[NightShadows]

Could you explain why for that matter?

I just believe if you were to consider them as a waste of time, and being the result of silly pandering to over-sensitivities, and some futile and childish belief that the world is 'fair' well, honestly the underlining reasons for equal rights existing in the first place is to acknowledge that there has always been an unequal ground of footing that we all stand on, and our lives have been notoriously defined by what those in power, mostly a long line of wealthy land owners have decided for ourselves what are worth is, and generally what the mandates and rules are to oblige and generally what is to be obeyed. I'm just saying that, it's kind of silly for it to be this way, and while this social structure exists, there will always be a large degree of people who are unfavorably given favor, or unfair advantages.

The only problem is that sometimes it gets out of control and stops being a matter of equality.

Unfortunately I see many liberal ideas being used now mostly just as another means to gain supremacy, and positions of power over others instead of some vague idea of real equality. I guess though a large amount of people simply aren't capable of adjusting to a world where there is so much diversity and where it's simply not survival of the fittest, and it's hard for them to understand that.

[Decky]

Why should people refuse to work get the same as the people who get up in the morning and work? Capitalists, landlords, aristocrats, people who derive their income from share dividends and other social parasitises living by sealing surplus value fro the labour of the workers only have the right to a camp in Siberia. Why should the workers continue letting the idle rich live from our labour when they do nothing at all themselves?

[NightShadows]

Why should people refuse to work get the same as the people who get up in the morning and work? Capitalists, landlords, aristocrats, people who derive their income from share dividends and other social parasitises living by sealing surplus value fro the labour of the workers only have the right to a camp in Siberia. Why should the workers continue letting the idle rich live from our labour when they do nothing at all themselves?

So because there is a group of people claim to "own land" everyone else who follows is a parasite? what is a job even but claiming some divine right of land owner ship? the wealthy aren't any more sophisticated, intelligent and harder worker then anybody else, lol.

[Decky]

Eh? The small group of people who claim to own the land are the ones who are the parasites.

[snapdragon]

they claim to own the land because they either bought it, or won it.

I own a bit of land because I bought it, so you can bugger off.

[Citizen J]

I own a bit of land because I bought it, so you can bugger off.

I'll bet you don't actually own that land. Do you pay taxes? Yes? then you're no different than one who pays rent.
If you were to build on your property, do you need to get a permit? Permit == permission, which makes you just a tenant of the government.
If you were to quit paying rent ahem... taxes, would your government kick you off? Take your land? Sell it to someone who will pay their ahh.... taxes? If so, then how, exactly, are you any different than a tenant?
People really don't own land. Governments own land. I'll bet you're just a tenant for the Govt. in all but name. In every way, your government treats you just like a landlord treats a tenant. I'll bet they even raise your rent, ahhh taxes periodically, don't they? The only real difference between your "ownership" and some tenant's "rental" is semantics.
Tomayto, tomahto....

[snapdragon]

I'll bet you don't actually own that land. Do you pay taxes? Yes? then you're no different than one who pays rent.

I pay local taxes, as does everyone , whether they own land or not, unless they have a small, or no income. That tax pays for local services.

If you were to build on your property, do you need to get a permit? Permit == permission, which makes you just a tenant of the government.

Depends what I want to build. I don't need planning permission for most things, and the government cannot withhold it on a whim. Only if what I want to build would cause problems for my neighbours.

If you were to quit paying rent ahem... taxes, would your government kick you off? Take your land? Sell it to someone who will pay their ahh.... taxes? If so, then how, exactly, are you any different than a tenant?

No. I cannot get evicted for not paying council tax.

People really don't own land. Governments own land. I'll bet you're just a tenant for the Govt. in all but name.

No, I own it. I paid off the mortgage when my father died.

In every way, your government treats you just like a landlord treats a tenant. I'll bet they even raise your rent, ahhh taxes periodically, don't they? The only real difference between your "ownership" and some tenant's "rental" is semantics.
Tomayto, tomahto....

Why do you call rent taxes? They're two different things. I don't pay rent at all, because I own my house and the land on which it stands, plus a bit more.

I don't think you know what you're talking about.

Local taxes pay for local services. Schools, rubbish clearance and so on.

They're nothing to do with rent.

[Dubayoo]

Many believe in inequality for being realistic. They're anarchists who believe we live in a state of nature and survival of the fittest.

If you expect them to change, they simply have an emotional explosion or implosion. Many lash out, and others get too awkward to address things.

It's really not complicated.

[The Immortal Goon]

It's dependent upon whether you believe that abstract rights count for much of anything.

In an example I use rather frequently, in the United States you are allowed freedom of speech and freedom of the press in the First Amendment. And yet, not everybody is Ted Turner and Rupert Murdoch. The two of them get to practice speech and press in a way that is completely unimaginable to most of us.

We have the abstract right, in this case, but we have no way to actually exercise this right. Does it really count then?

In another example, blacks in the South of the Untied States are allowed to vote. But they must do so on a word day, often far from their house, at one of far fewer polling stations, and between shorter hours of many of their white counterparts. They have, theoretically, entirely the same rights as people in a wealthy white district (don't get defensive, my own district three thousand miles away is comparatively affluent and white). But someone getting off work and waiting in a line hundreds deep in hopes that the polling station doesn't close before everyone is turned away doesn't exactly have the same functional way to exercise that right as I do—where I get the ballot mailed to me, I do it at my leisure over a cup of tea in front of the computer, going over everyone and every issue in detail.

No doubt there is somebody who is itching to jump on here and defend his or her unrelated right or lack of right to something else entirely. There is an idea that is emerging in my head to explain why someone would look at this situations and declare that the theoretical right versus the actual ability to use that right to do something is, essentially, pointless. And this comes down largely to the right-wing's new found acceptance of postmodern discourse. In this view, the person unwilling to accept this is internalizing all the information and developing a worldview that is only useful as it comes via the prism of this individual's experience instead of the material reality of the situation.

[Pants-of-dog]

Excellent post, @The Immortal Goon, especially the last paragraph.

Perhaps the use of postmodernism as a lens to analyse situations arose from the need to disguise the fact that capitalism and equal rights are inherently contradictory.

[Citizen J]

...and the government cannot withhold it on a whim.

Sure they can. And you have to take them to court and pay a lawyer and waste all that time and money... and you still might not win.
And that's different from a tenant how? A tenant can do the same thing if the landlord denies permission.
And landlords are also expected to maintain the premises, are they not? Just the same as the government has to maintain roads and services.
The only real difference between rent and taxes is semantic. So the recipient is different; big deal. It's still money coming out of you - the tenant - and you still get kicked off the property if you refuse to pay... just like a tenant. The only difference is the name of the recipient. Which is to say, hardly any difference at all. Pure semantics.
But go ahead and cling to your semantic delusion if it helps you maintain a sense of superiority. The govt. is still your landlord. All the blue pills in the world won't change that.

Edit:

And yet, not everybody is Ted Turner and Rupert Murdoch. The two of them get to practice speech and press in a way that is completely unimaginable to most of us

That segues into a conclusion I've made years ago. The first amendment was written by people with no concept of mass media as it is today. And we inadvertently enshrined the right to lie along with the first amendment. To lie on an industrial scale never dreamt of by any of our founding fathers. Without getting into all the details, I'll let it suffice to say;

Between the right to lie and democracy (and quite possibly our Republic as well); we Americans will to lose one of them.

Which one, I cannot tell yet. There is hope, but very few are willing to speak out against the right to lie.

[snapdragon]

Sure they can. And you have to take them to court and pay a lawyer and waste all that time and money... and you still might not win.

Well, no, they can't,

that's different from a tenant how? A tenant can do the same thing if the landlord denies permission.

The landlord owns the property. The tenant doesn't.

And landlords are also expected to maintain the premises, are they not? Just the same as the government has to maintain roads and services.
The only real difference between rent and taxes is semantic. So the recipient is different; big deal. It's still money coming out of you - the tenant - and you still get kicked off the property if you refuse to pay... just like a tenant. The only difference is the name of the recipient. Which is to say, hardly any difference at all. Pure semantics.

I won't get evicted because I don't pay council tax.
Neither will a tenant. Tenants get evicted if they don't pay rent or do something prohibited by the agreement.

But go ahead and cling to your semantic delusion if it helps you maintain a sense of superiority. The govt. is still your landlord. All the blue pills in the world won't change that.

The government is not my landlord. I don't have a landlord. I am the owner occupier.

That segues into a conclusion I've made years ago. The first amendment was written by people with no concept of mass media as it is today. And we inadvertently enshrined the right to lie along with the first amendment. To lie on an industrial scale never dreamt of by any of our founding fathers. Without getting into all the details, I'll let it suffice to say;
Which one, I cannot tell yet. There is hope, but very few are willing to speak out against the right to lie.

I am British, not American.
Moreover, none of what you claim makes much sense.

[Citizen J]

Sure. Tell you what. Quit paying the crown and see how your land ownership rights hold up. Too bad you can't have a gun to enforce your "ownership".
Your opinion is completely blue pilled over this. And I hadn't even started on eminent domain issues.

And as a Brit, why would you even bother responding to something I said to a fellow American about the American constitution as if it was something I said to you? I'm perfectly capable of maintaining more than one conversation in a single post. I don't have to make separate posts for each person I write to. Thank you very much.

[Igor Antunov]

Just as we can coexist beside dogs, cats, sheep, cockroaches, etc we should be able to exist (and ideally be symbiotic about it) alongside our fellow untermenchen. And I don't mean from a class standpoint, but purely from a racial one. The reason I don't believe in equal rights from a racial standpoint is because some ethnicities and regional population derivatives (american designation of race is too broad and useless a term) are cognitively inferior. You don't give equal rights to dumber animals. You treat them humanely, but you put them in their place so that they can be of maximum benefit to themselves and others. For example, you don't allow them near the organs of power, and you make sure that they can be controlled, both for their safety and that of others.

[quetzalcoatl]

The reason I don't believe in equal rights from a racial standpoint is because some ethnicities and regional population derivatives (american designation of race is too broad and useless a term) are cognitively inferior. You don't give equal rights to dumber animals. You treat them humanely, but you put them in their place so that they can be of maximum benefit to themselves and others.

As a Slav in an Anglo culture, you undoubtedly speak from personal experience. Yours is a tragic example: a member of the untermenschen with just enough cognitive awareness to understand his humiliation. Just don't be like the cripple in 300 and try to be what you are not. Accept your lot and find happiness in your usefulness to the master race.

[Igor Antunov]

You're conflating races again. But regardless, people from former Yugoslavia in Australia for example are typically richer and more educated than the native population and tend to run a higher proportion of successful businesses per capita. Despite arriving here with nothing, and despite all the natives here having a multi-generational head start, we couldn't believe our luck at how easy it was to dominate this meek system and get ahead. Of equal intelligence, yet far more aggressive when it comes to making deals=good position to be in. I have a right to be proud, and to look down on lazy natives who start with so much yet squander it. The west in a nut shell.

The reason Slavs in some of their home countries struggled economically for a brief historic period and continue to do so was purely due to communism and its systemic remnants. But then again, wealth isn't everything. Switzerland is rich, but it produces nothing of worth to humanity in the long term.

Outside of Australia, 40% of European population, 50% of it's landmass, alongside a large Chunk of Asia. World's largest WMD arsenal, world's most extensive manned space program, politically humiliating anglo-saxons for years in the middle east and Eastern Europe...what's not to be proud of.

Anglo-Saxons were given the world on a silver platter (first dibs at industrialization), and they screwed the pooch only 3 centuries in. The US after taking the western mantle from Britain has been a disgrace. Its days are numbered.

Slavs keep their newly acquired territory, keep our culture and multiply accordingly. If there were somebody to look up to for their resilience, adaptability and long term cultural strength, they would be in the far east, not the west.

[skinster]

As a Slav in an Anglo culture, you undoubtedly speak from personal experience. Yours is a tragic example: a member of the untermenschen with just enough cognitive awareness to understand his humiliation. Just don't be like the cripple in 300 and try to be what you are not. Accept your lot and find happiness in your usefulness to the master race.

[Drlee]

Unfortunately I see many liberal ideas being used now mostly just as another means to gain supremacy, and positions of power over others instead of some vague idea of real equality. I guess though a large amount of people simply aren't capable of adjusting to a world where there is so much diversity and where it's simply not survival of the fittest, and it's hard for them to understand that

There is the "liberal" word misused again.

Here is why civil rights matter. This explanation is specifically aimed at conservatives. I have used small words so you will not get lost. Don't let the doctor in my name worry you. Even if you voted for Trump you will be able to understand this. Here goes. Turn off Fox News, put down your Budweiser and put the pit bull outside:

Civil Rights matter because if you deprive enough people of them for long enough they will get guns and kill your selfish ass. They will level the playing field. They always have.

Now you see? Even you could understand that.

[snapdragon]

Sure they can.

No. They can't.

And you have to take them to court and pay a lawyer and waste all that time and money... and you still might not win.
And that's different from a tenant how? A tenant can do the same thing if the landlord denies permission.
And landlords are also expected to maintain the premises, are they not? Just the same as the government has to maintain roads and services.
The only real difference between rent and taxes is semantic. So the recipient is different; big deal. It's still money coming out of you - the tenant - and you still get kicked off the property if you refuse to pay... just like a tenant. The only difference is the name of the recipient. Which is to say, hardly any difference at all. Pure semantics.
But go ahead and cling to your semantic delusion if it helps you maintain a sense of superiority. The govt. is still your landlord. All the blue pills in the world won't change that.

Edit:
That segues into a conclusion I've made years ago. The first amendment was written by people with no concept of mass media as it is today. And we inadvertently enshrined the right to lie along with the first amendment. To lie on an industrial scale never dreamt of by any of our founding fathers. Without getting into all the details, I'll let it suffice to say;
Which one, I cannot tell yet. There is hope, but very few are willing to speak out against the right to lie.

That's all bollocks. Moreover your shitty first amendment doesn't apply to me.
I'm not ruled by a constitution more than 200 years out of date.

[Truth To Power]

Capitalists, landlords, aristocrats, people who derive their income from share dividends and other social parasitises living by sealing surplus value fro the labour of the workers only have the right to a camp in Siberia.

The socialist is either unable or unwilling to know the fact that capital goods would not exist or be available for productive use without the contributions of their owners, while land WOULD exist and be available for productive use even if its owners, and all previous owners, had never existed.

Why should the workers continue letting the idle rich live from our labour when they do nothing at all themselves?

Providing capital goods to the production process is not nothing, it is a contribution, and earns a return. It is charging the producer rent for what government, the community and nature provide that is not a contribution but parasitism. The socialist just refuses to know such facts.