Re: Private Property

On Mon, 10 Aug 2026 12:26:39 -0400, Wilson <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On 8/10/2026 12:03 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Aug 2026 11:43:59 -0400, Wilson <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>> On 8/9/2026 6:12 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>> On 8/9/26 11:28 AM, Wilson wrote:
>>>>> On 8/9/2026 1:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/9/26 8:45 AM, Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At its core, free enterprise and a market economy can be reduced in
>>>>>>> many ways to an economic ideology centered around private property.
>>>>>>> It gives me extraordinary joy to see how our founders, in writing
>>>>>>> the Declaration of Independence, declared that all men were "endowed
>>>>>>> by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among them are
>>>>>>> life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here, the founders took the natural rights John Locke wrote about in
>>>>>>> his Second Treatise of Government in 1690 – "lives, liberties, and
>>>>>>> estates, which I call by the general name, property," and broadened
>>>>>>> it.  They presupposed that property was necessary for liberty and
>>>>>>> that the greater aspiration behind private property was "pursuit of
>>>>>>> happiness" (what we call "human flourishing" in my tradition).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just weeks before the Declaration of Independence was written,
>>>>>>> George Mason had codified in the Virginia Declaration of Rights that
>>>>>>> "the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and
>>>>>>> possessing property" were predicates to "pursuing and obtaining
>>>>>>> happiness and safety."  The founding fathers were not waxing and
>>>>>>> waning philosophically – well, they were not /only/ doing that –
>>>>>>> they were expressing the lived experience of the settlers in the new
>>>>>>> world.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The lived experience that served as the bedrock of our nation was
>>>>>>> one of private ownership driving incentives, of communal ownership
>>>>>>> discouraging productive work, and one where resentment was
>>>>>>> inevitable when rewards were equal, but effort was not.  Communal
>>>>>>> ownership of property had failed in practice because it was first a
>>>>>>> failed theory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Private property is a natural right that flows from our ability to
>>>>>>> earn, hold, possess, retain, and manage the fruits of our own labor.
>>>>>>> It produces responsibility, stewardship, and abundance that align
>>>>>>> with human nature.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David L. Bahnsen
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> i love how capitalists love to jerk themselves off about freedom and
>>>>>> flourishing endlessly while ignoring the fact 7/8 are enslaved to a
>>>>>> nation-state system that coercively interferes with basic freedom of
>>>>>> movement
>>>>>>
>>>>>> this world is a travesty of authoritarian control all you can do is
>>>>>> keep crying endlessly about private property, as violently owning
>>>>>> stuff is the _only_ principle you actually care about
>>>>>
>>>>> Self-defense is not the initiation of violence, and as it is oriented
>>>>> towards the protection of life and the thriving of the human person,
>>>>> it is a natural human right.
>>>>
>>>> you are _not_ your property
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Property as gained by the effort and work of a human being is
>>>>> inherently a part of that person's life. As such, defense of that
>>>>> property is also a human right.
>>>>
>>>> even the person who first came up with that predicated that right to
>>>> mixing labor with land to claim property, on there being enough common
>>>> lands left for all to utilize...
>>>>
>>>> which we've gone so far past that you want to keep 7/8 people on this
>>>> planet chained to the nation state they were born in without even the
>>>> permission to leave.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone who attempts to take away one's property or other natural
>>>>> rights is an enabler of tyranny, and therefore an enemy of life and of
>>>>> humanity.
>>>
>>> I'm not keeping them in their home countries. They just can't all come
>>> here, that's all.
>> 
>> Ok, lets change the wording a little.
>> 
>> "you want to keep 7/8 people on this
>> planet chained to nation states where they can have no future, no hope
>> of improvement in their lives without even the permission to go
>> somewhere better."
>
>No, I don't want to keep them "chained to nation states". As far as I'm 
>concerned they are free to go anywhere that's willing to accept them.
>
>I'm not even that attached to the idea of nation-states and kind of like 
>the idea of free places that are outside of the nation-state.
>
>In any case, no place is obligated to accept everyone that wants to go 
>there. The current citizens get a say in the matter.

You mean they get to say no.

Unless they happen to suffer the handicap of having a conscience.

>> 
>> Same undeserved condemnation.
>> 
>> Regardless, coming to the us is no longer the good deal that it once
>> was.  Too many people like wilson have no empathy for them for one
>> thing, and are unwilling to let them even pull carrots or clean
>> toilets.
>
>You keep bringing that up and seem strangely focused on getting some 
>wage-slaves to pick your veggies and clean your toilets.

I am glad to say that from the vantage point of my basement office in
a small house in a small town in Ontario, I have no carrots to pull
and not toilets to clean.

But if I did, I would probably let them drive the tractors and trucks
and make guys like you do the nitty-gritty cause that is the mean
kinda guy I am.
-- 
Noah Sombrero mustachioed villain
Don't get political with me young man
or I'll tie you to a railroad track and
<<<talk>>> to <<<YOOooooo>>>
Who dares to talk to El Sombrero?
dares: Ned
does not dare: Julian  shrinks in horror and warns others away