Re: Fuck You Dumb Cunt

Brian Davis writes:
> I'm especially sorry that some of you don't believe in property
> rights.  

I believe in them, alright. It's just that they seem to be at odds
with freedom of speech. 

They are at odds with a lot of other things as well, but that's
a different fla...er...discussion.
------
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org 
Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet

   History is not usually what has happened.
            History is what some people have thought to be significant.

Dave Hayes wrote:
> 
> Brian Davis writes:
>
>> I'm especially sorry that some of you don't believe in property
>> rights.
> 
> I believe in them, alright. It's just that they seem to be at odds
> with freedom of speech.
> 
> They are at odds with a lot of other things as well, but that's
> a different fla...er...discussion.


  I believe the posession of property is a priv. to be taken 
away if abused.  There is no such thing as a 'right' to 
property--in fact the very notion seems absurd.

                        Steve

Stephen Boursy wrote:
> Dave Hayes wrote:
> > Brian Davis writes:
> >> I'm especially sorry that some of you don't believe in property
> >> rights.

> > I believe in them, alright. It's just that they seem to be at odds
> > with freedom of speech.
> > They are at odds with a lot of other things as well, but that's
> > a different fla...er...discussion.

>   I believe the posession of property is a priv. to be taken
> away if abused.  There is no such thing as a 'right' to
> property--in fact the very notion seems absurd.

You've just lumped all possessions into a single category.  There's a
valid argument against private ownership of land when ownership of that
land can be (and usually is) moved from the people at large to just a
few people, then eventually to dictators, etc.

But are you suggesting that if I trade my labor for some material item
which was built with other people's labor, and that material item is
sufficiently portable that it doesn't have to occupy a significant
piece of real estate (i.e., a house, a large boat), *they* should be
able to take that material item away from me anyway on whatever pretext,
on the basis that possession of it is a *privilege*?  Is my paycheck,
given to me directly for my labor just a privilege?

Dale Thorn wrote:
> 
> Stephen Boursy wrote:
>>
>> Dave Hayes wrote:
> 
>> > I believe in them, alright. It's just that they seem to be at odds
>> > with freedom of speech.
>> > They are at odds with a lot of other things as well, but that's
>> > a different fla...er...discussion.
> 
>>   I believe the posession of property is a priv. to be taken
>> away if abused.  There is no such thing as a 'right' to
>> property--in fact the very notion seems absurd.
> 
> You've just lumped all possessions into a single category.  There's a
> valid argument against private ownership of land when ownership of that
> land can be (and usually is) moved from the people at large to just a
> few people, then eventually to dictators, etc.


  Well--if you look at the ownership of wealth in the US including
but not limited to real estate you'll find much the same.  And that
ownership is not, to my mind, in the least legitimate.

 
> But are you suggesting that if I trade my labor for some material item
> which was built with other people's labor, and that material item is
> sufficiently portable that it doesn't have to occupy a significant
> piece of real estate (i.e., a house, a large boat), *they* should be
> able to take that material item away from me anyway on whatever pretext,
> on the basis that possession of it is a *privilege*?  Is my paycheck,
> given to me directly for my labor just a privilege?


  That's a fair question.  I don't begrude one's ownership of their
fair share--but I do have serious problems with what we shall
call 'accumulators' if you will.  For them I have contempt and no--
they do not have that right of possession and often such 'work' is
at the expense and on the backs of others.

                               Steve

Steve Boursy <boursy@earthlink.net> writes:
> Dale Thorn wrote:
> > But are you suggesting that if I trade my labor for some material item
> > which was built with other people's labor, and that material item is
> > sufficiently portable that it doesn't have to occupy a significant
> > piece of real estate (i.e., a house, a large boat), *they* should be
> > able to take that material item away from me anyway on whatever pretext,
> > on the basis that possession of it is a *privilege*?  Is my paycheck,
> > given to me directly for my labor just a privilege?
> 
>   That's a fair question.  I don't begrude one's ownership of their
> fair share--but I do have serious problems with what we shall
> call 'accumulators' if you will.  For them I have contempt and no--
> they do not have that right of possession and often such 'work' is
> at the expense and on the backs of others.

I'm an accululator :-)

The investments I have I worked for.  The investments I have are as a
result of forgone immediate pleasures (no flash cars, foreign
holidays, no hire-purchase, no consumer electronics etc).  You
probably would look down on my current "standard of living" (something
real life aquaintances like to rib me about).

See, if you spend your money now, on the above, you have no right to
criticize me when I look relatively wealthy later.  It's your choice
to blow your money.

Btw, people of your mentality (communists/socialists) already make it
very difficult for me to accumulate, due to the exhorbitant tax rates
to support those who chose to blow their money as soon as they have it
(or often _before_ they have it, incurring 25% APR credit card
interest rates on top).

For the list of abusive taxation regimes thread: UK tax rates are 24%
basic, 40% higher rate.  Plus 10% national insurance `contributions'
(compulsory state pension payments).  Plus 17.5% VAT.  Plus property
tax.  Plus `capital gains' tax (at either 24% or 40%, the same as
whatever income tax rate you're on).  Plus ~400% Fuel tax rates
(petrol is L 2.76 / imperial gallon which is 3.66 US $ / US gallon!).

Adam
--
print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<>
)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`

Jon Galt wrote:
> 
> Adam Back wrote:
>>> See, if you spend your money now, on the above, you have no right to
>>> criticize me when I look relatively wealthy later.  It's your choice
>>> to blow your money.
> 
>>  Steve Boursy writes:
>>   I agree--that's not what I was talking about--the majority of wealth
>> is handed down not earned--and the ability to earn also more often
>> than not results in hand me down priv.
> 
> What an interesting topic for this list.  


  Yes--crossbreeding has it's advantages.

> I really must point out that most wealth in this country 
> is first generation wealth - in other words, most
> wealth is EARNED, not "handed down".


  That's not even close to the truth.

 
>>> Btw, people of your mentality (communists/socialists) already make it
>>> very difficult for me to accumulate,
>>
>>   We do our best--some day we'll take it all away--really.
>
> 
> Let me just make sure I have this straight.  Stephen Boursy (and the
> freedom-knights?) is (are) against people being allowed to accumulate
> too much wealth in relation to those around them.  Adam Back (and
> the cypherpunks?) is (are) against people being prevented from
> accumulating "too much" wealth in relation to those around them.
> 
> Is that right?


  What a simple mind--coming from an Ann Rand fan though that's really
no surprise.

  Because I'm on the Freedom Knights list you assume I am speaking
on their behalf?  And because Adam is on the cypherpunks list you
assume him to be speaking on their behalf?  That's rather simple
minded.  My tie to Freedom Knights has to do with the belief that
one may freely speek their mind on the net--period.  My beliefs
regarding the redistribution of income may or may not be shared
by different members of the FK list. Personally I don't believe
in the right to accumulate excess wealth and certainly don't 
believe in the 'right' to pass it down through the generations.

                         Steve

Adam Back wrote:
> 
> Steve Boursy writes:
>
>>   That's a fair question.  I don't begrude one's ownership of their
>> fair share--but I do have serious problems with what we shall
>> call 'accumulators' if you will.  For them I have contempt and no--
>> they do not have that right of possession and often such 'work' is
>> at the expense and on the backs of others.
> 
> I'm an accululator :-)
> 
> The investments I have I worked for.  

  Well of course you have--but the majority of people
in the world that are poor have worked just as hard
and do not derive the same benefits--that needs to
be changed.

  <clip>

> See, if you spend your money now, on the above, you have no right to
> criticize me when I look relatively wealthy later.  It's your choice
> to blow your money.


  I agree--that's not what I was talking about--the majority of wealth
is handed down not earned--and the ability to earn also more often
than not results in hand me down priv.

 
> Btw, people of your mentality (communists/socialists) already make it
> very difficult for me to accumulate, 

  We do our best--some day we'll take it all away--really.

                             Steve