Laissez FaireholmBoard

Alyakia wrote:

the idea that child rape is right is just as legitimate, objectively, as the idea that child rape is wrong?

there's a time and place for "lol morality" discussions but well

cheese pizza.

Depends on what you mean by "legitimate." The universe doesn't dictate morality, like it does the laws of physics. So, no morality can legitimately be said to be objectively right (or, maybe I'm wrong? I will at least entertain the possibility).

However, if "legitimate" means conforming to societal or personal rules, then no it's not legitimate. But those rules are also moral rules, same as the ones I mentioned before. They aren't objective.

Living freedom land wrote:

cheese pizza.

Depends on what you mean by "legitimate." The universe doesn't dictate morality, like it does the laws of physics. So, no morality can legitimately be said to be objectively right (or, maybe I'm wrong? I will at least entertain the possibility).

However, if "legitimate" means conforming to societal or personal rules, then no it's not legitimate. But those rules are also moral rules, same as the ones I mentioned before. They aren't objective.

then how can you legislate, uh, anything? your entire system is based on property rights, but why should your subjective values be imposed on others?

Living freedom land wrote:

because i like it that way

yet, for some reason, you have chosen to include "child porn is legal" in your definition of "i like it that way". awkwaaaaaaard.

or you're trol- playing devil's advocate on something you know is controversial and has actual defenders here.

Living freedom land wrote:

cheese pizza.

Depends on what you mean by "legitimate." The universe doesn't dictate morality, like it does the laws of physics. So, no morality can legitimately be said to be objectively right (or, maybe I'm wrong? I will at least entertain the possibility).

However, if "legitimate" means conforming to societal or personal rules, then no it's not legitimate. But those rules are also moral rules, same as the ones I mentioned before. They aren't objective.

If CP = Cheese Pizza then he might be trolling us...

Amacia wrote:

If CP = Cheese Pizza then he might be trolling us...

Cheesy pizza is a messageboard colloquial for That Which Ought Not Be Even Muttered. No, seriously, "cheesy pizza" is to that what "fvck" is to the version with a u instead of a v. CP was, and probably is, on the banned-wordlist over there.

Sir Patrick Stewart is probably glad the slang has changed.

Living freedom land wrote:

Maybe if someone had developed it, we'd need to be compensated for the lost nature? Doesn't seem like a very good argument to me. Maybe I'm being harmed by not being able to pollute the water (after all, it restricts me from producing in the most efficient way possible).

That's ridiculous. It is the same as theft vs purchase. That argument is saying that their ownership gets in the way of you obtaining the possession in the most efficient way.

Handsoffistan wrote:

I'm not sure why you think this is directly relevant to a distinction between compensating others for my ownership of a mug and compensating someone who provided me with said mug.

Your mug isn't capital.

Which proves my point...

In application, there is little difference. But the government is responsible within all its territory; owned or not. Thus you have to assume at least functional governmental control over land. It is a question of the concept of ownership in general.

Thus, the land you "rent" is being "rented" by the government

The Liberated Territories wrote:

How does "the government" have a claim to this land in the first place? Lemme guess, social contract?

No... by brute force. There is no such thing as unowned territory because all territory is claimed by governments.

Alyakia wrote:

all territory is claimed by someone by force, regardless of whether they are a government or not.

What about the first person to ever enter a territory - who is he using force against?

Elwher wrote:

What about the first person to ever enter a territory - who is he using force against?

the next guy that comes along.

Elwher wrote:

But that is defending a claim, not making one

Well the claim is not legitimate