Can we have a civil, thoughtful discussion on this?

The atoms in my computer are distinguishable from atoms elsewhere only by their positions, so you are not being deprived of nature-provided atoms, except by landowners.

YOU KNOW THIS.

As the only difference between the atoms in my computer and other atoms elsewhere is their positions, and the atoms in my computer have been put in their positions by labor, you have just admitted that what you actually want is not atoms but the value labor created by removing atoms from nature and making them into a computer.

You know that is false. Land is what nature provided. Nature did not provide atoms in my computer. It provided atoms in their natural places.

YOU KNOW THIS.

All readers know that is false. My computer is not something nature created. Nature did not provide those atoms there.

YOU KNOW THIS.

And that is irrelevant, as already proved, because "product of labor" DOESN'T MEAN the product's constituent atoms were created by labor, but that they were REMOVED FROM NATURE by labor.

YOU KNOW THIS..

No, you are again just makin' $#!+ up about what I have plainly written. Others would NOT otherwise have access to those atoms, because those atoms are no longer where nature put them. Without my labor and the labor of those I've paid to labor, the atoms would not be where they are, so others would not have access to them there. And it is too late to access them where nature put them. There can be no such thing as a right to reverse time.

Atoms are movable and interchangeable. Land parcels are all immovable and unique.

YOU KNOW THIS.

"Product of labor" doesn't mean, "consisting of atoms produced by human labor." It means, "consisting of atoms removed from their natural places and made more valuable by human labor."

YOU KNOW THIS.

 

Products of labor? How do you create an atom through labor?

 

No he isn't, because the atoms where they are now are not something you would otherwise have access to; and you are not suffering any deprivation of atoms, because you have access to all the atoms you want where nature put them (subject to landowners' extortion demands).

Already refuted. The iron atoms were not provided by nature in that location, so are not a natural resource. And you are not being deprived of iron atoms, there are plenty of them available for the taking, so you cannot claim to be suffering any atom deprivation.

Your despicable, disingenuous, disgraceful claim is logically equivalent to claiming that I am smothering you by depriving you of access to the air I breathe: "I was going to breathe that air but you stole it! You are depriving me of air to breathe!"

Readers can, I think, accurately judge the honesty of such absurd and evil filth.

I have already explained it to you very clearly and patiently, many times. You just deny and refuse to know the relevant facts of objective physical reality because you have already realized that they prove your beliefs are false and evil.

He has a right to deny you access to those atoms for three very good reasons:

1. You are not suffering any atom deprivation because he denies you those atoms, any more than you are smothering to death because he denies you access to the air atoms he breathes. There are lots of iron atoms available to you, just as there are lots of air atoms.

YOU KNOW THIS.

2. Those atoms are no longer what nature provided, no longer natural resources, because they have been removed from nature and made into products of labor -- which MEANS that those atoms have been removed from nature and made into something more valuable, not that labor has created the atoms ex nihilo.

YOU KNOW THIS.

3. If you took those atoms, you would be depriving him of something he would otherwise have: the fruits of his labor.

YOU KNOW THIS.

 

"Product of labor" doesn't MEAN "consisting of atoms created by labor ex nihilo." It MEANS "consisting of atoms removed from nature and made more valuable by labor."

YOU KNOW THIS.

 

The location has nothing to do with it. The atoms were not produced by labor. That atoms are a gift of nature, to which we all are entitled. No matter where someone tries to hide them, he can't escape the fact that he is hiding something that was provided by nature and has been stolen from the rest of us.

 

You are not suffering any land deprivation because he denies you that land, any more than you are smothering to death because he denies you access to the air atoms he breathes. There is lots of land available to you, just as there are lots of air atoms.

 

The just because someone moves an atom, which was created by nature, why does he have the right to prevent others from using that atom that nature provided?

 

Being a product of labor does not mean an item consists of atoms produced by labor.

YOU KNOW THIS.

Atoms are only natural resources in their natural places.

YOU KNOW THIS.

Once removed from nature they are no longer a natural resource BY DEFINITION.

YOU KNOW THIS. You are just trying to change the definition of "natural resource" to make it impossible to identify the fact of human labor. Because you know that the fact of human labor proves your beliefs are false and evil.

 

Product of human labor means that it's created by labor, no?

 

That is your inevitable, even deeper descent into absurd, despicable nonsense. I most certainly am suffering a land deprivation, and so is everyone else who would otherwise be at liberty to use the land. Every homeless person on earth refutes your evil filth.

And every reader is able to judge the honesty of your claims for himself.

Air atoms, like the iron and silicon atoms you falsely and disingenuously claim to be deprived of, are abundant, and all pretty much equally useful. Useful locations are scarce, which is why they command a price, while air atoms, iron atoms and silicon atoms do not.

YOU KNOW THIS.

No. The air around me is all pretty much just as useful as the air he breathes, just as the iron and silicon atoms you falsely and disingenuously claim to suffer deprivation of are as useful as the ones in the car and computer, which you falsely and disingenuously claim are still natural resources. The land is not.

YOU KNOW THIS. And readers can judge for themselves the honesty of your claims.

 

Created from natural resources by labor. Yes. Not created by labor WITHOUT using natural resources.

YOU KNOW THIS. And readers can all judge for themselves the honesty of your claims.

 

Because preventing others from using it does not deprive them of anything they would otherwise have (it's no longer where they would have accessed it), and they are not suffering any deprivation because such atoms are abundantly available, while taking it from him WOULD deprive HIM of something he would otherwise have: the fruits of his labor.

YOU KNOW THIS. And readers can all judge for themselves the honesty of your claims.

 

I most certainly am suffering an atom deprivation, and so is everyone else who would otherwise be at liberty to use the atoms provided by nature.

Every atomless person on earth refutes your evil filth.

Land is abundant.

All atoms are limited in supply. When one monopolizes some of the atoms provided by nature, he deprives others of their use. Just as with land.

 

Define abundantly available. And then tell us how land isn't abundantly available while gold atoms are.

 

What would make others' rights to liberty his property?

You mean the Law of the Jungle.

Self-ownership is absurd, but never mind. What we have a right to is what we would have if others did not deprive us of it: mainly life, liberty, and property in the fruits of our labor.

Which all have a natural right to use.

"Takes" that land?? How would one "take" land other than by appropriating it as one's private property like a greedy, evil, murdering thief? Do you mean excluding the first-comer from it? That would certainly be an abrogation of his rights, just as the first-comer excluding the latecomer would be an abrogation of his rights.

"His own" land? What could that mean but land stolen by a greedy, evil, murdering thief from all who would otherwise be at liberty to use it?

No, only if at least one of them is a greedy, evil, murdering thief who intends to rob and enslave his fellows by claiming to own natural resources that no one ever produced. Throughout all of human existence up until the time of settled agriculture, no one ever claimed to own land, or ever tried to exclude his fellows from using it just because he had prepared for himself a place upon it to sleep.

Absurd, disingenuous garbage with no basis in fact. Private property in products of labor is necessary to ensure accurate incentives to produce. As land is not produced by labor, no such argument can be made for private property in land. It is just pure thievery. The only difference between landowning and slavery is that slavery removes people's rights to liberty one person at a time, landowning removes them one right at a time. The end result is the same: people's rights to liberty become someone else's private property.

 

Or rather he wouldn't, if your absurdities were not absurdities and he had no right to liberty, or property in the fruits of his labor.

And he uses them by removing them from nature, leaving the rest of what nature provided for all to use.

Nope. The atoms were only provided by nature in their natural places. Once removed, they are no longer, BY DEFINITION, natural resources.

YOU KNOW THIS.

 

Can he produce atoms by his labor?

And the landowner takes one small piece of land, leaving the rest of what nature provided for all to use.

No matter where they are moved to, they were still provided by nature.

 

They ARE at liberty to use the atoms provided by nature, except where landowners demand extortion payments for access to them.

YOU KNOW THIS, and readers are accordingly able to judge the honesty of your claims.

No one is atomless. Millions ARE homeless, and every one of the latter is landless.

YOU KNOW THIS. And readers can accordingly judge for themselves the honesty of your claims.

But useful locations are scarce.

Another miracle of irrelevancy. Everyone has free access to all the atoms they can use, except where prevented by landowner greed and parasitism, so while they are not infinite in supply, they are abundant. UNLIKE useful locations.

But inflicts no deprivation, as atoms are abundantly available.

No, because the atoms of each element and isotope are all movable and interchangeable. The land is immovable and unique.

YOU KNOW THIS, and readers can judge accordingly the honesty of your claims for themselves.

 

no I mean natural law which makes life in our natural jungle as peaceful as possible by being consistent with human nature and expectations, not Nazi law which seeks to contradict human nature by violently stealing private property and violently enslaving naturally free people.

 

self-ownership is absurd?? So libNazis owning us as slaves is not absurd?????

 

1) notice you forgot to say on what basis we have a right. Why did you forget? Because you have no idea??
2) notice you did not explain why you feel others deprive us of life liberty labor? Are you talking in war? Capitalist peacetime? Communist peace time?? Do you have any idea??

 

Natural??? obviously not since we'd all be dead if all tried to use the same piece of land to sleep on. natural is life sustaining not life ending. 1+1=2

 

Who, other than you, has a more legitimate claim on your body that you do?

 

yes as I said taking land by force is bad since it contradicts natural law which naturally gives you your land to sleep on. a late comer has no right to steal your land because this would start a war. War is bad

 

a squirrel is not greedy for fighting to keep his home where he sleeps and protects his children. He is natural. Aristotle and Darwin understood science and understands nature, libNazis don't, they want a deadly unnatural world.