When you own the property, you call the shots.
“The program of liberalism, therefore, if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property, that is, private ownership of the means of production… All the other demands of liberalism result from his fundamental demand.” — Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism
I’d kinda like to see God’s Deed to the Universe. I figure the property has long been abandoned and is open to squatter’s claims.
Well, not so much immunity as a 52 Wisdom score, which leads to +21 on Willpower checks, not to mention the 20 levels of Monk!
Property rights over human rights. You mock democracy, the collective will of the people as being no more valid than an assault by a mob; then you pretend that there’s something sacrosanct about the accumulation of stuff. It’s ridiculous, and nothing but an excuse for sociopathic behavior.
Why don’t you guys pick a spokestroll? Let me know who it’ll be.
Heh. And pronouncing all laws to be “made up shit” is not trollery?. You started it, then follow up with the usual whining about how we are ganging up on you.
Next verse, same as the first.
Can’t count, eh? No wonder it’s taking so long. You (few) people are so fucking ignorant it’s ridiculous. “Property rights over human rights” even while treating people like property — taking whatever you want from John to serve whatever need you think Mary has. That’s the problem with you socialists: you think people don’t own their own minds and bodies. That’s why you think they belong to you. I guess it makes no difference how many of you there are. It’s the same crap from each.
Oh, calm down, Lib. Even we non-socialists are capable of realizing that the concept of private property rights is just as much “made up shit” as the concept of public property. The concept of one’s own body as one’s legal private property is “made up shit” too.
And I’m not saying that like it’s a bad thing. Thank heavens humans over the millennia have been smart enough to make up shit like concepts of property, and the rule of law, and territorial sovereignty, and the right to self-defense, and so on and so forth. All this made up shit is the foundation of what we call human civilization, and we’re lucky to have it (although it still needs more work, natch).
Your fuming and spewing venom at other people (including those of us who have been responding courteously) with overheated analogies about slavery and rape, simply because we have a pragmatic rational tolerance for such bedrock concepts of civilization as national sovereignty and public property, doesn’t do a thing for the viability or persuasiveness of the position you’re trying to promote. Climb down off that cross, Lib, we need the wood 'cause there’s none on the moon.
Kimstu, if you feel like having a serious discussion without the references to crosses and calm downs and stuff like that, let me know. You’re not one of those idiots. As much as you and I wrangle, we at least listen to one another. Agreed?
Hmmm… I’m sensing a little disconnect here. If there are so few people who do not regard the sanctity of private property as the pinnacle of social virtue, then why is it that virtually every society on earth practices at least some aspects of socialism?
Just sayin’…
Keynes. But that’s not why they’re ignorant. They’re ignorant because they don’t know how either side is deduced or constructed — mine or their own.
Agreed. I’ll leave out the calm downs and the crosses if you’ll leave out the slavery and the pool-table ramroddings.
You happen to think it’s valid to regard the concept of private property rights as a uniquely fundamental and natural basis of human society; I happen to think it isn’t. We can disagree about this without either of us insinuating that the other person’s viewpoint is inherently evil or insane.
However, while the current spat continues between you and the other non-libertarians here, I’m going to sit out. I’ll be over here in the corner if anybody wants to discuss moon treaties.
I’m mildly curious what might happen if somebody thinks it’d be cool to divert an asteroid into Earth orbit and gradually mine it down to nothing. What’s the red tape on that, risking civilization as it does?
From Lumpy’s cites, it sounds like at the very least, a private entity would have to get permission from its gummint to do such a thing, by the provisions of the 1967 Space Treaty. To what extent a state signatory to that treaty is even allowed to give permission to a private entity to do any such thing, I do not know.
Is there some nuance added to the word when you spell “government” as “gummint”? Or is it just some lolcat type thing?
No, sorry about that! It’s an instance of swamp-speak that I’ve occasionally used ever since I started reading Pogo, but I didn’t intend it to have any particular meaning here.
The fundamental difference between antique claims of ownership of property and claims of ownership of the Moon is that we can’t point to the guy we killed to gain possession of that ownership. In the case of all Earth property, we can.
So, we need to kill someone, so that we can own it.
It’s called civilization, and it is what separates us from the animals.
Tris
Yeah, well, just don’t take on Buzz Aldrin. He knows how to hit.
I completely agree with this, but it presents a logistical problem. The efficiency of mining on the moon is going to come with almost no room for error. The extra energy that would be needed to light up the dark side of the mood could push the project into a negative energy balance.
Well, what was all that daylight saving crap for? Let’s use up the surplus!
There’s no “dark side” of the moon, there is only the far side that faces away from Earth. As the moon rotates, all parts of it get illuminated in turn. The bigger hassle with a far-side base is they’d be out of radio contact (or at least out of direct radio contact) with Earth, which can be a real nuisance if something bad happens and you need quick advice from mission control. Indirect contact can be set up by putting some radio satellites in lunar orbit, but that’s a lot of extra trouble to go to just to avoid offending some people.