Dominoes - Pay a little more

[Old Greg]

I have a right to get laid, so I'm gonna come around and rape your sister. tulip happens.

Two wrongs don't make a right <insert rim-shot>.

Then I will thank you not to use violence to remove me from your misappropriated land. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Zero Liability]

You are analogising a situation in which there is a very clear aggrieved party, still in existence, to one in which there isn't.

It is perfectly possible to return the land to its previous status. You may think it is desirable to continue your occupation but two wrongs don't make a right. The world manages to return Nazi misappropriated art 70+ years in and will probably continue to do so for many years.

Then please, by all means, describe what its previous state was, and I'll take it from there.

[Old Greg]

You are analogising a situation in which there is a very clear aggrieved party, still in existence, to one in which there isn't.



Then please, by all means, describe what its previous state was, and I'll take it from there.

I am the aggrieved party due to your threat of state violence against me, merely for camping on land which without Parliamentary appropriation would be in its previous state of common ownership and of course before civilization of no ownership. I am unclear by what objectively moral authority, you threaten me with state violence.

[Zero Liability]

Until you actually qualify who owned this land when it was under "common ownership" and what you specifically mean by this (a King laying claim to it by verbal declaration? Parliament doing so? a few people treading on it once or twice? etc), I am afraid I am that is far from proven. So I am unclear by what moral authority these lands were held in "common" in the first place, and you persistently refuse to qualify this. Unless you are the heir of someone who was expropriated by Parliament, or are being prevented from appropriating areas of untouched land, you are aggrieved by no one in this respect.

[Old Greg]

Until you actually qualify who owned this land when it was under "common ownership" and what you specifically mean by this (a King laying claim to it by verbal declaration? Parliament doing so? a few people treading on it once or twice? etc), I am afraid I am that is far from proven. So I am unclear by what moral authority these lands were held in "common" in the first place, and you persistently refuse to qualify this. Unless you are the heir of someone who was expropriated by Parliament, or are being prevented from appropriating areas of untouched land, you are aggrieved by no one in this respect.

Can you objectively prove that common ownership (as it is generally understood) was not the previous state?

[doodab]

Until you actually qualify who owned this land when it was under "common ownership" and what you specifically mean by this (a King laying claim to it by verbal declaration? Parliament doing so? a few people treading on it once or twice? etc), I am afraid I am that is far from proven. So I am unclear by what moral authority these lands were held in "common" in the first place, and you persistently refuse to qualify this. Unless you are the heir of someone who was expropriated by Parliament, or are being prevented from appropriating areas of untouched land, you are aggrieved by no one in this respect.

Who "owned" it before people evolved?

[Zero Liability]

Obviously no one.

Can you objectively prove that common ownership (as it is generally understood) was not the previous state?

Can you objectively prove that it was the case, since you are now asking me to prove a negative? Outside of Enlightenment philosophers, who holds it to be common and on what basis?

[Old Greg]

Obviously no one.



Can you objectively prove that it was the case, since you are now asking me to prove a negative? Outside of Enlightenment philosophers, who holds it to be common and on what basis?

I don't claim that my position is objectively right so I have to prove nothing. Mine is a value position. You claim that property right is objectively demonstrable. So if there is a claim that land ownership rights are invalid because they are rooted in misappropriation from common ownership, then you must objectively prove your position.

[SueEllen]

Until you actually qualify who owned this land when it was under "common ownership" and what you specifically mean by this (a King laying claim to it by verbal declaration? Parliament doing so? a few people treading on it once or twice? etc), I am afraid I am that is far from proven. So I am unclear by what moral authority these lands were held in "common" in the first place, and you persistently refuse to qualify this. Unless you are the heir of someone who was expropriated by Parliament, or are being prevented from appropriating areas of untouched land, you are aggrieved by no one in this respect.

"common ownership" in the case land means that everyone who had access to the land i.e. everyone who lived in the region or travelled through it owned it.

It's really not a hard concept to understand especially as there is historical context to explain it.

[Old Greg]

"common ownership" in the case land means that everyone who had access to the land i.e. everyone who lived in the region or travelled through it owned it.

It's really not a hard concept to understand especially as there is historical context to explain it.

But his position is objectively correct so this must be false. And he will be along to prove it objectively.