Tea and crumpets, anyone?

[girl gone mad]

[OhioChick]

1. I'd like to join that party. n/t

[Oregone]

2. When a social contract is breached, there no longer exists a "right" to private ownership...

Production, and the means of production, may be permissibly seized or destroyed (as can homes and other property). Property ownership can only exist within a functioning society, bound by a "social contract" that defines it. The British learned this, before they forgot it.

[anigbrowl]

3. Talk is cheap. What are you all prepared to put on the line, and what do you suggest destroying?

Taking a cue from the example of the tea party, what do you think people can provide better for themselves than an oppressive system can?

[Oregone]

5. Im not willing to put anything on the line. I left that mess behind so I don't have to anymore.

As for what to destroy, I guess its no longer my place to suggest anything. But I can gently persuade someone that they may want to figure it out themselves.

[TahitiNut]

4. That's why I call 'em "entitlements"

... which are solely creatures of law, enforced by the police powers (monopoly on violence) of a state. The very word "title" (e.g. car title, real estate title, the title of 'Baron' or 'Duke') indicates the distinction. While there may be a 'right' to personal property (e.g. clothes on my back) to the extent that possession (i.e. nine tenths of the law) and use is evident, there clearly exists no 'right' to some undemarcatable one-ten-millionth (i.e. a 'share') of some entity (e.g. a corporation) that exists solely by virtue of some legal fiction.

[Oregone]

6. Unfortunately, it takes some desperate conditions for "legal fiction" to reveal itself as just that.