Monarchy

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 hour ago, Strontium said:

 

Same way anyone got any land in the first place.

 

[TheHowieLama]

6 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

How do they claim ownership of it?

 

They killed anyone who disagreed.

[Strontium]

Yes, land was once a game of musical chairs, and they were lucky enough to be sitting down when the music stopped. This is the basis for the anarchist belief that property is theft. So maybe we have more anarchists here than I thought.

[Arniepie]

Just now, Strontium said:

Yes, land was once a game of musical chairs, and they were lucky enough to be sitting down when the music stopped. This is the basis for the anarchist belief that property is theft. So maybe we have more anarchists here than I thought.

Tbf you don't have to be Karl marx, to think 1 family having an insane amount of wealth and living in a castle,simply through an accident of birth,whilst countless people live on the streets,is morally suspect. 

[Strontium]

1 minute ago, Arniepie said:

Tbf you don't have to be Karl marx, to think 1 family having an insane amount of wealth and living in a castle,simply through an accident of birth,whilst countless people live on the streets,is morally suspect. 

 

Go ahead and eat the rich then. See how far it gets you. I don't care.

[Bjornebye]

4 minutes ago, Strontium said:

 

Go ahead and eat the rich then. See how far it gets you. I don't care.

 

Or kidnap and murder their children and bulldoze their homes, we can get away with that can't we? 

[Arniepie]

12 minutes ago, Strontium said:

 

Go ahead and eat the rich then. See how far it gets you. I don't care.

Thinking the monarchy is outdated and immoral.

Eating wealthy people. 

 

Just the same if you think about it.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

25 minutes ago, Strontium said:

Yes, land was once a game of musical chairs, and they were lucky enough to be sitting down when the music stopped. This is the basis for the anarchist belief that property is theft. So maybe we have more anarchists here than I thought.

Interesting.

You could post your thoughts on the legitimate reasons for the Windsors to own fucking loads of land; or you could just make some nonsense up and pretend other people are saying it.

 

I could have guessed which option you would choose.

[Strontium]

1 minute ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Interesting.

You could post your thoughts on the legitimate reasons for the Windsors to own fucking loads of land; or you could just make some nonsense up and pretend other people are saying it.

 

I could have guessed which option you would choose.

 

The option where I don't throw the entire system of property rights down the toilet because I'm butthurt that someone else has more money than me.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

6 minutes ago, Strontium said:

 

The option where I don't throw the entire system of property rights down the toilet because I'm butthurt that someone else has more money than me.

Again - make shit up and pretend other people are saying it, rather than answer a straight question.

 

You know, it's healthy to try new things as you get older. You should try answering a question on here. You might like it; who knows?

[Strontium]

9 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Again - make shit up and pretend other people are saying it, rather than answer a straight question.

 

You know, it's healthy to try new things as you get older. You should try answering a question on here. You might like it; who knows?

You're the one who wants to change the status quo, so how about YOU explain why we should take land from these people, and only these people.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

3 hours ago, Arniepie said:

how did they get the land in the 1st place?

You go first, then I'll answer that one.

[Section_31]

I'm sure I read somewhere that the reason the South of Italy is poorer than the North was that because in the days of Rome, Senators and whatnot would just walk onto your land and tell you to get fucked.

[Arniepie]

There was a thread on twitter about why people in this country, are so servile.

Someone made the point that,if you start out believing a family are more important than you through an accident of birth,then its not a great stretch to think that a class of people were born to rule,because they went to Eton.

Throw in much of the media reinforcing this message,and you have got some powerful structures there.

[VladimirIlyich]

37 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

I'm sure I read somewhere that the reason the South of Italy is poorer than the North was that because in the days of Rome, Senators and whatnot would just walk onto your land and tell you to get fucked.

Which is how the various monarchs likely got their land. I'm sure there was plenty of raping and pillaging too. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

17 minutes ago, VladimirIlyich said:

Which is how the various monarchs likely got their land. I'm sure there was plenty of raping and pillaging too. 

Yeah, if any English aristocrats boast about tracing their family back to the Norman conquest, they're probably admitting that they owe their start in this country to ethnic cleansing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrying_of_the_North

[AngryOfTuebrook]

10 hours ago, Strontium said:

You're the one who wants to change the status quo, so how about YOU explain why we should take land from these people, and only these people.

I'm bored of waiting for you to answer; we all know you never will.

 

"These people" only own the land (and seabed) through the institution of the Monarchy. That institution shouldn't exist. 

[Strontium]

2 hours ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

I'm bored of waiting for you to answer; we all know you never will.

 

Answer what?

[AngryOfTuebrook]

12 minutes ago, Strontium said:

 

Answer what?

Arnie's question (which I reposted for you): How did they get the land in the first place?

[AngryOfTuebrook]

15 minutes ago, Strontium said:

 

Double post.

[Strontium]

13 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Arnie's question (which I reposted for you): How did they get the land in the first place?

 

The one I already responded to, you mean:

Same way anyone got any land in the first place.

All land was taken by force and retained by force. That's how any land ownership exists. Surprised I have to explain this principle to you.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

10 minutes ago, Strontium said:

 

The one I already responded to, you mean:

Same way anyone got any land in the first place.

All land was taken by force and retained by force. That's how any land ownership exists. Surprised I have to explain this principle to you.

You were being serious? Wow! Big news to anyone who ever bought a house freehold.

[Strontium]

5 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

You were being serious? Wow! Big news to anyone who ever bought a house freehold.

 

So you bought your freehold. Congratulations. How do you think the freehold exists in the first place, which was the question. The first person to own that land certainly did not buy it from Sutton Kersh or Whitegates.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

13 minutes ago, Strontium said:

 

So you bought your freehold. Congratulations. How do you think the freehold exists in the first place, which was the question. The first person to own that land certainly did not buy it from Sutton Kersh or Whitegates.

So, to be clear, where you're mischaracterising other posters as radicals who believe all land ownership is theft, that's actually what you believe?

[Strontium]

5 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

So, to be clear, where you're mischaracterising other posters as radicals who believe all land ownership is theft, that's actually what you believe?

 

It's not a matter of what I believe, it's a matter of what is. Which I think you know, because you continually dodge and weave around any question about how land ownership was established in the first place.