Sure Jan

You do this a lot. Get triggered and refuse to engage really simple points and then assume there's some terrible other intention when you get called on it.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Apr 8 2022 10:46am

Claim *originates* in labor.
Claim is maintained by an accompanied threat of violence.

But I can make a claim with zero labor if I have violence. I can claim a preexisting tree if I have the violence

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Apr 8 2022 10:51am

Yes, you could be Vladimir Putin. That's why I said:

I agree that historically the original claims were accompanied by labor, but the labor was not the thing that made them a claim. The thing that makes them a claim is violence. You can do as much labor as you want, but if you aren't willing to do violence you do not have a claim of property.

Property exists when the threat of violence starts. Not when the labor starts.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Apr 8 2022 10:59am

u strawmanned, i called it out as a strawman, and u say im refusing to engage the simplistic argument i dont disagree with. then i told you that too, and you put it in reverse lol.

speaking of "doing this a lot", "you're triggered" usually weeds it was out of pard posters playbook after a year or so. you use it too often for someone who has posted here this long. "you're upset", "you're emotional", all the while being the person using adhoms. did u move on from med school and shift towards psychology? see anyone can be an immature person who tries to rile the other person up. idk maybe go to discord to call for backup.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Apr 8 2022 11:06am

Nah, I never did a strawman. I was very clear from the start about exactly what I was talking about, and it was never posted as the libertarian position on freedom.


In fact you tried to make this claim earlier and I did actively clarify, and now you are going out of your way to straw-man me as though I didn't.





This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Apr 8 2022 11:11am

I'm speaking in intellectual and philosophical terms. Labor originates the claim, and threat of violence perpetuates it. That someone else might come along and create counter-violence will certainly present a "counter-claim," but that doesn't make it philosophically accepted, just de facto accepted if they're successful in their application of violence.

I am also speaking in intellectual and philosophical terms.

If I crack open a coconut, and you come and take that coconut, it isn't my property.

If I crack open a coconut, and you take the coconut, and I bash your head in and take my coconut back, it is my property.

Property is fundamentally predicated on the ability and willingness to defend it, or else it isn't your property. It is merely something you have.

Just like I have a desk at work, but it isn't my property. I won't violently defend it, I'll leave that up to my employer to do because it is my employer's property, and my employer will do that through the threat of violence via the state.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Apr 8 2022 11:14am

what you're pointing out is simplistic, and inarguable, because it doesnt exist. that type of freedom might only exist in the depths of the amazon or in war torn areas of 3rd world shitholes.

freedom as defined on a hypothetical different plane dumbed down to it's most simple definition, but then applied to our world with complex property rights, to show that freedom is complex, which no one argues against.

and you waded into this pointless dumbed down debate and want us to believe its not chapter 500 in the thor goes after libertarianism book? lol. you're a statist, you're supposed to hate libertarianism, and you're supposed to go after it and try and expose it. then u get called out for doing just that and play the philosopher lol.



even as i typed that i didnt expect that inb4

This post was edited by thesnipa on Apr 8 2022 11:18am