Socialism is the ideal way to go. Change my Mind - Page 18 - 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.
#15006289
Dear @Agent Steel
The difference is you are CHOOSING it.
If it is IMPOSED on you by other people, then it's different.

Similar to Christianity: if people CHOOSE it, then it works.
But if you take govt and you force Christianity (or any other religion)
through GOVT on people by FORCE OF LAW, then it loses its purpose
and becomes tyrannical oppression.
#15006359
SolarCross wrote: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.

No, that is a filthy fabrication. You are aware of the fact that a house is a product of labor, while land is not. You are also aware of the fact that providing acceptable compensation to someone for depriving them of something gives you a right to deprive them of it.
#15006362
@Truth To Power

Oh my! such clown world in this thread. What you are saying is a complete non-sequitur to what I was saying to pod. But to address your claim anyway:

Compensation may be fairly owed to the rightful owner of the thing of which he is deprived. So if I have a ball and you don't and the school bully deprives me of it then it is to me not you that compensation is owed. You however make the perverse claim that everyone who owns land owes you for "depriving" you of that land but that can only work if you were the original owner and you are not. This is pofo but even on pofo you are literally the only pofotard screaming at the birds for depriving you of their nests.
#15006378
SolarCross wrote:When the bird temporarily leaves the nest to find food he does not think "it is not my nest anymore".

Because the bird BUILT the nest. But if it leaves its territory, it does not imagine that territory will still belong to it in the absence of continual effort forcibly to exclude others.
The same goes for ants or beavers. The attachment is actually not dependent solely on possession just like with humans. You are wrong again.

Ants and beavers have BUILT something. That is what they understand to be theirs because THEY CREATED IT. They do not assume land is theirs unless they continually exclude others by force because unlike you, they understand the land was already there, ready to use, with no help from them.
#15006394
SolarCross wrote:Compensation may be fairly owed to the rightful owner of the thing of which he is deprived.

Or if someone is deprived of something they didn't own, but would otherwise have been at liberty to use. An example would be the sidewalk in front of your house. You don't own it, but you have a liberty right to use it. If someone forcibly deprives you of your liberty to use it, and demands you pay them for using it, they are committing a crime -- extortion -- against you unless they make acceptable compensation.
So if I have a ball and you don't and the school bully deprives me of it then it is to me not you that compensation is owed.

The ball is not something I would otherwise have. The liberty to use the sidewalk, or land, IS something I would otherwise have.
You however make the perverse claim that everyone who owns land owes you for "depriving" you of that land

Correct. They are forcibly depriving me of liberty I would otherwise enjoy.
but that can only work if you were the original owner

No, that's just objectively false, as proved above. I don't own the earth's atmosphere, but if you deprive me of my liberty to use it, and demand I pay you rent for air to breathe, you are nothing but a filthy, evil, murdering thief, just like a landowner forcibly depriving the others of their liberty to support themselves using what nature provided for all.
and you are not.

I don't have to own something to have a liberty right to use it. Our remote ancestors did not have to own land to have a right to use it, or to be harmed by those who forcibly deprived them of their liberty by appropriating the land as private property. I don't own the alphabet, or the number 3, but I have a right to use them, and anyone who claimed them as his private property and demanded I pay him rent for permission to use them would be an evil, filthy, thieving, vicious murderer. Give your head a shake.
This is pofo but even on pofo you are literally the only pofotard screaming at the birds for depriving you of their nests.

Of course you have to lie about what I have plainly written. It is inevitable. Evil must always be justified, and the only way to justify it is with lies.
#15006397
SolarCross wrote:@Truth To Power What they built occupies a space.

But they don't imagine they own the space, only what they built there.
And yes territorial animals do imagine they own a space which is why they chase away rivals to it.

No, they do not imagine they own it. They know if they want to exclude others, they have to chase them off by force. Ownership is possession defended by others, not just the possessor. That's the difference between the human institution of property and mere brute, animal possession. You don't want to have to keep others off your land by force yourself. You want government and the community to do it for you; you just don't want to pay justly for the benefits you reap from their efforts. You are merely greedy for unearned wealth, like any landowner. Simple.
#15006406
Rancid wrote:It is certainly the most ideal way. But is it the most practical?


I would say “yes and no”.

It is practical in that socialism or communism would offer real and implementable solutions to problems like climate change, access to abortion, global migration, ending world famine, and a host of other things.

It is impractical in that there is no easy path to get there from where we are right now. The only fast way is worldwide revolution, and that is not happening.
#15006414
Truth To Power wrote:Or if someone is deprived of something they didn't own, but would otherwise have been at liberty to use. An example would be the sidewalk in front of your house. You don't own it, but you have a liberty right to use it. If someone forcibly deprives you of your liberty to use it, and demands you pay them for using it, they are committing a crime -- extortion -- against you unless they make acceptable compensation.

The sidewalk is likely owned either by the owner of the house or by a municipal authority. If you don't own it then you don't have a liberty right to use it by default. But there is implied consent to use in that the function of a "sidewalk", as yanks call it, is for people to walk upon thus whoever owns and maintains it does so exactly so that people can walk upon it. Occasionally access might be restricted by maintenance or some security incident in which case that implied consent is explicitly withdrawn.

If no one owned it then for sure you can rightfully use it without anyone's consent, implied or otherwise.

A sidewalk is not a personal space however so it is not safe to assume that what is right for a sidewalk is also right for someone's private bedroom...

Truth To Power wrote:No, that's just objectively false, as proved above. I don't own the earth's atmosphere, but if you deprive me of my liberty to use it, and demand I pay you rent for air to breathe, you are nothing but a filthy, evil, murdering thief, just like a landowner forcibly depriving the others of their liberty to support themselves using what nature provided for all.

No one is doing that with air so I don't really see what that has to do with anything. Generally a landowner is exercising some authority over a space not just because it is empty space but because that space has structures, tools or other possessions upon or in it which he is interested in preserving.

Even when people just walk around they claim the immediate space around them even as they move about. Hence expressions like "back off" and "get out of my face". There is a basic security need in that too. Ownership claims are generally functional not whimsical.

Truth To Power wrote:I don't have to own something to have a liberty right to use it. Our remote ancestors did not have to own land to have a right to use it, or to be harmed by those who forcibly deprived them of their liberty by appropriating the land as private property. I don't own the alphabet, or the number 3, but I have a right to use them, and anyone who claimed them as his private property and demanded I pay him rent for permission to use them would be an evil, filthy, thieving, vicious murderer. Give your head a shake.

Of course you have to lie about what I have plainly written. It is inevitable. Evil must always be justified, and the only way to justify it is with lies.

That depends on what that something is. You can't assume that the rights of using an alphabet is the same as the rights of entering someone's private space, especially without their knowledge. Otherwise you are basically saying burglary is a right.

I wonder if you have the courage of your convictions? Do you actually trespass against your neighbours? Do you think any jury in the world would let you off for entering some woman's bedroom at night without permission? Perhaps you think she should be punished instead for calling the police on you? :lol:

------

Truth To Power wrote:But they don't imagine they own the space, only what they built there.

Not true because animals will claim spaces even if they have not built on them and anyway it hardly matters that which is built must occupy some space so whether the animals is claiming and defending the structure or the space is moot because the result is the same and humans are functionally doing the same thing anyway. If it is wrong for the human then it must also be wrong for the beaver. Yet no one, human or otherwise, except for you thinks so.

Truth To Power wrote:No, they do not imagine they own it. They know if they want to exclude others, they have to chase them off by force. Ownership is possession defended by others, not just the possessor. That's the difference between the human institution of property and mere brute, animal possession. You don't want to have to keep others off your land by force yourself. You want government and the community to do it for you; you just don't want to pay justly for the benefits you reap from their efforts. You are merely greedy for unearned wealth, like any landowner. Simple.

Simply wrong. The right or wrong of a property claim is quite independent of whether force is available to defend it or what allies may help defend it. Your very personal mis-definition of "ownership" is idiosyncratic to yourself and irrational. If it were true that rights are a mere popularity contest of who has the most allies then the conventional idea that people can rightfully claim ownership of space is ubiquitous to every culture and people throughout all history with only yourself and a handful of other nutcases saying otherwise which would leave your position completely wrong by your own just-made-up-now standard. :lol:
Last edited by SolarCross on 21 May 2019 20:26, edited 2 times in total.
#15006417
Pants-of-dog wrote:But it is interesting how badly Anglos treat anyone who does not agree with their land paradigm.

The concept of owning land as private property originated with the Romans. Before that, it was always understood that land was a communal resource that landholders only had exclusive tenure on under certain conditions. Apologists for landowner privilege like to trot out Latin legal expressions like "res nullius" as if they were magical incantations learned at Hogwarts.
#15006422
Truth To Power wrote:The concept of owning land as private property originated with the Romans. Before that, it was always understood that land was a communal resource that landholders only had exclusive tenure on under certain conditions. Apologists for landowner privilege like to trot out Latin legal expressions like "res nullius" as if they were magical incantations learned at Hogwarts.

No, it is ubiquitous and definitely older. It is at least as old as Sumer the first city dwelling civilisation. Arguably many animals do it too, those that are not completely nomadic.

-----------

@Truth To Power
If you would like to try to be less ignorant you could try reading this:

Ancient Land Law: Mesopotamia, Egypt, Israel
Sumerian and Akkadian boundary inscriptions commonly in-cluded general "curses" against boundary crossers. The Akkadianverb meaning "to cross," like the English "trespass," sometimes con-notes immorality.'0 8 All four major Mesopotamian codes include pro-visions that condemn trespassing.
#15006437
SolarCross wrote:No, it is ubiquitous and definitely older. It is at least as old as Sumer the first city dwelling civilisation. Arguably many animals do it too, those that are not completely nomadic.

-----------

@Truth To Power
If you would like to try to be less ignorant you could try reading this:

Ancient Land Law: Mesopotamia, Egypt, Israel


Please quote the text that supports your claim. Thanks.
#15006474
Pants-of-dog wrote:And what exactly is your claim? That our current ideas about private land ownership come from ancient Mesopotamia?

This:
SolarCross wrote:No, [private property in land] is ubiquitous and definitely older [than pagan rome]. It is at least as old as Sumer the first city dwelling civilisation. Arguably many animals do it too, those that are not completely nomadic.


Do you have amnesia?
#15006485
Pants-of-dog wrote:And what exactly is your claim? That our current ideas about private land ownership come from ancient Mesopotamia?

Yea, actually.
That's where the whole idea of regulating property and, in essence, the concept of private property as we know it today came to be.
Though there were cities before that era, the economic system was much more socialized as it was incredibly fragile and sensitive to change, thus cities where greed ran the game simply crashed.
We can obtain a good idea of what ancient economies were like by observing traditional social and hierarchical structures present in various Bedouin and non-Bedouin tribes in the middle east and central Asia, as they still maintained a form of socialized and collective ownership of land and resources.
My own home town for example, Baalbek, is ruled and governed by tribes; Myself being from the Awad clan of the Fadl tribe, which itself is a mixture of a few branches of the Hazzar and Humaydiya tribes, one being Turko-Persian, and the other being Lebanese.
In Baalbek, land is, in effect, owned collectively by clans, where entire towns and small cities are owned by a clan or a handful of clans sharing a common bloodline of the large tribe.
And all members of the clan are entitled to the land equally without anyone truly owning it, wherein any member can take a piece to build a home or start a farm or any business on it and so on.
Depending on the clan, and the branch of the tribe in general; Once reaching a certain age in early adulthood, a member receives a piece of that land to utilize where he\she can either build a house or a business on it, use it as a farm, or exchange it money instead. Depending on who and where, it can be exchanged either by sale to another member of the clan or tribe, or simply by a request to the judge, imam, priest, commander, etc who handles the clan's affairs to have money instead to start one's life rather than land.
Furthermore, each clan or group of clans also operate funds where capable members contribute to in order to finance various costs like healthcare, education, etc for all members, as well as constructing infrastructure like roads and electrical generators, etc for its areas, and to fund trade, investments, and political relations on behalf of the clan\s.
A good example of the latter would the support various clans gave to Hezbollah and various resistance movements over the years, only ending in the past couple of years. With Hezbollah alone receiving up to 10 or more billion dollars from the clans every year over the past decade or so to fund the various social development and welfare programs in the rest of Lebanon.
My clan, the Awad clan, is organized by Elyam Abd Al Akbar, who is a judge (though called a sheikh or Sayyed because of his age and social rank), and I for one was ruled to pay 10% of my income for the fund. Though this percentage would likely go higher as I grow older and my finances become more stable and my business grows sufficiently, and potentially lower and down to negative (receive support) if I crashed and failed.
My father pays 50% of his income, and my eldest uncle has been paying 80% of his income in the past few years to the fund as he's the richest and most capable so far.

EDIT: Noting that I don't live in Baalbek or the Beqa' valley at the moment, but I willfully choose to contribute as I much prefer for my children to have that safety net to ensure their well being.
#15006491
SolarCross wrote:This:

Do you have amnesia?


Okay. You actually made several claims about this, and even the part you quoted has more than one claim. I assume you are trying to support your claim about animals or about the ubiquitousness of private land ownership, and you are only supporting your claim about it being older than Rome.

So, just to be clear, other societies at the time of ancient Sumer did not have private property as we know it?
  • 1
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
Trump's Dumb Economics

You're delusional. That's all there is to say. […]

EU-BREXIT

The question is, will they let Bojo join the fun r[…]

Trump, Oh my god !

Here's Don at the Gender Equality Advisory Council[…]

Election 2020

@jimjam Capital G …… please. Oops. There goe[…]