From: user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid   
      
   On 2/4/26 2:13 PM, Dude wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   why do i need to own things when i can just use them???   
      
   ownership is just a right to exclude others from using it ... but that's   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)