From: punditster@gmail.com   
      
   On 2/3/2026 10:46 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:   
   > On Tue, 3 Feb 2026 12:31:41 -0500, Wilson    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > Which would include software, dart.  Regardless, that idea, wilson, is   
   > defined by social structure.  If your social structure does not   
   > provide for it, it isn't so.  Given our intrinsic feeling that social   
   > structures are a priori.  Which they are not really.   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > Except cochise said, "those white eye are obsessed with owning   
   > things".   
   >   
   > My perception is that owning things and the importance thereof to us   
   > interferes with feelings of community, and is responsible for eternal   
   > strife between haves and have nots.   
   >   
   >> In systems where property was not protected, failure and societal   
   >> destruction has repeatedly been the result.   
   >   
   > We heard you the first time.  Still not so.   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > And "get off my front yard" is a significant disharmony.  I own a RR   
   > and you own a dodge (if anything) is a significant disharmony.  But   
   > libertarians don't care, as long as they get to have their RR's.   
   >   
   > The idea that any humans owns a piece of the earth's surface is   
   > absurd, as anybody knows who can hear the universe laughing.   
   >   
   The fact is, if you don't own anything, you would be poor.   
      
   If you own your own home you have autonomy and control. It's only   
   natural to want control over your work and space. A sense of ownership   
   satisfies a psychological need, which leads to greater motivation.   
      
   It's what most people do and they're the one's laughing all the way to   
   the bank!   
    >   
      
   > We are here up to 100 years.  The earth will be here another 7 billion   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)