DeletedUser34
Oh please, even in the biblical days there was ownership?Is the Earth not already here for us when we are born? Who can truly say they have the right to claim and own something that belongs to all who live, walk, swim, and fly on it?
-
We are looking for you! Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
DeletedUser
Yes, nothing I said had to do with biblical days. Weather it happens in biblical days or another dimension I am a strong believer that, that is how it is meant to be this world belongs to all of us.
DeletedUser3
Indeed, slave ownership. Yay for that...
DeletedUser34
bah! nothing like the community manager perpetuating the sinking of a thread into muck.
I am not saying that at all. My comment about bible times was a phrase which means since the beginning of times, but I am sure you already knew that.
My point was since there has been government of any sort there has been ownership. So Auronus's point of saying nobody owns anything is not quite on the point. Even Indians the most Utopian society out there, the most "earthy" and tree hugging, has had ownership. Everyone has rights, EVERYONE. Not all are right, but nobody said that everyone had to be right. Even the most knowledgeable of people have been known to be wrong, and the most uneducated of folks have been right a few times.
I don't believe in a Utopian society because that takes away free thinking. And I feel that those who feel "persecuted" have the right to respond. But I don't feel the government has the right to tell me what I think or feel. And if I own said property, I have the right to think a certain way. And if someone doesn't agree with my way of thinking, they have the right to ignore me and or not participate in my business. simple. Very similar to how I view kid justice.
I am not saying that at all. My comment about bible times was a phrase which means since the beginning of times, but I am sure you already knew that.
My point was since there has been government of any sort there has been ownership. So Auronus's point of saying nobody owns anything is not quite on the point. Even Indians the most Utopian society out there, the most "earthy" and tree hugging, has had ownership. Everyone has rights, EVERYONE. Not all are right, but nobody said that everyone had to be right. Even the most knowledgeable of people have been known to be wrong, and the most uneducated of folks have been right a few times.
I don't believe in a Utopian society because that takes away free thinking. And I feel that those who feel "persecuted" have the right to respond. But I don't feel the government has the right to tell me what I think or feel. And if I own said property, I have the right to think a certain way. And if someone doesn't agree with my way of thinking, they have the right to ignore me and or not participate in my business. simple. Very similar to how I view kid justice.
DeletedUser
1. You predicate your argument on the assumption that we agree that the Bible is factual, historical, and literal. It makes an assumption about culture and beliefs that are not valid arguments in a debate.
2. Several governments exist where ownership is communal and others have existed, particularly pre-aggrarian which did not have the concept of private property.
3. Your assessment of a utopia is heavily biased by a misinterpretation of an older Greek idea of it.
4. You only "own" said property because the government created allowances for it. Your entire property rights derive from the existence and willingness of a government to accept your claim, and the people to acknowledge your right to it under same said government's laws. Without government there are no claims of property except by the ability to hold against all comers.
To be flatly honest the level of discourse here is relatively over simplified because it's based on a lot of gross assumptions about what exists without the state as a right, and the truth is that rights are a construct of the state(s) which exists only in the world as a framework for morality and social code. Without agreed upon standards as set by a body politic you have exactly ZERO rights for there is nothing to protect or grant you the ability to enforce your rights.
TLDR:
You have no inalienable rights without a government to protect them. That includes the right to property, liberty, or life. To argue otherwise requires a preconceived notion about either higher authority, or the assumption that we agree upon rights and are willing to accept them as givens. Humans show no such inclinations.
2. Several governments exist where ownership is communal and others have existed, particularly pre-aggrarian which did not have the concept of private property.
3. Your assessment of a utopia is heavily biased by a misinterpretation of an older Greek idea of it.
4. You only "own" said property because the government created allowances for it. Your entire property rights derive from the existence and willingness of a government to accept your claim, and the people to acknowledge your right to it under same said government's laws. Without government there are no claims of property except by the ability to hold against all comers.
To be flatly honest the level of discourse here is relatively over simplified because it's based on a lot of gross assumptions about what exists without the state as a right, and the truth is that rights are a construct of the state(s) which exists only in the world as a framework for morality and social code. Without agreed upon standards as set by a body politic you have exactly ZERO rights for there is nothing to protect or grant you the ability to enforce your rights.
TLDR:
You have no inalienable rights without a government to protect them. That includes the right to property, liberty, or life. To argue otherwise requires a preconceived notion about either higher authority, or the assumption that we agree upon rights and are willing to accept them as givens. Humans show no such inclinations.
DeletedUser34
It was a PHRASE! How many times do you want me to say that? It doesn't matter if you believe in the book or not. The bible is supposedly a book that reaches back to the beginning of existance...ergo...since bible days means FOREVER. Stop reading more into it for goodness sakes!
how successful were they? and they would have been so few and far between, that to even consider them in this context is ridiculous.
It is not, it is heavily based on the treehugger standards of today IN the United States of America.
And considering our Constitution gives us said rights, your point? My point is and will always be that it doesn't say I have to give up my liberties for yours. It simply says you have the right to pursue yours. Just as I have the right to pursue mine. If they don't agree, you have the right to RENT elsewhere, OR OWN next door to me...but you don't have the right to force me to bend to your will. If I own a business, I have the right to make money or lose it. You don't have the right to force me to make money with YOUR business.
Of course it is over simplified....however, the point that sticks out in this quote is the "assumptions about what exists without the state..." ummm, are we not discussing governments role in society?
If you didn't read, don't comment...makes you look like my valentines card from my daughter...the back end of a baffoon...just saying. why? Because we DO have a government, and we DO have a constitution...ergo, who cares about your TLDR comment. I hate those because that says, hey I am a lazy poster.
DeletedUser3
Umm, Domino, his TLDR was posed for people who found his post too long, and thus they didn't feel like reading it. I.e., he posed a Reader's Digest version of his arguments. Well stated I might add.
As to my quick quip about slavery, I was pointing out that ownership isn't right. Whether it is a person or place, ownership is a presumption of superior standing. We presumed to have slaves because we presumed to be superior than other humans. We presume to own pets and property for the very same reason (not including cats in this, as they actually presume to own us).
All of this, however, conveniently deviates from the original post. Perhaps, in your most unique way, you can demonstrate how any of this (property rights, etc) relates to the fakery of politics and the branding of Democrats (by alleged Republicans touting conservatism) to being big government advocates whilst recent U.S. history clearly demonstrates the exact opposite.
As to my quick quip about slavery, I was pointing out that ownership isn't right. Whether it is a person or place, ownership is a presumption of superior standing. We presumed to have slaves because we presumed to be superior than other humans. We presume to own pets and property for the very same reason (not including cats in this, as they actually presume to own us).
All of this, however, conveniently deviates from the original post. Perhaps, in your most unique way, you can demonstrate how any of this (property rights, etc) relates to the fakery of politics and the branding of Democrats (by alleged Republicans touting conservatism) to being big government advocates whilst recent U.S. history clearly demonstrates the exact opposite.
DeletedUser
Haha yes! My cat treats this house as his kingdom, and will claw and smack the door until you open it, which can be heard through the whole house by the way.
DeletedUser
No number of times you say it makes it any more valid an argument in a debate. Don't use it. At best it's hyperbole.
Communal property cultures were very successful relative to what they were. They don't exist much now because they existed in times and places that were radically different technologically, not to mention sociologically. However to bring this back on point, they are exactly what you get when you shrink government "down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub." When you do that, you lose the structure that creates the laws that provide the rights that you're screaming about having. Ergo you either produce anarchy or you produce communal-ism (not to be confused with communism for the layperson.)
Utopia is a greek concept, not a "tree-hugger" concept. It's constantly misused in the English language by people who did not bother reading Plato. The concept of a utopia is close to the antithesis of what most "hippies" would accept as a reality. The fact that you responded with that kind of defense shows me that you do not understand either group. I didn't bother calling you out on the Native American concept, I probably should have, but in this case you've proven that you've created schema that you're looking for confirmation bias. You won't accept that you're completely wrong about both the concepts and the peoples you're impugning.
The Constitution only exists in the US, and only as long as we accept it as rule of law. By devolving the political system into a libertine state you undermine the legal framework and thus the constitution. It's very important to understand that your rights are tenuous and therefore and understanding of their nature, origin, and function are imperative for you to actually make a valid argument to change the system.
I read everything. I merely summarized my position. I dislike poor debates and insist that if you are going to make an argument that you make it factually, with support, and without hyperbole. Since it offends you so much I'll refrain from doing so again on this post.
So to quote Daniel Moynihan: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts."
Communal property cultures were very successful relative to what they were. They don't exist much now because they existed in times and places that were radically different technologically, not to mention sociologically. However to bring this back on point, they are exactly what you get when you shrink government "down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub." When you do that, you lose the structure that creates the laws that provide the rights that you're screaming about having. Ergo you either produce anarchy or you produce communal-ism (not to be confused with communism for the layperson.)
Utopia is a greek concept, not a "tree-hugger" concept. It's constantly misused in the English language by people who did not bother reading Plato. The concept of a utopia is close to the antithesis of what most "hippies" would accept as a reality. The fact that you responded with that kind of defense shows me that you do not understand either group. I didn't bother calling you out on the Native American concept, I probably should have, but in this case you've proven that you've created schema that you're looking for confirmation bias. You won't accept that you're completely wrong about both the concepts and the peoples you're impugning.
The Constitution only exists in the US, and only as long as we accept it as rule of law. By devolving the political system into a libertine state you undermine the legal framework and thus the constitution. It's very important to understand that your rights are tenuous and therefore and understanding of their nature, origin, and function are imperative for you to actually make a valid argument to change the system.
I read everything. I merely summarized my position. I dislike poor debates and insist that if you are going to make an argument that you make it factually, with support, and without hyperbole. Since it offends you so much I'll refrain from doing so again on this post.
So to quote Daniel Moynihan: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts."
DeletedUser34
Might I suggest you re read the original post, specifically the last part.... Hard to offer facts to back my opinion...the rest I will get back to you to you later if I am not a puddle of gelatinous goo.....
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Ownership is a construct; the worth of money is a construct; business is a construct they are not real in the sense that you can hold them in your hand and appreciate their beauty or ugliness. If you start to see beyond the bull you can appreciate how it all works and start to see how things could, possibly, be organised differently if it weren't for homo sapiens lol.
DeletedUser3422
Do not let them get to you, they are not posting facts either just some cherry picked graphs. You are right about socialism always failing. Sure someone gave a lame excuse about technology or something but there is always an excuse and it will always work if we just try it one more time. Yawn... it’s the “fill in the blank” fault and you’re a racist.
DeletedUser
I was under the impression that graphs and statistics were considered facts.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
At no point did I post anything in favor of Socialism. I cited the errors in her argument. I am neither for nor against in this case. Nor did I propose that socialism is a construct to which we should move our society. The question at hand was, is small government under conservative management a misnomer. That much is, on the face of spending and appropriations, true.
As for your argument, Socialism as you are apt to understand it is nothing at all like I was discussing with communalism. One of the major failings is that most people associate socialism with authoritarian marxism which is neither socialist nor communist, as it creates a political oligarchy which completely defeats the entire point and purpose of socialist style endeavors. However, socialism does not work on a grand scale because it only works in situations where everyone can be humanized by the others. Once you reach a population of about 250, and certainly by 750 true socialism can't function because by then everyone has to compartmentalize groups rather than know individuals. That "knowing" is key to an actual true socialist government.
What most people in the US call socialism is nothing of the sort. It's a gross misunderstanding perpetuated by our society dating back to the McCarthy anti-communism trials.
DeletedUser
I assume these "cherry picked" graphs and facts refer to something like this: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...isenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/
DeletedUser34
Thank you for your words of encouragement! These people make me pull my hair out. I guess I am just to soft spoken to stoop to the aggression of the exceptional personalities on this forum. I have never argued against people of this calibre before and I find myself a bit out of my league. It is shameful how the carryings ons happens on here!
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser3
lol Domino, that just had to be tongue in cheek. Repping u for making me chuckle. Anyway, so back on topic shall we?
DeletedUser3422
Yes, this is cherry picked also, manipulated numbers designed to prove a point. President Obama has yet to sign a budget but neither did President Bush, President Clinton was the last one in 1997. We cannot blame or give credit to presidents for spending because he has to work with Congress. Presidents Reagan and Clinton demonstrated well how to work with Congress to get things done, this is the reason most of use know of Speakers O’Neill and Gingrich.
Unlike many people I have not picked sides and I do not have a your team my team mentality. The entire argument of who spent more is sophomoric at best. The reality is our debt level is huge and will become overwhelming if we stay on the same path. Small business (my friends, family and neighbors) is struggling and I can see NOTHING in the works to improve it. What I do see is increasing regulations and taxes are slowly killing my business, this is real life experience talking here. I could care less what your textbooks or news outlets print, life sucks for us in the trenches. At first I thought something was wrong with how I do business because I always look in the mirror before blaming others, and then I started hearing the same story from other business owners. I am glad it amuses you and makes you chuckle. For those of us who have devoted our lives to building something only to have it destroyed by bad government, we are not laughing. The irony is the people who are supposed to be helped from all of this bad policy are the ones hurt the most, yet they cheer for more.
P.S. Socialism fails on a small scale too, it was tried with the first American colonies and people starved. Most of us can’t even get our kids to clean their rooms without some sort of force. Humans require incentive to work, either positive or negative. If the greater good was enough incentive our inner cities would be spotless because all the people who get a welfare check would spend all their time doing good for the community. Alas they spend their time getting high, stealing and killing. And before someone drops the race bomb, parasites come in all colors.
Unlike many people I have not picked sides and I do not have a your team my team mentality. The entire argument of who spent more is sophomoric at best. The reality is our debt level is huge and will become overwhelming if we stay on the same path. Small business (my friends, family and neighbors) is struggling and I can see NOTHING in the works to improve it. What I do see is increasing regulations and taxes are slowly killing my business, this is real life experience talking here. I could care less what your textbooks or news outlets print, life sucks for us in the trenches. At first I thought something was wrong with how I do business because I always look in the mirror before blaming others, and then I started hearing the same story from other business owners. I am glad it amuses you and makes you chuckle. For those of us who have devoted our lives to building something only to have it destroyed by bad government, we are not laughing. The irony is the people who are supposed to be helped from all of this bad policy are the ones hurt the most, yet they cheer for more.
P.S. Socialism fails on a small scale too, it was tried with the first American colonies and people starved. Most of us can’t even get our kids to clean their rooms without some sort of force. Humans require incentive to work, either positive or negative. If the greater good was enough incentive our inner cities would be spotless because all the people who get a welfare check would spend all their time doing good for the community. Alas they spend their time getting high, stealing and killing. And before someone drops the race bomb, parasites come in all colors.
DeletedUser3
Please provide evidence to support your claim that people on welfare "spend their time getting high, stealing and killing." As well, provide evidence to support your claim that "regulations" and "taxes" are stifling small business owners. Good luck with evidencing that bit of class-elitist propaganda.
DeletedUser3422
If you go back and read what I stated about regs and taxes “What I do see is increasing regulations and taxes are slowly killing my business, this is real life experience talking here.” My evidence is my life experience acquired by founding two small businesses and speaking with other business owners.
Answering the welfare topic... hmmm... I could research and come up with some numbers but you probably already have the rebuttal because this topic is often debated and both sides have supporting data. I could state my personal experience but you would have to actually know me, to know my sincerity, intelligence and character for that to be effective. You could head on down to a welfare prevalent community, meet the hard working, sober, community oriented people and then you would see with your own eyes that I am wrong. Once you have proven with your own experience that I am wrong, there is no debate because you know it to be true. I know I am right and what I say is true. Once you and I have a common experience we can look for answers. Unfortunately many of us are not interested in results, we are either married to a point of view or we are too interesting in being right or proving others wrong. In the debate I had about taxes, the other person appears to me not to be interested in my point of view, it was all about proving me wrong. If we all can open our minds and look for solutions instead of supporting a dogma at all costs, we can start to affect improvements at a grassroots level.
Answering the welfare topic... hmmm... I could research and come up with some numbers but you probably already have the rebuttal because this topic is often debated and both sides have supporting data. I could state my personal experience but you would have to actually know me, to know my sincerity, intelligence and character for that to be effective. You could head on down to a welfare prevalent community, meet the hard working, sober, community oriented people and then you would see with your own eyes that I am wrong. Once you have proven with your own experience that I am wrong, there is no debate because you know it to be true. I know I am right and what I say is true. Once you and I have a common experience we can look for answers. Unfortunately many of us are not interested in results, we are either married to a point of view or we are too interesting in being right or proving others wrong. In the debate I had about taxes, the other person appears to me not to be interested in my point of view, it was all about proving me wrong. If we all can open our minds and look for solutions instead of supporting a dogma at all costs, we can start to affect improvements at a grassroots level.