[QUOTE=Bob_Namg;36474609]
Sure, I'll let some burly 42 year old dolt in the drug trade come inside, rape my children and wife, murder them, putting their heads on pikes on the side of a highway because he was bored.[/QUOTE]
Your family is your property? Slavery is illegal bro, you should be arrested.
They seem mad because they're poor.
[QUOTE=C0MMUNIZT;36475500]They seem mad because they're poor.[/QUOTE]
we are the 1%
As far as the Jefferson thing goes, he actually was opposed to slavery, kind of. Jefferson's stance was that it was God's will that all men be free and that enslavement of men was morally and religious wrong, and that the institution of slavery was against God's will in total, but not for the intervention of man, slavery wouldn't exist. He was basically saying that "slavery's bad, yo, but it is what it is." And did nothing more about it.
[video=youtube;aEDWs-KNf-0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEDWs-KNf-0[/video]
This seems to fit in this thread.. I was expecting some crack-head to start swinging a pipe at the suit.
What I hate about the OWS movement is their view that "all rich people are bad people". My family's combined income puts us in the 1%, but what would trashing our property do? We're a photo-journalism business, it's not like we're exploting starving Indonesian children or foreclosing on homes.
People who just scream "the 1% are bad!!!" anger me. Being "ethically successful" should be an aspiration, not a target of resentment. There are some dickhead billionaires around like Jordan Belfort or Rupert Murdoch, but saying that rich people are all prenentious conceited narcissists is a stupid generalization, and it's people like OWS who perpetuate this kind of blind hate. I might tolerate them a bit more if they actually had some points in their arguments besides "my job sucks".
[QUOTE=Spycrabz;36480955]What I hate about the OWS movement is their view that "all rich people are bad people". My family's combined income puts us in the 1%, but what would trashing our property do? We're a photo-journalism business, it's not like we're exploting starving Indonesian children or foreclosing on homes.
People who just scream "the 1% are bad!!!" anger me. Being "ethically successful" should be an aspiration, not a target of resentment. There are some dickhead billionaires around like Jordan Belfort or Rupert Murdoch, but saying that rich people are all prenentious conceited narcissists is a stupid generalization, and it's people like OWS who perpetuate this kind of blind hate. I might tolerate them a bit more if they actually had some points in their arguments besides "my job sucks".[/QUOTE]
It's easier to sit around and complain/protest against people who achieved something than getting off your ass and actually doing something. Which is also why their protesting and complaining won't do shit, they aren't going to get a job no matter what because there was a good reason for them not having one in the first place.
If you want to make your situation better you get off your ass and work harder for it, not complain about people who did.
[QUOTE=acds;36481034]It's easier to sit around and complain/protest against people who achieved something than getting off your ass and actually doing something. Which is also why their protesting and complaining won't do shit, they aren't going to get a job no matter what because there was a good reason for them not having one in the first place.
If you want to make your situation better you get off your ass and work harder for it, not complain about people who did.[/QUOTE]
Because going out and protesting takes no effort at all right?
[QUOTE=acds;36481034]It's easier to sit around and complain/protest against people who achieved something than getting off your ass and actually doing something. Which is also why their protesting and complaining won't do shit, they aren't going to get a job no matter what because there was a good reason for them not having one in the first place.
If you want to make your situation better you get off your ass and work harder for it, not complain about people who did.[/QUOTE]
Yea, because anyone can totally just improve there situation through hard work and determination, right guys?
Video is not working for me.
[QUOTE=Geikkamir;36481163]Because going out and protesting takes no effort at all right?[/QUOTE]
Relative to going out and making something of yourself? Yes.
Good thing they could film all that with their smartphones. Devices filled with ressources mainly imported from China, gathered by some of the poorest existences on Earth.
[editline]25th June 2012[/editline]
Don't get me wrong I know I am too but at least I don't pretend I am something better.
I know I am an asshole to probably 90% of the other humans by just living the way I do.
[editline]25th June 2012[/editline]
I'm not saying Ayn Rand is the answer to all of our problems but some of the stuff she showed in Atlas Shrugged is absolutely right.
Like the dangers of what could happen when you start working for the sake of others instead of your own good.
And most accruate here: How people can misuse the argument of "for the sake of others" to promote nothing but their own good.
[QUOTE=acds;36481034]It's easier to sit around and complain/protest against people who achieved something than getting off your ass and actually doing something. Which is also why their protesting and complaining won't do shit, they aren't going to get a job no matter what because there was a good reason for them not having one in the first place.
If you want to make your situation better you get off your ass and work harder for it, not complain about people who did.[/QUOTE]
acds, I don't know if you know this or not, and this is a surprising concept I know, but all poor people AREN'T lazy. I know crazy, right?
You're the exact type of person that makes people hate the rich. You make blanket statements that you have no idea about.
[editline]25th June 2012[/editline]
And protesting IS doing something
[editline]25th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36483858]Relative to going out and making something of yourself? Yes.[/QUOTE]
No one should protest ever, good idea.
That guy with the V for Vendetta mask isn't funny.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;36487105]No one should protest ever, good idea.[/QUOTE]
empirically, the occupiers just aren't as committed to their cause as they say they are.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;36462013]Nope, that's a circular argument. You only have property to "defend" if you have the concept of property rights, which in turn requires the use of force.
The act of owning property is the act of using force to deny the use of that property to others.[/QUOTE]
Someone has to own property at some point, whether it is the individual or the state. Explain to me how a system of shared ownership of land would work? Property rights is mostly intellectual, we favor those who use their property for a purpose. Property in cities is worth more because it is more productive. Sure it is true that at one point property was mostly a first come first served endeavour but it had to be begin somewhere. I think that private individual ownership is important for a republic.
[QUOTE=PederPauline;36447138]No, Facepunch users usually make up their minds about something after reading the first two posts in a thread, so it fluctuates a lot.[/QUOTE]
To be honest, facepunch is on average centre left economicaly and probably centre right as far as government oversight goes. Of course centre left is a pretty different position to what the occupy movement is putting forward. Which is fluctuates between far left economically and a leftist government or in some cases even anarchy.
[QUOTE=Strider*;36461957]For defence.[/QUOTE]
yeah and then comes forward a moment where there's only a certain force you can exhibit while others can exhibit more. As such if you have little power, you can generally not keep anything. That's where the government or local groups that act as the govvernment come in. The interest of private property is made a public interest and the private right is protected publicly because it's the most effective means.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36488518]empirically, the occupiers just aren't as committed to their cause as they say they are.[/QUOTE]
says someone that sits on his pc all day watching videos depicting only idiots from the occupy movement
obviously if you had a cause you'd be [i]much[/i] more committed to it
[QUOTE=Bobie;36489247]obviously if you had a cause you'd be [i]much[/i] more committed to it[/QUOTE]
damn right I would
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36489392]damn right I would[/QUOTE]
So, using the little knowledge you have of the protest, what do you suggest they do?
I call the occunuts
the crybaby party
[QUOTE=MasterBacon;36491573]I call the occunuts
the crybaby party[/QUOTE]
I call masterbacon the awful poster.
[QUOTE=Strider*;36488758]Someone has to own property at some point, whether it is the individual or the state.[/QUOTE]
I don't accept this premise.
[QUOTE=Strider*;36488758]Explain to me how a system of shared ownership of land would work?[/QUOTE]
Now there can't very well be shared "ownership" in the absence of property rights, can there?
[QUOTE=Strider*;36488758] I think that private individual ownership is important for a republic.[/QUOTE]
You've failed to justify this belief in any capacity. You've just conflated "use of property" with "ownership of property" and called it a day.
I'm not trying to turn you into a godless commie or anything, I'm just trying to get you to challenge your own (incongruous) beliefs.
You say you're opposed to the use of coercive force, but declaring anything as your property is nothing more than declaring that you're prepared to use force to deny the use of that property to anyone else.
You seem to believe that "the right to property" is a negative right and I'm trying to convince you of the opposite: property is a positive right. It's a right which only exists in the presence of an individual or institution which is willing to use power to affirm it's continued existence; as opposed to a right which exists as a result of the absence of intervention.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;36491710]I don't accept this premise.[/QUOTE]
You do know that practically every single society that is beyond hunter-gathering relies on property ownership?
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];36481233']Yea, because anyone can totally just improve there situation through hard work and determination, right guys?[/QUOTE]
Has a better chance than just doing nothing.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36491812]You do know that practically every single society that is beyond hunter-gathering relies on property ownership?[/QUOTE]
More or less.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36491812]You do know that practically every single society that is beyond hunter-gathering relies on property ownership?[/QUOTE]
So?
Up until relatively recently societies relied on slavery. Private property can be similarly abolished.
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;36444537]He was joking retard.[/QUOTE]
don't get too pooper peeved.
[editline]26th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=LF9000;36461990]I get the feeling that most of Facepunch is left leaning. Characterized by being in favor of market regulation/ increased government regulation, while being more liberal on social issues like gay marriage and drug legalization.
I try to stay quiet on libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism/minarchism because most of the time people just rate dumb and don't respond.[/QUOTE]
You seem like someone who understands. This place is full of kids who blindly accept a preset class of rules without understanding what they're getting into and believe they're doing everything right because everyone around them is headed towards the same path.
Sure it's great to get behind social issues regarding what you've stated, but most of them have no idea how those come to be, or how they become the new order.
Like you said, it's best to stay out, because it's such a complicated thing that not many people around here have a grasp to handle.
[sp]Plus my original post wasn't satirical at ALL[/sp]
Wow the ending to that video would make any humane person want to punch babies.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36491812]You do know that practically every single society that is beyond hunter-gathering relies on property ownership?[/QUOTE]
The fact that something is common practice does not make it the best option.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
