Life, Liberty, and Property?

[DiamondDave]

1) Yes there is.. else control to force participation and redistribution cannot happen....

Like any other form of democracy (truly as such), there is no ruling class to rule over any other class. There is only the People, who rule themselves.

producers do not just willingly continue to support non-producers...

The salvation army doesn't exist? Noone adopts little african kids when they see the ads on tv? Noone helps a friend, their child, or anyone else? Ever?



define: large scale


They have many times in the past. Public libraries and many other things stand as evidence of the fact.



Good thing socialism os founded on Individualist ideals, then. Individualism taken to the extreme leads to anarchy, since each person would be in it only for themselves. The collectivist policies of social democracy/socialism are modeld after individualist concerns.




They predate the term, not the concept. People traded to increase their ownership of things they valued before the word 'capitalism' existed, too- hell, before any word in use today existed.

5) Your silly argument that only 'educated' people can understand or make socialism 'work'

actually, that's what you said when you said that only a minority of people can make it work and large-scale attemots would fail because most people are too corrupt, dishonest, greedy, and ignorant

is the true background thinking of the communist/socialist supporters... that their false sense of intellectual superiority makes them believe that Marx's theories can actually work...

theories don't 'work or don't work' and noone in this thread has advocated Marxism.

1) Pipe dream... for "the people" will not continue to have the fruits of their labor taken from them to be given to those who do not produce for themselves.... an inherent flaw with socio/communist supporters such as yourself is the failure to realize that people will not put forced societal support over family support... the socialist system must have a means of control, or frankly it cannot and will not ever happen
2) Producers will not allow the leeches to continually suck off without return.... charity is not forced and is completely voluntary by all who participate.. socialism, by definition, is not a voluntary system..
3) Large scale.. over say 1K people... it has failed in EVERY attempt at a country level and is not overly successful in anything over the size of a goddamn hippee commune
4) The masses will not continue to support leeches without being forced to do so... people tend to get quite mad when their rewards from their own work are stripped from them to support someone who does not work
5) Socialism was not, is not, and cannot be founded on the ideals of individual freedoms... PERIOD... no matter what your little professors try and feed you full of... by the very nature of the system, the collective takes precedence over the individual freedom, individual incentive, individual rewards, etc....
6) I said nothing of the sort.. having it work in the small scale does not lead to the conclusion that those in that group are superior in effort or intellect... it just means they share the same faulty belief of collectivism
7) You have advocated Marxist/Socialist/Communist theories and ideals as some superior way... which, unless you are having a society filled with prisoners, slaves, and robots, simply cannot happen without absolute control by a ruling elite/class ensuring the rest of the masses fall in line with the redistribution and state ownership

Maybe you should speak to some of the people who fled the areas that were destroyed by what the ideas of socialism/communism bring about

 

[Contumacious]

There are no rights in the Capitalist society..

In a capitalist society, all human relationships are voluntary. Men are free to cooperate or not, to deal with one another or not, as their own individual judgments, convictions, and interests dictate. They can deal with one another only in terms of and by means of reason, i.e., by means of discussion, persuasion, and contractual agreement, by voluntary choice to mutual benefit.
["What Is Capitalism?" Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal-Ayn Rand

.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Why would god own anything? Because he who has the power has the right?

He who makes something is perforce the owner of that thing. Pedantic, but nonetheless true.

So my parents own me and I own my children...


You've yet to answer the question.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

for "the people" will not continue to have the fruits of their labor taken from them to be given to those who do not produce for themselves....]

1) I never said they would
2) People do. All the time. Right here in the US. See: social security, welfare, SSDI, and many charities.

Your assertion has been proven false.

2) Producers will not allow the leeches to continually suck off without return....

See above; the facts of the world around you disprove your assertions.

3) Large scale.. over say 1K people...

Demonstrate that there must be such a large town and that it is impossible to get 1000 honest and intelligent persons together.

it has failed in EVERY attempt at a country level

Wrong. It's never been tried at the national level. Such a large-scale system has yet to evolve anywhere on Earth in recorded history,

4) The masses will not continue to support leeches without being forced to do so...

See 1 &2; this has been disproven several times and your repetition reveals that you have no rebuttal.

p

5) Socialism was not, is not, and cannot be founded on the ideals of individual freedoms... PERIOD...

Incorrect. It offers liberties not present in the Bourgeois state, including greater liberty to choose one's own labors (see the system used in Twin Oaks) and to directly benefit from one's labors, and is more able to allow people to join or leave as desired, whereas the Capitalist system cannot allow people to leave, for the Capitalist would lose his source of capital.

6) I said nothing of the sort.. having it work in the small scale does not lead to the conclusion that those in that group are superior in effort or intellect... it just means they share the same faulty belief of collectivism

If they make a system work that makes them and their neighbors happy and you can't, it seems you are the one acting on faulty beliefs

7) You have advocated Marxist/Socialist/Communist theories and ideals

\

I have borrowed some of Marx's observations (which he was not the only one to make) and have advocated no Marxist ideals or delusions. I have said across this board that I do not support Marxism or Marx's Utopia.

Maybe you should speak to some of the people who fled the areas that were destroyed by what the ideas of socialism/communism bring about

Sure. Go find some. While you're looking, look what Capitalism did to India, Vietnam, Hawaii...

 

[☭proletarian☭]

There are no rights in the Capitalist society..

In a capitalist society, all human relationships are voluntary.

-to an extent. A man may choose his master, but he has no choice but to choose one (or be labeled a criminal if he seeks other means of sustenance)

Men are free to cooperate or not, to deal with one another or not, as their own individual judgments, convictions, and interests dictate.

See: What makes a man a slave.

If you fail to understand the connection between exploitation and liberty, then I suggest you take some time to think things over some more.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why would god own anything? Because he who has the power has the right?

He who makes something is perforce the owner of that thing. Pedantic, but nonetheless true.

So my parents own me and I own my children...


You've yet to answer the question.

Humans are not "things" to other humans, Brain Trust. And by the way, you didn't "make" them. God did. To say YOU made them is the same as saying my sewing machine makes clothes.

I answered your question. It's not my fault you weren't capable of understanding the words.

 

[ihopehefails]

Does a man not own himself? How can a man pursue himself?

Yes

How does a man pursue himself?

if someone else owned his free actions then that would be slavery like a slaveholder owning the right to what a slave will pursue that day like what task he will be doing.

Like the capitalist commanding the proletarian to perform a desired action to benefit the capitalist, allowing, in return, the proletarian a portion of the value of his labour so he may sustain his own existence so long as this proves useful t the capitalist?

The capitalist is simply excercising his/her right over their property. They own the factories and the cash that they pay the workers with and have the right to use that "property" as they see fit since it is theirs to begin with. They worker is not property of the capitalist (or he would slave) and therefore can not control that person but they do control who they give the money to and the worker controls how they are going to use their bodies. The two enter into an agreement with each other to exchange things they have control over such as the capitalist money and the laborers labor.

So your theory that capitalist abduct people from their homes and force them to work is false.

 

[ihopehefails]

The original Jefferson saying of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness does not make a lot of sense because in other Jefferson writings he suggest that government exist to secure those things but how is it possible for government to secure the third item which is "happiness". Did this mean that government should secure your right to pursue monster energy drinks, anti-depressents, and other things that would help you to achieve happiness? What about other pieces of property such as land, homes, cars, food, and any other material possession you might be able to acquire? Why would the government only exist to secure those items but not other pieces of property?

I don't want to be hostile to you, here, but you seem to have some problem with understanding English, even when it's your own post at issue. First you say, "Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness", and then you turn around and say the third item is "Happiness". Do you not understand the difference between happiness and the pursuit thereof? It is one of the purposes of a good government to secure your right to attempt to secure your own happiness - whether you succeed or not is up to you - but not to secure the happiness for you, and Jefferson never suggested otherwise.

I believe that Jefferson borrowed his slogan from Locke which went something like this Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Property but altered it because of the slavery issue and if this is correct (which I am not sure I am entirely correct) then it would make more sense to believe that Jefferson and many of the founders believed that government existed to secure three things. The first thing is your life as in protecting you from violence either from your fellow citizens or invaders. The second thing is for Liberty as in to ensure it from being taken from you in some form. The third is to protect your right to property because what other thing secures your ability to retain control over your own property from either a foreign invader, domestic thief, or another person wishing to excercise control over your property than the government itself?

I suspect the Founding Fathers beliefs on the purpose of good government were rather more complex than that, but it is a fact that they, in general, believed that a good government should protect its citizens' right to self-determination as much as possible, which is embodied by the phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Not sure where you got the whole Locke thing from, but if Jefferson modified it, it probably had less to do with the slavery issue than with an idea that people were entitled to more freedom in and control over their lives than merely acquiring property.

I got that from Glenn Beck and it made sense because I do think Lock said life, liberty, and property but I am not 100 percent certain. I'll have to look it up but you are correct about the difference between pursuit and default ownership which is why I think Locke might have said Pursuit of property which is different than your right to property because that would mean government would have to provide you something which usually involves taking it away from someone else which, at that point, nullifies the right to property so the right to property is impossible to secure but the right to pursue property is.

 

[ihopehefails]

Why would god own anything? Because he who has the power has the right?

He who makes something is perforce the owner of that thing. Pedantic, but nonetheless true.

So my parents own me and I own my children...


You've yet to answer the question.

You seem to think that if someone makes something that they do not own it but if I make a log cabin from lumber that I own how does altering its form alter its ownership status?

Your parents do not own you because they made you because what you do or decide to pursue is something of your own internal creation due to your inner desires. What you pursue and the right to pursue them is your freedom and your parents did not "create" what you want to pursue in life so they do not own your "freedom".

 

[2Parties]

How can a governing body necessarily protect life, liberty, and property when it must, by necessity, remove life, liberty and property?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

He who makes something is perforce the owner of that thing. Pedantic, but nonetheless true.

So my parents own me and I own my children...


You've yet to answer the question.

Humans are not "things" to other humans, Brain Trust.

1. Whatever exists, or is conceived to exist, as a separate entity, whether animate or inanimate; any separable or distinguishable object of thought.

What convoluted definitions are you using?

And by the way, you didn't "make" them. God did.

The paternity test proves otherwise Unless 'God' (whatever the hell that's supposed to be) is my identical twin.

To say YOU made them is the same as saying my sewing machine makes clothes.

You're comparing a human to an inanimate tool used by a human during an activity?

I answered your question.

No, you didn't. You've yet to answer the question and now you're making pathetic appeals to your favorite bedtime stories.

 

[Dr Grump]

Humans are not "things" to other humans, Brain Trust. And by the way, you didn't "make" them. God did.

Prove it...

...oh, that's right you can't...

However, you are entitled to your OPINION....

 

[☭proletarian☭]

You seem to think that if someone makes something that they do not own it

They own it in their mind and they may have a socially recogn
So I do own my children? Or is ownership a socially recognized right given with little to no concern regarding logical consistency. The original assertion was that 'creation, therefore ownership'. People create people. Therefore, per the original assertion, people own those people they create. Yet the same Liberal rhetoric claims that people cannot be owned. When this contradiction was pointed out, the Liberal in question began claiming that some vague metaphysical impossibility impregnated every woman on eart rather than the men who inseminated them.

Your parents do not own you because they made you

So if someone makes something, they do not own it?

Make up your mind.

because what you do or decide to pursue is something of your own internal creation due to your inner desires.

So a man cannot own cattle?

What you pursue and the right to pursue them is your freedom and your parents did not "create" what you want to pursue in life so they do not own your "freedom".

You claim they don't own me then set forth to approve they do not own my "freedom" (your quotes). Trying to prove B does nothing for assertion A.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So my parents own me and I own my children...


You've yet to answer the question.

Humans are not "things" to other humans, Brain Trust.

1. Whatever exists, or is conceived to exist, as a separate entity, whether animate or inanimate; any separable or distinguishable object of thought.

What convoluted definitions are you using?

Oh, my "convoluted" definition comes out of this obscure little book called "Webster's Dictionary". It says:

thing n. matter, object, not a living person or animal | an action | something not specifically named | belongings, clothes, utensils, etc.

Sorry if that was too esoteric for you.

The paternity test proves otherwise Unless 'God' (whatever the hell that's supposed to be) is my identical twin.

Don't be an obtuse dumbfuck any more than nature requires you to be. Tests to prove that a letter was typed on one specific typewriter and not another don't mean the typewriter itself typed the letter. Just because one can prove which specific tool was used to make something doesn't mean the tool itself was the Maker.

To say YOU made them is the same as saying my sewing machine makes clothes.

You're comparing a human to an inanimate tool used by a human during an activity?

Yup. God makes people. Other people are the tools through which He makes them. YOU personally are not making shit.

No, you didn't. You've yet to answer the question and now you're making pathetic appeals to your favorite bedtime stories.

Whether or not you like my answer or even understand my answer does not change the fact that it IS my answer and that it has been given. It's MY answer, not yours, and I am not required to frame it according to YOUR beliefs and values, let alone your limited level of brainpower.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Humans are not "things" to other humans, Brain Trust.

1. Whatever exists, or is conceived to exist, as a separate entity, whether animate or inanimate; any separable or distinguishable object of thought.

What convoluted definitions are you using?

Oh, my "convoluted" definition comes out of this obscure little book called "Webster's Dictionary".

S: (n) thing (a separate and self-contained entity)
WordNet Search - 3.0

Tests to prove that a letter was typed on one specific typewriter and not another don't mean the typewriter itself typed the letter. Just because one can prove which specific tool was used to make something doesn't mean the tool itself was the Maker.

So you're a tool? Are you saying you're no smarter than a screwdriver and can't act on your own? If you wish to assert that people are not sentient things which act on their own, you'll have quite a task before you.

You're comparing a human to an inanimate tool used by a human during an activity?

Yup. God makes people.

Who ig 'God'? Is this a person? if so, then (s)he might make people is (s)he is a parent. It's you're not speaking of a person, you've got some work to do if you wish to prove that some unspecified thing creates people.

Other people are the tools through which He makes them

Interesting... do you have the slightest bit of evidence for this claim, or are you just making stuff up? Who is this ';God' and how does he make people using people? Does he take control of their minds? Do you have evidence of this? Does he sew their bodies together like Victor Frankenstein? Who is he? How does he do it? What evidence do you have?

YOU personally are not making shit.

Really? is my digestive system no longer functioning?

 

[ihopehefails]

You seem to think that if someone makes something that they do not own it

They own it in their mind and they may have a socially recogn
So I do own my children? Or is ownership a socially recognized right given with little to no concern regarding logical consistency. The original assertion was that 'creation, therefore ownership'. People create people. Therefore, per the original assertion, people own those people they create. Yet the same Liberal rhetoric claims that people cannot be owned. When this contradiction was pointed out, the Liberal in question began claiming that some vague metaphysical impossibility impregnated every woman on eart rather than the men who inseminated them.

Your parents do not own you because they made you

So if someone makes something, they do not own it?

Make up your mind.

because what you do or decide to pursue is something of your own internal creation due to your inner desires.

So a man cannot own cattle?

What you pursue and the right to pursue them is your freedom and your parents did not "create" what you want to pursue in life so they do not own your "freedom".

You claim they don't own me then set forth to approve they do not own my "freedom" (your quotes). Trying to prove B does nothing for assertion A.

What do your parents own when they donate the sperm and egg? They do not own your free actions because those come from within you and have nothing to do with the egg or sperm. Since those free actions are not a part of the original donation then they are yours so that means you have the power over your own body which means you have control over it and isn't that what ownership is really about so your parents don't own you because they don't own your freedom because owning someone's freedom is the same as owning them.

My freedoms is something that is not "socially recognized" because the impulse comes from within the person not from an outside person. Other people may feel they have the right to decide what my rights are but this is not true because the impulse to do so comes from my own thinking or they have not contributed to the sperm/egg process so what rightful claim do they have to decide what I or anyone else may do?

 

[ihopehefails]

How can a governing body necessarily protect life, liberty, and property when it must, by necessity, remove life, liberty and property?

Its called negative liberty where government basically did nothing whatsoever and laws only existed to protect citizens from other citizens. In this kind of law government always protected the interest of any citizen against other citizens such as laws against theft.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

They do not own your free actions because those come from within you and have nothing to do with the egg or sperm.

You went from owning a person to owning a person's actions. Do try to make up your mind regarding what you're even trying to argue.

owning someone's freedom is the same as owning them.

So your boss (who owns your actions/labours and the value thereof) ows you as property?

My freedoms is something that is not "socially recognized" because the impulse comes from within the person not from an outside person.

What impulse? The impulse to rape, perhaps? Freedom is not an impulse and you can have impulses to commit ny act. What impulse are you referring to and why do you say society doesn't recognize your freedom; I thought you started out arguing the opposite?

Other people may feel they have the right to decide what my rights are but this is not true because the impulse to do so comes from my own thinking

The impulse to decide what your rights are? Rights are social by their very nature.

or they have not contributed to the sperm/egg process so what rightful claim do they have to decide what I or anyone else may do?

So if they had donated, they would have a rightful claim to decide what you may do? So parents do own their children and their children's actions? Make up your mind.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

How can a governing body necessarily protect life, liberty, and property when it must, by necessity, remove life, liberty and property?

Some liberties (such as killing at random) are limited to protect those liberties the people as a whole value more greatly (such as life).

 

[ihopehefails]

They do not own your free actions because those come from within you and have nothing to do with the egg or sperm.

You went from owning a person to owning a person's actions. Do try to make up your mind regarding what you're even trying to argue.

owning someone's freedom is the same as owning them.

So your boss (who owns your actions/labours and the value thereof) ows you as property?


What impulse? The impulse to rape, perhaps? Freedom is not an impulse and you can have impulses to commit ny act. What impulse are you referring to and why do you say society doesn't recognize your freedom; I thought you started out arguing the opposite?

Other people may feel they have the right to decide what my rights are but this is not true because the impulse to do so comes from my own thinking

The impulse to decide what your rights are? Rights are social by their very nature.

or they have not contributed to the sperm/egg process so what rightful claim do they have to decide what I or anyone else may do?

So if they had donated, they would have a rightful claim to decide what you may do? So parents do own their children and their children's actions? Make up your mind.

I said that owning person's actions and owning them are identical to each other because what is the point of owning a person's physical form yet can't control what that form does which is the point of ownership in the first place. While your boss does own your free actions while you work for him. This may seem that he owns you by definition but since you can reclaim your freedom at any time by quitting this means you are free because if the form can simply cease to be controlled by its own choosing then it is the form (aka employee) that is ultimately in control of their free actions and not the employer.

Whatever impulse I have is my freedom and my ability to do those things is within my scope of power to do so. That includes vile acts but my vile acts might interfere with the freedom of others not to be violated so the design of government in a free society is to protect people's Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness (should be property) by restricting those behaviors that would violate my Life, Liberty, and pursuit of happiness (property).

Freedoms are not social constructs because that says that our freedoms exist from outside of ourselves and how is that possible when all actions first start out as internal thoughts or "impulses" unless you think that thoughts that define our actions originate from some kind of spiritual either that exist outside of us?

PS
Taking things our of context and assigning new meaning to them that didn't have the same meaning when they were in their original context is dishonest.