- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Reply to: Dominoes - Pay a little more
Collapse
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
- You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
- You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
- If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "Dominoes - Pay a little more"
Collapse
-
Originally posted by d000hg View PostThis thread is as boring as a margherita pizza, hold the cheese.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Old Greg View PostI 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.
You're begging the question too. The very fact that you are trying to disprove the concept of property rights by positing prior 'misappropriation' of that property is a performative contradiction.
Given that your argument is 'self-detonating' all we're left with is my original claim that property rights are self evident and objectively provable, if you care to ask yourself first why we need morality and from there to consider what it is.
I posted the title of a book, and isbn number, in which you'll find the proof; given that you don't have any discernible and logically consistent argument otherwise, I don't need to do any more.
Can I at least assume that you believe that you own yourself? Or, to be clear, that a man owns himself?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Old Greg View PostCan you objectively prove that common ownership (as it is generally understood) was not the previous state?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by doodab View PostThere is no right to assert ownership over anything, formerly unowned or not, other than that conferred by nature i.e. the ability to stake a claim and defend it, through violence if necessary.
It's only due to nature, in the form of cultural evolution, that we have moved on from this natural state of might is right to more subtle systems such as law courts and 'state sanctioned violence'. And only evolution will effect change, while you may critique government in the abstract your theoretical musings need to be tempered by what's feasible and achieveable from our current position. Anything that isn't is just BS.
At the current time removal of the state will simply leave a vacuum into which other things will rush. And it won't be filled with an anarchist utopia. Its no more feasible than communism.
Leave a comment:
-
There is no right to assert ownership over anything, formerly unowned or not, other than that conferred by nature i.e. the ability to stake a claim and defend it, through violence if necessary.
It's only due to nature, in the form of cultural evolution, that we have moved on from this natural state of might is right to more subtle systems such as law courts and 'state sanctioned violence'. And only evolution will effect change, while you may critique government in the abstract your theoretical musings need to be tempered by what's feasible and achieveable from our current position. Anything that isn't is just BS.
At the current time removal of the state will simply leave a vacuum into which other things will rush. And it won't be filled with an anarchist utopia. Its no more feasible than communism.Last edited by doodab; 15 December 2013, 10:34.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Old Greg View PostI 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.
Originally posted by SueEllen View Post"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.Last edited by Zero Liability; 15 December 2013, 10:10.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Cliphead View PostFFS, give it a rest already. No1 contender for the most boring thread of the year.
CUK Reader Awards 2013
Leave a comment:
-
FFS, give it a rest already. No1 contender for the most boring thread of the year.
Go get pished / laid or whatever floats yer boat.
Oh wait, IT geeks
Get a room then.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by SueEllen View Post"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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Zero Liability View PostUntil 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.
It's really not a hard concept to understand especially as there is historical context to explain it.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Zero Liability View PostObviously 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?
Leave a comment:
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Leave a comment: