NationStates Jolt Archive

Global Market copied his proposal to the word from a website, here is the link:

http://www.thehumorarchives.com/humor/0000921.html

So?

So? The Global Market gave out the link in another thread.

And again so?

The validity still stands and you can take your smear tactics elsewhere.

Umm... not only does the link not work, but it points to thehumorarchives.com.

The Humor Archives? Is that what The Global Market thinks we're worthy of?

No, I got it off of capitalism.com

Here's the full link:

http://capitalism.com/billofnorights.shtml

Umm... not only does the link not work, but it points to thehumorarchives.com.

The Humor Archives? Is that what The Global Market thinks we're worthy of?

LMAO!!!!!

What about copyright?
Is this legal?

I don't think it's copyrighted...

and even if it is I never claimed it was my own, so...

Here's the full link:

http://capitalism.com/billofnorights.shtml

Your link shows quite clearly that your bill is a national law and not appropriate for UN consideration.

I don't think it's copyrighted...

and even if it is I never claimed it was my own, so...

If *is* copyrighted it might not be too prudent to have it as a UN resolution.

Besides, doesn't it make more sense to pass resolutions that are original?

If originality is meaningless, we could just pass the entire charter of the real UN and forget about having any resolutions.

I don't think it's copyrighted...

and even if it is I never claimed it was my own, so...

If *is* copyrighted it might not be too prudent to have it as a UN resolution.

Besides, doesn't it make more sense to pass resolutions that are original?

If originality is meaningless, we could just pass the entire charter of the real UN and forget about having any resolutions.

That's a good idea.

And Princess Sophia, if you look into previous UN resolutions you'll see that the American Fifth Amendment was passed and is now international law.

I don't think it's copyrighted...

and even if it is I never claimed it was my own, so...

That will be a pretty weak defense if this was a case that ever went to court. Lucky for you it probably never will.

And Princess Sophia, if you look into previous UN resolutions you'll see that the American Fifth Amendment was passed and is now international law.

So if all your friends jumped off a cliff you would too? :roll:

Two wrongs don't make a right.

I don't think it's copyrighted...

and even if it is I never claimed it was my own, so...

That will be a pretty weak defense if this was a case that ever went to court. Lucky for you it probably never will.

This article is freeware.

And Luckily for all of us we won't go to jail for pretending/impersonating the national governments of (non)fictional countries.
:idea:

And Princess Sophia, if you look into previous UN resolutions you'll see that the American Fifth Amendment was passed and is now international law.

So if all your friends jumped off a cliff you would too? :roll:

Two wrongs don't make a right.

How is passing the US Fifth Amendment a "wrong"?

I was the one who proposed it.

I don't think it's copyrighted...

and even if it is I never claimed it was my own, so...

That will be a pretty weak defense if this was a case that ever went to court. Lucky for you it probably never will.

This article is freeware.

Yes. Hence the "probably never will".

It'd be a wierd court case.
"So are you defending your intellectual property rights?"
No your honour
"So why are we in court then?"
Oh, I just wanted to see what TGM looked like in a suit.
"Well that's okay then"
See ya dude!
"Chill man"

Wierd....

How is passing the US Fifth Amendment a "wrong"?

For a person claiming to be a libertarian, you don't seem to have a grasp of the basic concept. Why is an intrusive big government "right"? Why don't you just let individual nations decide how they want to live? Why do you feel a need to ram your ideals down the throats of others?

I was the one who proposed it.

This probably wasn't the best thread for you to admit that in.

Yeah, see my thread

"SECRETS ADMITTED HERE, DO NOT READ!"

if you want somewhere to post it

For a person claiming to be a libertarian, you don't seem to have a grasp of the basic concept. Why is an intrusive big government "right"? Why don't you just let individual nations decide how they want to live? Why do you feel a need to ram your ideals down the throats of others?

Government's job is TO PROTECT RIGHTS. Period. If an individual state does not protect its citizens rights, then it becomes ILLEGITIMATE.

In other words, only rights are inalienable. Remember that government isn't an individual. The goal of government is to protect an individual's rights. WHATEVER system does that best, REGARDLESS of whether it is an individual nation or the United Nations, should be followed.

Yeah, see my thread

"SECRETS ADMITTED HERE, DO NOT READ!"

if you want somewhere to post it

That's not much better.

The issue in this thread is basically the lack of originality in TGM's proposals. Admitting he has had previous lapses in originality doesn't help his case here much.

Yeah, see my thread

"SECRETS ADMITTED HERE, DO NOT READ!"

if you want somewhere to post it

That's not much better.

The issue in this thread is basically the lack of originality in TGM's proposals. Admitting he has had previous lapses in originality doesn't help his case here much.

Well my 'original' proposal, teh Cato Acts, failed miserably, so...

Funny, cause I find a orginality particularily irrelevant if you consider you are going at him for copying the real world while playing a game that is based on the real world.

But then again....
FOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOZLE damp

Government's job is TO PROTECT RIGHTS. Period.

Prove it.

If an individual state does not protect its citizens rights, then it becomes ILLEGITIMATE.

Then why don't you let each individual state do its job? Why do you feel this need to create an intrusive UN that looks over everyone's shoulder? Why don't you believe in liberty and freedom?

Then why don't you let each individual state do its job? Why do you feel this need to create an intrusive UN that looks over everyone's shoulder? Why don't you believe in liberty and freedom?

CREATE A UN?
Too late princess.... I am sorry to say that freedom has fallen by the wayside, read the list of proposals implemented

Government's job is TO PROTECT RIGHTS. Period.

Prove it.

If an individual state does not protect its citizens rights, then it becomes ILLEGITIMATE.

Then why don't you let each individual state do its job? Why do you feel this need to create an intrusive UN that looks over everyone's shoulder? Why don't you believe in liberty and freedom?

Only INDIVIDUALS have inalienable rights to liberty and freedom.

That said I run a far freer country than you, so....

Funny, cause I find a orginality particularily irrelevant if you consider you are going at him for copying the real world while playing a game that is based on the real world.

But then again....
FOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOZLE damp

This game is no more based on the real world than any game or work of fiction is based on the real world.

Then why don't you let each individual state do its job? Why do you feel this need to create an intrusive UN that looks over everyone's shoulder? Why don't you believe in liberty and freedom?

CREATE A UN?
Too late princess.... I am sorry to say that freedom has fallen by the wayside, read the list of proposals implemented

So why make it worse?

No need too, but if you want abuse him for being unoriginal this is a good place to do it, why give him full credit here?

As for games or fictional works,
I disagree, ever played Homeworld or Homeworld 2? They have no mention of Earth, the UN, Socialiism or Democracy.
Seems disigeniuos of you.

Only INDIVIDUALS have inalienable rights to liberty and freedom.

So you, as a nation, have no right to free speech in this forum?

You wouldn't feel ill-used if some abusive mod locked all your threads and removed your proposals for no reason?

MODS can do that? WOW, I gotta get me some MOD powers.

*Prays for MODShip*

No need too, but if you want abuse him for being unoriginal this is a good place to do it, why give him full credit here?

Who says I want to abuse him for his lack of orginality? I didn't create this thread.

MODS can do that?*

Can Mods lock threads? Yes, they lock some nearly every day.

Is this your first day here?

As far as removing proposals, perhaps not an ordinary run-of-the-mill mod, but most likely someone could.

Only INDIVIDUALS have inalienable rights to liberty and freedom.

So you, as a nation, have no right to free speech in this forum?

You wouldn't feel ill-used if some abusive mod locked all your threads and removed your proposals for no reason?

The forum is osmething happening in real life. I'm an individual citizen.

Global Market copied his proposal to the word from a website, here is the link:

http://www.thehumorarchives.com/humor/0000921.html

wow how original lol

and us wanting to get a vote on that ha ha ha ha

maybe someone should copy the entire constitution of united states of america and use it as a resolution lmfao

Government's job is TO PROTECT RIGHTS. Period. If an individual state does not protect its citizens rights, then it becomes ILLEGITIMATE.



And this proposal does nothing but take away rights. It removes every government's ability to protect rights as it sees fit.

Anyway, as I said on my first post on this issue, the proposal is silly and not worthy of serious discussion. Now we see that it was stolen from a humor archives. How appropriate. Too bad it's not even funny.

Pogue

Government's job is TO PROTECT RIGHTS. Period. If an individual state does not protect its citizens rights, then it becomes ILLEGITIMATE.



And this proposal does nothing but take away rights. It removes every government's ability to protect rights as it sees fit.

Anyway, as I said on my first post on this issue, the proposal is silly and not worthy of serious discussion. Now we see that it was stolen from a humor archives. How appropriate. Too bad it's not even funny.

Pogue

It was stolen from capitalism.com

And things like having 'free' heatlhcare inevitably violate the right of other people to liberty or property. With rights come responsiblity. You should never forget this. This bill takes away unfair entitlements, not rights.

The forum is osmething happening in real life. I'm an individual citizen.

No, the forum is part of a game. Pretend that the Sergeant-at-arms of the UN refuses to admit representatives from your nation.

The forum is osmething happening in real life. I'm an individual citizen.

No, the forum is part of a game. Pretend that the Sergeant-at-arms of the UN refuses to admit representatives from your nation.

Very well then, I am posting as Praetor Flavius Keating, the Chairperson for the Commonwealth Office of Very Foreign Policy, an individual.

The forum is osmething happening in real life. I'm an individual citizen.

No, the forum is part of a game. Pretend that the Sergeant-at-arms of the UN refuses to admit representatives from your nation.

Very well then, I am posting as Praetor Flavius Keating, the Chairperson for the Commonwealth Office of Very Foreign Policy, an individual.

Flavius Keating is denied entrance to the UN building by security. Your nation misses important votes. Do your citizens feel ill-used?

The forum is osmething happening in real life. I'm an individual citizen.

No, the forum is part of a game. Pretend that the Sergeant-at-arms of the UN refuses to admit representatives from your nation.

Very well then, I am posting as Praetor Flavius Keating, the Chairperson for the Commonwealth Office of Very Foreign Policy, an individual.

Flavius Keating is denied entrance to the UN building by security. Your nation misses important votes. Do your citizens feel ill-used?

This is called "god-modding". My country is prepping its ignore missiles to fire against you.

yes your right princess. this NationStates is just a RPG game and not of real life... the nation that we create isn't real DUH lol

The forum is osmething happening in real life. I'm an individual citizen.

No, the forum is part of a game. Pretend that the Sergeant-at-arms of the UN refuses to admit representatives from your nation.

Very well then, I am posting as Praetor Flavius Keating, the Chairperson for the Commonwealth Office of Very Foreign Policy, an individual.

Flavius Keating is denied entrance to the UN building by security. Your nation misses important votes. Do your citizens feel ill-used?

This is called "god-modding". My country is prepping its ignore missiles to fire against you.

No, it is called a hypothetical counter-factual.

You see you keep denying that your country has rights. So your country therefore has no right to a seat in the UN and the UN can refuse entry to your representative. Get it?

It was stolen from capitalism.com

Once again, you are violating your own beliefs. Didn't you say in another thread we have no right to steal?

And things like having 'free' heatlhcare inevitably violate the right of other people to liberty or property. With rights come responsiblity. You should never forget this. This bill takes away unfair entitlements, not rights.

And your so-called right to property violates the right of other people to be free in their travels. With rights come responsibilities. We live in a society, and we have responsibilities to other memebrs of that society. You should heed your own words.

Pogue

Once again, you are violating your own beliefs. Didn't you say in another thread we have no right to steal?

It's an expression. The Bill of No Rights isn't copyrighted nor am I claiming it as my own.

And your so-called right to property violates the right of other people to be free in their travels. With rights come responsibilities. We live in a society, and we have responsibilities to other memebrs of that society. You should heed your own words.

What do you mean "free in their travels"? Everyone is free in their travels. YOu have the right to travel whenever you want.

PEOPLE LISTEN

There is nothing wrong with using other laws, resolutions, amendments, conventions, motions etc. here.

Its a great way to open debate and to have something intelligent to work with. Nation after nation has shown that "home grown" resolutions (with some exceptions - and you know who you are) are lacking.

While I don't necessarily agree with the current resolution - I will defend the practice of using other resources - adopting them to NS - and posting them here.

This is a poorly thought out attempt to try and defeat this resolution. Its assinine.

Wolfish

PEOPLE LISTEN

There is nothing wrong with using other laws, resolutions, amendments, conventions, motions etc. here.

Its a great way to open debate and to have something intelligent to work with. Nation after nation has shown that "home grown" resolutions (with some exceptions - and you know who you are) are lacking.

While I don't necessarily agree with the current resolution - I will defend the practice of using other resources - adopting them to NS - and posting them here.

This is a poorly thought out attempt to try and defeat this resolution. Its assinine.

Wolfish

To carry on what Wolfish has stated here , other laws, resolutions, amendments, conventions, motions etc. are never copyright! Nor will they ever be! Also even if it were copyright (which no law has ever been) there is the fair use rules of copyright. Educational purpose falls under fair use guidelines.. this is most certainly for educational use. I think any one who thinks laws are copyrighted needs to go back to which ever crackerjack law school they came from!

Peace,
Stephanie.

Then why don't you let each individual state do its job? Why do you feel this need to create an intrusive UN that looks over everyone's shoulder? Why don't you believe in liberty and freedom?

CREATE A UN?
Too late princess.... I am sorry to say that freedom has fallen by the wayside, read the list of proposals implemented

So why make it worse?

How does this resolution make it worse? This resolution keeps the UN out of national affairs.

The Cato Acts, on the other hand, did get the UN involved in national affairs.

Article VIII outlaws a form of political speech. I encourage a negative vote.

Using this is one, not origninal and ruins your reputation and two, is plain stupid. Its basically just like The Patriot Act here in the States which I am strongly opposed to.

Although I was a little dissapointed you didn't actually right the resolution, personally I actually see nothing wrong with that. You never claimed credit for it, and beside, resolutions aren't about who wrote them, there about changing international law, and hopefully making it better.

And here all this time we thought that the proposal was just a lot of second rate right-wing propoganda filtered through the 'finest' minds of The Global Market, (in one ear and out the mouth) but it is not even regurgitation, it's streight out 'cut 'n paste'!

As for not claiming the thing as your own: I don't blame you. I wouldn't claim such tripe as my own either.

BTW, by posting it without any credit given to the author you are in fact claiming it as your own!

And here all this time we thought that the proposal was just a lot of second rate right-wing propoganda filtered through the 'finest' minds of The Global Market, (in one ear and out the mouth) but it is not even regurgitation, it's streight out 'cut 'n paste'!

As for not claiming the thing as your own: I don't blame you. I wouldn't claim such tripe as my own either.

BTW, by posting it without any credit given to the author you are in fact claiming it as your own!

I passed the Due Process resolution without explicity saying it was from the Constitution. Does this mean I am claiming to have written the Constitution? :roll:

The constitution is a commonly known document. TGM's text is rather obscure.

Only INDIVIDUALS have inalienable rights to liberty and freedom.

So you, as a nation, have no right to free speech in this forum?

Since this forum is privately owned, no one has a right to free speech here.

Government's job is TO PROTECT RIGHTS. Period. If an individual state does not protect its citizens rights, then it becomes ILLEGITIMATE.



And this proposal does nothing but take away rights. It removes every government's ability to protect rights as it sees fit.

Hardly. If this proposal passed, governments would still be free to provide free healthcare or give everyone in their country a big-screen TV. They just wouldn't be obligated to.

Hardly. If this proposal passed, governments would still be free to provide free healthcare or give everyone in their country a big-screen TV. They just wouldn't be obligated to.

So when you say that governments wouldn't be obligated to provide big-screen TVs, that raises the question: obligated by who? Clearly you mean that no nation would be obligated by the UN to provide big-screen TVs to its citizens.

So, is any nation currently obligated by the UN to provide big-screen TVs to its citizens? Obviously not. So what would be the effect if this proposal became law? No effect, because it says that the UN doesn't obligate any country to provide big-screen TVs to its citizens, and the UN already doesn't obligate any country to provide big-screen TVs to its citizens.

So would the proposal stop the UN from at some time in the future passing a law requiring nations to provide big-screen TVs or health care to their citizens? No, because firstly the Bill has no proviso to bind future UN resolutions; and even if it did, it is a well-known parliamentary principle that past parliaments can't bind future parliaments with laws. Future parliaments are free to repeal any law they wish. The only thing binding a parliament is the constitution.

Therefore, the "Bill of No Rights" is pointless because it says that the UN won't do something it's already not doing, and it can't stop the UN from doing those things in the future if it wants to.

And here all this time we thought that the proposal was just a lot of second rate right-wing propoganda filtered through the 'finest' minds of The Global Market, (in one ear and out the mouth) but it is not even regurgitation, it's streight out 'cut 'n paste'!

As for not claiming the thing as your own: I don't blame you. I wouldn't claim such tripe as my own either.

BTW, by posting it without any credit given to the author you are in fact claiming it as your own!

LoL even the Forum Mod. thinks its alright to steal someone's idea... *shrugs* Its cool to be uncreative these days...

People should learn to make their own resolution without copying lol. Have you heard of the word ' plagiarism'???

So when you say that governments wouldn't be obligated to provide big-screen TVs, that raises the question: obligated by who? Clearly you mean that no nation would be obligated by the UN to provide big-screen TVs to its citizens.

No it doesn't raise that question. It doesn't say 'Before this was passed you were obligated to buy your citizens big screen TVs'. It says 'If anyone were to ever content that it is a god given right that the government is to give then big screen TVs, you can deny them that TV that they don't NEED by showing them this resolution'.

So, is any nation currently obligated by the UN to provide big-screen TVs to its citizens? Obviously not. So what would be the effect if this proposal became law? No effect, because it says that the UN doesn't obligate any country to provide big-screen TVs to its citizens, and the UN already doesn't obligate any country to provide big-screen TVs to its citizens.

Have you no foresight? Are you suggesting that it's BAD that the government can refuse to give out big screen TVs if they wish? Also, it's not saying the UN doesn't have to give out big screen TVs, it's saying YOU don't have to. The UN is not a separate body of governing. It is a collection of nations governing themselves. Resolutions do not just affect 'the UN', they affect YOU. Again, it's not saying you ARE obligated to give out big screen TVs, it's saying if anyone were to contend that you are you would have a written document to show them.

So would the proposal stop the UN from at some time in the future passing a law requiring nations to provide big-screen TVs or health care to their citizens? No, because firstly the Bill has no proviso to bind future UN resolutions; and even if it did, it is a well-known parliamentary principle that past parliaments can't bind future parliaments with laws. Future parliaments are free to repeal any law they wish. The only thing binding a parliament is the constitution.

With that reasoning, EVERY resolution passed so far is 'worthless' because it doesn't have provisions for being binding as far as never being able to change what it affects. What's your point? That the UN has been a complete waste of time? Give me a break. ANY resolution can be repealed. You're only pointing that out because you don't agree with the resolution. You wouldn't be saying that if you supported it. Funny how it works that way.

And here all this time we thought that the proposal was just a lot of second rate right-wing propoganda filtered through the 'finest' minds of The Global Market, (in one ear and out the mouth) but it is not even regurgitation, it's streight out 'cut 'n paste'!

May I point out that all progress is made by looking at the ideas people have written down before? Scientific progress is always built on knowledge gained by people before you. A little finding by you is often based on huge findings by someone else. It can work the same way with political science. There is no shame in using other peoples ideas to further a science along. Politics more or less falls into that catagory.

And here all this time we thought that the proposal was just a lot of second rate right-wing propoganda filtered through the 'finest' minds of The Global Market, (in one ear and out the mouth) but it is not even regurgitation, it's streight out 'cut 'n paste'!

May I point out that all progress is made by looking at the ideas people have written down before? Scientific progress is always built on knowledge gained by people before you. A little finding by you is often based on huge findings by someone else. It can work the same way with political science. There is no shame in using other peoples ideas to further a science along. Politics more or less falls into that catagory. No idea ever came from mindless regurgitation of second rate agiprop.

Is there a difference between what Global Market has done and what the authors of the U.S. Declaration of Independance did:

"Life, Liberty, and Property" - John Locke (1690)
"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" - Thomas Jefferson (1776)

I don't see the difference.

For a person claiming to be a libertarian, you don't seem to have a grasp of the basic concept. Why is an intrusive big government "right"? Why don't you just let individual nations decide how they want to live? Why do you feel a need to ram your ideals down the throats of others?

What bothers us isn't that "The Global Market" doesn't quite get the concept. What bothers us is that George W. Bush doesn't quite get the concept.

For a person claiming to be a libertarian, you don't seem to have a grasp of the basic concept. Why is an intrusive big government "right"? Why don't you just let individual nations decide how they want to live? Why do you feel a need to ram your ideals down the throats of others?

What bothers us isn't that "The Global Market" doesn't quite get the concept. What bothers us is that George W. Bush doesn't quite get the concept.

This bill DECREASES the size of national government.

For a person claiming to be a libertarian, you don't seem to have a grasp of the basic concept. Why is an intrusive big government "right"? Why don't you just let individual nations decide how they want to live? Why do you feel a need to ram your ideals down the throats of others?

What bothers us isn't that "The Global Market" doesn't quite get the concept. What bothers us is that George W. Bush doesn't quite get the concept.

This bill DECREASES the size of national government.

Is there a difference between what Global Market has done and what the authors of the U.S. Declaration of Independance did:

"Life, Liberty, and Property" - John Locke (1690)
"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" - Thomas Jefferson (1776)

I don't see the difference.

Read this closely then:

1. John Locke was not an author of the Declaration of Independence. He didn't even sign it. Indeed, he wasn't even in the United States when it was written, because he died in 1704.

2. One says, "... liberty and property.'' The other says. "... liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Got that?

3. Trying to pretend that property and the pursuit of happiness is one and the same thing is disingenuous at best, and deliberately misleading at worst. But it's a typical move
from one who would support such a ridiculous proposal as this.

Pogue

Is there a difference between what Global Market has done and what the authors of the U.S. Declaration of Independance did:

"Life, Liberty, and Property" - John Locke (1690)
"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" - Thomas Jefferson (1776)

I don't see the difference.

Read this closely then:

1. John Locke was not an author of the Declaration of Independence. He didn't even sign it. Indeed, he wasn't even in the United States when it was written, because he died in 1704.

2. One says, "... liberty and property.'' The other says. "... liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Got that?

3. Trying to pretend that property and the pursuit of happiness is one and the same thing is disingenuous at best, and deliberately misleading at worst. But it's a typical move
from one who would support such a ridiculous proposal as this.

Pogue

Pursuit of happiness ISNT IN THE CONSTITUTION

But property is.

"No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."
--The Fifth Amendment

Also, the best way to increase societal happiness is by making money. With money you can do lots of neat stuff.

Pursuit of happiness ISNT IN THE CONSTITUTION

But property is.

"No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."
--The Fifth Amendment


This might surprise you, Sir, but some people in the world DON'T EVEN LIVE IN THE USA!! IT'S TRUE! I read it in the dictionary!


Also, the best way to increase societal happiness is by making money. With money you can do lots of neat stuff.

So what if somebody has no money, and they're sick and can't go to work? Should they DIE because they can't afford healthcare? What if it's a little sick baby from a poor family, and they can't afford to pay for healthcare, and the little baby dies. And then what if that country had free healthcare, and the little baby lived, and grew up to be ALFRED EINSTEIN?

THE GLOBAL MARKET KILLED LITTLE BABY EINSTEIN!!

THE GLOBAL MARKET IS MEAN EVEN TO BABY GENIUSES!!1!

Pursuit of happiness ISNT IN THE CONSTITUTION

But property is.

"No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."
--The Fifth Amendment


This might surprise you, Sir, but some people in the world DON'T EVEN LIVE IN THE USA!! IT'S TRUE! I read it in the dictionary!

This was a response to someone else's comment about the United States.


So what if somebody has no money, and they're sick and can't go to work? Should they DIE because they can't afford healthcare? What if it's a little sick baby from a poor family, and they can't afford to pay for healthcare, and the little baby dies. And then what if that country had free healthcare, and the little baby lived, and grew up to be ALFRED EINSTEIN?

THE GLOBAL MARKET KILLED LITTLE BABY EINSTEIN!!

THE GLOBAL MARKET IS MEAN EVEN TO BABY GENIUSES!!1!

Nobody in first-world countries and very few people in third-world countires THAT RESPECT PROPERTY RIGHTS starve to death.

Nobody in first-world countries and very few people in third-world countires THAT RESPECT PROPERTY RIGHTS starve to death.

1. Prove it. Prove that "nobody in first-world countries THAT RESPECT PROPERTY RIGHTS starves to death".

2. What does that have to do with FREE HEALTHCARE?

Only INDIVIDUALS have inalienable rights to liberty and freedom.


Good to hear you have finally abandoned your absurd support for corporate rights. :D

Only INDIVIDUALS have inalienable rights to liberty and freedom.


Good to hear you have finally abandoned your absurd support for corporate rights. :D

Corporations are free associations of individuals. They have the same rights as individuals. No more, no less.

Government is unique because it maintains a monopoly on physical force. But otherwise, it has the same rights as individuals and corporations.

And as for you Beable, I haven't found any statistics that hint at starvation in first-world nations. And since your claim is affirmative (that there IS something), you have the burden of proof.

And as for you Beable, I haven't found any statistics that hint at starvation in first-world nations. And since your claim is affirmative (that there IS something), you have the burden of proof.

NU-UH!! Your claim is actually "Everybody in first-world nations has enough food to eat", so that means YOUR claim is affirmative, and YOU have the burden of proof!

Otherwise, all I've got to say is that "Not everybody in first-world nations has enough food to sustain life", and then YOU have to either agree with me, or else make the opposite, AFFIRMATIVE statement, and ACCEPT THE BURDEN OF PROOF! D00D!

And as for you Beable, I haven't found any statistics that hint at starvation in first-world nations. And since your claim is affirmative (that there IS something), you have the burden of proof.

NU-UH!! Your claim is actually "Everybody in first-world nations has enough food to eat", so that means YOUR claim is affirmative, and YOU have the burden of proof!

Otherwise, all I've got to say is that "Not everybody in first-world nations has enough food to sustain life", and then YOU have to either agree with me, or else make the opposite, AFFIRMATIVE statement, and ACCEPT THE BURDEN OF PROOF! D00D!

All right here's my proof: We spend enough on welfare to give every person currently in welfare $23,000 a year. If they can't buy food with that, then that's their own damn fault.

Is there a difference between what Global Market has done and what the authors of the U.S. Declaration of Independance did:

"Life, Liberty, and Property" - John Locke (1690)
"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" - Thomas Jefferson (1776)

I don't see the difference.

Read this closely then:

1. John Locke was not an author of the Declaration of Independence. He didn't even sign it. Indeed, he wasn't even in the United States when it was written, because he died in 1704.

2. One says, "... liberty and property.'' The other says. "... liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Got that?

3. Trying to pretend that property and the pursuit of happiness is one and the same thing is disingenuous at best, and deliberately misleading at worst. But it's a typical move
from one who would support such a ridiculous proposal as this.

Pogue

Pursuit of happiness ISNT IN THE CONSTITUTION

But property is.

"No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."
--The Fifth Amendment

Also, the best way to increase societal happiness is by making money. With money you can do lots of neat stuff.

First, no one has claimed that "the pursuit of happiness" is in the U.S. Constitution. Everyone who has posted on this point seems to already know it was in the Declaration of Independence. Why are you implying otherwise?

Secondly, the Founding Fathers frequently saw happiness and property in opposition. This conflict can clearly be seen in a letter written by John Adams to Thomas Jefferson penned July 16th of 1814:

"Nothing can be conceived more destructive to human happiness; more infallibly contrived to transform men and women into brutes, Yahoos, or demons, than a community of wives and property."

- Page 157 Vol. 14 Writings of Thomas Jefferson Lipscomb and Bergh ed., Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, Washington DC, 1905

Adams was agreeing with Jefferson that the accumulation of wealth in families leads to aristocracies, but disagreeing as to whether anything could be done to prevent it. So even the conservatives of that day saw property and happiness at odds.

And then there's that Benjamin Franklin quote again:

“An enormous proportion of property vested in a few individuals is dangerous to the rights, and destructive of the common happiness, of mankind; and therefore every free state hath a right by it's laws to discourage the possession of such property.”

- Page 533, Vol. 22 The Papers of Benjamin Franklin William B. Willcox ed., Yale University Press, New Haven & London, 1982.

Corporations are free associations of individuals. They have the same rights as individuals. No more, no less.

Wrong again. Corporations are entities invented by government to allow for the running of private businesses. They have no inherent rights.

They do have responsibilities that are above and beyond what is required of an individual, and they are regulated in various ways that an individual cannot be.

Pogue

Corporations are free associations of individuals. They have the same rights as individuals. No more, no less.

Wrong again. Corporations are entities invented by government to allow for the running of private businesses. They have no inherent rights.

They do have responsibilities that are above and beyond what is required of an individual, and they are regulated in various ways that an individual cannot be.

Pogue

But also, they can murder people without going to jail. How many tobacco companies are in prison at the moment?

Only INDIVIDUALS have inalienable rights to liberty and freedom.


Good to hear you have finally abandoned your absurd support for corporate rights. :D

Corporations are free associations of individuals. They have the same rights as individuals. No more, no less.

Government is unique because it maintains a monopoly on physical force. But otherwise, it has the same rights as individuals and corporations.

You are, of course, willfully missing the point. Corporations should NOT have the same rights as individuals because they are NOT individuals. Pointing out that they are free associations OF individuals still doesn’t justify their legal anthromorphism. They are not humans and therefore not entitled to human rights. Animal rights advocates are welcome to substitute "living things" for "humans", but it doesn't undermine my critique: corporations are immortal whereas mortals are not.

Many libertarian and conservatives theorists have tried to portray corporations as "democracies" to justify their enormous influence. (Of course, they only blur the distinction in one direction - they are certainly not calling for more democracy in the economy or the workplace.) The sum total of their argument is that the corporations are "democracies" of shareholders. Of course these aren't "one man/one vote" democracies; they are of the "one dollar/one vote" variety. They are "democracies" in which some have more votes than others - indeed, in which many who are vitally effected (such as non-stockholding employees) have no vote at all. This is not the definition of democracy, but of plutocracy.

Throughout the 1990s, corporate cheerleaders applied this argument to the market itself - even going so far as to claim that the market was more democratic than the voting booth (because it offered more variety). Some have actually argued that we should replace democracy with the market whenever possible for this very reason. That's super loopy. Yes, I could buy Fair Trade coffee over some exploitively produced brand, but what if I don't drink coffee? Moreover, it is the coffee drinkers rather than the bean pickers who enjoy votes. And how can I "vote" for (i.e. buy) sneakers that aren't produced in sweatshops if there are no alternatives on store shelves? How do I "vote with my pocketbook" against exploitation then? How can the exploited vote? Truth be told, the market is often a one party system.

Historian and social critic Thomas Frank has written a brilliant, if somewhat rant-like, analysis of this market=democracy argument in a tome called "One Market Under God; Extreme Capitalism, Market Populism, and the End of Economic Democracy". But, this tendency of reactionaries to confuse corporations with democracies is a pretty old one. Once again, Benjamin Franklin has weighed in on this issue:

"The combinations of civil society are not like those of a set of merchants, who club their property in different proportions for building and freighting a ship, and may therefore have some right to vote in the disposition of the voyage in a greater or less degree according to their respective contributions: but the important ends of civil society, and the personal securities of Life and Liberty, these remain the same in every member of the society; and the poorest continues to have equal claim to them with the most opulent, whatever difference time, chance, or industry may occasion in their circumstances. On these considerations, I am sorry to see the signs this paper I have been considering affords, of a disposition among some of our people to commence an aristocracy, by giving the rich a predominancy in government."

- Page 59 Vol. X The Writings of Benjamin Franklin Albert H Smyth ed., 10 vols. New York: MacMillan, 1905-7

You Americans are an odd bunch.

I must say no wonder he puts in so many well thought out proposals that also are bad for the United Nations

You are, of course, willfully missing the point. Corporations should NOT have the same rights as individuals because they are NOT individuals. Pointing out that they are free associations OF individuals still doesn’t justify their legal anthromorphism. They are not humans and therefore not entitled to human rights. Animal rights advocates are welcome to substitute "living things" for "humans", but it doesn't undermine my critique: corporations are immortal whereas mortals are not...

Well played, CoOpera. Well played.

You are, of course, willfully missing the point. Corporations should NOT have the same rights as individuals because they are NOT individuals. Pointing out that they are free associations OF individuals still doesn’t justify their legal anthromorphism. They are not humans and therefore not entitled to human rights. Animal rights advocates are welcome to substitute "living things" for "humans", but it doesn't undermine my critique: corporations are immortal whereas mortals are not...

Well played, CoOpera. Well played.

Actually - in some countries corporations already have the rights and responsibilities (liabilities) as individuals.

You are, of course, willfully missing the point. Corporations should NOT have the same rights as individuals because they are NOT individuals. Pointing out that they are free associations OF individuals still doesn’t justify their legal anthromorphism. They are not humans and therefore not entitled to human rights. Animal rights advocates are welcome to substitute "living things" for "humans", but it doesn't undermine my critique: corporations are immortal whereas mortals are not...

Well played, CoOpera. Well played.

Actually - in some countries corporations already have the rights and responsibilities (liabilities) as individuals.more often the rights than the responsibilities.

What we need is something like Sweden has. (At least I think think it's Sweden.) There, at least for speeding tickets, the punishment is based on your ability to pay. To a millionaire a 100(USD) speeding ticket is nothing, he woudn't even notice it. So, the fine is based on income. In that way, he is actually receives a noticable punished for the crime comitted.