Socialised Medicine Yaaaaaaaayyyy

[Seth]

Morally, using Seth's argument, he owns fuck-all.
Because the country was stolen from the injuns. Give it back Seth, and turn yourself in for handling stolen property. You thief.

More ad hom evasions by someone who can't rationally, ethically or morally justify his political beliefs.

[Hermit]

Morally, using Seth's argument, he owns fuck-all.
Because the country was stolen from the injuns. Give it back Seth, and turn yourself in for handling stolen property. You thief.

At worst Seth can be accused of receiving stolen goods. From what I gather it was his dad's farm that he sold.

Actually it was bought from the Indians by the Congress.

Yeah. Right. New York was "bought" too.

[JimC]

Morally, using Seth's argument, he owns fuck-all.
Because the country was stolen from the injuns. Give it back Seth, and turn yourself in for handling stolen property. You thief.

At worst Seth can be accused of receiving stolen goods. From what I gather it was his dad's farm that he sold.

Actually it was bought from the Indians by the Congress.

Yeah. Right. New York was "bought" too.

Just like Melbourne...

[Seth]

Morally, using Seth's argument, he owns fuck-all.
Because the country was stolen from the injuns. Give it back Seth, and turn yourself in for handling stolen property. You thief.

At worst Seth can be accused of receiving stolen goods. From what I gather it was his dad's farm that he sold.

Actually it was bought from the Indians by the Congress.

Yeah. Right. New York was "bought" too.

Hey, if the New York Indians thought it was a fair deal, and they did, who are you to bitch about it now?

[Hermit]

Morally, using Seth's argument, he owns fuck-all.
Because the country was stolen from the injuns. Give it back Seth, and turn yourself in for handling stolen property. You thief.

At worst Seth can be accused of receiving stolen goods. From what I gather it was his dad's farm that he sold.

Actually it was bought from the Indians by the Congress.

Yeah. Right. New York was "bought" too.

Hey, if the New York Indians thought it was a fair deal, and they did, who are you to bitch about it now?

I just knew you'd say that. Regardless of what buyer or seller thought of the deal, I think Manhattan in exchange for 60 guilders ($1000 today) worth of household goods is unconscionable even considering that the area was just a forest at the time.

[piscator]

I could have bought the Crow Reservation for a couple bottles of R&R back a few years ago. Sometimes I kick myself for not moving on it when I had the liquidity...

[Seth]

I just knew you'd say that. Regardless of what buyer or seller thought of the deal, I think Manhattan in exchange for 60 guilders ($1000 today) worth of household goods is unconscionable even considering that the area was just a forest at the time.

Some of the tribes up north in Pennsylvania tried to sell land to settlers over and over again. The Iroquois Six Nation Council in Onondaga took a very dim view of this because it was threatening the Great Peace along the frontier just prior to the French and Indian war. One of the reasons that the Six Nations Council agreed to the infamous "Walking Purchase" was because it extinguished all of the land claims by one particular tribe that was being particularly troublesome with regard to reselling land over and over which threatened to ignite hostilities.

In any event, a fair trade is what both parties to the trade think is fair at the time of the trade. Sour grapes and seller's (or buyer's) remorse doesn't deserve any sympathy.

You can stew in moral outrage from the vantage point of 250 years gone by, but at the time the trade was entirely voluntary and mutually agreeable. If we get into hindsight, which is always 20/20, every land purchase by anyone ever in the deep past would be "unconscionable" using your metric of unknown and unknowable future value. Hell, Spain would then have cause to bitch, not to mention Russia over Seward's Folly.

[FBM]

There seem to be quite a few such communes that are pretty much thriving.

[mistermack]

Morally, using Seth's argument, he owns fuck-all.
Because the country was stolen from the injuns. Give it back Seth, and turn yourself in for handling stolen property. You thief.

At worst Seth can be accused of receiving stolen goods. From what I gather it was his dad's farm that he sold.

Actually it was bought from the Indians by the Congress.

Actually, bollocks. Congress at the time was attempting to exterminate the Indians.
An offer you can't refuse is mafia law.
And you have the nerve to talk about morals. You're full of shit. You've benefited from government ''theft'' more than anyone else. The US government redistributed the wealth of the indians, and it ended up in your pockets.

Now you're moaning that it's immoral.

[SnowLeopard]

What if they do? Does that ipso facto make their laws morally or ethically supportable? Of course not. Viz: Germany c. 1939.

No.. but it runs the possibility that they might be right and you might be wrong. What if their laws are morally and ethically supportable and yours are not? What if your opinions are not absolute?

I never said they were, I simply asked you for your ethical and moral argument in favor of stealing from others. You followed the same path that literally every other socialist I've ever encountered has followed when faced with examining the morality and ethics of their socialist agenda: you went straight to ad hominem argument and evasion, and you've been doing so all along.

Nope.

I gave my moral and ethical argument. You simply evade it's existence. Same as all libertarians do when confronted with the truth of their shitty agenda.

I was thinking natural selection actually. That's accomplished simply by dismantling the welfare state. Those who are genetically inferior will soon die of their helplessness and will not propagate. Those who are genetically superior will take up the challenge of independence and self-reliance and will flourish and reproduce, thus improving the species.

Thankfully the world is more morally and ethically advanced than you than the minority of scum like you. Must break your tiny little heart that the majority of your fellow fascists died out in the 40s.

A sheep without a flock.

Except you are.

Thanks I had no idea I was that influential. Except I'm not. The American way of life is what you are currently living. Which is not currently being destroyed, except by the voices in your steamy little head.

Or you can petition your government for redress of grievances and dispense with the despotic and unconstitutional laws... one way or another...but only if you have the tools needed to enforce your rights against government intrusion.

Yea I'm only seeing one unhinged tyrant flapping his chops wanting to impose his despotic, immoral and unethical vision of social Darwinism on civilization around here. Thankfully in an ironic twist of fortune it's your very own deplorable and inhumane views that will be the natural selection which will prevent women from wanting to touch you with so much as a ten foot barge pole. Doing a service to the rest of us from preventing you from passing on your genetic material. Such as it is anyway.

You have no rights without government. You have no constitution without government. Those rights with government are a privilege. Your constitution was written by the government, it's upheld by the government, it can be removed by the government.

Or you can follow your lead and sit there with your thumb up your arse being a all mouth and no trousers little bitch lacking the stones to stand up for their convictions. A typical gutless libertarian. Libertarian who is unable to rationally, morally or ethically justify his political beliefs.

Indeed. But the two "illegal" silencers (with tax stamps)I have in my gun safe demonstrate the principle I'm telling you about. I out-waited them and they had to capitulate to my rights.

Your privileges.

[Seth]

Morally, using Seth's argument, he owns fuck-all.
Because the country was stolen from the injuns. Give it back Seth, and turn yourself in for handling stolen property. You thief.

At worst Seth can be accused of receiving stolen goods. From what I gather it was his dad's farm that he sold.

Actually it was bought from the Indians by the Congress.

Actually, bollocks. Congress at the time was attempting to exterminate the Indians.

Actually, it wasn't. Your ignorance of American history, particularly in re the numerous treaties and agreements that were made over more than a century, is egregious. If Congress had intended to exterminate the Indians, it would have. In point of fact Congress has spent billions of dollars keeping Indians from being exterminated. The US government has a unique relationship with Indians, which still maintain the status of sovereign nations on their lands, something nobody else had ever done until Canada joined us very recently.

And you have the nerve to talk about morals. You're full of shit. You've benefited from government ''theft'' more than anyone else. The US government redistributed the wealth of the indians, and it ended up in your pockets.

So you say. I say government bought my land fair and square and I've got the treaty and the land grant to prove it.

Now you're moaning that it's immoral.

Yup.

[mistermack]

So you say. I say government bought my land fair and square and I've got the treaty and the land grant to prove it.

The same logic says that they tax you fair and square, and they have the laws and election results to prove it.
Whichever way you twist and turn, you end up talking bollocks.
Bollocks in, bollocks out.
First law of bollocks.

[Seth]

So you say. I say government bought my land fair and square and I've got the treaty and the land grant to prove it.

The same logic says that they tax you fair and square, and they have the laws and election results to prove it.
Whichever way you twist and turn, you end up talking bollocks.
Bollocks in, bollocks out.
First law of bollocks.

Back when my land was acquired by the United States, there were no direct redistribution "welfare" taxes. That's a recent invention, which is why it's both unconstitutional and immoral.

[SnowLeopard]

Yeah, but they're not unconstitutional though. So.... And you can't back up rationally why they are immoral or unethical. So....

[FBM]

So you say. I say government bought my land fair and square and I've got the treaty and the land grant to prove it.

Fallacious appeal to common practice.