Great lesson

[The Machine]

http://www.archive.org/movies/details-db.p...ichael_Badnarik (http://www.archive.org/movies/details-db.php?collection=election_2004&collectionid=Michael_Badnarik)

Then again, he is just a dumb cappie

[dakewlguy]

If I was an American I'd have probably voted Badnarik, pity third parties are so suppressed there.

[Lamanov]

I was watching the other day this tv show. Anyway, it's commedy... two grandpapas reading a daily paper where the analysts say that it's "better for us Serbs that Bush won the elections" [Clinton's administration was real pain in the ass for the Serbs]... and the other old guy says "oh, jolly, we might get our pensions finally" :lol: [the hell they will ;) ] ..uhm, anyway, i wondered away... it's not so stupid if you think about it... the thing is...

For one ..system is not designed so the people who have more 'liberal' ideas than usual get into white house. Guess what, 3rd parties will never have the support of the magnates as long as they contradict their interests. This means they will never have the electoral potential, which, at first, needs money.

Seccond of all, and most importantly - It's not the issue at all if he's a "stuppid cappie".. he could be a undercover communist... I don't give a flying fuck! You can go from the far right to the far left within the burgoise parties and put them into government but not much would change. Still, 10% of Americans hold 80% of American wealth...
...Libertarian? Yea whatever... Tell it to the other 90% and the rest of the 90% world.

[Publius]

Excellent link.

[October Revolution]

Just wondering are you claiming this guy is smart or right or anything because he can read the constitution and talk about it? then teach people what it means.

[Publius]

He's pretty damn smart, yes.

[October Revolution]

Hmmm wel from what iv'e seen he just seems to be telling people about the constitution saying what rights are and so on. The majority of people SHOULD know about things like that. Also i doubt very much hes pointing out problems with the whole concept and instead just gloryfying it into something it isn't.

[Publius]

You think you know anything close to what he knows about the Constitution?

"What people should know"

Could you talk for 8 hours about ANYTHING and still say something interesting?

"Glorifying it into something it isn't"

It's the foundation for this country. Any deviation from it without due course of Congress is treason.

[October Revolution]

Ahh well now you've said that he seems even worse talking about the constitution for 8 hours why would anyone need to hear that what possible use could it have to know 8 hours worth of exploitative crap on a weak willed ideology. Ok he may be a smart guy talking on a matter with some distinction for along time but is it really necessary.

Yeh well it may be the foundation for the US but that doesn't mean it's good or made to help all of the populous. He may be making it into something it isn't just to get more people beleiving in it.

[Publius]

Originally posted by October [email protected] 14 2005, 10:36 PM



exploitative crap on a weak willed ideology

The Constitution is an ideology? I thought it was a document. You really do need to watch this class.



Yeh well it may be the foundation for the US but that doesn't mean it's good or made to help all of the populous. He may be making it into something it isn't just to get more people beleiving in it.

It doesn't matter if it's good or bad. Property rights are absolute regardless of whether they are better for the people or not. Your taxation is robbery. You don't have the right to ANYONE'S property. You can't cannibalize the rich just because it's popular.

All rights stem from property. Once this concept is done away with, rights no longer exist and tyranny ensues, even if it's the tyranny of democracy.

"He may be making it into something it isn't just to get more people beleiving in it."

You haven't even watched them. I'm awaiting your critique of what he actually states not your dislike of things he "may" have said.

[October Revolution]

First off ofcourse it's a document it contains the ideology that the US system is built upon, thats what i meant.

"All rights stem from property." Where did you get that from rights come from human nature form the idea of people existing within a state system. Property has nothing to do with rights. Tyranny of democracy can quite easily exist with rights and if so be it the idea of property could be done away with by democracy itself.

Thirdly yes i was going on an assumption but it wasn't a major point neway. I'll watch them when i get a chance to download them then say what i think.

[Publius]

You own your body do you not?

You own goods you produce, correct?

If you don't have any property, you don't have any rights. Fuedalism for instance. The king owns everything = no rights.

Our country, private ownership, strict rights. If you own your property, the government can't search it, confiscate it, or take it without due process. Your right to property.

The government can't kill you because you have a right to life, you own your body.

Without ownership, no rights exist.

If you don't own your house, than you have as much (as little) claim to it as I do.


Basically, if I'm stronger than you, I'm going to take your stuff and you can't do anything about it. Without property rights, democracy (Mob rule) is the only "law".

[LSD]

it doesn't matter if it's good or bad. Property rights are absolute regardless of whether they are better for the people or not.

Well, if you say so, I suppose I have no choice but to....

...wait a minute....

....waaaaaaiiiit....

Right!, You're word isn't law!

You actually have to prove your wild assumptions!

Phew... Glad I caught that one...


You own your body do you not?

No.

You are your body.


You own goods you produce, correct?

Sneaky Devil! :D

We call that "Begging the question"!

You can't assume that which you are trying to prove! The question of whether you "own goods you produce" is the entire subject we are debating! :lol:


If you don't have any property, you don't have any rights. Fuedalism for instance. The king owns everything = no rights.

That's not feudalism, that's monarchism.

In Feudalism, the lord owns quite a bit too.


If you own your property, the government can't search it, confiscate it, or take it without due process. Your right to property.

The government can't kill you because you have a right to life, you own your body.

You're assuming there's a government!

I deny that any group has the right to "govern".


Basically, if I'm stronger than you, I'm going to take your stuff and you can't do anything about it. Without property rights, democracy (Mob rule) is the only "law".

Ahh... so Democracy ain't to your liking?

I notice that you contradict yourself there. If "mob rule" were really the law, then effectively we're talking about a majoritarian system, in such a system there is no elite or "stronger" to "take [my] stuff", rather it is in the collective interest to ensure that no single group abuse or take advantage of any other.


All rights stem from property!

Without ownership, no rights exist!

Your taxation is robbery!

You don't have the right to ANYONE'S property!

You can't cannibalize the rich just because it's popular!

Permanence is Power!
Rotation is Castration!

..sorry, I got caught up in the mood.

How about the next time you go sloganing, you bring along some arguments?

[October Revolution]

feudalism was completley different the people had no rights because the rulers controlled them by an iron fist if they didnt then they would be killed. It has nothing to do with whetehr or not property gives you rights.

If there was no property then the majority of peoplewould work together to get better lives and live together in peace. Noone wants to live in fear of having things taken away and so people would work together to avoid this happening. In this state noone would own their own property but everyone would have rights to do what they wish on that property. In this state there would be no exploitation of poorer peoples because everyone would live and work on the same land. Therfore people have rights but dont need private property.

[Publius]

...wait a minute....

....waaaaaaiiiit....

Right!, You're word isn't law!

You actually have to prove your wild assumptions!

Phew... Glad I caught that one...

That was a close call.

But of course, property rights should be absolute. Without them, other rights do not exist and without rights, you are subject to tyranny.


No.

You are your body.


There's a distinction?


Sneaky Devil! :D

We call that "Begging the question"!

You can't assume that which you are trying to prove! The question of whether you "own goods you produce" is the entire subject we are debating! :lol:

It stands to reason that you do own what you produce or are compensated for what you produce. That's capitalism.

Of course, you don't agree with that because you're a communist.

So the entire point is rather moot.



That's not feudalism, that's monarchism.

In Feudalism, the lord owns quite a bit too.

The Lord "owns" what the king allows him to "own". He doesn't "own" the property, the king does, he just rents it.


You're assuming there's a government!

I deny that any group has the right to "govern".

I'm not assuming, I'm stating.

So you're a proponent of nihilism? No goverence of group or self? Sounds fun, sign me up and tell me when the cullings begin!


Ahh... so Democracy ain't to your liking?

I notice that you contradict yourself there. If "mob rule" were really the law, then effectively we're talking about a majoritarian system, in such a system there is no elite or "stronger" to "take [my] stuff", rather it is in the collective interest to ensure that no single group abuse or take advantage of any other.

How do I contradict myself? Democracy is the rule of the majority, a majoritarian system. The terms are interchangable.



How about the next time you go sloganing, you bring along some arguments?

Because slogans are fun.

Honestly, I don't think some of them need clarification.

All rights stem from property has been clarified, you may or may not agree.

Without ownership no rights exist. See above.

Taxation is robbery. It is. It's taking something from someone without their consent or through force.

You don't have the right to anyone's property. You can't steal from people.

You can't cannibalize the rich. See above. The rich are peopel too.

[LSD]

There's a distinction?

Yes.

You are arguing that one's right to peace of body and freedom from harm comes from owenership, I am saying it comes from living. One critical difference is that while the latter can be used only to protect one's right to individual freedom, that former can be "extended" to try and apply it to pretty much everything, as you, incidently are attempting to do.


It stands to reason that you do own what you produce or are compensated for what you produce. That's capitalism.

Correct, "that's capitalism".

In case you failed to notice, the majority of this board (it is called "Revolutionary Left") are not capitalists.


I'm not assuming, I'm stating.

So you're a proponent of nihilism? No goverence of group or self? Sounds fun, sign me up and tell me when the cullings begin!

I'm a proponent of Anarchism.

Look it up on one of the FAQ's. It is quite far from nihilism.

Contrary to what statists would have you believe, lack of government does not mean lack of order.


How do I contradict myself? Democracy is the rule of the majority, a majoritarian system. The terms are interchangable.

You contradict yourself by then saying that the "stronger" will "take your stuff".

Clearly this will not happen in a true majoritarian society.


All rights stem from property has been clarified, you may or may not agree.

Clearly I do not!


Taxation is robbery. It is. It's taking something from someone without their consent or through force.

Within the context of capitalist society .... maybe.

Even that is a rather tenuous assumption, but, again, it relies on your unproven assumption that individuals have an innate right to "own" anything they see, and further more it ignores the fact that true "ownership" in capitalism is not based on actual labour or production.

If I "own" the factory (I know, I know, it's a tired example, but it's tired for a reason), do I deserve to "own" the products or to the workers who actuall made the damn things?

[Publius]

feudalism was completley different the people had no rights because the rulers controlled them by an iron fist if they didnt then they would be killed. It has nothing to do with whetehr or not property gives you rights.

If there was no property then the majority of peoplewould work together to get better lives and live together in peace. Noone wants to live in fear of having things taken away and so people would work together to avoid this happening. In this state noone would own their own property but everyone would have rights to do what they wish on that property. In this state there would be no exploitation of poorer peoples because everyone would live and work on the same land. Therfore people

Or I could just walk into "your" house and take "your" food because it's also "my" house and "my" food.

Upon hearing "your" complaints I could tell "you" to go fuck "yourself".

Sounds great doesn't it?

Everyone works and shares (And some people don't work and steal from the rest)!

You're commiting a non sequitur also: "If there as no property" then "x would happen"

The problem is, there's no correlation between your premise and "x". It does not follow.

[Publius]

Yes.

You are arguing that one's right to peace of body and freedom from harm comes from owenership, I am saying it comes from living. One critical difference is that while the latter can be used only to protect one's right to individual freedom, that former can be "extended" to try and apply it to pretty much everything, as you, incidently are attempting to do.

So basically, you disagree with the concept of ownership as applied to your body.

I do not. I think I own my body.

This is clearly a contradiction in terms and is not likely to be resolved as neither view is falsifiable. I own my body if I say I do and you are your body if you say you are.



Correct, "that's capitalism".

Of course.

And I know what the board is called. My name, however, should give you a general idea where I stand.


I'm a proponent of Anarchism.

Look it up on one of the FAQ's. It is quite far from nihilism.

Contrary to what statists would have you believe, lack of government does not mean lack of order.

I've read it. But tell me, how can anarchism NOT devolve into nihilism? Nihilism is the logical continuation. No ORGANIZED religion, no ORGANIZED state, no ORGANIZED society. Why deal off the "OPPRESSION" of the first 2 but not the oppression of the third?


You contradict yourself by then saying that the "stronger" will "take your stuff".

Clearly this will not happen in a true majoritarian society.

The majority would likely be stronger as there are more of them.



Clearly I do not!

Another moot point.


Within the context of capitalist society .... maybe.

Even that is a rather tenuous assumption, but, again, it relies on your unproven assumption that individuals have an innate right to "own" anything they see, and further more it ignores the fact that true "ownership" in capitalism is not based on actual labour or production.

If I "own" the factory (I know, I know, it's a tired example, but it's tired for a reason), do I deserve to "own" the products or to the workers who actuall made the damn things?

You do. The workers who make them aren't working FOR the products, they enter into a contract where they trade their labor for a wage.

[LSD]

And I know what the board is called. My name, however, should give you a general idea where I stand.

My point was that despite your personal feelings, you cannot assume that which you are arguing.

Clearly you are a capitalist, but if you wish to defend that system, you cannot found your arguments on the premise that capitalism is correct!


No ORGANIZED religion, no ORGANIZED state, no ORGANIZED society. Why deal off the "OPPRESSION" of the first 2 but not the oppression of the third?

Because organization is not intrinsically oppressive, however the two examples you provide (the state and religion) are.

I could provide you with a myriad of organized things which are not oppressive (organized labour for one!), but you just happened to have chosen two things which are!

In fact, I would contend that organization is hardly the defining element. I propose that any state is oppressive, be it organized or not.


The majority would likely be stronger as there are more of them.

And the majority would .... what?

All get together to "steal" your "stuff"? Why?

They could do that now couldn't they? After all, there are "more of them".

Certainly there are not enough police officers in the world to stop the majority from doing what they want.

So... something else stops them...

..could it be that they simply do not want to engage in mass "raping and pillaging"?

Again, I am not advocating nihilism, an Anarchist (or more accurately Communist, but that's a whole other intersectarian terminology issui) society would have rules. They would just be rules that the people and not their "leader" come up with.


You do.

Some how I knew you were going to say that .

:lol:


The workers who make them aren't working FOR the products, they enter into a contract where they trade their labor for a wage

Yes, but the contract is far from voluntary.

They either agree to "trade their labour"... or they starve.

Sorry, but ownership by coercion is hardly the moral foundation for an ethical society.

[Publius]

My point was that despite your personal feelings, you cannot assume that which you are arguing.

Clearly you are a capitalist, but if you wish to defend that system, you cannot found your arguments on the premise that capitalism is correct!

And you start with the assumption that it isn't.



Because organization is not intrinsically oppressive, however the two examples you provide (the state and religion) are.

I could provide you with a myriad of organized things which are not oppressive (organized labour for one!), but you just happened to have chosen two things which are!

In fact, I would contend that organization is hardly the defining element. I propose that any state is oppressive, be it organized or not.


http://www.counterorder.com/nihilismaction.html

Some call Karl Marx a revolutionary but Marxism isn't genuine revolution it's just rearranging the artificial order. Every ideology on the books is merely a convenient way to re-order the present situation; they just shuffle the same old cards and the people end up worse off than before!


They disagree. Society is (Or can be) as oppressive as state. If you don't like oppression, pick up the molotov cocktail and convert to nihilism.


And the majority would .... what?

All get together to "steal" your "stuff"? Why?

They could do that now couldn't they? After all, there are "more of them".

Certainly there are not enough police officers in the world to stop the majority from doing what they want.

So... something else stops them...

..could it be that they simply do not want to engage in mass "raping and pillaging"?

Again, I am not advocating nihilism, an Anarchist (or more accurately Communist, but that's a whole other intersectarian terminology issui) society would have rules. They would just be rules that the people and not their "leader" come up with.

They do. It's called progressive taxation. They tax the rich at rates up to 98% and use the money to buy themselves things. Wake up.


Yes, but the contract is far from voluntary.

They either agree to "trade their labour"... or they starve.

Sorry, but ownership by coercion is hardly the moral foundation for an ethical society.

The contract is voluntary. You have to work for a living, but you don't have to live.

Communism offers no alternative, just the illusion of one.

Ownership by coercion? Nope. Just ownership.

[LSD]

And you start with the assumption that it isn't.

Yes!

It's called "logical reasoning".

You don't have to prove a negative. Until anything is proven the assumption is that it is not true.

Just like I don't have to prove that all rights do not derive from the Great Fish God, we just assume they don't.


They do. It's called progressive taxation. They tax the rich at rates up to 98% and use the money to buy themselves things. Wake up.

...wait a minute... when did they do that?

To which country/state are you refering?

But, since I advocate the elimination of money and other tools of class oppression, "taxes" are hardly an issue.

And besides, even taking your analogy, how come they don't just murder these "poor rich" (gotta love the irony in that) and "take their stuff".

I though the "masses" were "wild"...


They disagree. Society is (Or can be) as oppressive as state. If you don't like oppression, pick up the molotov cocktail and convert to nihilism.

I disagree.

...but what's your point? We've already established that I'm not a nihilist...


The contract is voluntary. You have to work for a living, but you don't have to live.

:lol: :D :lol:

I LOVE THAT ONE!!!!!!!

That's bloody fucking brilliant!!

Ha!

Damn.... that's ....wow....that's certainly a new one! :lol:!!

Analogy Time:
Fascist Solider: "Obey the state or DIE!!!"
Brave Resistance Fighter: "Never!"
Fascist Solider: "Well, I did give you a choice..."
Brave Resistance Fighter: "But...but... that's no choice at all, you vile fascist scum you!!!!"
Fascist Solider: "No, no, no! To quote Publius, 'you don't have to live'! You see, despite what philosophers have been saying for centuries, Publius teaches that a choice in which the only other option is death really is a voluntary choice!"
Brave Resistance Fighter: "Ahh, I see then! I then freely choose to submit to the state."
Fascist Soldier: "Good choice, man"

(scene)


I trust you get the idea.

[October Revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 11:54 PM
Or I could just walk into "your" house and take "your" food because it's also "my" house and "my" food.

Upon hearing "your" complaints I could tell "you" to go fuck "yourself".

Sounds great doesn't it?

Everyone works and shares (And some people don't work and steal from the rest)!


So do you have no faith in human nature. People will work together if it will benefit everyone, if one person takes from another it will hinder everyone and so peole will not wish to do it. This kind of soceity wouldn't be based around selfishness and so people would not always be looking for what is best for them but the collective.
I suppose being a capitalist you believe that everyone should look after themselves firstly and other peoples well being a far second. Thus creating this everyone would steal from everyone else idea which simply wouldn't happen.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by October [email protected] 14 2005, 11:28 PM
feudalism was completley different the people had no rights because the rulers controlled them by an iron fist if they didnt then they would be killed. It has nothing to do with whetehr or not property gives you rights.

If there was no property then the majority of peoplewould work together to get better lives and live together in peace. Noone wants to live in fear of having things taken away and so people would work together to avoid this happening. In this state noone would own their own property but everyone would have rights to do what they wish on that property. In this state there would be no exploitation of poorer peoples because everyone would live and work on the same land. Therfore people have rights but dont need private property.
That is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

"In this state noone would own their own property but everyone would have rights to do what they wish on that property."


So, in your fantasy land, if you and your wife and kids were asleep one night, I could come stand next to you and play my tuba and you could do nothing about it because I have the same right to the area in which you are sleeping as you do.

In your system, there is no right to privacy because I could stand literally right next to you at any moment at any time and you could do nothing about it.

I mean think about it - you're having sex with your wife and a pervert wants to watch. Or your 10 year-old daughter is taking a showe and a pervert would rather watch that. On what basis do you tell him he can't? I mean the shower or your bed are his property too, right?

On what basis do you tell him to mind his own business?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bristol/content/features/2002/animated_encounters/groening/homer.jpg

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by October [email protected] 15 2005, 01:07 PM

So do you have no faith in human nature. People will work together if it will benefit everyone, if one person takes from another it will hinder everyone and so peole will not wish to do it. This kind of soceity wouldn't be based around selfishness and so people would not always be looking for what is best for them but the collective.
I suppose being a capitalist you believe that everyone should look after themselves firstly and other peoples well being a far second. Thus creating this everyone would steal from everyone else idea which simply wouldn't happen.
Well let's see about human nature...


To date we've had quite a few people come into absolute power.

How many of those people have used that absolute power benevolently?

(HINT: the answer is ZERO)

There is your statement on human nature.

See the quote in my signature - it applies EXACTLY to what you are talking about. You'd rather trade my safety and security on your faith in "human nature", which has been shown to be quite ugly throughout all of human history, than allow me as an individual the right or even opportunity to manage my own affairs and protect my own family.

Read my signature and then read it again.

Your faith in all humanity grouping up to "do the right thing" is even more absurd than faith in a benevolent deity who created the earth and heavens in 7 days.

[October Revolution]

Firstly you are taking what i said completley wrong. I did not mean that people would have no privacy that is completley absurd, just because there is no property that is personally owned doesn't mean that people can't get privacy. If the land is owned by the state and issued to everyone equally then people would still have a place to live yet noone could take advantage of anyone else to get more privelages. Property would exist as such but not private property as in property owned by inderviduals but the state therfore your whole dumb idea of perverts is just wrong.
Secondly how can you not have belif in human nature? it has been opressed by regimes to change people into greedy self-righteous inderviduals. So you cannot claim that people will not act benevolently towards each other because the way people act has been changed throughout time by soceity. If soceity itself was changed into something favouring people and their wellbeing not the collection of capital then peoples true nature may be shown.
Why exactly is it absurd to believe that people would work together? what evidence do you have apart for this absolute power idea.

[t_wolves_fan]

Firstly you are taking what i said completley wrong. I did not mean that people would have no privacy that is completley absurd, just because there is no property that is personally owned doesn't mean that people can't get privacy. If the land is owned by the state and issued to everyone equally then people would still have a place to live yet noone could take advantage of anyone else to get more privelages. Property would exist as such but not private property as in property owned by inderviduals but the state therfore your whole dumb idea of perverts is just wrong.

Who decides then how much space everyone will get "equally"? Will it be centrally managed? Will the landmass of the United States be divided up among its 290 million residents?

What if I get a mountaintop in Montana but I want sandy beach in San Diego?

Do I have any recourse or am I just shit out of luck?

How will you account for population growth? If everything is divided equally but population rises, it follows you must take away a little of my "property" every so often to account for population growth, unless you plan on building those things into the ocean that they have in Holland.

Who decides what part of my "property" you take to account for population growth? Do I get any voice? It isn't technically mine, so I'm guessing I don't.

So, to sum up, in your system I'm to be "given" a plot of land or a house of some kind, probably not in the location of my choosing (after all, someone is going to have to live in North Dakota), that is the same size as everyone else's; but which must be made smaller or moved, probably without my consent, so that everyone can still own an equal share as population increases.

I probably will not be able to get extra land, say if I like to hunt or own horses, sine that would make me "unequal".

I'm guessing I would probably have little choice in what it would look like as well, and what features it might include inside, since everything is going to have to be rationed.

Wow, this sounds like a really efficient system that I am going to enjoy.

Please, by all means, take what you think is necessary.

:lol:


Secondly how can you not have belif in human nature? what evidence do you have apart for this absolute power idea.

Go into this building called a "library", go the section called "history", and read one of those things called "books".

Unless you'd like to name for me any benevolent kings or dictators you know of.


Your idealism is admirable, but when looked at rationally it's completely absurd.

[LSD]

That is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

(...bunch of stuff about perverts...)

On what basis do you tell him to mind his own business?

OK, a couple of things on that.

1). It is rather sad that in your mind the sole way a society can enforce privacy rights is through property.

Surely you can't be so narrow minded that you can't concieve of any other way!

Is it really beyond your comprehension that a society could simply collectively decide that say "watching my 10 year old in the shower" or "watching me and my wife having sex without our permission" is not permissable action. Much as how the society would, obviously outlaw, say, murder.

Property is not the root os individual rights. Humanity is.


There is no nescessity that it be through private ownership that the rights you spoke of (mostly involving sex and paraphilias I noticed ..hmmm, Freud would be interested in that!) can be protected.

and

2). The lack of private owenership rights does not mean the lack of b]usage[/b] rights.

That is, when I am using something which belongs to the collective, and I am doing so in a manner in which the collective has set forth, you can't use it.

Example time:

If I am using a "tuba", you can't.
If I am using a television, you can't (unless I invite you)
If I am sleeping in a bed, you can't. (unless I invite you :wub: of course)
If I am using a toothbrush, you can't. In fact I will have extended usage rights over that toothbrush since, honestly, why would we want to have multiple people using the same toothbrush!

Now, this isn't ownership, this is usage.

I can't "make money" or "sell" or "rent", but I can freely use. In fact, everyone can freely use. Not just those who happened to have the right parents.


Well let's see about human nature...


To date we've had quite a few people come into absolute power.

How many of those people have used that absolute power benevolently?

(HINT: the answer is ZERO)

YES!

Ex-fucking-actly!!!!!

Power corrupts, any form of authority bestowed upon individuals or elite groups (that includes "vanguards of the people") inevitable leads to oppression and inequality.

...by the way, capitalism does exactly that! It gives authority and power to those with enough little paper slips called "money" or who claim to "own" enough "property".

Communsim does not.

Clearly you've missed the stateless part of the stateless society.


See the quote in my signature - it applies EXACTLY to what you are talking about. You'd rather trade my safety and security on your faith in "human nature", which has been shown to be quite ugly throughout all of human history, than allow me as an individual the right or even opportunity to manage my own affairs and protect my own family.

Read my signature and then read it again.

That would be this quote?:
It thus comes about that in practice it is regularly the theoretical collectivist who extols individual reason and demands that all forces of society be made subject to the direction of a single mastermind, while it is the individualist who recognizes the limitations of the powers of individual reason and consequently advocates freedom as a means for the fullest development of the powers of the interindividual process. - F.A. Hayek

...welll...OK...so socialism is bad...

...the "the theoretical collectivist who extols individual reason and demands that all forces of society be made subject to the direction of a single mastermind is bad.

Well there's a word for that, statism.

I am a communist.

Look it up.

[LSD]

Who decides then how much space everyone will get "equally"? Will it be centrally managed? Will the landmass of the United States be divided up among its 290 million residents?

What if I get a mountaintop in Montana but I want sandy beach in San Diego?

Do I have any recourse or am I just shit out of luck?

How will you account for population growth? If everything is divided equally but population rises, it follows you must take away a little of my "property" every so often to account for population growth, unless you plan on building those things into the ocean that they have in Holland.

Who decides what part of my "property" you take to account for population growth? Do I get any voice? It isn't technically mine, so I'm guessing I don't.

These are all fascinating questions.

Probably, the best way is to not uproot people from where they already are. If people want to move, fine, but a mass forced migration is never a good idea, and indeed the people would probably not stand for it!

Remember, we're not talking about the Soviet Union here, we're talking about a democratic society, there is no "central planning" or "mastermind". Everything is collectively decided.

I grant you that it would probably take a while to figure out how we divide the country, since small collectives is probably a better idea than one national or international one, but it is hardly impossible.

Now about "choice" real estate.. the fact is that what is "choice" to you may not be to me. I'm not saying that everyone will live absolutely perfectly where they've always wanted to live but, I am saying that most people will live mostly where they've mostly wanted to live.

You don't live North Dakota? Fine, maybe Sam DeSanto does.

What if nobody wants North Dakota? Fine, so we don't have anyone living there! We use it for industrial or farm or recreational etc... uses.

You see, no one is being "forced" by anyone into anything.


So, to sum up, in your system I'm to be "given" a plot of land or a house of some kind, probably not in the location of my choosing (after all, someone is going to have to live in North Dakota), that is the same size as everyone else's; but which must be made smaller or moved, probably without my consent, so that everyone can still own an equal share as population increases.

...right...

as opposed to the present system in which " I'm to be "given" a plot of land or a house of some kind, probably not in the location of my choosing" based on how many little pieces of coloured paper I have.

Oh yes, that's fair. :lol:


Go into this building called a "library", go the section called "history", and read one of those things called "books".

Unless you'd like to name for me any benevolent kings or dictators you know of.

Again, with the statism!

You seem to have a "thing" for bringing up dictators and "kings". Around these parts we call that a "straw-man" argument.

Try to keep up.

[October Revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 02:30 PM

Secondly how can you not have belif in human nature? what evidence do you have apart for this absolute power idea.

Go into this building called a "library", go the section called "history", and read one of those things called "books".

Unless you'd like to name for me any benevolent kings or dictators you know of.



Erm if you look thats not what i said youv'e just chopped it to fit your argument.

Regimes and power corrupts and so you don't really have any evidence to prove that people would wish to play their tubas to annoy other people just because there is not property splitting them up. Living in a proposed communist soceity people will actively work together in peace to make everyones lives better so noboy would actually go around playing instruments int he dead of night because it wouldn't help themselves or other people.
People will be able to act freely if everyone is equal because nobody will be opressing them and setting up systems where people have to conform to say wage slavery just to get food. Thus Human Nature itself will become less clouded by the trappings of soceity.

[t_wolves_fan]

1). It is rather sad that in your mind the sole way a society can enforce privacy rights is through property.

Surely you can't be so narrow minded that you can't concieve of any other way!

I'm not so narrow-minded that I can't conceive of another way; however I'm also realistic enough to know that property is the only successful way we've used so far. That, and the systems you advocate have some pretty severe deficiencies and are extremely vulnerable to the total destruction of individual rights.


Is it really beyond your comprehension that a society could simply collectively decide that say "watching my 10 year old in the shower" or "watching me and my wife having sex without our permission" is not permissable action. Much as how the society would, obviously outlaw, say, murder.

What if they haven't thought of it yet? Do I have to wait until the collective votes on an issue before I have any recourse?


Property is not the root os individual rights. Humanity is.

That is not what history tells us so far.


2). The lack of private owenership rights does not mean the lack of b]usage rights.[/b]

But you tell me in this very post that it is! You tell me that if the collective votes that I may not use something a certain way, then I can't.

That's tyranny of the majority, plain and simple, and I tell you what there is already evidence of your system in action - they're called homeowners' associations (http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/real-estate/HOA-horrors1.asp):

-A man from Rancho Santa Fe, Calif., lost his home because he planted too many roses on his four-acre site. The board fined him and watched monthly as the fines mounted.

-A couple from Lawrenceville, Ga., found they had a $3,500 lien on their house when they tried to sell it. The homeowners association had been fining them every day they left pink flamingos on their lawn but didn't tell them. The association got the money, but the couple have filed suit to get it back.

-A Maryland man asked for a six-foot fence as protection from a neighbor who'd attacked him with a log. The board denied the request, so the homeowner sued -- and lost. It cost him $23,000 in legal fees and interest.


This is what you are advocating - a system that enforces idiotic rules like those above in the name of "equality" based on a vote of the "collective" - only I wouldn't have a fucking choice whether or not to live in one of these systems.


That is, when I am using something which belongs to the collective, and I am doing so in a manner in which the collective has set forth, you can't use it.

That's tyranny of the majority, plain and simple.

What if the collective decides that nativity scenes will be placed on all yards, for instance? It's the collective's property - not yours. You do it or you're gone.

Right?


Power corrupts, any form of authority bestowed upon individuals or elite groups (that includes "vanguards of the people") inevitable leads to oppression and inequality.

I hate to break this to you, but the above is inevitable in a collective.

Why? Because you're going to have the zealots, like yourself or like Jerry Falwell or like Adolf Hitler who build support for initiatives and votes in the collective.

Imagine if your home were subject to the rules of the collective, and Jerry Falwell was charismatic enough to get the collective to rule that nativity scenes must be placed in yards at Christmas.

You have no recourse, do you? You've already said as much, that if the collective doesn't want you to use something a certain way (i.e. your yard, which is theirs), you won't. So you're forced to put up a nativity scene or face punishment.

Now, with the system we have now, Jerry Falwell is free to try to force people to put up nativity scenes all he wants. The courts and property owners will rightly tell him to go fuck himself.

Are you under the delusion that majorities will always do the right thing? If you are that's another reason I am glad people like you will probably never be in power.


...by the way, capitalism does exactly that! It gives authority and power to those with enough little paper slips called "money" or who claim to "own" enough "property".

So what? They can do whatever they want with their property so long as they don't affect your property.

You're making my point for me, sport.


I am a communist.

Look it up.

Sorry, you're no different in my eyes. You want the collective to manage my daily affairs. I don't support that.

[t_wolves_fan]

These are all fascinating questions.

Indeed, they are the reason your system doesn't fucking work.


Probably, the best way is to not uproot people from where they already are. If people want to move, fine, but a mass forced migration is never a good idea, and indeed the people would probably not stand for it!

How benevolent of you, but then what is the fucking point of doing it?


Remember, we're not talking about the Soviet Union here, we're talking about a democratic society, there is no "central planning" or "mastermind". Everything is collectively decided.

You should be having this argument with October Revolution, because I was responding to his suggestion that all property be divided up equally.


I grant you that it would probably take a while to figure out how we divide the country, since small collectives is probably a better idea than one national or international one, but it is hardly impossible.

Quick question, in your government-free system, who is going to decide on the process of figuring out how to divide up the country and once they do, who is going to enforce it?


Now about "choice" real estate.. the fact is that what is "choice" to you may not be to me.

As opposed to our system which now allows people that choice. Absolutely no societal or governmental regulation prevents me from moving to San Diego right now if I choose to do so.

On the other hand, you've just admitted your system would possibly, purposefully and actively prevent me from living where I want.

And I would support this system why?


You don't live North Dakota? Fine, maybe Sam DeSanto does.

Maybe he doesn't, maybe nobody does.


You see, no one is being "forced" by anyone into anything.

Sorry sport, you just said above that "I'm not saying that everyone will live absolutely perfectly where they've always wanted to live but, I am saying that most people will live mostly where they've mostly wanted to live."

If not everyone can live in exactly the location they want to live, then by definition something is preventing them from living where they want to live, which in reverse means something (or someone) is forcing them to live where they do not want to live.

In our system now, they probably don't live exactly where they want to live because of money. But they have the opportunity to get enough money to eventually live exactly where they want to live.

On the other hand, in your system, the non-government entity that somehow has the power to divide up land and move people on and off it is doing the enforcing. Not nearly as much opportunity to overcome them, don't you think?


as opposed to the present system in which " I'm to be "given" a plot of land or a house of some kind, probably not in the location of my choosing" based on how many little pieces of coloured paper I have.

Oh yes, that's fair. :lol:

Key distinction you fail to account for: Present system offers me the opportunity to earn the money to live where I want.

Yours does not - as you've already admitted, collective decides, you do it, end of story.



You seem to have a "thing" for bringing up dictators and "kings". Around these parts we call that a "straw-man" argument.

Try to keep up.

I am, chief. Youve already said some sort of body will have the power to relocate people and force them to live where they don't want to live. That's pretty goddamn close to absolute power, because there ain't many more powers better than that. The end result will be that the group that gets to tell people where to live is going to enjoy it and not want to give it up, just like every other person or body that had such powers. And there is your dictatorship.

Bottom line, your "theory" is nice in "theory" but completely impractical. That's evidenced by the fact you claim there would be no government yet somehow something would force people to live where they don't want to live, which doesn't really jive.

Game, set, match.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by October Revolution+Feb 15 2005, 02:47 PM--> (October Revolution @ Feb 15 2005, 02:47 PM)
[email protected] 15 2005, 02:30 PM

Secondly how can you not have belif in human nature? what evidence do you have apart for this absolute power idea.

Go into this building called a "library", go the section called "history", and read one of those things called "books".

Unless you'd like to name for me any benevolent kings or dictators you know of.



Erm if you look thats not what i said youv'e just chopped it to fit your argument.

Regimes and power corrupts and so you don't really have any evidence to prove that people would wish to play their tubas to annoy other people just because there is not property splitting them up. Living in a proposed communist soceity people will actively work together in peace to make everyones lives better so noboy would actually go around playing instruments int he dead of night because it wouldn't help themselves or other people.
People will be able to act freely if everyone is equal because nobody will be opressing them and setting up systems where people have to conform to say wage slavery just to get food. Thus Human Nature itself will become less clouded by the trappings of soceity. [/b]
Answer my other questions and I will respond to yours.

Especially, how are you going to account for population growth if everyone gets equal living space?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 15 2005, 01:30 AM

The contract is voluntary. You have to work for a living, but you don't have to live.

:lol: :D :lol:

I LOVE THAT ONE!!!!!!!

That's bloody fucking brilliant!!

Ha!

Damn.... that's ....wow....that's certainly a new one! :lol:!!
Work or starve is a natural state. It's a fact of reality. It is not some man-made phenomenon that is "forced" or "imposed" on you by people of any ideology. It just shows how at-odds with reality you actually are.


Analogy Time:
Fascist Solider: "Obey the state or DIE!!!"
Brave Resistance Fighter: "Never!"
Fascist Solider: "Well, I did give you a choice..."
Brave Resistance Fighter: "But...but... that's no choice at all, you vile fascist scum you!!!!"
Fascist Solider: "No, no, no! To quote Publius, 'you don't have to live'! You see, despite what philosophers have been saying for centuries, Publius teaches that a choice in which the only other option is death really is a voluntary choice!"
Brave Resistance Fighter: "Ahh, I see then! I then freely choose to submit to the state."
Fascist Soldier: "Good choice, man"

(scene)


I trust you get the idea.

Yeah, I get the idea alright; you can't tell the difference between starving through one's own laziness (and evading the fact that the alternative is living off others) and being shot through refusing to live as a slave. No wonder communism always turns out like it does...

[October Revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 03:18 PM
Especially, how are you going to account for population growth if everyone gets equal living space?
Well land would have to be distributed with population growth in mind so that space could be filed up when it needed to be. Over time though space that was once given to a person or group of persons would be redistributed to new people, for reasons such as death. In all types of state land is always being freed up and then looked after by other people and this wouldn't be different in a communist soceity.
Ofcourse if this doesn't work to the speed of population growth new land could be created by levelling mountains and putting them into the sea creating both new inland and shoreline living space this has wroked very efectively in Japan but is a rather drastic measure to population growth.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 15 2005, 03:19 PM

Yeah, I get the idea alright; you can't tell the difference between starving through one's own laziness (and evading the fact that the alternative is living off others) and being shot through refusing to live as a slave. No wonder communism always turns out like it does...
http://www.gc.maricopa.edu/recognition/images/applause.gif

[LSD]

What if they haven't thought of it yet? Do I have to wait until the collective votes on an issue before I have any recourse?

What?!?

The collective will mandate use rights and privacy rights.

What don't you understand?


That's tyranny of the majority, plain and simple.

Ahh, there's a word for that: Democracy.

Nineteenth century monarchists would often rail at the "tyranny of the majority", I guess you feel we need a strong "state" to keep the masses in line.


This is what you are advocating - a system that enforces idiotic rules like those above in the name of "equality" based on a vote of the "collective" - only I wouldn't have a fucking choice whether or not to live in one of these systems.

Wow.... three examples ... form a mortgage web site! :lol:

Wow, I guess democracy doesn't work!! :D


So what? They can do whatever they want with their property so long as they don't affect your property.

I think you missed the point.

You condemn communism because you find in injust that a community of equals would make decisions for that community. Instead you propose a system in which the arbitrary posession of something called "money" determiens how many "votes" one has.




Why? Because you're going to have the zealots, like yourself or like Jerry Falwell or like Adolf Hitler who build support for initiatives and votes in the collective.

Imagine if your home were subject to the rules of the collective, and Jerry Falwell was charismatic enough to get the collective to rule that nativity scenes must be placed in yards at Christmas.

You have no recourse, do you? You've already said as much, that if the collective doesn't want you to use something a certain way (i.e. your yard, which is theirs), you won't. So you're forced to put up a nativity scene or face punishment.

Now, with the system we have now, Jerry Falwell is free to try to force people to put up nativity scenes all he wants. The courts and property owners will rightly tell him to go fuck himself.

Are you under the delusion that majorities will always do the right thing? If you are that's another reason I am glad people like you will probably never be in power.

Ah, yes that bastion of charisma ..... Jerry Falwell?!?

Again, I suppose it comes down to whether or not you believe that democracy can work. Clearly you want someone making sure that people don't make decisions for themselves.

You think that "someone" whould supercede the decisions of the people and support some nebulous conception called "property".

It's nice in theory, but, tell me, don't you think that one "who extols individual reason and demands that all forces of society be made subject to the direction of a single mastermind" is a dangerous thing?


Sorry, you're no different in my eyes. You want the collective to manage my daily affairs. I don't support that.

"daily affairs"? No.

Sorry, but no one is really interested in your "daily affairs".

Public affairs? Yes.

But what you do at hom ... no not really, no one cares.

--------------------------------------------
moving on...


Indeed, they are the reason your system doesn't fucking work.

oooh, brilliant.

Maybe if you added a little more "ad" an a little less"hominem" that might actually turn into some sort of argument.


How benevolent of you, but then what is the fucking point of doing it?

There isn't!

Which is why I said "a mass forced migration is never a good idea"

Please, try to keep up.


Quick question, in your government-free system, who is going to decide on the process of figuring out how to divide up the country and once they do, who is going to enforce it?

Decisions we be made collectively, and should there be people who abjectly refuse to share equally or who insist on hoarding public resources, citizen militias will be formed as needed.


As opposed to our system which now allows people that choice. Absolutely no societal or governmental regulation prevents me from moving to San Diego right now if I choose to do so.

No "societal or governmental regulation"... hmm... great! I guess I'll go back my bags right now and ....wait...oh yeah, I'M BROKE!!!

I noticed you convieniently left out economic from that list of coercive forces.

Sorry, but there is indeed something preventing me from living where I want in a capitalist society.


Key distinction you fail to account for: Present system offers me the opportunity to earn the money to live where I want.

In our system now, they probably don't live exactly where they want to live because of money. But they have the opportunity to get enough money to eventually live exactly where they want to live.

Or to inherit it! Or "win" it on the Stock market! Or "play" the lottery!

"...the Ammmeeeerrrricccaaaann Ddddrrreeeaaammmmm....."

..but "earn" it... no, not really.

The "American Dream" is ultimately just that.

As long as "money" and income is unrelated to labour or work then, no, "earning" is plain simple mythology.

Not that currency based economies every could be equal!

As I'm sure you're willing to admit (you realyl couldn't not) any capitalist society needs inequality to function, without it, capitalism really isn't...well... capitalism, is it?

Ultimately the flaw in capitalism is that it subjugates natural human rights under "money" and "currency". It says, yes you have the right to live... but only if someone with "money" says so. It requires that in order to have the basic dignity and freedoms which everyone deserves, you must ... what's that phrase you people like so much....Ah yes! "contract your labour" for it.


If not everyone can live in exactly the location they want to live, then by definition something is preventing them from living where they want to live, which in reverse means something (or someone) is forcing them to live where they do not want to live.

Yes, just like someone is forcing them not to murder or not to hoard food, or not to rape or assault or abuse...

that "someone" is called democracy.


I am, chief. Youve already said some sort of body will have the power to relocate people and force them to live where they don't want to live.

When did I say that?

In fact I emphatically said the opposite!!

That's not just a "straw man", that a "straw man" on meth.

[LSD]

To Mr. My good friend the ever-kind and lovable Proffessor of the Moneybags, PhD, FRS, man of the street:


Work or starve is a natural state. It's a fact of reality. It is not some man-made phenomenon that is "forced" or "imposed" on you by people of any ideology. It just shows how at-odds with reality you actually are.

Again, you miss the point here.

The question isn't whether death (or life for that matter) is natural or man-made (that's hardly a debatable point is it! :lol:), but whether or not a "choice" is really voluntary, when the alternative is death.

You, so far, have failed to address this point. I eagerly await your reply.

Which brings us to my BRILLIANT theater of the mind:



Analogy Time:
Fascist Solider: "Obey the state or DIE!!!"
Brave Resistance Fighter: "Never!"
Fascist Solider: "Well, I did give you a choice..."
Brave Resistance Fighter: "But...but... that's no choice at all, you vile fascist scum you!!!!"
Fascist Solider: "No, no, no! To quote Publius, 'you don't have to live'! You see, despite what philosophers have been saying for centuries, Publius teaches that a choice in which the only other option is death really is a voluntary choice!"
Brave Resistance Fighter: "Ahh, I see then! I then freely choose to submit to the state."
Fascist Soldier: "Good choice, man"

(scene)


I trust you get the idea.

Yeah, I get the idea alright; you can't tell the difference between starving through one's own laziness (and evading the fact that the alternative is living off others) and being shot through refusing to live as a slave. No wonder communism always turns out like it does...

...right.... all poor people are lazy bums who just don't want to eat. They like starving, right?

I guess they were ....asking for it.

hmmm... where have I heard that before....


(and evading the fact that the alternative is living off others)

:lol:

Yes.. I'm also "evading the point" about the giant purple bunny behind me. You know why? IT DOESN'T EXIST!

This idea you have that somehow anything which isn't your idea of a perfect economy is either (I'm going to use your three favourite phrases here, so get ready to whip it out) "an initiation of force" (OH!), "coercion" (OH YEAH!), or "living off others" (OHHHHH YESSSSSS!!!!!).

Now, while I know you :wub: throse particular terms, they're still bullshit.

Community is living off others, and others living off you. Thats the difference between society and isolationism.

I think I'll quote myself on this one: "This conception you have of "freedom" is nice, but inpractical. In a community in which many interact and live together, "coercion" is inevitable and nescessary."

[t_wolves_fan]

What?!?

The collective will mandate use rights and privacy rights.

What don't you understand?

Can you guarantee that?

Can you guarantee that I'll be allowed to put up nativity scenes, build an addition, plant trees?


That's tyranny of the majority, plain and simple.

Ahh, there's a word for that: Democracy.



Your problem is that most people who favor Democracy also favored limits on what could be discussed and voted on by the majority. Property rights were generally not even considered in such discussions, they were off-limits, as they should be.



Wow.... three examples ... form a mortgage web site! :lol:

Wow, I guess democracy doesn't work!! :D

I can provide more and you fail to comprehend my point, which is that issues on which the collective should get to vote (i.e. how I may decorate my home and use the things I own) should be limited.



You condemn communism because you find in injust that a community of equals would make decisions for that community. Instead you propose a system in which the arbitrary posession of something called "money" determiens how many "votes" one has.

I fail to see how the whims of the collective are any less arbitrary than the value of money.

Again, the point you fail to address or comprehend is that at least when the system is based on money, one has the opportunity to get more. A collective system on the other hand will be an endless parade of nightmare issues like those in the homeowners' association examples, because the collective will decide, people must abide, and they really don't have much other choice.

You still haven't attempted to refute that point.


Again, I suppose it comes down to whether or not you believe that democracy can work. Clearly you want someone making sure that people don't make decisions for themselves.

Idiot. I am trying to explain to you that I do want people to make decisions for themselves by limiting how public decisions may affect one's use of one's own property.

You are the one arguing that the collective should get to decide how the things it grants to individuals may be used.


Sorry, but no one is really interested in your "daily affairs".

Public affairs? Yes.

But what you do at hom ... no not really, no one cares.

If you're not interested in my personal affairs then why prevent me from owning things??????????



Decisions we be made collectively, and should there be people who abjectly refuse to share equally or who insist on hoarding public resources, citizen militias will be formed as needed.

Which would in effect be government bodies.


No "societal or governmental regulation"... hmm... great! I guess I'll go back my bags right now and ....wait...oh yeah, I'M BROKE!!!

Which is not a societal or governmental edict.


I noticed you convieniently left out economic from that list of coercive forces.

Ummm...no, I did not. I specifically mentioned that economic forces can prevent people from living exactly where they want. However, those same economic forces (i.e. capitalism) provide the opportunity to be able to afford to live where you want.


Sorry, but there is indeed something preventing me from living where I want in a capitalist society.

Which you can overcome, unlike the barriers in the system you've advocated.


Or to inherit it! Or "win" it on the Stock market! Or "play" the lottery!

"...the Ammmeeeerrrricccaaaann Ddddrrreeeaaammmmm....."

..but "earn" it... no, not really.

The "American Dream" is ultimately just that.

Really. My parents were failed farmers when they were born. Now they are in the upper-middle class. That very fact refutes your assertion, because if the American Dream were not real, they could not have done it.

I'm guessing it's because they didn''t have the same defeatist attitude you have.


As long as "money" and income is unrelated to labour or work then, no, "earning" is plain simple mythology.

All evidence to the contrary.


As I'm sure you're willing to admit (you realyl couldn't not) any capitalist society needs inequality to function, without it, capitalism really isn't...well... capitalism, is it?

Yes, but it does not determine by majority vote who is at the bottom and who is at the top.

You're ranting and raving here and not addressing any of the points I have made.


Ultimately the flaw in capitalism is that it subjugates natural human rights under "money" and "currency". It says, yes you have the right to live... but only if someone with "money" says so.

You're arguing that the rich have the right to kill people, which is blatantly false.


It requires that in order to have the basic dignity and freedoms which everyone deserves, you must ... what's that phrase you people like so much....Ah yes! "contract your labour" for it.

Tell me ace, if you didn't want to work, how would a house get build or food get grown and harvested?

Someone would have to work wouldn't they?

Or are you under the impression that chickens cut themselves up, wrap themselves in cellophane, and stack themselves neatly in the supermarket shelves all by themselves?




I am, chief. Youve already said some sort of body will have the power to relocate people and force them to live where they don't want to live.

When did I say that?

YOU JUST SAID IT BY POINTING OUT HOW CITIZEN MILITIAS WILL BE FORMED TO MOVE PEOPLE OFF THEIR LAND YOU IDIOT!!

Hellooooo....McFly?

http://i.xanga.com/udontwannaknow/t/mcfly.jpg

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by October [email protected] 15 2005, 03:32 PM



Well land would have to be distributed with population growth in mind so that space could be filed up when it needed to be. Over time though space that was once given to a person or group of persons would be redistributed to new people, for reasons such as death. In all types of state land is always being freed up and then looked after by other people and this wouldn't be different in a communist soceity.

Would I get to choose where I live?

Would I get to choose how big my lot was?

Is there any opportunity to get more land if I want it?


Ofcourse if this doesn't work to the speed of population growth new land could be created by levelling mountains and putting them into the sea creating both new inland and shoreline living space this has wroked very efectively in Japan but is a rather drastic measure to population growth.


:lol:

Pitch this idea to your neighborhood environmentalist. They disapprove of a mining technique whereby the tops of mountains are removed and dumped into river valleys. I'm sure they'll love your proposal to remove entire mountains and destroy coastline that is extremely valuable to natural habitats.

You do realize that the communist countries of eastern Europe had by far the worst environmental record in history, right?

How old are you?

[LSD]

*deleted*

[LSD]

Can you guarantee that?

Can you guarantee that I'll be allowed to put up nativity scenes, build an addition, plant trees?

Well, I'm not the Lord of the Earth, so I can't guarantee anything. But what the hell, sure... I guarantee it.


Your problem is that most people who favor Democracy also favored limits on what could be discussed and voted on by the majority. Property rights were generally not even considered in such discussions, they were off-limits, as they should be.

Well if a bunch of rich dead guys didn't "consider it", how dare I?


Again, the point you fail to address or comprehend is that at least when the system is based on money, one has the opportunity to get more.

Which you can overcome, unlike the barriers in the system you've advocated.

"...we shall overcoooooome....we shall overcoooooome...we shall..."

Strange how so few actually do "overcome" these "barriers", isn't it?

While one theoretically can "get more" money, I think we all know it isn't nearly as simple as you make it out to me.

Whereas capitalism offers the potential to "get more", most people never do.

On the other hand, communism, doesn't "promise" to give you more, it gives you more.

Tell me, which is the better option?


If you're not interested in my personal affairs then why prevent me from owning things??????????

Because your "owenership" of things is preventing others from using those rightfully public resources. Your "property rights" are forcing others to "work for you" and to "sell their labour" to you.

It isn't "personal" when it negatively affects others.


Which is not a societal or governmental edict.

Governmental, no. But it certainly is societal.

Unless your arguing that the economic is not a part of society.


Really. My parents were failed farmers when they were born. Now they are in the upper-middle class. That very fact refutes your assertion, because if the American Dream were not real, they could not have done it.

Ah! Annectodal evidence!

Well, I guess I'll just throw out all these "statistics" and trust you.
:lol:!


You're arguing that the rich have the right to kill people, which is blatantly false.

It is blatantly immoral.

As to whether or not it's "false", go ask down in Colombia.


Tell me ace, if you didn't want to work, how would a house get build or food get grown and harvested?

Someone would have to work wouldn't they?

Or are you under the impression that chickens cut themselves up, wrap themselves in cellophane, and stack themselves neatly in the supermarket shelves all by themselves?

Did you actually read what I said: "Community is living off others, and others living off you. Thats the difference between society and isolationism."

I suggest you take a look at the good Professor's signature.


YOU JUST SAID IT BY POINTING OUT HOW CITIZEN MILITIAS WILL BE FORMED TO MOVE PEOPLE OFF THEIR LAND YOU IDIOT!!

It's good you put it in bold, because I might not have heard it otherwise.

We're talking about temporary bodies, set up by the people to enforec collective decisions. not a decision making body, which is what you were concerned about.

Now, do I need to put that in caps or do you understand?


You do realize that the communist countries of eastern Europe had by far the worst environmental record in history, right?

1). Those countries were not communist.
2). Historically, it is capitalist countries that have done the worst to the environment.
3). Capitalism, by its very nature, cares not for the environment. (maximum reward and all that)
4). Tell me, those people cutting down the rain forest... could they be doing it for....money!?!?!


How old are you?

Idiot.

You're ranting and raving here

Tell me ace

Hellooooo....McFly?

Well... I can see that you're a polished debater.

Went to Oxford, did you?

[Professor Moneybags]

Again, you miss the point here.

The question isn't whether death (or life for that matter) is natural or man-made (that's hardly a debatable point is it! :lol:), but whether or not a "choice" is really voluntary, when the alternative is death.

You, so far, have failed to address this point. I eagerly await your reply.

What ? There's an alternative ? Do go into detail.


...right.... all poor people are lazy bums who just don't want to eat. They like starving, right?

It doesn't matter whether they like it or not. The fact remains : If you're not working, you starve. If you're eating without having done anything, then you're getting it from someone else, often by force. Which leads us on to your next evasion...



(and evading the fact that the alternative is living off others)

:lol:

Yes.. I'm also "evading the point" about the giant purple bunny behind me. You know why? IT DOESN'T EXIST!
This idea you have that somehow anything which isn't your idea of a perfect economy is either (I'm going to use your three favourite phrases here, so get ready to whip it out) "an initiation of force" (OH!), "coercion" (OH YEAH!), or "living off others" (OHHHHH YESSSSSS!!!!!).

That is correct. :rolleyes: Taking what doesn&#39;t belong to you is stealing. Living off others without their consent is parasitism. Could it be that you&#39;re finally learning something ? Maybe not. <_<


Now, while I know you :wub: throse particular terms, they&#39;re still bullshit.

What incredible debating skills. All that is needed to refute an argument is to utter the magic word : "Bullshit" and the need to refute an argument dissapears in a puff of smoke, is it ?


Community is living off others, and others living off you.

What&#39;s wrong with everyone living by their own efforts ? Answer : Because then if you slacked you would be the only victim and if you achieved someting, you would be the primary beneficiary. I can hazard a guess as to why too. Putting everything in to a collective pot and handing it out equally is an ingenious way of obfuscating how little/much has been done and by whom. No prizes for guessing what kind of people benefit from that system.


I think I&#39;ll quote myself on this one: "This conception you have of "freedom" is nice, but inpractical. In a community in which many interact and live together, "coercion" is inevitable and nescessary."

First you support coercion and now parastism. What&#39;s next ?

NOTE FOR NEWCOMERS : When LSD starts using this icon : :wub: It&#39;s a sign that he&#39;s losing the argument. It&#39;s usually accompanied by a string of semi-homosexual inuendoes which we&#39;ve been spared this time, so I guess we&#39;ve got lucky.

[LSD]

What ? There&#39;s an alternative ? Do go into detail.

You mean an alternative to "a "choice" is really voluntary, when the alternative is death.">

well... yeah&#33; It isn&#39;t voluntary&#33;


It doesn&#39;t matter whether they like it or not. The fact remains : If you&#39;re not working, you starve

Or if you&#39;re working, but minimum wage isn&#39;t enough, or there is no minimum wage (as many capitalists advocate), or you are working and "earning" but the "market" has raised prices higher than you can afford.

Ever hear of the "working poor"?

Sorry but this theoretical model of your does not apply to the real world.


What&#39;s wrong with everyone living by their own efforts ?

Isolationism?
Survivalism?

The simple fact is that not everyone is good at everything, that&#39;s why humans make societies.


First you support coercion and now parastism. What&#39;s next ?

ooooooh, WOW.

You really "got" me there, didn&#39;t you?

I see you&#39;ve been "flexing" those debating "muscles".


NOTE FOR NEWCOMERS : When LSD starts using this icon :wub: It&#39;s a sign that he&#39;s losing the argument. It&#39;s usually accompanied by a string of semi-homosexual inuendoes which we&#39;ve been spared this time, so I guess we&#39;ve got lucky.

Jealous?

Don&#39;t worry, Professor, I love you too... :lol:&#33;

[Professor Moneybags]

Tell me ace, if you didn&#39;t want to work, how would a house get build or food get grown and harvested?

Presumably, after the revolution you can pick these from the same tree you pick your free healthcare and free clothes from.

[October Revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 04:14 PM


Would I get to choose where I live?

Would I get to choose how big my lot was?

Is there any opportunity to get more land if I want it?




:lol:

Pitch this idea to your neighborhood environmentalist. They disapprove of a mining technique whereby the tops of mountains are removed and dumped into river valleys. I&#39;m sure they&#39;ll love your proposal to remove entire mountains and destroy coastline that is extremely valuable to natural habitats.

You do realize that the communist countries of eastern Europe had by far the worst environmental record in history, right?


Well i can imagine you would be placed anywhere where the land is livable.
Well if all plots were equal then ofcourse you wouldn&#39;t it would be a contadiction to use the word equal then <_<
Well as i said land would need to be saved for population growth so no. If people are to live equally they must have the same things or else it will create segregation.

Yes the enviromentalists would disagree but looking after the population would be more important. If you&#39;d care to notice Japan has done this very well creating new land for airports and such like so why couldn&#39;t it work in a communist state.

Ofcourse i realise that the Eastern Block was pretty dire but just because of those few examples you can&#39;t disregard the whole idea of a communist system. Mismanagement caused those places to be bad not the system itself there is nothing stopping communism creating the ideal way for humanity to live.

[Professor Moneybags]

What ? There&#39;s an alternative ? Do go into detail.

You mean an alternative to "a "choice" is really voluntary, when the alternative is death.">

well... yeah&#33; It isn&#39;t voluntary&#33;

So I can voluntarily choose whether or not to work and somehow, I will not starve or be a parasite in the process ? Please go into detail about how this works.


Or if you&#39;re working, but minimum wage isn&#39;t enough, or there is no minimum wage (as many capitalists advocate), or you are working and "earning" but the "market" has raised prices higher than you can afford.

The market doesn&#39;t do that, or it would have collapsed long ago.



What&#39;s wrong with everyone living by their own efforts ?

Isolationism?
Survivalism?

The simple fact is that not everyone is good at everything, that&#39;s why humans make societies.

Straw man argument. Living by your own efforts isn&#39;t isolationism. It is perfectly possible to live in society without being a parasite or dependent on others.

<snip the rest of the blather>

[LSD]

The market doesn&#39;t do that, or it would have collapsed long ago.

Clarify:
Are you arguing that there are no working poor?


So I can voluntarily choose whether or not to work and somehow, I will not starve or be a parasite in the process ? Please go into detail about how this works.

Straw man argument. Living by your own efforts isn&#39;t isolationism. It is perfectly possible to live in society without being a parasite or dependent on others.

You&#39;re redefining terms to your own liking:

Someone who makes millions because they "own" the factory where others work isn&#39;t a parasite, but a dying man who recieves public healthcare is.

:lol:&#33;

[t_wolves_fan]

Can you guarantee that?

Can you guarantee that I&#39;ll be allowed to put up nativity scenes, build an addition, plant trees?

Well, I&#39;m not the Lord of the Earth, so I can&#39;t guarantee anything. But what the hell, sure... I guarantee it.

You can&#39;t guarantee it so don&#39;t bother.


Your problem is that most people who favor Democracy also favored limits on what could be discussed and voted on by the majority. Property rights were generally not even considered in such discussions, they were off-limits, as they should be.

Well if a bunch of rich dead guys didn&#39;t "consider it", how dare I?

Do you really believe that everything ought to be up for public discussion? That "the collective" should get to determine how much you own, where you live, and how you are rewarded for your work?

I argue that they should not - it should be your business and the business of those that employ you.

We&#39;re not going to agree on that, are we.



Again, the point you fail to address or comprehend is that at least when the system is based on money, one has the opportunity to get more.

Which you can overcome, unlike the barriers in the system you&#39;ve advocated.

"...we shall overcoooooome....we shall overcoooooome...we shall..."

Strange how so few actually do "overcome" these "barriers", isn&#39;t it?

While one theoretically can "get more" money, I think we all know it isn&#39;t nearly as simple as you make it out to me.

Yes, actually it is. Christ if I can do it then just about anyone can.


Whereas capitalism offers the potential to "get more", most people never do.

Do you have any facts to back that up? Because I think you are wrong.

Just look at the amount we Americans consume versus what we used to consume. We consume a hell of a lot more of everything on a per-capita basis than we used to. If you were right, that could not be the case.


On the other hand, communism, doesn&#39;t "promise" to give you more, it gives you more.

Tell me, which is the better option?

You can&#39;t make that assertion if the system is not in practice - it is a hypothetical.

And no, I do not believe Communism could "give me more". In fact, everything that has been explained to me on communism has said I&#39;d probably have less than what I have right now materially; and definitely less than I have right now individually because I&#39;d be at the mercy of the collective.



If you&#39;re not interested in my personal affairs then why prevent me from owning things??????????

Because your "owenership" of things is preventing others from using those rightfully public resources. Your "property rights" are forcing others to "work for you" and to "sell their labour" to you.

My home is not a public resource. The things in my home are not a public resource. The fact that you view those things as public resources is what literally scares the shit out of me about what you advocate.

Whatever I get in communism will be because members are forced to work to contribute, so what exactly is the difference?

In that regard, there isn&#39;t any. After all, if the collective decides we need to produce X amount of boots, someone&#39;s gonna have to produce them, right? Someone&#39;s going to have to work at some level necessary to produce X amount of boots in X amount of time.

Right?

After all, if the boots aren&#39;t produced then the collective has failed, right?

So, once again, for approximately the 439th time, what exactly is the difference?


It isn&#39;t "personal" when it negatively affects others.

It&#39;s already against the law to use property in a way that violates others&#39; rights.


Which is not a societal or governmental edict.

Governmental, no. But it certainly is societal.

Nope. Not at all.



Really. My parents were failed farmers when they were born. Now they are in the upper-middle class. That very fact refutes your assertion, because if the American Dream were not real, they could not have done it.

Ah&#33; Annectodal evidence&#33;

It must irritate you because it&#39;s true. Each and every single case of people moving from lower class to upper refutes your argument that it doesn&#39;t happen.


Well, I guess I&#39;ll just throw out all these "statistics" and trust you.

You haven&#39;t thrown out any statistics, sport.


Or are you under the impression that chickens cut themselves up, wrap themselves in cellophane, and stack themselves neatly in the supermarket shelves all by themselves?

Did you actually read what I said: "Community is living off others, and others living off you. Thats the difference between society and isolationism."

Again what the hell is the big difference between having society living off of you and being forced to contract your work to survive?

It&#39;s nothing but semantics.


I suggest you take a look at the good Professor&#39;s signature.

:lol: You have no clue what it means, do you?


We&#39;re talking about temporary bodies, set up by the people to enforec collective decisions. not a decision making body, which is what you were concerned about.

Now, do I need to put that in caps or do you understand?

There is no difference whatsoever. If two organizations do exactly the same thing when they exist, then their lifespan is irrelevant. You going to tell me you&#39;d have no problem with the army invading Iraq if the army were dismantled afterward?

Crime is not going to be a temporary problem, are you going to tell me the collective will establish a temporary body to deal with each and every assault, rape, theft, vandalism, public drunkeness, and so on and so forth? Especially considering that if your revolution ever happened (which it won&#39;t), there will be millions upon millions of people opposed to the style of rule you&#39;ve set up who will need to be dealt with?

Have you thought about that at all?

Eventually people with functional brains will decide it&#39;s slightly more efficient to set up permanent bodies to deal with these problems. Not to mention you&#39;ll need permanent bodies to run and oversee all the "elections" the collective will have to make all its decisions, right? I mean no matter how decentralized you make it, someone&#39;s gotta at least facilitate, right?

And when it comes to producing soap or cars or toasters or boots, someone&#39;s gotta allocate the labor, right? I mean we can&#39;t just let everyone pick which part of the job they&#39;re going to do, and how long their breaks are going to be, and what process they&#39;re going to use to melt iron, right?

Don&#39;t look now champ but you&#39;ve got yourself a government.


You do realize that the communist countries of eastern Europe had by far the worst environmental record in history, right?

1). Those countries were not communist.

Yes, I am afraid they were. Even if they weren&#39;t I&#39;d call &#39;em that just to piss you off.



2). Historically, it is capitalist countries that have done the worst to the environment.

Not so, sport. (http://209.217.49.168/vnews.php?nid=183)

"A typical example of the environmental damage caused by the Soviet economic system is the exploitation of the Black Sea. To comply with five-year plans for housing and building construction, gravel, sand, and trees around the beaches were used for decades as construction materials. Because there is no private property, "no value is attached to the gravel along the seashore. Since, in effect, it is free, the contractors haul it away. This practice caused massive beach erosion which reduced the Black Sea coast by 50 percent between 1920 and 1960. Eventually, hotels, hospitals, and of all things, a military sanitarium collapsed into the sea as the shore line gave way. Frequent landslides--as many as 300 per year--have been reported.

Water pollution is catastrophic. Effluent from a chemical plant killed almost all the fish in the Oka River in 1965, and similar fish kills have occurred in the Volga, Ob, Yenesei, Ural, and Northern Dvina rivers. Most Russian factories discharge their waste without cleaning it at all. Mines, oil wells, and ships freely dump waste and ballast into any available body of water, since it is all one big (and tragic) "commons." "

And was it a capitalist who said we could level mountains to build new land in the sea?

:lol:



3). Capitalism, by its very nature, cares not for the environment. (maximum reward and all that)
4). Tell me, those people cutting down the rain forest... could they be doing it for....money&#33;?&#33;?&#33;

True, capitalism has its drawbacks when related to the environment. Regulation is completely necessary and appropriate.

Would you feel better if it were the collective running Brazil that decided to clear living space for its people and build everyone the same-sized house?

Because it could happen, couldn&#39;t it?


Well... I can see that you&#39;re a polished debater.

Went to Oxford, did you?

:lol:

Coming from you, that&#39;s rich. Unlike yourself as it turns out&#33;

:lol:

I&#39;m done with this back-and-forth. We&#39;ve made the arguments we&#39;re going to make. I&#39;m sure you don&#39;t accept mine but I have to say yours are idealistic and unrealistic. But please, bark at the moon all you wish.

Just remember, approximately 80% of the world&#39;s population has chosen my route. China had chosen yours, but after killing 20 million people on failed agricultural collectivization, it&#39;s now rapidly going my way.

You think you&#39;re smarter than about 6 billion freaking people?

:lol: