2 ms·

> But irrelevant: Things have already taken from others and they want it back. Who took what, from who, when? > Agreed, so because violence was used to obtain

> But irrelevant: Things have already taken from others and they want it back. Who took what, from who, when? > Agreed, so because violence was used to obtain an UN-equitable position, they want it back. Again: what, from who, when? There are two answers to this: something that isn't actually violence (agreeing to employment), or something from hundreds of years ago ('stolen land'). Neither are good arguments, in any way. > People the color of your skin used violence ... I'm brown. Want to try again? Maybe without criticizing someone's position based on their race? > If "positive rights" can also be established in response to evil, then I don't see why they cannot be used to correct for equity. I don't think you read that sentence correctly. Three things: 1) Positive rights should not exist, because: 2) Positive rights cannot exist without violence and slavery 3) Equity, and demands for it, are inherently evil. > Property-rights are enforced by taxes No, they aren't. Property rights are _usually_ enforced by the state, because of their monopoly on violence. There is nothing stopping me from defending my property myself. > on some level, if these are "positive rights" ... They aren't. As I explained. > Your parents poison them which makes it more likely for them to be born lame, so I think it's perfectly fair to break your legs if you can't find another way to make that right. Sins of the father, huh? Maybe we should punish out to 3 generations? Seems like you'd love the DPRK. > Why do I tell a slave that they do not need to be a slave? There are more slaves alive now than there have ever been in history. Someone working a minimum wage job in the US is very much not that, and it's patently absurd. Comparing a retail job to chattel slavery is disgusting. > who does not have that opinion because I'm not a racist asshole. Are you sure? You supported breaking my legs when you thought I was white. Now that you know I'm not, what now? I mean, I know the answer: break them anyway, he's probably a counter-revolutionary. This is exactly what's wrong with your entire philosophy. It's based on violence to get what you want, because you're incapable of achieving it any other way. Try harder.

geocar 5y ago
> I don't think you read that sentence correctly. Three things: > 1) Positive rights should not exist, because: 2) Positive rights cannot exist without violence and slavery Violence exists regardless of whether "positive rights" exist. You are stating this again, but you haven't proven any kind of relationship beyond the tautological one. I can't move on to the third point until you clear this up. Everything else seems like a distraction: If we can agree that violence and slavery is bad, why can't we agree that some kind of retribution is required? Maybe this is why: > something that isn't actually violence (agreeing to employment), or something from hundreds of years ago ('stolen land'). Neither are good arguments, in any way. They're excellent arguments. Even agreeing to be "employed" for room-and-board in exchange for work could be slavery, especially if the person agreeing doesn't know if they have other choices. "Stolen land" was still stolen. What's the good reason for a statute-of-limitations on this? I think you are dismissing these out-of-hand, and if you can't address them, maybe this is what is wrong with your entire philosophy? > There is nothing stopping me from defending my property myself. Of course there is. What are you going to use to defend your property besides violence?

geocar 5y ago

> I don't think you read that sentence correctly. Three things: > 1) Positive rights should not exist, because: 2) Positive rights cannot exist without violence and slavery Violence exists regardless of whether "positive rights" exist. You are stating this again, but you haven't proven any kind of relationship beyond the tautological one. I can't move on to the third point until you clear this up. Everything else seems like a distraction: If we can agree that violence and slavery is bad, why can't we agree that some kind of retribution is required? Maybe this is why: > something that isn't actually violence (agreeing to employment), or something from hundreds of years ago ('stolen land'). Neither are good arguments, in any way. They're excellent arguments. Even agreeing to be "employed" for room-and-board in exchange for work could be slavery, especially if the person agreeing doesn't know if they have other choices. "Stolen land" was still stolen. What's the good reason for a statute-of-limitations on this? I think you are dismissing these out-of-hand, and if you can't address them, maybe this is what is wrong with your entire philosophy? > There is nothing stopping me from defending my property myself. Of course there is. What are you going to use to defend your property besides violence?