On 2/28/2026 4:48 PM, Dude wrote:
On 2/28/2026 12:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 11:27:18 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:You really like to paint with a large brush!
On 2/28/2026 10:23 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 12:38:33 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>You made that up.
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 11:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
and then giving the service out for free, it's not a free market >>>>>>> system
Sure it is.
Wilson means unregulated.-a Free is a word that hides his intent.
No, I observed it.
Not all Libertarians advocate for a totally unregulated free market
economy. Most right-libertarians focus on free-market capitalism with
just minimal government regulation.
Key word: Minimal
Libertarian ideas are based on liberal ideas:
1. Individual autonomy
2. Political self-determination
3. Equality before the law
4. Protection of civil rights, including the rights to freedom of
association, freedom of speech, freedom of thought and freedom of choice.
It's a free market because it's yours. Regulated by supply and demand. >>>> We studied this in junior college: Macro Economics 101:
The reason free markets in America are championed is it drives
innovation, gives consumers choices, and fostering economic growth
through competition with limited government intervention.
Key word: Choices
For everyone.
On 3/1/26 12:11 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/28/2026 4:48 PM, Dude wrote:
On 2/28/2026 12:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 11:27:18 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 2/28/2026 10:23 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You really like to paint with a large brush!
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 12:38:33 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:You made that up.
On 2/27/2026 11:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
and then giving the service out for free, it's not a free market >>>>>>>> system
Sure it is.
Wilson means unregulated.-a Free is a word that hides his intent.
No, I observed it.
Not all Libertarians advocate for a totally unregulated free market
economy. Most right-libertarians focus on free-market capitalism with
just minimal government regulation.
Key word: Minimal
Libertarian ideas are based on liberal ideas:
1. Individual autonomy
2. Political self-determination
3. Equality before the law
4. Protection of civil rights, including the rights to freedom of
association, freedom of speech, freedom of thought and freedom of
choice.
It's a free market because it's yours. Regulated by supply and demand. >>>>> We studied this in junior college: Macro Economics 101:
The reason free markets in America are championed is it drives
innovation, gives consumers choices, and fostering economic growth
through competition with limited government intervention.
Key word: Choices
For everyone.
even slaves had choices u moron,
so u can bleat on about choices all u want,
it's really just a moronic tautology
in any system: everyone has choices always
the concern is really about the *quality* of those choices,
and while the current system does better than literally slavery,
-a > low fking bar there
-a >
-a > #god
i cannot agree we've given enough choice to abide by the rights
-a > life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness
-a >
-a > #god
even in this country, let alone the rest of the world
On 3/1/2026 4:11 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/1/26 12:11 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/28/2026 4:48 PM, Dude wrote:
On 2/28/2026 12:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 11:27:18 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 2/28/2026 10:23 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You really like to paint with a large brush!
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 12:38:33 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:You made that up.
On 2/27/2026 11:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
and then giving the service out for free, it's not a free
market system
Sure it is.
Wilson means unregulated.-a Free is a word that hides his intent. >>>>>>>
No, I observed it.
Not all Libertarians advocate for a totally unregulated free market
economy. Most right-libertarians focus on free-market capitalism
with just minimal government regulation.
Key word: Minimal
Libertarian ideas are based on liberal ideas:
1. Individual autonomy
2. Political self-determination
3. Equality before the law
4. Protection of civil rights, including the rights to freedom of
association, freedom of speech, freedom of thought and freedom of
choice.
It's a free market because it's yours. Regulated by supply and
demand.
We studied this in junior college: Macro Economics 101:
The reason free markets in America are championed is it drives
innovation, gives consumers choices, and fostering economic growth >>>>>> through competition with limited government intervention.
Key word: Choices
For everyone.
even slaves had choices u moron,
so u can bleat on about choices all u want,
it's really just a moronic tautology
in any system: everyone has choices always
the concern is really about the *quality* of those choices,
and while the current system does better than literally slavery,
-a-a > low fking bar there
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
i cannot agree we've given enough choice to abide by the rights
-a-a > life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
even in this country, let alone the rest of the world
It's only a starting point Nick.
If we've not been given enough choice to abide by the rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, is the right direction more or less choice?
On 3/1/26 2:07 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 3/1/2026 4:11 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/1/26 12:11 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/28/2026 4:48 PM, Dude wrote:
On 2/28/2026 12:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 11:27:18 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com>You really like to paint with a large brush!
wrote:
On 2/28/2026 10:23 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 12:38:33 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:You made that up.
On 2/27/2026 11:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
and then giving the service out for free, it's not a free >>>>>>>>>> market system
Sure it is.
Wilson means unregulated.-a Free is a word that hides his intent. >>>>>>>>
No, I observed it.
Not all Libertarians advocate for a totally unregulated free market >>>>> economy. Most right-libertarians focus on free-market capitalism
with just minimal government regulation.
Key word: Minimal
Libertarian ideas are based on liberal ideas:
1. Individual autonomy
2. Political self-determination
3. Equality before the law
4. Protection of civil rights, including the rights to freedom of
association, freedom of speech, freedom of thought and freedom of
choice.
It's a free market because it's yours. Regulated by supply and
demand.
We studied this in junior college: Macro Economics 101:
The reason free markets in America are championed is it drives
innovation, gives consumers choices, and fostering economic growth >>>>>>> through competition with limited government intervention.
Key word: Choices
For everyone.
even slaves had choices u moron,
so u can bleat on about choices all u want,
it's really just a moronic tautology
in any system: everyone has choices always
the concern is really about the *quality* of those choices,
and while the current system does better than literally slavery,
-a-a > low fking bar there
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
i cannot agree we've given enough choice to abide by the rights
-a-a > life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
even in this country, let alone the rest of the world
It's only a starting point Nick.
excuses
If we've not been given enough choice to abide by the rights of life,
liberty, and pursuit of happiness, is the right direction more or less
choice?
property restricts choice more than it improves, for the vast vast
majority of people
On 3/1/2026 2:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/1/26 2:07 PM, Wilson wrote:We are going to need to see some references backing up that theory.
On 3/1/2026 4:11 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/1/26 12:11 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/28/2026 4:48 PM, Dude wrote:
On 2/28/2026 12:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 11:27:18 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:You really like to paint with a large brush!
On 2/28/2026 10:23 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 12:38:33 -0500, WilsonYou made that up.
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 11:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
and then giving the service out for free, it's not a free >>>>>>>>>>> market system
Sure it is.
Wilson means unregulated.-a Free is a word that hides his intent. >>>>>>>>>
No, I observed it.
Not all Libertarians advocate for a totally unregulated free
market economy. Most right-libertarians focus on free-market
capitalism with just minimal government regulation.
Key word: Minimal
Libertarian ideas are based on liberal ideas:
1. Individual autonomy
2. Political self-determination
3. Equality before the law
4. Protection of civil rights, including the rights to freedom of >>>>>> association, freedom of speech, freedom of thought and freedom of >>>>>> choice.
It's a free market because it's yours. Regulated by supply and >>>>>>>> demand.
We studied this in junior college: Macro Economics 101:
The reason free markets in America are championed is it drives >>>>>>>> innovation, gives consumers choices, and fostering economic growth >>>>>>>> through competition with limited government intervention.
Key word: Choices
For everyone.
even slaves had choices u moron,
so u can bleat on about choices all u want,
it's really just a moronic tautology
in any system: everyone has choices always
the concern is really about the *quality* of those choices,
and while the current system does better than literally slavery,
-a-a > low fking bar there
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
i cannot agree we've given enough choice to abide by the rights
-a-a > life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
even in this country, let alone the rest of the world
It's only a starting point Nick.
excuses
If we've not been given enough choice to abide by the rights of life,
liberty, and pursuit of happiness, is the right direction more or
less choice?
property restricts choice more than it improves, for the vast vast
majority of people
Without property you have no choice, Nick.
On 3/1/2026 6:13 PM, Dude wrote:
On 3/1/2026 2:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/1/26 2:07 PM, Wilson wrote:We are going to need to see some references backing up that theory.
On 3/1/2026 4:11 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/1/26 12:11 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/28/2026 4:48 PM, Dude wrote:
On 2/28/2026 12:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 11:27:18 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:You really like to paint with a large brush!
On 2/28/2026 10:23 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 12:38:33 -0500, WilsonYou made that up.
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 11:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
and then giving the service out for free, it's not a free >>>>>>>>>>>> market system
Sure it is.
Wilson means unregulated.-a Free is a word that hides his intent. >>>>>>>>>>
No, I observed it.
Not all Libertarians advocate for a totally unregulated free
market economy. Most right-libertarians focus on free-market
capitalism with just minimal government regulation.
Key word: Minimal
Libertarian ideas are based on liberal ideas:
1. Individual autonomy
2. Political self-determination
3. Equality before the law
4. Protection of civil rights, including the rights to freedom of >>>>>>> association, freedom of speech, freedom of thought and freedom of >>>>>>> choice.
It's a free market because it's yours. Regulated by supply and >>>>>>>>> demand.
We studied this in junior college: Macro Economics 101:
The reason free markets in America are championed is it drives >>>>>>>>> innovation, gives consumers choices, and fostering economic growth >>>>>>>>> through competition with limited government intervention.
Key word: Choices
For everyone.
even slaves had choices u moron,
so u can bleat on about choices all u want,
it's really just a moronic tautology
in any system: everyone has choices always
the concern is really about the *quality* of those choices,
and while the current system does better than literally slavery,
-a-a > low fking bar there
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
i cannot agree we've given enough choice to abide by the rights
-a-a > life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
even in this country, let alone the rest of the world
It's only a starting point Nick.
excuses
If we've not been given enough choice to abide by the rights of
life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, is the right direction more
or less choice?
property restricts choice more than it improves, for the vast vast
majority of people
Without property you have no choice, Nick.
Without property rights, you have don't own the product of your labor.
If you don't own your labor, you don't own yourself. Which reduces you
to the level of a serf, no better than and probably worse off than the
poor Nick is claiming he's trying to help.
On 3/1/26 3:32 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 3/1/2026 6:13 PM, Dude wrote:
On 3/1/2026 2:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/1/26 2:07 PM, Wilson wrote:We are going to need to see some references backing up that theory.
On 3/1/2026 4:11 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/1/26 12:11 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/28/2026 4:48 PM, Dude wrote:
On 2/28/2026 12:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 11:27:18 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:You really like to paint with a large brush!
On 2/28/2026 10:23 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 12:38:33 -0500, WilsonYou made that up.
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 11:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
and then giving the service out for free, it's not a free >>>>>>>>>>>>> market system
Sure it is.
Wilson means unregulated.-a Free is a word that hides his intent. >>>>>>>>>>>
No, I observed it.
Not all Libertarians advocate for a totally unregulated free
market economy. Most right-libertarians focus on free-market
capitalism with just minimal government regulation.
Key word: Minimal
Libertarian ideas are based on liberal ideas:
1. Individual autonomy
2. Political self-determination
3. Equality before the law
4. Protection of civil rights, including the rights to freedom >>>>>>>> of association, freedom of speech, freedom of thought and
freedom of choice.
It's a free market because it's yours. Regulated by supply and >>>>>>>>>> demand.
We studied this in junior college: Macro Economics 101:
The reason free markets in America are championed is it drives >>>>>>>>>> innovation, gives consumers choices, and fostering economic >>>>>>>>>> growth
through competition with limited government intervention.
Key word: Choices
For everyone.
even slaves had choices u moron,
so u can bleat on about choices all u want,
it's really just a moronic tautology
in any system: everyone has choices always
the concern is really about the *quality* of those choices,
and while the current system does better than literally slavery,
-a-a > low fking bar there
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
i cannot agree we've given enough choice to abide by the rights
-a-a > life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
even in this country, let alone the rest of the world
It's only a starting point Nick.
excuses
If we've not been given enough choice to abide by the rights of
life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, is the right direction
more or less choice?
property restricts choice more than it improves, for the vast vast
majority of people
Without property you have no choice, Nick.
dude fails to respond again
Without property rights, you have don't own the product of your labor.
If you don't own your labor, you don't own yourself. Which reduces you
to the level of a serf, no better than and probably worse off than the
poor Nick is claiming he's trying to help.
a) incorrect. serfs were bound to work the land, it's forced labor
abolishing property rights does not force u to labor wilson
b) u don't have a claim on land/resources just because u did labor
-a > it's really that fking simple Efn+
-a >
-a > #god
sure in an equitable system that will generally be true cause why would people steal from each other if they are all well raised an taken care
of ...
but it's not an enforceable right due to the fact we are dealing with a
lot of zero-sum systems (like land, basic resources, etc), and wealth inequity is a *massive* liability to the viability of our species
On 3/1/2026 3:53 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/1/26 3:32 PM, Wilson wrote:Without property, Nick, you are not secure. That's the purpose of government, to insure you're safe on your own property and person.
On 3/1/2026 6:13 PM, Dude wrote:
On 3/1/2026 2:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/1/26 2:07 PM, Wilson wrote:We are going to need to see some references backing up that theory.
On 3/1/2026 4:11 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/1/26 12:11 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/28/2026 4:48 PM, Dude wrote:
On 2/28/2026 12:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 11:27:18 -0800, DudeYou really like to paint with a large brush!
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/28/2026 10:23 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 12:38:33 -0500, WilsonYou made that up.
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 11:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
and then giving the service out for free, it's not a free >>>>>>>>>>>>>> market system
Sure it is.
Wilson means unregulated.-a Free is a word that hides his >>>>>>>>>>>> intent.
No, I observed it.
Not all Libertarians advocate for a totally unregulated free >>>>>>>>> market economy. Most right-libertarians focus on free-market >>>>>>>>> capitalism with just minimal government regulation.
Key word: Minimal
Libertarian ideas are based on liberal ideas:
1. Individual autonomy
2. Political self-determination
3. Equality before the law
4. Protection of civil rights, including the rights to freedom >>>>>>>>> of association, freedom of speech, freedom of thought and
freedom of choice.
It's a free market because it's yours. Regulated by supply >>>>>>>>>>> and demand.
We studied this in junior college: Macro Economics 101:
The reason free markets in America are championed is it drives >>>>>>>>>>> innovation, gives consumers choices, and fostering economic >>>>>>>>>>> growth
through competition with limited government intervention. >>>>>>>>>>>
Key word: Choices
For everyone.
even slaves had choices u moron,
so u can bleat on about choices all u want,
it's really just a moronic tautology
in any system: everyone has choices always
the concern is really about the *quality* of those choices,
and while the current system does better than literally slavery, >>>>>>>
-a-a > low fking bar there
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
i cannot agree we've given enough choice to abide by the rights
-a-a > life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
even in this country, let alone the rest of the world
It's only a starting point Nick.
excuses
If we've not been given enough choice to abide by the rights of
life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, is the right direction
more or less choice?
property restricts choice more than it improves, for the vast vast
majority of people
Without property you have no choice, Nick.
dude fails to respond again
Without property rights, you have don't own the product of your
labor. If you don't own your labor, you don't own yourself. Which
reduces you to the level of a serf, no better than and probably worse
off than the poor Nick is claiming he's trying to help.
a) incorrect. serfs were bound to work the land, it's forced labor
abolishing property rights does not force u to labor wilson
b) u don't have a claim on land/resources just because u did labor
-a-a > it's really that fking simple Efn+
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
sure in an equitable system that will generally be true cause why
would people steal from each other if they are all well raised an
taken care of ...
but it's not an enforceable right due to the fact we are dealing with
a lot of zero-sum systems (like land, basic resources, etc), and
wealth inequity is a *massive* liability to the viability of our species
It's not as complicated as you think. You have an inalienable right to
life, liberty and property.
On 3/1/26 4:19 PM, Dude wrote:
On 3/1/2026 3:53 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/1/26 3:32 PM, Wilson wrote:Without property, Nick, you are not secure. That's the purpose of
On 3/1/2026 6:13 PM, Dude wrote:
On 3/1/2026 2:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/1/26 2:07 PM, Wilson wrote:We are going to need to see some references backing up that theory. >>>>> Without property you have no choice, Nick.
On 3/1/2026 4:11 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/1/26 12:11 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/28/2026 4:48 PM, Dude wrote:
On 2/28/2026 12:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 11:27:18 -0800, DudeYou really like to paint with a large brush!
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/28/2026 10:23 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 12:38:33 -0500, WilsonYou made that up.
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 11:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
and then giving the service out for free, it's not a free >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> market system
Sure it is.
Wilson means unregulated.a Free is a word that hides his >>>>>>>>>>>>> intent.
No, I observed it.
Not all Libertarians advocate for a totally unregulated free >>>>>>>>>> market economy. Most right-libertarians focus on free-market >>>>>>>>>> capitalism with just minimal government regulation.
Key word: Minimal
Libertarian ideas are based on liberal ideas:
1. Individual autonomy
2. Political self-determination
3. Equality before the law
4. Protection of civil rights, including the rights to freedom >>>>>>>>>> of association, freedom of speech, freedom of thought and >>>>>>>>>> freedom of choice.
It's a free market because it's yours. Regulated by supply >>>>>>>>>>>> and demand.
We studied this in junior college: Macro Economics 101: >>>>>>>>>>>>
The reason free markets in America are championed is it drives >>>>>>>>>>>> innovation, gives consumers choices, and fostering economic >>>>>>>>>>>> growth
through competition with limited government intervention. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Key word: Choices
For everyone.
even slaves had choices u moron,
so u can bleat on about choices all u want,
it's really just a moronic tautology
in any system: everyone has choices always
the concern is really about the *quality* of those choices,
and while the current system does better than literally slavery, >>>>>>>>
aa > low fking bar there
aa >
aa > #god
i cannot agree we've given enough choice to abide by the rights >>>>>>>>
aa > life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness
aa >
aa > #god
even in this country, let alone the rest of the world
It's only a starting point Nick.
excuses
If we've not been given enough choice to abide by the rights of >>>>>>> life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, is the right direction >>>>>>> more or less choice?
property restricts choice more than it improves, for the vast vast >>>>>> majority of people
dude fails to respond again
Without property rights, you have don't own the product of your
labor. If you don't own your labor, you don't own yourself. Which
reduces you to the level of a serf, no better than and probably worse >>>> off than the poor Nick is claiming he's trying to help.
a) incorrect. serfs were bound to work the land, it's forced labor
abolishing property rights does not force u to labor wilson
b) u don't have a claim on land/resources just because u did labor
aa > it's really that fking simple ?
aa >
aa > #god
sure in an equitable system that will generally be true cause why
would people steal from each other if they are all well raised an
taken care of ...
but it's not an enforceable right due to the fact we are dealing with
a lot of zero-sum systems (like land, basic resources, etc), and
wealth inequity is a *massive* liability to the viability of our species >>>
government, to insure you're safe on your own property and person.
It's not as complicated as you think. You have an inalienable right to
life, liberty and property.
that was life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness my dude
> ownership not required
> #god--
On 3/2/26 11:46 AM, Dude wrote:
On 3/2/2026 11:17 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/2/26 10:18 AM, Wilson wrote:There is hope for this chat room. Good work, Nick!
On 3/2/2026 12:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/2/26 9:30 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 3/1/2026 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:shut the fuck up retard, the vast vast majority of what u utilize
On 3/1/26 3:32 PM, Wilson wrote:
Without property rights, you have don't own the product of your >>>>>>>> labor. If you don't own your labor, you don't own yourself.
Which reduces you to the level of a serf, no better than and
probably worse off than the poor Nick is claiming he's trying to >>>>>>>> help.
a) incorrect. serfs were bound to work the land, it's forced labor >>>>>>>
abolishing property rights does not force u to labor wilson
b) u don't have a claim on land/resources just because u did labor >>>>>>>
-a-a > it's really that fking simple Efn+
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
sure in an equitable system that will generally be true cause why >>>>>>> would people steal from each other if they are all well raised an >>>>>>> taken care of ...
I don't want to "be taken care of". I'm not an infant. I want to be >>>>>
and consume is 100% produced and distributed to you, by the labor
of others
yes you "pay" for it, but remember: price is just a number. they
still labored, and chanced are you've received a lot more labor
time than the amount u ever put back in
treated fairly and have my space and rights - including whatever
property I paid for - to be respected.
Commies and other forced collectivists think they can remake
humanity into something new. They think they can redistribute
property against the will of the owner. They don't mind using
force. They are stupid and evil.
actually i want to
a) make the economy transparent. i want transparency markets, not
just free ones
b) eventually cease the use violence to enforce any particular
distribution of private property
Don't be stupid and evil Nick.
dont't be greedy and sinful wilson
I just want people free to be able to make their own decisions about
THEY CAN'T DO THAT WHEN ALL THE PROPERTY IS TIED UP IN VIOLENT CLAIMS
WILSON
what's best for them, as long as they aren't directly harming anyone
else.
keep bleating bro, luckily ur mortal
but it's not an enforceable right due to the fact we are dealing >>>>>>> with a lot of zero-sum systems (like land, basic resources, etc), >>>>>>> and wealth inequity is a *massive* liability to the viability of >>>>>>> our species
OMG, muh "zero-sum systems".
there *are* zero-sum systems involved, like land, ecology, and
basic resources,
even water: much of the world is already effective in utilizing all >>>>> available water. if u wanted to start an operation that required a
lot of water u'd have to fight for ever that
More buzzwords that don't say anything but do make you sound
smarter to the rubes and recent college graduates (but I repeat
myself).
Yes too much wealth inequality is bad because it leads to unrest
and eventually violence.
that's not how 21st century wealth inequality plays out:
it stifles innovation due the abject retards projected to the top
of those unethical hierarchies, becomes grossly inefficient for ur
average consumer due to chasing number extraction instead of what's >>>>> best for the consumer, and is beyond negligent in managing the
environment to the point of being a critical liability for this
species
Ah yes, the old "What's best for the consooomer".
yes, charging more for shittier product across whole industries
the fact u even make fun of such a concept that is indicative of how
little u actually care about how will the economy function
I prefer to allow the individual decide what they want. It's not a
u have no argument than continually repeated "individual choice"
then is your *ENTIRE* argument wilson, and it's a fucking shit one
perfect process but definitely a hell of a lot better than someone
else choosing it for them.
Too little inequality is also bad because an open economy needs
pools of wealth to do new things.
Let's talk about too little inequality.
regardless of the absolute drivel most boomers spout: public
funding has and still does lead innovation, for the most part. even >>>>> with all the retards like ur in the govt actively sabotaging it's
operations
so ur claim here is moot
How do you define "public funding" here? Government spending does
quite a bit of heavy lifting in basic research but it definitely
doesn't lead in the creation of usable new things that change
people's lives.
bitch u don't even care about innovation. u are you sniveling
pathetic mortal twat who will take his sinful views rightfully to the
grave
nigga what do u expect when u preach pure selfish greed???
take it to the grave dude,
-a-a > the sooner the better
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 10:39:59 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/2/2026 9:30 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 3/1/2026 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:Wilson has them both sitting on a stick, spinning. Good work Noah and
On 3/1/26 3:32 PM, Wilson wrote:
Without property rights, you have don't own the product of your
labor. If you don't own your labor, you don't own yourself. Which
reduces you to the level of a serf, no better than and probably worse >>>>> off than the poor Nick is claiming he's trying to help.
a) incorrect. serfs were bound to work the land, it's forced labor
abolishing property rights does not force u to labor wilson
b) u don't have a claim on land/resources just because u did labor
-a-a > it's really that fking simple ?
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
sure in an equitable system that will generally be true cause why
would people steal from each other if they are all well raised an
taken care of ...
I don't want to "be taken care of". I'm not an infant. I want to be
treated fairly and have my space and rights - including whatever
property I paid for - to be respected.
Commies and other forced collectivists think they can remake humanity
into something new. They think they can redistribute property against
the will of the owner. They don't mind using force. They are stupid and
evil.
Don't be stupid and evil Nick.
Nick! Maybe go back to school, learn a little about US Bill of Right.
Speaking of commies:
Karl Marx rejected the idea that human rights are innate, natural, or
universal, viewing them instead as historical constructs of bourgeois
society that protect private property and egoistic individuals.
Key words Innate" Rights
According to Marx, rights are not eternal truths; they are legal
relations linked to specific historical moments and economic structures.
Being Karl doesn't make him wrong. Being a street person also doesn't
make a person wrong. Both can be right or not depending.
but it's not an enforceable right due to the fact we are dealing with
a lot of zero-sum systems (like land, basic resources, etc), and
wealth inequity is a *massive* liability to the viability of our species >>>>
OMG, muh "zero-sum systems".
More buzzwords that don't say anything but do make you sound smarter to
the rubes and recent college graduates (but I repeat myself).
Yes too much wealth inequality is bad because it leads to unrest and
eventually violence.
Too little inequality is also bad because an open economy needs pools of >>> wealth to do new things.
Let's talk about too little inequality.
On 3/2/2026 1:28 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/2/26 11:46 AM, Dude wrote:God said in the Bible to go forth and multiply and eat fruit you pick
On 3/2/2026 11:17 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/2/26 10:18 AM, Wilson wrote:There is hope for this chat room. Good work, Nick!
On 3/2/2026 12:52 PM, dart200 wrote:THEY CAN'T DO THAT WHEN ALL THE PROPERTY IS TIED UP IN VIOLENT
On 3/2/26 9:30 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 3/1/2026 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:shut the fuck up retard, the vast vast majority of what u utilize >>>>>> and consume is 100% produced and distributed to you, by the labor >>>>>> of others
On 3/1/26 3:32 PM, Wilson wrote:
Without property rights, you have don't own the product of your >>>>>>>>> labor. If you don't own your labor, you don't own yourself. >>>>>>>>> Which reduces you to the level of a serf, no better than and >>>>>>>>> probably worse off than the poor Nick is claiming he's trying >>>>>>>>> to help.
a) incorrect. serfs were bound to work the land, it's forced labor >>>>>>>>
abolishing property rights does not force u to labor wilson
b) u don't have a claim on land/resources just because u did labor >>>>>>>>
-a-a > it's really that fking simple Efn+
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
sure in an equitable system that will generally be true cause >>>>>>>> why would people steal from each other if they are all well
raised an taken care of ...
I don't want to "be taken care of". I'm not an infant. I want to be >>>>>>
yes you "pay" for it, but remember: price is just a number. they
still labored, and chanced are you've received a lot more labor
time than the amount u ever put back in
treated fairly and have my space and rights - including whatever >>>>>>> property I paid for - to be respected.
Commies and other forced collectivists think they can remake
humanity into something new. They think they can redistribute
property against the will of the owner. They don't mind using
force. They are stupid and evil.
actually i want to
a) make the economy transparent. i want transparency markets, not >>>>>> just free ones
b) eventually cease the use violence to enforce any particular
distribution of private property
Don't be stupid and evil Nick.
dont't be greedy and sinful wilson
I just want people free to be able to make their own decisions about >>>>
CLAIMS WILSON
what's best for them, as long as they aren't directly harming
anyone else.
keep bleating bro, luckily ur mortal
but it's not an enforceable right due to the fact we are dealing >>>>>>>> with a lot of zero-sum systems (like land, basic resources,
etc), and wealth inequity is a *massive* liability to the
viability of our species
OMG, muh "zero-sum systems".
there *are* zero-sum systems involved, like land, ecology, and
basic resources,
even water: much of the world is already effective in utilizing
all available water. if u wanted to start an operation that
required a lot of water u'd have to fight for ever that
More buzzwords that don't say anything but do make you sound
smarter to the rubes and recent college graduates (but I repeat >>>>>>> myself).
Yes too much wealth inequality is bad because it leads to unrest >>>>>>> and eventually violence.
that's not how 21st century wealth inequality plays out:
it stifles innovation due the abject retards projected to the top >>>>>> of those unethical hierarchies, becomes grossly inefficient for ur >>>>>> average consumer due to chasing number extraction instead of
what's best for the consumer, and is beyond negligent in managing >>>>>> the environment to the point of being a critical liability for
this species
Ah yes, the old "What's best for the consooomer".
yes, charging more for shittier product across whole industries
the fact u even make fun of such a concept that is indicative of how
little u actually care about how will the economy function
I prefer to allow the individual decide what they want. It's not a
u have no argument than continually repeated "individual choice"
then is your *ENTIRE* argument wilson, and it's a fucking shit one
perfect process but definitely a hell of a lot better than someone
else choosing it for them.
Too little inequality is also bad because an open economy needs >>>>>>> pools of wealth to do new things.
Let's talk about too little inequality.
regardless of the absolute drivel most boomers spout: public
funding has and still does lead innovation, for the most part.
even with all the retards like ur in the govt actively sabotaging >>>>>> it's operations
so ur claim here is moot
How do you define "public funding" here? Government spending does
quite a bit of heavy lifting in basic research but it definitely
doesn't lead in the creation of usable new things that change
people's lives.
bitch u don't even care about innovation. u are you sniveling
pathetic mortal twat who will take his sinful views rightfully to
the grave
nigga what do u expect when u preach pure selfish greed???
from the garden. Eat as much fruit as you can harvest. Then, when you
are full, just trade the rest for some nuts. It's all good!
Over my dead body!take it to the grave dude,
Because, for awhile it looked like this chat room was getting more civil instead of more vile. You put a stop to that. Good work, Nick!
Ned, give this guy a star!
-a-a > the sooner the better
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 11:16:25 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/2/2026 10:38 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 13:18:28 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Did Wilson say that? It looks like you might have made that up.
wrote:
On 3/2/2026 12:52 PM, dart200 wrote:No concern about getting the best information in support of best
On 3/2/26 9:30 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 3/1/2026 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:shut the fuck up retard, the vast vast majority of what u utilize and >>>>> consume is 100% produced and distributed to you, by the labor of others >>>>>
On 3/1/26 3:32 PM, Wilson wrote:
Without property rights, you have don't own the product of your >>>>>>>> labor. If you don't own your labor, you don't own yourself. Which >>>>>>>> reduces you to the level of a serf, no better than and probably >>>>>>>> worse off than the poor Nick is claiming he's trying to help.
a) incorrect. serfs were bound to work the land, it's forced labor >>>>>>>
abolishing property rights does not force u to labor wilson
b) u don't have a claim on land/resources just because u did labor >>>>>>>
-a-a > it's really that fking simple ?
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
sure in an equitable system that will generally be true cause why >>>>>>> would people steal from each other if they are all well raised an >>>>>>> taken care of ...
I don't want to "be taken care of". I'm not an infant. I want to be >>>>>
yes you "pay" for it, but remember: price is just a number. they still >>>>> labored, and chanced are you've received a lot more labor time than the >>>>> amount u ever put back in
treated fairly and have my space and rights - including whatever
property I paid for - to be respected.
Commies and other forced collectivists think they can remake humanity >>>>>> into something new. They think they can redistribute property against >>>>>> the will of the owner. They don't mind using force. They are stupid >>>>>> and evil.
actually i want to
a) make the economy transparent. i want transparency markets, not just >>>>> free ones
b) eventually cease the use violence to enforce any particular
distribution of private property
Don't be stupid and evil Nick.
dont't be greedy and sinful wilson
I just want people free to be able to make their own decisions about
what's best for them, as long as they aren't directly harming anyone else. >>>
decisions. "I want to be able to do anything even if it is wrong."
Who would know better than yourself, what's best for you?
Would you like a list? Let's start with
doctor
nurse
medical researcher
People like that
On 3/2/26 3:42 PM, Dude wrote:
On 3/2/2026 1:28 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/2/26 11:46 AM, Dude wrote:God said in the Bible to go forth and multiply and eat fruit you pick
On 3/2/2026 11:17 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/2/26 10:18 AM, Wilson wrote:There is hope for this chat room. Good work, Nick!
On 3/2/2026 12:52 PM, dart200 wrote:THEY CAN'T DO THAT WHEN ALL THE PROPERTY IS TIED UP IN VIOLENT
On 3/2/26 9:30 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 3/1/2026 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:shut the fuck up retard, the vast vast majority of what u utilize >>>>>>> and consume is 100% produced and distributed to you, by the labor >>>>>>> of others
On 3/1/26 3:32 PM, Wilson wrote:
Without property rights, you have don't own the product of >>>>>>>>>> your labor. If you don't own your labor, you don't own
yourself. Which reduces you to the level of a serf, no better >>>>>>>>>> than and probably worse off than the poor Nick is claiming >>>>>>>>>> he's trying to help.
a) incorrect. serfs were bound to work the land, it's forced labor >>>>>>>>>
abolishing property rights does not force u to labor wilson
b) u don't have a claim on land/resources just because u did labor >>>>>>>>>
-a-a > it's really that fking simple Efn+
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
sure in an equitable system that will generally be true cause >>>>>>>>> why would people steal from each other if they are all well >>>>>>>>> raised an taken care of ...
I don't want to "be taken care of". I'm not an infant. I want to be >>>>>>>
yes you "pay" for it, but remember: price is just a number. they >>>>>>> still labored, and chanced are you've received a lot more labor >>>>>>> time than the amount u ever put back in
treated fairly and have my space and rights - including whatever >>>>>>>> property I paid for - to be respected.
Commies and other forced collectivists think they can remake
humanity into something new. They think they can redistribute >>>>>>>> property against the will of the owner. They don't mind using >>>>>>>> force. They are stupid and evil.
actually i want to
a) make the economy transparent. i want transparency markets, not >>>>>>> just free ones
b) eventually cease the use violence to enforce any particular
distribution of private property
Don't be stupid and evil Nick.
dont't be greedy and sinful wilson
I just want people free to be able to make their own decisions about >>>>>
CLAIMS WILSON
what's best for them, as long as they aren't directly harming
anyone else.
keep bleating bro, luckily ur mortal
but it's not an enforceable right due to the fact we are
dealing with a lot of zero-sum systems (like land, basic
resources, etc), and wealth inequity is a *massive* liability >>>>>>>>> to the viability of our species
OMG, muh "zero-sum systems".
there *are* zero-sum systems involved, like land, ecology, and
basic resources,
even water: much of the world is already effective in utilizing >>>>>>> all available water. if u wanted to start an operation that
required a lot of water u'd have to fight for ever that
More buzzwords that don't say anything but do make you sound
smarter to the rubes and recent college graduates (but I repeat >>>>>>>> myself).
Yes too much wealth inequality is bad because it leads to unrest >>>>>>>> and eventually violence.
that's not how 21st century wealth inequality plays out:
it stifles innovation due the abject retards projected to the top >>>>>>> of those unethical hierarchies, becomes grossly inefficient for >>>>>>> ur average consumer due to chasing number extraction instead of >>>>>>> what's best for the consumer, and is beyond negligent in managing >>>>>>> the environment to the point of being a critical liability for
this species
Ah yes, the old "What's best for the consooomer".
yes, charging more for shittier product across whole industries
the fact u even make fun of such a concept that is indicative of
how little u actually care about how will the economy function
u have no argument than continually repeated "individual choice"
I prefer to allow the individual decide what they want. It's not a >>>>>
then is your *ENTIRE* argument wilson, and it's a fucking shit one
perfect process but definitely a hell of a lot better than someone >>>>>> else choosing it for them.
Too little inequality is also bad because an open economy needs >>>>>>>> pools of wealth to do new things.
Let's talk about too little inequality.
regardless of the absolute drivel most boomers spout: public
funding has and still does lead innovation, for the most part.
even with all the retards like ur in the govt actively sabotaging >>>>>>> it's operations
so ur claim here is moot
How do you define "public funding" here? Government spending does >>>>>> quite a bit of heavy lifting in basic research but it definitely
doesn't lead in the creation of usable new things that change
people's lives.
bitch u don't even care about innovation. u are you sniveling
pathetic mortal twat who will take his sinful views rightfully to
the grave
nigga what do u expect when u preach pure selfish greed???
from the garden. Eat as much fruit as you can harvest. Then, when you
are full, just trade the rest for some nuts. It's all good!
-a > most people can't even afford a garden u dumbass
-a >
-a > #god
that's how bad it's gotten while u shove ur fingers in ur eyeballs
Over my dead body!take it to the grave dude,
exactly my point!
Because, for awhile it looked like this chat room was getting more
civil instead of more vile. You put a stop to that. Good work, Nick!
i only reflect the ethical vileness of the status quo
Ned, give this guy a star!
-a-a > the sooner the better
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
On 3/2/2026 12:17 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 11:16:25 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:"Know thyself." - Socrates
On 3/2/2026 10:38 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 13:18:28 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Did Wilson say that? It looks like you might have made that up.
wrote:
On 3/2/2026 12:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/2/26 9:30 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 3/1/2026 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:shut the fuck up retard, the vast vast majority of what u utilize and >>>>>> consume is 100% produced and distributed to you, by the labor of others >>>>>>
On 3/1/26 3:32 PM, Wilson wrote:
a) incorrect. serfs were bound to work the land, it's forced labor >>>>>>>>
Without property rights, you have don't own the product of your >>>>>>>>> labor. If you don't own your labor, you don't own yourself. Which >>>>>>>>> reduces you to the level of a serf, no better than and probably >>>>>>>>> worse off than the poor Nick is claiming he's trying to help. >>>>>>>>
abolishing property rights does not force u to labor wilson
b) u don't have a claim on land/resources just because u did labor >>>>>>>>
aa > it's really that fking simple ?
aa >
aa > #god
sure in an equitable system that will generally be true cause why >>>>>>>> would people steal from each other if they are all well raised an >>>>>>>> taken care of ...
I don't want to "be taken care of". I'm not an infant. I want to be >>>>>>
yes you "pay" for it, but remember: price is just a number. they still >>>>>> labored, and chanced are you've received a lot more labor time than the >>>>>> amount u ever put back in
treated fairly and have my space and rights - including whatever >>>>>>> property I paid for - to be respected.
Commies and other forced collectivists think they can remake humanity >>>>>>> into something new. They think they can redistribute property against >>>>>>> the will of the owner. They don't mind using force. They are stupid >>>>>>> and evil.
actually i want to
a) make the economy transparent. i want transparency markets, not just >>>>>> free ones
b) eventually cease the use violence to enforce any particular
distribution of private property
Don't be stupid and evil Nick.
dont't be greedy and sinful wilson
I just want people free to be able to make their own decisions about >>>>> what's best for them, as long as they aren't directly harming anyone else.
No concern about getting the best information in support of best
decisions. "I want to be able to do anything even if it is wrong."
Who would know better than yourself, what's best for you?
Would you like a list? Let's start with
doctor
nurse
medical researcher
People like that
On 3/2/2026 3:59 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/2/26 3:42 PM, Dude wrote:When you pry the mouse pad out of my cold dead hands.
On 3/2/2026 1:28 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/2/26 11:46 AM, Dude wrote:God said in the Bible to go forth and multiply and eat fruit you pick
On 3/2/2026 11:17 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/2/26 10:18 AM, Wilson wrote:There is hope for this chat room. Good work, Nick!
On 3/2/2026 12:52 PM, dart200 wrote:THEY CAN'T DO THAT WHEN ALL THE PROPERTY IS TIED UP IN VIOLENT
On 3/2/26 9:30 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 3/1/2026 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:shut the fuck up retard, the vast vast majority of what u utilize >>>>>>>> and consume is 100% produced and distributed to you, by the labor >>>>>>>> of others
On 3/1/26 3:32 PM, Wilson wrote:
Without property rights, you have don't own the product of >>>>>>>>>>> your labor. If you don't own your labor, you don't own
yourself. Which reduces you to the level of a serf, no better >>>>>>>>>>> than and probably worse off than the poor Nick is claiming >>>>>>>>>>> he's trying to help.
a) incorrect. serfs were bound to work the land, it's forced labor >>>>>>>>>>
abolishing property rights does not force u to labor wilson >>>>>>>>>>
b) u don't have a claim on land/resources just because u did labor >>>>>>>>>>
aa > it's really that fking simple ?
aa >
aa > #god
sure in an equitable system that will generally be true cause >>>>>>>>>> why would people steal from each other if they are all well >>>>>>>>>> raised an taken care of ...
I don't want to "be taken care of". I'm not an infant. I want to be >>>>>>>>
yes you "pay" for it, but remember: price is just a number. they >>>>>>>> still labored, and chanced are you've received a lot more labor >>>>>>>> time than the amount u ever put back in
treated fairly and have my space and rights - including whatever >>>>>>>>> property I paid for - to be respected.
Commies and other forced collectivists think they can remake >>>>>>>>> humanity into something new. They think they can redistribute >>>>>>>>> property against the will of the owner. They don't mind using >>>>>>>>> force. They are stupid and evil.
actually i want to
a) make the economy transparent. i want transparency markets, not >>>>>>>> just free ones
b) eventually cease the use violence to enforce any particular >>>>>>>> distribution of private property
Don't be stupid and evil Nick.
dont't be greedy and sinful wilson
I just want people free to be able to make their own decisions about >>>>>>
CLAIMS WILSON
what's best for them, as long as they aren't directly harming
anyone else.
keep bleating bro, luckily ur mortal
but it's not an enforceable right due to the fact we are
dealing with a lot of zero-sum systems (like land, basic
resources, etc), and wealth inequity is a *massive* liability >>>>>>>>>> to the viability of our species
OMG, muh "zero-sum systems".
there *are* zero-sum systems involved, like land, ecology, and >>>>>>>> basic resources,
even water: much of the world is already effective in utilizing >>>>>>>> all available water. if u wanted to start an operation that
required a lot of water u'd have to fight for ever that
More buzzwords that don't say anything but do make you sound >>>>>>>>> smarter to the rubes and recent college graduates (but I repeat >>>>>>>>> myself).
Yes too much wealth inequality is bad because it leads to unrest >>>>>>>>> and eventually violence.
that's not how 21st century wealth inequality plays out:
it stifles innovation due the abject retards projected to the top >>>>>>>> of those unethical hierarchies, becomes grossly inefficient for >>>>>>>> ur average consumer due to chasing number extraction instead of >>>>>>>> what's best for the consumer, and is beyond negligent in managing >>>>>>>> the environment to the point of being a critical liability for >>>>>>>> this species
Ah yes, the old "What's best for the consooomer".
yes, charging more for shittier product across whole industries
the fact u even make fun of such a concept that is indicative of
how little u actually care about how will the economy function
u have no argument than continually repeated "individual choice"
I prefer to allow the individual decide what they want. It's not a >>>>>>
then is your *ENTIRE* argument wilson, and it's a fucking shit one >>>>>>
perfect process but definitely a hell of a lot better than someone >>>>>>> else choosing it for them.
Too little inequality is also bad because an open economy needs >>>>>>>>> pools of wealth to do new things.
Let's talk about too little inequality.
regardless of the absolute drivel most boomers spout: public
funding has and still does lead innovation, for the most part. >>>>>>>> even with all the retards like ur in the govt actively sabotaging >>>>>>>> it's operations
so ur claim here is moot
How do you define "public funding" here? Government spending does >>>>>>> quite a bit of heavy lifting in basic research but it definitely >>>>>>> doesn't lead in the creation of usable new things that change
people's lives.
bitch u don't even care about innovation. u are you sniveling
pathetic mortal twat who will take his sinful views rightfully to >>>>>> the grave
nigga what do u expect when u preach pure selfish greed???
from the garden. Eat as much fruit as you can harvest. Then, when you
are full, just trade the rest for some nuts. It's all good!
a > most people can't even afford a garden u dumbass
a >
a > #god
that's how bad it's gotten while u shove ur fingers in ur eyeballs
Over my dead body!take it to the grave dude,
exactly my point!
"Here's s story about Billy Joe and Bobby Sue:
Because, for awhile it looked like this chat room was getting more
civil instead of more vile. You put a stop to that. Good work, Nick!
i only reflect the ethical vileness of the status quo
"Take The Money And Run"
https://tinyurl.com/ypap7dyh
--
Ned, give this guy a star!
aa > the sooner the better
aa >
aa > #god
On 3/1/26 4:19 PM, Dude wrote:
On 3/1/2026 3:53 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/1/26 3:32 PM, Wilson wrote:Without property, Nick, you are not secure. That's the purpose of
On 3/1/2026 6:13 PM, Dude wrote:
On 3/1/2026 2:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/1/26 2:07 PM, Wilson wrote:We are going to need to see some references backing up that theory. >>>>> Without property you have no choice, Nick.
On 3/1/2026 4:11 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/1/26 12:11 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/28/2026 4:48 PM, Dude wrote:
On 2/28/2026 12:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 11:27:18 -0800, DudeYou really like to paint with a large brush!
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/28/2026 10:23 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 12:38:33 -0500, WilsonYou made that up.
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 11:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
and then giving the service out for free, it's not a free >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> market system
Sure it is.
Wilson means unregulated.-a Free is a word that hides his >>>>>>>>>>>>> intent.
No, I observed it.
Not all Libertarians advocate for a totally unregulated free >>>>>>>>>> market economy. Most right-libertarians focus on free-market >>>>>>>>>> capitalism with just minimal government regulation.
Key word: Minimal
Libertarian ideas are based on liberal ideas:
1. Individual autonomy
2. Political self-determination
3. Equality before the law
4. Protection of civil rights, including the rights to freedom >>>>>>>>>> of association, freedom of speech, freedom of thought and >>>>>>>>>> freedom of choice.
It's a free market because it's yours. Regulated by supply >>>>>>>>>>>> and demand.
We studied this in junior college: Macro Economics 101: >>>>>>>>>>>>
The reason free markets in America are championed is it drives >>>>>>>>>>>> innovation, gives consumers choices, and fostering economic >>>>>>>>>>>> growth
through competition with limited government intervention. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Key word: Choices
For everyone.
even slaves had choices u moron,
so u can bleat on about choices all u want,
it's really just a moronic tautology
in any system: everyone has choices always
the concern is really about the *quality* of those choices,
and while the current system does better than literally slavery, >>>>>>>>
-a-a > low fking bar there
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
i cannot agree we've given enough choice to abide by the rights >>>>>>>>
-a-a > life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
even in this country, let alone the rest of the world
It's only a starting point Nick.
excuses
If we've not been given enough choice to abide by the rights of >>>>>>> life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, is the right direction >>>>>>> more or less choice?
property restricts choice more than it improves, for the vast vast >>>>>> majority of people
dude fails to respond again
Without property rights, you have don't own the product of your
labor. If you don't own your labor, you don't own yourself. Which
reduces you to the level of a serf, no better than and probably
worse off than the poor Nick is claiming he's trying to help.
a) incorrect. serfs were bound to work the land, it's forced labor
abolishing property rights does not force u to labor wilson
b) u don't have a claim on land/resources just because u did labor
-a-a > it's really that fking simple Efn+
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
sure in an equitable system that will generally be true cause why
would people steal from each other if they are all well raised an
taken care of ...
but it's not an enforceable right due to the fact we are dealing with
a lot of zero-sum systems (like land, basic resources, etc), and
wealth inequity is a *massive* liability to the viability of our species >>>
government, to insure you're safe on your own property and person.
It's not as complicated as you think. You have an inalienable right to
life, liberty and property.
that was life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness my dude
-a > ownership not required
-a >
-a > #god
On 3/1/2026 10:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/1/26 4:19 PM, Dude wrote:Happiness is being secure in your own property. Get back on the bus!
On 3/1/2026 3:53 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/1/26 3:32 PM, Wilson wrote:Without property, Nick, you are not secure. That's the purpose of
On 3/1/2026 6:13 PM, Dude wrote:
On 3/1/2026 2:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/1/26 2:07 PM, Wilson wrote:We are going to need to see some references backing up that theory. >>>>>> Without property you have no choice, Nick.
On 3/1/2026 4:11 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/1/26 12:11 PM, Wilson wrote:
On 2/28/2026 4:48 PM, Dude wrote:
On 2/28/2026 12:58 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 11:27:18 -0800, DudeYou really like to paint with a large brush!
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/28/2026 10:23 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 12:38:33 -0500, WilsonYou made that up.
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/27/2026 11:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
and then giving the service out for free, it's not a free >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> market system
Sure it is.
Wilson means unregulated.a Free is a word that hides his >>>>>>>>>>>>>> intent.
No, I observed it.
Not all Libertarians advocate for a totally unregulated free >>>>>>>>>>> market economy. Most right-libertarians focus on free-market >>>>>>>>>>> capitalism with just minimal government regulation.
Key word: Minimal
Libertarian ideas are based on liberal ideas:
1. Individual autonomy
2. Political self-determination
3. Equality before the law
4. Protection of civil rights, including the rights to freedom >>>>>>>>>>> of association, freedom of speech, freedom of thought and >>>>>>>>>>> freedom of choice.
It's a free market because it's yours. Regulated by supply >>>>>>>>>>>>> and demand.
We studied this in junior college: Macro Economics 101: >>>>>>>>>>>>>
The reason free markets in America are championed is it drives >>>>>>>>>>>>> innovation, gives consumers choices, and fostering economic >>>>>>>>>>>>> growth
through competition with limited government intervention. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Key word: Choices
For everyone.
even slaves had choices u moron,
so u can bleat on about choices all u want,
it's really just a moronic tautology
in any system: everyone has choices always
the concern is really about the *quality* of those choices,
and while the current system does better than literally slavery, >>>>>>>>>
aa > low fking bar there
aa >
aa > #god
i cannot agree we've given enough choice to abide by the rights >>>>>>>>>
aa > life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness
aa >
aa > #god
even in this country, let alone the rest of the world
It's only a starting point Nick.
excuses
If we've not been given enough choice to abide by the rights of >>>>>>>> life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, is the right direction >>>>>>>> more or less choice?
property restricts choice more than it improves, for the vast vast >>>>>>> majority of people
dude fails to respond again
Without property rights, you have don't own the product of your
labor. If you don't own your labor, you don't own yourself. Which
reduces you to the level of a serf, no better than and probably
worse off than the poor Nick is claiming he's trying to help.
a) incorrect. serfs were bound to work the land, it's forced labor
abolishing property rights does not force u to labor wilson
b) u don't have a claim on land/resources just because u did labor
aa > it's really that fking simple ?
aa >
aa > #god
sure in an equitable system that will generally be true cause why
would people steal from each other if they are all well raised an
taken care of ...
but it's not an enforceable right due to the fact we are dealing with >>>> a lot of zero-sum systems (like land, basic resources, etc), and
wealth inequity is a *massive* liability to the viability of our species >>>>
government, to insure you're safe on your own property and person.
It's not as complicated as you think. You have an inalienable right to
life, liberty and property.
that was life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness my dude
--a > ownership not required
a >
a > #god
On 3/1/26 3:32 PM, Wilson wrote:
Without property rights, you have don't own the product of your labor.
If you don't own your labor, you don't own yourself. Which reduces you
to the level of a serf, no better than and probably worse off than the
poor Nick is claiming he's trying to help.
a) incorrect. serfs were bound to work the land, it's forced labor
abolishing property rights does not force u to labor wilson
b) u don't have a claim on land/resources just because u did labor
-a > it's really that fking simple Efn+
-a >
-a > #god
sure in an equitable system that will generally be true cause why would people steal from each other if they are all well raised an taken care
of ...
but it's not an enforceable right due to the fact we are dealing with a
lot of zero-sum systems (like land, basic resources, etc), and wealth inequity is a *massive* liability to the viability of our species
On 3/1/2026 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/1/26 3:32 PM, Wilson wrote:
Without property rights, you have don't own the product of your labor.
If you don't own your labor, you don't own yourself. Which reduces you
to the level of a serf, no better than and probably worse off than the
poor Nick is claiming he's trying to help.
a) incorrect. serfs were bound to work the land, it's forced labor
abolishing property rights does not force u to labor wilson
b) u don't have a claim on land/resources just because u did labor
a > it's really that fking simple ?
a >
a > #god
sure in an equitable system that will generally be true cause why would
people steal from each other if they are all well raised an taken care
of ...
I don't want to "be taken care of". I'm not an infant. I want to be
treated fairly and have my space and rights - including whatever
property I paid for - to be respected.
Commies and other forced collectivists think they can remake humanity
into something new. They think they can redistribute property against
the will of the owner. They don't mind using force. They are stupid and >evil.
Don't be stupid and evil Nick.
--
but it's not an enforceable right due to the fact we are dealing with a
lot of zero-sum systems (like land, basic resources, etc), and wealth
inequity is a *massive* liability to the viability of our species
OMG, muh "zero-sum systems".
More buzzwords that don't say anything but do make you sound smarter to
the rubes and recent college graduates (but I repeat myself).
Yes too much wealth inequality is bad because it leads to unrest and >eventually violence.
Too little inequality is also bad because an open economy needs pools of >wealth to do new things.
Let's talk about too little inequality.
On 3/1/2026 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/1/26 3:32 PM, Wilson wrote:
Without property rights, you have don't own the product of your
labor. If you don't own your labor, you don't own yourself. Which
reduces you to the level of a serf, no better than and probably worse
off than the poor Nick is claiming he's trying to help.
a) incorrect. serfs were bound to work the land, it's forced labor
abolishing property rights does not force u to labor wilson
b) u don't have a claim on land/resources just because u did labor
-a-a > it's really that fking simple Efn+
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
sure in an equitable system that will generally be true cause why
would people steal from each other if they are all well raised an
taken care of ...
I don't want to "be taken care of". I'm not an infant. I want to be
treated fairly and have my space and rights - including whatever
property I paid for - to be respected.
Commies and other forced collectivists think they can remake humanity
into something new. They think they can redistribute property against
the will of the owner. They don't mind using force. They are stupid and evil.
Don't be stupid and evil Nick.
but it's not an enforceable right due to the fact we are dealing with
a lot of zero-sum systems (like land, basic resources, etc), and
wealth inequity is a *massive* liability to the viability of our species
OMG, muh "zero-sum systems".
More buzzwords that don't say anything but do make you sound smarter to
the rubes and recent college graduates (but I repeat myself).
Yes too much wealth inequality is bad because it leads to unrest and eventually violence.
Too little inequality is also bad because an open economy needs pools of wealth to do new things.
Let's talk about too little inequality.
On 3/2/26 9:30 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 3/1/2026 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/1/26 3:32 PM, Wilson wrote:
Without property rights, you have don't own the product of your
labor. If you don't own your labor, you don't own yourself. Which
reduces you to the level of a serf, no better than and probably
worse off than the poor Nick is claiming he's trying to help.
a) incorrect. serfs were bound to work the land, it's forced labor
abolishing property rights does not force u to labor wilson
b) u don't have a claim on land/resources just because u did labor
-a-a > it's really that fking simple Efn+
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
sure in an equitable system that will generally be true cause why
would people steal from each other if they are all well raised an
taken care of ...
I don't want to "be taken care of". I'm not an infant. I want to be
shut the fuck up retard, the vast vast majority of what u utilize and consume is 100% produced and distributed to you, by the labor of others
yes you "pay" for it, but remember: price is just a number. they still labored, and chanced are you've received a lot more labor time than the amount u ever put back in
treated fairly and have my space and rights - including whatever
property I paid for - to be respected.
Commies and other forced collectivists think they can remake humanity
into something new. They think they can redistribute property against
the will of the owner. They don't mind using force. They are stupid
and evil.
actually i want to
a) make the economy transparent. i want transparency markets, not just
free ones
b) eventually cease the use violence to enforce any particular
distribution of private property
Don't be stupid and evil Nick.
dont't be greedy and sinful wilson
but it's not an enforceable right due to the fact we are dealing with
a lot of zero-sum systems (like land, basic resources, etc), and
wealth inequity is a *massive* liability to the viability of our species >>>
OMG, muh "zero-sum systems".
there *are* zero-sum systems involved, like land, ecology, and basic resources,
even water: much of the world is already effective in utilizing all available water. if u wanted to start an operation that required a lot
of water u'd have to fight for ever that
More buzzwords that don't say anything but do make you sound smarter
to the rubes and recent college graduates (but I repeat myself).
Yes too much wealth inequality is bad because it leads to unrest and
eventually violence.
that's not how 21st century wealth inequality plays out:
it stifles innovation due the abject retards projected to the top of
those unethical hierarchies, becomes grossly inefficient for ur average consumer due to chasing number extraction instead of what's best for the consumer, and is beyond negligent in managing the environment to the
point of being a critical liability for this species
Too little inequality is also bad because an open economy needs pools
of wealth to do new things.
Let's talk about too little inequality.
regardless of the absolute drivel most boomers spout: public funding has
and still does lead innovation, for the most part. even with all the
retards like ur in the govt actively sabotaging it's operations
so ur claim here is moot
On 3/2/2026 12:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/2/26 9:30 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 3/1/2026 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/1/26 3:32 PM, Wilson wrote:
Without property rights, you have don't own the product of your
labor. If you don't own your labor, you don't own yourself. Which
reduces you to the level of a serf, no better than and probably
worse off than the poor Nick is claiming he's trying to help.
a) incorrect. serfs were bound to work the land, it's forced labor
abolishing property rights does not force u to labor wilson
b) u don't have a claim on land/resources just because u did labor
aa > it's really that fking simple ?
aa >
aa > #god
sure in an equitable system that will generally be true cause why
would people steal from each other if they are all well raised an
taken care of ...
I don't want to "be taken care of". I'm not an infant. I want to be
shut the fuck up retard, the vast vast majority of what u utilize and
consume is 100% produced and distributed to you, by the labor of others
yes you "pay" for it, but remember: price is just a number. they still
labored, and chanced are you've received a lot more labor time than the
amount u ever put back in
treated fairly and have my space and rights - including whatever
property I paid for - to be respected.
Commies and other forced collectivists think they can remake humanity
into something new. They think they can redistribute property against
the will of the owner. They don't mind using force. They are stupid
and evil.
actually i want to
a) make the economy transparent. i want transparency markets, not just
free ones
b) eventually cease the use violence to enforce any particular
distribution of private property
Don't be stupid and evil Nick.
dont't be greedy and sinful wilson
I just want people free to be able to make their own decisions about
what's best for them, as long as they aren't directly harming anyone else.
--but it's not an enforceable right due to the fact we are dealing with >>>> a lot of zero-sum systems (like land, basic resources, etc), and
wealth inequity is a *massive* liability to the viability of our species >>>>
OMG, muh "zero-sum systems".
there *are* zero-sum systems involved, like land, ecology, and basic
resources,
even water: much of the world is already effective in utilizing all
available water. if u wanted to start an operation that required a lot
of water u'd have to fight for ever that
More buzzwords that don't say anything but do make you sound smarter
to the rubes and recent college graduates (but I repeat myself).
Yes too much wealth inequality is bad because it leads to unrest and
eventually violence.
that's not how 21st century wealth inequality plays out:
it stifles innovation due the abject retards projected to the top of
those unethical hierarchies, becomes grossly inefficient for ur average
consumer due to chasing number extraction instead of what's best for the
consumer, and is beyond negligent in managing the environment to the
point of being a critical liability for this species
Ah yes, the old "What's best for the consooomer".
I prefer to allow the individual decide what they want. It's not a
perfect process but definitely a hell of a lot better than someone else >choosing it for them.
Too little inequality is also bad because an open economy needs pools
of wealth to do new things.
Let's talk about too little inequality.
regardless of the absolute drivel most boomers spout: public funding has
and still does lead innovation, for the most part. even with all the
retards like ur in the govt actively sabotaging it's operations
so ur claim here is moot
How do you define "public funding" here? Government spending does quite
a bit of heavy lifting in basic research but it definitely doesn't lead
in the creation of usable new things that change people's lives.
On 3/1/2026 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/1/26 3:32 PM, Wilson wrote:
Without property rights, you have don't own the product of your
labor. If you don't own your labor, you don't own yourself. Which
reduces you to the level of a serf, no better than and probably worse
off than the poor Nick is claiming he's trying to help.
a) incorrect. serfs were bound to work the land, it's forced labor
abolishing property rights does not force u to labor wilson
b) u don't have a claim on land/resources just because u did labor
-a-a > it's really that fking simple Efn+
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
sure in an equitable system that will generally be true cause why
would people steal from each other if they are all well raised an
taken care of ...
I don't want to "be taken care of". I'm not an infant. I want to be
treated fairly and have my space and rights - including whatever
property I paid for - to be respected.
Commies and other forced collectivists think they can remake humanity
into something new. They think they can redistribute property against
the will of the owner. They don't mind using force. They are stupid and evil.
Don't be stupid and evil Nick.
but it's not an enforceable right due to the fact we are dealing with
a lot of zero-sum systems (like land, basic resources, etc), and
wealth inequity is a *massive* liability to the viability of our species
OMG, muh "zero-sum systems".
More buzzwords that don't say anything but do make you sound smarter to
the rubes and recent college graduates (but I repeat myself).
Yes too much wealth inequality is bad because it leads to unrest and eventually violence.
Too little inequality is also bad because an open economy needs pools of wealth to do new things.
Let's talk about too little inequality.
On 3/2/26 9:30 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 3/1/2026 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/1/26 3:32 PM, Wilson wrote:
Without property rights, you have don't own the product of your
labor. If you don't own your labor, you don't own yourself. Which
reduces you to the level of a serf, no better than and probably
worse off than the poor Nick is claiming he's trying to help.
a) incorrect. serfs were bound to work the land, it's forced labor
abolishing property rights does not force u to labor wilson
b) u don't have a claim on land/resources just because u did labor
-a-a > it's really that fking simple Efn+
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
sure in an equitable system that will generally be true cause why
would people steal from each other if they are all well raised an
taken care of ...
I don't want to "be taken care of". I'm not an infant. I want to be
shut the fuck up retard, the vast vast majority of what u utilize and consume is 100% produced and distributed to you, by the labor of others
yes you "pay" for it, but remember: price is just a number. they still labored, and chanced are you've received a lot more labor time than the amount u ever put back in
treated fairly and have my space and rights - including whatever
property I paid for - to be respected.
Commies and other forced collectivists think they can remake humanity
into something new. They think they can redistribute property against
the will of the owner. They don't mind using force. They are stupid
and evil.
actually i want to
a) make the economy transparent. i want transparency markets, not just
free ones
b) eventually cease the use violence to enforce any particular
distribution of private property
Don't be stupid and evil Nick.
dont't be greedy and sinful wilson
but it's not an enforceable right due to the fact we are dealing with
a lot of zero-sum systems (like land, basic resources, etc), and
wealth inequity is a *massive* liability to the viability of our species >>>
OMG, muh "zero-sum systems".
there *are* zero-sum systems involved, like land, ecology, and basic resources,
even water: much of the world is already effective in utilizing all available water. if u wanted to start an operation that required a lot
of water u'd have to fight for ever that
More buzzwords that don't say anything but do make you sound smarter
to the rubes and recent college graduates (but I repeat myself).
Yes too much wealth inequality is bad because it leads to unrest and
eventually violence.
that's not how 21st century wealth inequality plays out:
it stifles innovation due the abject retards projected to the top of
those unethical hierarchies, becomes grossly inefficient for ur average consumer due to chasing number extraction instead of what's best for the consumer, and is beyond negligent in managing the environment to the
point of being a critical liability for this species
Too little inequality is also bad because an open economy needs pools
of wealth to do new things.
Let's talk about too little inequality.
regardless of the absolute drivel most boomers spout: public funding has
and still does lead innovation, for the most part. even with all the
retards like ur in the govt actively sabotaging it's operations
so ur claim here is moot
On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 13:18:28 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 3/2/2026 12:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/2/26 9:30 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 3/1/2026 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/1/26 3:32 PM, Wilson wrote:
Without property rights, you have don't own the product of your
labor. If you don't own your labor, you don't own yourself. Which
reduces you to the level of a serf, no better than and probably
worse off than the poor Nick is claiming he's trying to help.
a) incorrect. serfs were bound to work the land, it's forced labor
abolishing property rights does not force u to labor wilson
b) u don't have a claim on land/resources just because u did labor
-a-a > it's really that fking simple ?
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
sure in an equitable system that will generally be true cause why
would people steal from each other if they are all well raised an
taken care of ...
I don't want to "be taken care of". I'm not an infant. I want to be
shut the fuck up retard, the vast vast majority of what u utilize and
consume is 100% produced and distributed to you, by the labor of others
yes you "pay" for it, but remember: price is just a number. they still
labored, and chanced are you've received a lot more labor time than the
amount u ever put back in
treated fairly and have my space and rights - including whatever
property I paid for - to be respected.
Commies and other forced collectivists think they can remake humanity
into something new. They think they can redistribute property against
the will of the owner. They don't mind using force. They are stupid
and evil.
actually i want to
a) make the economy transparent. i want transparency markets, not just
free ones
b) eventually cease the use violence to enforce any particular
distribution of private property
Don't be stupid and evil Nick.
dont't be greedy and sinful wilson
I just want people free to be able to make their own decisions about
what's best for them, as long as they aren't directly harming anyone else.
No concern about getting the best information in support of best
decisions. "I want to be able to do anything even if it is wrong."
but it's not an enforceable right due to the fact we are dealing with >>>>> a lot of zero-sum systems (like land, basic resources, etc), and
wealth inequity is a *massive* liability to the viability of our species >>>>>
OMG, muh "zero-sum systems".
there *are* zero-sum systems involved, like land, ecology, and basic
resources,
even water: much of the world is already effective in utilizing all
available water. if u wanted to start an operation that required a lot
of water u'd have to fight for ever that
More buzzwords that don't say anything but do make you sound smarter
to the rubes and recent college graduates (but I repeat myself).
Yes too much wealth inequality is bad because it leads to unrest and
eventually violence.
that's not how 21st century wealth inequality plays out:
it stifles innovation due the abject retards projected to the top of
those unethical hierarchies, becomes grossly inefficient for ur average
consumer due to chasing number extraction instead of what's best for the >>> consumer, and is beyond negligent in managing the environment to the
point of being a critical liability for this species
Ah yes, the old "What's best for the consooomer".
I prefer to allow the individual decide what they want. It's not a
perfect process but definitely a hell of a lot better than someone else
choosing it for them.
Too little inequality is also bad because an open economy needs pools
of wealth to do new things.
Let's talk about too little inequality.
regardless of the absolute drivel most boomers spout: public funding has >>> and still does lead innovation, for the most part. even with all the
retards like ur in the govt actively sabotaging it's operations
so ur claim here is moot
How do you define "public funding" here? Government spending does quite
a bit of heavy lifting in basic research but it definitely doesn't lead
in the creation of usable new things that change people's lives.
On 3/2/2026 12:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/2/26 9:30 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 3/1/2026 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/1/26 3:32 PM, Wilson wrote:
Without property rights, you have don't own the product of your
labor. If you don't own your labor, you don't own yourself. Which
reduces you to the level of a serf, no better than and probably
worse off than the poor Nick is claiming he's trying to help.
a) incorrect. serfs were bound to work the land, it's forced labor
abolishing property rights does not force u to labor wilson
b) u don't have a claim on land/resources just because u did labor
-a-a > it's really that fking simple Efn+
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
sure in an equitable system that will generally be true cause why
would people steal from each other if they are all well raised an
taken care of ...
I don't want to "be taken care of". I'm not an infant. I want to be
shut the fuck up retard, the vast vast majority of what u utilize and
consume is 100% produced and distributed to you, by the labor of others
yes you "pay" for it, but remember: price is just a number. they still
labored, and chanced are you've received a lot more labor time than
the amount u ever put back in
treated fairly and have my space and rights - including whatever
property I paid for - to be respected.
Commies and other forced collectivists think they can remake humanity
into something new. They think they can redistribute property against
the will of the owner. They don't mind using force. They are stupid
and evil.
actually i want to
a) make the economy transparent. i want transparency markets, not just
free ones
b) eventually cease the use violence to enforce any particular
distribution of private property
Don't be stupid and evil Nick.
dont't be greedy and sinful wilson
I just want people free to be able to make their own decisions about
what's best for them, as long as they aren't directly harming anyone else.
but it's not an enforceable right due to the fact we are dealing
with a lot of zero-sum systems (like land, basic resources, etc),
and wealth inequity is a *massive* liability to the viability of our
species
OMG, muh "zero-sum systems".
there *are* zero-sum systems involved, like land, ecology, and basic
resources,
even water: much of the world is already effective in utilizing all
available water. if u wanted to start an operation that required a lot
of water u'd have to fight for ever that
More buzzwords that don't say anything but do make you sound smarter
to the rubes and recent college graduates (but I repeat myself).
Yes too much wealth inequality is bad because it leads to unrest and
eventually violence.
that's not how 21st century wealth inequality plays out:
it stifles innovation due the abject retards projected to the top of
those unethical hierarchies, becomes grossly inefficient for ur
average consumer due to chasing number extraction instead of what's
best for the consumer, and is beyond negligent in managing the
environment to the point of being a critical liability for this species
Ah yes, the old "What's best for the consooomer".
I prefer to allow the individual decide what they want. It's not a
perfect process but definitely a hell of a lot better than someone else choosing it for them.
Too little inequality is also bad because an open economy needs pools
of wealth to do new things.
Let's talk about too little inequality.
regardless of the absolute drivel most boomers spout: public funding
has and still does lead innovation, for the most part. even with all
the retards like ur in the govt actively sabotaging it's operations
so ur claim here is moot
How do you define "public funding" here? Government spending does quite
a bit of heavy lifting in basic research but it definitely doesn't lead
in the creation of usable new things that change people's lives.
On 3/2/26 10:18 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 3/2/2026 12:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/2/26 9:30 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 3/1/2026 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/1/26 3:32 PM, Wilson wrote:
Without property rights, you have don't own the product of your
labor. If you don't own your labor, you don't own yourself. Which >>>>>> reduces you to the level of a serf, no better than and probably
worse off than the poor Nick is claiming he's trying to help.
a) incorrect. serfs were bound to work the land, it's forced labor
abolishing property rights does not force u to labor wilson
b) u don't have a claim on land/resources just because u did labor
-a-a > it's really that fking simple Efn+
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
sure in an equitable system that will generally be true cause why
would people steal from each other if they are all well raised an
taken care of ...
I don't want to "be taken care of". I'm not an infant. I want to be
shut the fuck up retard, the vast vast majority of what u utilize and
consume is 100% produced and distributed to you, by the labor of others
yes you "pay" for it, but remember: price is just a number. they
still labored, and chanced are you've received a lot more labor time
than the amount u ever put back in
treated fairly and have my space and rights - including whatever
property I paid for - to be respected.
Commies and other forced collectivists think they can remake
humanity into something new. They think they can redistribute
property against the will of the owner. They don't mind using force.
They are stupid and evil.
actually i want to
a) make the economy transparent. i want transparency markets, not
just free ones
b) eventually cease the use violence to enforce any particular
distribution of private property
Don't be stupid and evil Nick.
dont't be greedy and sinful wilson
I just want people free to be able to make their own decisions about
THEY CAN'T DO THAT WHEN ALL THE PROPERTY IS TIED UP IN VIOLENT CLAIMS
WILSON
what's best for them, as long as they aren't directly harming anyone
else.
keep bleating bro, luckily ur mortal
but it's not an enforceable right due to the fact we are dealing
with a lot of zero-sum systems (like land, basic resources, etc),
and wealth inequity is a *massive* liability to the viability of
our species
OMG, muh "zero-sum systems".
there *are* zero-sum systems involved, like land, ecology, and basic
resources,
even water: much of the world is already effective in utilizing all
available water. if u wanted to start an operation that required a
lot of water u'd have to fight for ever that
More buzzwords that don't say anything but do make you sound smarter
to the rubes and recent college graduates (but I repeat myself).
Yes too much wealth inequality is bad because it leads to unrest and
eventually violence.
that's not how 21st century wealth inequality plays out:
it stifles innovation due the abject retards projected to the top of
those unethical hierarchies, becomes grossly inefficient for ur
average consumer due to chasing number extraction instead of what's
best for the consumer, and is beyond negligent in managing the
environment to the point of being a critical liability for this species
Ah yes, the old "What's best for the consooomer".
yes, charging more for shittier product across whole industries
the fact u even make fun of such a concept that is indicative of how
little u actually care about how will the economy function
I prefer to allow the individual decide what they want. It's not a
u have no argument than continually repeated "individual choice"
then is your *ENTIRE* argument wilson, and it's a fucking shit one
perfect process but definitely a hell of a lot better than someone
else choosing it for them.
Too little inequality is also bad because an open economy needs
pools of wealth to do new things.
Let's talk about too little inequality.
regardless of the absolute drivel most boomers spout: public funding
has and still does lead innovation, for the most part. even with all
the retards like ur in the govt actively sabotaging it's operations
so ur claim here is moot
How do you define "public funding" here? Government spending does
quite a bit of heavy lifting in basic research but it definitely
doesn't lead in the creation of usable new things that change people's
lives.
bitch u don't even care about innovation. u are you sniveling pathetic mortal twat who will take his sinful views rightfully to the grave
-a > the sooner the better
-a >
-a > #god
On 3/2/2026 10:38 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 13:18:28 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Did Wilson say that? It looks like you might have made that up.
wrote:
On 3/2/2026 12:52 PM, dart200 wrote:No concern about getting the best information in support of best
On 3/2/26 9:30 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 3/1/2026 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/1/26 3:32 PM, Wilson wrote:
Without property rights, you have don't own the product of your
labor. If you don't own your labor, you don't own yourself. Which >>>>>>> reduces you to the level of a serf, no better than and probably
worse off than the poor Nick is claiming he's trying to help.
a) incorrect. serfs were bound to work the land, it's forced labor >>>>>>
abolishing property rights does not force u to labor wilson
b) u don't have a claim on land/resources just because u did labor >>>>>>
aa > it's really that fking simple ?
aa >
aa > #god
sure in an equitable system that will generally be true cause why
would people steal from each other if they are all well raised an
taken care of ...
I don't want to "be taken care of". I'm not an infant. I want to be
shut the fuck up retard, the vast vast majority of what u utilize and
consume is 100% produced and distributed to you, by the labor of others >>>>
yes you "pay" for it, but remember: price is just a number. they still >>>> labored, and chanced are you've received a lot more labor time than the >>>> amount u ever put back in
treated fairly and have my space and rights - including whatever
property I paid for - to be respected.
Commies and other forced collectivists think they can remake humanity >>>>> into something new. They think they can redistribute property against >>>>> the will of the owner. They don't mind using force. They are stupid
and evil.
actually i want to
a) make the economy transparent. i want transparency markets, not just >>>> free ones
b) eventually cease the use violence to enforce any particular
distribution of private property
Don't be stupid and evil Nick.
dont't be greedy and sinful wilson
I just want people free to be able to make their own decisions about
what's best for them, as long as they aren't directly harming anyone else. >>
decisions. "I want to be able to do anything even if it is wrong."
Who would know better than yourself, what's best for you?
--
but it's not an enforceable right due to the fact we are dealing with >>>>>> a lot of zero-sum systems (like land, basic resources, etc), and
wealth inequity is a *massive* liability to the viability of our species >>>>>>
OMG, muh "zero-sum systems".
there *are* zero-sum systems involved, like land, ecology, and basic
resources,
even water: much of the world is already effective in utilizing all
available water. if u wanted to start an operation that required a lot >>>> of water u'd have to fight for ever that
More buzzwords that don't say anything but do make you sound smarter >>>>> to the rubes and recent college graduates (but I repeat myself).
Yes too much wealth inequality is bad because it leads to unrest and >>>>> eventually violence.
that's not how 21st century wealth inequality plays out:
it stifles innovation due the abject retards projected to the top of
those unethical hierarchies, becomes grossly inefficient for ur average >>>> consumer due to chasing number extraction instead of what's best for the >>>> consumer, and is beyond negligent in managing the environment to the
point of being a critical liability for this species
Ah yes, the old "What's best for the consooomer".
I prefer to allow the individual decide what they want. It's not a
perfect process but definitely a hell of a lot better than someone else
choosing it for them.
Too little inequality is also bad because an open economy needs pools >>>>> of wealth to do new things.
Let's talk about too little inequality.
regardless of the absolute drivel most boomers spout: public funding has >>>> and still does lead innovation, for the most part. even with all the
retards like ur in the govt actively sabotaging it's operations
so ur claim here is moot
How do you define "public funding" here? Government spending does quite
a bit of heavy lifting in basic research but it definitely doesn't lead
in the creation of usable new things that change people's lives.
On 3/2/2026 9:30 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 3/1/2026 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:Wilson has them both sitting on a stick, spinning. Good work Noah and
On 3/1/26 3:32 PM, Wilson wrote:
Without property rights, you have don't own the product of your
labor. If you don't own your labor, you don't own yourself. Which
reduces you to the level of a serf, no better than and probably worse >>>> off than the poor Nick is claiming he's trying to help.
a) incorrect. serfs were bound to work the land, it's forced labor
abolishing property rights does not force u to labor wilson
b) u don't have a claim on land/resources just because u did labor
aa > it's really that fking simple ?
aa >
aa > #god
sure in an equitable system that will generally be true cause why
would people steal from each other if they are all well raised an
taken care of ...
I don't want to "be taken care of". I'm not an infant. I want to be
treated fairly and have my space and rights - including whatever
property I paid for - to be respected.
Commies and other forced collectivists think they can remake humanity
into something new. They think they can redistribute property against
the will of the owner. They don't mind using force. They are stupid and
evil.
Don't be stupid and evil Nick.
Nick! Maybe go back to school, learn a little about US Bill of Right.
Speaking of commies:
Karl Marx rejected the idea that human rights are innate, natural, or >universal, viewing them instead as historical constructs of bourgeois >society that protect private property and egoistic individuals.
Key words Innate" Rights
According to Marx, rights are not eternal truths; they are legal
relations linked to specific historical moments and economic structures.
--
but it's not an enforceable right due to the fact we are dealing with
a lot of zero-sum systems (like land, basic resources, etc), and
wealth inequity is a *massive* liability to the viability of our species >>>
OMG, muh "zero-sum systems".
More buzzwords that don't say anything but do make you sound smarter to
the rubes and recent college graduates (but I repeat myself).
Yes too much wealth inequality is bad because it leads to unrest and
eventually violence.
Too little inequality is also bad because an open economy needs pools of
wealth to do new things.
Let's talk about too little inequality.
On 3/2/2026 11:17 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/2/26 10:18 AM, Wilson wrote:There is hope for this chat room. Good work, Nick!
On 3/2/2026 12:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/2/26 9:30 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 3/1/2026 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/1/26 3:32 PM, Wilson wrote:
Without property rights, you have don't own the product of your >>>>>>> labor. If you don't own your labor, you don't own yourself. Which >>>>>>> reduces you to the level of a serf, no better than and probably >>>>>>> worse off than the poor Nick is claiming he's trying to help.
a) incorrect. serfs were bound to work the land, it's forced labor >>>>>>
abolishing property rights does not force u to labor wilson
b) u don't have a claim on land/resources just because u did labor >>>>>>
-a-a > it's really that fking simple Efn+
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
sure in an equitable system that will generally be true cause why >>>>>> would people steal from each other if they are all well raised an >>>>>> taken care of ...
I don't want to "be taken care of". I'm not an infant. I want to be
shut the fuck up retard, the vast vast majority of what u utilize
and consume is 100% produced and distributed to you, by the labor of
others
yes you "pay" for it, but remember: price is just a number. they
still labored, and chanced are you've received a lot more labor time
than the amount u ever put back in
treated fairly and have my space and rights - including whatever
property I paid for - to be respected.
Commies and other forced collectivists think they can remake
humanity into something new. They think they can redistribute
property against the will of the owner. They don't mind using
force. They are stupid and evil.
actually i want to
a) make the economy transparent. i want transparency markets, not
just free ones
b) eventually cease the use violence to enforce any particular
distribution of private property
Don't be stupid and evil Nick.
dont't be greedy and sinful wilson
I just want people free to be able to make their own decisions about
THEY CAN'T DO THAT WHEN ALL THE PROPERTY IS TIED UP IN VIOLENT CLAIMS
WILSON
what's best for them, as long as they aren't directly harming anyone
else.
keep bleating bro, luckily ur mortal
Ah yes, the old "What's best for the consooomer".but it's not an enforceable right due to the fact we are dealing
with a lot of zero-sum systems (like land, basic resources, etc), >>>>>> and wealth inequity is a *massive* liability to the viability of
our species
OMG, muh "zero-sum systems".
there *are* zero-sum systems involved, like land, ecology, and basic
resources,
even water: much of the world is already effective in utilizing all
available water. if u wanted to start an operation that required a
lot of water u'd have to fight for ever that
More buzzwords that don't say anything but do make you sound
smarter to the rubes and recent college graduates (but I repeat
myself).
Yes too much wealth inequality is bad because it leads to unrest
and eventually violence.
that's not how 21st century wealth inequality plays out:
it stifles innovation due the abject retards projected to the top of
those unethical hierarchies, becomes grossly inefficient for ur
average consumer due to chasing number extraction instead of what's
best for the consumer, and is beyond negligent in managing the
environment to the point of being a critical liability for this species >>>
yes, charging more for shittier product across whole industries
the fact u even make fun of such a concept that is indicative of how
little u actually care about how will the economy function
I prefer to allow the individual decide what they want. It's not a
u have no argument than continually repeated "individual choice"
then is your *ENTIRE* argument wilson, and it's a fucking shit one
perfect process but definitely a hell of a lot better than someone
else choosing it for them.
Too little inequality is also bad because an open economy needs
pools of wealth to do new things.
Let's talk about too little inequality.
regardless of the absolute drivel most boomers spout: public funding
has and still does lead innovation, for the most part. even with all
the retards like ur in the govt actively sabotaging it's operations
so ur claim here is moot
How do you define "public funding" here? Government spending does
quite a bit of heavy lifting in basic research but it definitely
doesn't lead in the creation of usable new things that change
people's lives.
bitch u don't even care about innovation. u are you sniveling pathetic
mortal twat who will take his sinful views rightfully to the grave
-a-a > the sooner the better
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 13:18:28 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 3/2/2026 12:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/2/26 9:30 AM, Wilson wrote:
Commies and other forced collectivists think they can remake humanity
into something new. They think they can redistribute property against
the will of the owner. They don't mind using force. They are stupid
and evil.
actually i want to
a) make the economy transparent. i want transparency markets, not just
free ones
b) eventually cease the use violence to enforce any particular
distribution of private property
Don't be stupid and evil Nick.
dont't be greedy and sinful wilson
I just want people free to be able to make their own decisions about
what's best for them, as long as they aren't directly harming anyone else.
No concern about getting the best information in support of best
decisions. "I want to be able to do anything even if it is wrong."
On 3/2/26 10:18 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 3/2/2026 12:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/2/26 9:30 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 3/1/2026 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/1/26 3:32 PM, Wilson wrote:
Without property rights, you have don't own the product of your
labor. If you don't own your labor, you don't own yourself. Which >>>>>> reduces you to the level of a serf, no better than and probably
worse off than the poor Nick is claiming he's trying to help.
a) incorrect. serfs were bound to work the land, it's forced labor
abolishing property rights does not force u to labor wilson
b) u don't have a claim on land/resources just because u did labor
-a-a > it's really that fking simple Efn+
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
sure in an equitable system that will generally be true cause why
would people steal from each other if they are all well raised an
taken care of ...
I don't want to "be taken care of". I'm not an infant. I want to be
shut the fuck up retard, the vast vast majority of what u utilize and
consume is 100% produced and distributed to you, by the labor of others
yes you "pay" for it, but remember: price is just a number. they
still labored, and chanced are you've received a lot more labor time
than the amount u ever put back in
treated fairly and have my space and rights - including whatever
property I paid for - to be respected.
Commies and other forced collectivists think they can remake
humanity into something new. They think they can redistribute
property against the will of the owner. They don't mind using force.
They are stupid and evil.
actually i want to
a) make the economy transparent. i want transparency markets, not
just free ones
b) eventually cease the use violence to enforce any particular
distribution of private property
Don't be stupid and evil Nick.
dont't be greedy and sinful wilson
I just want people free to be able to make their own decisions about
THEY CAN'T DO THAT WHEN ALL THE PROPERTY IS TIED UP IN VIOLENT CLAIMS
WILSON
what's best for them, as long as they aren't directly harming anyone
else.
keep bleating bro, luckily ur mortal
but it's not an enforceable right due to the fact we are dealing
with a lot of zero-sum systems (like land, basic resources, etc),
and wealth inequity is a *massive* liability to the viability of
our species
OMG, muh "zero-sum systems".
there *are* zero-sum systems involved, like land, ecology, and basic
resources,
even water: much of the world is already effective in utilizing all
available water. if u wanted to start an operation that required a
lot of water u'd have to fight for ever that
More buzzwords that don't say anything but do make you sound smarter
to the rubes and recent college graduates (but I repeat myself).
Yes too much wealth inequality is bad because it leads to unrest and
eventually violence.
that's not how 21st century wealth inequality plays out:
it stifles innovation due the abject retards projected to the top of
those unethical hierarchies, becomes grossly inefficient for ur
average consumer due to chasing number extraction instead of what's
best for the consumer, and is beyond negligent in managing the
environment to the point of being a critical liability for this species
Ah yes, the old "What's best for the consooomer".
yes, charging more for shittier product across whole industries
the fact u even make fun of such a concept that is indicative of how
little u actually care about how will the economy function
I prefer to allow the individual decide what they want. It's not a
u have no argument than continually repeated "individual choice"
then is your *ENTIRE* argument wilson, and it's a fucking shit one
perfect process but definitely a hell of a lot better than someone
else choosing it for them.
Too little inequality is also bad because an open economy needs
pools of wealth to do new things.
Let's talk about too little inequality.
regardless of the absolute drivel most boomers spout: public funding
has and still does lead innovation, for the most part. even with all
the retards like ur in the govt actively sabotaging it's operations
so ur claim here is moot
How do you define "public funding" here? Government spending does
quite a bit of heavy lifting in basic research but it definitely
doesn't lead in the creation of usable new things that change people's
lives.
bitch u don't even care about innovation. u are you sniveling pathetic mortal twat who will take his sinful views rightfully to the grave
-a > the sooner the better
-a >
-a > #god
On 3/2/26 3:42 PM, Dude wrote:
On 3/2/2026 1:28 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/2/26 11:46 AM, Dude wrote:God said in the Bible to go forth and multiply and eat fruit you pick
On 3/2/2026 11:17 AM, dart200 wrote:
There is hope for this chat room. Good work, Nick!
How do you define "public funding" here? Government spending does >>>>>> quite a bit of heavy lifting in basic research but it definitely
doesn't lead in the creation of usable new things that change
people's lives.
bitch u don't even care about innovation. u are you sniveling
pathetic mortal twat who will take his sinful views rightfully to
the grave
nigga what do u expect when u preach pure selfish greed???
from the garden. Eat as much fruit as you can harvest. Then, when you
are full, just trade the rest for some nuts. It's all good!
-a > most people can't even afford a garden u dumbass
-a >
-a > #god
that's how bad it's gotten while u shove ur fingers in ur eyeballs
Over my dead body!take it to the grave dude,
exactly my point!
Because, for awhile it looked like this chat room was getting more
civil instead of more vile. You put a stop to that. Good work, Nick!
i only reflect the ethical vileness of the status quo
On 3/2/2026 1:38 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 13:18:28 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 3/2/2026 12:52 PM, dart200 wrote:No concern about getting the best information in support of best
On 3/2/26 9:30 AM, Wilson wrote:
Commies and other forced collectivists think they can remake humanity >>>>> into something new. They think they can redistribute property against >>>>> the will of the owner. They don't mind using force. They are stupid
and evil.
actually i want to
a) make the economy transparent. i want transparency markets, not just >>>> free ones
b) eventually cease the use violence to enforce any particular
distribution of private property
Don't be stupid and evil Nick.
dont't be greedy and sinful wilson
I just want people free to be able to make their own decisions about
what's best for them, as long as they aren't directly harming anyone else. >>
decisions. "I want to be able to do anything even if it is wrong."
If my action is not directly harming anyone else and I decide it's okay,
why should anyone get to override my decision and decide that it's wrong?
On 3/2/2026 9:30 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 3/1/2026 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:Wilson has them both sitting on a stick, spinning. Good work Noah and
On 3/1/26 3:32 PM, Wilson wrote:
Without property rights, you have don't own the product of your
labor. If you don't own your labor, you don't own yourself. Which
reduces you to the level of a serf, no better than and probably
worse off than the poor Nick is claiming he's trying to help.
a) incorrect. serfs were bound to work the land, it's forced labor
abolishing property rights does not force u to labor wilson
b) u don't have a claim on land/resources just because u did labor
-a-a > it's really that fking simple Efn+
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
sure in an equitable system that will generally be true cause why
would people steal from each other if they are all well raised an
taken care of ...
I don't want to "be taken care of". I'm not an infant. I want to be
treated fairly and have my space and rights - including whatever
property I paid for - to be respected.
Commies and other forced collectivists think they can remake humanity
into something new. They think they can redistribute property against
the will of the owner. They don't mind using force. They are stupid
and evil.
Don't be stupid and evil Nick.
Nick! Maybe go back to school, learn a little about US Bill of Right.
Speaking of commies:
Karl Marx rejected the idea that human rights are innate, natural, or universal, viewing them instead as historical constructs of bourgeois society that protect private property and egoistic individuals.
Key words Innate" Rights
According to Marx, rights are not eternal truths; they are legal
relations linked to specific historical moments and economic structures.
On 3/2/2026 1:38 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 13:18:28 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 3/2/2026 12:52 PM, dart200 wrote:No concern about getting the best information in support of best
On 3/2/26 9:30 AM, Wilson wrote:
Commies and other forced collectivists think they can remake humanity >>>>> into something new. They think they can redistribute property against >>>>> the will of the owner. They don't mind using force. They are stupid
and evil.
actually i want to
a) make the economy transparent. i want transparency markets, not just >>>> free ones
b) eventually cease the use violence to enforce any particular
distribution of private property
Don't be stupid and evil Nick.
dont't be greedy and sinful wilson
I just want people free to be able to make their own decisions about
what's best for them, as long as they aren't directly harming anyone else. >>
decisions. "I want to be able to do anything even if it is wrong."
If my action is not directly harming anyone else and I decide it's okay,
why should anyone get to override my decision and decide that it's wrong?
On 3/2/2026 6:59 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/2/26 3:42 PM, Dude wrote:
On 3/2/2026 1:28 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/2/26 11:46 AM, Dude wrote:God said in the Bible to go forth and multiply and eat fruit you pick
On 3/2/2026 11:17 AM, dart200 wrote:
There is hope for this chat room. Good work, Nick!
How do you define "public funding" here? Government spending does >>>>>>> quite a bit of heavy lifting in basic research but it definitely >>>>>>> doesn't lead in the creation of usable new things that change
people's lives.
bitch u don't even care about innovation. u are you sniveling
pathetic mortal twat who will take his sinful views rightfully to >>>>>> the grave
nigga what do u expect when u preach pure selfish greed???
from the garden. Eat as much fruit as you can harvest. Then, when you
are full, just trade the rest for some nuts. It's all good!
a > most people can't even afford a garden u dumbass
a >
a > #god
that's how bad it's gotten while u shove ur fingers in ur eyeballs
Over my dead body!take it to the grave dude,
exactly my point!
Because, for awhile it looked like this chat room was getting more
civil instead of more vile. You put a stop to that. Good work, Nick!
i only reflect the ethical vileness of the status quo
Yet again the revolutionary as the eternal victim.
On 3/2/2026 2:17 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/2/26 10:18 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 3/2/2026 12:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/2/26 9:30 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 3/1/2026 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/1/26 3:32 PM, Wilson wrote:
Without property rights, you have don't own the product of your >>>>>>> labor. If you don't own your labor, you don't own yourself. Which >>>>>>> reduces you to the level of a serf, no better than and probably >>>>>>> worse off than the poor Nick is claiming he's trying to help.
a) incorrect. serfs were bound to work the land, it's forced labor >>>>>>
abolishing property rights does not force u to labor wilson
b) u don't have a claim on land/resources just because u did labor >>>>>>
aa > it's really that fking simple ?
aa >
aa > #god
sure in an equitable system that will generally be true cause why >>>>>> would people steal from each other if they are all well raised an >>>>>> taken care of ...
I don't want to "be taken care of". I'm not an infant. I want to be
shut the fuck up retard, the vast vast majority of what u utilize and >>>> consume is 100% produced and distributed to you, by the labor of others >>>>
yes you "pay" for it, but remember: price is just a number. they
still labored, and chanced are you've received a lot more labor time
than the amount u ever put back in
treated fairly and have my space and rights - including whatever
property I paid for - to be respected.
Commies and other forced collectivists think they can remake
humanity into something new. They think they can redistribute
property against the will of the owner. They don't mind using force. >>>>> They are stupid and evil.
actually i want to
a) make the economy transparent. i want transparency markets, not
just free ones
b) eventually cease the use violence to enforce any particular
distribution of private property
Don't be stupid and evil Nick.
dont't be greedy and sinful wilson
I just want people free to be able to make their own decisions about
THEY CAN'T DO THAT WHEN ALL THE PROPERTY IS TIED UP IN VIOLENT CLAIMS
WILSON
But it's not the case that all property is "tied up". There are people >selling and people buying right now.
what's best for them, as long as they aren't directly harming anyone
else.
keep bleating bro, luckily ur mortal
Ah yes, the old "What's best for the consooomer".but it's not an enforceable right due to the fact we are dealing
with a lot of zero-sum systems (like land, basic resources, etc), >>>>>> and wealth inequity is a *massive* liability to the viability of
our species
OMG, muh "zero-sum systems".
there *are* zero-sum systems involved, like land, ecology, and basic
resources,
even water: much of the world is already effective in utilizing all
available water. if u wanted to start an operation that required a
lot of water u'd have to fight for ever that
More buzzwords that don't say anything but do make you sound smarter >>>>> to the rubes and recent college graduates (but I repeat myself).
Yes too much wealth inequality is bad because it leads to unrest and >>>>> eventually violence.
that's not how 21st century wealth inequality plays out:
it stifles innovation due the abject retards projected to the top of
those unethical hierarchies, becomes grossly inefficient for ur
average consumer due to chasing number extraction instead of what's
best for the consumer, and is beyond negligent in managing the
environment to the point of being a critical liability for this species >>>
yes, charging more for shittier product across whole industries
the fact u even make fun of such a concept that is indicative of how
little u actually care about how will the economy function
Don't buy shitty products, Nick.
--
I prefer to allow the individual decide what they want. It's not a
u have no argument than continually repeated "individual choice"
then is your *ENTIRE* argument wilson, and it's a fucking shit one
It's the best one.
perfect process but definitely a hell of a lot better than someone
else choosing it for them.
Too little inequality is also bad because an open economy needs
pools of wealth to do new things.
Let's talk about too little inequality.
regardless of the absolute drivel most boomers spout: public funding
has and still does lead innovation, for the most part. even with all
the retards like ur in the govt actively sabotaging it's operations
so ur claim here is moot
How do you define "public funding" here? Government spending does
quite a bit of heavy lifting in basic research but it definitely
doesn't lead in the creation of usable new things that change people's
lives.
bitch u don't even care about innovation. u are you sniveling pathetic
mortal twat who will take his sinful views rightfully to the grave
a > the sooner the better
a >
a > #god
You still haven't defined what you meant by "public funding".
On 3/2/2026 1:39 PM, Dude wrote:
On 3/2/2026 9:30 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 3/1/2026 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:Wilson has them both sitting on a stick, spinning. Good work Noah and
On 3/1/26 3:32 PM, Wilson wrote:
Without property rights, you have don't own the product of your
labor. If you don't own your labor, you don't own yourself. Which
reduces you to the level of a serf, no better than and probably
worse off than the poor Nick is claiming he's trying to help.
a) incorrect. serfs were bound to work the land, it's forced labor
abolishing property rights does not force u to labor wilson
b) u don't have a claim on land/resources just because u did labor
aa > it's really that fking simple ?
aa >
aa > #god
sure in an equitable system that will generally be true cause why
would people steal from each other if they are all well raised an
taken care of ...
I don't want to "be taken care of". I'm not an infant. I want to be
treated fairly and have my space and rights - including whatever
property I paid for - to be respected.
Commies and other forced collectivists think they can remake humanity
into something new. They think they can redistribute property against
the will of the owner. They don't mind using force. They are stupid
and evil.
Don't be stupid and evil Nick.
Nick! Maybe go back to school, learn a little about US Bill of Right.
Speaking of commies:
Karl Marx rejected the idea that human rights are innate, natural, or
universal, viewing them instead as historical constructs of bourgeois
society that protect private property and egoistic individuals.
Key words Innate" Rights
According to Marx, rights are not eternal truths; they are legal
relations linked to specific historical moments and economic structures.
Marx was an absolute example of the educated idiot. He lived off of
others and would not work, didn't regularly bathe, and was in general a >total scumbag.
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 11:12:20 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 3/2/2026 1:38 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 13:18:28 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 3/2/2026 12:52 PM, dart200 wrote:No concern about getting the best information in support of best
On 3/2/26 9:30 AM, Wilson wrote:
Commies and other forced collectivists think they can remake humanity >>>>>> into something new. They think they can redistribute property against >>>>>> the will of the owner. They don't mind using force. They are stupid >>>>>> and evil.
actually i want to
a) make the economy transparent. i want transparency markets, not just >>>>> free ones
b) eventually cease the use violence to enforce any particular
distribution of private property
Don't be stupid and evil Nick.
dont't be greedy and sinful wilson
I just want people free to be able to make their own decisions about
what's best for them, as long as they aren't directly harming anyone else. >>>
decisions. "I want to be able to do anything even if it is wrong."
If my action is not directly harming anyone else and I decide it's okay,
why should anyone get to override my decision and decide that it's wrong?
Because if it is wrong, likely there are complicated reasons for that
which you are not aware of, are not prepared to comprehend if you are
told. That is one of the things that you learn at university.
1) the universe is a much more complicated place than you ever
imagined.
2) there are a lot of people out there who are a lot smarter than you
are, who spend much of their lives sorting such things out as much as possible. Not that there are not things beyond any human
comprehension.
So, it is not a matter of somebody overriding your decision. It is a
matter of getting the best advice you can and hoping that will be
sufficient. Usually it is.
Not getting the best advice you can is almost certainly going to lead
to bad news, like measles, as a single example which is a very highly communicable disease, is coming back because not enough people are
getting vaccinated to keep it in check.
Who knew? Probably not you, and probably not even now, equipped with industrial strength denial power as you are.
But notice, nobody is telling you that you cannot do something, but
merely trying to tell you what would be best. Because that is one of
the things humans do for each other.
friend 1: I saw what looked like a ghost in the window. Is it real?
friend 2: yes it is or no it is not
Which is the foundation of consensus reality.
What happens if you do not ask or ignore the response? Consequences
happen whatever they are. That is what is forced on you. Consequences
of bad decisions. Every stinking time.
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 11:21:31 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 3/2/2026 2:17 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/2/26 10:18 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 3/2/2026 12:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/2/26 9:30 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 3/1/2026 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:shut the fuck up retard, the vast vast majority of what u utilize and >>>>> consume is 100% produced and distributed to you, by the labor of others >>>>>
On 3/1/26 3:32 PM, Wilson wrote:
Without property rights, you have don't own the product of your >>>>>>>> labor. If you don't own your labor, you don't own yourself. Which >>>>>>>> reduces you to the level of a serf, no better than and probably >>>>>>>> worse off than the poor Nick is claiming he's trying to help.
a) incorrect. serfs were bound to work the land, it's forced labor >>>>>>>
abolishing property rights does not force u to labor wilson
b) u don't have a claim on land/resources just because u did labor >>>>>>>
-a-a > it's really that fking simple ?
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
sure in an equitable system that will generally be true cause why >>>>>>> would people steal from each other if they are all well raised an >>>>>>> taken care of ...
I don't want to "be taken care of". I'm not an infant. I want to be >>>>>
yes you "pay" for it, but remember: price is just a number. they
still labored, and chanced are you've received a lot more labor time >>>>> than the amount u ever put back in
treated fairly and have my space and rights - including whatever
property I paid for - to be respected.
Commies and other forced collectivists think they can remake
humanity into something new. They think they can redistribute
property against the will of the owner. They don't mind using force. >>>>>> They are stupid and evil.
actually i want to
a) make the economy transparent. i want transparency markets, not
just free ones
b) eventually cease the use violence to enforce any particular
distribution of private property
Don't be stupid and evil Nick.
dont't be greedy and sinful wilson
I just want people free to be able to make their own decisions about
THEY CAN'T DO THAT WHEN ALL THE PROPERTY IS TIED UP IN VIOLENT CLAIMS
WILSON
But it's not the case that all property is "tied up". There are people
selling and people buying right now.
As prices expand beyond the reach of most of us.
Fences are everywhere, and nearly every square inch of habitable land
belongs to somebody, not you.
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 11:31:12 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 3/2/2026 1:39 PM, Dude wrote:
On 3/2/2026 9:30 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 3/1/2026 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:Wilson has them both sitting on a stick, spinning. Good work Noah and
On 3/1/26 3:32 PM, Wilson wrote:
Without property rights, you have don't own the product of your
labor. If you don't own your labor, you don't own yourself. Which
reduces you to the level of a serf, no better than and probably
worse off than the poor Nick is claiming he's trying to help.
a) incorrect. serfs were bound to work the land, it's forced labor
abolishing property rights does not force u to labor wilson
b) u don't have a claim on land/resources just because u did labor
-a-a > it's really that fking simple ?
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
sure in an equitable system that will generally be true cause why
would people steal from each other if they are all well raised an
taken care of ...
I don't want to "be taken care of". I'm not an infant. I want to be
treated fairly and have my space and rights - including whatever
property I paid for - to be respected.
Commies and other forced collectivists think they can remake humanity
into something new. They think they can redistribute property against
the will of the owner. They don't mind using force. They are stupid
and evil.
Don't be stupid and evil Nick.
Nick! Maybe go back to school, learn a little about US Bill of Right.
Speaking of commies:
Karl Marx rejected the idea that human rights are innate, natural, or
universal, viewing them instead as historical constructs of bourgeois
society that protect private property and egoistic individuals.
Key words Innate" Rights
According to Marx, rights are not eternal truths; they are legal
relations linked to specific historical moments and economic structures.
Marx was an absolute example of the educated idiot. He lived off of
others and would not work, didn't regularly bathe, and was in general a
total scumbag.
Ad hominem at its finest.
Whatever your opinion of the unwashed street person outside your door,
it is not true that he cannot be right about anything.
On 3/2/2026 6:59 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/2/26 3:42 PM, Dude wrote:
On 3/2/2026 1:28 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/2/26 11:46 AM, Dude wrote:God said in the Bible to go forth and multiply and eat fruit you pick
On 3/2/2026 11:17 AM, dart200 wrote:
There is hope for this chat room. Good work, Nick!
How do you define "public funding" here? Government spending does >>>>>>> quite a bit of heavy lifting in basic research but it definitely >>>>>>> doesn't lead in the creation of usable new things that change
people's lives.
bitch u don't even care about innovation. u are you sniveling
pathetic mortal twat who will take his sinful views rightfully to >>>>>> the grave
nigga what do u expect when u preach pure selfish greed???
from the garden. Eat as much fruit as you can harvest. Then, when you
are full, just trade the rest for some nuts. It's all good!
-a-a > most people can't even afford a garden u dumbass
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
that's how bad it's gotten while u shove ur fingers in ur eyeballs
Over my dead body!take it to the grave dude,
exactly my point!
Because, for awhile it looked like this chat room was getting more
civil instead of more vile. You put a stop to that. Good work, Nick!
i only reflect the ethical vileness of the status quo
Yet again the revolutionary as the eternal victim.
On 3/2/2026 2:17 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/2/26 10:18 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 3/2/2026 12:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/2/26 9:30 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 3/1/2026 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/1/26 3:32 PM, Wilson wrote:
Without property rights, you have don't own the product of your >>>>>>> labor. If you don't own your labor, you don't own yourself. Which >>>>>>> reduces you to the level of a serf, no better than and probably >>>>>>> worse off than the poor Nick is claiming he's trying to help.
a) incorrect. serfs were bound to work the land, it's forced labor >>>>>>
abolishing property rights does not force u to labor wilson
b) u don't have a claim on land/resources just because u did labor >>>>>>
-a-a > it's really that fking simple Efn+
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
sure in an equitable system that will generally be true cause why >>>>>> would people steal from each other if they are all well raised an >>>>>> taken care of ...
I don't want to "be taken care of". I'm not an infant. I want to be
shut the fuck up retard, the vast vast majority of what u utilize
and consume is 100% produced and distributed to you, by the labor of
others
yes you "pay" for it, but remember: price is just a number. they
still labored, and chanced are you've received a lot more labor time
than the amount u ever put back in
treated fairly and have my space and rights - including whatever
property I paid for - to be respected.
Commies and other forced collectivists think they can remake
humanity into something new. They think they can redistribute
property against the will of the owner. They don't mind using
force. They are stupid and evil.
actually i want to
a) make the economy transparent. i want transparency markets, not
just free ones
b) eventually cease the use violence to enforce any particular
distribution of private property
Don't be stupid and evil Nick.
dont't be greedy and sinful wilson
I just want people free to be able to make their own decisions about
THEY CAN'T DO THAT WHEN ALL THE PROPERTY IS TIED UP IN VIOLENT CLAIMS
WILSON
But it's not the case that all property is "tied up". There are people selling and people buying right now.
what's best for them, as long as they aren't directly harming anyone
else.
keep bleating bro, luckily ur mortal
Ah yes, the old "What's best for the consooomer".but it's not an enforceable right due to the fact we are dealing
with a lot of zero-sum systems (like land, basic resources, etc), >>>>>> and wealth inequity is a *massive* liability to the viability of
our species
OMG, muh "zero-sum systems".
there *are* zero-sum systems involved, like land, ecology, and basic
resources,
even water: much of the world is already effective in utilizing all
available water. if u wanted to start an operation that required a
lot of water u'd have to fight for ever that
More buzzwords that don't say anything but do make you sound
smarter to the rubes and recent college graduates (but I repeat
myself).
Yes too much wealth inequality is bad because it leads to unrest
and eventually violence.
that's not how 21st century wealth inequality plays out:
it stifles innovation due the abject retards projected to the top of
those unethical hierarchies, becomes grossly inefficient for ur
average consumer due to chasing number extraction instead of what's
best for the consumer, and is beyond negligent in managing the
environment to the point of being a critical liability for this species >>>
yes, charging more for shittier product across whole industries
the fact u even make fun of such a concept that is indicative of how
little u actually care about how will the economy function
Don't buy shitty products, Nick.
I prefer to allow the individual decide what they want. It's not a
u have no argument than continually repeated "individual choice"
then is your *ENTIRE* argument wilson, and it's a fucking shit one
It's the best one.
perfect process but definitely a hell of a lot better than someone
else choosing it for them.
Too little inequality is also bad because an open economy needs
pools of wealth to do new things.
Let's talk about too little inequality.
regardless of the absolute drivel most boomers spout: public funding
has and still does lead innovation, for the most part. even with all
the retards like ur in the govt actively sabotaging it's operations
so ur claim here is moot
How do you define "public funding" here? Government spending does
quite a bit of heavy lifting in basic research but it definitely
doesn't lead in the creation of usable new things that change
people's lives.
bitch u don't even care about innovation. u are you sniveling pathetic
mortal twat who will take his sinful views rightfully to the grave
-a-a > the sooner the better
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
You still haven't defined what you meant by "public funding".
On 3/3/26 8:21 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 3/2/2026 2:17 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/2/26 10:18 AM, Wilson wrote:
I just want people free to be able to make their own decisions about
THEY CAN'T DO THAT WHEN ALL THE PROPERTY IS TIED UP IN VIOLENT CLAIMS
WILSON
But it's not the case that all property is "tied up". There are people
selling and people buying right now.
i'm sorry, why should i be restricted by a property owner who i never transacted with in the first place???
why can't i make my own decision over who deserves what property???
I prefer to allow the individual decide what they want. It's not a
u have no argument than continually repeated "individual choice"
then is your *ENTIRE* argument wilson, and it's a fucking shit one
It's the best one.
it's the *only* one, and it's *still* just a retarded platitude
because /i never choose/ to be a planet where all the property is
hoarded by landlords ...
regardless of the absolute drivel most boomers spout: public
funding has and still does lead innovation, for the most part. even >>>>> with all the retards like ur in the govt actively sabotaging it's
operations
so ur claim here is moot
How do you define "public funding" here? Government spending does
quite a bit of heavy lifting in basic research but it definitely
doesn't lead in the creation of usable new things that change
people's lives.
bitch u don't even care about innovation. u are you sniveling
pathetic mortal twat who will take his sinful views rightfully to the
grave
-a-a > the sooner the better
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
You still haven't defined what you meant by "public funding".
and u still couldn't recognize innovation if it pooped in ur mouth
look at social media ... all these hundred billion dollar companies have devolved into just fking ad platforms. my facebook feed especially is
90% about ads and meme accounts, and 10% about people i actually know irl
it's objectively a shit product, yet it's the largest and really only of it's kind on the market
On 3/3/2026 11:37 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 11:12:20 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 3/2/2026 1:38 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Because if it is wrong, likely there are complicated reasons for that
On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 13:18:28 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 3/2/2026 12:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/2/26 9:30 AM, Wilson wrote:
Commies and other forced collectivists think they can remake humanity >>>>>>> into something new. They think they can redistribute property against >>>>>>> the will of the owner. They don't mind using force. They are stupid >>>>>>> and evil.
actually i want to
a) make the economy transparent. i want transparency markets, not just >>>>>> free ones
b) eventually cease the use violence to enforce any particular
distribution of private property
Don't be stupid and evil Nick.
dont't be greedy and sinful wilson
I just want people free to be able to make their own decisions about >>>>> what's best for them, as long as they aren't directly harming anyone else.
No concern about getting the best information in support of best
decisions. "I want to be able to do anything even if it is wrong."
If my action is not directly harming anyone else and I decide it's okay, >>> why should anyone get to override my decision and decide that it's wrong? >>
which you are not aware of, are not prepared to comprehend if you are
told. That is one of the things that you learn at university.
1) the universe is a much more complicated place than you ever
imagined.
2) there are a lot of people out there who are a lot smarter than you
are, who spend much of their lives sorting such things out as much as
possible. Not that there are not things beyond any human
comprehension.
So, it is not a matter of somebody overriding your decision. It is a
matter of getting the best advice you can and hoping that will be
sufficient. Usually it is.
Not getting the best advice you can is almost certainly going to lead
to bad news, like measles, as a single example which is a very highly
communicable disease, is coming back because not enough people are
getting vaccinated to keep it in check.
Who knew? Probably not you, and probably not even now, equipped with
industrial strength denial power as you are.
But notice, nobody is telling you that you cannot do something, but
merely trying to tell you what would be best. Because that is one of
the things humans do for each other.
friend 1: I saw what looked like a ghost in the window. Is it real?
friend 2: yes it is or no it is not
Which is the foundation of consensus reality.
What happens if you do not ask or ignore the response? Consequences
happen whatever they are. That is what is forced on you. Consequences
of bad decisions. Every stinking time.
Ah, so you agree with me that one person shouldn't be able to tell
another person that they can't do a thing that isn't harming anyone.
Good to know.
And back to what you said earlier, I also think getting the best
information in support of making the best decisions is a good thing.
So we agree again!
On 3/3/2026 11:43 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 11:21:31 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 3/2/2026 2:17 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/2/26 10:18 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 3/2/2026 12:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/2/26 9:30 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 3/1/2026 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:shut the fuck up retard, the vast vast majority of what u utilize and >>>>>> consume is 100% produced and distributed to you, by the labor of others >>>>>>
On 3/1/26 3:32 PM, Wilson wrote:
a) incorrect. serfs were bound to work the land, it's forced labor >>>>>>>>
Without property rights, you have don't own the product of your >>>>>>>>> labor. If you don't own your labor, you don't own yourself. Which >>>>>>>>> reduces you to the level of a serf, no better than and probably >>>>>>>>> worse off than the poor Nick is claiming he's trying to help. >>>>>>>>
abolishing property rights does not force u to labor wilson
b) u don't have a claim on land/resources just because u did labor >>>>>>>>
aa > it's really that fking simple ?
aa >
aa > #god
sure in an equitable system that will generally be true cause why >>>>>>>> would people steal from each other if they are all well raised an >>>>>>>> taken care of ...
I don't want to "be taken care of". I'm not an infant. I want to be >>>>>>
yes you "pay" for it, but remember: price is just a number. they
still labored, and chanced are you've received a lot more labor time >>>>>> than the amount u ever put back in
treated fairly and have my space and rights - including whatever >>>>>>> property I paid for - to be respected.
Commies and other forced collectivists think they can remake
humanity into something new. They think they can redistribute
property against the will of the owner. They don't mind using force. >>>>>>> They are stupid and evil.
actually i want to
a) make the economy transparent. i want transparency markets, not
just free ones
b) eventually cease the use violence to enforce any particular
distribution of private property
Don't be stupid and evil Nick.
dont't be greedy and sinful wilson
I just want people free to be able to make their own decisions about
THEY CAN'T DO THAT WHEN ALL THE PROPERTY IS TIED UP IN VIOLENT CLAIMS
WILSON
But it's not the case that all property is "tied up". There are people
selling and people buying right now.
As prices expand beyond the reach of most of us.
Fences are everywhere, and nearly every square inch of habitable land
belongs to somebody, not you.
This could become a real problem if too many people are unable to buy
any land.
It will lead to revolution.
The landowners will be killed or deposed.
Then maybe NEW people will own the land.
Or maybe a committee of people will say no one can own any land.
Obviously that will fix everything.
On 3/3/2026 11:44 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 11:31:12 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 3/2/2026 1:39 PM, Dude wrote:
On 3/2/2026 9:30 AM, Wilson wrote:Marx was an absolute example of the educated idiot. He lived off of
On 3/1/2026 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:Wilson has them both sitting on a stick, spinning. Good work Noah and
On 3/1/26 3:32 PM, Wilson wrote:
Without property rights, you have don't own the product of your
labor. If you don't own your labor, you don't own yourself. Which >>>>>>> reduces you to the level of a serf, no better than and probably
worse off than the poor Nick is claiming he's trying to help.
a) incorrect. serfs were bound to work the land, it's forced labor >>>>>>
abolishing property rights does not force u to labor wilson
b) u don't have a claim on land/resources just because u did labor >>>>>>
aa > it's really that fking simple ?
aa >
aa > #god
sure in an equitable system that will generally be true cause why
would people steal from each other if they are all well raised an
taken care of ...
I don't want to "be taken care of". I'm not an infant. I want to be
treated fairly and have my space and rights - including whatever
property I paid for - to be respected.
Commies and other forced collectivists think they can remake humanity >>>>> into something new. They think they can redistribute property against >>>>> the will of the owner. They don't mind using force. They are stupid
and evil.
Don't be stupid and evil Nick.
Nick! Maybe go back to school, learn a little about US Bill of Right.
Speaking of commies:
Karl Marx rejected the idea that human rights are innate, natural, or
universal, viewing them instead as historical constructs of bourgeois
society that protect private property and egoistic individuals.
Key words Innate" Rights
According to Marx, rights are not eternal truths; they are legal
relations linked to specific historical moments and economic structures. >>>
others and would not work, didn't regularly bathe, and was in general a
total scumbag.
Ad hominem at its finest.
Whatever your opinion of the unwashed street person outside your door,
it is not true that he cannot be right about anything.
He also promoted the labor theory of value, which was and is complete bunk.
On 3/3/2026 11:37 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 11:12:20 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 3/2/2026 1:38 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 13:18:28 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 3/2/2026 12:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/2/26 9:30 AM, Wilson wrote:
Commies and other forced collectivists think they can remake
humanity
into something new. They think they can redistribute property
against
the will of the owner. They don't mind using force. They are stupid >>>>>>> and evil.
actually i want to
a) make the economy transparent. i want transparency markets, not >>>>>> just
free ones
b) eventually cease the use violence to enforce any particular
distribution of private property
Don't be stupid and evil Nick.
dont't be greedy and sinful wilson
I just want people free to be able to make their own decisions about >>>>> what's best for them, as long as they aren't directly harming
anyone else.
No concern about getting the best information in support of best
decisions.-a "I want to be able to do anything even if it is wrong."
If my action is not directly harming anyone else and I decide it's okay, >>> why should anyone get to override my decision and decide that it's
wrong?
Because if it is wrong, likely there are complicated reasons for that
which you are not aware of, are not prepared to comprehend if you are
told.-a That is one of the things that you learn at university.
1) the universe is a much more complicated place than you ever
imagined.
2) there are a lot of people out there who are a lot smarter than you
are, who spend much of their lives sorting such things out as much as
possible.-a Not that there are not things beyond any human
comprehension.
So, it is not a matter of somebody overriding your decision.-a It is a
matter of getting the best advice you can and hoping that will be
sufficient.-a Usually it is.
Not getting the best advice you can is almost certainly going to lead
to bad news, like measles, as a single example which is a very highly
communicable disease, is coming back because not enough people are
getting vaccinated to keep it in check.
Who knew?-a Probably not you, and probably not even now, equipped with
industrial strength denial power as you are.
But notice, nobody is telling you that you cannot do something, but
merely trying to tell you what would be best.-a Because that is one of
the things humans do for each other.
friend 1:-a I saw what looked like a ghost in the window.-a Is it real?
friend 2:-a yes it is or no it is not
Which is the foundation of consensus reality.
What happens if you do not ask or ignore the response?-a Consequences
happen whatever they are.-a That is what is forced on you. Consequences
of bad decisions.-a Every stinking time.
Ah, so you agree with me that one person shouldn't be able to tell
another person that they can't do a thing that isn't harming anyone.
Good to know.
And back to what you said earlier, I also think getting the best
information in support of making the best decisions is a good thing.
So we agree again!
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 11:55:27 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 3/3/2026 11:37 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 11:12:20 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 3/2/2026 1:38 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Because if it is wrong, likely there are complicated reasons for that
On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 13:18:28 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 3/2/2026 12:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/2/26 9:30 AM, Wilson wrote:
Commies and other forced collectivists think they can remake humanity >>>>>>>> into something new. They think they can redistribute property against >>>>>>>> the will of the owner. They don't mind using force. They are stupid >>>>>>>> and evil.
actually i want to
a) make the economy transparent. i want transparency markets, not just >>>>>>> free ones
b) eventually cease the use violence to enforce any particular
distribution of private property
Don't be stupid and evil Nick.
dont't be greedy and sinful wilson
I just want people free to be able to make their own decisions about >>>>>> what's best for them, as long as they aren't directly harming anyone else.
No concern about getting the best information in support of best
decisions. "I want to be able to do anything even if it is wrong."
If my action is not directly harming anyone else and I decide it's okay, >>>> why should anyone get to override my decision and decide that it's wrong? >>>
which you are not aware of, are not prepared to comprehend if you are
told. That is one of the things that you learn at university.
1) the universe is a much more complicated place than you ever
imagined.
2) there are a lot of people out there who are a lot smarter than you
are, who spend much of their lives sorting such things out as much as
possible. Not that there are not things beyond any human
comprehension.
So, it is not a matter of somebody overriding your decision. It is a
matter of getting the best advice you can and hoping that will be
sufficient. Usually it is.
Not getting the best advice you can is almost certainly going to lead
to bad news, like measles, as a single example which is a very highly
communicable disease, is coming back because not enough people are
getting vaccinated to keep it in check.
Who knew? Probably not you, and probably not even now, equipped with
industrial strength denial power as you are.
But notice, nobody is telling you that you cannot do something, but
merely trying to tell you what would be best. Because that is one of
the things humans do for each other.
friend 1: I saw what looked like a ghost in the window. Is it real?
friend 2: yes it is or no it is not
Which is the foundation of consensus reality.
What happens if you do not ask or ignore the response? Consequences
happen whatever they are. That is what is forced on you. Consequences
of bad decisions. Every stinking time.
Ah, so you agree with me that one person shouldn't be able to tell
another person that they can't do a thing that isn't harming anyone.
Except that refusing to get vaccinated harms people besides you.
Good to know.
And back to what you said earlier, I also think getting the best
information in support of making the best decisions is a good thing.
So we agree again!
I look forward to you beginning to seek out good advice.
On 3/3/2026 9:46 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 11:55:27 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 3/3/2026 11:37 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 11:12:20 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 3/2/2026 1:38 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 13:18:28 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:If my action is not directly harming anyone else and I decide it's
On 3/2/2026 12:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/2/26 9:30 AM, Wilson wrote:
Commies and other forced collectivists think they can remake >>>>>>>>> humanity
into something new. They think they can redistribute property >>>>>>>>> against
the will of the owner. They don't mind using force. They are >>>>>>>>> stupid
and evil.
actually i want to
a) make the economy transparent. i want transparency markets, >>>>>>>> not just
free ones
b) eventually cease the use violence to enforce any particular >>>>>>>> distribution of private property
Don't be stupid and evil Nick.
dont't be greedy and sinful wilson
I just want people free to be able to make their own decisions about >>>>>>> what's best for them, as long as they aren't directly harming
anyone else.
No concern about getting the best information in support of best
decisions.-a "I want to be able to do anything even if it is wrong." >>>>>
okay,
why should anyone get to override my decision and decide that it's
wrong?
Because if it is wrong, likely there are complicated reasons for that
which you are not aware of, are not prepared to comprehend if you are
told.-a That is one of the things that you learn at university.
1) the universe is a much more complicated place than you ever
imagined.
2) there are a lot of people out there who are a lot smarter than you
are, who spend much of their lives sorting such things out as much as
possible.-a Not that there are not things beyond any human
comprehension.
So, it is not a matter of somebody overriding your decision.-a It is a >>>> matter of getting the best advice you can and hoping that will be
sufficient.-a Usually it is.
Not getting the best advice you can is almost certainly going to lead
to bad news, like measles, as a single example which is a very highly
communicable disease, is coming back because not enough people are
getting vaccinated to keep it in check.
Who knew?-a Probably not you, and probably not even now, equipped with >>>> industrial strength denial power as you are.
But notice, nobody is telling you that you cannot do something, but
merely trying to tell you what would be best.-a Because that is one of >>>> the things humans do for each other.
friend 1:-a I saw what looked like a ghost in the window.-a Is it real? >>>> friend 2:-a yes it is or no it is not
Which is the foundation of consensus reality.
What happens if you do not ask or ignore the response?-a Consequences
happen whatever they are.-a That is what is forced on you. Consequences >>>> of bad decisions.-a Every stinking time.
Ah, so you agree with me that one person shouldn't be able to tell
another person that they can't do a thing that isn't harming anyone.
Except that refusing to get vaccinated harms people besides you.
Good to know.
And back to what you said earlier, I also think getting the best
information in support of making the best decisions is a good thing.
So we agree again!
I look forward to you beginning to seek out good advice.
My advice is to start looking things up before you hit the SEND key.
You and Nick are looking like 4th graders. Do some homework.
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 12:00:21 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 3/3/2026 11:43 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 11:21:31 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 3/2/2026 2:17 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/2/26 10:18 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 3/2/2026 12:52 PM, dart200 wrote:THEY CAN'T DO THAT WHEN ALL THE PROPERTY IS TIED UP IN VIOLENT CLAIMS >>>>> WILSON
On 3/2/26 9:30 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 3/1/2026 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:shut the fuck up retard, the vast vast majority of what u utilize and >>>>>>> consume is 100% produced and distributed to you, by the labor of others >>>>>>>
On 3/1/26 3:32 PM, Wilson wrote:
a) incorrect. serfs were bound to work the land, it's forced labor >>>>>>>>>
Without property rights, you have don't own the product of your >>>>>>>>>> labor. If you don't own your labor, you don't own yourself. Which >>>>>>>>>> reduces you to the level of a serf, no better than and probably >>>>>>>>>> worse off than the poor Nick is claiming he's trying to help. >>>>>>>>>
abolishing property rights does not force u to labor wilson
b) u don't have a claim on land/resources just because u did labor >>>>>>>>>
-a-a > it's really that fking simple ?
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
sure in an equitable system that will generally be true cause why >>>>>>>>> would people steal from each other if they are all well raised an >>>>>>>>> taken care of ...
I don't want to "be taken care of". I'm not an infant. I want to be >>>>>>>
yes you "pay" for it, but remember: price is just a number. they >>>>>>> still labored, and chanced are you've received a lot more labor time >>>>>>> than the amount u ever put back in
treated fairly and have my space and rights - including whatever >>>>>>>> property I paid for - to be respected.
Commies and other forced collectivists think they can remake
humanity into something new. They think they can redistribute
property against the will of the owner. They don't mind using force. >>>>>>>> They are stupid and evil.
actually i want to
a) make the economy transparent. i want transparency markets, not >>>>>>> just free ones
b) eventually cease the use violence to enforce any particular
distribution of private property
Don't be stupid and evil Nick.
dont't be greedy and sinful wilson
I just want people free to be able to make their own decisions about >>>>>
But it's not the case that all property is "tied up". There are people >>>> selling and people buying right now.
As prices expand beyond the reach of most of us.
Fences are everywhere, and nearly every square inch of habitable land
belongs to somebody, not you.
This could become a real problem if too many people are unable to buy
any land.
It will lead to revolution.
The landowners will be killed or deposed.
Then maybe NEW people will own the land.
Or maybe a committee of people will say no one can own any land.
Obviously that will fix everything.
Obviously we need to get beyond looking for simple solutions.
Or since there are no simple solutions, the best idea is to revert to
a discarded old idea.
On 3/3/2026 12:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/3/26 8:21 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 3/2/2026 2:17 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/2/26 10:18 AM, Wilson wrote:
THEY CAN'T DO THAT WHEN ALL THE PROPERTY IS TIED UP IN VIOLENT
I just want people free to be able to make their own decisions about >>>>
CLAIMS WILSON
But it's not the case that all property is "tied up". There are
people selling and people buying right now.
i'm sorry, why should i be restricted by a property owner who i never
transacted with in the first place???
why can't i make my own decision over who deserves what property???
Why should I respect your decision on what others own?
I prefer to allow the individual decide what they want. It's not a
u have no argument than continually repeated "individual choice"
then is your *ENTIRE* argument wilson, and it's a fucking shit one
It's the best one.
it's the *only* one, and it's *still* just a retarded platitude
because /i never choose/ to be a planet where all the property is
hoarded by landlords ...
Maybe I never made a decision on being on a planet with you.
The solution here is obvious.
regardless of the absolute drivel most boomers spout: public
funding has and still does lead innovation, for the most part.
even with all the retards like ur in the govt actively sabotaging >>>>>> it's operations
so ur claim here is moot
How do you define "public funding" here? Government spending does
quite a bit of heavy lifting in basic research but it definitely
doesn't lead in the creation of usable new things that change
people's lives.
bitch u don't even care about innovation. u are you sniveling
pathetic mortal twat who will take his sinful views rightfully to
the grave
-a-a > the sooner the better
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
You still haven't defined what you meant by "public funding".
and u still couldn't recognize innovation if it pooped in ur mouth
look at social media ... all these hundred billion dollar companies
have devolved into just fking ad platforms. my facebook feed
especially is 90% about ads and meme accounts, and 10% about people i
actually know irl
it's objectively a shit product, yet it's the largest and really only
of it's kind on the market
I don't use facebook and likely never will.
So what?
Don't use shit products, Nick. Unless you want to.
On 3/3/2026 9:46 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 11:55:27 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 3/3/2026 11:37 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 11:12:20 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 3/2/2026 1:38 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Because if it is wrong, likely there are complicated reasons for that
On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 13:18:28 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:If my action is not directly harming anyone else and I decide it's okay, >>>>> why should anyone get to override my decision and decide that it's wrong? >>>>
On 3/2/2026 12:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/2/26 9:30 AM, Wilson wrote:
Commies and other forced collectivists think they can remake humanity >>>>>>>>> into something new. They think they can redistribute property against >>>>>>>>> the will of the owner. They don't mind using force. They are stupid >>>>>>>>> and evil.
actually i want to
a) make the economy transparent. i want transparency markets, not just >>>>>>>> free ones
b) eventually cease the use violence to enforce any particular >>>>>>>> distribution of private property
Don't be stupid and evil Nick.
dont't be greedy and sinful wilson
I just want people free to be able to make their own decisions about >>>>>>> what's best for them, as long as they aren't directly harming anyone else.
No concern about getting the best information in support of best
decisions. "I want to be able to do anything even if it is wrong." >>>>>
which you are not aware of, are not prepared to comprehend if you are
told. That is one of the things that you learn at university.
1) the universe is a much more complicated place than you ever
imagined.
2) there are a lot of people out there who are a lot smarter than you
are, who spend much of their lives sorting such things out as much as
possible. Not that there are not things beyond any human
comprehension.
So, it is not a matter of somebody overriding your decision. It is a
matter of getting the best advice you can and hoping that will be
sufficient. Usually it is.
Not getting the best advice you can is almost certainly going to lead
to bad news, like measles, as a single example which is a very highly
communicable disease, is coming back because not enough people are
getting vaccinated to keep it in check.
Who knew? Probably not you, and probably not even now, equipped with
industrial strength denial power as you are.
But notice, nobody is telling you that you cannot do something, but
merely trying to tell you what would be best. Because that is one of
the things humans do for each other.
friend 1: I saw what looked like a ghost in the window. Is it real?
friend 2: yes it is or no it is not
Which is the foundation of consensus reality.
What happens if you do not ask or ignore the response? Consequences
happen whatever they are. That is what is forced on you. Consequences >>>> of bad decisions. Every stinking time.
Ah, so you agree with me that one person shouldn't be able to tell
another person that they can't do a thing that isn't harming anyone.
Except that refusing to get vaccinated harms people besides you.
Good to know.
And back to what you said earlier, I also think getting the best
information in support of making the best decisions is a good thing.
So we agree again!
I look forward to you beginning to seek out good advice.
My advice is to start looking things up before you hit the SEND key.
You and Nick are looking like 4th graders. Do some homework.
On 3/3/2026 11:44 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 11:31:12 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 3/2/2026 1:39 PM, Dude wrote:
On 3/2/2026 9:30 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 3/1/2026 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:Wilson has them both sitting on a stick, spinning. Good work Noah and
On 3/1/26 3:32 PM, Wilson wrote:
Without property rights, you have don't own the product of your
labor. If you don't own your labor, you don't own yourself. Which >>>>>>> reduces you to the level of a serf, no better than and probably
worse off than the poor Nick is claiming he's trying to help.
a) incorrect. serfs were bound to work the land, it's forced labor >>>>>>
abolishing property rights does not force u to labor wilson
b) u don't have a claim on land/resources just because u did labor >>>>>>
-a-a-a > it's really that fking simple ?
-a-a-a >
-a-a-a > #god
sure in an equitable system that will generally be true cause why
would people steal from each other if they are all well raised an
taken care of ...
I don't want to "be taken care of". I'm not an infant. I want to be
treated fairly and have my space and rights - including whatever
property I paid for - to be respected.
Commies and other forced collectivists think they can remake humanity >>>>> into something new. They think they can redistribute property against >>>>> the will of the owner. They don't mind using force. They are stupid
and evil.
Don't be stupid and evil Nick.
Nick! Maybe go back to school, learn a little about US Bill of Right.
Speaking of commies:
Karl Marx rejected the idea that human rights are innate, natural, or
universal, viewing them instead as historical constructs of bourgeois
society that protect private property and egoistic individuals.
Key words Innate" Rights
According to Marx, rights are not eternal truths; they are legal
relations linked to specific historical moments and economic
structures.
Marx was an absolute example of the educated idiot. He lived off of
others and would not work, didn't regularly bathe, and was in general a
total scumbag.
Ad hominem at its finest.
Whatever your opinion of the unwashed street person outside your door,
it is not true that he cannot be right about anything.
He also promoted the labor theory of value, which was and is complete bunk.
On 3/3/2026 12:48 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 12:00:21 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 3/3/2026 11:43 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 11:21:31 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 3/2/2026 2:17 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/2/26 10:18 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 3/2/2026 12:52 PM, dart200 wrote:THEY CAN'T DO THAT WHEN ALL THE PROPERTY IS TIED UP IN VIOLENT CLAIMS >>>>>> WILSON
On 3/2/26 9:30 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 3/1/2026 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:shut the fuck up retard, the vast vast majority of what u utilize and >>>>>>>> consume is 100% produced and distributed to you, by the labor of others
On 3/1/26 3:32 PM, Wilson wrote:
a) incorrect. serfs were bound to work the land, it's forced labor >>>>>>>>>>
Without property rights, you have don't own the product of your >>>>>>>>>>> labor. If you don't own your labor, you don't own yourself. Which >>>>>>>>>>> reduces you to the level of a serf, no better than and probably >>>>>>>>>>> worse off than the poor Nick is claiming he's trying to help. >>>>>>>>>>
abolishing property rights does not force u to labor wilson >>>>>>>>>>
b) u don't have a claim on land/resources just because u did labor >>>>>>>>>>
aa > it's really that fking simple ?
aa >
aa > #god
sure in an equitable system that will generally be true cause why >>>>>>>>>> would people steal from each other if they are all well raised an >>>>>>>>>> taken care of ...
I don't want to "be taken care of". I'm not an infant. I want to be >>>>>>>>
yes you "pay" for it, but remember: price is just a number. they >>>>>>>> still labored, and chanced are you've received a lot more labor time >>>>>>>> than the amount u ever put back in
treated fairly and have my space and rights - including whatever >>>>>>>>> property I paid for - to be respected.
Commies and other forced collectivists think they can remake >>>>>>>>> humanity into something new. They think they can redistribute >>>>>>>>> property against the will of the owner. They don't mind using force. >>>>>>>>> They are stupid and evil.
actually i want to
a) make the economy transparent. i want transparency markets, not >>>>>>>> just free ones
b) eventually cease the use violence to enforce any particular >>>>>>>> distribution of private property
Don't be stupid and evil Nick.
dont't be greedy and sinful wilson
I just want people free to be able to make their own decisions about >>>>>>
But it's not the case that all property is "tied up". There are people >>>>> selling and people buying right now.
As prices expand beyond the reach of most of us.
Fences are everywhere, and nearly every square inch of habitable land
belongs to somebody, not you.
This could become a real problem if too many people are unable to buy
any land.
It will lead to revolution.
The landowners will be killed or deposed.
Then maybe NEW people will own the land.
Or maybe a committee of people will say no one can own any land.
Obviously that will fix everything.
Obviously we need to get beyond looking for simple solutions.
Or since there are no simple solutions, the best idea is to revert to
a discarded old idea.
So obviously we need to discard ALL of our old ideas right now.
On 3/3/2026 9:01 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 3/3/2026 11:44 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:Nick and Noah don't even seem to realize they've gone over to the dark
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 11:31:12 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 3/2/2026 1:39 PM, Dude wrote:
On 3/2/2026 9:30 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 3/1/2026 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:Wilson has them both sitting on a stick, spinning. Good work Noah and >>>>> Nick! Maybe go back to school, learn a little about US Bill of Right. >>>>>
On 3/1/26 3:32 PM, Wilson wrote:
Without property rights, you have don't own the product of your >>>>>>>> labor. If you don't own your labor, you don't own yourself. Which >>>>>>>> reduces you to the level of a serf, no better than and probably >>>>>>>> worse off than the poor Nick is claiming he's trying to help.
a) incorrect. serfs were bound to work the land, it's forced labor >>>>>>>
abolishing property rights does not force u to labor wilson
b) u don't have a claim on land/resources just because u did labor >>>>>>>
aaa > it's really that fking simple ?
aaa >
aaa > #god
sure in an equitable system that will generally be true cause why >>>>>>> would people steal from each other if they are all well raised an >>>>>>> taken care of ...
I don't want to "be taken care of". I'm not an infant. I want to be >>>>>> treated fairly and have my space and rights - including whatever
property I paid for - to be respected.
Commies and other forced collectivists think they can remake humanity >>>>>> into something new. They think they can redistribute property against >>>>>> the will of the owner. They don't mind using force. They are stupid >>>>>> and evil.
Don't be stupid and evil Nick.
Speaking of commies:
Karl Marx rejected the idea that human rights are innate, natural, or >>>>> universal, viewing them instead as historical constructs of bourgeois >>>>> society that protect private property and egoistic individuals.
Key words Innate" Rights
According to Marx, rights are not eternal truths; they are legal
relations linked to specific historical moments and economic
structures.
Marx was an absolute example of the educated idiot. He lived off of
others and would not work, didn't regularly bathe, and was in general a >>>> total scumbag.
Ad hominem at its finest.
Whatever your opinion of the unwashed street person outside your door,
it is not true that he cannot be right about anything.
He also promoted the labor theory of value, which was and is complete bunk. >>
side, in their zeal to discredit Wilson.
Apparently, they did not complete 4th grade. Now, they are exposed by
their own words. radical Marxist leftists.
You just can't make this stuff up!
They've got no idea about history, politics or even basic human rights,
let alone speaking Spanish, Latin, English or Filipino.
The question is, are they nuts or just trolling?--
On 3/3/26 9:28 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 3/3/2026 12:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/3/26 8:21 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 3/2/2026 2:17 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/2/26 10:18 AM, Wilson wrote:
THEY CAN'T DO THAT WHEN ALL THE PROPERTY IS TIED UP IN VIOLENT
I just want people free to be able to make their own decisions about >>>>>
CLAIMS WILSON
But it's not the case that all property is "tied up". There are
people selling and people buying right now.
i'm sorry, why should i be restricted by a property owner who i never
transacted with in the first place???
why can't i make my own decision over who deserves what property???
Why should I respect your decision on what others own?
u don't have to
-a > u just can't get violent over it
-a >
-a > #god
I prefer to allow the individual decide what they want. It's not a >>>>>u have no argument than continually repeated "individual choice"
then is your *ENTIRE* argument wilson, and it's a fucking shit one
It's the best one.
it's the *only* one, and it's *still* just a retarded platitude
because /i never choose/ to be a planet where all the property is
hoarded by landlords ...
Maybe I never made a decision on being on a planet with you.
The solution here is obvious.
-a > kill urself maybe???
-a >
-a > or what u have another suggestion???
-a >
-a > #god
regardless of the absolute drivel most boomers spout: public
funding has and still does lead innovation, for the most part.
even with all the retards like ur in the govt actively sabotaging >>>>>>> it's operations
so ur claim here is moot
How do you define "public funding" here? Government spending does >>>>>> quite a bit of heavy lifting in basic research but it definitely
doesn't lead in the creation of usable new things that change
people's lives.
bitch u don't even care about innovation. u are you sniveling
pathetic mortal twat who will take his sinful views rightfully to
the grave
-a-a > the sooner the better
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
You still haven't defined what you meant by "public funding".
and u still couldn't recognize innovation if it pooped in ur mouth
look at social media ... all these hundred billion dollar companies
have devolved into just fking ad platforms. my facebook feed
especially is 90% about ads and meme accounts, and 10% about people i
actually know irl
it's objectively a shit product, yet it's the largest and really only
of it's kind on the market
I don't use facebook and likely never will.
ok boomer,
some of us actually liked seeing what friends post,
So what?
Don't use shit products, Nick. Unless you want to.
IT WAS A GOOD PRODUCT, AND THEN THEY BAIT AND SWITCHED US
On 3/3/2026 10:45 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/3/26 9:28 AM, Wilson wrote:They don't teach cursive anymore.
On 3/3/2026 12:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/3/26 8:21 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 3/2/2026 2:17 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/2/26 10:18 AM, Wilson wrote:
THEY CAN'T DO THAT WHEN ALL THE PROPERTY IS TIED UP IN VIOLENT
I just want people free to be able to make their own decisions about >>>>>>
CLAIMS WILSON
But it's not the case that all property is "tied up". There are
people selling and people buying right now.
i'm sorry, why should i be restricted by a property owner who i never >>>> transacted with in the first place???
why can't i make my own decision over who deserves what property???
Why should I respect your decision on what others own?
u don't have to
a > u just can't get violent over it
a >
a > #god
I prefer to allow the individual decide what they want. It's not a >>>>>>u have no argument than continually repeated "individual choice"
then is your *ENTIRE* argument wilson, and it's a fucking shit one
It's the best one.
it's the *only* one, and it's *still* just a retarded platitude
because /i never choose/ to be a planet where all the property is
hoarded by landlords ...
Maybe I never made a decision on being on a planet with you.
The solution here is obvious.
a > kill urself maybe???
a >
a > or what u have another suggestion???
a >
a > #god
regardless of the absolute drivel most boomers spout: public
funding has and still does lead innovation, for the most part. >>>>>>>> even with all the retards like ur in the govt actively sabotaging >>>>>>>> it's operations
so ur claim here is moot
How do you define "public funding" here? Government spending does >>>>>>> quite a bit of heavy lifting in basic research but it definitely >>>>>>> doesn't lead in the creation of usable new things that change
people's lives.
bitch u don't even care about innovation. u are you sniveling
pathetic mortal twat who will take his sinful views rightfully to >>>>>> the grave
aa > the sooner the better
aa >
aa > #god
You still haven't defined what you meant by "public funding".
and u still couldn't recognize innovation if it pooped in ur mouth
look at social media ... all these hundred billion dollar companies
have devolved into just fking ad platforms. my facebook feed
especially is 90% about ads and meme accounts, and 10% about people i >>>> actually know irl
it's objectively a shit product, yet it's the largest and really only >>>> of it's kind on the market
I don't use facebook and likely never will.
ok boomer,
We use Facebook all the time to stay in touch and exchange photos ofsome of us actually liked seeing what friends post,
kids and pets. It's important to keep in touch with friends and family.
That's one of the things I admire: the way Asian and Hispanic families
stick together and help each other with family life.
If you have any.
Keep in mind, Nick, you're dialoging with an El Sombrero that has a land >line running into his house, on property he owns, out in the back of
beyond, on the road to nowhere, whose name shall be nameless.
The question is, how did he get so lucky
and what did he know, and when did he know it?
--
So what?
Don't use shit products, Nick. Unless you want to.
IT WAS A GOOD PRODUCT, AND THEN THEY BAIT AND SWITCHED US
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 13:41:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 3/3/2026 12:48 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 12:00:21 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 3/3/2026 11:43 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 11:21:31 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 3/2/2026 2:17 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/2/26 10:18 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 3/2/2026 12:52 PM, dart200 wrote:THEY CAN'T DO THAT WHEN ALL THE PROPERTY IS TIED UP IN VIOLENT CLAIMS >>>>>>> WILSON
On 3/2/26 9:30 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 3/1/2026 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:shut the fuck up retard, the vast vast majority of what u utilize and >>>>>>>>> consume is 100% produced and distributed to you, by the labor of others
On 3/1/26 3:32 PM, Wilson wrote:
a) incorrect. serfs were bound to work the land, it's forced labor >>>>>>>>>>>
Without property rights, you have don't own the product of your >>>>>>>>>>>> labor. If you don't own your labor, you don't own yourself. Which >>>>>>>>>>>> reduces you to the level of a serf, no better than and probably >>>>>>>>>>>> worse off than the poor Nick is claiming he's trying to help. >>>>>>>>>>>
abolishing property rights does not force u to labor wilson >>>>>>>>>>>
b) u don't have a claim on land/resources just because u did labor >>>>>>>>>>>
-a-a > it's really that fking simple ?
-a-a >
-a-a > #god
sure in an equitable system that will generally be true cause why >>>>>>>>>>> would people steal from each other if they are all well raised an >>>>>>>>>>> taken care of ...
I don't want to "be taken care of". I'm not an infant. I want to be >>>>>>>>>
yes you "pay" for it, but remember: price is just a number. they >>>>>>>>> still labored, and chanced are you've received a lot more labor time >>>>>>>>> than the amount u ever put back in
treated fairly and have my space and rights - including whatever >>>>>>>>>> property I paid for - to be respected.
Commies and other forced collectivists think they can remake >>>>>>>>>> humanity into something new. They think they can redistribute >>>>>>>>>> property against the will of the owner. They don't mind using force. >>>>>>>>>> They are stupid and evil.
actually i want to
a) make the economy transparent. i want transparency markets, not >>>>>>>>> just free ones
b) eventually cease the use violence to enforce any particular >>>>>>>>> distribution of private property
Don't be stupid and evil Nick.
dont't be greedy and sinful wilson
I just want people free to be able to make their own decisions about >>>>>>>
But it's not the case that all property is "tied up". There are people >>>>>> selling and people buying right now.
As prices expand beyond the reach of most of us.
Fences are everywhere, and nearly every square inch of habitable land >>>>> belongs to somebody, not you.
This could become a real problem if too many people are unable to buy
any land.
It will lead to revolution.
The landowners will be killed or deposed.
Then maybe NEW people will own the land.
Or maybe a committee of people will say no one can own any land.
Obviously that will fix everything.
Obviously we need to get beyond looking for simple solutions.
Or since there are no simple solutions, the best idea is to revert to
a discarded old idea.
So obviously we need to discard ALL of our old ideas right now.
Rather, if they have already been discarded for good reason, don't try
to bring them back. Your fallacy here is ad absurdum. Extend the
argument until it becomes absurd. No cigar.
On 3/3/2026 2:35 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 13:41:17 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 3/3/2026 12:48 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 12:00:21 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 3/3/2026 11:43 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 11:21:31 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 3/2/2026 2:17 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 3/2/26 10:18 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 3/2/2026 12:52 PM, dart200 wrote:THEY CAN'T DO THAT WHEN ALL THE PROPERTY IS TIED UP IN VIOLENT CLAIMS >>>>>>>> WILSON
On 3/2/26 9:30 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 3/1/2026 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:shut the fuck up retard, the vast vast majority of what u utilize and
On 3/1/26 3:32 PM, Wilson wrote:
a) incorrect. serfs were bound to work the land, it's forced labor >>>>>>>>>>>>
Without property rights, you have don't own the product of your >>>>>>>>>>>>> labor. If you don't own your labor, you don't own yourself. Which >>>>>>>>>>>>> reduces you to the level of a serf, no better than and probably >>>>>>>>>>>>> worse off than the poor Nick is claiming he's trying to help. >>>>>>>>>>>>
abolishing property rights does not force u to labor wilson >>>>>>>>>>>>
b) u don't have a claim on land/resources just because u did labor >>>>>>>>>>>>
aa > it's really that fking simple ?
aa >
aa > #god
sure in an equitable system that will generally be true cause why >>>>>>>>>>>> would people steal from each other if they are all well raised an >>>>>>>>>>>> taken care of ...
I don't want to "be taken care of". I'm not an infant. I want to be >>>>>>>>>>
consume is 100% produced and distributed to you, by the labor of others
yes you "pay" for it, but remember: price is just a number. they >>>>>>>>>> still labored, and chanced are you've received a lot more labor time >>>>>>>>>> than the amount u ever put back in
treated fairly and have my space and rights - including whatever >>>>>>>>>>> property I paid for - to be respected.
Commies and other forced collectivists think they can remake >>>>>>>>>>> humanity into something new. They think they can redistribute >>>>>>>>>>> property against the will of the owner. They don't mind using force.
They are stupid and evil.
actually i want to
a) make the economy transparent. i want transparency markets, not >>>>>>>>>> just free ones
b) eventually cease the use violence to enforce any particular >>>>>>>>>> distribution of private property
Don't be stupid and evil Nick.
dont't be greedy and sinful wilson
I just want people free to be able to make their own decisions about >>>>>>>>
But it's not the case that all property is "tied up". There are people >>>>>>> selling and people buying right now.
As prices expand beyond the reach of most of us.
Fences are everywhere, and nearly every square inch of habitable land >>>>>> belongs to somebody, not you.
This could become a real problem if too many people are unable to buy >>>>> any land.
It will lead to revolution.
The landowners will be killed or deposed.
Then maybe NEW people will own the land.
Or maybe a committee of people will say no one can own any land.
Obviously that will fix everything.
Obviously we need to get beyond looking for simple solutions.
Or since there are no simple solutions, the best idea is to revert to
a discarded old idea.
So obviously we need to discard ALL of our old ideas right now.
Rather, if they have already been discarded for good reason, don't try
to bring them back. Your fallacy here is ad absurdum. Extend the
argument until it becomes absurd. No cigar.
The future marches on, always forward, progress is inevitable,
because all the old ideas that have been discarded are bad.
At least the ones commies don't like anyway.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 59 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 19:51:21 |
| Calls: | 812 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,287 |
| D/L today: |
20 files (23,248K bytes) |
| Messages: | 210,075 |