In fact, the rich are politicians themselves, de facto, even if they never seek elective office in one of the majoritarian plebiscites that we've confused with "democracy" and "statecraft" for the last few centuries.

What principles? That's the question. No fundamental or "natural" right precludes statutory rights that are more limited as an individual's entitlement to the protection increases, as in a progressive consumption tax or title expiration for example.

A King has far more authority than one of his common subjects; therefore, he requires far more limitations of his authority to avoid despotism.

Greater than who, Martin? Greater than what other group, Martin? Isn't that quite an arrogant statement from you?

How do you have such insight and wisdom that you can tell us that "the rich" have a greater interest in their property than we middleclass do in ours?

What is the standards that you measured to come to this startling and unusaul judgment? Did you do a survey of middleclass or poor and find them disinterested in retaining their property against all outside attempts to seize it?

Clearly the people shown in the video clip were not what we would call "the rich" and they seemed to have great interest in keeping their property and resenting its seizure. Were you able to go to those seizing the land, "the rich", and after surveying them found they had a "greater interest" in the land?

How did you quantify that interest into greater and lesser, richer and poorer?

I think what you do is called baseless pontification, in the military we said, "if you can't blind 'em with brilliance, baffle them with bullsh.t"

I got news for ya kid, you, Martin Brock, and I vidyohs, are politicians whether we like it or not; just as we are salesmen whether we like it or not.

You still hung up on your idea that there are no natural rights and all rights come from the state, and only then after the state has codified custom and practice into statutes?

I have natural rights, you have them as well even though you deny them. My natural rights naturally (naturally!) depend on my ability to defend them/enforce them, but that makes them no less natural rights than they are if protected by a state.

The right of men to hold property predate any association with, or formation of, a state.

Greater than who, Martin?

Greater than someone with a smaller dollar volume of property rights to protect, i.e. greater than someone who is not "rich".

Greater than what other group, Martin?

I'm not the group thinker here.

Isn't that quite an arrogant statement from you?

No. It's just a statement of fact.

How do you have such insight and wisdom that you can tell us that "the rich" have a greater interest in their property than we middleclass do in ours?

I don't need any special insight or wisdom. I only need to know what these words mean.

What is the standards that you measured to come to this startling and unusaul judgment?

See above. My conclusions are neither startling nor unusual. They only reflect common parlance that you, unusually, seem to reject.

Did you do a survey of middleclass or poor and find them disinterested in retaining their property against all outside attempts to seize it?

This survey is irrelevant to my statements. I nowhere ever assert that middle income and poor people are disinterested in their property rights; however, if you have some evidence that middle income and poor people, as a class, oppose all statutory restrictions on their employment of their property, I'd like to see it.

How did you quantify that interest into greater and lesser, richer and poorer?

Just as I describe above. It's very easily quantified, because property has a market value; otherwise, we couldn't distinguish "the rich" from other people in the first place.

I think what you do is called baseless pontification, in the military we said, "if you can't blind 'em with brilliance, baffle them with bullsh.t"

Obviously, you're free to think whatever you like. You may think I'm bound for eternal torment after death if you want. I can't do a thing about it and wouldn't.

Regardless of what you think, "the rich" by definition are people entitled to govern assets with a market value above some threshold distinguishing this class of persons from other persons. It's not rocket science, even if the notion baffles you and certain comrades of yours in the military.

… [all of us] are politicians whether we like it or not; just as we are salesmen whether we like it or not.

Of course. The rich are more political, because they are entitled to govern more resources, where the market value of resources is the measure of "more" vs. "less". It's not like politicians and statecraft only appeared on the Earth in 1776 when we started holding these biannual plebiscites in North America.

You still hung up on your idea that there are no natural rights and all rights come from the state, and only then after the state has codified custom and practice into statutes?

We can discuss "natural rights" (or emergent order) if you like, but you don't seem to have pondered the question much. I don't reject emergent order at all. I nowhere state that I reject emergent order. I state above that property rights that make no distinction between "rich" and "poor", in modern terms, are not "natural" in this sense. If you want to debate this statement, we can debate it.

The right of men to hold property predate any association with, or formation of, a state.

No. You're discussing natural territoriality here. "Property" describes something else. "Property" adheres to some standard of propriety, not simply a claim that an individual will defend by his own force for his own reasons or even a tribal convention unenforced by any central authority.

If your use of the word "property" were common, then all sorts of "property" would be illegal, according to the state in my neck of the woods, but hardly anyone around here uses the word so.

… in 1776 when we started holding these biannual plebiscites …

1787 is more appropriate here.