2015-05-28 13:29 GMT+09:00 Juan
Sure. Since your knowlege of legal systems and moral philosophy doesn't go beyond crass, mainstream, legal positivism then your nonsense must be right.
This doesn't seem to contain a response. If I squint it seems you declared my answer to be nonsense, which I assure you it isn't. Ownership isn't real. We don't need it to do anything. Furthermore, the lines are blurring between owned and not-owned because of complications through contract. It may be that one day we should abandon the idea of ownership, simply because it doesn't mean jack. When you look upon a person their wealth is not apparent in any way. Some people have serious skills, but no currency. Some people have currency but no serious skills. Some people fit a norm and some don't. Capacity to earn currency is the great selector, but in an economic reality detached from reality by countless systems and arbitrary human judgement, the selector is detached and arbitrary too. It is well imaginable that ownership and currency are ineffective; but it is so ingrained in society that we never consider it anymore. Possessiveness is human, and the human being is not calibrated for today's society.
I'd like to to be illegal so that someone can just put an end to the
bs.
So there isn't any real standard for property but you think that the government must stop something you don't like on TV?
I said what I said, I'm not sure what you're asking.
Wait. And you dishonestly ignored the fact I just mentioned. Fox news IS the government. Why would they outlaw themselves?
I didn't really feel like responding to such a vague comment. It's pretty nonconstructive. If the gov == fox, then I still want fox to stop. It just doesn't matter if fox == gov or not. I also don't see how they are gov, but you have a tendency towards such claims. You don't like the real outcome of (your) stupid government
theories? =)
There's that familiar senseless anger again. Why do you do that? Where does it help you go? Can you control it?