Skip to content

Stupid Shit a Filipino Freefarter Says

September 14, 2012

Here’s a proof that being a Filipino Freefarter (freethinker, whatever that term means) is a mental disorder. Consider the following

Being a Filipino Freefarter is a mental disease…

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!

9 Comments leave one →
  1. Simon Raval permalink
    September 15, 2012 3:38

    Your debate with a brick wall was a pain to read. Their understanding of Ayn Rand and objectivism are based on familiar mischaracterizations made by left-leaning ideologues. All they churned out were strawman fallacies

    • September 15, 2012 3:38

      Not just strawman fallacies and fallacious hypothetical cases, but LIES and propaganda as well.

      I asked the guy to provide screen shots and links to prove his claim that the moderator of an unnamed “objectivist forum” told him “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”, etc. That guy is a pathological liar and a propagandist. A typical freefarter…

      I believe that anyone who resorts to downright lies just to protect his high highly fallacious arguments is worse than a propagandist… That person is simply WORTHLESS.

  2. September 15, 2012 3:38

    Here’s what that stupid idiot Bhavan claimed on this site http://www.facebook.com/?sk=welcome#!/groups/ffreethinkers/10151161589537188/?notif_t=group_comment_reply

    “I mantain my stance, the idea that property rights are inviolable with absolutely no exemptions stated by Ayn Rand contradicts Peikoff who gives a stituation where property rights can be ignored.”

    Funny! Someone who makes stupid examples and fallacious arguments claim to have understood objectivism. He’s not just a moron; he must be lunatic.

  3. Stupid Bhavan permalink
    September 15, 2012 3:38

    Bhavan Karnani: “I mantain my stance, the idea that property rights are inviolable with absolutely no exemptions stated by Ayn Rand contradicts Peikoff who gives a stituation where property rights can be ignored. Froi is the idiot for not understanding what an obvious contradiction this is.”

    Lyn M. Dy: “Proof? Link? Citations? Quotations please? That’s interesting… ;-)”

    Bhavan Karnani: “You cannot say that ‘man has inalienable rights except in cold weather and on every second Tuesday,’ just as you cannot say that ‘man has inalienable rights except in an emergency,’ or ‘man’s rights cannot be violated except for a good purpose.’ Either man’s rights are inalienable, or they are not. You cannot say a thing such as ‘semi-inalienable’ and consider yourself either honest or sane. When you begin making conditions, reservations and exceptions, you admit that there is something or someone above man’s rights, who may violate them at his discretion.” -Ayn Rand

    Lyn M. Dy: “I guess you’re simply taking that quotation out of context to prove your point.
    So if you KILL a person using your property, you cannot be held liable under the law. Your right remains inalianable? Is that your understanding of Objectivism?”

    “Let us augment your hypothetical example about the rich man buying all surrounding lots to coop the poor man somewhere in between…

    “Let’s say I am that rich man. Since property rights give me all the right to do with my property, I now decide to build concrete fence with electric wire around that property. In effect, the poor man cannot pass through my property unless he wants to risk death… Is that your understanding of Objectivism, Bhavan Karnani?”

    Bhavan Karnani: “You are not killing the person, he can still survive, he just has to use his mind. How can he survive? Who knows? Maybe he can plant vegetable in his garden and harvest rainwater on his roof.

    “You cannot pursue your right to live by violating the property rights of others.

    “The end does not justify the means. No one’s rights can be secured by the violation of the rights of others.” -Ayn Rand (Capitalism the Unknown Ideal page 256)

    “Also according to Ayn Rand, rights are merely negative obligations upon others- it means that you cant push someone down the stairs to kill him, but you are not required to give him anything in order for him to survive, which is why objectivists are against welfare. You are not required to give others food so that they may live, you are not required to give others water or a place to stay so why then would you be required to give right of way?”

    Lyn M. Dy: “Wow! That’s your understanding of Objectivism? So you can practically use your property to deprive other people of their rights? I get that… So if that poor man has work, he can no longer go to work. His kids can no longer go to school. Simply put, they’re depending upon your mercy. You can actually enslave them right inside your property forever. That’s your understanding of Objectivism”?

    Bhavan Karnani: “Before you go on, please tell me what specific right is violated here, I don’t want to argue, I just want to understand.”

    Lyn M. Dy Bhavan Karnani: “Because according to her, your right to life does not impose any form of obligation on others.

    “Your example is entirely different. I am a rich man, I bought all surrounding lots to coop the poor man and his family. I built a concrete fence with electric wire around my property, thus the poor man and his family cannot go to without risking death. According to my understanding of Objectivism, I am simply keeping that family as my slaves and violating their rights to live, liberty and of movement…”

    It may be impossible to argue with someone who had long forgone the use reason… But lemme try, Bhavan Karnani…

    “So you think a rich man who simply cooped or imprisoned a poor man and his family with his surrounding property is NOT a violator of right? Since the poor man and his family cannot go out of that property without risking death, they will just be imprisoned there for life and depend upon the mercy or whims of that merciless rich man… That’s how your understand Objectivism. In effect, that rich man violated the poor man’s right to his life (he canno longer go to his work) and liberty (right of movement). That’s worse than HOUSE ARREST…”

    SOURCE: http://www.facebook.com/?sk=welcome#!/groups/ffreethinkers/10151161589537188/?notif_t=group_comment_reply

  4. Simon Raval permalink
    September 16, 2012 3:38

    leftwing ideologues within the ranks of the filipino freethinkers are amply described in ludwig von mises‘s the anti-capitalistic mentality. they are the type of people you do not want to see in power. if people think we are already wallowing in third world misery you ain‘t seen nothing yet if the left controls the economy.

    • bogz permalink
      September 17, 2012 3:38

      If we let them in power, they will likely become modern Stalin.

  5. September 19, 2012 3:38

    the simple “right of way”, he even forgot about. using that example, how will that rich man live if he owns 99% of one country while banning the other people from entering his property? It’s like without other people doing the work for him.

    and actually, that argument is what most pro-rh people are dreaming of. A place where there are no poor people. Everyone is rich by eliminating the poor. And after that, who will do the dirty work for them? And for how much? that example backfires to them.

    • September 19, 2012 3:38

      Hi Rogie,

      I actually mentioned “right of way” in our Facebook debate. You may view the whole discussion here — http://www.facebook.com/groups/the.ap.crowd/387568647975309/?ref=notif&notif_t=group_comment .

      However, like I said I am referring to the classical concept of right of way. Today, this “right” has a non-objective legal definition and application. The right of way may only be invoked in order to prevent a possible clash of rights. This is based on the principle that a person’s rights impose no obligations on others except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights. As expected, the dishonest freefarter only believed what he wanted to believe. He’s dishonest. He doesn’t want to know the facts. He doesn’t want to use logic and reason. Perhaps logic and reason to the Filipino freefarters apply only to religious issues.

  6. October 18, 2012 3:38

    Its such as you read my thoughts! You seem to understand a lot about this, such as
    you wrote the guide in it or something. I feel that you simply could do with some percent to force the message home a little bit, but instead of
    that, this is excellent blog. A great read. I’ll certainly be back.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: