Are they willing to let the world burn?

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by bricklayer, Feb 9, 2020.

  1. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Privileges like land titles, IP monopolies, bank licenses, etc., and of course, ownership shares in companies that own such privileges.
    Why, so you can keep stealing from me, undisturbed?
     
  2. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Very little that the rich have is rightly theirs:

    "Behind every great fortune there is a great crime." -- Balzac
     
  3. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What "privilege"? What "injustice"? You need to form arguments.
     
  4. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Many people have gotten rich from laying bricks.
     
  5. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, it is theirs. They were either given it or earned it themselves. Either way, it is theirs.
     
  6. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Only legally, in the same sense that slaves were legally the property of their owners. You claimed what the rich own is rightly theirs. It is not. Almost all of it, they have legally stolen through privilege.
    No. Almost all of it they took from others without earning it, through privilege -- i.e., by being legally entitled to take it.
    Only in the same sense that slave owners' slaves were "theirs."
     
  7. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Name one.
     
  8. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Legal entitlements to benefit from the abrogation of others' rights without making just compensation, such as land titles, bank licenses, IP monopolies, oil and mineral rights, broadcast spectrum allocations, etc.
    The injustice created by privilege.
    As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"
     
  9. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    "privilege" is not stealing. What "privilege"?

    See above.

    We're talking about money, not slaves.
     
  10. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  11. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
  12. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes it is. Just legalized.
    I already told you: land titles, IP monopolies, bank licenses, broadcast spectrum allocations, oil and mineral rights, and a host of lesser ones.
    We are talking about how the privileged take wealth from others through legal entitlements to take it, such as slave deeds, land titles, bank licenses, etc.
     
  13. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Already did.

    ... a business that lays bricks.
     
  14. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It is not good to be jealous of what other people have. Stop trying to steal other people's wealth.
     
  15. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is not good to try to divert attention from facts with evil, ad hominem filth. It is not good to accuse those who oppose injustice of envy for those who profit from it. In fact, it is one of the most evil acts a human being can commit. It is not good to accuse the honest of jealousy in order to serve the greatest evil that has ever existed. Being a servant of evil makes you evil. It is not nice to be evil. Why have you chosen to serve evil when you could have chosen to serve good?
    Stop pretending all the wealthy's wealth has been honestly and justly obtained. Stop trying to deflect attention from the fact that almost all of it has been obtained unjustly, at the expense of honest, productive people, through government-issued and -enforced privilege -- i.e., through legalized stealing.
     
  16. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, of course you didn't, as you know perfectly well. Nor will you ever be doing so.
    Thank you for agreeing that you were being disingenuous when you claimed people could get rich by laying bricks when you were fully aware that you actually meant that they could get rich by owning a business that hired other people to lay bricks.
     
  17. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You do realize that sole-proprietors exist, right?

    Also, employees who lay bricks get paid decent money.
     
  18. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sure. Name one who got rich SOLELY by laying bricks. Just one.
    Please name one who got paid enough money for laying bricks to become RICH.

    Thought not.
     
  19. gottzilla

    gottzilla Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2019
    Messages:
    321
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    43
    You seem to operate under the assumption that whatever can be had according to prevailing rules is automatically justifiable. Your contentless response at least makes it seem that way, so let me get that one out of the way, as it is easily refuted by application of reductio ad absurdum:

    Person X:
    Land titles, IP monopolies, bank licenses, broadcast spectrum allocations, and oil and mineral rights are justifiable because they can be had / property.

    Premise:
    Whatever can be had is automatically justifiable to be had / property.

    Logical implication of premise:
    Chattel slaves would be justifiable if they could be had / property.

    Now, why don't you tell us the underlying moral principles that you believe determine what one should be able to have, or better should be able to have as property. Those principles need to be applied in a logically consistent manner. Please do not be a bore with question begging rubbish that they should be property because they are property. Make an argument that leads to your conclusion that those things are justifiable to be had / property rather than merely assuming that conclusion within what you may falsely consider an "argument". Let's see what you have.
     
    bringiton likes this.
  20. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    RQAA. (repetitious question already answered).
     
  21. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I've already made my argument.
     
  22. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As you are aware, you did not answer the question. You claimed many people have got rich by laying bricks, but when challenged, you have been unable to name even a single one. In fact, let's make it easier for you: name ANY rich person whose wealth was obtained entirely by commensurate contributions to production, and not by privilege, inheritance, lawsuit, or gambling/speculation.
     
  23. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    RQAA.
     
  24. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No. That claim is false. You have never offered anything -- i.e., any facts or logic -- that could be called an argument. All you have done is offer despicable and disingenuous ad hominem insults. On form, that will not be changing.
     
  25. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, of course it doesn't. It proves he is (unlike you) clear and honest about the fact that landowning forcibly removes individuals' rights to liberty without just compensation. I have proved to you many times that owning land and owning human beings is not only comparable, not only similar, but equivalent in its implications for the landless:

    Proof #1. The logical example of Dirty Rahl and the thirsty man at the waterhole
    Proof #2. The historical testimony of people who actually WERE slaves, who stated that they were actually worse off after emancipation (a fact noted with puzzlement in the popular media at the time) because they had to pay landowners full market value just for permission to work, shop, access public services and infrastructure, and even exist.
    Proof #3. The logical example of Crusoe and Friday on the island
    Proof #4. The many historical examples of the effective enslavement, starvation and legalized murder of the landless by landowners, such as in the Irish famine of the 1840s, which is just one of countless such historical examples
    Proof #5. The slave-like condition of the landless in EVERY SINGLE SOCIETY IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD where private landowning has been well established, but government did not intervene massively in the economy through minimum wages, income support programs, labor standards laws, public education, pensions and health care, etc. to rescue the landless from enslavement by landowners
    Etc.

    You have never offered a single factual or logical argument to dispute any of those proofs. Because you can't. All you can do is chant your already-proved-false claim that it is silly.
    <yawn> Being disingenuous about land and human rights makes one look evil -- because it proves one actually is evil.
     
    gottzilla likes this.

Share This Page