, read Schopenhauer and Lacan tbh

I enjoy sex because I enjoy having sex without the reproductive part, I enjoy knowing that I am about to create life and I am capable of stopping it, nature inteded that I would fall for the trap, but I did not, I will not reproduce capital by reproducing human biology

sex is a a coercive act that is in no way consented, no one asked you if you wanted to like sex or not, the vulgar promise of obscene enjoyment is a false one, it is a necessity otherwise no one would bother with reproduction

so is paternal love, without these feelings, no one would bother raising their kids, its is the pleasure of an obscene enjoyment through total subjugation and sacrifice what capital needs to reproduce itself

they were all imposed, otherwise we would fail as an specie, we would not reproduce capital, we did not choose this method of reproduction

I am not a physicist, but decades ago we could not decontsruct the atom, and yet here we are. or if you want to, i can deconstruct it in a philosophical way, idealism is a thing you know?

wrong, if the proprietor does not want to lay off the property, then we must destroy the property itself, there will be no value to apropiate in the form of ownership once land becomes inhabitable, this is the anarcho-nihilist synthetis, if you do not want to ascend to a higher level of conscious, then your current one must be destroyed

I just did in this very post, the origin of the biological need to reproduce is the necessity of capital to reproduce itself, that comes from the promise of complete jouissance

ah, but using your own words "might is right" I already deconstructed the nature of property, and as I told you you will comply in one way or another, if humans do not want to become superhumans by reasonable means, then we will have to use alternative ones, if humans do not want to overcome the necessity of appropriating, the necessity to reproduce capital, we will have to destroy all value that could ever be apropiated.

I don't need to ask persmission to anyone for this, the nihilists are already doing it, humans had their chance during the 19th century and failed to do so

I already ahve one, you compared your nature to that of a cane, you are that stupid

and you still stick to the "property rights are not theft" one, even though ownership relates to theft, and claiming that we have the moral duty to comply to your coercive legal system illustrates your entitlement complex, but wait you were saying you are not a thieve

again, I am separating you from your argument, your argument is wrong because property is theft, and you are stupid because you belive you are comparable to a mere cane

Arguing based on infinite regression isn't a substantive point. The Higgs boson owns all land.


Where did I compare the legal system of lemon trees to mankind?

I explicitly state how other animals are also social. You are preaching to the choir and wearing your heart on your sleeve, showing me that you have not been paying me an ounce of attention.

Fungi lack a central nervous system. What are you talking about, what legal system. With what method of communication. They only have competition with one another, which will overcome the elements. They are not sentient.

Penicillin and truffles would like to have a word with you. Newsflash: mankind rules over the entire planet.

We have known for a long time that the only thing capable of destroying mankind is mankind itself. "Superman" is still a homo sapien.

You do not own the land. It cannot be stolen from you. You are not being treated unfairly because you do not own something, every gain is not a loss at your expense. If you think that it is, this means that you believe you own these things which you would like to own but see in the possession of others. This does nothing to change reality. You can wish to possess something all you want, but this does not magically make you possess the thing.
You have yet to substantiate your claims, repeating them over and over again does not make them true.

How odd that the father of Modern Communism, the most cited political philosopher behind Communism, came from a middle-class family. His father was a lawyer, a landowner. What a bigoted "proprietor".

Pot calling the kettle black. You have been arguing with appeals to ethos this entire time. You say property is theft, which means it is taken from something, which means they owned it for it to be taken, which means if it is unanimously theft (property rights, that is) then all people have claims on land, which directly relates to an emotional appeal, an argument for special claims/entitlement.

It is a fact that the sun does not rise. That is equally as substantiated as your statement. If you care not to address the refutations of your claims and just ignore them/refuse to acknowledge them in your post, then you do not debate with anybody but yourself.

WEW

Still a fan of the stupid little parables you lolberts use in place of actual theory.

Even in nature, there's a whole invisible apparatus that makes that seemingly individual situation possible, as can be seen anytime humans go around fucking with it. Secondly, if the gazelle had the option, it would probably kill the cheetah. Thirdly, I wanted to note the irony of a supporter of capitalism comparing the capitalist system to a predatory animal in his own stupid parable, and having the steel nerve to claim that there "is no boot" in the same paragraph.

But you're aware this doesn't fucking happen in nature, making your stupid analogy moot.

There is no such thing as an "alpha wolf" in nature. In the wild, packs are lead by the parents of the pack. The alpha-beta hierarchy only occurs in wolves kept in captivity.

No, I was saying that wolves don't protect the territory of other wolves with which they have no blood ties like you do in human society, which makes this a false analogy.

I will quote yourself: property rights, social constructs are a spook fam, they ain't real.

You say property is theft, which means it is taken from something, which means they owned it for it to be taken, which means if it is unanimously theft (property rights, that is) then all people have claims on land, which directly relates to an emotional appeal, an argument for special claims/entitlement.
You do not own the land. It cannot be stolen from you. You are not being treated unfairly because you do not own something, every gain is not a loss at your expense. If you think that it is, this means that you believe you own these things which you would like to own but see in the possession of others. This does nothing to change reality. You can wish to possess something all you want, but this does not magically make you possess the thing.

If you wish to be illogical, I will follow suit.
Also
Are you a homo sapien? You know we can test that with high degrees of accuracy.

Irrelevant, this is not a refutation. You have yet to bridge the logical gap behind "social construct is equivalent to invalidity and irrelevancy in modern society".

How are you a superhuman? How intelligent are you, how mighty are you. That's what I mean, you can't prove it.
What? This is not a coherent sentence. It isn't even a sentence, you didn't even use a period. How can you call me an idiot, you can't even spell "transcended". Overmen are intelligent, are they not? You refute your own claim in the same sentence.
Sex hormones are objective reality. Pleasure centres of the brain exist, there are synapses which act as exchange ports for substances which are very much so real.


Sensation is dependent on the central nervous system, it isn't literally your penis.

Forgetting regression towards the mean, you are doing the world a favour. If your offspring are influenced by this mode of thought, or lack thereof in the face of scrutiny, then thank goodness.

Sex: sexual activity, including specifically sexual intercourse
It isn't whether or not you like things, it is whether or not it is voluntary. Again, you demonstrate your irrationality by being incapable of arguing with respect to one point. Whenever I refute you, you just jump to a non-sequitur.

Absence of evidence is not proof of evidence. If something has not been done, we cannot say that it "might" get done. That isn't a legitimate statement as it is grounded in unverifiable claims. It might be true, but you can't say that it will be true.

reasonable means that it makes use of reason, it is necessary to be reasonable to understand that, the individual has the ability and therefore the desire to make use of all land on which he was lucky to be born onto therefore, the individual who would want to make use of it, either by farming, walking building or shaping it

property rights stop this, taken to their logical conclusion, they stop the individual from doing so

I cannot enter a field which i do not own, even if I won't modify it in anyway, therefore property rights ara against the individual

I do not want to own the land, I however want the ability to make use of it, this ability exists not as a social construct, but as a natural fact, society never decided they could make use of land, this predates society, society can make use of land, therefore they can realize this

what is stolen from me is the natural ability to make use of the natural supply of land, neither of which are social constructs, because of arbitray and coercive property rights

property is theft

absolutely, I tought you understood this, might is right if you have the might to stop the sun from rising every mornig,then do it

I have the might to stop people from appropriating matter, as what they try to appropriate is the value inheret to it, by destroying this value, I am destroying the ability of the proprietor to appropriate

I have the might to do this, therefore, it is right

No, as ownership of property is impossible, because such idea arises from a legal fantasy, from a social construct

the property of a triangle is to have 3 angles and 3 straight lines, without these, it is not a triangle

property exists as the essence of something, having a kewyboard is not part of my essence, having or not having one doesnt make me any less of a superhuman

absolutely

absolutely

no it does not, when I am at work I possess tools, however these tools are under my possession because they are not being possessed y anyone else, however they are not my property, first as property is impossible, secnd because the arbitrary set of rules known as property rights dictate that the owner of said tool is my boss

Do you really want to go down the line where possession entail property right? You have to be careful now

you might want to try again, this time without implying things that are wrong, possession does not entail property rights

yes, as the proprietor can make rightful possession over it, because there is a regressive state apparatus defend said act

I previously explained why, property being theft is an universality

they are possible, such as is an act of theft, the act of appropriating matter is possible, however this act becoming a moral one is impossible

property, as liberty, is impossible, property, as theft is possible

absolutely, I would be able to make possession of land if I had property rights over it, but I don't, therefore I cannot make possession of it without having permission of the proprietor first, here we see the coercive nature of property rights, the proprietor will charge me a rent for using his property, and if I refuse to do so the reprssive state apparatus will force me to

the proprietor gets to keep part of my surplus value, therefore he is a thieve

>hungerforculture.com/?page_id=1330
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_animal#Human_social_behavior
this is a field of study to find out of humans are social animals or not, this is not a proveable fact, but a mere theory, these studies are done with different hypothetical positions, and the results define if humans are social or not

the result of said experiments are fluid, however they are not axiomatic positions

sorry, but it seems like your citation falls on itself

it doesn't matter what your feelings are, might is right, my claim is that man must be overcome, if you claim it is the nature of man to own property, then we must overcome this so called natural necessity of owning property to overcome man

and as I said, the nihilists do not ask persmission to you, humans have the change to overcome themsleves, they had their chance today and they blew it, but luckly for them they have another one tomorrow, time is running out tho, ecological catastrophe is just around the corner

...

That is not a coherent response to the statement I made. Once your legacy dies off, the hierarchies and the natural order you fought to dismiss (unbeknownst to you, you enforced it yourself, just don't call it power!) will fall back into place. You are only moving an object up an incline.

There are organisms which reproduce through binary fission without the concept of capital, or concepts to be cognizant of, at all.

Remember when you said that you weren't making ad-homs and actually saying why I was wrong? Remember how you berated me for accusing you of that? Do you remember? You contradict yourself in every post you make.

Great substantiation.

I am not asking you to do anything. You can sit and relax until you die. You have no such duty to do anything I want you to do. That is precisely why I will dominate over you. There is no duty in loss.
You say property is theft, which means it is taken from something, which means they owned it for it to be taken, which means if it is unanimously theft (property rights, that is) then all people have claims on land, which directly relates to an emotional appeal, an argument for special claims/entitlement.
You do not own the land. It cannot be stolen from you. You are not being treated unfairly because you do not own something, every gain is not a loss at your expense. If you think that it is, this means that you believe you own these things which you would like to own but see in the possession of others. This does nothing to change reality. You can wish to possess something all you want, but this does not magically make you possess the thing.

See above.

Great refutation, deliberately creating hyperbole to equate analogies to direct comparisons isn't a substantive point. I am comparing the dominion, trees conquer vast stretches of land, their empire is vast. I am not saying trees are human. If you want to take it that way, be my guest. But without direct quotations of me saying "humans are trees", you have no claim. It is not the tree and the human, that isn't the comparison, it is in their dominion.


When have I stated that I am a libertarian? Please find me the quote where I profess my allegiance to libertarianism. Otherwise, you are assigning to me a set of beliefs so that you may have a strawman to attack. I am not a liberatarian, nor am I an anarcho-capitalist. Defending something within a set of beliefs does not equate to believing those set of beliefs.
Elaborate.

Impossible if the gazelle is prey to the predator. "Option" means that it is within its range of capabilities.

Again, assigning a set of beliefs to the individual is not a substantive point against my claims. I am not a capitalist, I know it is hard for you to believe, but arguing on behalf of a thing does not make you one specific branch of believers in that thing. You know, not only capitalists defend property rights?
There is no boot, it is your own failure because you are meek. The predator is powerful, he dominates the meek. To the meek, it is a boot. To the powerful, they do not think of what it is, they simply dominate and extort weaknesses. In reality, it is a hierarchy.

If you also included his own statement, you would see that, in the context, he was discussing how he would kill his boss. Not talking about natural order. But go ahead and prove how logical you are, take things out of context and intrude in our debate.

You refute yourself in the same post. It is a genetic fallacy to attack the source of the information over the information itself. If an alpha-beta hierarchy exists, it exists. Wolves are not the only animals which have a pecking order, from the powerful to the weak. The parents that lead the pack are superior to the others, they are the most wise and have the experience to teach their children. They are examples of success, they have distributed their genetic information.

That is because wolves do not have the capability of forming complex societies. In essence, it is the defence of territory from, it is maintaining the hierarchy. Humans will fight for those they are not related to, but this does nothing to address how it is still a defence of territory. Again, you obfuscate my analogy and claim it as being a direct comparison. I am not saying that they are exactly equivalent, but that, in principle, their actions have similarities.

You say property is theft, which means it is taken from something, which means they owned it for it to be taken, which means if it is unanimously theft (property rights, that is) then all people have claims on land, which directly relates to an emotional appeal, an argument for special claims/entitlement.
You do not own the land. It cannot be stolen from you. You are not being treated unfairly because you do not own something, every gain is not a loss at your expense. If you think that it is, this means that you believe you own these things which you would like to own but see in the possession of others. This does nothing to change reality. You can wish to possess something all you want, but this does not magically make you possess the thing.

I want to have sex with the most attractive women, it is natural fact, ergo I am entitled to it. Hey, when in Rome, be as illogical as the emperor is.

You say property is theft, which means it is taken from something, which means they owned it for it to be taken, which means if it is unanimously theft (property rights, that is) then all people have claims on land, which directly relates to an emotional appeal, an argument for special claims/entitlement.
You do not own the land. It cannot be stolen from you. You are not being treated unfairly because you do not own something, every gain is not a loss at your expense. If you think that it is, this means that you believe you own these things which you would like to own but see in the possession of others. This does nothing to change reality. You can wish to possess something all you want, but this does not magically make you possess the thing.

Precisely. But you cannot do anything about it, you are weak. When you all band together, maybe. But even if you do, you simply translate the hierarchy to your own name.

So who owns your laptop? Why have you been exclusively using it to communicate with me? Have you allowed everybody to use it? If you have been hoarding the bandwidth/laptop, then you defeat your own argument.

Just saying absolutely does not make a point for the claim. Why is it their birthright?

Then you refute yourself. I was quoting yourself, lol.

Oh, I love refuting you using your own quotes.
If your claim falls apart under literally one minute of scrutiny, you need to re-evaluate your claims. You said that possession of land is possible if one has property rights over it, but property=theft, which is impossible, but possession is not impossible (it is possible). Then property rights are also possible by your first sentence "I would possess the land if I had property rights over it".
I'm just reposting the things I have already said, hoping you will actually muster up a coherent response that address the direct point.

You say property is theft, which means it is taken from something, which means they owned it for it to be taken, which means if it is unanimously theft (property rights, that is) then all people have claims on land, which directly relates to an emotional appeal, an argument for special claims/entitlement.
You do not own the land. It cannot be stolen from you. You are not being treated unfairly because you do not own something, every gain is not a loss at your expense. If you think that it is, this means that you believe you own these things which you would like to own but see in the possession of others. This does nothing to change reality. You can wish to possess something all you want, but this does not magically make you possess the thing.

Weren't moral spooks?
If it is in my self-interests, who care what you think.
Hey, being illogical sure is easy, you don't really need to think!

The theory of gravity is also a theory. I think the word you are looking for is hypothesis. If you've taken elementary school science courses, you would recognize the distinction between hypotheses, theories, laws, models, etc.

You demonstrate the social behaviour you claim does not exist.

Yes.

Irrelevant to the discussion. Nobody cares what must be overcome, if you can't find merits for your claim, then you are debating with nobody but yourself.

Not a substantive point relating to the topic at-hand.

wrong, as I won't create a legal system that dictates that the keyboard is now mine

using the bourgeois notion of market exchange of course

sure you are, you sleep everyday thinking about the expropriated ones taking what belongs to no one

this already gives me pleasure, the notion that the proprietor must live in constant fear from the expropriated ones is already a small victory

which random point exactly?

However do you own the land? how can you prove you own the land? using violence? then violence can be used to take it from you, you do not own the land either, you own the repressive forces that entail you ownership these forces are replicable

what can be taken from me is the natural ability to make use of the natural supply of land, because of arbitray and coercive property rights

as you can see, this is why property is impossible and why property is theft

every government taxes its population, I don't think it is necessary to list all goverments that engaged in taxation

it was just a minor remark, when I use personal attacks, I don't use it to defend my arguments, but as a proper personal attack

it is not in my shoulders to make up for your lack of arguments, if you pointed out in the past why property isn't theft, you wouldn't have any problems pointing out why again

yes, you compared yourself to a mere cane, but again, this isn't the argument, canes do what canes do, are you a cane?

citation needed
if humans are territorial beings and humans must be overcome, then we ought to overcome the necessity of being territorial beings

again, something that must be overcome

a wise old man once said "We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror."

wrong, there is no legal fiction backing up my claim and a repressive state defending it

wrong

again, wrong, there is no legal fiction backing up my claim and a repressive state defending it

exactly, the superhuman is superior to the human, the superhuman will fullfill its historical role, even if humans do not want to comply

Hierarchies are not legal systems, they exist without legal systems. The two are not mutually exclusive.

If you purchase it from the shop, then you'd better purchase a lot more. I have a lot of weapons. Where are you getting the money from, by the way? I don't think these people are giving away the goods for free.

Then he kills you.

ok, good for them, no one asked them to do such thing, they did it out of pure self interest, they did it as a service

Yes.
Deed of ownership. Oh, you mean who owned it before me, who I bought it from, etc. I bought it from the quarks who own the Universe.

Have fun waging war against the government, you alone will be destroyed. Just don't call it a hierarchy.

You say property is theft, which means it is taken from something, which means they owned it for it to be taken, which means if it is unanimously theft (property rights, that is) then all people have claims on land, which directly relates to an emotional appeal, an argument for special claims/entitlement.
You do not own the land. It cannot be stolen from you. You are not being treated unfairly because you do not own something, every gain is not a loss at your expense. If you think that it is, this means that you believe you own these things which you would like to own but see in the possession of others. This does nothing to change reality. You can wish to possess something all you want, but this does not magically make you possess the thing.

Contradicting yourself again, I guess this is the brilliance of Stirner and his goons.
Nice circular logic, by the way.

You still need to cite your claims. I'm not asking you to list all, only one. You need an example, otherwise you have no basis for comparison.


pot calling the kettle black.
see above. I've posted that many times now, you must be illiterate to not be able to comprehend it.
You have no excuse.

Analogy: a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.

Equivalences=/=analogies.

Oh yeah, I forgot anthropology is a theory, therefore gravity and evolution are "fluid" and don't really exist because they are only theories.

There is no legal system defending the territory of the lion. It is still his private property, he hunts, shits, and breeds on it all he wants, and crushes all challenging lions. Legal systems do not equate to the existence of private property (as in the two are not mutually exclusive).

Excellent refutation.

Excellent substantiation. And what of the infinite regression of "well, who did you buy it from"? When there were no legal systems governing man? When it was man and the wilderness?


By agreeing with the statement, you cede your point that the fitness is "subjective".

However do you own the land? how can you prove you own the land? using violence? then violence can be used to take it from you, you do not own the land either, you own the repressive forces that entail you ownership these forces are replicable. what can be taken from me is the natural ability to make use of the natural supply of land, because of arbitray and coercive property rights, as you can see, this is why property is impossible and why property is theft

can copy/paste aswell fam, too bad this won't lead us anywhere

exactly, which is no one is ought to respect your arbitrary property rights every gain is not a loss at your expense.

wrong again, no legal fiction backing up my claim or a regressive state apparatus stopping others from accomplishing natural ability to use the natural supply of land

You have yet to substantiate your claims, repeating them over and over again does not make them true.

Are you sure you want to do this? as you would not be able to force me off, there would be no legal fiction backing up your claims or a repressive state coercing violence on me, or you do create one, in which case you are engaging in violence, therefore you are a thieve, as you are stopping me from accomplishing natural ability to use the natural supply of land

damn user, it seems like you have busted your own argument! you understand that, forcing someone off and stopping them from accomplishing their natural ability to use the natural supply of land is violent, yet you belive property is theft?

you have some nice cognitive dissonance going on!

therefore the person who controls the serfs is a thieve, as he is using property rights to steal is surplus value

you are starting to get it

they are, it is tried and true in the sense that it is a proveable method of thievery, it is a true and tried method that property is theft, over a millenia the proprietor has used the arbitrary legal fiction and a repressive apparatus to steal

citation needed

Humans can decide to take this path, again, I am giving you the chance to overcome humanity, it can happen the good way or the bad way, its your choice

Of course, hence why I understand that we can create a better society, you also have your fists and your brain, however you, with the intellectual ability of a cane, cannot understand this

Lol!

in the case of the wolves, yes, not in the case of the abolition of property

no user, the dodo bird cannot rise again

no, as huamns, in capitalism create commodities for their exchange value, not for their use value, they are not entitled to the commodities, as they have no use for them, they are entitled to their exchange value

and they can choose to abolish the legal system that defends property rights

exactly, no reason the boss must keep the surplus using arbitrary constructs like property rights

Lol yes you can, they difference here is you have no use for them they are merely exchangeable objects, if you and other workers produced them then it makes sense you and other workers keep the value in money form they exchanged them for

remember, no entitlement complexes here, no reason why someone who doesn't work should keep part of the value of those tires

But if this is true, why did you wait for someone else to start a business? Why didnt you start the business yourself? Why are you not realizing that around 75% of all businesses fail (not the same % in all industries but this is general number)?
If being boss is so easy, why dont you do it?? You all sound like those r9k types with their bullshit
Also none of you seem to realize that there is this thing called competition: if one boss sucks, you can just work for another.
It's just that if you are objectively worthless, NO ONE is going to give you anything and you will starve, rightly so.
You are not entitled to existing.

So.. just grow up and become a boss yourself?

You're in a thread started by a lolbert that using typical lolbert logic. It's not a huge stretch of logic to assume you're one of them.

Take a biology course sometime. There's this thing called an "ecosystem", you'll find it fascinating.

Gazelles don't run from cheetahs because they're following some kind of rule that they have to. They run because they'd die in a confrontation with a predator like a cheetah. Animals that can put up a fight with their predators, like wild boars, will fight their predators and will kill them if possible.

Markets and property rights are what define the capitalist mode of production. Even if you don't "identify" as a capitalist, you're still shilling for that system.

The food chain isn't a hierarchy you dumb fuck. Lions don't tell wildebeests what to do, they just eat them.


1) This isn't a debate. It's an argument. There is no moderator, there are no rules, there is no topic.
2) No, that was me commenting on the absurdity of the "law of the jungle" argument.

You can't use these stupid arguments about "nature" and then bring up a behavior that only occurs in a artificial environment. Alpha-beta is a behavior that only arises in a cage. Do you want to cage yourself?

No they're fucking not, they're wolves. They do teach their offspring, like most large mammals, but this is clearly a paternalistic relation, not one of merit or might.

Gee, I wonder if that has something to do with the fact that they see other non-blood related wolves as rivals rather than compatriots.

What am I saying, we all know that the biggest and strongest ant colonies are the ones where the ants are all fighting each other.

My point is that we're not wolves, or pack animals of any description. We display behaviors that would be unfathomable to a wolf, and if we actually followed the mentality of large predators, capitalism and our hierarchies would not be able to function. One of the biggest problems is that animals never do anything that doesn't directly benefit them. Our hierarchies are built entirely on self-sacrifice for someone else's gain.

The fact is that meritocracy is a dumb meme. We are not lead by our best and brightest and never have been. Capitalism isn't based on merit, feudalism wasn't based on merit and slave society wasn't based on merit. Might doesn't make right, social influence makes right, and how one gains social influence can be, often is, completely arbitrary.

/thread

Meritocracy in capitalism is a meme.

You still ignore the greater social apparatus.

You can't just become a boss. It's not as easy as that. First, you have to secure a loan from a bank. To get a loan from a bank, you need to be doing something that will please the bankers enough that they'll give you a loan, so even there you're little more than a stooge to the forces of capital.

so the nature of man is different from the nature of other living forms? then this means the nature of other living forms is irrelevant when disucssing man
canes apropriate territory, or so they belive? irrelevant to the conversation

yes, but again, this is irrelevant

wrong, what you have shown is that you live outside yourself, if humans follow some form of natural behaviour, then humans can decide which ones, you are quoting "studies" and that is undialectical, I do not live outside myself, I do not need studies to tell me I am social If I decide not to be social I do it, If I decide to be social then I would also do it

hence why your claim that "humans seek to appropriate" is wrong, you need to first prove this statement correct, and the individual contradicts you, I the indidividual do not wish to coerce violence using property rights, I am a man, therefore the nature of man is to not wish to apropriate

you never had any argument

precisely, what happens to other species is irrelevant , it doesnt mathed if cheetahs stablish hierarchies, thats their nature, not ours, we have the capability to theorize models which end hierrarchies, or at least reduce them, this is our nature, not the nature of a cheetah but ours and we as humans can decide which nature, being conscious beings

anothe argument in my favour, human rules the planet, we can overcome the natural tendecy of the beast of apropriating territory

at what point is the homo habilis no longer a homo habilis, who was the first homo psaine? who was first? the egg or the chicken?, the superhuman is no longer human, it is the superhuman

However do you own the land? how can you prove you own the land? using violence? then violence can be used to take it from you, you do not own the land either, you own the repressive forces that entail you ownership these forces are replicable. what can be taken from me is the natural ability to make use of the natural supply of land, because of arbitray and coercive property rights, as you can see, this is why property is impossible and why property is theft
can copy/paste aswell fam, too bad this won't lead us anywhere

this could be an argument, however my possession would not stop others from enjoy and accomplishing their natural ability to make use of the natural supply of land, unlike the borugeois proprietor

my possession is not theft, the proprierty claim of the burgeois is

silly user, I am an anarcho-nihilist, not a commie, marx wanted state ownership, he is a borugeois propertier like the rest

right back at ya

You say property isnt theft, which means it was not taken from something (natural supply of earth), which means they were able to make free use of it before it was taken, which means it is unanimously theft (property rights, that is what they are, theft) then if someone has claim over land which directly relates to an emotional appeal based on legal fiction and coerced by the repressive state, is an argument for special claims/entitlement.

remember not to commit logical fallacies!

I already explained how property stops people from accomplishing their natural ability of making use of the natural supply of land, thus the proprietor is committing theft, when he keeps parts of the value generated by this ability

/thread

FTFY

Explain the growing number of self made millionaires in the west then. Your explanation does not explain what happens in reality because out here in the west, we have more and more new rich, and old money keeps shrinking.

How is it not delusional to think you are born in some sort of gulag where you never get to leave your cell somewhere in Siberia and where all of working opportunity is some extremely repetitive manual labor inside your cell that you exchange for a cup of water and a slice of bread??

You, yes YOU have all the opportunity in this world to profit yourself in the western world. It's how we got all the technological innovation, and every other good thing in life. Individuals wanted to profit, and so they did.

/thread

Is the train of thought mutually exclusive to only libertarians? If not, then there is an absence of definitive proof that I am a libertarian.
Watch this: I am not a libertarian. That gives you more proof than anything else. I believe in a large government, central power.
No definitive proof, still. Absence of proof is not proof.

The statement still stands. Elaborate upon your point. Cool quips are not elaborations.

I never claimed that gazelles or humans are bound by any rules in these circumstances. The gazelle runs, like you said, because they are prey for the cheetah.
If the animal can kill their predator, then they become the predator.

I believe in a large central power. State capitalism is an oxymoron, you cannot have an intervening hand determining the market's affair.
If you don't want to debate opposition, just let me know and you can go back to your non-arguments.

Hierarchies are not dependent upon what I tell somebody to do, they are dependent upon the might behind the action, just like lions eating wildebeests.

Debate: an argument about a particular subject, especially one in which many people are involved. You, me, the other guy, and everyone in this thread.
Does not change that you did not include the context. We were discussing it outside of the analogy. So every time analogies are made, they are applied throughout the entire debate, regardless of context? Of course there are no police in the wild, but the hierarchy is still preserved by the superior force, being the government arresting people via police forces.

The parents are stronger than their offspring until they reach old age, and there is merit in the patterns observed because, to quote you, "They do teach their offspring, like most large mammals". It's good to educate their offspring to compete in the wild.

The success of wolves as a species is not dependent upon whether or not they associate with wolves they are not related to, but with communication and fire. Language and cooking meat (altering brain chemistry of humans, also our proportional brain size, in general) are what set us apart.

And how long do they last if they are constantly infighting? This doesn't make any sense. They are fighting even with their blood? Elaborate… oh wait, I should just read a book or something because that is a substantive point.

Seems like this is a common tactic, hyper-inflating analogies to be equivalences. Humans are not ants, like you wish to hint towards in your analogy. Ants are not a standard for how society should operate, stop it with these analogies that are now equivalences.

*Our gain. Communities thrive because I am willing to sacrifice something for my neighbour, just as they are for me. Communities die when selfishness arises and pollutes the stream.
Armies are built on self-sacrifice, for the good of the platoon. But they always win out compared to one person.

And now we are talking about meritocracy? Was that the the OP? Like I said, when you cannot stick to one topic and jump from topic to topic to make it seem like you're made a point, you are debating with nobody but yourself.
Are you relating capitalism to slavery? I didn't know the secret police went around and forced people to get employment.
could it be through… might? Political might, rather.

San Francisco housing prices, in particular, asset inflation in general. Now get out.

The system is made so that capital concentrates. New millionaires are made when start ups are bought by existing corporations. Capitalism needs to supress social mobility to function.

Read this post by accident

That is not an answer for my question. Where did I compare the legal system of lemon trees to mankind?

Not to my analogy. Are you the arbiter of all analogies? You wish to speak on behalf of the opposition, then you are debating with nobody but yourself.

What in tarnation. And we are supposed to rely on your anecdotes instead? How logical!

That is not dependent upon your will, there is a regression towards the mean and your children will correct your deviation as an outlier.

Appropriate what? I never made an empty statement like "humans seek to appropriate". Quote me on that exact statement.

Usually, when I say that, I quote you, show why it is wrong with a refutation using your words and not the ones I put in your mouth, and go from there. You can't just say that without anything to back it.

Need I remind you, it was not me, but you, that mentioned the analogy… I mean totally direct equivalence to fungi.

We are the beast.

They are two different species.

The concept of fertilization. Not all eggs are formed from the union of gametes.

At what point is the human no longer the superhuman?
In case you don't realize this, this is your same fallacious line of reasoning used earlier.

absolutely, that is why everyone can't own everything, because the concept of ownership aint real, fam

damn, someone is getting desperate, copy/paste is not a sign soon ragequit lol

right back at ya
You say property isnt theft, which means it was not taken from something (natural supply of earth), which means they were able to make free use of it before it was taken, which means it is unanimously theft (property rights, that is what they are, theft) then if someone has claim over land which directly relates to an emotional appeal based on legal fiction and coerced by the repressive state, is an argument for special claims/entitlement.

However do you own the land? how can you prove you own the land? using violence? then violence can be used to take it from you, you do not own the land either, you own the repressive forces that entail you ownership these forces are replicable. what can be taken from me is the natural ability to make use of the natural supply of land, because of arbitray and coercive property rights, as you can see, this is why property is impossible and why property is theft

nothing illogical about adressing the utter irrelevance of cheetah or wolf nature in regards to human nature, or can you explain how they are related?

ok lets try ti, according to you, it is human nature to desire to apropriate territory, I do not wish to apropriate territory, I am therefore not human, but the superhuman.
There we have we, we concluded that I am the superhuman with a high degree of accuracy

you are not entitled to anything user, remember that, your social constructs are not entitled to stay constructed

sure, but first, feel free to explain why your social construct is equivalent to validity and relevancy in modern society, after you do that, I'll reply

Refer to the top part of this post, I can overcome humanity, I am the superhuman

but you said we could test this with a high degree of accuracy, is owning property part of human nature yes or no?
if yes, then I have overcome humanity!
if not, your whole argument falls apart lol!

Lol, I am a spelling anarchist, you don't tell me what to do!

sure they are, but the objective reality of its existance is not what I was discussing

tbh

Nearly half of the wealth of the rich was inherited, and "new money" (highly exaggerated in capitalist propaganda) were hardly urchins to begin with. Bill Gates, one of the classic """rags"""" to riches stories, was born into a pretty fucking wealthy family and went to a fucking Ivy League school. It's more a case of the already wealth getting super fucking rich.

You continue to ignore the greater socio-economic system, you don't even address it. You don't even acknowledge that the people are beholden to bankers and the laws governing capital. Just "what about the nouveau riche" and that's it.

But capitalism raised more people out of poverty than any other system in history. How do you explain that?
Listen, this whole thing is really simple: you have freedom to do whatever you want, and its great. The only people who have a problem are people who studied.. fashion design or Swahili poetry or some other utter bullshit, couldnt find a job other than some fastfood minwage objectively not all that worthy or skillful thing, started a family while working this non-job, and are now mad at everything but themselves.

Capitalism: you either find a way, or an excuse. It is completely up to you.

But who taught them Swahili???????

Yes.
Deed of ownership. Oh, you mean who owned it before me, who I bought it from, etc. I bought it from the quarks who own the Universe.

Thus maintaining the hierarchy, just don't call it one!

Difference is, that isn't a refutation of the central point, you're just using circular logic. I do own the land, you're saying that it is arbitrary because it is arbitrary, it is coercive because it is coercive. Why? You need to make an argument for your claims.

You possessing things is at the cost of others, just like me having property. Don't be so oppressive, please, and stop having more than others.
Then why are you alive? What is the point of life, there is nothing, no point, only nothingness. Kill yourself and take yourself out of the mortal coil of existence.

lol, if you think this is a refutation, you are not going anywhere fast.


Yes.
"earth" is not a sentient being to have something stolen from it. By that logic, you are stealing her air, she will take you to court tomorrow.

No, one person or the few people who used it were able to make use of it, not everybody equally, or the "they" you reference.

This solidifies that "they" is referencing the unanimous, or everybody. No, they do not have equal claim on "Earth", you do not have the birthright/deed of ownership to all the water, land, and air on Earth, it is not a sentient being to have something stolen from it. Ignoring the fact that the Earth is not zero-sum, it recycles and regenerates. It used to be a barren rock of nothingness.
You aren't supposed to make the conclusion in the middle of your case, that's circular logic.
What if there is no state? In what way is it emotional, it is the opposite of lovey-dovey sad stuff special pleading case, it is raw might, it is power to dominate. It does not rely on appeals to ethos as its foundation, it simply is, just as there simply is, by nature of evolution, an urge to dominate the gene pool.
By saying that nobody is entitled to anything and that all is earned through might, you are making a case for entitlement. Got it.

Which ones? You can't just say logically fallacy, which one and quote the part that is fallacious.

You say property is theft, which means it is taken from something, which means they owned it for it to be taken, which means if it is unanimously theft (property rights, that is) then all people have claims on land, which directly relates to an emotional appeal, an argument for special claims/entitlement.
You do not own the land. It cannot be stolen from you. You are not being treated unfairly because you do not own something, every gain is not a loss at your expense. If you think that it is, this means that you believe you own these things which you would like to own but see in the possession of others. This does nothing to change reality. You can wish to possess something all you want, but this does not magically make you possess the thing.

Yes.
Deed of ownership. Oh, you mean who owned it before me, who I bought it from, etc. I bought it from the quarks who own the Universe.
Have fun waging war against the government, you alone will be destroyed. Just don't call it a hierarchy.
You say property is theft, which means it is taken from something, which means they owned it for it to be taken, which means if it is unanimously theft (property rights, that is) then all people have claims on land, which directly relates to an emotional appeal, an argument for special claims/entitlement.
You do not own the land. It cannot be stolen from you. You are not being treated unfairly because you do not own something, every gain is not a loss at your expense. If you think that it is, this means that you believe you own these things which you would like to own but see in the possession of others. This does nothing to change reality. You can wish to possess something all you want, but this does not magically make you possess the thing.

Not mutually exclusive, territorial domination predates legal systems.

global warming(!!!!!!)

How is that relevant? They took a loan and had capitalistic freedom to do what it whatever they wanted.

The world is a competition, the nature oppresses us all with hunger, the universe simply does not tolerate retarded shit. You cant do dumb shit, and think life is a Disney movie with a happy ending. You cant go trough life thinking you can make demands you cant enforce. You are not some entitled little princess, and everyone around you has to provide for you.

No. If you cant compete, you will starve. It is that simple. You seem completely oblivious to the fact that being a boss is a full time job. A difficult thing to pull off. That bosses are not exempt from competition, or even starvation.

The invisible hand strikes again.

Still not mutually exclusive, territorial domination predates legal systems of governance.

I create one, then I create an anti-legal system, cancelling them out and creating nothingness, which appeals to you as a nihilist, lulling you to sleep while I take your belonging that you don't own but possess I swear this isn't semantics.

I am born wanting sexual intercourse and I want to have sex with the most attractive women. Them not allowing me my natural ability denies me this right, therefore it is coercive violence against by enforced by a legal system (even though people have been wanting to screw for millennia).

Excellent refutation, it was. Using circular logic has gotten you so far. I suggest going out in public and debating people on this, if I come across you we can continue this in front of a jury of our peers to determine who has the more convincing argument.
Excellent source info.

Is the serf forced into serfdom? Or does he choose to be a serf. If he has different career paths, then there is no "control into serfdom".

Circular logic is bad because it's not good.
But you aren't. Just because you have an urge for something does not allow you absolute rights over it.
Quoting Nietzsche doesn't make your points more right, what the hell do you mean overcoming humanity. Your version of humanity?

Laughing is not a refutation.


Context please, was that referencing the dodo bird? Specifically the dodo bird? Watch you gloss right over this.


There is no use for an iPhone? It is because it has use that it sells.
I didn't know lions had legal systems. How can they dominate over their territory, then?

Are you writing this from prison?

Where did you get the minerals from? Did you voluntarily sign up for employment (implying you're employed)? Did you read the contract? Did it say you can take what you want? If you violate your contract, you go to jail.

lol, regression to the mean indeed, the poor baby now copy/pasting the same shit and throwing out strawmen, just like a baby making a tantrum

I might bother replying to you, lets find out tomorrow, dont like the idea of arguing with mere humans

I dont understand what are you trying to say or even what is your argument. "Each according to his need" is the most retarded thing I have heard in my life, because who the fuck is going to babysit you, and for what reason? The "invisible hand" (actual people) works much better than magic fairy of babysitting you, yes you, for absolutely no reason.
Things dont fall from the skies for you to redestribute. Some effort must be put into making things happen. It doesnt matter if this effort is (according to you) "stealing" or doing or entrepreneuring or taking risks and starting new businesses or employing people or building everything yourself.

WHERE ARE THE COMMUNISTS WHEN THE BUSINESS FAILS???????
No leftist understand risk. They just want to molest successful people. Their behavior is no different than that of a common bandit and a thief, none of them started a business of their own, they want someone else to take all the risks, ignore it if it fails, and rob it if it works.

Circular logic is bad because it isn't very good.

Not a refutation.

Yes.
"earth" is not a sentient being to have something stolen from it. By that logic, you are stealing her air, she will take you to court tomorrow.
No, one person or the few people who used it were able to make use of it, not everybody equally, or the "they" you reference.
This solidifies that "they" is referencing the unanimous, or everybody. No, they do not have equal claim on "Earth", you do not have the birthright/deed of ownership to all the water, land, and air on Earth, it is not a sentient being to have something stolen from it. Ignoring the fact that the Earth is not zero-sum, it recycles and regenerates. It used to be a barren rock of nothingness.
You aren't supposed to make the conclusion in the middle of your case, that's circular logic.
What if there is no state? In what way is it emotional, it is the opposite of lovey-dovey sad stuff special pleading case, it is raw might, it is power to dominate. It does not rely on appeals to ethos as its foundation, it simply is, just as there simply is, by nature of evolution, an urge to dominate the gene pool.
By saying that nobody is entitled to anything and that all is earned through might, you are making a case for entitlement. Got it.

Yes.
Deed of ownership. Oh, you mean who owned it before me, who I bought it from, etc. I bought it from the quarks who own the Universe.
Have fun waging war against the government, you alone will be destroyed. Just don't call it a hierarchy.


You say property is theft, which means it is taken from something, which means they owned it for it to be taken, which means if it is unanimously theft (property rights, that is) then all people have claims on land, which directly relates to an emotional appeal, an argument for special claims/entitlement.
You do not own the land. It cannot be stolen from you. You are not being treated unfairly because you do not own something, every gain is not a loss at your expense. If you think that it is, this means that you believe you own these things which you would like to own but see in the possession of others. This does nothing to change reality. You can wish to possess something all you want, but this does not magically make you possess the thing.

That was the analogy. But because you decide what the opposition says, you also decide who you debate with. If you are what you say on the opposition, then you debate yourself.
I meant with studies and experiments. Oh yeah, studies are now "irrelevant".
Doesn't make that any more a refutation, it was unrelated to the point I made. Kind of like the one you just made.


Wow, who would have thought.
Society automatically entails social constructs.

I revert back your humanity, you are now human again.

Are you unironically comparing extensive genetic studies and experimentation to categorize the species to one line you shat out? You just said: ok lets try ti, according to you, it is human nature to desire to apropriate territory, I do not wish to apropriate territory, I am therefore not human, but the superhuman.
You have not defined your terms, made a hypothesis, tested for it, applied laws/theories (remember, theories don't exist): nothing.

Like pottery.

You forgot to tag me.
Remember how you said that I would resort to ad-homs and "ragequit"? Now you just post memes and make half-assed posts calling people "babies" when you can't be asked to engage in discussion.

I'm fairly sure all the factory workers in Asia working for five cents an hour aren't too happy about capitalism. Most people don't even have college offered to them as an option.

aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/08/exposing-great-poverty-reductio-201481211590729809.html

They built electric fences around factories in Asia to keep the workers out because everyone wants to go and work in a factory, look it up. Also, why do you move the goalposts? I am taking about the west. Because of political reasons, west made this possible for its citizens. Western citizens keep voting for governments that exploit others and benefit from it and even volunteer their bodies to take up arms and fight with their lives to keep this good thing they all love going.

So I dont get your problem with capitalism. Work hard, buy yourself an island, make your nonsense thing where no one has a reason to work, and watch it collapse just like all communisms have historically, find a way or find an excuse.

If competition is so great as you say it is…then why aren't poor people entrepreneurs.

Lol, what is it with these kinds of people and this false sense of entitlement. And? What of it? College isn't offered, so what? Why should they say "give him college." What if teachers don't want to work without pay? Their time is valuable. If you are a teacher, is it reasonable to come up to you and say "work for this boy because he should have college." You offer services voluntarily or you are forced.

Same reason not every animal in nature survives to leave offspring. Humans arent robots, all coming out of a same factory. There is certain randomness, unpredictability in all humans. This is why we advance. Stupid ones die, smarter ones stay.

Then why did Hitler kill his children. If the smart ones procreate, he wouldn't have killed them in the first place?

No they don't idiot. Herbivores don't start eating meat because they can kill their predators.

Once again, you've fallen for lolbert memes. Capitalism requires a state to function. Even Adam Smith acknowledged this.

No, a hierarchy is a chain of command. If there is no command, there is no hierarchy. Me going to your house and shooting you isn't a hierarchy.

A proper debate isn't any old argument. It's a formalized discourse, not an argument over the kitchen table.

A big chunk of it was socialization. A prerequisite of which is viewing fellow humans as allies, rather than competitors.

That was sarcasm, spergy.


You're the one that brought them up and has been pursuing them. You're only backing off now because I brought up a counter example that doesn't serve your stupid "law of the jungle" analogies.

That's socialism. There is no mutual benefit under capitalism. My employers gain is not my gain. This is demonstrated in how most corporations have had record profits, stocks are through the roof and fortunes have doubled while most of the world falls into deeper and deeper poverty. The bourgeoisie are a parasite.

Your whole "might makes right" schtick implies a form of meritocracy. Our leaders have never been the "mightiest".

No, those are all forms of class society. And the police to protect property rights as a basic function of the bourgeois state.

Which is frequently arbitrary.

No one's arguing against might as a general concept. In fact, we argue for the combined might of the working class to overthrow the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

Exceptions do not define the rule. It is not necessarily "smart ones only", but the individuals who are most fit (that fitness trait is relative to their niche) with respect to the niche they occupy, as passing down your genetic information is advantageous for the bloodline.
"x" person having children still means that they had children, killing them afterwards does not negate the fulfilment of the task. It does invalidate the purpose, as the bloodline is destroyed after that. It does nothing to alter the rule, circumstantial evidence does not override the principle point.

Wrong. Stephen Hawking is fucked up and Carl Sagan had cancer. You're fucking retarded dude just admit it. Everyone here nows it.

You do know that when you invoke Hitler in a discussion, you lost the argument, right?


You obviously do not understand the word fitness, fitness isnt just lifting weights. If you are talking about physics, or swimming, or brain surgery, how fit you are can be measured differently depending on what fitness are you measuring.

Also insults arent arguments. Man, this whole board is just 3 or 4 letter reply with a bit of insult at the end, there's no discussion here, why do you all even come here? To exchange one line of greentext with one another? Reply an insult? Is this what leftists do all day?

yea. you lost it. because you're a looser.,

Nevertheless, there is a regression towards the mean. Just because you are smart does not mean your kids will absolutely be smart, your wife may have been a carrier for some unsatisfactory genes (even though the smart people would not breed with the genetically inferior, but let us assume for the time being that this is an archaic society).

I don't really see the point in anything, I can put effort in my post and type paragraph after paragraph, you really aren't going to address anything. You just glossed over what I said about your point and said the same thing again, then you told me to call myself an idiot and invoked an appeal to the majority, even though they have not voted on the issue (absence of evidence is not presence of evidence, even though I don't doubt they do hate me, you need to prove it with a vote).

That's my point, they don't care at all. It's like talking to a brick wall. Make a paragraph response, they shit out one sentence ad-homs and "I know you are but what am I" shitposts.

sorry ur not worth responding to sucka

if gay people are smart how comes they dont breed? circumstancial evidence idk dude idk

You just did.

I don't know dude, that's up to you to prove. Onus is on you, not me. You're making the claim.

did not
now youre being stupid

twitter tactical pro your words are like water i am the rock in my life it is you who I will stop

did it again.
You're right, you don't need to prove your own claims.

Because they're mostly agrarian workers forced off of their land through various means. It's work in the factory or starve. Many of them starve.

Because capitalism is a global system that has, under present conditions, exported most of its worst excesses.

Wow! It's like capitalism has surrounded itself with an ideological superstructure that exists to reinforce its existence or something!

Because it yields undesirable social results.

I'm a Marxist, not a Utopian.

Ironically, the USSR fell because it attempted free market reforms which caused it to go into full economic meltdown.


The whole logic here that capitalism is meritocratic because everyone has an opprotunity to study something useful in college, but chose not to. This justification implies equal access to higher education. The logic doesn't hold up if this condition doesn't exist.

prove it

No, not everybody. Those that fail in life forfeit many opportunities. It used to be a matter of choice, to choose not to take part in detrimental activities, but it isn't anymore, it's just the reality of the bacchanal idiot to fail, he does not have the opportunities as everyone.
See above.
Your logic, maybe. But Capitalism isn't about equality of opportunity when you soil the opportunity. That has nothing to do with the system, if you screw up, it's on you. Don't expect others to slow down and cover your ass when you shit the bed.


yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
my proof

That was a shit run-on sentence. I wrote a book trying to talk to the other Stirner guy while he was able to make grammatical error after grammatical error.

You do know that when you invoke Hitler in a discussion, you lost the argument, right?


You obviously do not understand the word fitness, fitness isnt just lifting weights. If you are talking about physics, or swimming, or brain surgery, how fit you are can be measured differently depending on what fitness are you measuring.

Also insults arent arguments. Man, this whole board is just 3 or 4 letter reply with a bit of insult at the end, there's no discussion here, why do you all even come here? To exchange one line of greentext with one another? Reply an insult? Is this what leftists do all day?

...

Your post:
You said: if gay people are smart how comes they dont breed?
You need to show that this is true if you are to assume it is true. Pretty self-explanatory. If you make the claim (Y O U, NOT M E), then you must substantiate it.

What does this mean. If I decide to shit my life savings away, it isn't logical to absolve all agency on my behalf and assign it to some magical misfortune that just-so-happened to pick me.

wrong. you said i dont need to prove my claims i told you to prove it for me, you gave me my proof, so there it is. smh smh

A penny for the poor, penny for the poor.

I was being facetious, dude.

Okay, new rule. You get (!)'s from me only if you actually address what I say and respond logically. Burden of proof exists dude, I'll reply if you substantiate your claims and bother taking part in a conversation.
Bye for now chaps.

@1356966
No (You) for you!

Protestant moralism aside, I fail to see how a African subsistence farmer's choices in life had anything to do with his lack of access to higher education.

...

This one's got me lad.