Lockean property rights? His theory was free property in America for all Englishmen because it wasn't being used correctly in the English sense, since all property in English was owned already by the nobility, which he didn't object to. Your memes are stupid and don't understand the philosophy they propound. None of you fuckers have actually read Locke taken more than an into to econ course and think that we should just disintegrate society because you've had a pretty easy go of life with your privileges and nice subsidized environment. You will deprive everyone of all the work of others that went into you having a nice life, you unappreciative infantile little shit.

Again, your memes suck, if you read Locke he says white man should take land from red man and use it right. He was a racist, he believed his personal and subjective feelings about the social contract and freedom were universal applications, a curse of Enlightenment scholars from Descartes, to Kant, to Leibniz, to Locke and other members of the Scottish Enlightenment. The only one with any real wisdom was Hume, the modern Socrates. You would like Hume's apologetics for private property and inequality, it is most in line with American Libertarian (lite) ideology, which is the people who actually have things will miss them and suffer while the people who have nothing don't know what they're missing and hence aren't suffering. Amazing act of mental gymnastics, and nobody is really sure whether or not Hume was seriously claiming this as it is kind of hilarious...but it best describe2 the American Libertarian worldview, a worldview for twentysomething white males who've had it pretty easy but struggled with learning to share in kindergarten.

This post was edited by Skinned on Nov 22 2015 10:26am

Red herring writ large and a complete failure to honestly interpret what is meant by 'Lockean property rights'..

A meme does not have time and space to go into detail about their theory of property rights.
It is certainly not asserting that everything he did or said is good or would be approved by a dishonest leftist who rejects his theories.

Its referencing Locke's theory of property regarding homesteading and people owning themselves and their labor, captured in chapter 5 of his 2nd treatise on civil government.
And its showing how retarded people are for seeing those things being advocated and then saying they are for feudalism.

Advocating voluntary peaceful coexistence, live and let live, and free trade is not indicative of someone who struggled to learn how to share. (nor is that akin to "disintegrating society")
Thats more in line with your policies. You want to violently take from others what is not yours and force others to strictly conform to your authoritarian views, while being too stubborn and stupid to actually learn about economics to understand the horrible effects of what you want to impose on others.

Nor is you insulting our intelligence and falsely claiming we are less studied than we actually are to make us sound bad a legitimate argument.
Its juvenile and pathetic.

But sure call him a dumb racist, misrepresent opposing ideologies, and fallaciously mock people who hold those views. A+ exercise in sophistry.
Its your responses that 'suck'.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Nov 22 2015 01:25pm

just stop posting, isn't embarrassing yourself on a daily basis enough foe you?

Try refuting something multi scum.

Everything you've ever said proves you're an indoctrinated shill of the free market fundamentalists. Read some literature on effects of minimum wage increases or basic regulations. And by literature I mean something other than the mises institute or a speech by some wannabe plantation owner

As I expected: More insults and no refutation of anything I have said.

Lurching to minimum wage increases as your go-to topic to take down free market advocates is just showing your own ignorance.
I have read a ton about minimum wage increases.
Its bad policy and negatively effects poor and less skilled/experienced people, while infringing on people's freedom to freely associate and contract.
The debate is over the magnitude of its negative effects, and if its 'worth it' to use government to put poor people out of jobs to obtain marginal raises for some other people. I say no.


But of course calling economists who hold negative views of min wage increases 'wannabe slave owners' and dismissing them is an easy out for mental midgets unwilling to honestly consider opposing arguments.
Its basic ad hominem garbage.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Nov 22 2015 01:58pm

I wasnt specifically referring to the topic of property rights, I was referring to a common theme in your posts. The following theme is to cry and label everything ad hominems or fallacies, which you have fallen into doing yet again. If you think I require substance to say you're a retard then you're sorely mistaken bovenzi