Should the Means of Human Reproduction be Centralised? - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Should the Means of Human Reproduction be Centralised?

1. I am a leftist and human reproduction should be more centralised
2
11%
2. I am not a leftist and human reproduction should be more centralised
No votes
0%
3. I am a leftist and human reproduction should NOT be centralised
6
33%
4. I am not a leftist and human reproduction should NOT be centralised
6
33%
5. other
4
22%
#14994087
Since you are making a generalisation about all Marxists, it will take a long time for you to proivde historical evidence that all Marxists are lying about this every time.

But if you really want to go forward with this argument, please go ahead.

Are you going to do it chronologically? By continent?
#14994089
SolarCross wrote:The means of production is already available to the "working class" or indeed anyone, to rent or own, no one needs to seize anything.

Uh, if you have to rent or buy it, it is not available to you. Slaves often had the "right" to buy their rights to liberty from their owners. That did not mean they actually HAD their rights to liberty. In the case of natural resources, their private ownership under capitalism means that the workers are forcibly deprived of their liberty to access means of production that would otherwise have been available to them. It is landowners who have ALREADY done the seizing, by forcibly seizing everyone else's liberty rights to use the land, and I will thank you to remember it.
#14994091
Truth To Power wrote:Uh, if you have to rent or buy it, it is not available to you. Slaves often had the "right" to buy their rights to liberty from their owners. That did not mean they actually HAD their rights to liberty. In the case of natural resources, their private ownership under capitalism means that the workers are forcibly deprived of their liberty to access means of production that would otherwise have been available to them. It is landowners who have ALREADY done the seizing, by forcibly seizing everyone else's liberty rights to use the land, and I will thank you to remember it.

You are speaking like a crazy left-wing socialist crackpot.
#14994097
Hindsite wrote:You are speaking like a crazy left-wing socialist crackpot.

No, I have merely stated indisputable facts of objective physical reality that you cannot -- and have not even attempted to -- dispute. That you have realized those facts prove your beliefs are false and evil does not mean I am speaking like a crazy left-wing socialist crackpot, sorry. The only difference between landowning and slavery is that slavery forcibly removes people's rights to liberty one person at a time, landowning removes them one right at a time. The practical as well as moral equivalence of landowning and slavery is proved by the slave-like condition of the landless in EVERY SINGLE SOCIETY IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD where private landowning has been well established, but government has not intervened massively to rescue the landless from enslavement by landowners.
#14994102
Pants-of-dog wrote:It is a fact that people have historically used their power and money in order to protect or increase their power and money. And they still do.

But there is a difference between using one's power and money to increase one's power and money by providing benefits to others, and using one's power and money to increase one's power and money by DEPRIVING others of benefits they would otherwise have been able to access. Unfortunately, socialists and capitalists cannot tell the difference between those two processes.
This economic leverage is what makes capitalism so strong.

No, capitalism is strong -- stronger than socialism, anyway -- because when socialists steal factories, there are fewer factories, but when capitalists steal land, the amount of land stays exactly the same.
If we take away the means of production, we take away the capitalist’s ability to get or protect their power over others.

And also to relieve scarcity for others.
We can then end economic exploitation.

No, it will just take a different form: political pull.

Socialists can't understand that when landowners make people pay THEM for access to economic opportunity that would otherwise have been available, that is exploitation; but when factory owners OFFER people access to economic opportunity that would NOT otherwise have been available, that is NOT exploitation. Socialism consists in blaming factory owners for what landowners do to workers. Capitalism consists in blaming the workers for it.
#14994107
Truth To Power wrote:No, I have merely stated indisputable facts of objective physical reality that you cannot -- and have not even attempted to -- dispute. That you have realized those facts prove your beliefs are false and evil does not mean I am speaking like a crazy left-wing socialist crackpot, sorry. The only difference between landowning and slavery is that slavery forcibly removes people's rights to liberty one person at a time, landowning removes them one right at a time. The practical as well as moral equivalence of landowning and slavery is proved by the slave-like condition of the landless in EVERY SINGLE SOCIETY IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD where private landowning has been well established, but government has not intervened massively to rescue the landless from enslavement by landowners.

There is nothing unlawful or evil about landowning and it does not forcibly remove peoples's rights to liberty that they are entitled too. I consider myself a landowner because I have paid for that privilege with my taxes to the government. I haven't caused any person to be in slavery by owning my home. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.
#14994127
Hindsite wrote:There is nothing unlawful or evil about landowning

It is not currently unlawful, just as slavery was not unlawful in the antebellum South. But just like slavery, it is evil whether or not it is lawful.
and it does not forcibly remove peoples's rights to liberty that they are entitled too.

Yes, it most certainly and indisputably does. Why do you think the US government had to kill people to dispossess them of their liberty to use it?
I consider myself a landowner because I have paid for that privilege with my taxes to the government.

It is indeed a privilege: a legal entitlement to benefit from the uncompensated abrogation of others' rights. Having paid a tax for a privilege does not make it any less a privilege. The market value of your land is the measure of how much more you can expect take from the community by owning the land than you can expect to pay in taxes on it. I.e., how much you can expect to steal by owning the land.
I haven't caused any person to be in slavery

Of course not: landowning removes one of all people's rights, while slavery removes all of one person's rights. The fact that the forcible removal of rights by landowning is not all focused on one person does not make it any less a removal of people's rights.
by owning my home.

Now you are dishonestly trying to change the subject from "land" to "home." Such dishonest goalpost-shifting is normal, routine, and virtually universal among apologists for privilege and injustice.
To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

What is really ridiculous is to suggest that forcibly dispossessing people of their liberty to use land without making just compensation is not evil.
#14994180
Truth To Power wrote:It is not currently unlawful,

So, you want to make it unlawful in your socialist world?

Truth To Power wrote:just as slavery was not unlawful in the antebellum South. But just like slavery, it is evil whether or not it is lawful.

So now you are accusing me and everyone that owns land of being evil even though we are not breaking any law. You must have got that crazy liberal thinking from the same source as A.O.C.

Truth To Power wrote:Yes, it most certainly and indisputably does. Why do you think the US government had to kill people to dispossess them of their liberty to use it?

Oh, I see now, you are one of those hate the U.S. Government liberals.

Truth To Power wrote:It is indeed a privilege: a legal entitlement to benefit from the uncompensated abrogation of others' rights.

So what kind of reparations for slavery are you calling for?

Truth To Power wrote:Having paid a tax for a privilege does not make it any less a privilege. The market value of your land is the measure of how much more you can expect take from the community by owning the land than you can expect to pay in taxes on it. I.e., how much you can expect to steal by owning the land.

I worked for years and got a mortgage through a bank and eventually paid off the principal and interest while also paying taxes and insurance to buy the land I now own. I did not steal anything in buying land and I don't expect to steal from anyone by owning instead of renting.

Truth To Power wrote:Of course not: landowning removes one of all people's rights, while slavery removes all of one person's rights. The fact that the forcible removal of rights by landowning is not all focused on one person does not make it any less a removal of people's rights.

I really don't get what rights you are talking about that is removed by owning land. Can you be more specific?

Truth To Power wrote:Now you are dishonestly trying to change the subject from "land" to "home." Such dishonest goalpost-shifting is normal, routine, and virtually universal among apologists for privilege and injustice.

When I bought the house I live in as my home, the land it sits on and a portion of the land on all four sides was part of the deal. So it is not dishonest to say I own land as well as my home. I guess I could have just rented for the rest of my life. Would that be more moral in your mind? I just don't get your crazy thinking. It makes no more sense than A.O.C. and here Green New Deal.

Truth To Power wrote:What is really ridiculous is to suggest that forcibly dispossessing people of their liberty to use land without making just compensation is not evil.

I made just compensation. I paid the amount of money they were asking for it.
#14994730
Hindsite wrote:So, you want to make it unlawful in your socialist world?

Try to understand that words have definite meanings, and misusing them is dishonest. In Hong Kong, there has been no private landowning for over 160 years. Has HK been socialist all that time? Like chattel slavery, landowning is an institution CREATED by law, by government, and cannot exist but by legal fiat. I simply propose removing that government-issued and -enforced privilege.
So now you are accusing me and everyone that owns land of being evil even though we are not breaking any law.

Whether you are evil or not, you are engaging and participating in evil, just as slave owners did without breaking any law. Some great and good men like Jefferson have owned slaves, but I would not say their participation in the evil of slavery made them evil men. Aristotle even defended slavery, but I would not say that made him an evil man.
You must have got that crazy liberal thinking from the same source as A.O.C.

No, AFAICT AOC doesn't understand anything about this.
Oh, I see now, you are one of those hate the U.S. Government liberals.

The US government has done a lot of evil things. Google "General Smedley Butler" and start reading.
So what kind of reparations for slavery are you calling for?

I'm not calling for reparations for landowning, just an end to the evil of landowning.
I worked for years and got a mortgage through a bank and eventually paid off the principal and interest while also paying taxes and insurance to buy the land I now own.

Lots of people made sacrifices to buy slaves, too. Their sacrifices did nothing whatever to make slavery anything but evil.
I did not steal anything in buying land

By owning land you steal constantly, every day, from all who would otherwise be at liberty to use that land. What stops them from doing so but government's application of force against them on your behalf?
and I don't expect to steal from anyone by owning instead of renting.

But you do. You just own a legal entitlement to steal from all who would otherwise be at liberty to use that land. Like the slave owner, you are taking refuge in legality.
I really don't get what rights you are talking about that is removed by owning land. Can you be more specific?

The right to liberty, which our ancestors enjoyed, and exercised to survive, for millions of years until greedy, evil parasites figured out that by owning the land, they could legally take everything from everyone else and contribute nothing in return. You deprive everyone else of their natural liberty to use the little bit of land you "own." The guy next door deprives them of his little bit, and so on, until all the little salami slices of people's rights to liberty add up to the whole salami. That is why the landless toil their lives away and end up with nothing, while landowners get rich without lifting a productive finger.
When I bought the house I live in as my home, the land it sits on and a portion of the land on all four sides was part of the deal. So it is not dishonest to say I own land as well as my home.

Indeed. But I did not say you were stealing from others by owning your home. I said you were stealing from others by owning the land. So it was dishonest of you to try to change the subject by saying your ownership of your home does not steal anything from anyone.
I guess I could have just rented for the rest of my life. Would that be more moral in your mind?

Yes. But I have nothing against owning a home on land leased form the community. It's a model of homeownership that works just fine where it is applied. A home is something others would not otherwise have been at liberty to use: someone had to build it. No one ever built the land. It has always been there, ready to use, with no help from the owner or any previous owner. All landowning does is DEPRIVE others of their liberty to use it.
I just don't get your crazy thinking.

You cannot accept facts that prove your beliefs are false and evil. Simple.
It makes no more sense than A.O.C. and here Green New Deal.

Why are you dishonestly pretending that AOC and the Green New Deal have something to do with my argument?
I made just compensation. I paid the amount of money they were asking for it.

That's like claiming you made just compensation when you paid the amount of money a slave owner was asking. You compensated the wrong party. All you did was buy a legal protection racket from the previous extortionist.
#14994742
Truth To Power wrote:Try to understand that words have definite meanings, and misusing them is dishonest. In Hong Kong, there has been no private landowning for over 160 years. Has HK been socialist all that time? Like chattel slavery, landowning is an institution CREATED by law, by government, and cannot exist but by legal fiat. I simply propose removing that government-issued and -enforced privilege.

Then I suggest you stop being dishonest.

Truth To Power wrote:Whether you are evil or not, you are engaging and participating in evil, just as slave owners did without breaking any law. Some great and good men like Jefferson have owned slaves, but I would not say their participation in the evil of slavery made them evil men. Aristotle even defended slavery, but I would not say that made him an evil man.

I know that i am not a great or good man like Jefferson, but as long as i know I am not breaking any law I am fine with it.

Truth To Power wrote:No, AFAICT AOC doesn't understand anything about this.

I doubt if she understands much about anything political.

Truth To Power wrote:The US government has done a lot of evil things. Google "General Smedley Butler" and start reading.

The US government has done a lot of good for the world too. No government has been perfect.

Truth To Power wrote:I'm not calling for reparations for landowning, just an end to the evil of landowning.

I still don't see any evil to landowning. It seems good to me.

Truth To Power wrote:Lots of people made sacrifices to buy slaves, too. Their sacrifices did nothing whatever to make slavery anything but evil.

I see landowning as a lot different than slave owning.

Truth To Power wrote:By owning land you steal constantly, every day, from all who would otherwise be at liberty to use that land. What stops them from doing so but government's application of force against them on your behalf?

I am not stealing from anyone. Everyone has the opportunity in the USA to work hard and buy their own piece of land like i did.

Truth To Power wrote:But you do. You just own a legal entitlement to steal from all who would otherwise be at liberty to use that land. Like the slave owner, you are taking refuge in legality.

As long as it is legal it does not qualify as stealing, since stealing is a crime.

Truth To Power wrote:The right to liberty, which our ancestors enjoyed, and exercised to survive, for millions of years until greedy, evil parasites figured out that by owning the land, they could legally take everything from everyone else and contribute nothing in return. You deprive everyone else of their natural liberty to use the little bit of land you "own." The guy next door deprives them of his little bit, and so on, until all the little salami slices of people's rights to liberty add up to the whole salami. That is why the landless toil their lives away and end up with nothing, while landowners get rich without lifting a productive finger.

Our founding fathers who wrote the U.S. Constitution owned land so that is good enough for me. What you believe doesn't really matter unless you can get enough people to amend the Constitution.

Truth To Power wrote:Indeed. But I did not say you were stealing from others by owning your home. I said you were stealing from others by owning the land. So it was dishonest of you to try to change the subject by saying your ownership of your home does not steal anything from anyone.

Owning the land does not steal from anyone either, because I am still required to pay taxes on the land to support the community.

Truth To Power wrote:Yes. But I have nothing against owning a home on land leased form the community. It's a model of homeownership that works just fine where it is applied. A home is something others would not otherwise have been at liberty to use: someone had to build it. No one ever built the land. It has always been there, ready to use, with no help from the owner or any previous owner. All landowning does is DEPRIVE others of their liberty to use it.

We haven't learned how to build houses in the air that are practical for homes. I don't believe that most people want to give up their privacy in their homes just to make sure they are not depriving others the liberty to use it.

Truth To Power wrote:You cannot accept facts that prove your beliefs are false and evil. Simple.

I haven't even heard any facts that make my beliefs false and evil.

Truth To Power wrote:Why are you dishonestly pretending that AOC and the Green New Deal have something to do with my argument?

I was just saying your ideas make about as much sense.

Truth To Power wrote:That's like claiming you made just compensation when you paid the amount of money a slave owner was asking. You compensated the wrong party. All you did was buy a legal protection racket from the previous extortionist.

I was buying land, not slaves, so the analogy is in error.

SSDR wrote:@Hindsite, Land owning is bad because this enforces the family institution. Women and children (even grown adults) must obey their land owners or else they could get kicked out.

So be it.

SSDR wrote:Private land owning can help enforce forced marriages.

Not really.
#14994876
Hindsite wrote:Then I suggest you stop being dishonest.

You are aware that I have been honest. Most of what I have said is self-evident and indisputable. You are also aware that HK is not socialist, so public ownership of land is not socialist, yet you claimed that it is. That was disingenuous at best.
I know that i am not a great or good man like Jefferson, but as long as i know I am not breaking any law I am fine with it.

So in your view there was nothing wrong with slavery as long as it was legal?? How do we decide what should be illegal and what should be legal if the only test is whether it already IS legal or illegal?? Your "argument" is self-evidently circular.
I doubt if she understands much about anything political.

OTC, I suspect she is politically astute. It is economics she has no clue about. Like you.
The US government has done a lot of good for the world too. No government has been perfect.

So you agree that there are valid criticisms of the US government, including that it killed and forcibly dispossessed indigenous peoples in order to give ownership of everyone's rights to liberty to non-indigenous landowners. Good.
I still don't see any evil to landowning. It seems good to me.

No doubt slavery also seems good... to the slave owners. As I said, even Aristotle defended it. But it is not so good for the victims, which in the case of landowning is almost everyone.
I see landowning as a lot different than slave owning.

But I have shown that it is not so different.
I am not stealing from anyone.

Yes, of course you are. You are just doing it legally, as slave owners did when slavery was legal.
Everyone has the opportunity in the USA to work hard and buy their own piece of land like i did.

<sigh> As with slavery: having the "opportunity" to work hard and buy permission to exercise your liberty rights from their owners -- i.e., begin deprived of those rights UNLESS you work hard for their owners' unearned benefit -- is not the same as actually having those rights.
As long as it is legal it does not qualify as stealing, since stealing is a crime.

No, that's just the legalistic fallacy, and also circular reasoning. Stealing is defined as taking what is not rightfully yours without permission. That would include others' rights to liberty, whether such taking is legal or not.
Our founding fathers who wrote the U.S. Constitution owned land so that is good enough for me.

Most of them also owned slaves. I realize you think there is nothing wrong with participating in slavery, rape, extortion, sexual abuse of children, etc. as long as it is legal. In fact, it was people like you who defended slavery on exactly the same grounds you have claimed justify landowning.
What you believe doesn't really matter unless you can get enough people to amend the Constitution.

Of course that is false, just as it was false about all the abolitionists who failed to free the slaves.
Owning the land does not steal from anyone either, because I am still required to pay taxes on the land to support the community.

If you take $100 from someone's wallet and then give them back $10 for cab fare home, you are still stealing from them. The market value of your land is the exact measure of how much more you can expect to steal from the community by owning the land than you can expect to repay in taxes on it.
We haven't learned how to build houses in the air that are practical for homes.

What a fatuous attempt to evade the facts.
I don't believe that most people want to give up their privacy in their homes just to make sure they are not depriving others the liberty to use it.

You again disingenuously attempt to change the subject from land to homes. Do you think people who live in homes on leased land or in rented apartments do not enjoy privacy? You know very well that is false.
I haven't even heard any facts that make my beliefs false and evil.

Of course you have. Why else would you keep trying to change the subject?
I was just saying your ideas make about as much sense.

But you are aware that is false.
I was buying land, not slaves, so the analogy is in error.

You were buying others' rights to liberty, so the analogy is correct.
#14994964
Truth To Power wrote:You are aware that I have been honest. Most of what I have said is self-evident and indisputable.

Not in my opinion.

Truth To Power wrote:So in your view there was nothing wrong with slavery as long as it was legal?? How do we decide what should be illegal and what should be legal if the only test is whether it already IS legal or illegal?? Your "argument" is self-evidently circular.

I did not say it was not morally wrong, just that it was legal at the time. The government usually makes the laws to determine what is legal and illegal.

Truth To Power wrote:No, that's just the legalistic fallacy, and also circular reasoning. Stealing is defined as taking what is not rightfully yours without permission. That would include others' rights to liberty, whether such taking is legal or not.

I didn't do that.

Truth To Power wrote:Most of them also owned slaves. I realize you think there is nothing wrong with participating in slavery, rape, extortion, sexual abuse of children, etc. as long as it is legal. In fact, it was people like you who defended slavery on exactly the same grounds you have claimed justify landowning.

You are getting ridiculous now.

Truth To Power wrote:You were buying others' rights to liberty, so the analogy is correct.

I disagree.
#14994996
Hindsite wrote:Not in my opinion.

I have shown your opinion is factually incorrect.
I did not say it was not morally wrong, just that it was legal at the time. The government usually makes the laws to determine what is legal and illegal.

Based on what? Blank out.
I didn't do that.

You do it every day you exclude others from accessing opportunities they would otherwise enjoy, without making just compensation for what you are taking from them. And that's every day.
You are getting ridiculous now.

No, it is your "argument" that landowning can't be wrong because it is legal that is ridiculous.
I disagree.

But have been proved factually wrong.
#14995007
There's a lot of self-imposed limitations on the scope of the discussion in this thread. Sterilization, abortion, laws, etc. are NOT the only ways of limiting population over-growth. Human societies worship technology, so they always try to find a technological god to fix every problem. :roll:

Education is already centralized, and so is medicine. So you can use the combination of education and medicine to limite population over-growth, for example, by denying life extending treatments to the terminally ill.

The human race has gone to extraordinary lenghts to ensure that humans who aren't compatible with the environment (social or physical) live long, dominating lives. Meanwhile, nature itself would have kept our population in check and at ultimate health - if we could just step away from our technology gods for a minute (and get away from the text).
#14995061
QatzelOk wrote:The human race has gone to extraordinary lenghts to ensure that humans who aren't compatible with the environment (social or physical) live long, dominating lives. Meanwhile, nature itself would have kept our population in check and at ultimate health - if we could just step away from our technology gods for a minute (and get away from the text).

Yeah, let the real God handle it.
Praise the Lord.

supporting Authoritarian is maybe hypocritical fro[…]

climate change

Hindsite, your single avatar beneath your name re[…]

Roe v. Wade was argued based on Norma McCorvey's[…]

The Evolution Fraud

Fess up. Are you a new Earther? :lol: