From: punditster@gmail.com   
      
   On 2/4/2026 2:17 PM, dart200 wrote:   
   > 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)