Prove me wrong.
shareI'll just say this: I always find it funny when people say "if you care more about your property than someone's life, then you're ignorant." By all means, give me your address and let me take it out on your house if it's not such a big deal.
shareI wont try to prove you wrong, I agree
Any intruder on my property who tries to steal or harm my family gets what he gets
They must be quelled from the herd.
shareI don't want to sound like an internet tough guy but I'm heavily armed for a reason
What's mine is mine, I'm charitable but don't come sneaking up at me
"I don't want to sound like an internet tough guy..."
Possibly one of your most persistent disclaimers to produce an eye-roll. :)
I was being pretty polite and responding to a poster that I consider a Top Fellow
You may have a big chip on your shoulder
You also might be an asshole but that's just my humble opinion you jerkoff
There's nothing about you that's actually humble. :)
shareAnd like a small child you continue to elicit negative attention
Have a cookie you dopey little old boy🍪
Hmm, so small children typically "elicit negative attention"? I guess that's why you're so good with them, as you've recently been claiming.
shareIt's really hard to work some humor with you, a lot of things you say make no sense
let's just agree that we really dislike each other and stay away from each other (I've been avoiding you for months!) going forward, this seems like a good plan and reasonable
I've NO interest in hurting you, just stay away from me✌️
Nice edit.
Yeah, you know you fucked up with me big time. My responses are known as attrition. I got what I wanted, your concession. I won't mess with you anymore.
I have no idea what that means, seek help
shareYou just couldn't be true to your word and leave it be because you're so hellbent on saving face, huh? Suit yourself then.
shareWe seem to have a misunderstanding here, we dislike each other quite a lot, we're not two guys that should ever be in the same room
Other than that go fuck off and have a fine day
*EDIT Best Of Luck To You👍
I usually have a fine day...I love my retired lifestyle.
Re, your EDIT...it's why you were deemed the most passive/aggressive poster here almost 5 years ago. :)
Old dog, old bone
Good boy!
If your arms are heavy, know that Oprah Winfrey invested $43 million in Weight Watchers stock. She then made a TV commercial for them. You could see the fat in her arms flapping in the commercial! This was supposed to be the "after" look! So maybe avoid Weight Watchers.
shareThat must be one of the weirdest choices of a product spokesperson ever!
People love that gal, she could move a lot of product!
But weight loss?
WTH?!?
Sir, I challenge you to a dew-ell! Be at the old Lazy-Eye Ranch at high noon and bring your wet towel.
shareI think land as property is a stupid concept
shareHow so?
shareWell, it's just spots on Earth. I don't see how individual humans can lay claim to specific squares of Earth. It just seems wrong. I get why territorial animals do it, but we're supposed to have rationality on our side to allow us to go against our animal impulses
shareLand is what a clever fellow invests in
Google it, that's your nest and your future
LAND.
Nah, I think owning land is stupid
shareI think it's privacy. And we're not starting from scratch, so land will always be a commodity, and a limited one, which is why property has sky-rocketed. People from all over are trying to buy up as much land as possible. And as a result, it's probably why many have to rent.
shareCool. Then I assume you don't consider your home to be yours, and you would allow any stranger who wanders in to make his or herself at home, because your home doesn't actually belong to you, right?
shareThank you for putting words in my mouth. I don't engage in dialogue with sarcastic people
Your argument totally misrepresents my beliefs, but because you were so aggressive in your disagreement you'll miss out on hearing the sweet arguments I had. Try not being a cunt next time!
Ohhhhhh, I'm really sorry if I was super aggressive or sarcastic. I'm sure that aggression and sarcasm are very traumatizing to fragile, faggy little flowers like you. I could gently stroke your hair if it comforts you while encouraging you to actually make one of your "sweet arguments."
shareThank you for putting words in my mouth.
True hehe
And well, yes. I completely agree with you. The concept is stupid, but I know why people do it given that it's just taken for granted that it's a normal thing to do. If everyone else is ok with owning land then you are not individually better off by not owning any land
So what is your solution?
shareI don't think humans should be allowed to pass on property to their offspring or to anyone in a will. The concept of a generational line maintaining control of a piece of land seems ridiculous to me
There is no realistic solution given that we have billions of people on the planet. Eliminating land property would obviously lead to giant political and economic problems. The problem itself is tied with lots of other problems that we humans have created for ourselves over the last several centuries. This isn't even a rant about capitalism, since private property predates modern capitalism
You obviously have no children nor wealth. It is insane to think that one cannot give what they want to their children.
shareIt's not like I'm a statesman drawing up policy lol. I'm not saying that we should immediately do away with passing on property to offspring. I'm talking abstractly, about the human constructs that, over hundreds or thousands of years, lead to our own man-made problems. Problems that are common to all societies, not just capitalist ones
We used to think that it was completely normal to pass on absolute power (monarchy) through generational lines. Most modern people see how that was a bad idea that could manifest in wanton corruption and abuse of power
Land is one of the most fundamentally valuable resources. Giving people the power to amass land ownership and pass it on indefinitely generation after generation, if you look at things objectively, will obviously lead to huge problems
It isn't indefinite. Property tax and death tax are the built in entropy of it all and foolish decisions put a cap on it. Land is trading hands all the time. Real prosperity means allowing for real prosperity. Disallowing land ownership would put us in that "everyone is equally wretched and poor" scenario ... you know, 3rd world policies get you 3rd world results.
shareI'm pretty sure that land ownership is allowed in most 3rd world countries. Not sure how you're connecting those dots
It is indefinite, as you are clearly saying so yourself. The definition of indefinite: "lasting for an unknown or unstated length of time."
There is no timetable for when this supposed "built in entropy" will actually result in a shift in land ownership for any given piece of land property. The best you are proposing is "until someone can't afford to keep the land anymore because they can't afford to pay their taxes or they make foolish financial decisions"
Theoretically any generational line can hold on to their land forever as long as they can afford to keep paying whatever the current tax rates and as long as they don't bungle their wealth. That's indefinite
So ... as long as those things I stated don't change it, it is "indefinite?"
Is your end game redistribution? No? What is it then?
I dunno that I have an endgame. I just expressed my belief that land ownership is a stupid idea and now I'm responding to people
It's what I believe. There is no realistic solution that wouldn't lead to mass chaos, but it doesn't change the fact that I see land ownership as being a fundamentally bad concept
Despite what some people probably assume about me based on my posts, I don't see communism as a clear solution. I don't have confidence that humans, whether through the hands of the state or through private enterprise, possess the capability to undo or fix many of the problems that they've created
What is to stop someone from stealing food from a farmers field if he does not own it? The Govt owns it? Worse.
shareWhat is stopping someone from doing that now? The police? What do the police do in such circumstances? Use coercive force on the criminal
That is one of the only two methods since prehistory that humans have used to deal with thieves. The second would be community shunning
If the answer to the question is the same regardless of whether private land property is a thing or not, then I don't see why private land property is actually the solution
If the land isn't his then how is the crop his? Why would anyone plant food? If you defend it with violence then it pretty much is your land. If not then you are as guilty as the thief.
shareThe practice of farming predates the concept of private land ownership by thousands of years. I don't think that all of the farmers in those interim years can all be said to have been thieves. You don't need to have a legal writ proclaiming you owner of a piece of land in order to be able to use it. Like many animals, humans are naturally territorial. Private land ownership is just an extreme perversion of that purports to give rational justification to an animal instinct
I'm not saying that humans cannot occupy land (obviously not possible to not occupy land), nor am I saying that all humans need to live nomadic lifestyles
The idea that every private citizen ought to have the right to own land can be traced to the Enlightenment. Not saying it was necessarily a bad idea at the time, obviously it was a reaction to centuries of rule from monarchs and oligarchs who would decide who could and couldn't own land. It's a noble idea, in a vacuum
But that was before the industrial revolution and the massive population boom that that brought on. With billions of people on Earth, it's obviously unrealistic to expect every single person will be able to own land. Land is a finite resource, and the human population continues to grow. As it does, those who already own land see their relative power and influence continue to grow in proportion
As the world changes, ideas that once were good, or at least not bad, can become bad. That's pretty much a recurring pattern in human history. At least in my opinion
I own one house on one acre of land. Why is that evil?
shareWell, in isolation it seems, and maybe IS, totally benevolent. I'm not saying that you or people like you are evil
The problem isn't with individuals who take up piece of land on which they can subsist. The problem is with people or groups that accumulate land, one of the most potent and tangible resources, in order to amass power
Historically, land owners have always been among the most powerful members of any society. The ways in which these problems manifest depend on the specific time and place, but inevitably it leads to some people asserting power over others simply because they claim to have control over some chunk of the planet
I can go into more detail about how it manifests itself as evil, but this is just a basic overview
Speaking from someone who doesn’t own property. Damn! You Communists are breaking down the door of freedom!
So owning a 300 acre farm is evil? Raising livestock requires mucho land. Is that evil? Even if someone doesn’t work the land their land is an investment which they worked hard to obtain. It also should be passed on to whomever the property owner wishes. Good lord we pay enough in taxes for it.
I don't respond to sarcasm! And your rap sucks!
shareAll right, I'll prove you wrong...
FACT: Your property is NOT more important than the lives of any thugs attempting to steal or destroy it. Mine is.
There, I proved you wrong.
Agree.
share