What if you don’t believe in any of those concepts?
Who doesn’t believe in nature, genetics, opportunity, chance, and luck?
Great answer! Majority opinion is reflected without anyone ruling. The free market in a nutshell.
I don’t really see how that is sensible.
Hey I didn’t propose it.
OK, but I don’t really see how this is very reasonable either. It would have to be uncertain as to how much of the products of your labor may or may not be taken from you, much like the uncertainty in any of the variables involved in entrepreneurship.
I’m sure there are some.
“In my experience, there is no such thing as luck” - Obi-Wan Kenobi
Hey, a rare ally! Thanks, dude.
See, told you filc, they do exist!
You are being evasive Jackson. Are you denying the fact that we live in a world where theft is 100% likely to occur to someone at some point in time somewhere?
Something tells me AJ believes in property, and ethics. Or am I wrong AJ?
As for ally’s in being pro-market. Who here is not?
Enter common law.
No.
Jackson how do you define ethics.
So now they have to agree with me 100%?
There are a few brave souls and masochists roaming the board.
I don’t know why, since there is absolutely no evidence of it. Did Obi-Wan also speak of nature, genetics, opportunity, and chance?
"Oh of course Jackson, everything you write is your opinion and not a proposition
Why do you feel the need to share your “opinions”? Moreover, I wonder why you enjoy posting here when your ridiculous assertions are constantly derided. I just feel sorry for you if you enjoy being willfully ignorant and rousing the hostilities of those who aren’t."
What? Really? On this forum, you ask why people feel the need to share their opinions/proposals? Is it really a problem if someone posts here only to be derided constantly, probably even to that end? Shredding a bad proposal is certainly one of the more enjoyable ways I like to spend my time. I won’t make the same assertion for others, but what would you have those persons do, who would rouse the hostilities of those who aren’t “being willfully ignorat”? Should we pass a law against hostilities being roused in message boards? Well, for my two cents, the beauty of it is that I also see no problem in you venting your roused hostilities in this manner. Certainly I don’t mind having used such venting to make a point.
I don’t know what you mean by believe in, but yes, I want to keep my property possessions and I have a personal code of ethics.
By the way, I didn’t mean my answer to condone or take sides in the flame war that started. I recommend keeping a cool head. If someone grossly overreaches or is unfair, people here are discerning enough to see it without it having to be pointed out in big letters. That’s one thing that makes this forum so great.
Not on record.
It’s not reasonable, and this is what I’m trying to show. I think you realized this, and are now obfuscating the matter at hand. The point is that a world where individuals value their lives and their physical constitution, and produce goods which serve as means to ends (implicitly saying that they will defend their productions), must necessarily establish property rights; It’s axiomatic. A world without any property rights, and where theft is certain, means the end of humanity as a species. If theft is does not have a 100% success rate, then those who can successfully defend their property will establish, or try to establish, states.
False.
“Surrender. You will be given no further chance.”
(Wookieepdia makes things too easy)
I don’t understand how that follows.
I don’t quite see how you can assume that outcome with any degree of certainty, but even assuming your arbitrary soothsaying is correct, how is asserting absolute control over a geographic territory via property rights, rather than force, not forming states? It seems to me that constant external antagonism would be a better check to aggressive expansion than praying that all humans will willfully and voluntarily adhere to NAP.