From: Wilson@nowhere.invalid   
      
   On 2/2/2026 5:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:   
   > On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 16:41:37 -0500, Wilson    
   > wrote:   
   >> On 2/2/2026 2:14 PM, dart200 wrote:   
   >>> On 2/2/26 10:26 AM, Wilson wrote:   
   >>>> On 2/1/2026 7:35 PM, dart200 wrote:   
   >>>>> On 2/1/26 9:03 AM, Wilson wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 1/31/2026 4:44 PM, Dude wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 1/31/2026 10:30 AM, dart200 wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> because billionaires don't have morals, and are slave to chasing   
   >>>>>>>> what they perceive as profit regardless of the effect of others   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> there's a reason rich people can't make it into heaven   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> cause we can't even build heaven when rich people exist   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Because it's obvious that you are biased by even using the term   
   >>>>>>> "rich".   
   >>>>>>> There's a good reason people don't want to be equally poor.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> By global standards everyone here is rich.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> If there were somehow a sudden great leveling of worldwide wealth today   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> easy to say when ur not poor   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> it would almost certainly result in the end of our civilization. Any   
   >>>>>> actual progress towards the improvement of living standards has   
   >>>>>> always come from innovation, which requires a degree of   
   >>>>>> concentration of   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> which modern govts did best in the 20th century...   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> govts fund the riskiest innovation that private investors can't   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> wealth. Long-term overall improvement has never resulted from forced   
   >>>>>> redistribution.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> That doesn't mean we shouldn't help other people who need it. It   
   >>>>>> does however seem pretty obvious to me that assistance should never   
   >>>>>> be from any sort of centralized coercion.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Forced redistribution is regressive and not progressive.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> capitalism is already predicated on forced distribution   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I'm not forced to buy anything. Compare that to the property tax I'm   
   >>>   
   >>> u built a house on a parcel of land and now everyone in the entire world   
   >>> is just supposed to respect that because???   
   >>>   
   >>> you used resources that no one produced (land, raw material) and   
   >>> is therefore yours by right of violence indefinitely into the future???   
   >>>   
   >>> what is reality just a giant game of finders keepers???   
   >>>   
   >>>> required to pay or they take my house away. Or the income tax which if   
   >>>> if not paid they take my liberty away.   
   >>>   
   >>> u have no problem with landlords, why in the fuck do u have a problem   
   >>> with landlords submissive to democratic input???   
   >>>   
   >>> it's always such a weird contradiction libertarians display: no problem   
   >>> with "private" landlords, but all the problems with "public" landlords...   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> All evidence points to coercive collectivists being genuine idiots.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> i'm arguing with submature children tbh, freaking boomernomics   
   >>>   
   >>>     > could we get a little general decency up in this bitch???   
   >>>     >   
   >>>     > #god   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Property rights are a real thing. Dispense with them and then as history   
   >> repeatedly shows you get dystopia and ultimately societal collapse.   
   >   
   > You are talking about rights under dictator socialism, right?  There   
   > are democratic socialist countries around the world that are doing   
   > well enough, even better than democratic commercialism maybe.  I   
   > suspect few of them have dispensed with property rights, though.   
   >   
   > Finally, history does not support you attempt to draw it to your   
   > cause.   
      
   Property rights have been denied under monarchies and other   
   authoritarian systems, not just under socialism.   
      
   In the big picture I think we can agree that some ideas work better. And   
   some don't work at all.   
      
   When systems and structures don't line up with what works best they   
   fall apart sooner than later. When they do align, they persist and stay   
   strong across lifetimes.   
      
   The path of discovering which is which is where the idea of natural law   
   comes from. What works best is what's in harmony with the universe, with   
   the state of nature.   
      
   I think that property rights are inherently a part of individual rights.   
   What we have created by application of our life-force, our time, is   
   directly connected to and intrinsically a part of our life, our being.   
      
   The protection of personal and property rights has repeatedly been shown   
   to benefit mankind over the centuries. The prosperity we currently enjoy   
   is due to the implementation of systems that preserve and protect those   
   rights.   
      
   In systems where property was not protected, failure and societal   
   destruction has repeatedly been the result. Where it's been protected   
   social structures have thrived, resulting in greater prosperity and   
   harmony. I cannot think of any society where this has not been the case.   
      
   We are free to do whatever we want to do, but ignoring what works will   
   lead to disharmony and then to destruction.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)