Re: Fuck You Dumb Cunt
Brian Davis writes:
I'm especially sorry that some of you don't believe in property rights.
I believe in them, alright. It's just that they seem to be at odds with freedom of speech. They are at odds with a lot of other things as well, but that's a different fla...er...discussion. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet History is not usually what has happened. History is what some people have thought to be significant.
Dave Hayes wrote:
Brian Davis writes:
I'm especially sorry that some of you don't believe in property rights.
I believe in them, alright. It's just that they seem to be at odds with freedom of speech.
They are at odds with a lot of other things as well, but that's a different fla...er...discussion.
I believe the posession of property is a priv. to be taken away if abused. There is no such thing as a 'right' to property--in fact the very notion seems absurd. Steve
Stephen Boursy wrote:
Dave Hayes wrote:
Brian Davis writes:
I'm especially sorry that some of you don't believe in property rights.
I believe in them, alright. It's just that they seem to be at odds with freedom of speech. They are at odds with a lot of other things as well, but that's a different fla...er...discussion.
I believe the posession of property is a priv. to be taken away if abused. There is no such thing as a 'right' to property--in fact the very notion seems absurd.
You've just lumped all possessions into a single category. There's a valid argument against private ownership of land when ownership of that land can be (and usually is) moved from the people at large to just a few people, then eventually to dictators, etc. But are you suggesting that if I trade my labor for some material item which was built with other people's labor, and that material item is sufficiently portable that it doesn't have to occupy a significant piece of real estate (i.e., a house, a large boat), *they* should be able to take that material item away from me anyway on whatever pretext, on the basis that possession of it is a *privilege*? Is my paycheck, given to me directly for my labor just a privilege?
Dale Thorn wrote:
Stephen Boursy wrote:
Dave Hayes wrote:
I believe in them, alright. It's just that they seem to be at odds with freedom of speech. They are at odds with a lot of other things as well, but that's a different fla...er...discussion.
I believe the posession of property is a priv. to be taken away if abused. There is no such thing as a 'right' to property--in fact the very notion seems absurd.
You've just lumped all possessions into a single category. There's a valid argument against private ownership of land when ownership of that land can be (and usually is) moved from the people at large to just a few people, then eventually to dictators, etc.
Well--if you look at the ownership of wealth in the US including but not limited to real estate you'll find much the same. And that ownership is not, to my mind, in the least legitimate.
But are you suggesting that if I trade my labor for some material item which was built with other people's labor, and that material item is sufficiently portable that it doesn't have to occupy a significant piece of real estate (i.e., a house, a large boat), *they* should be able to take that material item away from me anyway on whatever pretext, on the basis that possession of it is a *privilege*? Is my paycheck, given to me directly for my labor just a privilege?
That's a fair question. I don't begrude one's ownership of their fair share--but I do have serious problems with what we shall call 'accumulators' if you will. For them I have contempt and no-- they do not have that right of possession and often such 'work' is at the expense and on the backs of others. Steve
Steve Boursy <boursy@earthlink.net> writes:
Dale Thorn wrote:
But are you suggesting that if I trade my labor for some material item which was built with other people's labor, and that material item is sufficiently portable that it doesn't have to occupy a significant piece of real estate (i.e., a house, a large boat), *they* should be able to take that material item away from me anyway on whatever pretext, on the basis that possession of it is a *privilege*? Is my paycheck, given to me directly for my labor just a privilege?
That's a fair question. I don't begrude one's ownership of their fair share--but I do have serious problems with what we shall call 'accumulators' if you will. For them I have contempt and no-- they do not have that right of possession and often such 'work' is at the expense and on the backs of others.
I'm an accululator :-) The investments I have I worked for. The investments I have are as a result of forgone immediate pleasures (no flash cars, foreign holidays, no hire-purchase, no consumer electronics etc). You probably would look down on my current "standard of living" (something real life aquaintances like to rib me about). See, if you spend your money now, on the above, you have no right to criticize me when I look relatively wealthy later. It's your choice to blow your money. Btw, people of your mentality (communists/socialists) already make it very difficult for me to accumulate, due to the exhorbitant tax rates to support those who chose to blow their money as soon as they have it (or often _before_ they have it, incurring 25% APR credit card interest rates on top). For the list of abusive taxation regimes thread: UK tax rates are 24% basic, 40% higher rate. Plus 10% national insurance `contributions' (compulsory state pension payments). Plus 17.5% VAT. Plus property tax. Plus `capital gains' tax (at either 24% or 40%, the same as whatever income tax rate you're on). Plus ~400% Fuel tax rates (petrol is L 2.76 / imperial gallon which is 3.66 US $ / US gallon!). Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`
Adam Back wrote:
Steve Boursy writes:
That's a fair question. I don't begrude one's ownership of their fair share--but I do have serious problems with what we shall call 'accumulators' if you will. For them I have contempt and no-- they do not have that right of possession and often such 'work' is at the expense and on the backs of others.
I'm an accululator :-)
The investments I have I worked for.
Well of course you have--but the majority of people in the world that are poor have worked just as hard and do not derive the same benefits--that needs to be changed. <clip>
See, if you spend your money now, on the above, you have no right to criticize me when I look relatively wealthy later. It's your choice to blow your money.
I agree--that's not what I was talking about--the majority of wealth is handed down not earned--and the ability to earn also more often than not results in hand me down priv.
Btw, people of your mentality (communists/socialists) already make it very difficult for me to accumulate,
We do our best--some day we'll take it all away--really. Steve
Jon Galt wrote:
Adam Back wrote:
See, if you spend your money now, on the above, you have no right to criticize me when I look relatively wealthy later. It's your choice to blow your money.
Steve Boursy writes: I agree--that's not what I was talking about--the majority of wealth is handed down not earned--and the ability to earn also more often than not results in hand me down priv.
What an interesting topic for this list.
Yes--crossbreeding has it's advantages.
I really must point out that most wealth in this country is first generation wealth - in other words, most wealth is EARNED, not "handed down".
That's not even close to the truth.
Btw, people of your mentality (communists/socialists) already make it very difficult for me to accumulate,
We do our best--some day we'll take it all away--really.
Let me just make sure I have this straight. Stephen Boursy (and the freedom-knights?) is (are) against people being allowed to accumulate too much wealth in relation to those around them. Adam Back (and the cypherpunks?) is (are) against people being prevented from accumulating "too much" wealth in relation to those around them.
Is that right?
What a simple mind--coming from an Ann Rand fan though that's really no surprise. Because I'm on the Freedom Knights list you assume I am speaking on their behalf? And because Adam is on the cypherpunks list you assume him to be speaking on their behalf? That's rather simple minded. My tie to Freedom Knights has to do with the belief that one may freely speek their mind on the net--period. My beliefs regarding the redistribution of income may or may not be shared by different members of the FK list. Personally I don't believe in the right to accumulate excess wealth and certainly don't believe in the 'right' to pass it down through the generations. Steve
participants (4)
-
Adam Back -
Dale Thorn -
Dave Hayes -
Stephen Boursy