Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes I am saying slavery is not the natural order. Private ownership certainly is, as we naturally look out for our own self interest. Owning a river, or mountain is not the same as owning a human being. Not sure why you think they are.Enslaving - as in forcing someone into slavery. You were saying slavery is not the natural order. Neither are markets or ownership over land, mountains, rivers or mines.
So desire to have something is what makes it yours? How does that work with a resource like a river or a mine or fertile land that many people are going to want access to?
I'm asking you to explain the difference when apparently to you self interest is all that's necessary to confer ownership. As person I don't just need my liberty I need access to resources as well. If someone has claimed them all for themselves how is that any better than slavery? I'd argue it's just deprivation of a different kind.Yes I am saying slavery is not the natural order. Private ownership certainly is, as we naturally look out for our own self interest. Owning a river, or mountain is not the same as owning a human being. Not sure why you think they are.
So how does someone come to own a mountain, or land or a river or a mine from which resources are gathered?No desire doesn't, desire might get me to that point, but that's not ownership.
you don't know what desire means? Agreed, you need access to resources as well...whatever that might be for you. When did I say you didn't? You don't just need access, you need to be able to go get those resources and have the ability to go get them and own them if you so wish.I'm asking you to explain the difference when apparently to you self interest is all that's necessary to confer ownership. As person I don't just need my liberty I need access to resources as well. If someone has claimed them all for themselves how is that any better than slavery? I'd argue it's just deprivation of a different kind.
So how does someone come to own a mountain, or land or a river or a mine from which resources are gathered?
But I'm asking you to explain to me how the first person comes to own a mountain or mine or a river or fertile land and it doesn't seem like you can. I agree its hard to make sense of how ownership would even come about naturally without force. Why would a group of people happening upon a river ever agree that one man gets to own that river and that this agreement between them doesn't just hold for them but everyone else from now on who happens by this river? Why would anyone naturally do that? Why would I give up access to a resource like a river, that has resources I need to survive, to you, anymore then I'd give up my own freedom?you don't know what desire means? Agreed, you need access to resources as well...whatever that might be for you. When did I say you didn't? You don't just need access, you need to be able to go get those resources and have the ability to go get them and own them if you so wish.
I am not sure what recourses you are talking about, that someone could own them all.
Slavery was started in Africa by Africans. They were enslaving people thousands of years before any white man showed up. Learn your history, you low IQ retard.And why are we supposed to give whites credit for ending something wrong they started in the first place?
Slavery in America wasn't started by Africans, clown.Slavery started in Africa by Africans. Learn your history, you low IQ retard.
Yes it was, dipshit. Who the fuck do you think we bought them from?Slavery in America wasn't started by Africans, clown.
That's like arguing the person who sold the farmer the seeds started the farm. That logic might work on the Bingos in your trailer park community but it doesn't really make sense to anyone not strung out on hillbilly heroin.Yes it was, dipshit. Who the fuck do you think we bought them from?
why would you give it up? a river runs, just buy the land down stream....But I'm asking you to explain to me how the first person comes to own a mountain or mine or a river or fertile land and it doesn't seem like you can. I agree its hard to make sense of how ownership would even come about naturally without force. Why would a group of people happening upon a river ever agree that one man gets to own that river and that this agreement between them doesn't just hold for them but everyone else from now on who happens by this river? Why would anyone naturally do that? Why would I give up access to a resource like a river, that has resources I need to survive, to you, anymore then I'd give up my own freedom?
We haven't even gotten to markets yet. You can't even explain to me what ownership fundamentally is. Why would anyone in nature, before ownership is a thing, agree to secede access to a resource like a river to a person who claims it for their own? You say go down river but eventually we get to the end of the river and people still need access to it and it's resources, so who is naturally giving that up to someone else for all time?why would you give it up? a river runs, just buy the land down stream....
ownership is the state of right of pocessing something....real estate, a computer, a car, etc. I didn't know you couldn't grasp that.We haven't even gotten to markets yet. You can't even explain to me what ownership fundamentally is. Why would anyone in nature, before ownership is a thing, agree to secede access to a resource like a river to a person who claims it for their own. You say go down river but eventually we get to the end of the river but people still need access to it and it's resources, so who is naturally giving that up to someone else for all time?
Let's say I come across you fishing in the river. I can move downstream. Why would I concede that spot to you forever more? Suppose I come back tomorrow and you're not there? Why shouldn't I feel fish there?
We got jim crow when we were republicans. And we got civil rights as Democrats. That's one thing right there. Your party is the voter suppression party. Your party filibustered the John Lewis voting rights act that would have provided a remedy for the overturning of important parts of the 1964 Voting Rights Act that was killed by the conservative Supreme Court in 2013. Your party is the party who killed affirmative action under the lie that it disctriminates against whites and when I say that your party is trying to take us back to Jim Crow, it is because that's exacty what your party wants to do.
Trump allies plot anti-racism protections — for white people
So stop lying about your f--king party. It's the white nationalist party. Almost every week we see another republican running for office or elected who has ties to white supremacist groups. Anybody black dumb enough to vote republican right now is damn fool. No, they aren't thinking independently if they are voting for white supremacy. Stop giving your party credit for what it hasn't done.
markets are people....what the f are you talking about? People produce things and trade them in a market.
Sure, some are, but they don't often last if they run their company like a tyrantical govt. A good Govt will serve it's people well by getting out of their way and alllowing them to produce goods and services, then that Govt can exist by taxing those people for the goods and services they produce. A bad Govt will often get in the way of that, and enslave it's people....we have seen that with the many failed socialist regimes throughout history
But how do you process a river? You say it's natural to look after your own self interest and want the river but it's not in the self interest of those around you to accept that you have ownership over it. Why would we ever agree to that willingly? The fact of the matter is that you can't actually pocess a river, that's a metaphor for the power to keep people away by force. That's what ownership is. Force. Your forceful denial of others access to a particular resource.ownership is the state of right of pocessing something....real estate, a computer, a car, etc. I didn't know you couldn't grasp that.
and they can still have access to the river, they might have to pay the guy that owns the boat ramp, but they can have access to the river.
If someone wasn't fair in a market, then others would stop trading with them. It's not that hard a concept. Nobody has ever suggested we don't need a Govt.....The essence of markets, defined as spaces of exchange where people produce and trade goods, is not in contention. However, to romanticize markets as purely democratic forums of exchange is to ignore the stark realities and power dynamics at play. Markets, as they stand, are far from equitable or inherently democratic. The notion that a good government's role is to merely step aside and let the free market reign supreme oversimplifies complex socio-economic relations and the role of the state in safeguarding public welfare.
Firstly, the idea that private corporations, the backbone of free markets, operate on a democratic basis is a fallacy. In reality, most corporations function like private fiefdoms, where decision-making power is concentrated at the top. The average worker has little to no say in the governance of their workplace, the distribution of profits, or the strategic direction of the company. This hierarchical structure is hardly a paragon of democracy. Unlike democratic governments, where leaders are elected and can be held accountable by the public, corporate executives are accountable only to shareholders, whose main interest is often profit, not the welfare of workers or society at large.
Furthermore, the claim that governments only need to tax the productive activities of their citizens to function effectively overlooks the critical role governments play in creating the very conditions necessary for markets to operate. Infrastructure such as roads, utilities, and schools; services like healthcare, security, and environmental protection; and the legal frameworks that govern property rights, contracts, and dispute resolution are all provided or regulated by the government. These are not peripheral to the market but foundational to its existence.
Markets cannot function in a vacuum without the extensive support and regulation provided by governments. The unchecked market has shown time and again its capacity for abuse, exploitation, and the generation of inequalities. It's under these conditions that the state's intervention becomes indispensable, not just for regulation but for directly meeting the needs of its citizens. The historical record is replete with examples where public enterprises have successfully delivered services and goods efficiently and equitably, challenging the notion that the private sector is inherently more efficient.
Moreover, the advent of advanced automation and artificial intelligence heralds a future where the traditional market mechanisms for distributing goods and services become increasingly obsolete. In a world where production can be largely automated, the justification for private profit from these productive activities diminishes. The potential for these technologies to liberate humanity from drudgery and scarcity presents an opportunity to rethink our economic systems fundamentally.
A future where the economy is democratically planned, and production is oriented towards meeting human needs rather than generating profit, is not only feasible but necessary. Such a system, freed from the constraints of the market, can ensure that technological advances benefit all of society, not just a wealthy few. The critique of socialist and communist regimes should not overshadow the failures and crises inherent to capitalist systems, which too have led to suffering and inequality on a vast scale.
In conclusion, the portrayal of markets as inherently democratic and efficient mechanisms that operate best without government interference is a deeply flawed understanding of both economics and democracy. The role of the government in ensuring equity, providing essential services, and regulating the excesses of the market is crucial. The evolution towards a more democratic, equitable, and efficient system of production and distribution, underpinned by advanced technology, is not only possible but necessary for the future well-being of humanity.
how? same way you pocess anything else....why is that hard for you to understand? you certianly can't pocess the water that flows over it, but you can own the land under the water.But how do you process a river? You say it's natural to look after your own self interest and want the river but it's not in the self interest of those around you to accept that you have ownership over it. Why would we ever agree to that willingly? The fact of the matter is that you can't actually pocess a river, that's a metaphor for the power to keep people away by force. That's what ownership is. Force. Your forceful denial of others access to a particular resource.
How? Before you get to markets, explain why anyone else would ever agree that the land and all its resources belong to you? Are we all getting equal plots of land?how? same way you pocess anything else....why is that hard for you to understand? you certianly can't pocess the water that flows over it, but you can own the land under the water.
Trade you for it? Why would I even respect your claim over it to begin with? That's the part you can't seem to explain.I agree, it's not in their self interest, if they want the river.....if the do, they have a desire for the river, they should work to make capitol and try to trade me for it....or move to a place where they can get a river.
An unregulated market is inherently chaotic and can be profoundly destructive, a stark contrast to the stable and secure society we strive for. Relying on "natural" market corrections not only endangers individuals but can lead to widespread social unrest. Consider the food industry: without regulation, restaurants might compromise on safety to cut costs. If we wait for market forces to eliminate those who serve unsafe food, how many people must suffer food poisoning, or worse, die, before the market "adjusts"? Not everyone has the resources to seek legal recourse, and the mere threat of potential lawsuits does little to ensure immediate compliance or protect public health.If someone wasn't fair in a market, then others would stop trading with them. It's not that hard a concept. Nobody has ever suggested we don't need a Govt.....
You should stop copying and pasting from marxist websites and learn to think for yourself.
why would I care what plot of land you get?How? Before you get to markets, explain why anyone else would ever agree that the land and all its resources belong to you? Are we all getting equal plots of land?
Trade you for it? Why would I even respect your claim over it to begin with? That's the part you can't seem to explain.
are you a bot? Who said anything about an unregulatd market?An unregulated market is inherently chaotic and can be profoundly destructive, a stark contrast to the stable and secure society we strive for. Relying on "natural" market corrections not only endangers individuals but can lead to widespread social unrest. Consider the food industry: without regulation, restaurants might compromise on safety to cut costs. If we wait for market forces to eliminate those who serve unsafe food, how many people must suffer food poisoning, or worse, die, before the market "adjusts"? Not everyone has the resources to seek legal recourse, and the mere threat of potential lawsuits does little to ensure immediate compliance or protect public health.
The assumption that bad actors will be weeded out through consumer choice overlooks the immediate harm to individuals and the broader societal impact. Do we really want to eat in restaurants knowing they're only "self-regulated"? Who's willing to risk their health to prove a point about market efficiency? This scenario reveals the fallacy of relying solely on market forces for regulation. It's not about stifling market dynamics; it's about recognizing that without oversight, the market's "adjustments" can have dire consequences. Effective regulation isn't an obstacle to market freedom—it's a prerequisite for a market that truly serves and protects the interests of society as a whole.
