Property Secures all rights

[rightwinger]

If control of your property isn't absolute then your property isn't your property.

Then no one owns property, and for that matter no one has free speech, or freedom of religion, or the right to bear arms,

because none of those are absolute.

Now you're starting to see the extent of the problem.

Not being able to live in a world of absolutes is not a problem

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Then no one owns property, and for that matter no one has free speech, or freedom of religion, or the right to bear arms,

because none of those are absolute.

Now you're starting to see the extent of the problem.

Not being able to live in a world of absolutes is not a problem

If you don't want to have all of your natural rights then that's your decision, but please excuse the rest of us who do.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Now you're starting to see the extent of the problem.

Not being able to live in a world of absolutes is not a problem

If you don't want to have all of your natural rights then that's your decision, but please excuse the rest of us who do.

The world that you want, KevinKennedy, never existed and never will. The Communists tried it on the other side, and it failed. Anarcho-libertarianism is even more fraught and fragile intrinsically than Communism.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Not being able to live in a world of absolutes is not a problem

If you don't want to have all of your natural rights then that's your decision, but please excuse the rest of us who do.

The world that you want, KevinKennedy, never existed and never will. The Communists tried it on the other side, and it failed. Anarcho-libertarianism is even more fraught and fragile intrinsically than Communism.

So the communists in the Soviet Union respected private property rights did they? And since I'm not an anarcho-capitalist your last sentence doesn't really apply.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If you don't want to have all of your natural rights then that's your decision, but please excuse the rest of us who do.

The world that you want, KevinKennedy, never existed and never will. The Communists tried it on the other side, and it failed. Anarcho-libertarianism is even more fraught and fragile intrinsically than Communism.

So the communists in the Soviet Union respected private property rights did they? And since I'm not an anarcho-capitalist your last sentence doesn't really apply.

Words have meanings, son. Re communism: I said "on the other side", not that they respected capitalism. Re anarcho-capitalist: I said "anarcho-libertarianism."

Play honest with the words and the postings. Extreme right and extreme left have proven simply fail in the history of man.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The world that you want, KevinKennedy, never existed and never will. The Communists tried it on the other side, and it failed. Anarcho-libertarianism is even more fraught and fragile intrinsically than Communism.

So the communists in the Soviet Union respected private property rights did they? And since I'm not an anarcho-capitalist your last sentence doesn't really apply.

Words have meanings, son. Re communism: I said "on the other side", not that they respected capitalism. Re anarcho-capitalist: I said "anarcho-libertarianism."

Play honest with the words and the postings. Extreme right and extreme left have proven simply fail in the history of man.

Well the "world that I want," or more accurately the world that you think that I want, couldn't have been tried on the other side of the political spectrum, I.E. communism, because communism is the opposite of what I would want being a free market capitalist. And what is the difference between an anarcho-capitalist and an anarcho-libertarian? Since I'm not an anarcho-anything it still doesn't apply.

So in this post you assert that extreme right and extreme left have proven that they failed in the history of man, but in the post before you assert that it's never existed and never will. So which is it? You can't have it both ways.

 

[Dante]

Property is your bit of control over the physical world. When you possess it you possess all rights to it which allows you to manipulate it anyway you want. From these basic right of property you direct its use by your thoughts which are naturally free and when you lose the right to do with your property as you want you lose that control over your existence. What you want to do is now subject to the community's will which is deprives you of your individual control of your own existence.

Now you might say that you can have all the freedom you want without controlling property but how so? When the government can tell you what cloths to wear, what car to drive, what color to paint your house, how many hours a day you can use the computer then what meaningful freedom do you have?

You have the freedom of thought but no way to make it happen so your free-will is being denied to you simply because you can't control your piece of the physical world.

What the **** are you talking about? Do you read your threads before you post them?

From these basic right of property you direct its use by your thoughts which are naturally free and when you lose the right to do with your property as you want you lose that control over your existence

my thoughts exactly

 

[MikeK]

[...]

In no way shape or form is the accumulation of property exploitation of anything.

Then how do you suppose certain American citizens are able to accumulate fortunes in the hundreds of millions, and in some cases billions, of dollars? By honest, productive, hard work? Or by exploitation through bribery and other devious manipulation of the rules that govern commerce, banking, investing, insurance, energy and organized labor?

And who is to decide what is "reasonable" wealth, and excessive wealth?

In a democracy the People make the rules. The problem is the rules (regulations) which served this nation's economy very well since they were put in place by the last People's President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, have been furtively and incrementally altered and eliminated by the increasing influence of corporate power over our government, beginning with the election of Ronald Reagan, the dottering puppet of the Military Industrial Complex and the oil industry.

When the regulations that served the growth of the American Middle Class are finally restored, including the progressive tax rate of up to 91 percent and resumption of the estate tax, the declining middle class, which is the essential substance of American society, will reverse the decline which presently is placing America under the absolute control of the multinational corporate oligarchy.

This ideology requires the violence of the state to serve some fictional sense of "justice" for some fictional group of "oppressed" to create an untenable system that will ultimately collapse because the state cannot distribute resources more efficiently than the market as history has shown time and again.

There is nothing fictional about the system that enabled the United States to rise to the level of the world's foremost economic power. That system functioned perfectly from 1945to 1985 and the reasons for its failure are very real and readily identifiable, commencing with Ronald Reagan's deregulation of the Savings and Loan industry and continuing through a series of economic deregulations, corporate tax reductions, tariff reductions and ruinous international trade agreements.

America needs a Socialist revolution that exceeds even the rules and regulations put in place by FDR. I believe the first steps should be resumption of the progressive tax, compulsory profit sharing by all major corporations and a $20 million limit on the accumulation of personal assets by any American citizen.

These changes in our economic structure are necessary to reverse the decline of the United States as we have known it. Briefly stated, what America needs is a Socialist revolution -- and the sooner the better!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

2parties is simply unbalanced, so I will leave it at that.

So you got nothing? Got it.

You are a fool, plain and simple, you live a protected life with a Government that is democratically elected , one of the most free countries in the world and you rail about Anarchy.

You would be dead with in days of Anarchy. Why? Because you are to stupid to even know what you are railing about.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

[...]

In no way shape or form is the accumulation of property exploitation of anything.

Then how do you suppose certain American citizens are able to accumulate fortunes in the hundreds of millions, and in some cases billions, of dollars? By honest, productive, hard work? Or by exploitation through bribery and other devious manipulation of the rules that govern commerce, banking, investing, insurance, energy and organized labor?

And who is to decide what is "reasonable" wealth, and excessive wealth?

In a democracy the People make the rules. The problem is the rules (regulations) which served this nation's economy very well since they were put in place by the last People's President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, have been furtively and incrementally altered and eliminated by the increasing influence of corporate power over our government, beginning with the election of Ronald Reagan, the dottering puppet of the Military Industrial Complex and the oil industry.

When the regulations that served the growth of the American Middle Class are finally restored, including the progressive tax rate of up to 91 percent and resumption of the estate tax, the declining middle class, which is the essential substance of American society, will reverse the decline which presently is placing America under the absolute control of the multinational corporate oligarchy.

This ideology requires the violence of the state to serve some fictional sense of "justice" for some fictional group of "oppressed" to create an untenable system that will ultimately collapse because the state cannot distribute resources more efficiently than the market as history has shown time and again.

There is nothing fictional about the system that enabled the United States to rise to the level of the world's foremost economic power. That system functioned perfectly from 1945to 1985 and the reasons for its failure are very real and readily identifiable, commencing with Ronald Reagan's deregulation of the Savings and Loan industry and continuing through a series of economic deregulations, corporate tax reductions, tariff reductions and ruinous international trade agreements.

America needs a Socialist revolution that exceeds even the rules and regulations put in place by FDR. I believe the first steps should be resumption of the progressive tax, compulsory profit sharing by all major corporations and a $20 million limit on the accumulation of personal assets by any American citizen.

These changes in our economic structure are necessary to reverse the decline of the United States as we have known it. Briefly stated, what America needs is a Socialist revolution -- and the sooner the better!

Well in a free market profits are made by those who provide a service or product that people want or need. Yes, some people will become rich off of this system and others will not. This doesn't mean that there's something underhanded going on just because everyone can't be as successful as everybody else.

So the people as a whole are to decide how much wealth is too much, which is essentially saying that robbery is ok so long as 51% of the population agrees with it. And, of course, by "people" you're referring to the state, which means that robbery is ok so long as it's on behalf of the state.

Yes, FDR the "people's" President. The man who forced farmers to plow under crops while the people starved. What a guy.

And we need a socialist revolution like we all need to starve to death. But I repeat myself.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So the communists in the Soviet Union respected private property rights did they? And since I'm not an anarcho-capitalist your last sentence doesn't really apply.

Words have meanings, son. Re communism: I said "on the other side", not that they respected capitalism. Re anarcho-capitalist: I said "anarcho-libertarianism."

Play honest with the words and the postings. Extreme right and extreme left have proven simply fail in the history of man.

Well the "world that I want," or more accurately the world that you think that I want, couldn't have been tried on the other side of the political spectrum, I.E. communism, because communism is the opposite of what I would want being a free market capitalist. And what is the difference between an anarcho-capitalist and an anarcho-libertarian? Since I'm not an anarcho-anything it still doesn't apply.

So in this post you assert that extreme right and extreme left have proven that they failed in the history of man, but in the post before you assert that it's never existed and never will. So which is it? You can't have it both ways.

Please us the words that I use instead of re-writing what I did not say, KevinKennedy, that is not honest and objective.

I did not equate communism with libertarianism. I inferred that trying to create a perfect world from either side of the spectrum has not worked. Whether you are a free market capitalist, an anarcho-capitalist, or an anarcho-libertarian does not matter. Both communism and unbridled capitalism enslaves and degrades mankind.

 

[editec]

Why must you resort to violence to institute what you believe is fair?

Because theifs don't like to return stolen property, perhaps?

Just a guess, of course.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This Yes, FDR the "people's" President. The man who forced farmers to plow under crops while the people starved. What a guy is a legitimate criticism. Nothing wrong with elimination over production through nonuseage of agricultural lands, but the the animals that were slaughtered and the crops that were plowed under should have gone to the dole and welfare roles. KevinKennedy will not be able to find one case of starvation, however, related to these actions. In fact, KK, give us solid evidence and numbers of who did die from starvation, please.

Kevin states, "And we need a socialist revolution like we all need to starve to death. But I repeat myself." When socialism is linked with communism, tragedies like those of the Soviet Union and Cambodia have happened. When socialism is linked to democratic capitalist states such as Denmark and Sweden, such states have created great societies of opportunity and health and longevity.

KevinKennedy needs to stop the absolutes, because he can't support them.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Then no one owns property, and for that matter no one has free speech, or freedom of religion, or the right to bear arms,

because none of those are absolute.

Now you're starting to see the extent of the problem.

Not being able to live in a world of absolutes is not a problem.

....Especially when said-Absolutes have a tendency to change (when nobody's lookin')!!!

​

"We have always been proud supporters of the Tea Party. But we sadly announce that we will no longer lend our support to an organization who thumbs their nose at Jesus Christ, and ignores His Father's commandments in regard to chaste sexual behavior outside of the Bible." - Pastor Deacon Fred

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBlDYz1HICA[/ame]​

 

[MikeK]

Well in a free market profits are made by those who provide a service or product that people want or need.[...]

Tell us what product or service was provided by the Wall Street manipulators who brought this nation's economy to the brink of another ruinous depression while accumulating massive fortunes for themselves. What did they produce and who did they serve?

Yes, some people will become rich off of this system and others will not.[...]

Rich is a relative term. To one who sleeps in a cardboard box and eats out of a dumpster another who has a roof over his head, regardless of how modest, is rich by comparison. So the meaning of "rich" must be determined by popular consensus.

There is nothing wrong with wealth, but it should be clear to you what the pursuit and accumulation of excessive wealth has done to the United States' economy. What do you suppose the outcome will be if the existing system is allowed to continue without regulation? This country will become an extension of Mexico.

This doesn't mean that there's something underhanded going on just because everyone can't be as successful as everybody else.

Again your argument is based on a relative concept.

I advocate socialism, not Marxism. In today's most successful socialist countries there are rich and poor. Some are more successful than others. But there is not excessive wealth nor grinding poverty as increasingly exists in today's America.

So the people as a whole are to decide how much wealth is too much, which is essentially saying that robbery is ok so long as 51% of the population agrees with it.q

Equitable distribution of the Nation's wealth is not robbery. What Wall Street and the corporate oligarchy has done to America since the so-called Reagan Revolution is robbery. And what I am proposing is not a new idea but simply a return the the system that was in place before the Reagan Republicans began incrementally disassembling it.

And we need a socialist revolution like we all need to starve to death. But I repeat myself.

Without a socialist revolution there surely will be Americans starving to death on the streets and unless you are over age sixty it is likely you will see it happen in your lifetime. And unless you are well positioned you and yours could be among them.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Thanks for the research opportunity folks. I thought some of this stuff had less government ties than it did...

Now I have more ammo for idiots.

And even IF you add up the deaths and destruction of these "private evil companies" it's less than 1/10th of 1 percent of the death and destruction of the wars caused by the governments many of you bow to...

I don't trust Corporations or the Government.

Or most people, for that matter.

Which is why I don't trust a free market system any more than I trust the system we have now.

 

[editec]

Now you're starting to see the extent of the problem.

Not being able to live in a world of absolutes is not a problem

If you don't want to have all of your natural rights then that's your decision, but please excuse the rest of us who do.

We have no natural rights.

Nature doesn't give a fig if you or I live or die, sport.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Not being able to live in a world of absolutes is not a problem

If you don't want to have all of your natural rights then that's your decision, but please excuse the rest of us who do.

We have no natural rights.

Nature doesn't give a fig if you or I live or die, sport.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o]YouTube - George Carlin - Religion is bullshit.[/ame]
*
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDgmjL6z2jY]YouTube - George Carlin on national and ethnic pride[/ame]​

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Words have meanings, son. Re communism: I said "on the other side", not that they respected capitalism. Re anarcho-capitalist: I said "anarcho-libertarianism."

Play honest with the words and the postings. Extreme right and extreme left have proven simply fail in the history of man.

Well the "world that I want," or more accurately the world that you think that I want, couldn't have been tried on the other side of the political spectrum, I.E. communism, because communism is the opposite of what I would want being a free market capitalist. And what is the difference between an anarcho-capitalist and an anarcho-libertarian? Since I'm not an anarcho-anything it still doesn't apply.

So in this post you assert that extreme right and extreme left have proven that they failed in the history of man, but in the post before you assert that it's never existed and never will. So which is it? You can't have it both ways.

Please us the words that I use instead of re-writing what I did not say, KevinKennedy, that is not honest and objective.

I did not equate communism with libertarianism. I inferred that trying to create a perfect world from either side of the spectrum has not worked. Whether you are a free market capitalist, an anarcho-capitalist, or an anarcho-libertarian does not matter. Both communism and unbridled capitalism enslaves and degrades mankind.

So what is the difference between anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-libertarianism?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

This Yes, FDR the "people's" President. The man who forced farmers to plow under crops while the people starved. What a guy is a legitimate criticism. Nothing wrong with elimination over production through nonuseage of agricultural lands, but the the animals that were slaughtered and the crops that were plowed under should have gone to the dole and welfare roles. KevinKennedy will not be able to find one case of starvation, however, related to these actions. In fact, KK, give us solid evidence and numbers of who did die from starvation, please.

Kevin states, "And we need a socialist revolution like we all need to starve to death. But I repeat myself." When socialism is linked with communism, tragedies like those of the Soviet Union and Cambodia have happened. When socialism is linked to democratic capitalist states such as Denmark and Sweden, such states have created great societies of opportunity and health and longevity.

KevinKennedy needs to stop the absolutes, because he can't support them.

Democratic socialist states like Greece, for instance? Spending money you don't have is nice for a while, but eventually the piper must be paid.