Celebrating Secession?

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Individuals can do labor and have rights. Groups can’t do labor, can’t think, can’t run and jump and have no rights.[/quote]

Groups are doing labor as we speak. From the group in the stock room, to the group on the assembly line, to the sales team. [/quote]

Funny, sounds like you are talking about individual people doing work within an abstract framework you are labeling “group”.[/quote]

It’s not abstract, it’s concrete. The group is doing work.[/quote]

No it is not. EVERY single minute action is being taken by an individual. Not one action has even been made by a collective. Because a collective has no body, no brain, no conscience. It is ONLY a label for multiple individuals. It is nothing more than a lingual shortcut to refer to specific individuals. It is easier to say “I hate the Yankees” than to list out all the individuals I hate.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
BUT i do believe self ownership to be a natural right and you can logically build other property rights on that.[/quote]

Sure, including collective-communitarian property rights.

Also, anyone who would argue that food and shelter for slaves is a benefit might want to consider this: there were a lot of slaves who felt that anything that kept them alive longer, especially well before the Civil War when there wasn’t any sort of major movement to free them, was hardly beneficial to them. Only to their owners was it beneficial.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Individuals can do labor and have rights. Groups can’t do labor, can’t think, can’t run and jump and have no rights.[/quote]

Groups are doing labor as we speak. From the group in the stock room, to the group on the assembly line, to the sales team. [/quote]

Funny, sounds like you are talking about individual people doing work within an abstract framework you are labeling “group”.[/quote]

It’s not abstract, it’s concrete. The group is doing work.[/quote]

No it is not. EVERY single minute action is being taken by an individual. Not one action has even been made by a collective. Because a collective has no body, no brain, no conscience. It is ONLY a label for multiple individuals. It is nothing more than a lingual shortcut to refer to specific individuals. It is easier to say “I hate the Yankees” than to list out all the individuals I hate.[/quote]

Does an individual build the entire car for GM?

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
BUT i do believe self ownership to be a natural right and you can logically build other property rights on that.[/quote]

Sure, including collective-communitarian property rights.[/quote]

No, because they violate self ownership.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Individuals can do labor and have rights. Groups can’t do labor, can’t think, can’t run and jump and have no rights.[/quote]

Groups are doing labor as we speak. From the group in the stock room, to the group on the assembly line, to the sales team. [/quote]

Funny, sounds like you are talking about individual people doing work within an abstract framework you are labeling “group”.[/quote]

It’s not abstract, it’s concrete. The group is doing work.[/quote]

No it is not. EVERY single minute action is being taken by an individual. Not one action has even been made by a collective. Because a collective has no body, no brain, no conscience. It is ONLY a label for multiple individuals. It is nothing more than a lingual shortcut to refer to specific individuals. It is easier to say “I hate the Yankees” than to list out all the individuals I hate.[/quote]

Does an individual build the entire car for GM?[/quote]

Neither does GM the group.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Individuals can do labor and have rights. Groups can’t do labor, can’t think, can’t run and jump and have no rights.[/quote]

Groups are doing labor as we speak. From the group in the stock room, to the group on the assembly line, to the sales team. [/quote]

Good.

Then take all the individuals out of that group and see how much work gets done.

[/quote]

And take out the group and see how much labor gets done.
[/quote]

If the indivividuals are free to associate they will simply form another.

I would like to see a mere abstraction build new individuals though.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Individuals can do labor and have rights. Groups can’t do labor, can’t think, can’t run and jump and have no rights.[/quote]

Groups are doing labor as we speak. From the group in the stock room, to the group on the assembly line, to the sales team. [/quote]

Funny, sounds like you are talking about individual people doing work within an abstract framework you are labeling “group”.[/quote]

It’s not abstract, it’s concrete. The group is doing work.[/quote]

Really.

Whgat kind of work does a group do that does above and beyond the combined work of its individual members?

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Also, anyone who would argue that food and shelter for slaves is a benefit might want to consider this: there were a lot of slaves who felt that anything that kept them alive longer, especially well before the Civil War when there wasn’t any sort of major movement to free them, was hardly beneficial to them. Only to their owners was it beneficial.[/quote]

A lot of taxpayers feel that way too, for one reason or another.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
BUT i do believe self ownership to be a natural right and you can logically build other property rights on that.[/quote]

Sure, including collective-communitarian property rights.[/quote]

No, because they violate self ownership.[/quote]

Individually owned private property violates self-ownership. I didn’t consent to beautiful seascape that noone created to being privately owned and dotted up with houses and tacky little storefronts. I’d like to walk that land, camp on that land, that noone one created without being threatened with loitering.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Individuals can do labor and have rights. Groups can’t do labor, can’t think, can’t run and jump and have no rights.[/quote]

Groups are doing labor as we speak. From the group in the stock room, to the group on the assembly line, to the sales team. [/quote]

Funny, sounds like you are talking about individual people doing work within an abstract framework you are labeling “group”.[/quote]

It’s not abstract, it’s concrete. The group is doing work.[/quote]

Really.

Whgat kind of work does a group do that does above and beyond the combined work of its individual members?
[/quote]

I takes credit?

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Does an individual build the entire car for GM?[/quote]

No but it will either be him or an other individual that does his part in helping to build it.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Individuals can do labor and have rights. Groups can’t do labor, can’t think, can’t run and jump and have no rights.[/quote]

Groups are doing labor as we speak. From the group in the stock room, to the group on the assembly line, to the sales team. [/quote]

Funny, sounds like you are talking about individual people doing work within an abstract framework you are labeling “group”.[/quote]

It’s not abstract, it’s concrete. The group is doing work.[/quote]

Really.

Whgat kind of work does a group do that does above and beyond the combined work of its individual members?
[/quote]

If I want to make sales, I can dispose of an individual. I can’t dispose of the sales team.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
BUT i do believe self ownership to be a natural right and you can logically build other property rights on that.[/quote]

Sure, including collective-communitarian property rights.[/quote]

No, because they violate self ownership.[/quote]

Individually owned private property violates self-ownership. I didn’t consent to beautiful seascape that noone created to being privately owned and dotted up with houses and tacky little storefronts. I’d like to walk that land, camp on that land, that noone one created without being threatened with loitering.[/quote]

Depends on how the land was acquired. If you lived there and they came and kicked you off, then yes, it violated your self ownership. If you just don’t like what others are doing, then no, it does not.

In fact, you walking over to where others live an stopping them from doing what they want is what violates self ownership.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Individuals can do labor and have rights. Groups can’t do labor, can’t think, can’t run and jump and have no rights.[/quote]

Groups are doing labor as we speak. From the group in the stock room, to the group on the assembly line, to the sales team. [/quote]

Funny, sounds like you are talking about individual people doing work within an abstract framework you are labeling “group”.[/quote]

It’s not abstract, it’s concrete. The group is doing work.[/quote]

Really.

Whgat kind of work does a group do that does above and beyond the combined work of its individual members?
[/quote]

If I want to make sales, I can dispose of an individual. I can’t dispose of the sales team.[/quote]

Your use of the word I violates the very thought your sentence is meant to convey.

Oh the irony.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Individuals can do labor and have rights. Groups can’t do labor, can’t think, can’t run and jump and have no rights.[/quote]

Groups are doing labor as we speak. From the group in the stock room, to the group on the assembly line, to the sales team. [/quote]

Funny, sounds like you are talking about individual people doing work within an abstract framework you are labeling “group”.[/quote]

It’s not abstract, it’s concrete. The group is doing work.[/quote]

Really.

Whgat kind of work does a group do that does above and beyond the combined work of its individual members?
[/quote]

If I want to make sales, I can dispose of an individual. I can’t dispose of the sales team.[/quote]

Your use of the word I violates the very thought your sentence is meant to convey.

Oh the irony.[/quote]

No it doesn’t.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Individuals can do labor and have rights. Groups can’t do labor, can’t think, can’t run and jump and have no rights.[/quote]

Groups are doing labor as we speak. From the group in the stock room, to the group on the assembly line, to the sales team. [/quote]

Funny, sounds like you are talking about individual people doing work within an abstract framework you are labeling “group”.[/quote]

It’s not abstract, it’s concrete. The group is doing work.[/quote]

Really.

Whgat kind of work does a group do that does above and beyond the combined work of its individual members?
[/quote]

If I want to make sales, I can dispose of an individual. I can’t dispose of the sales team.[/quote]

Your use of the word I violates the very thought your sentence is meant to convey.

Oh the irony.[/quote]

No it doesn’t.[/quote]

I is the term for an individual and an individual’s actions.

You could replace the “sales team” with an individual.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Depends on how the land was acquired…[/quote]

You mean, like using force to claim something that belongs to no one person?

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Depends on how the land was acquired…[/quote]

You mean, like using force to claim something that belongs to no one person?

[/quote]

If something doesn’t belong to individuals, who are you using force against?

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I is the term for an individual and an individual’s actions.

[/quote]

Excellent. Now explain to me the irony? See, I haven’t argued that AREN’T made up of individuals. But no, I can’t replace the sales team with one individual. I need a sales team, but I can replace an individual.

And once more. Does an individual build the entire car for GM?