you have phantoms in your head that you argue with. try to stop obsessing over boards that make you seethe. or just go back where you came from. homosexual.
Lol
Nu-out just loves to gate keep
Keep seething you fat c**t
You get mocked because you deserve it
There is no nu-out. You are just an election tourist that outs yourself as a reddit castoff every time you post this. You aren't an oldgay, you won't be an oldgay.
the ones i know atleast acts like the israeliteest of israelites. keep spouting shit about them being "just a hecking poor blue collarino" and cry persecution while in reality they're sitting on top of tons of tons of land and gorillion dollars in equipments and assets. what's funny is they do all this while mistreating the ACTUAL poor blue collar workers that they employed
Would you rather this land be put to use for producing environmentally friendly™ electricity via PV? Or turned into a development? Extensive cattle ranching is probably the single least impactful form of utilizing this land and gives incentive to keep it as is.
That's the great paradox of independent farming/ranching, though. They've got a lot of net worth on paper but most of what they make goes right back into equipment and supplies and they end up with very little actual liquid cash at the end, to the point that a lot of smaller farm owners have to work full-time jobs off the farm to make ends meet despite having a lot of assets and gross revenue.
Any moral criticism you can level at "savage" indians is absolutely something "civilized" europeans were doing to each other until at least the industrial revolution
It's well understood that native americans were blood thirsty savages hellbent on the destruction of the natural environment, each other and the noble white pioneers alike. It was the whites who, by writ of conquest, inherited the vast lands of North America and who keep it in trust for future generations. Not only that, unlike virtually every other culture in history, the whites benevolently allowed the native americans to live and even provided them land on which to preserve their culture. No other force in history has been this humanitarian and valorous... and after the way nonwhites have behaved as a result... i suspect that we'll never be that benevolent to a conquered people ever again.
>the whites benevolently allowed the native americans to live and even provided them land on which to preserve their culture. >US Govt broke every treaty they ever signed with natives
lol
>Tell me you don't know shit about history without telling me you don't know shit about history
They were killing each other for hundreds of moons before the first white ever set foot on this continent.
The Indians killed all the north Americans horses and giraffe and most of the puma and beavers. The Costal tribes were the most peaceful and they weren't all that peaceful.
>The Indians killed all the north Americans horses >12,000yrs ago >giraffe
Huh? you mean mammoth? >most of the puma and beavers.
no way. not before white man showed up and beaver hats became all the rage in europe. There was a huge trade in beaver pelts....that could not have took place if the Indians killed them all first.
I mean giraffe.
The Indians helped hunt beavers into extinction anon.
Almost no one takes the time to learn the ecological history of north America... people wouldn't recognize America 200 years ago and the natives were absolutely douchebags.
The only people who think natives were innocent victims learned history from the TV.
Yes, whyt man were buttholes but the red man was just a moron.
>I mean giraffe. >the only giraffe in Namerica lived 5 million yrs ago
ok
>The Indians helped hunt beavers into extinction
yes. not until white man facilated that with demand, guns and money. You insinuated it was before. it wasnt. plenty of beavers until white man showed up.
>extinction >still 15 million beavers in N. America
ok
>The Indians killed all the north Americans horses >12,000yrs ago >giraffe
Huh? you mean mammoth? >most of the puma and beavers.
no way. not before white man showed up and beaver hats became all the rage in europe. There was a huge trade in beaver pelts....that could not have took place if the Indians killed them all first.
It was Camels, my dude, not Giraffs.
When the natives came over the land bridge "10k years ago or so" they caused major extinction events of all the mega-fauna.
[...]
There is no nu-out. You are just an election tourist that outs yourself as a reddit castoff every time you post this. You aren't an oldgay, you won't be an oldgay.
Based negay mocker
The Indians were notorious for over hunting anon. The disappearance of many species, like horses, have been attributed to them.
Yes, they also helped push beavers into almost completely out of north America hand in had with the white immigrants.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>The Indians were notorious for over hunting anon >The disappearance of many species, like horses
Paleo-Indians for sure- but those extinctions were 10,000yrs ago. In the common era, that really wasnt the case....until white man showed up and the Indians helped kill bison and beaver for the whites- but were not the driving force leading to their near extinction
Yeah they are larpers, the old boy dies not have years of toil on his skin and hands the boy does not have the steely confident gaze of a boy who grew up on the land and will inherit the responsibility of generations of his kin. The daughters do not have quite the right fitting jeans that country girls have to wear and the mother is a librarian.
*government subsidy larpers
At least the large scale ones are.
>sitting in an office and programming pivot line software >sitting in a $500k tractor that’s fully automated >collecting federal securities when crops don’t do well >hired Mexicans do all the physical labor
Yeah, imagine something as awful as generations working together to make something of worth.
Most kids growing up with ranching have worked more by the time they're 16, than you will do your entire life.
I'm talking about actual ranchers and farmers, not larping liberal refugees.
>sitting in an office and programming pivot line software >sitting in a $500k tractor that’s fully automated >collecting federal securities when crops don’t do well >hired Mexicans do all the physical labor
this may be true for super large ranches and farms but where I live most are family-owned farms and ranches and the work is done by themselves. Most ranchers spend more time out than this board put together.
I'm a semi-urban libtard but have ranchers in my family and I agree. Other than spending most of your life PrepHole, I really don't see it as an enviable way to make a living.
My family has one of the oldest registered cattle brands in America. I used to drive the bailer when I was a teenager. Your family clearly didn't teach you anything.
I admittedly have mixed feelings about them.
I think what OP is referring to given that he posted in on PrepHole is that some of them have very moronic land and wildlife management beliefs. Which is true for some but not all ranchers.
Looking at the checkerboard of inaccessible Public land these fricks and others like them have made of the west side of this country is enough of an excuse to be upset.
>Looking at the checkerboard of inaccessible Public land these fricks and others like them have made of the west
but that wasnt the ranchers and farmers. That is a legacy from the deal the goverment made with the railroads.
>freedom's
We have the freedom to own property and keep others off if we want. There is plenty of public land that they shouldnt need to walk on my land. In Europe, that isnt the case.
That being said, lots of people ask and are given permission to traverse private property.
Well, you could also consider slave ownership an exercise of a certain kind of freedom but we both probably agree that a country where slavery is illegal is "more free" than a country where it's permitted.
This is, of course, a rather hyperbolic analogy but I trust you understand my point.
Trespassing's a crime by definition so there is no such country where trespassing is legal. What's under contention here is what should be considered trespassing. >We have the freedom to keep people off of our land.
I know that and I wouldn't have started the discussion about the right to roam if I didn't. The fact that you felt the need to repeat this phrase you already said in your previous post indicates that you didn't understand the point of the analogy after all.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>you didn't understand the point of the analogy
equating the freedom to excersize private property rights to enslaving another human is spurious and disenguous. I have the freedom to do what I want with my property- which is keep you off. You dont and that seems to make you seethe lol.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>I have the freedom to do what I want with my property- which is keep you off. >I have the freedom to do what I want with my property- which is to keep them working on the cotton fields.
It's obviously hyperbole, like I said, but the principle is the same. There's a difference between having the freedom to do [mundane thing] and the freedom to stop others from doing [mundane thing]. I think protecting the former over the latter is generally more important. >You dont and that seems to make you seethe lol.
What the hell? I initially replied to a post lamenting the fact that checkerboarding has resulted in considerable amounts of public land being inaccessible. Where I'm from such problem doesn't exist, thankfully, because of the right to roam. Why would I be seething over something that I consider a positive thing?
3 months ago
Anonymous
NTA but using some of the same words doesn't make it hyperbole. You went beyond exaggeration and went straight to a shitty comparison. By your logic, telling strangers they can't come in my house and shit on my living room floor is the same as slavery.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>By your logic, telling strangers they can't come in my house and shit on my living room floor is the same as slavery.
That's actually not the case at all. I anticipated poorly thought out replies like this and that's why I explicitly said this: >There's a difference between having the freedom to do [mundane thing] and the freedom to stop others from doing [mundane thing].
Roaming around outside and minding your own business while conducting yourself well is a mundane thing. Entering someone's house, causing disturbance and damaging their property isn't.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>Entering someone's land, causing disturbance and damaging their property isn't.
fify
3 months ago
Anonymous
And that’s why the freedom to roam doesn’t entitle people to act in such disruptive manners.
>um, acktshuallee, that isn't the case
Of course it isn't the case, because comparing keeping people off of private property to slavery is fricking moronic
I don’t think it’s moronic at all. It’s just a hyperbolic way of demonstrating the difference between the freedom to do something mundane and the freedom to stop others from doing something mundane, which were equated by one anon.
3 months ago
Anonymous
It's apples to oranges, and you either know it and refuse to admit it, or don't actually know what hyperbolic means but want to use the word because it sounds intelligent.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Explain to me how it's not a hyperbolic analogy and instead similar to comparing apples to oranges.
3 months ago
Anonymous
NTA, but rights tend to lean toward keeping others out and away
Unwanted touching is assault/battery, unwanted detainment is criminal detention, unwanted sexual touch is sexual assault, unwanted property entering is trespassing. Whether the unwanted touching causes damage or serious damage only enhances the crime, it isn't necessary. It's also not like going on any property is automatically criminal trespassing, you need to either be told to leave or you need to have walked past some signs and fencing that tell you to frick off or you need to have been behaving in a very suspicious or threatening manner.
In your slavery analogy, that's not keeping others out and away. It's forcibly keeping others in contact (criminal detainment). Let's apply the same line of thinking to the other crimes I listed. Instead of protecting people from unwanted touching, it would be allowing people to superglue others to themselves. Instead of protecting people from detainment, it would be allowing people to lock themselves in others' property. Instead of protecting people from unwanted sexual touching, it would be allowing people to superglue others' hands to their asscheeks and genitals. Instead of protecting people from unwanted property entering, it would be allowing people to chain others inside their property.
Applying that line of thinking to similar situations shows why the analogy doesn't make sense
3 months ago
Anonymous
>um, acktshuallee, that isn't the case
Of course it isn't the case, because comparing keeping people off of private property to slavery is fricking moronic
2 months ago
Anonymous
>private property rights
Who gave you the right to keep others off of "your land"? God? The government? Land isn't inherently private property, constructed buildings are, and I don't see why putting a line in the sand and getting the government to back you up suddenly gives you any rights.
2 months ago
Anonymous
You are correct in that rights are not real but they derive from one thing- violence. Most of it is invested in governments now but it originated with every man and its still there.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Who gave you the right to keep others off of "your land"?
The 4th amendment.
2 months ago
Anonymous
...which doesn't say anything about your land.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Sorry. typo. Its the 14th...and the 5th
The Constitution protects property rights through the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments’ Due Process Clauses and, more directly, through the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause: “nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.”
2 months ago
Anonymous
>constructed buildings are
How convenient that I built a fence around my property
>just sell all the land to developers >just let boomers horde all the land >just import millions of brown migrants
You: y such a poorgay?
Ur probably on a mortgage too u cuck…the whole property thing is made up boomer nonsense in reality.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>not a developer >generational seething as cope for failure >deseperate non sequitar >no morgtage lol
If you ask politely, I might let you on my land.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Case in point, typical welfare rancher. Enjoy ur shithole, ur stil unhappy with your soul at the end of day
3 months ago
Anonymous
>typical welfare rancher
try again. not a ranch. no welfare. Once again, your assumptions are false.
>its immoral to own property
lol.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>its immoral to own property
lol
Yes actually it is. Birds, bees, sheep, foxes, etc. don't have "property" with invisible lines. It's a made up scam that is destroying the world. Scotland and Sweden at least still understand. Amerigolem never will
3 months ago
Anonymous
>Birds, bees, sheep, foxes dont have "property" >foxes fight over territory >birds protect the nest >bees defend the hive
derp
It wouldn't work in America because we aren't a high trust society. People here cannot be trusted to be responsible on privately owned land, so they get the right to hang out on public land, and I get the right to keep them off of mine.
Thanks. I think it'd be cool as shit to take a walk on my property and come across someone responsibly camping, maybe swap some stories and get them to help me do some maintenance, but the reality is I would find shitheads cutting live trees, throwing trash everywhere, blasting bluetooth speakers and leaving fires unattended.
We've always rang a farmer to access a place we like to hunt, because we cross a 200m bit if land between the road and the bush. We go caught out one day and it was pissing rain when we got there so we went a bit further and camped up in the trees and then let him know when we left and he knew the spot and now let's us camp there when we like to. We'd rather go into the bush but we have used it once again when I had a bung foot.
it used to be. they only didnt add it as an amendment to the constitution at the birth of the republic because they considered it a given. everyone went where they wanted. think about tom sawyer just going to an island in the mississippi and living there for a few days, or thoreau at walden.
property rights to exclude others from private property started in the south after the civil war as a way to keep blacks from hunting and fishing and living off the land themselves and ensure they would be forced to work as sharecroppers. selfish mindset then spread until the no trespassing status quo today
>property rights to exclude others from private property started in the south
introduction of barbed wire also played a role as your couldnt free range your cattle and sheep out west anymore
true, the cattle industry was the next big nail in the coffin, and the last big one was the development of sport hunting and dude ranches exclusively for the upper classes in the latter part of the 19th century. we can love teddy roosevelt for a lot of things but big game hunting is not one of them
I never understood why there have to be so many ranches to make the dressing. It's really popular on salads, but why are there so many of them? Is it really that hard to make ranch dressing?
I would trespass like crazy if I lived in the Great Plains where 99% of the land is private. I would set up camp on people's farms on long-distance cycling trips with no fricks given.
Fortunately I don't have to do that because I live in a state where there's an abundance of public land.
Frickers bought a little land around a lake and now act like they own the whole thing. Even shoot at people randomly. This isn't hillbilly hick south either. US laws are just moronic and people with money just get to do whatever they want.
Lol the cows have fricked those dead trees in the background, they eat them and rub against em. Wrap them in corgated Iron, but yeah you probably already know this eh.
If you look up regenerative ranching I don't know how much there is to complain about. Its the way things have always been and you need minimal infrastructure. Way more sustainable than even farming
Putting animals in the wilderness that eat grass and sitting around pretending to do “work” is not ranching. And I guarantee you that’s what all the morons do. Hell the b***h ranch lady nearby here loves her 20k acres and is all Karen about the public using her lands which are leased from the public. It’s same shit with all of them bunch of scamming welfare Black folk.
Go to ewg.org livestock disaster subsides and see how much these Black folk take from your taxes. It will turn ur stomach. Bunch of scum
some of the friendliest, kindest people i ve ever worked with were ranchers in the Kispiox region of BC. Great people over all, no draw backs whats so ever.
You will mald and seethe over them on some obscure PrepHole board and they will live their lives. And I will keep eating meat :^)
>Malding
Jfc you idiots are cancer.
Go back to reddlt
Cool story Rabbi.
No, you go back (to /misc/)
Lol
Nu-out just loves to gate keep
Keep seething you fat c**t
You get mocked because you deserve it
I don't care if you post on /misc/. I do care if you act like PrepHole is an extension of /misc/, which it is not.
you have phantoms in your head that you argue with. try to stop obsessing over boards that make you seethe. or just go back where you came from. homosexual.
There is no nu-out. You are just an election tourist that outs yourself as a reddit castoff every time you post this. You aren't an oldgay, you won't be an oldgay.
>t. nu-out
Reddit seethed at this because it was true.
>t. nu-outist
Welp., I dont just read about them, some are my nieghbors Like all folk, some are good and some are bad.
>the less I like them.
why
>white ranchers = bad
>mexican ranchers = good
4 > 2
>tfw no farmers daughter gf
They are the scum of the earth.
Why?
Its just some vegan shetbeg looking for attention
Dont engage them, they are subhuman
>surrounded by a dystopian shithole
the ones i know atleast acts like the israeliteest of israelites. keep spouting shit about them being "just a hecking poor blue collarino" and cry persecution while in reality they're sitting on top of tons of tons of land and gorillion dollars in equipments and assets. what's funny is they do all this while mistreating the ACTUAL poor blue collar workers that they employed
>t. runs a register at Staples and seethes over the "evil ranchers keeping us blue collar workers down"
>no argument
i accept your concession
>got made fun of, better regurgitate shitty memes that don't apply
Way to take it on the chin there, champ
Walk it back. That's not a response to his point.
>better rephrase "no argument" so people take me seriously
That seems like an awfully generalized complaint. Do you think anyone who runs a business and complains about difficulties with it is scum or what?
Would you rather this land be put to use for producing environmentally friendly™ electricity via PV? Or turned into a development? Extensive cattle ranching is probably the single least impactful form of utilizing this land and gives incentive to keep it as is.
blue collars are all like this, b***hing about how hard done by they are while earning tons of cash.
literal scumbags
>literal
Zoomer opinion discarded
That's the great paradox of independent farming/ranching, though. They've got a lot of net worth on paper but most of what they make goes right back into equipment and supplies and they end up with very little actual liquid cash at the end, to the point that a lot of smaller farm owners have to work full-time jobs off the farm to make ends meet despite having a lot of assets and gross revenue.
There's just something deeply troubling in their faces. Is it the Indian blood spilled upon the lands they now rape for profit?
They were killing each other for hundreds of moons before the first white ever set foot on this continent.
Any moral criticism you can level at "savage" indians is absolutely something "civilized" europeans were doing to each other until at least the industrial revolution
Yeah and vice versa, so no problems then
They were destroyed and forgotten.
It's well understood that native americans were blood thirsty savages hellbent on the destruction of the natural environment, each other and the noble white pioneers alike. It was the whites who, by writ of conquest, inherited the vast lands of North America and who keep it in trust for future generations. Not only that, unlike virtually every other culture in history, the whites benevolently allowed the native americans to live and even provided them land on which to preserve their culture. No other force in history has been this humanitarian and valorous... and after the way nonwhites have behaved as a result... i suspect that we'll never be that benevolent to a conquered people ever again.
facts
>the whites benevolently allowed the native americans to live and even provided them land on which to preserve their culture.
>US Govt broke every treaty they ever signed with natives
lol
>hellbent on the destruction of the natural environment
>hurrrdurrr
>Tell me you don't know shit about history without telling me you don't know shit about history
The Indians killed all the north Americans horses and giraffe and most of the puma and beavers. The Costal tribes were the most peaceful and they weren't all that peaceful.
>The Indians killed all the north Americans horses
>12,000yrs ago
>giraffe
Huh? you mean mammoth?
>most of the puma and beavers.
no way. not before white man showed up and beaver hats became all the rage in europe. There was a huge trade in beaver pelts....that could not have took place if the Indians killed them all first.
I mean giraffe.
The Indians helped hunt beavers into extinction anon.
Almost no one takes the time to learn the ecological history of north America... people wouldn't recognize America 200 years ago and the natives were absolutely douchebags.
The only people who think natives were innocent victims learned history from the TV.
Yes, whyt man were buttholes but the red man was just a moron.
>I mean giraffe.
>the only giraffe in Namerica lived 5 million yrs ago
ok
>The Indians helped hunt beavers into extinction
yes. not until white man facilated that with demand, guns and money. You insinuated it was before. it wasnt. plenty of beavers until white man showed up.
>extinction
>still 15 million beavers in N. America
ok
It was Camels, my dude, not Giraffs.
When the natives came over the land bridge "10k years ago or so" they caused major extinction events of all the mega-fauna.
Based negay mocker
The Indians were notorious for over hunting anon. The disappearance of many species, like horses, have been attributed to them.
Yes, they also helped push beavers into almost completely out of north America hand in had with the white immigrants.
>The Indians were notorious for over hunting anon
>The disappearance of many species, like horses
Paleo-Indians for sure- but those extinctions were 10,000yrs ago. In the common era, that really wasnt the case....until white man showed up and the Indians helped kill bison and beaver for the whites- but were not the driving force leading to their near extinction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_North_American_animals_extinct_in_the_Holocene
they're trust-fund larpers
Yeah they are larpers, the old boy dies not have years of toil on his skin and hands the boy does not have the steely confident gaze of a boy who grew up on the land and will inherit the responsibility of generations of his kin. The daughters do not have quite the right fitting jeans that country girls have to wear and the mother is a librarian.
Learn to communicate in english jfc
*government subsidy larpers
At least the large scale ones are.
This
Yeah, imagine something as awful as generations working together to make something of worth.
Most kids growing up with ranching have worked more by the time they're 16, than you will do your entire life.
I'm talking about actual ranchers and farmers, not larping liberal refugees.
>sitting in an office and programming pivot line software
>sitting in a $500k tractor that’s fully automated
>collecting federal securities when crops don’t do well
>hired Mexicans do all the physical labor
The kid at McDonalds does more work.
The real work is managing it.
>t.never calved in a blizzard
this may be true for super large ranches and farms but where I live most are family-owned farms and ranches and the work is done by themselves. Most ranchers spend more time out than this board put together.
I'm a semi-urban libtard but have ranchers in my family and I agree. Other than spending most of your life PrepHole, I really don't see it as an enviable way to make a living.
My family has one of the oldest registered cattle brands in America. I used to drive the bailer when I was a teenager. Your family clearly didn't teach you anything.
>logical fallacy
>empty comment
keep up the good work anon!
You're describing farming more than ranching there.
lol, ok
that is a dipshit lazy response right there
Is that sort of attire still common in southern US?
Rural white (actual blue-green eyed white), inland western US (including rural SW specifically AZ, UT, CO, NV). Fairly common attire.
I admittedly have mixed feelings about them.
I think what OP is referring to given that he posted in on PrepHole is that some of them have very moronic land and wildlife management beliefs. Which is true for some but not all ranchers.
Looking at the checkerboard of inaccessible Public land these fricks and others like them have made of the west side of this country is enough of an excuse to be upset.
Bingo.
>Looking at the checkerboard of inaccessible Public land these fricks and others like them have made of the west
but that wasnt the ranchers and farmers. That is a legacy from the deal the goverment made with the railroads.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkerboarding_(land)
It's weird that right to roam isn't a thing in America considering how freedom's a big part of the national identity.
>freedom's
We have the freedom to own property and keep others off if we want. There is plenty of public land that they shouldnt need to walk on my land. In Europe, that isnt the case.
That being said, lots of people ask and are given permission to traverse private property.
Well, you could also consider slave ownership an exercise of a certain kind of freedom but we both probably agree that a country where slavery is illegal is "more free" than a country where it's permitted.
This is, of course, a rather hyperbolic analogy but I trust you understand my point.
>but we both probably agree that a country where tresspassing is illegal is "more free" than a country where it's permitted.
fify
We have the freedom to keep people off of our land. You apparently dont. I like my freedom better than yours. I dont want you roaming my land.
Trespassing's a crime by definition so there is no such country where trespassing is legal. What's under contention here is what should be considered trespassing.
>We have the freedom to keep people off of our land.
I know that and I wouldn't have started the discussion about the right to roam if I didn't. The fact that you felt the need to repeat this phrase you already said in your previous post indicates that you didn't understand the point of the analogy after all.
>you didn't understand the point of the analogy
equating the freedom to excersize private property rights to enslaving another human is spurious and disenguous. I have the freedom to do what I want with my property- which is keep you off. You dont and that seems to make you seethe lol.
>I have the freedom to do what I want with my property- which is keep you off.
>I have the freedom to do what I want with my property- which is to keep them working on the cotton fields.
It's obviously hyperbole, like I said, but the principle is the same. There's a difference between having the freedom to do [mundane thing] and the freedom to stop others from doing [mundane thing]. I think protecting the former over the latter is generally more important.
>You dont and that seems to make you seethe lol.
What the hell? I initially replied to a post lamenting the fact that checkerboarding has resulted in considerable amounts of public land being inaccessible. Where I'm from such problem doesn't exist, thankfully, because of the right to roam. Why would I be seething over something that I consider a positive thing?
NTA but using some of the same words doesn't make it hyperbole. You went beyond exaggeration and went straight to a shitty comparison. By your logic, telling strangers they can't come in my house and shit on my living room floor is the same as slavery.
>By your logic, telling strangers they can't come in my house and shit on my living room floor is the same as slavery.
That's actually not the case at all. I anticipated poorly thought out replies like this and that's why I explicitly said this:
>There's a difference between having the freedom to do [mundane thing] and the freedom to stop others from doing [mundane thing].
Roaming around outside and minding your own business while conducting yourself well is a mundane thing. Entering someone's house, causing disturbance and damaging their property isn't.
>Entering someone's land, causing disturbance and damaging their property isn't.
fify
And that’s why the freedom to roam doesn’t entitle people to act in such disruptive manners.
I don’t think it’s moronic at all. It’s just a hyperbolic way of demonstrating the difference between the freedom to do something mundane and the freedom to stop others from doing something mundane, which were equated by one anon.
It's apples to oranges, and you either know it and refuse to admit it, or don't actually know what hyperbolic means but want to use the word because it sounds intelligent.
Explain to me how it's not a hyperbolic analogy and instead similar to comparing apples to oranges.
NTA, but rights tend to lean toward keeping others out and away
Unwanted touching is assault/battery, unwanted detainment is criminal detention, unwanted sexual touch is sexual assault, unwanted property entering is trespassing. Whether the unwanted touching causes damage or serious damage only enhances the crime, it isn't necessary. It's also not like going on any property is automatically criminal trespassing, you need to either be told to leave or you need to have walked past some signs and fencing that tell you to frick off or you need to have been behaving in a very suspicious or threatening manner.
In your slavery analogy, that's not keeping others out and away. It's forcibly keeping others in contact (criminal detainment). Let's apply the same line of thinking to the other crimes I listed. Instead of protecting people from unwanted touching, it would be allowing people to superglue others to themselves. Instead of protecting people from detainment, it would be allowing people to lock themselves in others' property. Instead of protecting people from unwanted sexual touching, it would be allowing people to superglue others' hands to their asscheeks and genitals. Instead of protecting people from unwanted property entering, it would be allowing people to chain others inside their property.
Applying that line of thinking to similar situations shows why the analogy doesn't make sense
>um, acktshuallee, that isn't the case
Of course it isn't the case, because comparing keeping people off of private property to slavery is fricking moronic
>private property rights
Who gave you the right to keep others off of "your land"? God? The government? Land isn't inherently private property, constructed buildings are, and I don't see why putting a line in the sand and getting the government to back you up suddenly gives you any rights.
You are correct in that rights are not real but they derive from one thing- violence. Most of it is invested in governments now but it originated with every man and its still there.
>Who gave you the right to keep others off of "your land"?
The 4th amendment.
...which doesn't say anything about your land.
Sorry. typo. Its the 14th...and the 5th
The Constitution protects property rights through the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments’ Due Process Clauses and, more directly, through the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause: “nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.”
>constructed buildings are
How convenient that I built a fence around my property
I hope someone comes and shits up ur “property”, cuts all ur fences etc. if ur property is 500-1000 acres people have a right to trespass Black person
If your living room is bigger than 100 square feet I have the right to come in and wreck your shit.
I’m a nomad. Boomers bought all “muh property” and fence it off daily. Frick the scum
>I'm homeless and resent anyone who owns property
Okay, then we have the right to come and shit in the corner of the refrigerator box you sleep in
>seething spite
dont be mad cuz you're poor.
>just sell all the land to developers
>just let boomers horde all the land
>just import millions of brown migrants
You: y such a poorgay?
Ur probably on a mortgage too u cuck…the whole property thing is made up boomer nonsense in reality.
>not a developer
>generational seething as cope for failure
>deseperate non sequitar
>no morgtage lol
If you ask politely, I might let you on my land.
Case in point, typical welfare rancher. Enjoy ur shithole, ur stil unhappy with your soul at the end of day
>typical welfare rancher
try again. not a ranch. no welfare. Once again, your assumptions are false.
>its immoral to own property
lol.
>its immoral to own property
lol
Yes actually it is. Birds, bees, sheep, foxes, etc. don't have "property" with invisible lines. It's a made up scam that is destroying the world. Scotland and Sweden at least still understand. Amerigolem never will
>Birds, bees, sheep, foxes dont have "property"
>foxes fight over territory
>birds protect the nest
>bees defend the hive
derp
It wouldn't work in America because we aren't a high trust society. People here cannot be trusted to be responsible on privately owned land, so they get the right to hang out on public land, and I get the right to keep them off of mine.
I'm sorry to hear that.
Thanks. I think it'd be cool as shit to take a walk on my property and come across someone responsibly camping, maybe swap some stories and get them to help me do some maintenance, but the reality is I would find shitheads cutting live trees, throwing trash everywhere, blasting bluetooth speakers and leaving fires unattended.
We've always rang a farmer to access a place we like to hunt, because we cross a 200m bit if land between the road and the bush. We go caught out one day and it was pissing rain when we got there so we went a bit further and camped up in the trees and then let him know when we left and he knew the spot and now let's us camp there when we like to. We'd rather go into the bush but we have used it once again when I had a bung foot.
>right to roam
is this really a thing? anyone can camp on your land? are there time limits?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam
it used to be. they only didnt add it as an amendment to the constitution at the birth of the republic because they considered it a given. everyone went where they wanted. think about tom sawyer just going to an island in the mississippi and living there for a few days, or thoreau at walden.
property rights to exclude others from private property started in the south after the civil war as a way to keep blacks from hunting and fishing and living off the land themselves and ensure they would be forced to work as sharecroppers. selfish mindset then spread until the no trespassing status quo today
>property rights to exclude others from private property started in the south
introduction of barbed wire also played a role as your couldnt free range your cattle and sheep out west anymore
true, the cattle industry was the next big nail in the coffin, and the last big one was the development of sport hunting and dude ranches exclusively for the upper classes in the latter part of the 19th century. we can love teddy roosevelt for a lot of things but big game hunting is not one of them
Looks like Frankie Muniz lost his memory again, now he thinks he's a rancher. Somebody better go snap him out of it.
wait, so PrepHole LIKES communism now?
Its all the fricking zoomers that have invaded
Bunch of pinko shetbegs
>muh heckin mean rancherinos
They don't think about you at all.
https://www.8newsnow.com/investigators/farming-family-uses-more-water-than-all-of-las-vegas-valley-report/amp/
Forget it Jake, it’s Sneedtown.
I never understood why there have to be so many ranches to make the dressing. It's really popular on salads, but why are there so many of them? Is it really that hard to make ranch dressing?
I would trespass like crazy if I lived in the Great Plains where 99% of the land is private. I would set up camp on people's farms on long-distance cycling trips with no fricks given.
Fortunately I don't have to do that because I live in a state where there's an abundance of public land.
Frickers bought a little land around a lake and now act like they own the whole thing. Even shoot at people randomly. This isn't hillbilly hick south either. US laws are just moronic and people with money just get to do whatever they want.
Shoot back.
I don't have money to just shoot anyone willy nilly.
Well frick you too
Lol the cows have fricked those dead trees in the background, they eat them and rub against em. Wrap them in corgated Iron, but yeah you probably already know this eh.
Nice looking cows anyway. Nice looking land too.
Ranchers and farmers get so much government money, it would make a black single mother of 10 blush.
If you look up regenerative ranching I don't know how much there is to complain about. Its the way things have always been and you need minimal infrastructure. Way more sustainable than even farming
Putting animals in the wilderness that eat grass and sitting around pretending to do “work” is not ranching. And I guarantee you that’s what all the morons do. Hell the b***h ranch lady nearby here loves her 20k acres and is all Karen about the public using her lands which are leased from the public. It’s same shit with all of them bunch of scamming welfare Black folk.
Go to ewg.org livestock disaster subsides and see how much these Black folk take from your taxes. It will turn ur stomach. Bunch of scum
some of the friendliest, kindest people i ve ever worked with were ranchers in the Kispiox region of BC. Great people over all, no draw backs whats so ever.
well if youre canadian that's to be expected
Why do the girls look like the father, but the boy looks like the mother?
X chromosomes make a big difference to appearance. Y chromosomes not so much. The girls got an X chromosome from dad. The boys only got one from Mom.
you fricking young people are a bunch of goddamn commie weasels
Theyre always irately screaming all the time. You just ignore them.