Stupid Shit a Filipino Freefarter Says
Here’s a proof that being a Filipino Freefarter (freethinker, whatever that term means) is a mental disorder. Consider the following
arguments made by a Filipino freefarter named Bhavan Karnani.
Argument 1: “One day some rich capitalist decides he doesn’t like this person very much so he buys all the land around the guys house and bans him from stepping on his property.”
“You can just buy all the property around their house and ban them from your property.”
Argument 2: “I am just pointing out that in a purely objectivist economy, monopolies are possible. And one person owning that much can give him a lot of power. Imagine if one person owned 99% of the land in a country, If he doesn’t like you and wants to kick you out of his land, where will you go? To the 1% remaining land? What if that is already owned as well and the owners dont want you there either? Will you then jump into the ocean? Or be forced to move to another country? What if the owner of 99% of the land goes slightly insane one day and decides to ban farming in all his lands, where will people get food from? That much power in the hands of a few is not a good thing.”
You may see the whole Facebook discussion here.
Obviously, this Filipino freefarter is in favor of palamunin (welfare) culture and against free market capitalism.
As to his stupid claim that in a capitalist society “monopolies are possible” because one man can own up to 99% of lands in a country and “if he doesn’t like you and wants to kick you out of his land” you have no where to go, I made the following reply:
You simply forgot the fact that in an Objectivist or even Libertarian world, property owners may refuse to sell their lands. How can one man own up to 99% of all lands in a country?
Perhaps, Bhavan Karnani, you think that a billionaire can simply force others to sell their land properties to him… Is that what you think? Even in the Philippines, at least 40% of the country is owned by private property owners. At least 60%, which comprises public lands, is owned by the state.
Indeed, your brain does not belong to the present world LOL. Ever heard of the new term “NAIL HOUSE”? Yun ngang mga maliliit na property owners ayaw ibenta ang kanilang kakarampot na land property sa big developers or even billionaires.
Here’s the real world and here’s how many property owners think… http://virtualfunzone.com/6-extraordinarily-stubborn-nail-houses.html
As to his equally stupid claim that a lunatic rich man “can just buy all the property around their house and ban them from [his] property, I made the following reply:
Bhavan Karnani, I’m very much convinced that you’re not just an incurable moron; you’re also a liar and dishonest creature…
I will be very patient to deal with an incurable moron here…
What you said means that by “buying all the property around their house and banning them” to pass thru your property, you’re practically making it impossible for them to live. That means there is a conflict here between the rich man’s arbitrary use of his property and the poor man’s metaphysical survival. That means the rich man is arbitrarily using his property to practically JAIL the poor man and depriving him of his right to life and liberty. That means the rich man’s action is ARBITRARY and that he’s in BAD FAITH.
Why would a rational man do that? It’s very clear that the INITIATOR OF FORCE here is that rich man for using his property right to practically deprive the poor man of his right to liberty and life. Like I said, Objectivism states that no one may use his right to deprive others of their inalienable rights.
What you don’t understand here, Bhavan, is that Objectivism is NOT a political theory or philosophy. Politics is just one aspect of Objectivism. Objectivism upholds the primacy of man’s life. It upholds life as a standard of value.
In your example, that rich man is actually initiating force against a helpless man or family through his property right. Of course, the poor man may seek legal recourse against the initiator of force here (the rich man) in an open, impartial court.
The court has to decide on the merits of the case. Why is the rich man the initiator of force? Can the rich man use his property to practically JAIL others or deprive others of their rights to life and liberty?
In essence, CAN YOU USE YOUR RIGHTS TO VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS?
Objectivism’s answer is NO.
Here’s what Ayn Rand said about the sanctity of rights:
“It is not society, nor any social right, that forbids you to kill—but the inalienable individual right of another man to live. This is not a “compromise” between two rights—but a line of division that preserves both rights untouched.”
She also said:
“Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.”
That LINE OF DIVISION, in effect, forbids you to violate the rights of others. Thus, the rich man CANNOT use his property right to violate the poor man’s rights, because the rich man’s right ENDS when the poor man’s RIGHTS BEGIN! That’s LOGIC, comrade!
Also, Dr. Leonard Peikoff, the intellectual heir of Ayn Rand, said that “rights are contextual”.
Dr. Peikoff said:
“In any situation where metaphysical survival is at stake all property rights are out. You have no obligation to respect property rights. The obvious example of this, which I have been asked a hundreds of times, is you swim to a desert island where you have ship wreck and you get to this shore and the guy comes to you and said ‘I got a fence around this island, I found it and it’s legitimately mine. You can’t step on to the beach.’ now in that situation you are in a literal position of a metaphysically helpless. Since life is the standard of life, if you no longer can survive this way rights are out ‘dog-eat-dog’ or force against force.”
Using your stupid example, the poor man, who is practically JAILED by the rich man’s property, may seek legal recourse and sue the rich man for violating his rights.
What if the poor man DIED of hunger because he’s not allowed to pass thru the rich man’s property to obtain food, to go to work, etc.? Under this stupid case, the rich man may be held liable in court. Thus, your lunatic case, Bhavan, is as lunatic as you…
NOW, Bhavan Karnani made a shameless claim that the rich man in his hypothetical case is not the initiator of force.
Bhavan Karnani said: “He did not initiate force, he is just asking the poor man to respect his property rights, where is the force in that?”
See his combined dishonesty and stupidity here? That only proves my point that ‘Filipino freethinking’ is a mental disease. He should be reminded what he said above: “One day some rich capitalist decides he doesn’t like this person very much so he buys all the land around the guys house and bans him from stepping on his property.”
One only needs to have basic logic and basic understanding of the English language to know that the rich man, in Bhavan‘s hypothetical case, really intends to practically jail the poor man, or deprive him of his life and liberty, by simply buying all surrounding lots and “banning” him from passing through his property. Yet stupid Bhavan had the gall to claim it is the poor man who must respect the rich man’s property rights! What a pathological MORON!
To test his incurable, deliberate dishonesty, I asked: “Question: Can the poor man get out of that hole using the rich man’s property?”
He simply refused to answer. Instead, he said, in reply to my statement that “the rich man in your example is practically, stupidly using his property right to violate the rights of others”— “He is not violating the poor mans rights, the right to trespass is not a right.”
That means that since the poor man’s property is being enclosed, surrounded by the rich man’s property, the poor man cannot pass through the rich man’s land since “the right to trespass is not a right”. According to his stupid understanding, the poor man must stay within his property forever or risk being charged with trespassing! That’s how this stupid Bhavan understood Objectivism. It’s as if LIFE, in Objectivism, is not the standard of value. Yet he had the guts to claim anyone who disagrees with his stupid claim does not understand Objectivism. Not even me or Dr. Peikoff who is Ayn Rand’s intellectual heir.
Again, I asked: “Can the poor man get out of that hole using the rich man’s property?”
Bhavan Karnani ‘the Filipino Freefarter’ refused to answer.
A related issue…
Filipino freefarter Bhavan Karnani also made the following obviously made-up stories:
“In an objectivist forum I visited before, the moderators had a very different opinion from you. The moderators said that if he allows himself to be trapped it his his fault and he can die, the fault is his own for not securing an easement prior.”
My reply: I suspect you’re simply MAKING UP STORIES… May I see some screenshots of those statements? Link?
He also said: “According to the moderator, you can apparently. The role of government is limited only to recognizing the property rights.”
Again, I really suspect you’re making up stories… Evidence please? I’d like to know if those so-called Objectivists know what they’re talking about. A forum? LOL! You must be insane!