IT's a mutual agreement, not a right.

IF you have the right to perform a service THEN you have a right to the output

can't have just one

they go together

but why do people exercise control over the things the agreement is made upon

else it's called 'slavery'

why can't i agree with someone to give them control over the hoover dam

you don't OWN hoover dam

why not

it's not yours to give

why

How old are you June??

because you didn't CREATE it

wait i don't care about you, i'm trying to dig in to his position

i'm 24

nor did you AGREE in the means of exchange in ACQUIRING it

someone created something of value

the initial creation dictated initial ownership

i would certainly think you don't consider all forms of property to be legitimate kizza

the real key to the point is 'possession'

there seems to be some standard by which you think it is

if the government decided to require everyone living in its territory to pay a 100% i don't think you would that's legitimate

Ruling members of the soviet union didn't 'own' anything.. but they CONTROLLED anything they wanted

so you think there are restrictions on what the government should do with its property

i would assume, at least

i could be wrong

I don't think we're talking about the same thing.

how does that assertion come to be?

your logic is of a floating abstraction

how does what assertion come to be

creating this imaginary scenerio without examining how that scenerio would ever come into existance

i just think you do believe in some conception of property rights kizza

you can't get there from here

doesn't matter

<:slurpgon:583424900732157956>

you have to start from the ground up

the point is that i don't think he thinks the government should be able to set whatever rules it wants for people who reside on its territory

you can't just insert a scenrio from the standards u are used to and have it hold as valid logic

yeah, gov doesn't GET to do anything without permission

sure and if he thinks that that's my point