It’s not an ad homineum. You made an arrogant statement about Anarchist Cain and I and whoever the “etc…” is. Suck it up and move on. At least you had the decency to apologize to Anarchist Cain. Next time start a discussion if you want to know what others know instead of making such an inconsiderate statement.
I was only overly presumptuous as far as AC was concerned. You don’t know your subject(s), as is evidenced by the way you resort to ad hominems, dodge questions, and tell your opponent to study it on their own b/c you don’t have the time to explain it to them all the time in this and other threads whenever you’re stuck. I don’t think you’ve realized yet that many of the ppl you argue with on these forums have read far more than you and are more knowledgeable of the subjects that you defend. And if they feign ignorance and use the Socratic method to draw out the fine points of the argument, I don’t think that warrants your condescension.
I’ll take your advice into consideration.
Yelling doesn’t help your case. When quoting “Mundus Novus” one should consider the point of view of the author. Vespucci most assuredly defined “private property” differently than wilderness is.
Universality is in the nature of laws and rules. They are always absolute and definite.
Nor do misuses of Ad hominem. But if you don’t see its misuse, please demonstrate the logical fallacy.
This, in fact, is an ad hominem.
Ha. Thats not evidence at all. “Mundus Novus” was a sensationalist forgery that outright lied, just read the link.
No. Natural rights are natural. Whether “social constructs” prefer to trample them is a different matter.
Wrong. Laws exist, and are absolute and immutable, whether or not people recognize them, or have names for them.
Backwards. Murder is against our morals because it is wrong. It is wrong because it is against the laws set forth for human nature, i.e. “murder is bad for humans.”
The first reason is that the private defense contractor does not have to steal his income. Another reason is that he does not use illegal aggressive force to eliminate competing firms.
A book in wich is writen that (in Brazil) the indians had “no king or ruller (no state), no incest taboo, no monogamy, no temples and laws, no commerce, no clothing and NO PRIVATE PROPERTY.” if this is not an evidence, I wonder what can be an evidence, a time machine? Honestly, this is an evidence that people lived without private property.
So can you, but I am the one with a proff, I have documents (mostly in portuguese, but some in english) that comproves the indians had NO private property. He was the one yelling the “sky is green”, I know my country’s history better than you, I live this history, we see this history.
1 - Indeed, the USA isn’t primitve, isn’t natural, their rights are also not natural. I only use natural societies to demonstrate that property IS NOT natural.
2- Humans as we see today are not natural, we lost our naturality, the time and place we have it the most was in natural societies.
3- Homo sapiens sapiens in nature (from evolutionism) has as a major goal his species survival. The best way to do that is in a communal society, in wich there is no private property, all share the food and water they manage to gather (such as in primitive societies like the ones we had in Brazil about 500 years ago. “The man is born good, society corrupts him” - Jean Jacques Rousseau
4- Culture is not property, in those societies I had mentioned the tools belonged to all, not to an individual, you claimed property only exists in an individual, well this way property didn’t exist there. In nature, chipanzee don’t have contact with humans the way they do nowadays (when humans study them) it is natural to any animal to emulate the mean that surrounds him, a dog isn’t natural at our houses. Naturaly chipanzees use the natural possibilities to survive, but that is not property. Property (private property) only exists within humans unnatural societies, and may be imitated by some domestic animals, but property IS UNNATURAL.
Vespucci didn’t even write it. Someone mixed in major fibs with Vespuccis own accounts and tried to pass it off as authentic.
Comrade, if I had any (brazilian) History book from school in english, I could show you many official reports confirming the indians here had no private property. If “Mundus Novus” was sensationalist, it has NOT lied about the indians in Brasil having no private property. FOR GOD sake, why do you think you know my country history better than me? I could give a full report on it from 1500 to 2009, but you seem to be so sure you are absolutely right, ending up blinding yourself to FACTS.
Many tribes remain without private property until nowadays. I don’t pretent to know your country’s history better than you, so I ask you to act reciprocally.
Nah, if you wish collective suicide, it is good. For the above, not really. 
The article you linked as proof begs to differ.
Comrade, why do you think just being a member of a nation magically makes you more knowledgable about it. Please give the report then, the last link you gave only hurt your theory.
Evidence please. I understand that much of Brazil was nomadic, but being nomadic isn’t the same as not having property. So please, provide some actual evidence instead of just saying you know it.
Do you not see the problem extrapolating from primitive tribes to a modern, necessarily impersonal economy? This history is really irrelevant unless you want to go back to living in the same primitive conditions. (I’m not getting into the debate about natural law, just the relevance of this empirical question for the anti-private property view)
its not even true about primitive tribes. Rousseau was just an eloquent idiot.
“Entre os indígenas não há classes sociais como a do homem branco. Todos têm os mesmo direitos e recebem o mesmo tratamento. A terra, por exemplo, pertence a todos e quando um índio caça, costuma dividir com os habitantes de sua tribo.” form a history book, in english it means: “Amongs the indians there are no social class as there are in “white man’s” society. All have the same rights and recieve the same treatment. Earth belongs to all, and when an indian hunts, he divides with the other indians of his tribe what he has achieved”
Once the idea of property reffers to fruit of our labour, and they share such, they have no private property. Besides, as Rousseau demonstrates (on his Discourse on the Origin of Inequality) the firsth kind of property right is property over land, that also don’t exist there
Now, I don’t know what do you want as an evidence, but I can’t give you a time machine, for god sake!
Time out. Property is things. To have property means to control things. You keep saying that certain people “didn’t have property” or “didn’t have private property” or “didn’t have property/private property rights.”
But everyone has property, and it can be no other way. Anything they have and control is their property, by definition. Whether it is just or not is a different question. The point is that at the very least, everyone has the property in their person. Each person is himself.
Rousseau was a major philosopher, writer, and composer, if he is an eloquent idiot, you are an even greater one and, by far a more arogant one.
The is quoting a pamphlet. The pamphlet is fiction. It was made up to tell incredible tales of far away places to Europeans who would never go there.
It is a rather silly claim to know a country’s history better than another simply because you live there. Current events in your town, perhaps, but the history of the country?
Primitive does not equal natural.
I can spot your non sequitor