Immigrants make you richer.

[pErvinalia]

http://www.organicgardeninfo.com/crushed-granite.html

On the business of greening the Australian desert, I think we can all agree it would be a massive undertaking, costing billions of dollars. Just pumping fresh water from the monsoonal north would cost $$$$$.

However, if we accept the cost, then we must also accept that it would be possible. The reference above is to the use of crushed granite as fertiliser. The bedrock under the Australian desert (and its many hills) are granite. There are trillions of tonnes of granite available. Australian mining already turns millions of tonnes of rock into ground up material each year, in order to extract valuable minerals. It would cost money, but be quite feasible to use the same machinery in the Australian centre to grind up granite in the millions of tonnes.

You can make very good topsoil by mixing ground granite with compost. As someone already pointed out, compost can be made on the spot by market gardens, or by pastoral farming. All that is needed is water.

With the money and the determination, you do not need to import fertilisers, and you can make very, very fertile soil on the spot.

Let me add that the idea of soil from crushed granite and compost is not some fantasy. Agricultural researchers have done it, and crops are being grown in that soil as we speak, although on a very small scale.

I am not suggesting that this is going to happen any time soon. The financial cost is such as to make it impractical at this time. I just want the nay-sayers to realise that it is possible, if people are willing to pay the price.

I wish some of you sermon machines could actually read. Everyone has agreed it would be possible with enough money.

[Seth]

The market should decide and Big Government should butt out. Don'cha think?

Yes, it should. The market, not the illegal immigrant. The problem is that illegal immigrants defraud the public by making their own decision to cross the border and leech on society in hopes of getting a job and becoming financially solvent and productive. Sadly, many of them never achieve that and they, or their dependents, become drains on the public purse for things like education and health care because their skill sets are inadequate to the market. And they perpetrate the fraud from the moment they step across the border, which is impermissible.

Rubbish. The setting up of borders in the first place was an act of force or fraud by Big Government.

A good Libertarian should demand that all border fences be torn down.

You still misunderstand Libertarianism. It's not a free-for-all by any stretch of the imagination.

"Big Government" is not a living organism, it's an organizational structure created by the inhabitants of the area, who are perfectly entitled to define the boundaries of their sphere of labor and investment.

...so if the inhabitants choose to divide property equally between them, you'd be happy?
Gosh I never realised that Socialism was compatible with Libertarianism.

Shudder.

A fundamental distinction between Libertarianism and Socialism is the use of force in making divisions of property. In Socialism the majority initiates force against the minority in making such allocations, whereas in Libertarianism, division or redistribution of property can only occur with the express consent of the property owner. Nothing in Libertarianism precludes anyone from donating property for the use of all, it just cannot be accomplished by others imposing their will by force.

Under your interpretation, any illegal immigrant is entitled to move into your house merely because he has the ability to cross the border and claim your share of the costs improving society.

Are you willing to live your principles to that extent?

I'm not actually a Libertarian, if the truth be told.

I'm just trying to show you how illogical it is in Principle.

Thanks for trying, and thanks for the opportunity to explain why your attempt failed.

[Seth]

Yes. But let me forestall your obvious rejoinder. Libertarianism doesn't buy into the notion that the sins of the father can be visited on the son. In other words, just because someone in the past initiated force or fraud that resulted in a benefit to someone today does not mean that a person today, who has not initiated force or fraud, is responsible for righting that wrong or compensating the descendants of the wronged person.

Why shouldn't they? They benefit from the past force/fraud of their antecendants.

Can you read? Fuck off.

Now, now. It was a valid question.

If you believe that you have the right to leave that property to future generations by inheritance, then the same should apply retrospectively to property illegally gained.

Don't Libertarians believe in fairness?

Why should the same apply retrospectively?

There is a substantial difference between an organized passing of property from one generation to another by way of inheritance and probate and someone popping up a hundred years after the deaths of the involved parties announcing that they have a claim on some property they allege was "stolen" from their ancestors.

Arrangements for inheritance are completed prior to the death of the owner, where his ownership, wishes and intentions may be documented for posterity.

Showing up at my house a hundred and fifty years after your ancestor allegedly lost some property to a purported theft by my ancestor and claiming that I owe you something is entirely different. As I said, such disputes must be resolved within the lives of the individuals involved, not resurrected like some zombie decades or centuries later. Allowing this sort of thing makes social stability impossible because if permitted, every title of every piece of property is clouded and no one can ever be certain of fee ownership of that property. That's why there are statutes of limitations on making such claims, as in the case of adverse possession. At some point, title must be deemed absolute against any such claims in order for society to function peacefully. If you sit on your rights for too long, you can lose them. That's a basic principle of law both in fact and in Libertarian philosophy.

And yes, Libertarians believe in fairness, but your definition of what's "fair" is based in the fallacy of ancestral guilt. Would it be "fair" for example to witness an adverse occupation of your property and allow it to continue for a protracted time where the property is improved and developed with the intent to make a claim to the property in hopes of gaining the financial rewards from the expenditures of the trespasser? No, it wouldn't, which is why adverse possession laws require the true owner to take action to eject the trespasser within time limits that vary from a few months to more than 20 years, otherwise the trespasser can claim fee title to the land.

In the case of, for example, title to much of the land in the west that is alleged to be "stolen" from the aboriginal inhabitants, has been perfected in the present occupants by adverse possession of more than a century's duration by the inaction of the alleged true owners to defend that claim to title, claims about treaties notwithstanding, many of which were abrogated by the tribes themselves, making them null and void long, long ago.

No system is perfect, but ancestral claims to property are the proximate cause of most of the wars and genocides of human history. Libertarianism does not propose to perpetuate that irrational system that leads only to conflict.

You can't claim ownership on the basis that someone remotely related to you once owned it, unless you can document a chain of title leading directly to YOU (not your tribe or family) created intentionally and documented for posterity so there is no dispute to be resolved. Tempus fugit. If your ancestors didn't defend their title to the property, you can't do it for them ex post facto.

[Seth]

Only for the first year. Once that's done, it just needs a tiny top-up every year, if that.

You really don't have a fucking clue. The initial application of fertiliser is no larger than subsequent ones for the simple reason that crops use the stuff at a steady rate. For instance, for each ton of wheat we need the following in kilograms: 22.0 Nitrogen 3.8 Phosphorus 4.7 Potassium 2.2 Sulphur 0.4 Calcium 1.6 Magnesium. That is each and every year. If you use more at the outset than later on, it either means that you have used more than you needed to at the beginning or you are not using enough subsequently to bring your crops to maturity and harvest.

Australian farmers use over 4 million tons of fertiliser annually. Much of that is already imported, and there is pressure within nations we import from to stop exporting their stuff. Whoever said earlier in this thread that Australia could easily support several hundred million inhabitants has no fucking idea what he is talking about. I think we'd be struggling to support 50 million by the end of this century, and that number will be reached without increasing immigration.



Finally, will you, BG and D-K poster boy please stop pulling opinions out of your arses? It's getting a tad tedious.

Ever hear of "crop rotation" in which the farmer rotates types of crops from nitrogen-extracting to nitrogen-fixing, on a regular basis. It's a bit odd that agriculture has proceeded for millennia on the same lands without the help of artificial soil amendments through the use of "green" crop rotation techniques known for millennia.

[rainbow]

Thanks for trying, and thanks for the opportunity to explain why your attempt failed.

What you don't seem to realise is that in all your internet rants, you've not convinced anyone to the Cause of Libertarianism. In fact you've probably succeeded in pushing people over to the Other Side.

Don't talk about Failed Attempts!

...unless you are a Secret Socialist, and you're just showing how silly Libertarianism is?

[rainbow]

Yes. But let me forestall your obvious rejoinder. Libertarianism doesn't buy into the notion that the sins of the father can be visited on the son. In other words, just because someone in the past initiated force or fraud that resulted in a benefit to someone today does not mean that a person today, who has not initiated force or fraud, is responsible for righting that wrong or compensating the descendants of the wronged person.

Why shouldn't they? They benefit from the past force/fraud of their antecendants.

Can you read? Fuck off.

Now, now. It was a valid question.

If you believe that you have the right to leave that property to future generations by inheritance, then the same should apply retrospectively to property illegally gained.

Don't Libertarians believe in fairness?

Why should the same apply retrospectively?

...because you can't apply the Sanctity of Property Rights unevenly.

I'd've thought that to be obvious.

[pErvinalia]

@Seth, the real moral problem is descendatns getting something for free.

So what? If your daddy gives you $20 to go to the movies you're "getting something for free." Big deal. Who cares?

If my daddy gives me $200,000 that he did nothing to do to earn (his grandfather stole it from your grandfather) to get a top flight law degree, and you get nothing because you are poor because of the actions of my great grandfather, then a lot of non-sociopaths like myself care. You obviously don't (when it happens to others; I suspect you'd quickly change your tune if it happened to you).

Why are you so hung up on someone getting something from someone else gratis that you aren't getting? Sounds a lot like jealousy, envy and greed to me.

No, it's about what's fair and social cohesion and harmony.

I agree that there needs to be practical limitations on compensation, but it's not an even playing field. Let's say my great great great grandfather stole your ggg grandfather's wealth. Would you accept this as a fair situation and you were just going to let it go? I doubt very much most people would let it go, let alone someone with your selfish proclivities. Why should I have greater ease at accessing life's necessities than you, particularly because I did absolutely nothing to earn that access to greater ease?

Life is not an even playing field. Never has been,

Naturalistic fallacy.

never will be.

Orly, Nostradamus?

Your socialist streak clouds your reason and enhances your cupidity without any rational basis. Just because someone else has something doesn't mean you can expect to get some too.

When they have something due to the force/fraud of another then that is unfair. That's basic morality. Most people have that. Right-libertarians obviously don't.

The point of Libertarian philosophy with respect to "getting something for free" is that, beyond it being nobody's business but the parties to the transaction, is that it's simply impossible to keep track of who got what for free after the people involved are dead. And it's nobody's business how one person gets the property of another so long as there is no force or fraud involved.

This really is empty rhetoric to attempt to justify the present status quo. If you were a native American Indian, I doubt very much you'd support this view. Your whole philosophy is based around selfishness now that you are the privileged sub-group in society. It's immature in the extreme. Hence why most people grow out of Libertarianism in their late teens, early twenties.

How do I know your grandfather stole my grandfather's wealth? Can I just say so and expect to be compensated? What about the facts of the case that might show that it wasn't a theft at all, but was part of a negotiated contract? How can one be expected to parse such things when the people involved are dead?

What if there are clear records that show it was taken through force/fraud? There's no way in hell you would just let it go.

The real problem in your thinking is the silly notion that we are all equal when we are born, and it's only through hard work and/or work ethic that different people get ahead. That's clearly bollocks. Most people are born disadvantaged from the start, with some cripplingly disadvantaged.

If my granddaddy stole your granddaddy's watch, does that mean that you can come to me and demand that I give you a watch? Hardly.

It's not about individual items as you keep disingenuously trying to portray. It's about a serious unearned advantage in life over other individuals, most of which probably work far harder than you do (i'm talking the hypothetical "you" here).

[pErvinalia]

Thanks for trying, and thanks for the opportunity to explain why your attempt failed.

What you don't seem to realise is that in all your internet rants, you've not convinced anyone to the Cause of Libertarianism. In fact you've probably succeeded in pushing people over to the Other Side.

Don't talk about Failed Attempts!

...unless you are a Secret Socialist, and you're just showing how silly Libertarianism is?

It's my strong belief that Seth wouldn't be a "libertarian" if he was a regular Native American or African.

[Seth]

@Seth, the real moral problem is descendatns getting something for free.

So what? If your daddy gives you $20 to go to the movies you're "getting something for free." Big deal. Who cares?

If my daddy gives me $200,000 that he did nothing to do to earn (his grandfather stole it from your grandfather) to get a top flight law degree, and you get nothing because you are poor because of the actions of my great grandfather, then a lot of non-sociopaths like myself care.

Only because you're a greedy and avaricious sociopath. My grandfather should have taken action when the theft happened and resolved it then because trying to determine who stole what when two generations later is idiotic. Your daddy gave you some money and it doesn't matter whether he "earned" it or not, it's his money and he's perfectly entitled to do whatever he wants with it and I have no claim on that money at all.

You obviously don't (when it happens to others; I suspect you'd quickly change your tune if it happened to you).

Well, that's the thing about having principles, something you appear to be entirely ignorant of...when one lives by principles, fuckwitted socialist attempts at insults become nothing more than amusing.

Why are you so hung up on someone getting something from someone else gratis that you aren't getting? Sounds a lot like jealousy, envy and greed to me.

No, it's about what's fair and social cohesion and harmony.

No, it's about jealousy, greed, avarice and power. You don't want what I have because it's "fair," you want it because you want it, and you don't give a flying fuck about social cohesion or harmony and you'd be perfectly psychotically and psychopathically satisfied to have somebody else take what you want from me by force because you're too lazy and too much of a coward to try it yourself.

I agree that there needs to be practical limitations on compensation, but it's not an even playing field. Let's say my great great great grandfather stole your ggg grandfather's wealth. Would you accept this as a fair situation and you were just going to let it go? I doubt very much most people would let it go, let alone someone with your selfish proclivities. Why should I have greater ease at accessing life's necessities than you, particularly because I did absolutely nothing to earn that access to greater ease?

Life is not an even playing field. Never has been,

Naturalistic fallacy.

Fact.

never will be.

Orly, Nostradamus?

Rationalist.

Your socialist streak clouds your reason and enhances your cupidity without any rational basis. Just because someone else has something doesn't mean you can expect to get some too.

When they have something due to the force/fraud of another then that is unfair. That's basic morality. Most people have that. Right-libertarians obviously don't.

Correct. Therefore your grandfather was guilty of being unfair by stealing $200,000 from my grandfather, and my grandfather was therefore authorized and justified in using whatever force was necessary to recover the stolen money, up to and including deadly force. If he failed to do so, that's his problem, not mine, because it's his money and he can abandon it to a thief if he so chooses. Your father, however, was not unfair in giving the money to you because the guilt for the initiation of force and/or fraud died when your grandfather died.

The point of Libertarian philosophy with respect to "getting something for free" is that, beyond it being nobody's business but the parties to the transaction, is that it's simply impossible to keep track of who got what for free after the people involved are dead. And it's nobody's business how one person gets the property of another so long as there is no force or fraud involved.

This really is empty rhetoric to attempt to justify the present status quo. If you were a native American Indian, I doubt very much you'd support this view.

I'm a Scot. Shall I therefore demand that everyone in the United Kingdom recompense me for Longshank's (and a bunch of other British monarchs) depredations upon my people? After all, we Picts were there long before either the Saxons or the Normans showed up, so fuck all y'all, pay up. And then there's my German Palatine heritage that, using your illogic, entitles me to make claims on Germany for booting my ancestors out in 1704.

How far back shall we go? You yourself are a gross hypocrite because you live in a place "stolen" from aborigines. So shut the fuck up about ancestral guilt. I don't care what some American Indian of today thinks because any claims to land occupied by whites had to be made by the people dispossessed from that land, not by their umpty-teenth descendants, who "never worked for what they want to get for free."

Your whole philosophy is based around selfishness now that you are the privileged sub-group in society.

Your whole philosophy is based around greed, avarice, jealousy, envy and a willingness to kill other people to get what you want.

It's immature in the extreme. Hence why most people grow out of Libertarianism in their late teens, early twenties.

Sadly, Socialists are generally to stupid to ever outgrow Marxism.

How do I know your grandfather stole my grandfather's wealth? Can I just say so and expect to be compensated? What about the facts of the case that might show that it wasn't a theft at all, but was part of a negotiated contract? How can one be expected to parse such things when the people involved are dead?

What if there are clear records that show it was taken through force/fraud? There's no way in hell you would just let it go.

Yes, I would. It's not my job or my right to defend the wealth of my ancestors ex post facto. If they couldn't or didn't care to do it themselves, I certainly have no moral right to do it for them after the fact.

The real problem in your thinking is the silly notion that we are all equal when we are born,

When have I ever said that? I think I said above that life is not fair and never has been. I've never, ever even intimated that "we are all equal when we are born."

and it's only through hard work and/or work ethic that different people get ahead. That's clearly bollocks.

Indeed it is because I've never said or suggested that either. You're making shit up again.

Most people are born disadvantaged from the start, with some cripplingly disadvantaged.

Yes, they are. So what? Am I supposed to feel guilty for not being disadvantaged and be forced to give up the fruits of my labor because someone else was born at a disadvantage? Unless I personally caused that disadvantage, I'm neither morally nor ethically responsible for their plight, and therefore neither they, nor society, has a rightful claim on my labor or property on behalf of a disadvantaged person.

However, if a disadvantaged person needs my assistance, and is willing to politely ask me for it, I will give the request serious consideration and, out of a sense of altruism, charity and rational self-interest may be willing to donate my labor or property, or both, to assist such a person. But no person, disadvantaged or not, has any right to force me to labor on behalf of the disadvantaged without my willing consent.

If my granddaddy stole your granddaddy's watch, does that mean that you can come to me and demand that I give you a watch? Hardly.

It's not about individual items as you keep disingenuously trying to portray. It's about a serious unearned advantage in life over other individuals, most of which probably work far harder than you do (i'm talking the hypothetical "you" here).

As I said, life is not fair. Never has been, never will be. Get over it. Your idiotic socialist notion that the disadvantaged are owed something by everyone else is merely a reflection of your own cupidity and envy. The blame for disadvantaging someone lies with those who either caused it to happen through conscious acts intended to do so or to nature and fate. I've never owned a slave, and therefore I bear absolutely no responsibility, liability or guilt towards anyone who was held as a slave, and most particularly towards the descendants of such people, who in America have all had the same opportunity to succeed or fail on their own merits that anyone else does. Equal opportunity does not equal equality of outcome. It merely means that our system of government does not place deliberate legal and enforceable impediments in the way of anyone who has the ability to succeed economically by virtue of their own hard work. Equal opportunity does NOT mean a "level playing field" in which everyone starts out with the same amount of Monopoly money with which to make or lose their fortune.

It just means that nobody is permitted to prevent you from succeeding if you are capable of doing so. If you're not, well, that's a problem you need to work on. Asking politely for assistance might be a good idea.

That being said, it is the acknowledgment of the fundamental nature of most people as charitable, altruist, honest, compassionate and rational that Libertarianism hold to be sufficient motivation to care for the disadvantaged and needy without any need for coercion or force by anyone, including the government. The disadvantaged are assisted according to their willingness to participate in striving towards success and independence because Libertarians recognize that a rising tide raises all ships, and that it is not in their rational self-interest for the poor to be ignored and left to their fate.

The distinction is, once again, whether the collective is authorized to force any individual to be charitable, altruistic or compassionate. Libertarians do not believe that such coercion or force is justifiable.

[Seth]

Thanks for trying, and thanks for the opportunity to explain why your attempt failed.

What you don't seem to realise is that in all your internet rants, you've not convinced anyone to the Cause of Libertarianism. In fact you've probably succeeded in pushing people over to the Other Side.

Don't talk about Failed Attempts!

...unless you are a Secret Socialist, and you're just showing how silly Libertarianism is?

I doubt it. Anyone intelligent enough to understand Libertarianism is already a Libertarian. Stupid people, like socialists, are simply too stupid to understand the concepts and therefore reject what they don't understand and cannot understand. No loss there at all though, because they are too stupid to live in a Libertarian society.

I have never had the intention or hope of convincing any socialist of the benefits of Libertarianism because socialists (and liberals generally) are simply mentally unbalanced and are psychologically incapable of understanding, much less accepting, the rational truths of Libertarianism. The only purpose that you socialists serve is as perfect foils for my arguments. You are cautionary examples of the depths of unreason and illogic that socialists are mired in and can never escape.

I'm not even playing to the socialists here, I'm playing to the lurking audience...the ones who might be intelligent enough to see the truth and wisdom of my philosophy who might have stumbled in here before they have been rendered brain-dead by Marxist dogma and indoctrination.

If even one person reading this colloquy says "Eureka! I see it now!" and turns onto the upward path of Libertarianism, my work has been vindicated.

Remember what I said about Marxist useful idiots? The same applies to liberal useful idiots. They make great advertisements for Libertarianism, particularly when they demonstrate their utter inability to reason and their dogmatic, blindered obedience to their Marxist masters as they mindlessly spout socialist rhetoric and the Marxist dialectic without even understanding that they are doing so.

[Seth]

Thanks for trying, and thanks for the opportunity to explain why your attempt failed.

What you don't seem to realise is that in all your internet rants, you've not convinced anyone to the Cause of Libertarianism. In fact you've probably succeeded in pushing people over to the Other Side.

Don't talk about Failed Attempts!

...unless you are a Secret Socialist, and you're just showing how silly Libertarianism is?

It's my strong belief that Seth wouldn't be a "libertarian" if he was a regular Native American or African.

Guess what! I am a Native American.

[pErvinalia]

@Seth, the real moral problem is descendatns getting something for free.

So what? If your daddy gives you $20 to go to the movies you're "getting something for free." Big deal. Who cares?

If my daddy gives me $200,000 that he did nothing to do to earn (his grandfather stole it from your grandfather) to get a top flight law degree, and you get nothing because you are poor because of the actions of my great grandfather, then a lot of non-sociopaths like myself care.

Only because you're a greedy and avaricious sociopath.

What kind of logic is that?!? Standing up for someone else's right to fair treatment in the face of a clear wrong is "greedy" and sociopathic?? And you wonder why we think it's farcical that you believe you can win any debate.

You obviously don't (when it happens to others; I suspect you'd quickly change your tune if it happened to you).

Well, that's the thing about having principles, something you appear to be entirely ignorant of...when one lives by principles, fuckwitted socialist attempts at insults become nothing more than amusing.

I'm about as close to certain that the only principle you live by is selfishness.

Why are you so hung up on someone getting something from someone else gratis that you aren't getting? Sounds a lot like jealousy, envy and greed to me.

No, it's about what's fair and social cohesion and harmony.

No, it's about jealousy, greed, avarice and power. You don't want what I have because it's "fair," you want it because you want it, and you don't give a flying fuck about social cohesion or harmony and you'd be perfectly psychotically and psychopathically satisfied to have somebody else take what you want from me by force because you're too lazy and too much of a coward to try it yourself.

I don't want anything from you, you paranoid freak.

I agree that there needs to be practical limitations on compensation, but it's not an even playing field. Let's say my great great great grandfather stole your ggg grandfather's wealth. Would you accept this as a fair situation and you were just going to let it go? I doubt very much most people would let it go, let alone someone with your selfish proclivities. Why should I have greater ease at accessing life's necessities than you, particularly because I did absolutely nothing to earn that access to greater ease?

Life is not an even playing field. Never has been,

Naturalistic fallacy.

Fact.

You clearly don't understand what a logical fallacy is. No wonder you are incapable of winning even the most simplest of debates.

never will be.

Orly, Nostradamus?

Rationalist.

You're a fucking useless troll. You wouldn't know the first thing about rationality, as is clearly evidence by your belief that you can predict future.

The point of Libertarian philosophy with respect to "getting something for free" is that, beyond it being nobody's business but the parties to the transaction, is that it's simply impossible to keep track of who got what for free after the people involved are dead. And it's nobody's business how one person gets the property of another so long as there is no force or fraud involved.

This really is empty rhetoric to attempt to justify the present status quo. If you were a native American Indian, I doubt very much you'd support this view.

I'm a Scot. Shall I therefore demand that everyone in the United Kingdom recompense me for Longshank's (and a bunch of other British monarchs) depredations upon my people? After all, we Picts were there long before either the Saxons or the Normans showed up, so fuck all y'all, pay up. And then there's my German Palatine heritage that, using your illogic, entitles me to make claims on Germany for booting my ancestors out in 1704.

How far back shall we go? You yourself are a gross hypocrite because you live in a place "stolen" from aborigines. So shut the fuck up about ancestral guilt. I don't care what some American Indian of today thinks because any claims to land occupied by whites had to be made by the people dispossessed from that land, not by their umpty-teenth descendants, who "never worked for what they want to get for free."

Nice dodge there, troll. None of this changes the fact that if you were a Native American you wouldn't for a second believe this shit.

Your whole philosophy is based around selfishness now that you are the privileged sub-group in society.

Your whole philosophy is based around greed, avarice, jealousy, envy and a willingness to kill other people to get what you want.

Nice dodge, troll. We're not discussing my philosophy here. We are discussing you and your version of libertarianism. A version which is quite obviously based around selfishness due to your privileged position in society.

How do I know your grandfather stole my grandfather's wealth? Can I just say so and expect to be compensated? What about the facts of the case that might show that it wasn't a theft at all, but was part of a negotiated contract? How can one be expected to parse such things when the people involved are dead?

What if there are clear records that show it was taken through force/fraud? There's no way in hell you would just let it go.

Yes, I would. It's not my job or my right to defend the wealth of my ancestors ex post facto. If they couldn't or didn't care to do it themselves, I certainly have no moral right to do it for them after the fact.

Bullshit.

The real problem in your thinking is the silly notion that we are all equal when we are born,

When have I ever said that? I think I said above that life is not fair and never has been. I've never, ever even intimated that "we are all equal when we are born."

This is the problem with you. You change your "philosophy" depending on where you have been cornered. You've insinuated and outright stated that the difference in people's outcome in life is down to their work ethic and other personal choices, for years on the previous two forums. And you'll do it again when you think you can get away with it without anyone noticing the inconsistency in your "philosophy".

Most people are born disadvantaged from the start, with some cripplingly disadvantaged.

Yes, they are. So what?

I'm glad you agree that you are selfish.

If my granddaddy stole your granddaddy's watch, does that mean that you can come to me and demand that I give you a watch? Hardly.

It's not about individual items as you keep disingenuously trying to portray. It's about a serious unearned advantage in life over other individuals, most of which probably work far harder than you do (i'm talking the hypothetical "you" here).

As I said, life is not fair. Never has been,

Naturalistic fallacy.

never will be.

Orly, Nostradamus?

[pErvinalia]

Thanks for trying, and thanks for the opportunity to explain why your attempt failed.

What you don't seem to realise is that in all your internet rants, you've not convinced anyone to the Cause of Libertarianism. In fact you've probably succeeded in pushing people over to the Other Side.

Don't talk about Failed Attempts!

...unless you are a Secret Socialist, and you're just showing how silly Libertarianism is?

It's my strong belief that Seth wouldn't be a "libertarian" if he was a regular Native American or African.

Guess what! I am a Native American.

[mistermack]

One more point, on the fertiliser subject, is that in the scenario that I originally posted on, building a new city on the south coast, it would easily be self-sufficient in compost, because of the huge volumes of organic waste that a city would generate. In fact, it would be producing way more organic compost than it could possibly need, for the kind of market gardening operation that would be big enough to supply the city.

And of course, the market gardening would be producing it's own compostable waste as well.
So far from the project being short of nutrients, it would always produce a surplus.

[rainbow]

Thanks for trying, and thanks for the opportunity to explain why your attempt failed.

What you don't seem to realise is that in all your internet rants, you've not convinced anyone to the Cause of Libertarianism. In fact you've probably succeeded in pushing people over to the Other Side.

Don't talk about Failed Attempts!

...unless you are a Secret Socialist, and you're just showing how silly Libertarianism is?

I doubt it. Anyone intelligent enough to understand Libertarianism is already a Libertarian. Stupid people, like socialists, are simply too stupid to understand the concepts and therefore reject what they don't understand and cannot understand. No loss there at all though, because they are too stupid to live in a Libertarian society.

I have never had the intention or hope of convincing any socialist of the benefits of Libertarianism because socialists (and liberals generally) are simply mentally unbalanced and are psychologically incapable of understanding, much less accepting, the rational truths of Libertarianism. The only purpose that you socialists serve is as perfect foils for my arguments. You are cautionary examples of the depths of unreason and illogic that socialists are mired in and can never escape.

I'm not even playing to the socialists here, I'm playing to the lurking audience...the ones who might be intelligent enough to see the truth and wisdom of my philosophy who might have stumbled in here before they have been rendered brain-dead by Marxist dogma and indoctrination.

If even one person reading this colloquy says "Eureka! I see it now!" and turns onto the upward path of Libertarianism, my work has been vindicated.

Yep. There isn't even one. No vindication.

Epic Fail.

Remember what I said about Marxist useful idiots? The same applies to liberal useful idiots. They make great advertisements for Libertarianism, particularly when they demonstrate their utter inability to reason and their dogmatic, blindered obedience to their Marxist masters as they mindlessly spout socialist rhetoric and the Marxist dialectic without even understanding that they are doing so.

All hail to the Libertarian Useful Idiot.

Making new Socialists every day.