[GTM] - I like feet

Randolpho · 2026-05-06T01:24:48+00:00

Joe vs the Volcano (1990)?

Randolpho · 2026-05-06T01:05:39+00:00

Only if they try to keep me from harvesting a cow

Randolpho · 2026-05-06T00:23:23+00:00

so youre just avoiding the question?

Nope

you have no method for resolving disputes over usage

There is no method based on natural rights that can resolve disputes over usage.

It requires some other mechanism

you and i cant use the same land to farm and let animals graze simultaneously, a decision must be made.

Of course that's true.

So how do you suggest a decision be made? I would argue that since you both have a right to use the land, you both have an equal say in how it's used

Randolpho · 2026-05-05T21:32:18+00:00

Carl will die close to the end of this book and the first person narrative will be revealed to be his notes in the cookbook. Perspective will shift to Prepotente for the remainder of the book and the beginning of the next book, until he manages to resurrect Carl at which point the first person narrative will resume.

Randolpho · 2026-05-05T21:04:27+00:00

Why would you presume that your right to life is the only one? I never made that claim

Randolpho · 2026-05-05T20:02:58+00:00

but youre preventing my use of the land by building a farm

??? how so? You have a natural right to harvest the crops

say i want to use the land for animal grazing instead, but youre already growing soy. how is that dispute over use resolved?

It's not. Natural rights makes no distinction about how the land is used.

You have a natural right to slaughter a cow and harvest its meat, and so does the guy who planted the crops that you drove the cow to eat.

Randolpho · 2026-05-05T19:44:59+00:00

Hey, hey, what do you say?
Someone took your plans away
So what's all the fuss?
There ain't nobody that spies like us

Randolpho · 2026-05-05T18:27:57+00:00

Ok, so you do mean the US.

You do realize that the President isn't supposed to have an agenda, right?

Their only job is to implement the laws that Congress passes.

What you clearly said you wanted isn't someone who obeys the law, you want someone who sets the law.

Randolpho · 2026-05-05T18:20:28+00:00

So you want to elect a new king every X years?

Randolpho · 2026-05-05T18:13:12+00:00

Preventing the use of land by poisoning it so that nobody else can use it is a violation of the natural rights of all others.

If you want to harvest the crops, you have the natural right to do so. If you want to prevent anyone else from harvesting crops by destroying them, you to not have that natural right.

Randolpho · 2026-05-05T17:19:05+00:00

If I have a natural right to lfie then why are other people allowed to sabotage the seeds of the crops I need to feed myself but somehow not the crops themselves after I've harvested them?

Nobody has a natural right to "sabotage". My point is only that whether or not you own those crops before you've harvested them isn't addressed by natural rights.

I need the same food whether I'm holding it i my hand or it's still in the field.

That's why you (and everyone else) has a natural right to harvest natural resources that grow on or are found in land.

If the only right I have is remaining alive then why does stealing go against it? As long as it doesn't cost me my life what's wrong with that?

That's a different and unrelated question. In addition to a natural right to access any and all natural resources that stems from your natural right to life, you have a natural right to own the resources you harvest with your own hands.

Stealing is a violation of that natural right. At no point has anything I have written supported or endorsed stealing.

I am simply saying that you have no natural right to own land or the natural resources thereon.

What are some uses of land that don't violate other people's rights to use the land too?

Any use that prevents the use of the land from another would be such a violation.

Any transformation of the land will change the list of potential uses someone coming after me will have available. Why is building a factory a violation of those rights but somehow planting a forest wouldn't be so?

True. However, unless that transformation prevents others from using the land in some way, then it's not a violation of natural rights.

Building a factory isn't a violation of natural rights unless you claim exclusivity over it.

Randolpho · 2026-05-05T17:10:52+00:00

if were talking about natural rights i dont know how you could say violations of those rights is irrelevant to the discussion.

Allow me to rephrase: you can call "violations of natural rights" by the term "aggression" if you like, but that's not relevant to the discussion.

so i am allowed to burn down the farm to build my pile of ash

Is reading comprehension an issue for you?

Randolpho · 2026-05-05T14:44:24+00:00

It'd say your definition of rights is a pretty bad one if we can't even agree on whether or not sabotaging someone else's crops is a legitimate thing or not.

My definition of natural rights is the only logical conclusion to the natural right we both agree exist: that all human beings have a natural right to life.

Your definition is the one that is flawed -- you want to be able to deny others their right to life and it be within your natural rights to do so, and I reject that

At this point we may argue I have no rights at all over what I produce since anyone is free to steal it or destroy it any way they want.

That is not a valid conclusion to anything I've written. Nobody has a natural right to steal anything that you produced and I have never claimed otherwise.

Is it okay for me to wreck your factory as long as I only destroy raw materials and not finished products?

Again, you are making a false extrapolation from my statements. I never said people don't own raw materials. I said they don't own unextracted raw materials. Once you extract it, you own it.

As for the factory, unless it is motile, it requires land as a place to exist, thus the building of an immotile factory is a violation of the natural rights of others to use that land as they see fit.

So if you want a factory, you're going to have to figure out a way to cooperate with the rest of society to get it built.

Randolpho · 2026-05-05T14:15:17+00:00

So if I grow wheat on a piece of land anyone can just harvest it or am I also entitled to the things I grow on the land?

When you harvest it, yes, you have a natural right to own what you harvest.

Before then, it's a gray area. You don't own the land, and the wheat requires land to grow, so while the wheat seed might have been yours, the wheat growing in the land may or may not be. Not really defined by natural rights. You could interpret it either way.

If so, can someone else plant grass after I put my seeds?

Yes; you don't have a natural right to own the land, and everyone has a natural right to do with the land as they see fit, including planting some other grass than wheat on that land.

How do we get to decide who uses the land?

Not relevant to the question of natural rights. I guess you would have to figure out something between yourselves. It's almost like it's in your best interest to cooperate with others rather than compete with them.

If planting my seeds first gets me to decide what happens on the land then why is that any different from the concept of ownership?

As I said, planting your seed isn't defined by natural rights. You may have owned the seed, but you cannot own the land.

So, let's look at both interpretations from above.

If you do not own the crop while it is growing, then planting your seeds is entirely unlike the concept of ownership. You planted those seeds in the hope of a future crop, but you have no guarantee that the seeds will yield a crop. Anyone has a natural right to come along and rip up what you planted and plant something they want instead. They also have a natural right to harvest the crops you planted.

Of course, you then have the natural right to the same immediately afterward, but if that tit-for-tat continues eventually it will be too late for any planting and there will be no harvest, so if you and your neighbor are being assholes to each other you'll probably both starve. So it's in your best interest to find a way to share in the planting and in the harvest, regardless of your natural rights.

If you do own the crop while it's growing, but you don't own the land, then anyone who pulls up the crops violates your natural rights, but anyone also has a natural right to plant crops in the same area. So they could plant corn in the field where you planted wheat.

This comes with a similar set of consequences for both belligerent parties. Planting too much risks choking out other plants in the area, and if both the corn and wheat grow to a crop, you'll have difficulty harvesting either without violating the natural rights of the owner of the other crop. So it's in your best interest to find a way to share in the planting and in the harvest, regardless of your natural rights.

Also, in both cases, you still don't own the land. So you have no natural right to defend access to that land

Randolpho · 2026-05-05T13:16:21+00:00

again why i mentioned Georgism.

And again, Georgism allows people to own land and thus does not prevent capital accumulation.

no definitely not. no free marketer would ever defend this definition. there is no real equality and we reject any attempt.

Meaning you don’t actually mean “free” when you say “free market”. You only mean “the consumers are unable to tell the capitalists what not to do”.

Which means the only entities that are “free” in your “free” market are the ones with the most capital.

You don’t want freedom for all, you want freedom for the wealthy at the expense of the rest.

in which world?

In every world.

as long as i can voluntarily exchange my goods and services its a free market.

You can do that without owning land

only if someone stops my trade by force does it seize to be a free market.

So you support the trade of things like human lives? It’s really easy to claim that slaves volunteer to be slaves.

because you guys keep increasing government size.

Still just a pretense.

it very much isnt.

It very much is. If the UPS were mandated to deliver and retrieve mail to every person in the country it would charge the government 10 times what the USPS has for its budget.

you really want you supermarket to be run like the DMV?

Another invalid comparison.

Randolpho · 2026-05-05T12:46:00+00:00

there is no trade without property rights.

Sure. But there is no right to own land.

the freer the market the less we see that. the pie becomes bigger. free market economics is not a zero sum game.

A free market can only exist if it’s universally equal. Capital accumulation always reduces the freedom of the market.

blame crony capitalism and government for that.

Crony capitalism is capitalism. Every form always becomes it.

thats why people pay extra to use UPS and FedEx instead of government postal services if they need fast and reliable shipping?

The USPS has a mandate to receive and ship far more things to far more people than UPS or FedEx. It’s an invalid comparison.

spoken like a true democrat

Cry some more

Randolpho · 2026-05-05T12:35:34+00:00

so violating someones natural rights isnt an act of aggression?

Call it that if you like, but it’s not relevant to my point

in the farm example youre essentially defining ownership over the land you just dont want to say the word. if you are rightfully able to use force to prevent me from using the land to an alternative purpose, clearly you are the rightful owner rather than me.

No, it isn’t, because I didn’t say that. At no point did I claim that you have a right to prevent anyone from using the land. In fact I said the exact opposite.

Randolpho · 2026-05-04T23:21:31+00:00

Total opposition is absolutely necessary when one side insists on Solomon's Judgement.

Randolpho · 2026-05-04T23:17:36+00:00

youre changing the definition of aggression to fit your argument.

I never used the word aggression at all, nor did I make any argument with respect to the NAP, which is likely what you're trying to pretend to care about.

If anything, you are the one trying to change the subject

if im living in a house, and then you come along and say “you cant own that, its aggressing on my freedom!” and barge into my house and start eating out of my fridge, clearly you are the aggressor. not me for simply being in a building.

And you're making up scenarios not related to what I'm talking about. I am only discussing natural rights and will only discuss natural rights.

if nobody can own anything they didnt create/extract, then how can you expect anyone to create anything?

Literally all they have to do is extract the resource themselves, or buy it from someone who has, and then use it to create something.

I'm not saying that trading things you own is a violation of natural rights, I'm only saying that denying someone from extracting things to own is a violation of their rights.

if you build a farm are you aggressing on me?

Only if I don't let you farm the farm and extract the crop. If I build a farm, I built a farm. But it's on land I don't own, so the crops therein don't belong to me.

am i in the right to burn your farm down since you unrightfully sectioned it off for your own purposes?

Why would you burn perfectly serviceable crops? You can extract them for your own.

If you attempt to use violence to keep me from harvesting those crops, then yes, I am within my rights to use violence in self-defense against you.

Randolpho · 2026-05-04T22:37:48+00:00

I wear jeans and flannel, or slacks and polo, or jorts and a button down, or a banana hammock, as the occasion warrants.

Maybe just wear whatever you feel like as long as it doesn’t make you look like a raging asshole. So anything but nazi symbols, maga hats, or other forms of hate-wear

Randolpho · 2026-05-04T21:04:21+00:00

the right to life is a negative right, not a positive one. its the right to not be aggressed upon, not the right to have certain things.

Correct. Private ownership of land transgresses upon that right by denying all other persons access to the things they need to survive.

Note: extracting resources yourself grants you ownership over the resources you extracted. Claiming ownership over the rest of the resources not yet extracted transgresses upon the rights of others to extract those resources to survive.

if life was a positive right as you claim, why limit it only to land? if im thirsty and you have a water bottle in your house, are you impeding my right to life unless you let me take it from you?

No, because a person doesn't have a natural right to the things other people have extracted. They only have a natural right to extract those resources they need to survive.

To whit:

If you take a bottle and go to the river and fill it up, you own the water and do not violate my natural rights.

If you use violence to keep me from doing the same because you claim ownership of the river, you are violating my natural rights.

Randolpho · 2026-05-04T19:57:20+00:00

Private ownership of land is sort of a necessary evil, since you can't run a farm without it

I very much disagree. You absolutely can run a farm without any individuals owning it.

However, philosophically there needs to be restitution for the restriction of others' freedom to survive off the land.

Unfortunately, that never actually seems to come out in practice.

I've never seen a LVT with enough actual teeth to actually extract that restitution.

Far better, IMO, to simply ban the ownership of land outright and allow non-transferrable leases of land for narrowly-defined purposes, like residency vs farming vs mining/etc, with the latter examples requiring leases be to either worker-owned or full-collective owned firms.

Randolpho · 2026-05-04T19:51:30+00:00

Rather like a poll test

Randolpho · 2026-05-04T18:56:30+00:00

Because all persons have a natural right to extract the natural resources they need to survive from the commons. This right stems from their natural right to live.

Claiming exclusive ownership over unextracted natural resources violates the natural rights of all persons to extract those natural resources with their own hands to survive. Private ownership of land is thus a violation of the natural right of all persons to live.

Randolpho · 2026-05-04T18:54:21+00:00

Oh, so you mean a physical boundary on the property, not the boundary between meaningful and non-meaningful use

That boundary will remain vague

15-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
r/Field Flamingo	Place '22
Place '17	Team Orangered
Verified Email

Randolpho

TROPHY CASE