Quote from: niemivh on August 01, 2012, 06:34:21 PM

Quote from: FredericBastiat on August 01, 2012, 05:46:35 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on August 01, 2012, 05:12:59 PM

Feel free to start a thread regarding it. Care to address your views on property within the context of oceans, rivers, fishing, migration, pollination, pesticides, timber, whaling, poaching, black markets, free markets, drilling, pollution, trophic cascades, predation, ecosystem services, soil maintenance, climate amelioration, nutrient cycling, flood control, freshwater supply, genetic resources, and recreation?

I'm only interested in addressing those topics if they affect the property of others sans permission. If you can reasonably demonstrate that any one or all of those significantly affect the property of others, then we can have a discussion about what consequences could be directed at the person whose property effuses or emits unwanted material beyond its boundaries.

It's just physics you're talking about. Those topics are just specialties under the umbrella of physics. All very interesting stuff. Nevertheless, I'm not so concerned as to the specifics of the affects (since there are nuances within nuances) as I am the constant meddling of governments who claim to be the fountain of all knowledge, ethics and punishment (the pretense being that they are our moral overlords).

Besides, if you don't like what others do on their property (assuming their activities remain confined to the dimensions of said property), what makes your utility so much better than theirs?

It's funny how all you Libs are the same. The deterministic, procedural methodology. The reductionism. The empiricism. The absurdity of thinking that 'everything is under the umbrella of physics'. It would be an interesting discussion to follow the path of these style thinkers who originated this line of thinking and how the underpinning for your entire Lib belief system is actually requisite on these pre-existing world-views. Oh, and lest I forget, you all have this absurd ontological and bankrupt epistemology because you are all 'skeptics'.

LOL. You guys are priceless. You are all the same, but you are all priceless nevertheless.

And, I would try, but I'd be all alone. You guys have no idea what I'm talking about when I'm simply discussing the implications of your shibboleths and ideological fetishism. In short, most of you are too stupid & ignorant to even be voting, much less debating anything. So, if I starting discussing the origin of these belief systems, and epistemological world-views over the past 1000 years, I might as well be speaking in a Martian language.