Socialism is the ideal way to go. Change my Mind - Page 17 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

As either the transitional stage to communism or legitimate socio-economic ends in its own right.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15005595
Pants-of-dog wrote:I never claimed you guys invented it. Like most British things, you guys did not invent it but instead incorporated it into your culture ad then spread it to the rest of the globe.

If you are now claiming that all societies other than hunter gatherer societies all share these Anglo ideas of privately owned land and common land, please provide evidence for this claim.

You should blame the Spanish then. :lol:

Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, we agree that these concepts of yours are not universally necessary.

They are necessary for sedentary people and that is like 99% of the world at this point.
#15005596
SolarCross wrote:You should blame the Spanish then. :lol:

They are necessary for sedentary people and that is like 99% of the world at this point.


If you are now claiming that all societies other than hunter gatherer societies all share these Anglo ideas of privately owned land and common land, please provide evidence for this claim.
#15005597
Pants-of-dog wrote:If you are now claiming that all societies other than hunter gatherer societies all share these Anglo ideas of privately owned land and common land, please provide evidence for this claim.

It seems you are claiming the Spanish Empire didn't exist and they were all hunter gatherers anyway.
#15005601
Pants-of-dog wrote:If you are going to ignore your actual argument and just repeat this strawman of yours, we are done.

You have not shown that these concepts are necessary for and sedentary society.

If you live in a house and you lock the doors at night and you exercise any authority over who can enter that space and what they do there then you are a filthy hypocrite.
Last edited by SolarCross on 18 May 2019 17:43, edited 1 time in total.
#15005603
Perhaps. But I can be a hypocrite and still be right.

If you are now claiming that all societies other than hunter gatherer societies all share these Anglo ideas of privately owned land and common land, please provide evidence for this claim.
#15005605
Pants-of-dog wrote:Perhaps. But I can be a hypocrite and still be right.

If you are now claiming that all societies other than hunter gatherer societies all share these Anglo ideas of privately owned land and common land, please provide evidence for this claim.

Right so you are hypocrite. :lol:
#15005753
B0ycey wrote:You can still advocate for a social contract whilst promoting state ownership of land FYI.


I don't think you have been following this conversation at all. POD has mentioned neither, either for or against. Apparently he is all for nomads appropriating land so how is that state ownership of land?
#15005758
SolarCross wrote:I don't think you have been following this conversation at all. POD has mentioned neither, either for or against. Apparently he is all for nomads appropriating land so how is that state ownership of land?


I have semi followed it actually, but only because it was completely irrelevant to what was said before and to socialism and capitalism as a whole. I was wondering where you were going with it. It turned out no where. You don't need to own your home to have state protections from illegal entry into it and the state can own the home you live in. There is such a thing as social housing in the UK BTW and you'll find renters prefer it to private tenancy as they are cheaper better landlords FYI.
#15005761
SolarCross wrote:I don't think you have been following this conversation at all. POD has mentioned neither, either for or against. Apparently he is all for nomads appropriating land so how is that state ownership of land?


No, @B0ycey‘s reading comprehension is just fine.

You are suggesting that since I live in a house that is my personal property (insofar as I have exclusive use to it), I cannot then support communally owned property without being a hypocrite.

B0ycey is saying you are wrong. I can argue that the community should own the land, and my exclusive use can be based on my understanding with my neighbours about what is my space for me and my family. A social contract, to use B0ycey’s words.

I wanted to avoid all of this and focus on a historical analysis of the relationship between land ownership paradigms and whether societies are sedentary or not. And your accusation of hypocrisy is irrelevant to that analysis.

So if we are all caught up, can we agree that we currently have no evidence on which to base any relationship?
#15005769
B0ycey wrote:I have semi followed it actually, but only because it was completely irrelevant to what was said before and to socialism and capitalism as a whole. I was wondering where you were going with it. It turned out no where. You don't need to own your home to have state protections from illegal entry into it and the state can own the home you live in. There is such a thing as social housing in the UK BTW and you'll find renters prefer it to private tenancy as they are cheaper better landlords FYI.

As far as whether you have authority over the space, another private citizen has authority over the place but is lending you that authority or even your worshipful comrade stalin is the landlord doesn't practically matter so much as to whether the space is private or not. It is public if it accessible to the public, it is private if it is not. POD was suggesting that only anglos are so evil as to resent being burgled even while he himself also resents burglars.

As for "social" housing being cheaper you know it is subsidised by taxes right? I am literally being robbed to make rent cheaper for someone else. :(

Also:

Social rents increase 70% more than private ones … but Who Cares?

And:

Renting property now cheaper than buying in half of UK cities
#15005788
SolarCross wrote:As far as whether you have authority over the space, another private citizen has authority over the place but is lending you that authority or even your worshipful comrade stalin is the landlord doesn't practically matter so much as to whether the space is private or not. It is public if it accessible to the public, it is private if it is not. POD was suggesting that only anglos are so evil as to resent being burgled even while he himself also resents burglars.


Does somone seriously need to slap you around the face with a 20 inch dildo before this sinks in. Private property is a legal concept. It is a human invention.

Under your logic the badger owns the sett when it digs it out and the bird the branch when it builds a nest. But this isn't the case in nature. They both merely possess the territory until something else challenges for it or they leave it absent. But under a capitalist social contract with laws protecting land things are different. You retain the right to it in all cases.

So you can see it is society that protects what is yours. So it is society that decides if what you possess is exclusive or inclusive. So if you accept the social contract which you live within and that contract has laws to prevent people from walking into your home then there is no contraction or hypocrisy regardless if you believe that your home should be private, personal or state property - or in the case of your debate with PoD, collective, as long at the state also shares those values.
#15005819
B0ycey wrote:Does somone seriously need to slap you around the face with a 20 inch dildo before this sinks in. Private property is a legal concept. It is a human invention.

It is a legal concept derived from a practical fact. "Deceased" is a legal concept too but that doesn't mean if the lawyers all agree to strike the word out of the legal dictionary that everyone will become immortal. Your double-think is this: POD lives in a house with walls and doors which exclude random hobos and sheep and he is completely happy that it does but because he is a communist he has decided to call his private space "common property" although it is not and he wouldn't want it to be in reality. And because POD is a communist he assumes that when he uses words incorrectly it actually changes reality just like the hypothetical lawyers striking out the word "deceased". It is the same process by which men can actually become girls just by saying "today I am a girl".

B0ycey wrote:Under your logic the badger owns the sett when it digs it out and the bird the branch when it builds a nest. But this isn't the case in nature. They both merely possess the territory until something else challenges for it or they leave it absent. But under a capitalist social contract with laws protecting land things are different. You retain the right to it in all cases.

It is a common anthropocentric presumption popularised by Christians that animals are just dumb automatons with no concept or practice of property and that humans are something magically other. The reality however is that while Homo Sapiens are very clever they (we?) are not cut from a different cloth. The bird does consider his nest his property quite regardless of whether he can defend it against allcomers or whether he has friends who will help defend it.

B0ycey wrote:So you can see it is society that protects what is yours. So it is society that decides if what you possess is exclusive or inclusive. So if you accept the social contract which you live within and that contract has laws to prevent people from walking into your home then there is no contraction or hypocrisy regardless if you believe that your home should be private, personal or state property - or in the case of your debate with PoD, collective, as long at the state also shares those values.

You are not society and don't speak for "it". I am as much "society" as you are and 99% of people have hardly a different idea about things than me. You are in the 1% of retards who doesn't understand anything. You are not in charge and if you were the result would be clownworld.
Last edited by SolarCross on 19 May 2019 13:04, edited 2 times in total.
#15005821
SolarCross wrote:It is a common anthropocentric presumption popularised by Christians that animals are just dumb automatons with no concept or practice of property and that humans are something magically other. The reality however is that while Homo Sapiens are very clever they (we?) are not cut from a different cloth. The bird does consider his nest his property quite regardless of whether he can defend it against allcomers or whether he has friends who will help defend it.


An animal has no distinction between possession or private property because the distinction is legal which they do not comprehend. :roll:

Although just to be clear, it is the Ancaps that want to return to savagery not the Socialists (or Communists as you're entrenched in communal thinking now). The Socialists are more than happy to accept laws and as such legal protections within a social contract. It is the Anarchists that want to abolish the meaning of private property all together by eliminating the laws that enshrine it.

You are not society and don't speak for "it". I am as much "society" as you are and 99% of people have hardly a different idea about things than me. You are in the 1% of retards who doesn't understand anything. You are not in charge and if you were the result would be clownworld.


This is a strawman. Note not relevant to the quote assigned to as I discussed shared values not dominant values. :roll:
#15005824
B0ycey wrote:An animal has no distinction between possession or private property because the distinction is legal which they do not comprehend. :roll:

When the bird temporarily leaves the nest to find food he does not think "it is not my nest anymore". The same goes for ants or beavers. The attachment is actually not dependent solely on possession just like with humans. You are wrong again.
#15005826
SolarCross wrote:When the bird temporarily leaves the nest to find food he does not think "it is not my nest anymore". The same goes for ants or beavers. The attachment is actually not dependent solely on possession just like with humans. I am wrong again.


Fixed it for you.

Perhaps a 30 inch dildo is needed. :lol:
#15005883
SolarCross wrote:^ clownworld, literal clownworld.

Image

All abrahamic religion is violent and poisonous, mass immigration is only bad when you’re unprepared (which is almost always the case.)
Communism only works in theory but in application it’s awful as humans are naturally selfish and greedy.
  • 1
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 21

One would imagine that any sentient being would re[…]

Cricket

You say that as if you think give a shit about cu[…]

The Central Plaza mall parking lot at opening time[…]

The tears are for the innocent girl. Breaks my h[…]