@wajoma saidThe British claimed that the Irish were savages and nobody owned the land in Ireland before the British came. It's the same argument you make for Australia and the Aborigines.
Whose land?
@athousandyoung saidLike No.1 you're making the argument for strong property rights to stop all this 'who owns which, what, where.
The British claimed that the Irish were savages and nobody owned the land in Ireland before the British came. It's the same argument you make for Australia and the Aborigines.
@athousandyoung saidYou've been unable to explain property as a right, you're trying to reconcile irreconcilable concepts, it's not adding up in your mind because it cannot add up.
Your reading comprehension is still abysmal.
You lash out.
A common ATY trajectory.
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidIf you think you can grow and harvest 10 acres of blueberries by yourself you are deluded.
From whence does this right come? What am I to do if I am in my garden, and you come to tske some of my produce? Do you expect me to give it to you, after I have toiled to grow it? When I say 'you', this would of course apply to every person on the island.
Thakyou for answering the question, rare on the forum indeed. Let us wait for Zahlanzi, Maruader and Kev to an ...[text shortened]... money. or give them to the church, do you truly think that I should give it over to you? Thousand?
EDIT - When I was growing cannabis we had at least 4 laborers working full time in less than an acre.
@wajoma saidI don't need to explain property as a right. John Locke did it centuries ago.
You've been unable to explain property as a right, you're trying to reconcile irreconcilable concepts, it's not adding up in your mind because it cannot add up.
You lash out.
A common ATY trajectory.
John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, Chapter V, paragraph 33
Nor was this appropriation of any parcel of land, by improving it, any prejudice to any other man, since there was still enough and as good left, and more than the yet unprovided could use. So that, in effect, there was never the less left for others because of his enclosure for himself. For he that leaves as much as another can make use of, does as good as take nothing at all. Nobody could think himself injured by the drinking of another man, though he took a good draught, who had a whole river of the same water left him to quench his thirst. And the case of land and water, where there is enough of both, is perfectly the same.
@athousandyoung saidIf the land of the world were evenly divied amongst the 8 billion, (let's not get bogged down on what happens when a new life is created beyond those that have shuffled off this mortal coil, or at what age they get their parcel handed to them, or that some have prime beach property while other are in the middle of the desert or ice.) apart from millions of people starving to death, people would immediately start cashing out.
I don't need to explain property as a right. John Locke did it centuries ago.John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, Chapter V, paragraph 33
Nor was this appropriation of any parcel of land, by improving it, any prejudice to any other man, since there was still enough and as good left, and more than the yet unprovided could use. So that, in effect, th ...[text shortened]... hirst. And the case of land and water, where there is enough of both, is perfectly the same.
The initial acquisition problem exactly defines why strong property rights are needed. And if you read Locke as everyone getting their x square meters of the world it is you with the poor comprehension skills.
@wajoma saidNice attempt to set up a strawman
If the land of the world were evenly divied amongst the 8 billion, (let's not get bogged down on what happens when a new life is created beyond those that have shuffled off this mortal coil, or at what age they get their parcel handed to them, or that some have prime beach property while other are in the middle of the desert or ice.) apart from millions of people starving to d ...[text shortened]... as everyone getting their x square meters of the world it is you with the poor comprehension skills.
1 edit
@athousandyoung saidExplain the strawman instead of the usual ATY lash out.
Nice attempt to set up a strawman
@sonhouse saidNo I don't think that sunstroker, I'm trying to get a handle on what ATY believes. It would be nice if you could explain but given your take on what I supposedly believe that would be futile.
@Wajoma
So with about 200 million square miles of land area, each human should get about 16 acres, would that satisfy you? Of course that leaves nothing for animals, like those millions of wildebeest for instance. How many acres should THEY get to themselves?
Trump for President.
1 edit
@athousandyoung saidA of them capitalists were Irish capitalists who left their fellow Irish to starve.
There was a time where British capitalists got the British government to give them Irish land. They then grew food and exported it to Britain to keep the grocery shops full in that country.
The Irish starved and died in mass. The Irish Famine is very well known, especially in the USA.
India suffered a similar Famine but of much greater scale.
I wonder if you think all that starvation is a good thing because nobody's rights were violated, Wajoma?
You make a valid point but it’s noted that you could not think of an example of indigenous peoples having their land stolen from them by European / US settlers.
A blind spot maybe.
And yanks really shouldn’t quote Lockean principles given their history of slavery and indigenous genocide and apartheid post the publication of the Declaration of Independence