|
Jrod, if there is no government to enforce property rights, what's stopping me getting a few hundred like minded folks together to rob and murder our way to wealth?
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 19:15 |
|
|
The current conception of property rights also conveniently developed in such a way as to legitimize stealing Native American land, such as the "doctrine of discovery", and the shift from selling uses of the land to selling the land itself in the 1600s and 1700s that mysteriously allowed colonials to reinterpret treaties in such a way as to justify genocidal campaigns to force Natives out of their land.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
If'n a community cannot be segregated into individual monads as defined by their individual ownership of property, it's OK to steal from them and massacre them. It's not even stealing! Holding property in common is basically just serving as its custodian until whites with an appropriate (from Mises-God) concept of property ownership comes along and takes over. (this is 100% accurate libertarian belief by the way, jrod may not like the way I am saying it but he won't refute it)
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
Hello Sailor posted:What changed you, if it's not too personal a question? Its a long story that you can find in the libertarian thread, but the short answer is that I had a very good friend who lived in the US who found out she had cancer. Considering her age and the stage at which it was discovered her survival rate with treatment was something like 95% over five years, 90% over 10 years and so on. It was the type of cancer you get better from. The problem is that she lived in the US and wasn't wealthy. As a Canadian I'd taken my healthcare for granted and never really looked at the US system. I'd just figured up to that point that if we got rid of our UHC we could just take the money I spent in taxes on that and use it to pay for the care I'd need just like the US does. This instance however was eye opening. She found out she was sick, but simply couldn't pay. She received some treatment as she scraped together funds through charity projects but it wasn't enough to pay for what she needed and I had to watch a good friend of mine waste away from a preventable disease. If she were in Canada she would have received treatment almost immediately (in fact it would have been discovered sooner since she wouldn't have been worried about paying for a checkup) and I'd probably still have my friend here today. Once I came to realize that private medical care was disgustingly immoral and inefficient it wasn't hard to make the jump to realizing that maybe having certain things as public goods is not a bad idea after all. Edit: Incidentally to the discussion above, I've been pondering doing a let's read of Atlas Shrugged for laughs for a while now as a warm up exercise before I start work on a given day. Would anyone be interested in reading that? jrodefeld posted:If any ancestors of Native American tribes can demonstrate evidence that certain property was stolen from their ancestors, then it should be returned to them. This can't be some abstract and vague assertion though. People who doubtless occupy the disputed lands today had nothing to do with previous Americans treatment of Native peoples. However, if they are in possession of stolen land, they can be made to move because the earlier user of a good has precedence. If the earlier user did not freely trade away land rights, then he or his direct descendants have a better claim to just ownership than subsequent owners even if they had no knowledge that they were being sold stolen goods. What qualifies as a abstract or vague assertion? We know that prior to the introduction of Europeans to North America the land was owned in its entirety by native americans. While it is impossible (due to genocide and the passage of time) to determine who specifically is descended from the tribe that might have owned this particular spot it seems to me remarkably simple to figure out who has Native American heritage and who does not. Since most modern people can agree that the entire conquest of North America was essentially one giant theft it seems remarkably simple to say that we should all get the gently caress out and let them sort out the property rights amongst themselves. And before I go on lets be clear about the bolded part. What you're talking about is impossible. Even you would agree (I should hope) that trading freely with someone who doesn't understand the concept of what is being traded is impossible. This is a fundamental aspect of our current contract law, that a contract simply cannot be valid if it is not properly understood by one side. Likewise a total lack of consideration on one side (say... trading the island of manhattan for $700 worth of beads) is also valid grounds for getting rid of a contract. Native American groups by and large didn't make any sorts of fair trades for land. They made trades they didn't understand for things that were utterly worthless by comparison to what they were giving up and in many cases these trades were made under duress of being killed by disease or straight up genocide. Even if you exclude all that, do you think it would be fair to say the US should give up on large sections of land in the deep south?  The dark green lands are lands that were treaty signed as tribal land that were then stolen outright from native americans as part of a forced relocation that killed thousands. There is absolutely no question that this was theft and we know exactly which tribes the land was stolen from. quote:Let's suppose I own a Rolex watch (I don't) and someone steals it from me. Then he sells it to you and you have no knowledge that the watch was stolen. But suppose I see you wearing the watch and I know that the watch is in fact my property and I can prove it. Maybe my initials are engraved on the back or something. Lets suppose a group of people, say... white men, systematically murder you and everyone like you while stealing up your land for themselves. Jrodefeld you're making our point for us here, the land was stolen and every single person living in north america is party to the theft and genocide of native american peoples. I know that is hard to accept as truth but it is. The difference is that we don't have a social and economic system that says that if something is provably taken by force that it must be returned, we have a society that acknowledges the lovely things that it has done but that also realizes it is incredibly impractical to reverse them at this point in time. If you are sticking by your morality instead of trying to worm your way out on a technicality you have to admit that Native Americans should have a claim to some or all of North America. quote:But those who wish to overturn existing property rights must have the burden of proof on them to prove just ownership and the farther back in history the alleged theft took place the harder it is to prove it. The exception to this is property owned by the State. State property is inherently illegitimate because a "state" cannot homestead land. Only individuals can do that. States violate property rights and, even if the original owners whose land was stolen by the State cannot be identified, the property must still (according to libertarian theory) be transferred to private hands. Assumes facts not found in evidence. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you haven't read my post before you wrote this, but you might want to seriously consider going to do that before you post anymore because I've already talked about this with you. As I discussed earlier, property owned by the state is only legitimate if we accept your premise that homesteading is the way property rights should be developed, something no one in this thread has acquiesced as fact. Until such time that you have people agreeing on the subject it might behoove you to stop stating such things as fact and instead couch your statements in more vague language such as "I believe" so that you don't come off as quite so pompous and insufferable. Incidentally your arguments that individuals need to meet the burden of proof to claim their property rights is yet another example of how your view of property rights is specifically designed as one that exists to be most advantageous to you. Native Americans had their own view of property rights, one that was largely communal in nature, and one that was inconsistent with the property rights as viewed by europeans. What you are doing here is framing the argument in such a way that you know it will be impossible for them to provide evidence that they were stolen from, despite the blatantly well understood fact that native americans were stolen from. No one in this thread, even you I would hope, is going to seriously argue that the Native Americans weren't systematically robbed and largely exterminated in the European conquest of North America. By putting the burden of proof at a level that amounts to "Well do you have a deed for the land?" You are setting a bar that is impossible for Native Americans with their alternate view of property rights to meet. To circle back to Mongol Based Economics, this is like a Russian Prince going to the Kublai Khan a generation after his father's death and saying "Well we know that Subutai raped and pillaged our land for a number of years, could we have that back?" Its not like they have a reciept, and even if they did the two peoples have vastly different views on property rights and it is absurd to expect them to have common ground on that front. quote:The only just way to do this, in my view, is to follow the principle of syndicalism. If no original owner (or descendant) can be identified as having homesteaded the land when it was seized by the State, then the second most just way to allocate the property into private hands is to grant it to the workers who work the land. Or you could... you know, give it back to the Native Americans who were clearly and unashamedly robbed of their land. Also just going to reiterate this in case anyone missed Jack of Heart's post on the issue. The factory owners aren't the ones working the factory you loving weirdo. Caros fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Oct 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 19:28
|
|
The factories to the factory owners
|
quote:But those who wish to overturn existing property rights must have the burden of proof on them to prove just ownership and the farther back in history the alleged theft took place the harder it is to prove it. The exception to this is property owned by the State. State property is inherently illegitimate because a "state" cannot homestead land. Only individuals can do that. States violate property rights and, even if the original owners whose land was stolen by the State cannot be identified, the property must still (according to libertarian theory) be transferred to private hands. Doublepost but who gives a poo poo in hellthread... I'm curious Jrodefeld, do you believe a corporation can homestead? For example if Shell goes drilling for oil in the arctic, is that their oil? Shell isn't owned by one person but as a communal group (shareholders). I mean we clearly know that a factory owner paying someone has to count as jaming his dick in the earth to claim it because otherwise every factory owner ever would have to go down and work on the line for his claim to be mixing his labor with the soil to be valid. What about partnerships. If I start a business with my friend it could be impossible to determine who owns what specific thing in the business but at the same time you clearly have to have the possibility of partnerships for your society to function. So why is state land impossible? State land is ultimately just a very, very, very large partnership isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
Jrod, what are your feelings on White Guilt?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Jrod, if there is no government to enforce property rights, what's stopping me getting a few hundred like minded folks together to rob and murder our way to wealth? You'd be violating the non aggression principle which everyone everywhere will abide by so this scenario is impossible. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:There are very few people today who actually advocate State ownership over the means of production. Anyone who has studied the matter for five minutes could tell you about the disaster of communism. Can you stop with the "left-Progressives" talk. It makes you sound like a loving idiot. I have no idea who the left-Progressives are, or where the right-Progressives live, or what ideology you are discussing. How about just saying "people who advocate for social democracy." Seriously. Reading your posts is like reading a bad student paper. There's a reason why I didn't become a teacher over being a retail manager. If I had to deal with teenagers, I at least didn't want to read their work! quote:My point is that the wealth enjoyed in such oft cited countries came into existence almost entirely due to lengthy periods of laissez-faire. No welfare States, only property rights and a market economy. People who fail to credit the market economy for the wealth generated in places like Sweden are the people I am concerned with. And you do nothing to support this claim. I have no idea how to argue with this claim since it's just there. Like, I don't know what you're seeing that leads you to believe that, so I don't know how to effectively make you see otherwise. quote:Second, and this should be quite obvious, having a legal right to property which you appropriated first from the state of nature of course does not keep any decent person from sharing the property which they have acquired. Writing tip: Get rid of phases like "and this should be quite obvious" unless you are trying to emphasize how someone missed something that was very obvious. It just adds to your wordcount without saying something, and frankly, if it's obvious, why do you need to say it and why do you need to tell me that it's obvious? It should be obvious to a good writer that they don't need to talk down to their readers and tell them what's obvious and what's not. Now, onto what you actually have to say here. Nobody here is arguing that there is some weird force keeping us from sharing our wealth. You're making a non-controversial statement, and trying to argue it like it's some profound rebuttal to what we've been saying all along. Also, it's amazing that you don't see the immediate problem. It should be obvious to you that if people who had enough were going to share it with people who didn't, we wouldn't have the vast poverty that we have in America. Seriously. Go to Madison, WI and hang around the square. You're in a well-to-do area with a lot of bars and tourists spot. And what will you always see? A gently caress ton of homeless people. Even in the winter, and it gets pretty loving cold out there. So right next to all these luxury apartments and the beautiful lakefront, you have a strong homeless presence. So yeah. If you're suggestion was a solution, THEN WE WOULDN'T BE HAVING THIS loving CONVERSATION. So clearly, something is breaking down. Something isn't working. When you look at how income is distributed in America, we have an obscene disparity between the top 1% of the country and the bottom 99%. So, what's your solution to Madison's homeless problem. Expecting people to be nice and share their money isn't working. quote:It is entirely reasonable and moral for the person who finds an apple, and already has sufficient nutrition to sustain his own life, to share the food with a person who is starving. Such an act would be virtuous and worthy of praise. See, JRod, you're confusing "rights" with "abilities." In the scenario you listed, I have the ability not to share my apple with him. There's nothing stopping me. It should be obvious to someone who wants to talk about political philosophy as much you do that rights are not just things you can choose to do, but rather, a series of privileges that people are assumed to have. So, in America, it is assumed that I can express whatever opinion I want without fear of government reprisal. It is my right. However, I can't think of any reason why my ability to not give up an apple to a starving person when I still would have plenty of apples left over would be something that someone would say that I can't have taken away from me under any circumstances. Now, even if he has the right, we also recognize that not all rights are equal. We find very often that rights are in conflict with each other, and some rights are more important than others. So for example, I may be firing a gun off into the air as an expression against gun control, however, other peoples right to life (in this case, by not being killed by random bullets raining down on them) would be seen as more valuable than my choice of expression, so the state, and others, would have a compelling reason to abridge my right to freedom of speech in that case. This also brings up another element about rights - they are rarely absolute. Many rights we have can be suspended or taken away based on certain factors. So, for example, if I commit a felony and am sent to federal prison, I lose a lot of rights. Now, back to what I was saying. In this case, the starving man has a right to life. And if he were to get one of your apples, he would no longer be starving, and you would still have plenty of apples to survive. So, why shouldn't you be compelled to give him one of your apples. Why does your right to your apples supersede his right to life? Do you see how hosed up your philosophy is? You are literally arguing "Hey, these apples are more important than preventing a slow, painful death." This is why people are brutal towards you. Now, we can discuss how we can best balance these rights. By the way, did you ever admit to being completely wrong about vaccines before?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
there's not much point to giving jrod writing tips, he thinks arguments are more convincing by the pound and he copy pastes most of them anyway
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
Bear Retrieval Unit posted:You'd be violating the non aggression principle which everyone everywhere will abide by so this scenario is impossible. I'm sure we'd be able to come up with a pretext about how they violated our property rights first, so the hardcore ultra-violence we're committing is cool. Worked for the Romans.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:I'm sure we'd be able to come up with a pretext about how they violated our property rights first, so the hardcore ultra-violence we're committing is cool. Worked for the Romans.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:I'm sure we'd be able to come up with a pretext about how they violated our property rights first, so the hardcore ultra-violence we're committing is cool. Worked for the Romans. Do the poor and hungry have property rights in libertopia though?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
Honestly this is the lynch pin on which everything else he says hangs:jrodefeld posted:My point is that the wealth enjoyed in such oft cited countries came into existence almost entirely due to lengthy periods of laissez-faire. No welfare States, only property rights and a market economy. People who fail to credit the market economy for the wealth generated in places like Sweden are the people I am concerned with. Since this statement is absolutely crucial to your argument I'm going to ask you to simply respond to the existence of some of the following things. More than anything I just genuinely curious whether you're unaware of these things or whether you actually have some kind of explanation. -Massive state funded military interventions to progressively expand America's geographical boundaries -Government enforced and regulated legal slavery -Government enforced patent protections to reward innovation -Extensive tariffs to promote American industry -Government laws forbidding the formation of unions or strikes -Massive public works projects such as The Erie Canal -Central Banking -Heny Clay's "American system" -Corporations as legal persons with all attendant rights -US Military aggressively expanding Available foreign markets and State military intervention and diplomatic intervention to keep foreign powers out of the Western hemisphere -Massice coercive military intervention to maintain the United States a single unified economic bloc -State colonization of foreign territory -Government restrictions on corporate monopolies or "Trusts" This was just a quick list pulled from the top of my head, I could easily go on. I honestly want to know how in God's name somebody like you fits this information into your worldview. If you have any concern whatsoever about actually convincing anyone else about anything then you need to address the huge historical contradiction at the centre of your entire analysis. The United States was absolutely not a "free" or exclusively "market based" economy in the 19th century and if anything the existence of slavery and the Indian Wars made it vastly less free than it is today by any standard. Why, it's almost as though economic development is an extremely complex and nuanced topic that can't be simplistically reduced to "more freedom of contract good, less freed of contract bad"! paragon1 posted:Jrod, if there is no government to enforce property rights, what's stopping me getting a few hundred like minded folks together to rob and murder our way to wealth? You would freely contract with a Dispute Resolution Organization or "DRO" who would protect you for a small fee.  If your DRO somehow inexplicably mutates into an actual government (obviously this would never happen) then you would use your entrepreneurial gumption to simply start your own competing DRO, or alternatively you would give them a bad review on the Libertopian equivalent of Yelp and this would discourage them from mistreating you again in the future since obviously the customer is Number 1.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
Helsing posted:
Just... walk away. And leave a scathing review on yelp.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
When I think of property rights, I think of two stories. In the first, my apartment was robbed. Twice. When I called (twice) to report it, I was put on hold for 45 minutes, told it wasn't a priority, and to fill out my police reports online so I could collect renters' insurance. I figured, well, my police department's just incompetent. My girlfriend called our district rep's office (yes we're white) to lean on the department, and like magic, two cops appeared. What they didn't say was that they'd patrol the area more. What they did say was that we should get a dog or alarm system. In the second, I watched a heli livestream of a #blacklivesmatter protest. I'll never forget the image of dozens of cops lined up as a human shield to protect a Bank of America. They didn't bother to do that for local businesses. They didn't bother to patrol areas with gun violence. What that basically taught me was that private property doesn't mean yours and my property, in practice. Private property means investor's property. The vast majority of people never get their stolen bikes back, or their laptops and digital cameras back. Police don't have resources, and so they don't see it as their job - which is why they recommended buying personal protection to my girlfriend and me. People freak out about the end of private property for their stuff, but they don't realize that they're already living in a world without it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
Yeah but literally every bad thing that private property has ever lead to any time in history was due to the corrupting influence of the state. Everyone would be incalculably richer and freer and better protected if there was no state. Literally every single social and political problem any human ever conceived of anywhere just reduces to a question of applying the none aggression principle. This is a real philosophy and not a cultish system of magical thinking.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
This is v. v. good and if I were god emperor of D&D I would mandate that people exclusively quote this toward jrod until he explains comprehensively how none of that mattered, rather than ask individual questions. Because this is a post he will definitely ignore otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
rudatron posted:I'm going to go out on a limb, and suggest jrodefeld is a libertarian because he has a fetish for Great Leaders, which conversely leads to a disdain for committees or popular rule, because these programs stifle individual ambitions (by design). The idea of 'power corrupting' is ignored, and substituted with 'being poor is corrupting' - giving rule to 'mobs' under this framework is suicidal (Bread and circuses! Flatscreen TVs! etc etc). Everything else, first-owner-principle, non-aggression-principle, whatever pseudo-scientific bullshit is deployed, is centered around the goal of justifying the demobilization of mass politics. To put the genie back in the bottle.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:This is v. v. good and if I were god emperor of D&D I would mandate that people exclusively quote this toward jrod until he explains comprehensively how none of that mattered, rather than ask individual questions. Because this is a post he will definitely ignore otherwise. I just wish any libertarian would address the Actually Existing Private Property system. I talked to tons of people afterwards about their experience with robberies - exactly zero people ever got their stuff back. In rich neighborhoods, cops even dusted for fingerprints. Nada. Private Property For All is honestly impossible to enforce without panopticon. Thieves are good at their jobs. Try to take over your factory though, you can expect a baton to the head.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:there's not much point to giving jrod writing tips, he thinks arguments are more convincing by the pound and he copy pastes most of them anyway But I think by telling Jrod what he's doing wrong, I can improve the writing of other people. They can use JRod as an example of what not to do. Plus, it helps me find ways to make fun of him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:But I think by telling Jrod what he's doing wrong, I can improve the writing of other people. They can use JRod as an example of what not to do. It's also a fun case study in him refusing to change his mind about absolutely anything, political or no. Libertarianism will always be correct, Locke's Barter Fairy Tale will always be historically accurate, and more words will always be better.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
It is crystal clear to a libertarian that there is no meaningful distinction between property rights and human rights.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
The libertarian would day that those people did have their property rights violated because their bodies are their property. I'm sorry for the stroke you're having trying to understand that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 00:32
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:The libertarian would day that those people did have their property rights violated because their bodies are their property. I'm trying to remember the quote from Rothbard about this. Something about how in An-cap land slavery would ~technically~ be legal but if you were a slave there would be nothing stopping you from just running for the hills at the earliest opportunity. Which makes me wonder what exactly is stopping your owner from just shooting you in the back when you run but I assume my faith in the Nonaggression principle is just lacking.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
DarklyDreaming posted:Which makes me wonder what exactly is stopping your owner from just shooting you in the back when you run but I assume my faith in the Nonaggression principle is just lacking.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 00:48
|
|
|
The libertarian is an idiot stooge who sucks Power's dick in exchange for the illusion of intellectual clout. He is happy to advocate doing away with "democracy" and elevating wealth and then say 'tut-tut' when student protestors are gunned down in the process of realizing that vision. The academic who smokescreens a genocide has the same blood on his hands as its architect. The only reason jrod doesn't is because he is too insignificant to have that much of an effect, but let's not pretend that he wouldn't jump at the chance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:If you're his slave, you're his property (that you legally sold yourself to, I guess) so by running, you're stealing (yourself) from him and therefore violating his property rights, so he is well justified in shooting you. He may chose not to to protect his property value, but he could. Of course keep in mind that this still doesn't make sense because even though he owns you and controls your labor he doesn't actually have sole right to use of your body and as a result you're not his property in the way that libertarians think of as property.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:there's not much point to giving jrod writing tips, he thinks arguments are more convincing by the pound and he copy pastes most of them anyway Cemetary Gator, please don't listen to this punk, I like reading your sound critiques of jrod's loving awful writing style
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
Caros posted:Of course keep in mind that this still doesn't make sense because even though he owns you and controls your labor he doesn't actually have sole right to use of your body and as a result you're not his property in the way that libertarians think of as property. no he does, he just permits you to use your body the way you want sometimes
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
I've seen some libertarians argue that slavery was a voluntary institution of people in tribes allowing their labor to be sold by chieftains and continued allowing their labor to be exploited by plantation owners in exchange for food and shelter. And horrific physical violence I guess
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
Jrod how much do you cost? Not your labor, you. Let me know, I won't be in the market forever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 01:49
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Jrod how much do you cost? Not your labor, you. well you see, no price can be put on ME, because i have respect myself. others, however...
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I had a libertarian for a US Government teacher back when I was doing my pre-requisites at a community college. He made great hay out of saying you vote with your dollars and that counts way more than your mere votes in an election, pshaw, they're all the same anyway. I think there's really something to this. libertarians are pretty open about being explicitly opposed to democracy in the Rousseau / popular sovereignty sense
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
Does anyone have any experience setting up a kickstarter? I'm thinking rewards along the lines of $50 - Jrode cleans your garage. $500 - One nonvital organ. edit: I just realized kickstarter may have rules about this sort of thing, but fortunately Jrod is ideologically compelled to help me write several extremely lengthy emails to them in support of my right to crowdsource funds to buy him. Sharkie fucked around with this message at 02:13 on Oct 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
Would you like some gum? Now take a look at the wrapper, printed on the inside you'll find a tiny contract 
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Does anyone have any experience setting up a kickstarter? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PCqcZeRCSs
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 02:24
|
|
|
Bear Retrieval Unit posted:Do the poor and hungry have property rights in libertopia though? If they don't then we can make some up. I mean, it's not like there will be a state army or police force to disagree with us anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
Helsing posted:
Why would I do that, I want to rob people. Anyway, I'm not too worried about groups like that. Me and the boys at Valhalla DRO will have already bailed with all your stuff and salable family members by the time the competition shows up. Unless they paid for the fast response package I guess.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 02:47
|
|
|
But hey high profit high risk amirite
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 02:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 19:15 |
|
|
And now we await Jrods return. I think we just got drive by Libertarianism'ed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 05:56
|
|
