The war on capitalism makes me fucking sick to my stomach.
Here is a hint.... the US was not founded as a capitalist nation, and it has never been truly capitalist.
Take away the government handouts that created the monopolies in railroads, mining, forestry, shipping, telecom, healthcare... and most of the oligopolies that make up the fortune 500... and we'd have a very different economy today. We might even have one that more people respected.
In a sense it was "founded" on capitalism. Private ownership of property and the means of production.
Stealing land by force from one group of people, so that another group of people could "privately" own it... doesn't count.
Remember that when the government wants your guns.
But on the topic of ethics, liberty and the issue of land ownership, I agree with Murray Rothbard here:
"It is true that existing property titles must be scrutinized, but the resolution of the problem is much simpler than the question assumes. For remember always the basic principle: that all resources, all goods, in a state of no-ownership belong properly to the first person who finds and transforms them into a useful good (the "homestead" principle). We have seen this above in the case of unused land and natural resources: the first to find and mix his labor with them, to possess and use them, "produces" them and becomes their legitimate property owner. Now suppose that Mr. Jones has a watch; if we cannot clearly show that Jones or his ancestors to the property title in the watch were criminals, then we must say that since Mr. Jones has been possessing and using it, that he is truly the legitimate and just property owner. Or, to put the case another way: if we do not know if Jones's title to any given property is criminally-derived, then we may assume that this property was, at least momentarily in a state of no-ownership (since we are not sure about the original title), and therefore that the proper title of ownership reverted instantaneously to Jones as its "first" (i.e., current) possessor and user. In short, where we are not sure about a title but it cannot be clearly identified as criminally derived, then the title properly and legitimately reverts to its current possessor. But now suppose that a title to property is clearly identifiable as criminal, does this necessarily mean that the current possessor must give it up? No, not necessarily. For that depends on two considerations: (a) whether the victim (the property owner originally aggressed against) or his heirs are clearly identifiable and can now be found; or (b) whether or not the current possessor is himself the criminal who stole the property. Suppose, for example, that Jones possesses a watch, and that we can clearly show that Jones's title is originally criminal, either because (1) his ancestor stole it, or (2) because he or his ancestor purchased it from a thief (whether wittingly or unwittingly is immaterial here). Now, if we can identify and find the victim or his heir, then it is clear that Jones's title to the watch is totally invalid, and that it must promptly revert to its true and legitimate owner. Thus, if Jones inherited or purchased the watch from a man who stole it from Smith, and if Smith or the heir to his estate can be found, then the title to the watch properly reverts immediately back to Smith or his descendants, without compensation to the existing possessor of the criminally derived "title." Thus, if a current title to property is criminal in origin, and the victim or his heir can be found, then the title should immediately revert to the latter. Suppose, however, that condition (a) is not fulfilled: in short, that we know that Jones's title is criminal, but that we cannot now find the victim or his current heir. Who now is the legitimate and moral property owner? The answer to this question now depends on whether or not Jones himself is the criminal, whether Jones is the man who stole the watch. If Jones was the thief, then it is quite clear that he cannot be allowed to keep it, for the criminal cannot be allowed to keep the reward of his crime; and he loses the watch, and probably suffers other punishments besides. In that case, who gets the watch? Applying our libertarian theory of property, the watch is now - after Jones has been apprehended - in a state of no-ownership, and it must therefore become the legitimate property of the first person to "homestead" it - to take it and use it, and therefore, to have converted it from an unused, no-ownership state to a useful, owned state. The first person who does so then becomes its legitimate, moral, and just owner. But suppose that Jones is not the criminal, not the man who stole the watch, but that he had inherited or had innocently purchased it from the thief. And suppose, of course, that neither the victim nor his heirs can be found. In that case, the disappearance of the victim means that the stolen property comes properly into a state of no-ownership. But we have seen that any good in a state of no-ownership, with no legitimate owner of its title, reverts as legitimate property to the first person to come along and use it, to appropriate this now unowned resource for human use. But this "first" person is clearly Jones, who has been using it all along. Therefore, we conclude that even though the property was originally stolen, that if the victim or his heirs cannot be found, and if the current possessor was not the actual criminal who stole the property, then title to that property belongs properly, justly, and ethically to its current possessor. To sum up, for any property currently claimed and used: (a) if we know clearly that there was no criminal origin to its current title, then obviously the current title is legitimate, just and valid; (b) if we don't know whether the current title had any criminal origins, but can't find out either way, then the hypothetically "unowned" property reverts instantaneously and justly to its current possessor; (c) if we do know that the title is originally criminal, but can't find the victim or his heirs, then (c1) if the current title-holder was not the criminal aggressor against the property, then it reverts to him justly as the first owner of a hypothetically unowned property. But (c2) if the current titleholder is himself the criminal or one of the criminals who stole the property, then clearly he is properly to be deprived of it, and it then reverts to the first man who takes it out of its unowned state and appropriates it for his use. And finally, (d) if the current title is the result of crime, and the victim or his heirs can be found, then the title properly reverts immediately to the latter, without compensation to the criminal or to the other holders of the unjust title. "
The war on capitalism makes me fucking sick to my stomach.
Here is a hint.... the US was not founded as a capitalist nation, and it has never been truly capitalist.
Take away the government handouts that created the monopolies in railroads, mining, forestry, shipping, telecom, healthcare... and most of the oligopolies that make up the fortune 500... and we'd have a very different economy today. We might even have one that more people respected.
In a sense it was "founded" on capitalism. Private ownership of property and the means of production.
Stealing land by force from one group of people, so that another group of people could "privately" own it... doesn't count.
Remember that when the government wants your guns.
But on the topic of ethics, liberty and the issue of land ownership, I agree with Murray Rothbard here;
"It is true that existing property titles must be scrutinized, but the resolution of the problem is much simpler than the question assumes. For remember always the basic principle: that all resources, all goods, in a state of no-ownership belong properly to the first person who finds and transforms them into a useful good (the "homestead" principle). We have seen this above in the case of unused land and natural resources: the first to find and mix his labor with them, to possess and use them, "produces" them and becomes their legitimate property owner. Now suppose that Mr. Jones has a watch; if we cannot clearly show that Jones or his ancestors to the property title in the watch were criminals, then we must say that since Mr. Jones has been possessing and using it, that he is truly the legitimate and just property owner. Or, to put the case another way: if we do not know if Jones's title to any given property is criminally-derived, then we may assume that this property was, at least momentarily in a state of no-ownership (since we are not sure about the original title), and therefore that the proper title of ownership reverted instantaneously to Jones as its "first" (i.e., current) possessor and user. In short, where we are not sure about a title but it cannot be clearly identified as criminally derived, then the title properly and legitimately reverts to its current possessor. But now suppose that a title to property is clearly identifiable as criminal, does this necessarily mean that the current possessor must give it up? No, not necessarily. For that depends on two considerations: (a) whether the victim (the property owner originally aggressed against) or his heirs are clearly identifiable and can now be found; or (b) whether or not the current possessor is himself the criminal who stole the property. Suppose, for example, that Jones possesses a watch, and that we can clearly show that Jones's title is originally criminal, either because (1) his ancestor stole it, or (2) because he or his ancestor purchased it from a thief (whether wittingly or unwittingly is immaterial here). Now, if we can identify and find the victim or his heir, then it is clear that Jones's title to the watch is totally invalid, and that it must promptly revert to its true and legitimate owner. Thus, if Jones inherited or purchased the watch from a man who stole it from Smith, and if Smith or the heir to his estate can be found, then the title to the watch properly reverts immediately back to Smith or his descendants, without compensation to the existing possessor of the criminally derived "title." Thus, if a current title to property is criminal in origin, and the victim or his heir can be found, then the title should immediately revert to the latter. Suppose, however, that condition (a) is not fulfilled: in short, that we know that Jones's title is criminal, but that we cannot now find the victim or his current heir. Who now is the legitimate and moral property owner? The answer to this question now depends on whether or not Jones himself is the criminal, whether Jones is the man who stole the watch. If Jones was the thief, then it is quite clear that he cannot be allowed to keep it, for the criminal cannot be allowed to keep the reward of his crime; and he loses the watch, and probably suffers other punishments besides. In that case, who gets the watch? Applying our libertarian theory of property, the watch is now - after Jones has been apprehended - in a state of no-ownership, and it must therefore become the legitimate property of the first person to "homestead" it - to take it and use it, and therefore, to have converted it from an unused, no-ownership state to a useful, owned state. The first person who does so then becomes its legitimate, moral, and just owner. But suppose that Jones is not the criminal, not the man who stole the watch, but that he had inherited or had innocently purchased it from the thief. And suppose, of course, that neither the victim nor his heirs can be found. In that case, the disappearance of the victim means that the stolen property comes properly into a state of no-ownership. But we have seen that any good in a state of no-ownership, with no legitimate owner of its title, reverts as legitimate property to the first person to come along and use it, to appropriate this now unowned resource for human use. But this "first" person is clearly Jones, who has been using it all along. Therefore, we conclude that even though the property was originally stolen, that if the victim or his heirs cannot be found, and if the current possessor was not the actual criminal who stole the property, then title to that property belongs properly, justly, and ethically to its current possessor. To sum up, for any property currently claimed and used: (a) if we know clearly that there was no criminal origin to its current title, then obviously the current title is legitimate, just and valid; (b) if we don't know whether the current title had any criminal origins, but can't find out either way, then the hypothetically "unowned" property reverts instantaneously and justly to its current possessor; (c) if we do know that the title is originally criminal, but can't find the victim or his heirs, then (c1) if the current title-holder was not the criminal aggressor against the property, then it reverts to him justly as the first owner of a hypothetically unowned property. But (c2) if the current titleholder is himself the criminal or one of the criminals who stole the property, then clearly he is properly to be deprived of it, and it then reverts to the first man who takes it out of its unowned state and appropriates it for his use. And finally, (d) if the current title is the result of crime, and the victim or his heirs can be found, then the title properly reverts immediately to the latter, without compensation to the criminal or to the other holders of the unjust title. "
The war on capitalism makes me fucking sick to my stomach.
Here is a hint.... the US was not founded as a capitalist nation, and it has never been truly capitalist.
Take away the government handouts that created the monopolies in railroads, mining, forestry, shipping, telecom, healthcare... and most of the oligopolies that make up the fortune 500... and we'd have a very different economy today. We might even have one that more people respected.
In a sense it was "founded" on capitalism. Private ownership of property and the means of production.
Stealing land by force from one group of people, so that another group of people could "privately" own it... doesn't count.
Remember that when the government wants your guns.
But on the topic of ethics, liberty and the issue of land ownership, I agree with Murray Rothbard here;
"It is true that existing property titles must be scrutinized, but the resolution of the problem is much simpler than the question assumes. For remember always the basic principle: that all resources, all goods, in a state of no-ownership belong properly to the first person who finds and transforms them into a useful good (the "homestead" principle). We have seen this above in the case of unused land and natural resources: the first to find and mix his labor with them, to possess and use them, "produces" them and becomes their legitimate property owner. Now suppose that Mr. Jones has a watch; if we cannot clearly show that Jones or his ancestors to the property title in the watch were criminals, then we must say that since Mr. Jones has been possessing and using it, that he is truly the legitimate and just property owner. Or, to put the case another way: if we do not know if Jones's title to any given property is criminally-derived, then we may assume that this property was, at least momentarily in a state of no-ownership (since we are not sure about the original title), and therefore that the proper title of ownership reverted instantaneously to Jones as its "first" (i.e., current) possessor and user. In short, where we are not sure about a title but it cannot be clearly identified as criminally derived, then the title properly and legitimately reverts to its current possessor. But now suppose that a title to property is clearly identifiable as criminal, does this necessarily mean that the current possessor must give it up? No, not necessarily. For that depends on two considerations: (a) whether the victim (the property owner originally aggressed against) or his heirs are clearly identifiable and can now be found; or (b) whether or not the current possessor is himself the criminal who stole the property. Suppose, for example, that Jones possesses a watch, and that we can clearly show that Jones's title is originally criminal, either because (1) his ancestor stole it, or (2) because he or his ancestor purchased it from a thief (whether wittingly or unwittingly is immaterial here). Now, if we can identify and find the victim or his heir, then it is clear that Jones's title to the watch is totally invalid, and that it must promptly revert to its true and legitimate owner. Thus, if Jones inherited or purchased the watch from a man who stole it from Smith, and if Smith or the heir to his estate can be found, then the title to the watch properly reverts immediately back to Smith or his descendants, without compensation to the existing possessor of the criminally derived "title." Thus, if a current title to property is criminal in origin, and the victim or his heir can be found, then the title should immediately revert to the latter. Suppose, however, that condition (a) is not fulfilled: in short, that we know that Jones's title is criminal, but that we cannot now find the victim or his current heir. Who now is the legitimate and moral property owner? The answer to this question now depends on whether or not Jones himself is the criminal, whether Jones is the man who stole the watch. If Jones was the thief, then it is quite clear that he cannot be allowed to keep it, for the criminal cannot be allowed to keep the reward of his crime; and he loses the watch, and probably suffers other punishments besides. In that case, who gets the watch? Applying our libertarian theory of property, the watch is now - after Jones has been apprehended - in a state of no-ownership, and it must therefore become the legitimate property of the first person to "homestead" it - to take it and use it, and therefore, to have converted it from an unused, no-ownership state to a useful, owned state. The first person who does so then becomes its legitimate, moral, and just owner. But suppose that Jones is not the criminal, not the man who stole the watch, but that he had inherited or had innocently purchased it from the thief. And suppose, of course, that neither the victim nor his heirs can be found. In that case, the disappearance of the victim means that the stolen property comes properly into a state of no-ownership. But we have seen that any good in a state of no-ownership, with no legitimate owner of its title, reverts as legitimate property to the first person to come along and use it, to appropriate this now unowned resource for human use. But this "first" person is clearly Jones, who has been using it all along. Therefore, we conclude that even though the property was originally stolen, that if the victim or his heirs cannot be found, and if the current possessor was not the actual criminal who stole the property, then title to that property belongs properly, justly, and ethically to its current possessor. To sum up, for any property currently claimed and used: (a) if we know clearly that there was no criminal origin to its current title, then obviously the current title is legitimate, just and valid; (b) if we don't know whether the current title had any criminal origins, but can't find out either way, then the hypothetically "unowned" property reverts instantaneously and justly to its current possessor; (c) if we do know that the title is originally criminal, but can't find the victim or his heirs, then (c1) if the current title-holder was not the criminal aggressor against the property, then it reverts to him justly as the first owner of a hypothetically unowned property. But (c2) if the current titleholder is himself the criminal or one of the criminals who stole the property, then clearly he is properly to be deprived of it, and it then reverts to the first man who takes it out of its unowned state and appropriates it for his use. And finally, (d) if the current title is the result of crime, and the victim or his heirs can be found, then the title properly reverts immediately to the latter, without compensation to the criminal or to the other holders of the unjust title. "
tl;dr
Of course. It would suck if you took 5 minutes to learn something before you pop off.
The war on capitalism makes me fucking sick to my stomach.
Here is a hint.... the US was not founded as a capitalist nation, and it has never been truly capitalist.
Take away the government handouts that created the monopolies in railroads, mining, forestry, shipping, telecom, healthcare... and most of the oligopolies that make up the fortune 500... and we'd have a very different economy today. We might even have one that more people respected.
In a sense it was "founded" on capitalism. Private ownership of property and the means of production.
Stealing land by force from one group of people, so that another group of people could "privately" own it... doesn't count.
Remember that when the government wants your guns.
But on the topic of ethics, liberty and the issue of land ownership, I agree with Murray Rothbard here:
I'm not surprised you agree. It reads like an intellectual attempt to justify theft. Imperialists would be proud.
The war on capitalism makes me fucking sick to my stomach.
Here is a hint.... the US was not founded as a capitalist nation, and it has never been truly capitalist.
Take away the government handouts that created the monopolies in railroads, mining, forestry, shipping, telecom, healthcare... and most of the oligopolies that make up the fortune 500... and we'd have a very different economy today. We might even have one that more people respected.
In a sense it was "founded" on capitalism. Private ownership of property and the means of production.
Stealing land by force from one group of people, so that another group of people could "privately" own it... doesn't count.
Remember that when the government wants your guns.
But on the topic of ethics, liberty and the issue of land ownership, I agree with Murray Rothbard here:
I'm not surprised you agree. It reads like an intellectual attempt to justify theft. Imperialists would be proud.
If you have read any Rothbard at all, then you would know that's far from the truth.
Anyway, you seem adamant about this. I assume you're looking for the tribe that owned the land your house in on so you can give it back? If not, then you're a hypocrit.
The war on capitalism makes me fucking sick to my stomach.
Here is a hint.... the US was not founded as a capitalist nation, and it has never been truly capitalist.
Take away the government handouts that created the monopolies in railroads, mining, forestry, shipping, telecom, healthcare... and most of the oligopolies that make up the fortune 500... and we'd have a very different economy today. We might even have one that more people respected.
In a sense it was "founded" on capitalism. Private ownership of property and the means of production.
Stealing land by force from one group of people, so that another group of people could "privately" own it... doesn't count.
Remember that when the government wants your guns.
But on the topic of ethics, liberty and the issue of land ownership, I agree with Murray Rothbard here:
I'm not surprised you agree. It reads like an intellectual attempt to justify theft. Imperialists would be proud.
I assume you're looking for the tribe that owned the land your house in on so you can give it back?
Ozone lives a seaplane. Not in a house, or in a float plane. Float planes have floats, but a normal fuselage. Seaplanes have a fuselage that is part boat, and has floats just to keep the wings level. He likes people to refer to his house as a flying boat.
The war on capitalism makes me fucking sick to my stomach.
Here is a hint.... the US was not founded as a capitalist nation, and it has never been truly capitalist.
Take away the government handouts that created the monopolies in railroads, mining, forestry, shipping, telecom, healthcare... and most of the oligopolies that make up the fortune 500... and we'd have a very different economy today. We might even have one that more people respected.
In a sense it was "founded" on capitalism. Private ownership of property and the means of production.
Stealing land by force from one group of people, so that another group of people could "privately" own it... doesn't count.
Remember that when the government wants your guns.
But on the topic of ethics, liberty and the issue of land ownership, I agree with Murray Rothbard here:
I'm not surprised you agree. It reads like an intellectual attempt to justify theft. Imperialists would be proud.
If you have read any Rothbard at all, then you would know that's far from the truth.
Anyway, you seem adamant about this. I assume you're looking for the tribe that owned the land your house in on so you can give it back? If not, then you're a hypocrit.
Being raised in a nation that forcibly inculterates its "citizens" to follow it's imperialist mores -- and having accumulated some material possessions while coming of age -- does not make me a hypocrite. Using a voice that says "wait.. how much did our ancestors steal to create this?" is really just what any thinking person would do.
But feel free to continue quoting those that use diatribe to justify white man's burden.
Either way... back on topic... the US was not founded on capitalism, and has never had true capitalism. It was founded on imperialist theft, and the major drivers in the economy are the result of government granted oligopolies.
The war on capitalism makes me fucking sick to my stomach.
I concede I will never have Mike Damone type BIG BUCKS.
But I appreciate the simple fact every corporation has a right to make a profit and nobody owes me anything ...
My favorite line from the article is that 28% of Americans hate Walmart ... and he points out 72% approval is kick ass.
The war on capitalism was brought about by the excesses and abuses of those that use it as a tool of oppression and control, by scum companies like Goldman Sachs and Bear Stearns that are parasites on the economy, companies that give their CEO's golden parachutes so that they can jump ship while the companies they pillaged crumbled to the ground while the taxpayers are forced by the government to foot the bill to keep them afloat. Such companies need to just die and not be put on lifelines at our expense so that they can rape the taxpayer and economy again later on down the road. People are also disgusted and fed up by the big business interests in Washington paying off politicians and effectively making them stooges of special interests.
Most people agree that for now, capitalism is the best choice out of a small array of choices available, but it has also become corrupted and unbalanced. Just like there's a separation of church and state, there should also be a separation of capitalism and state, except to contain it when necessary, to root out and punish corruption, and to ensure that a few bastards don't end up controlling and running the entire system by and for themselves.
please tell me this is a cut and paste. If you actually spent 5 minutes typing this shit please set yourself on fire.
The war on capitalism makes me fucking sick to my stomach.
Here is a hint.... the US was not founded as a capitalist nation, and it has never been truly capitalist.
Take away the government handouts that created the monopolies in railroads, mining, forestry, shipping, telecom, healthcare... and most of the oligopolies that make up the fortune 500... and we'd have a very different economy today. We might even have one that more people respected.
In a sense it was "founded" on capitalism. Private ownership of property and the means of production.
Stealing land by force from one group of people, so that another group of people could "privately" own it... doesn't count.
Remember that when the government wants your guns.
But on the topic of ethics, liberty and the issue of land ownership, I agree with Murray Rothbard here:
I'm not surprised you agree. It reads like an intellectual attempt to justify theft. Imperialists would be proud.
If you have read any Rothbard at all, then you would know that's far from the truth.
Anyway, you seem adamant about this. I assume you're looking for the tribe that owned the land your house in on so you can give it back? If not, then you're a hypocrit.
It was founded on imperialist theft, and the major drivers in the economy are the result of government granted oligopolies.
The war on capitalism makes me fucking sick to my stomach.
I concede I will never have Mike Damone type BIG BUCKS.
But I appreciate the simple fact every corporation has a right to make a profit and nobody owes me anything ...
My favorite line from the article is that 28% of Americans hate Walmart ... and he points out 72% approval is kick ass.
The war on capitalism was brought about by the excesses and abuses of those that use it as a tool of oppression and control, by scum companies like Goldman Sachs and Bear Stearns that are parasites on the economy, companies that give their CEO's golden parachutes so that they can jump ship while the companies they pillaged crumbled to the ground while the taxpayers are forced by the government to foot the bill to keep them afloat. Such companies need to just die and not be put on lifelines at our expense so that they can rape the taxpayer and economy again later on down the road. People are also disgusted and fed up by the big business interests in Washington paying off politicians and effectively making them stooges of special interests.
Most people agree that for now, capitalism is the best choice out of a small array of choices available, but it has also become corrupted and unbalanced. Just like there's a separation of church and state, there should also be a separation of capitalism and state, except to contain it when necessary, to root out and punish corruption, and to ensure that a few bastards don't end up controlling and running the entire system by and for themselves.
please tell me this is a cut and paste. If you actually spent 5 minutes typing this shit please set yourself on fire.
Being raised in a nation that forcibly inculterates its "citizens" to follow it's imperialist mores -- and having accumulated some material possessions while coming of age -- does not make me a hypocrite. Using a voice that says "wait.. how much did our ancestors steal to create this?" is really just what any thinking person would do.
But feel free to continue quoting those that use diatribe to justify white man's burden.
The war on capitalism makes me fucking sick to my stomach.
Here is a hint.... the US was not founded as a capitalist nation, and it has never been truly capitalist.
Take away the government handouts that created the monopolies in railroads, mining, forestry, shipping, telecom, healthcare... and most of the oligopolies that make up the fortune 500... and we'd have a very different economy today. We might even have one that more people respected.
In a sense it was "founded" on capitalism. Private ownership of property and the means of production.
Stealing land by force from one group of people, so that another group of people could "privately" own it... doesn't count.
Remember that when the government wants your guns.
But on the topic of ethics, liberty and the issue of land ownership, I agree with Murray Rothbard here:
I'm not surprised you agree. It reads like an intellectual attempt to justify theft. Imperialists would be proud.
If you have read any Rothbard at all, then you would know that's far from the truth.
Anyway, you seem adamant about this. I assume you're looking for the tribe that owned the land your house in on so you can give it back? If not, then you're a hypocrit.
Being raised in a nation that forcibly inculterates its "citizens" to follow it's imperialist mores -- and having accumulated some material possessions while coming of age -- does not make me a hypocrite. Using a voice that says "wait.. how much did our ancestors steal to create this?" is really just what any thinking person would do.
But feel free to continue quoting those that use diatribe to justify white man's burden.
Either way... back on topic... the US was not founded on capitalism, and has never had true capitalism. It was founded on imperialist theft, and the major drivers in the economy are the result of government granted oligopolies.
After you say "wait.." What are you going to do about? If advocating giving your property back, then are a hypocrite. Your position is just grandstanding so you can look "enlightened" and compassionate to your friends. You don't actually intend to do anything about it other than keep reaping the benefits of what apparently disgusts you.
It doesn't surprise me you don't understand what Rothbard is saying there. Your ignorance is astounding.
The war on capitalism makes me fucking sick to my stomach.
Here is a hint.... the US was not founded as a capitalist nation, and it has never been truly capitalist.
Take away the government handouts that created the monopolies in railroads, mining, forestry, shipping, telecom, healthcare... and most of the oligopolies that make up the fortune 500... and we'd have a very different economy today. We might even have one that more people respected.
In a sense it was "founded" on capitalism. Private ownership of property and the means of production.
Stealing land by force from one group of people, so that another group of people could "privately" own it... doesn't count.
Whoa... nobody had their land stolen. If you think they did, please reference specific court cases and link them here.
The war on capitalism makes me fucking sick to my stomach.
Here is a hint.... the US was not founded as a capitalist nation, and it has never been truly capitalist.
Take away the government handouts that created the monopolies in railroads, mining, forestry, shipping, telecom, healthcare... and most of the oligopolies that make up the fortune 500... and we'd have a very different economy today. We might even have one that more people respected.
In a sense it was "founded" on capitalism. Private ownership of property and the means of production.
Stealing land by force from one group of people, so that another group of people could "privately" own it... doesn't count.
Remember that when the government wants your guns.
But on the topic of ethics, liberty and the issue of land ownership, I agree with Murray Rothbard here:
"It is true that existing property titles must be scrutinized, but the resolution of the problem is much simpler than the question assumes. For remember always the basic principle: that all resources, all goods, in a state of no-ownership belong properly to the first person who finds and transforms them into a useful good (the "homestead" principle). We have seen this above in the case of unused land and natural resources: the first to find and mix his labor with them, to possess and use them, "produces" them and becomes their legitimate property owner. Now suppose that Mr. Jones has a watch; if we cannot clearly show that Jones or his ancestors to the property title in the watch were criminals, then we must say that since Mr. Jones has been possessing and using it, that he is truly the legitimate and just property owner. Or, to put the case another way: if we do not know if Jones's title to any given property is criminally-derived, then we may assume that this property was, at least momentarily in a state of no-ownership (since we are not sure about the original title), and therefore that the proper title of ownership reverted instantaneously to Jones as its "first" (i.e., current) possessor and user. In short, where we are not sure about a title but it cannot be clearly identified as criminally derived, then the title properly and legitimately reverts to its current possessor. But now suppose that a title to property is clearly identifiable as criminal, does this necessarily mean that the current possessor must give it up? No, not necessarily. For that depends on two considerations: (a) whether the victim (the property owner originally aggressed against) or his heirs are clearly identifiable and can now be found; or (b) whether or not the current possessor is himself the criminal who stole the property. Suppose, for example, that Jones possesses a watch, and that we can clearly show that Jones's title is originally criminal, either because (1) his ancestor stole it, or (2) because he or his ancestor purchased it from a thief (whether wittingly or unwittingly is immaterial here). Now, if we can identify and find the victim or his heir, then it is clear that Jones's title to the watch is totally invalid, and that it must promptly revert to its true and legitimate owner. Thus, if Jones inherited or purchased the watch from a man who stole it from Smith, and if Smith or the heir to his estate can be found, then the title to the watch properly reverts immediately back to Smith or his descendants, without compensation to the existing possessor of the criminally derived "title." Thus, if a current title to property is criminal in origin, and the victim or his heir can be found, then the title should immediately revert to the latter. Suppose, however, that condition (a) is not fulfilled: in short, that we know that Jones's title is criminal, but that we cannot now find the victim or his current heir. Who now is the legitimate and moral property owner? The answer to this question now depends on whether or not Jones himself is the criminal, whether Jones is the man who stole the watch. If Jones was the thief, then it is quite clear that he cannot be allowed to keep it, for the criminal cannot be allowed to keep the reward of his crime; and he loses the watch, and probably suffers other punishments besides. In that case, who gets the watch? Applying our libertarian theory of property, the watch is now - after Jones has been apprehended - in a state of no-ownership, and it must therefore become the legitimate property of the first person to "homestead" it - to take it and use it, and therefore, to have converted it from an unused, no-ownership state to a useful, owned state. The first person who does so then becomes its legitimate, moral, and just owner. But suppose that Jones is not the criminal, not the man who stole the watch, but that he had inherited or had innocently purchased it from the thief. And suppose, of course, that neither the victim nor his heirs can be found. In that case, the disappearance of the victim means that the stolen property comes properly into a state of no-ownership. But we have seen that any good in a state of no-ownership, with no legitimate owner of its title, reverts as legitimate property to the first person to come along and use it, to appropriate this now unowned resource for human use. But this "first" person is clearly Jones, who has been using it all along. Therefore, we conclude that even though the property was originally stolen, that if the victim or his heirs cannot be found, and if the current possessor was not the actual criminal who stole the property, then title to that property belongs properly, justly, and ethically to its current possessor. To sum up, for any property currently claimed and used: (a) if we know clearly that there was no criminal origin to its current title, then obviously the current title is legitimate, just and valid; (b) if we don't know whether the current title had any criminal origins, but can't find out either way, then the hypothetically "unowned" property reverts instantaneously and justly to its current possessor; (c) if we do know that the title is originally criminal, but can't find the victim or his heirs, then (c1) if the current title-holder was not the criminal aggressor against the property, then it reverts to him justly as the first owner of a hypothetically unowned property. But (c2) if the current titleholder is himself the criminal or one of the criminals who stole the property, then clearly he is properly to be deprived of it, and it then reverts to the first man who takes it out of its unowned state and appropriates it for his use. And finally, (d) if the current title is the result of crime, and the victim or his heirs can be found, then the title properly reverts immediately to the latter, without compensation to the criminal or to the other holders of the unjust title. "
Yeah..
But what does this have to do with Kim Kardashian?
Comments
Remember that when the government wants your guns.
But on the topic of ethics, liberty and the issue of land ownership, I agree with Murray Rothbard here:
"It is true that existing property titles must be scrutinized, but the resolution of the problem is much simpler than the question assumes. For remember always the basic principle: that all resources, all goods, in a state of no-ownership belong properly to the first person who finds and transforms them into a useful good (the "homestead" principle). We have seen this above in the case of unused land and natural resources: the first to find and mix his labor with them, to possess and use them, "produces" them and becomes their legitimate property owner. Now suppose that Mr. Jones has a watch; if we cannot clearly show that Jones or his ancestors to the property title in the watch were criminals, then we must say that since Mr. Jones has been possessing and using it, that he is truly the legitimate and just property owner. Or, to put the case another way: if we do not know if Jones's title to any given property is criminally-derived, then we may assume that this property was, at least momentarily in a state of no-ownership (since we are not sure about the original title), and therefore that the proper title of ownership reverted instantaneously to Jones as its "first" (i.e., current) possessor and user. In short, where we are not sure about a title but it cannot be clearly identified as criminally derived, then the title properly and legitimately reverts to its current possessor. But now suppose that a title to property is clearly identifiable as criminal, does this necessarily mean that the current possessor must give it up? No, not necessarily. For that depends on two considerations: (a) whether the victim (the property owner originally aggressed against) or his heirs are clearly identifiable and can now be found; or (b) whether or not the current possessor is himself the criminal who stole the property. Suppose, for example, that Jones possesses a watch, and that we can clearly show that Jones's title is originally criminal, either because (1) his ancestor stole it, or (2) because he or his ancestor purchased it from a thief (whether wittingly or unwittingly is immaterial here). Now, if we can identify and find the victim or his heir, then it is clear that Jones's title to the watch is totally invalid, and that it must promptly revert to its true and legitimate owner. Thus, if Jones inherited or purchased the watch from a man who stole it from Smith, and if Smith or the heir to his estate can be found, then the title to the watch properly reverts immediately back to Smith or his descendants, without compensation to the existing possessor of the criminally derived "title." Thus, if a current title to property is criminal in origin, and the victim or his heir can be found, then the title should immediately revert to the latter. Suppose, however, that condition (a) is not fulfilled: in short, that we know that Jones's title is criminal, but that we cannot now find the victim or his current heir. Who now is the legitimate and moral property owner? The answer to this question now depends on whether or not Jones himself is the criminal, whether Jones is the man who stole the watch. If Jones was the thief, then it is quite clear that he cannot be allowed to keep it, for the criminal cannot be allowed to keep the reward of his crime; and he loses the watch, and probably suffers other punishments besides. In that case, who gets the watch? Applying our libertarian theory of property, the watch is now - after Jones has been apprehended - in a state of no-ownership, and it must therefore become the legitimate property of the first person to "homestead" it - to take it and use it, and therefore, to have converted it from an unused, no-ownership state to a useful, owned state. The first person who does so then becomes its legitimate, moral, and just owner. But suppose that Jones is not the criminal, not the man who stole the watch, but that he had inherited or had innocently purchased it from the thief. And suppose, of course, that neither the victim nor his heirs can be found. In that case, the disappearance of the victim means that the stolen property comes properly into a state of no-ownership. But we have seen that any good in a state of no-ownership, with no legitimate owner of its title, reverts as legitimate property to the first person to come along and use it, to appropriate this now unowned resource for human use. But this "first" person is clearly Jones, who has been using it all along. Therefore, we conclude that even though the property was originally stolen, that if the victim or his heirs cannot be found, and if the current possessor was not the actual criminal who stole the property, then title to that property belongs properly, justly, and ethically to its current possessor. To sum up, for any property currently claimed and used: (a) if we know clearly that there was no criminal origin to its current title, then obviously the current title is legitimate, just and valid; (b) if we don't know whether the current title had any criminal origins, but can't find out either way, then the hypothetically "unowned" property reverts instantaneously and justly to its current possessor; (c) if we do know that the title is originally criminal, but can't find the victim or his heirs, then (c1) if the current title-holder was not the criminal aggressor against the property, then it reverts to him justly as the first owner of a hypothetically unowned property. But (c2) if the current titleholder is himself the criminal or one of the criminals who stole the property, then clearly he is properly to be deprived of it, and it then reverts to the first man who takes it out of its unowned state and appropriates it for his use. And finally, (d) if the current title is the result of crime, and the victim or his heirs can be found, then the title properly reverts immediately to the latter, without compensation to the criminal or to the other holders of the unjust title. "
Anyway, you seem adamant about this. I assume you're looking for the tribe that owned the land your house in on so you can give it back? If not, then you're a hypocrit.
But feel free to continue quoting those that use diatribe to justify white man's burden.
Either way... back on topic... the US was not founded on capitalism, and has never had true capitalism. It was founded on imperialist theft, and the major drivers in the economy are the result of government granted oligopolies.
After you say "wait.." What are you going to do about? If advocating giving your property back, then are a hypocrite. Your position is just grandstanding so you can look "enlightened" and compassionate to your friends. You don't actually intend to do anything about it other than keep reaping the benefits of what apparently disgusts you.
It doesn't surprise me you don't understand what Rothbard is saying there. Your ignorance is astounding.
But what does this have to do with Kim Kardashian?
#trailoftears