Quote (MizzouFTW @ Nov 22 2020 09:57pm)

Huh.

Quote (TiStuff @ 23 Nov 2020 05:48)

any one that goes against this kid defending himself is taking the full leftie position. One of the three people that atacked kyle was a pedo going after a minor. Good thing the kid was armed. Lefties pick a bad case here to defend. They defend a pedo

Quote (Thor123422 @ Nov 22 2020 03:04pm)

"peaceful use" is not the same as property. Property requires exclusion and exclusion requires aggression. If you eat fruit from a tree, then okay, you've eaten it. That's not aggression. If you hoard all the fruit from a tree and use violence against somebody else who wants to pick the fruit, you've established it as your "property" and you've used aggression or the threat of aggression to exclude others from using things they otherwise have the ability to use. At most you could extend this to defending things that are necessary for your short or medium term survival as non-aggression since you need them to survive, but that's more in the weeds than we need to go for now.

We don't need the sky to tell us our bodies are off limits. That comes from the definition of aggression. If aggression does not extend to unwilful actions against your body then literally nothing is aggression. I could kill you and it wouldn't be aggression.

You have a right to everything until something stops you from doing it. A right is an expectation that you can do something or be free from something. Until you threaten violence against me I have the right to do everything, at least while we're working under the NAP.

I don't really care about the Rittenhouse case. He'll be tried in court with the country watching. Whether he wins the case or loses he's gonna have a hard time for the rest of his life because he's infamous. It'll suck that he will be judged his entire life for something he did at 17, but he'll probably end up as a right wing grifter and never need money again.

Quote (bogie160 @ Nov 24 2020 12:27pm)

You are defining aggression in far too narrow of a sense. The bold isn't in the weeds at all, it is essential to what we are discussing.

If you farm land, or rely on an apartment for security and shelter, it is certainly aggression for someone to invade that personal space. That is why bodies are off limits, because unfettered access to self constitutes a threat to an individual's security and well-being.

Ownership and property are defined terms specifically so as to avoid the inevitable violence that comes along with disagreement. When we say that someone has a "right" to property, it is to that that we are all referring. Otherwise the term "right", which implies an entitlement, wouldn't exist at all, because there is obviously no inherent right to anything outside of what you can hold and defend on your own or with the collaboration of others. Society is our collaborator.

Quote (Thor123422 @ Nov 24 2020 01:35pm)

What you're getting at is the distinction that communists would make between private and personal property. The things you hold for your own security and well being, such as your personal house and means of providing food for yourself in the short and medium term, are personal property. Your second home, the factory you might own, etc. are private property.

Regardless though, both require aggression to establish. If you claim universal ownership over the fruits of a specific tree then you've deprived me of a right I had previously, the right to use the fruit of that tree. It's only through your aggression against me that I can't use it, or if I claim it it's only my aggression that stops you from using it.

Property requires aggression. The real question we ask is if that aggression is warranted.

Quote (MxVivianWulf @ Nov 23 2020 03:51am)

Firstly Rosenbaum was convicted of sexual conduct with a minor nearly 20 years ago. My memory is a little hazy but if I remember correctly that put him at 19 years old and the boy he was with at 15.
Bad for sure... but hardly evidence to suggest he was a habitual paedophile. I had a similar relationship at 14.

Secondly even if he were convicted of any manner of gross crime that still doesn't give anyone the right to execute him on the street 20 years after the fact. Personally I would withhold judgement were it the victim or an affected family member or loved one but all the same - we can't simply execute people years after they have been released from the prison sentences for the crimes they committed.

Thirdly Kyle knew none of the criminal histories of the people involved. This didn't factor into his judgement and so it should not factor into our judgement of whether the killings were justified. Their criminal histories are irrelevant unless they were part of the motive for the killings.

Quote (MxVivianWulf @ Nov 23 2020 02:51am)

My memory is a little hazy but if I remember correctly that put him at 19 years old and the boy he was with at 15.
Bad for sure... but hardly evidence to suggest he was a habitual paedophile. I had a similar relationship at 14.

Quote (MxVivianWulf @ Nov 23 2020 02:51am)

Firstly Rosenbaum was convicted of sexual conduct with a minor nearly 20 years ago. My memory is a little hazy but if I remember correctly that put him at 19 years old and the boy he was with at 15.

Quote

Bad for sure... but hardly evidence to suggest he was a habitual paedophile..

Quote

Secondly even if he were convicted of any manner of gross crime that still doesn't give anyone the right to execute him on the street 20 years after the fact.
Personally I would withhold judgement were it the victim or an affected family member or loved one but all the same - we can't simply execute people years after they have been released from the prison sentences for the crimes they committed.

Thirdly Kyle knew none of the criminal histories of the people involved. This didn't factor into his judgement and so it should not factor into our judgement of whether the killings were justified. Their criminal histories are irrelevant unless they were part of the motive for the killings.

Quote (bogie160 @ Nov 24 2020 12:57pm)

This is coming down to whether we think aggression is hostile behavior, or hostile behavior without provocation.

If I am sitting quietly in a corner holding a lunchbox, you come up and try to take the lunchbox and we quarrel, am I the aggressor, or are you? Does it make a difference whether the lunchbox is in front of me, or whether I'm holding it?

I don't see a need to divide property into personal and private. Property is defined by the social contract, the ultimate defense of which is always force. There is nothing stopping communists from disputing that except the inevitable repercussion that comes with it.