On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 08:31:21 +0000 (UTC)
jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Which is it?  A Statist wants 'government' to do anything it wants. 
>
>  >   hey jim tell us about the patents that the american nazi government has 'granted' you.
>
> >    Oh wait. You are a fraud who believe in 'intelectual property' while posing as 'libertarian' AND you asked the american nazi government for protection.
>
>> Nope.  I see no INHERENT contradiction between "intellectual property" and libertarianism.
   

>    that is because you are an intelectual fraud. You are willing to murder people in the name of 'property' and now you are willing to violate all personal rights (including property!) in the name of the ultra-statist PRIVILEGE called 'intelectual property'.

 >   And it seems you ignored my previous message where you were asked to 'justify' murder. I'll be waiting for your to further embarrass yourself and show that you are just a run-of-the-mill corporate fascist, not a 'libertarian'.

"Murder" is a form of "killing which the government deems to be against the law".   So you have inadvertently stepped into the same cow-pie that you seem to be claiming I did, too.  It presumes the existence of a government, and of laws, etc.  

You seem to be suggesting that 'self-defense' is inherently illegitimate, or at least is artificially limited to some amount.    I believe that you said that "proportionality" is "self-evident".   Well, maybe the concept of proportionality seems basic, but I point out (again) that to actualy quantity "proportionality" isn't nearly so obvious.,  YOUR definition  of "proportional" isn't necessarily the same as mine, or anyone else's.  

I contend that even if the concept of "proportionality" is assumed to be valid,  if a person discovers somebody else trying to take his property, he is entitled to use whatever amount of force is necessary to stop that theft/burglary/robbery.  Up to an including lethal force, if that's what it takes.   Even for 'mere property'.  You, apparently, are trying to claim that there can be, and is, some sort of artificial barrier to use of this self-defense concept.  That at some point, a person must allow his property to be taken.   Who invented that silly rule?

>    yes, you are a USA nationalist who doesn't understand at all what the USA cunstitution is : a criminal agreement betweeen slave states. Oh yes, you call it the Constitution, with a capital C. Hilarious. 

I pointed out, which you have not admitted, that "intellectual property" can exist absent a government.  In fact, you erased my point, which is intellectually dishonest.  You are falsely assuming the opposite, without at least admitting that there exists a counter-argument.  

>    you live in a 'nation STATE' - one of the most toxic creations of statism. But hey, political philosophy isn't your strong suit is it.

Well, that is REALITY, at least for now.  Unlike you, I have proposed an idea to fix it.

                    Jim Bell