Speaking of land how's this .... "Defence Department secretary Dennis Richardson has taken the blame for not telling the United States in advance that the Port of Darwin which is used by US military forces would be sold to a Chinese company with alleged links to the Chinese military. The admission came at a Senate inquiry where it was confirmed that Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull ordered a review of federal foreign investment laws in the wake of the 99-year lease of the Port of Darwin to Chinese company Landbridge." "The deal was not formally reviewed by the Foreign Investment Review Board because states and territories can sell land to foreign investors without the need for Foreign Investment Review Board approval under certain conditions." "Ms Anne Tan, the acting Northern Territory Coordinator-General, who worked on the Port of Darwin project, said: "We were quite comfortable that the links between Landbridge and the Chinese government were acceptable to us." Read more: http://www.afr.com/news/politics/de...rwin-port-lease-20151215-glnosj#ixzz3zp1g7AiT
I think that he thinks that you think that if a society doesn't have property rights then it isn't entitled to be free from aggression...
This could have all been cleared up within a heartbeat if he had taken what I said at face value, instead of interpreting it the way he did. Did it really come across as meaning that though? I thought my intention was obvious. :/
I think that because you unusually ambiguous when writing "any system based upon collectivism as being the supreme value system overrides the fundamental right to freedom from aggression upon both person and property" he decided to take it and run as a kind of "gotcha" moment. I assume that you meant in any system based on collectivism, freedom from aggression and respecting property rights is impossible as those rights are incompatible with collectivism. I.e, if I have 2 fish, you have 0, in a collectivist society, it wouldn't matter why we'd ended up like that, I'd be expected to, or forced, give one fish to you.
But his very next sentence is: "It's a view I can morally justify by arguing that a human can only achieve his or her potential when private property rights are recognised as supreme." So it is clear that he is morally justifying aggression from those who don't adhere to the collectivist system because by imposing property rights would improve the lot of those people suffering under collectivism by allowing them to achieve their full potential.
@col, any communal system of property rights overrides any individual claim to liberty. There is nothing ambiguous about that at all. If "the group" claims precedence to a resource, then it denies any individual's claim. It's not really difficult to understand, for some.
Busy trying to build a new business (hopefully without stuffing the environment or infringing on anyone's property rights). Depending on the intensity of my hangover, I will respond to your tosh tomorrow. Love you xx
@ Big A.D., I'll be offline for a week or so as of tomorrow, going on a golf trip so take your time. I don't know what "tosh" means but I'm sure it's not positive. :lol::lol: I'm not sure if I love you unless it's your wife posting again, but if it is she understands what I'm saying.
@SP, I couldn't be bothered reading your post, but I'm sure that it's from someone who has an intricate knowledge of libertarianism. :lol: Edit to add: because I sure as hell know you don't!! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Simply reading Shiney's posts is an interesting study in the psychology of "internet Libertarians". :lol:
There is more to the internet than idiotic immature memes and emoticons ... If one does not know the meaning of a word the internet has a search engine called google ... there are many online dictionaries to choose from ... tosh noun rubbish; nonsense.
If one does not know the meaning of a word one usually applies semantic knowledge. Semantics is the method we use to apply pre-existing knowledge to that which is unknown. It's not difficult, it comes naturally...........for most. :lol: :lol: When we read we apply 3 strategies to comprehend, we use grapho-phonic, syntactic and semantic cues. Well, that's what intelligent people do. Dumb fcks just assume. And then post endless inane comments.
Actually, most people would just look up the word rather than come up with convoluted justifications and spew profanities. A toddler, on the other, may throw a little hissy fit.
