Communism Outside The Gulag

[PoliticalChic]

You can’t have freedom without private property. Every time government issues a regulation that nibbles away at private ownership, it moves from liberty to tyranny, from capitalism to communism.

But...there are some who imagine that socialism, communism, Liberalism, would take all of our worries away.
They shrug at the 100 million slaughtered to prove it.



One tends to think of the genocide of the Soviet Union when the concept is discussed, but the problems of communal rights have a more prosaic and daily consideration.


1.In Mikhail Zoshchenko’s "A Summer Breather,” a short story about families having to live together in the ‘worker’s paradise,’ we get a truer picture of communism in action.



“Getting your own individual little apartment is of course petty bourgeois pure and simple.
People should live in harmony as a collective family, not lock themselves up in their domestic fortresses.
People should live in communal apartments. Everything there's right out in the open. There's always someone to talk to. To ask for advice. To slug it out with.

There are of course some minuses.
The electricity, for example, can be a pain.
You don't know how to figure the bill. Who pays what.
Further on, of course, when our industry gets rolling, every tenant who wants to can put even two meters in every corner. Let the meters measure how much energy has been dispensed. Then, of course, life in our apartments will shine like the sun.


Well, but for the time being it really is one big pain.


For example, at our place there are nine families. One power line. One meter. At the end of the month it's time to fall in and pay up, and then, of course, there are some serious disagreements and now and again a punchfest.

Well, all right, you say: figure it per light bulb.
Well, all right, by the bulb. So one conscientious tenant turns on the light for maybe five minutes to get undressed or catch a flea. But another tenant sits there with the light on chomping away on something until midnight. And he won't turn it off. Although it's not like he's doing ornamental design or something.

And then there's a third one, an intellectual no doubt, who will stare at a book to literally one in the morning or later with no thought to the overall situation.
And maybe he'll even take out the bulb and put in a brighter one. And study his algebra like it's the middle of the day.
And maybe that same intellectual will even shut himself up in his lair and boil water or cook macaroni on a hot plate. This is what you have to understand!

There was one tenant at our place—a mover by trade—who literally went off his rocker on account of all this. He stopped sleeping at night and was constantly trying to find out who was studying algebra and who was heating up food on hotplates. And that was the end of him. Off his rocker.”



Do you still wish Bernie Sanders had won????

 

[PoliticalChic]

Whenever I post this sort of attack on the pillars of Liberalism, I hope there is some sort of intelligent disagreement….you know, debate in the marketplace of ideas.

Alas, there hardly ever is.



Soooo….let me propose an answer, suggest where socialism does work. ,


2. Want to know where communal, living works out?

“…communal property has not been the undoing of the traditional family, even though nonproductive children enjoy a free ride at t expense of their parents….Family ties are strong enough to defuse the sense of injustice that is so corrosive when free riding occurs in more distantly related groups.

Small children are, in any event, helpless, and parents don’t mind being ‘exploited’ by them.

Even so, parental policing becomes indispensable as children grow up. Furthermore, families are small enough to make such policing possible. In a family of four with two children, there is one cop per potential robber.”
Tom Bethell, “The Noblest Triumph,” p.45



Don’t worry….Uncle Bernie won’t be living with you…..He’ll have his own dacha.

 

[sedwin]

Whenever I post this sort of attack on the pillars of Liberalism, I hope there is some sort of intelligent disagreement….you know, debate in the marketplace of ideas.

Alas, there hardly ever is.



Soooo….let me propose an answer, suggest where socialism does work. ,


2. Want to know where communal, living works out?

“…communal property has not been the undoing of the traditional family, even though nonproductive children enjoy a free ride at t expense of their parents….Family ties are strong enough to defuse the sense of injustice that is so corrosive when free riding occurs in more distantly related groups.

Small children are, in any event, helpless, and parents don’t mind being ‘exploited’ by them.

Even so, parental policing becomes indispensable as children grow up. Furthermore, families are small enough to make such policing possible. In a family of four with two children, there is one cop per potential robber.”
Tom Bethell, “The Noblest Triumph,” p.45



Don’t worry….Uncle Bernie won’t be living with you…..He’ll have his own dacha.

And attacks on the "pillars" of conservatism?" Communism is the extreme result of liberalism whereas fascism is the extreme result of conservatism. Was Stalin evil? Yes. Were Hitler and Mussolini evil? Yes. The lesson is if you are FAR right or left you are on the path to evil.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Whenever I post this sort of attack on the pillars of Liberalism, I hope there is some sort of intelligent disagreement….you know, debate in the marketplace of ideas.

Alas, there hardly ever is.



Soooo….let me propose an answer, suggest where socialism does work. ,


2. Want to know where communal, living works out?

“…communal property has not been the undoing of the traditional family, even though nonproductive children enjoy a free ride at t expense of their parents….Family ties are strong enough to defuse the sense of injustice that is so corrosive when free riding occurs in more distantly related groups.

Small children are, in any event, helpless, and parents don’t mind being ‘exploited’ by them.

Even so, parental policing becomes indispensable as children grow up. Furthermore, families are small enough to make such policing possible. In a family of four with two children, there is one cop per potential robber.”
Tom Bethell, “The Noblest Triumph,” p.45



Don’t worry….Uncle Bernie won’t be living with you…..He’ll have his own dacha.

And atta
cks on the "pillars" of conservatism?" Communism is the extreme result of liberalism whereas fascism is the extreme result of conservatism. Was Stalin evil? Yes. Were Hitler and Mussolini evil? Yes. The lesson is if you are FAR right or left you are on the path to evil.

1."And attacks on the "pillars" of conservatism?"
Gads, you are a moron.....can't you even spell 'Liberalism'?????


2."fascism is the extreme result of conservatism."
Of course it isn't.

There are so very many errors in what passes for 'thinking' in your case that one hardly knows where to begin.

Let's begin with definitions.
Nazism, communism, socialism..Liberalism, Progressivism,.and fascism....


Here is a little quiz that will show just how truly ignorant you are:




1. Which stem from the works of Karl Marx?
2. Which is a form of command and control big government?
3. Which has no problem with genocide, actual or figurative, as an accepted procedure on its political enemies?
4. Which is based on the collective over the individual?
5. Which oppresses and/or slaughters its own citizens as pro forma (including depriving them of a living)....?
6. Which represents totalitarian governance?
7. Which believes that mandating/dictating every aspect of their citizen's lives is their prerogative?
8. Which aims for an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life

9. Which restricts free speech and thought?

10. Which can be summed up in Hegel's “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”



And, of course, they all are do...they are all consubstantial.

They are all the same in their ultimate plan for society: a totalitarian regime with the peons marching lock-step.



Nazism

Communism

Socialism

Fascism

Progressivism

Liberalism



Communism and Nazism and Fascism are all forms of socialism.....as is modern Liberalism...and Progressivism






How about pointing out which of them are defenders of religious, political, and economic freedom, and recognize the individual as the most important element of society?
Right....none of 'em.
Only right wing philosophies...i.e., conservatism.





You're a government school grad, huh?


3.One more thing, you dolt.....there is no Far Right in this country....only a Far Left

 

[sedwin]

Whenever I post this sort of attack on the pillars of Liberalism, I hope there is some sort of intelligent disagreement….you know, debate in the marketplace of ideas.

Alas, there hardly ever is.



Soooo….let me propose an answer, suggest where socialism does work. ,


2. Want to know where communal, living works out?

“…communal property has not been the undoing of the traditional family, even though nonproductive children enjoy a free ride at t expense of their parents….Family ties are strong enough to defuse the sense of injustice that is so corrosive when free riding occurs in more distantly related groups.

Small children are, in any event, helpless, and parents don’t mind being ‘exploited’ by them.

Even so, parental policing becomes indispensable as children grow up. Furthermore, families are small enough to make such policing possible. In a family of four with two children, there is one cop per potential robber.”
Tom Bethell, “The Noblest Triumph,” p.45



Don’t worry….Uncle Bernie won’t be living with you…..He’ll have his own dacha.

And atta
cks on the "pillars" of conservatism?" Communism is the extreme result of liberalism whereas fascism is the extreme result of conservatism. Was Stalin evil? Yes. Were Hitler and Mussolini evil? Yes. The lesson is if you are FAR right or left you are on the path to evil.

1."And attacks on the "pillars" of conservatism?"
Gads, you are a moron.....can't you even spell 'Liberalism'?????


2."fascism is the extreme result of conservatism."
Of course it isn't.

There are so very many errors in what passes for 'thinking' in your case that one hardly knows where to begin.

Let's begin with definitions.
Nazism, communism, socialism..Liberalism, Progressivism,.and fascism....


Here is a little quiz that will show just how truly ignorant you are:




1. Which stem from the works of Karl Marx?
2. Which is a form of command and control big government?
3. Which has no problem with genocide, actual or figurative, as an accepted procedure on its political enemies?
4. Which is based on the collective over the individual?
5. Which oppresses and/or slaughters its own citizens as pro forma (including depriving them of a living)....?
6. Which represents totalitarian governance?
7. Which believes that mandating/dictating every aspect of their citizen's lives is their prerogative?
8. Which aims for an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life

9. Which restricts free speech and thought?

10. Which can be summed up in Hegel's “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”



And, of course, they all are do...they are all consubstantial.

They are all the same in their ultimate plan for society: a totalitarian regime with the peons marching lock-step.



Nazism

Communism

Socialism

Fascism

Progressivism

Liberalism



Communism and Nazism and Fascism are all forms of socialism.....as is modern Liberalism...and Progressivism






How about pointing out which of them are defenders of religious, political, and economic freedom, and recognize the individual as the most important element of society?
Right....none of 'em.
Only right wing philosophies...i.e., conservatism.





You're a government school grad, huh?


3.One more thing, you dolt.....there is no Far Right in this country....only a Far Left

So cute that in your opening sentence you claim I cannot spell "liberalism" while using quotation marks incorrectly. Seriously, funny. I would comment on EVERYTHING else you wrote, but this is an Internet forum. If I wanted to read a book, I would read a book. Luckily, I have zero interest in reading a book on the lunatic ravings of a partisan hack.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Whenever I post this sort of attack on the pillars of Liberalism, I hope there is some sort of intelligent disagreement….you know, debate in the marketplace of ideas.

Alas, there hardly ever is.



Soooo….let me propose an answer, suggest where socialism does work. ,


2. Want to know where communal, living works out?

“…communal property has not been the undoing of the traditional family, even though nonproductive children enjoy a free ride at t expense of their parents….Family ties are strong enough to defuse the sense of injustice that is so corrosive when free riding occurs in more distantly related groups.

Small children are, in any event, helpless, and parents don’t mind being ‘exploited’ by them.

Even so, parental policing becomes indispensable as children grow up. Furthermore, families are small enough to make such policing possible. In a family of four with two children, there is one cop per potential robber.”
Tom Bethell, “The Noblest Triumph,” p.45



Don’t worry….Uncle Bernie won’t be living with you…..He’ll have his own dacha.

And atta
cks on the "pillars" of conservatism?" Communism is the extreme result of liberalism whereas fascism is the extreme result of conservatism. Was Stalin evil? Yes. Were Hitler and Mussolini evil? Yes. The lesson is if you are FAR right or left you are on the path to evil.

1."And attacks on the "pillars" of conservatism?"
Gads, you are a moron.....can't you even spell 'Liberalism'?????


2."fascism is the extreme result of conservatism."
Of course it isn't.

There are so very many errors in what passes for 'thinking' in your case that one hardly knows where to begin.

Let's begin with definitions.
Nazism, communism, socialism..Liberalism, Progressivism,.and fascism....


Here is a little quiz that will show just how truly ignorant you are:




1. Which stem from the works of Karl Marx?
2. Which is a form of command and control big government?
3. Which has no problem with genocide, actual or figurative, as an accepted procedure on its political enemies?
4. Which is based on the collective over the individual?
5. Which oppresses and/or slaughters its own citizens as pro forma (including depriving them of a living)....?
6. Which represents totalitarian governance?
7. Which believes that mandating/dictating every aspect of their citizen's lives is their prerogative?
8. Which aims for an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life

9. Which restricts free speech and thought?

10. Which can be summed up in Hegel's “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”



And, of course, they all are do...they are all consubstantial.

They are all the same in their ultimate plan for society: a totalitarian regime with the peons marching lock-step.



Nazism

Communism

Socialism

Fascism

Progressivism

Liberalism



Communism and Nazism and Fascism are all forms of socialism.....as is modern Liberalism...and Progressivism






How about pointing out which of them are defenders of religious, political, and economic freedom, and recognize the individual as the most important element of society?
Right....none of 'em.
Only right wing philosophies...i.e., conservatism.





You're a government school grad, huh?


3.One more thing, you dolt.....there is no Far Right in this country....only a Far Left

So cute that in your opening sentence you claim I cannot spell "liberalism" while using quotation marks incorrectly. Seriously, funny. I would comment on EVERYTHING else you wrote, but this is an Internet forum. If I wanted to read a book, I would read a book. Luckily, I have zero interest in reading a book on the lunatic ravings of a partisan hack.

You wrote "...I have zero interest in reading a book..."
Truer words where never written



You can run but you can't hide.
So saith the Brown Bomber


Your ignorance is on display.

You're dismissed.

 

[PoliticalChic]

3. A great, if unmentioned, benefit of European settlement of America was the bringing of the concept of capitalism to the Indians, stone age peoples of the continent.

…prior to the arrival of the colonials, American's prior colonists, the Indians had no concept of private property, and it's meaning in advancing the liberty and prosperity of all.

Exploration and settlement by Europeans changed all that.



Indians had no concept of private property:

"One popular history of Manhattan notes that the Canarsie Indians "dwelt on Long Island, merely trading on Manhattan, and their trickery [in selling what they didn't possess to the Dutch] made it necessary for the white man to buy part of the island over again from the tribes living near Washington Heights. Still more crafty were the Raritans of [Staten Island], for the records show that Staten Island was sold by these Indians no less than six times."
The Straight Dope How much would the 24 paid for Manhattan be worth in today s money


1626 Peter Minuit purchased the island of Manhattan from the Canarsee Native Americans on May 24, 1626. However, the Canarsee were actually native to Brooklyn, while Manhattan was home instead to the Weckquaesgeek,(Wappnai) who were not pleased by the exchange and later battled the Dutch in Kieft's War. Peter Minuit (1589-1638)



And because they had no concept of private property, Indians regularly killed the animals that they hunted to the point of extinction.

 

[Rigby5]

Of course you can have freedom without private property.
In any family, is there any private property really?
Does each person have to own their own TV, couch, table chair, etc.?
Of course not.
When you have use of all the communally owned property, then you don't need to personally own any.
That is what many tribes, religious orders, clubs, organizations, etc., have always done.

The only problem comes up with someone who is greedy tries to prevent others from having access to what they need.
It is private property that often really is theft.
We inherently are/were hunter/gatherers, and by claiming land ownership over land we did not create, we are harming hunter/gatherers.

 

[PoliticalChic]

4. Here, on this continent, it was the arrival of the Europeans that induced the Indians to give up communal property rights for private property rights.



“In his article “Towards a theory of property rights” Harold Demsetz shows by a historic example of the Montagnes Indians the impact of private property. It demonstrates the different behaviours in cases with and without private property rights, how private property solves negative externalities and the role of coordination by changing individuals’ behaviour.

The Montagnes Indians had no restrictions on hunting (=> open-access common property good).

… when the colonists started in the 18th century to inquire beaver furs from the Indians, the value of the beaver increased to such an extent, that the onset of intensification of hunting led to a decline in the beaver population (= negative externality).

Everyone hunted as much as he could and nobody cared about the sustainability of the beaver population. The benefit/revenue of each animal was individual for the hunter, but the costs of the stock decline had the community as a whole (= tragedy of the commons).

The Montagnes Indians successfully solved the problem by the allocation of individual territories on the families (= exactly defined property right), so that individual incentives appeared to plan for the long term under consideration of the beaver population. Consequently the negative externality was remedied and the individuals’ behavior purposely changed by property rights (Demsetz, 1967: 351 – 354).” Property rights



Need it be said that an established law, not the law of the jungle, is a corollary to private property rights?
Except when Leftist take power, and do what the Nazis did to private property rights:

"It is far more common to believe that it represented a form of capitalism, which is what the Communists and all other Marxists have claimed. The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.

What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners."
Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian


Just like Liberalism.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Of course you can have freedom without private property.
In any family, is there any private property really?
Does each person have to own their own TV, couch, table chair, etc.?
Of course not.
When you have use of all the communally owned property, then you don't need to personally own any.
That is what many tribes, religious orders, clubs, organizations, etc., have always done.

The only problem comes up with someone who is greedy tries to prevent others from having access to what they need.
It is private property that often really is theft.
We inherently are/were hunter/gatherers, and by claiming land ownership over land we did not create, we are harming hunter/gatherers.

You should have read post #2, you would have appeared far brighter.


This was said post:

Whenever I post this sort of attack on the pillars of Liberalism, I hope there is some sort of intelligent disagreement….you know, debate in the marketplace of ideas.

Alas, there hardly ever is.



Soooo….let me propose an answer, suggest where socialism does work. ,


2. Want to know where communal, living works out?

“…communal property has not been the undoing of the traditional family, even though nonproductive children enjoy a free ride at t expense of their parents….Family ties are strong enough to defuse the sense of injustice that is so corrosive when free riding occurs in more distantly related groups.

Small children are, in any event, helpless, and parents don’t mind being ‘exploited’ by them.

Even so, parental policing becomes indispensable as children grow up. Furthermore, families are small enough to make such policing possible. In a family of four with two children, there is one cop per potential robber.”
Tom Bethell, “The Noblest Triumph,” p.45

 

[Rigby5]

...

And because they had no concept of private property, Indians regularly killed the animals that they hunted to the point of extinction.

American natives did cause extinctions, such as the mammoth, but that was early on before they knew better.
By the time the Europeans arrived, the American natives no longer allowed any extinction to occur, and were in a balance with nature that could easily have continued forever, without change, if we had not screwed it up.

The evidence is that at one time, American natives had huge cities over over a million people, there were still some on Mexico and South America. But in North America, all large cities had been long abandoned before the Europeans came. That is likely because large cities are not sustainable, and never will be.

 

[sedwin]

Of course you can have freedom without private property.
In any family, is there any private property really?
Does each person have to own their own TV, couch, table chair, etc.?
Of course not.
When you have use of all the communally owned property, then you don't need to personally own any.
That is what many tribes, religious orders, clubs, organizations, etc., have always done.

The only problem comes up with someone who is greedy tries to prevent others from having access to what they need.
It is private property that often really is theft.
We inherently are/were hunter/gatherers, and by claiming land ownership over land we did not create, we are harming hunter/gatherers.

Right? Private property is literally a restraint upon freedom. You are required to pay taxes, mortgage, insurance, you have to pay for upkeep. In many communities there are covenants you have to obey. In reality, being "tied down" to your property and all that goes with it prevents freedom. It's a false narrative used as a response to what some see as an "evil socialism." Does one have the freedom to not own property? Of course. How about those who cannot afford to own property? I guess they're not free? It's a rationalization, nothing more.

 

[sedwin]

...

And because they had no concept of private property, Indians regularly killed the animals that they hunted to the point of extinction.

American natives did cause extinctions, such as the mammoth, but that was early on before they knew better.
By the time the Europeans arrived, the American natives no longer allowed any extinction to occur, and were in a balance with nature that could easily have continued forever, without change, if we had not screwed it up.

The evidence is that at one time, American natives had huge cities over over a million people, there were still some on Mexico and South America. But in North America, all large cities had been long abandoned before the Europeans came. That is likely because large cities are not sustainable, and never will be.

I don't think that is true. I recall reading the actual diaries of the Spanish Conquistadors (and others) in college and in those works they speak of huge North American populations dying off from disease inadvertently brought by the Europeans.

 

[Rigby5]

...

Whenever I post this sort of attack on the pillars of Liberalism, I hope there is some sort of intelligent disagreement….you know, debate in the marketplace of ideas.

Alas, there hardly ever is.

Soooo….let me propose an answer, suggest where socialism does work. ,

2. Want to know where communal, living works out?

“…communal property has not been the undoing of the traditional family, even though nonproductive children enjoy a free ride at t expense of their parents….Family ties are strong enough to defuse the sense of injustice that is so corrosive when free riding occurs in more distantly related groups.

Small children are, in any event, helpless, and parents don’t mind being ‘exploited’ by them.

Even so, parental policing becomes indispensable as children grow up. Furthermore, families are small enough to make such policing possible. In a family of four with two children, there is one cop per potential robber.”
Tom Bethell, “The Noblest Triumph,” p.45

Except you are forgetting that no human can stand to see the elderly, ill, lame, handicapped, injured, orphaned, etc., suffer.
And the greatest goal for all normal humans is to get recognition for helping others.
You can try to train humans not to be human, but the result is a dismal and vicious society that destroys itself, like Caligula's Rome.

 

[Rigby5]

...

And because they had no concept of private property, Indians regularly killed the animals that they hunted to the point of extinction.

American natives did cause extinctions, such as the mammoth, but that was early on before they knew better.
By the time the Europeans arrived, the American natives no longer allowed any extinction to occur, and were in a balance with nature that could easily have continued forever, without change, if we had not screwed it up.

The evidence is that at one time, American natives had huge cities over over a million people, there were still some on Mexico and South America. But in North America, all large cities had been long abandoned before the Europeans came. That is likely because large cities are not sustainable, and never will be.

I don't think that is true. I recall reading the actual diaries of the Spanish Conquistadors (and others) in college and in those works they speak of huge North American populations dying off from disease inadvertently brought by the Europeans.

There was a time about 30 to 60 thousand years ago that game was overly plentiful and natives used wasteful hunting techniques, like herding them off cliffs. But they had stopped wasteful techniques long before the Europeans came.
Humans were new to the Americas at first, and had to learn what was a reasonable balance. They made some mistakes, but learned not to latter. We have not learned yet.

 

[PoliticalChic]

...

And because they had no concept of private property, Indians regularly killed the animals that they hunted to the point of extinction.

American natives did cause extinctions, such as the mammoth, but that was early on before they knew better.
By the time the Europeans arrived, the American natives no longer allowed any extinction to occur, and were in a balance with nature that could easily have continued forever, without change, if we had not screwed it up.

The evidence is that at one time, American natives had huge cities over over a million people, there were still some on Mexico and South America. But in North America, all large cities had been long abandoned before the Europeans came. That is likely because large cities are not sustainable, and never will be.

The subject of the thread is the fact that collectivism never works.

It seems that you can't disagree with this, and would rather discuss the debilitations of the so-called 'Nobel Savages.'

You are incorrect here:
"American natives did cause extinctions, such as the mammoth, but that was early on before they knew better."



And this is simply laughable:

"By the time the Europeans arrived, the American natives no longer allowed any extinction to occur, and were in a balance with nature."


A favorite Indian device was the ‘jump’, which meant stampeding herds of animalsover a cliff, so that the fall would kill them, described in "Playing God in Yellowstone," by Alston Chase.

"The Vore buffalo jump site in Wyoming...was used five times between 1550 and 1690, and holds the remains of 20,000 buffalo. That means 4,000 or more buffalo were killed each time the jump was used. Other buffalo jumps in the West displaythe remains of as many as 300,000 buffalo. These sites were so numerous, in fact, and held such large deposits of bone, that for many years they were mined as a source of phosphorus for fertilizer!"
Frison, G.C., "Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains," pp.239-44

Large amounts of meat were left to rot and herds of animals were decimated, and sometimes driven to local extinction. Buffalo and antelope traps killed so many that it took the herds decades to recover.


The savages were equally judicious in the use of forest fires.


I'd be more than happy to suggest reading material which would aid you in your journey toward education.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Of course you can have freedom without private property.
In any family, is there any private property really?
Does each person have to own their own TV, couch, table chair, etc.?
Of course not.
When you have use of all the communally owned property, then you don't need to personally own any.
That is what many tribes, religious orders, clubs, organizations, etc., have always done.

The only problem comes up with someone who is greedy tries to prevent others from having access to what they need.
It is private property that often really is theft.
We inherently are/were hunter/gatherers, and by claiming land ownership over land we did not create, we are harming hunter/gatherers.

Right? Private property is literally a restraint upon freedom. You are required to pay taxes, mortgage, insurance, you have to pay for upkeep. In many communities there are covenants you have to obey. In reality, being "tied down" to your property and all that goes with it prevents freedom. It's a false narrative used as a response to what some see as an "evil socialism." Does one have the freedom to not own property? Of course. How about those who cannot afford to own property? I guess they're not free? It's a rationalization, nothing more.

Just when I think some government school moron had posted the most absurd thing ever, one of you comes up with this sort of thing:

"Right? Private property is literally a restraint upon freedom."

 

[dudmuck]

Bernie Sander's isnt any threat to private property.
He's just pushing to move towards something like Scandinavian countries economic setup.
Instead its Jeff Sessions forfeiture proposal to confiscate property without any criminal charges.
Its the epitome of big government.

 

[PoliticalChic]

...

Whenever I post this sort of attack on the pillars of Liberalism, I hope there is some sort of intelligent disagreement….you know, debate in the marketplace of ideas.

Alas, there hardly ever is.

Soooo….let me propose an answer, suggest where socialism does work. ,

2. Want to know where communal, living works out?

“…communal property has not been the undoing of the traditional family, even though nonproductive children enjoy a free ride at t expense of their parents….Family ties are strong enough to defuse the sense of injustice that is so corrosive when free riding occurs in more distantly related groups.

Small children are, in any event, helpless, and parents don’t mind being ‘exploited’ by them.

Even so, parental policing becomes indispensable as children grow up. Furthermore, families are small enough to make such policing possible. In a family of four with two children, there is one cop per potential robber.”
Tom Bethell, “The Noblest Triumph,” p.45

Except you are forgetting that no human can stand to see the elderly, ill, lame, handicapped, injured, orphaned, etc., suffer.
And the greatest goal for all normal humans is to get recognition for helping others.
You can try to train humans not to be human, but the result is a dismal and vicious society that destroys itself, like Caligula's Rome.

"Except you are forgetting that no human can stand to see the elderly, ill, lame, handicapped, injured, orphaned, etc., suffer."

OMG!



"On the 27th of April they came northward, invading the United States. Innumerable outrages were committed by them which are now part of the history of that heart-breaking campaign. One, for example, typical of the rest was the case of the Peck family. Their ranch was surrounded, the family captured and a number of the ranch hands killed. The husband {38} was tied and compelled to witness the tortures to which his wife was submitted. His daughter, thirteen years old, was abducted by the band and carried nearly three hundred miles. In the meantime Captain Lawton's command with Wood in charge of the Apache scouts was pursuing them hotly." THE CAREER OF LEONARD WOOD; JOSEPH HAMBLEN SEARS


Brutality of Aztecs, Mayas Corroborated
Scholars had doubted Spaniards' tales of human sacrifice. But new evidence shows that it happened, and that it was purposely painful.
January 23, 2005|Mark Stevenson | Associated Press Writer

o

MEXICO CITY — It has long been a matter of contention: Was the Aztec and Mayan practice of human sacrifice as widespread and horrifying as the history books say? Or did the Spanish conquerors overstate it to make the Indians look primitive?

In recent years archeologists have uncovered mounting physical evidence that corroborates the Spanish accounts in substance, if not number.

Using high-tech forensic tools, archeologists are proving that pre-Hispanic sacrifices often involved children and a broad array of intentionally brutal killing methods.

For decades, many researchers believed Spanish accounts from the 16th and 17th centuries were biased to denigrate Indian cultures. Others argued that sacrifices were largely confined to captured warriors. Still others conceded the Aztecs were bloody, but believed the Maya were less so.

Brutality of Aztecs, Mayas Corroborated



How Comanche Indians butchered babies, roasted enemies alive and would ride 1,000 miles to wipe out one family
How Comanche Indians butchered babies and roasted enemies alive | Daily Mail Online


Several months earlier, in September, 1874, Catherine German and her family had been moving up the Smoky Hill River in western Kansas with everything they owned in the back of a covered wagon. The Germans, originally from Georgia, were bound for Colorado and a fresh start. Just moments after breaking camp that morning, the family was surprised by Indians. Within minutes the wagon was in flames, the mother, father, and two children were dead and scalped, and four daughters — Catherine, aged 17, Sophia, 12, and little Julia and Addie, aged 7 and 5 respectively — were carried off into captivity.

Catherine’s story is not a pretty one to relate.

There are no Harlequin Romance endings here; no Dances With Wolves Hollywood nonsense; no silly sentimentality. Catherine was raped repeatedly during her captivity, as was her sister, Sophia; both were traded back and forth from one brave to the next; both were transformed into tribal prostitutes, their worth measured in horses. Each time the frail young women were forced to fetch wood or water for their respective lodges, each trembled in fear for each could expect to be raped as many as six times per trip.

Although the details surrounding Catherine’s rescue are a bit unusual, the conditions of her captivity are not. During the research for my book, Scalp Dance: Indian Warfare on the High Plains, 1865–1879

, I had a chance to study at random the ordeals of some dozen young women captured by Indians, including Catherine German and her sisters. With little variation, the accounts told the same sad story—rape, enslavement, brutality, beatings, abuse. For good reason I named their chapter in the book, “A Fate Worse Than Death.”

Thomas Goodrich, "A Fate Worse than Death" | Counter-Currents Publishing



Have you ever read a book, or do you simply enjoy being an imbecile?????

 

[PoliticalChic]

...

And because they had no concept of private property, Indians regularly killed the animals that they hunted to the point of extinction.

American natives did cause extinctions, such as the mammoth, but that was early on before they knew better.
By the time the Europeans arrived, the American natives no longer allowed any extinction to occur, and were in a balance with nature that could easily have continued forever, without change, if we had not screwed it up.

The evidence is that at one time, American natives had huge cities over over a million people, there were still some on Mexico and South America. But in North America, all large cities had been long abandoned before the Europeans came. That is likely because large cities are not sustainable, and never will be.

I don't think that is true. I recall reading the actual diaries of the Spanish Conquistadors (and others) in college and in those works they speak of huge North American populations dying off from disease inadvertently brought by the Europeans.

There was a time about 30 to 60 thousand years ago that game was overly plentiful and natives used wasteful hunting techniques, like herding them off cliffs. But they had stopped wasteful techniques long before the Europeans came.
Humans were new to the Americas at first, and had to learn what was a reasonable balance. They made some mistakes, but learned not to latter. We have not learned yet.

"There was a time about 30 to 60 thousand years ago that game was overly plentiful and natives used wasteful hunting techniques, like herding them off cliffs. But they had stopped wasteful techniques long before the Europeans came."

You're a moron.


"Method of the hunt[edit]
Hunters herded the bison and drove them over the cliff, breaking their legs and rendering them immobile. Tribe members waiting below closed in with spears and bows to finish the kills. The Blackfoot First Nations called the buffalo jumps "pishkun", which loosely translates as "deep blood kettle". This type of hunting was a communal event which occurred as early as 12,000 years ago and lasted until at least 1500 AD, around the time of the introduction of horses. The broader term game jumpsincludes buffalo jumps and cliffs used for similarly hunting other herding animals, such as reindeer. The Indians believed that if any buffalo escaped these killings then the rest of the buffalos would learn to avoid humans, which would make hunting even harder.[1]

Buffalo jump sites are often identified by rock cairns, which were markers designating "drive lanes", by which bison would be funneled over the cliff. These drive lanes would often stretch for several miles. They also smashed the Buffalo Rock that'shy its called "Smashed Buffalo Rock"
Buffalo jump - Wikipedia