NationStates Jolt Archive

The Meaning of the Right to Vote
Tuesday October 26, 2004
By: Alex Epstein

On Election Day remember that it is freedom, not voting, which makes America great.

Every Election Day politicians, intellectuals, and activists propagate a seemingly patriotic but utterly un-American idea: the notion that our most important right--and the source of America's greatness--is the right to vote. According to former President Bill Clinton, the right to vote is "the most fundamental right of citizenship"; it is "the heart and soul of our democracy," says Senator John McCain.

Such statements are regarded as uncontroversial--but consider their implications. If voting is truly our most fundamental right, then all other rights--including free speech, property, even life--are contingent on and revocable by the whims of the voting public (or their elected officials). America, on this view, is a society based not on individual rights, but on unlimited majority rule--like Ancient Athens, where the populace, exercising "the most fundamental right of citizenship," elected to kill Socrates for voicing unpopular ideas--or modern-day Zimbabwe, where the democratically elected Robert Mugabe has seized the property of the nation's white farmers and brought the nation to the verge of starvation--or Germany in 1932, when the people democratically elected the Nazi Party, including future Chancellor Adolph Hitler. Would anyone dare claim that America is thus fundamentally similar to these regimes, and that it is perfectly acceptable to kill controversial philosophers or to exterminate six million Jews, so long as it is done by popular vote?

Contrary to popular rhetoric, America was founded, not as a "democracy," but as a constitutional republic--a political structure under which the government is bound by a written constitution to the task of protecting individual rights. "Democracy" does not mean a system that holds public elections for government officials; it means a system in which a majority vote rules everything and everyone, and in which the individual thus has no rights. In a democracy, observed James Madison in The Federalist Papers, "there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention [and] have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property."

The right to vote derives from the recognition of man as an autonomous, rational being, who is responsible for his own life and who should therefore freely choose the people he authorizes to represent him in the government of his country. That autonomy is contradicted if a majority of voters is allowed to do whatever it wishes to the individual citizen. The right to vote is not a sanction for a gang to deprive other individuals of their freedom. Rather, because a free society requires a certain type of government, it is a means of installing the officials who will safeguard the individual rights of each citizen.

What makes America unique is not that it has elections--even dictatorships hold elections--but that its elections take place in a country limited by the absolute principle of individual freedom. From our Declaration of Independence, which upholds the "unalienable rights" of every individual, among which are "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," to our Constitution, whose Bill of Rights protects freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the freedom of private property, respect for individual liberty is the essence of America--and the root of her greatness.

Unfortunately, with each passing Election Day, too many Americans view elections less as a means to protect freedom, and more as a means to win some government favor or handout at the expense of the liberty and property of other Americans. Our politicians promise, not to protect the basic rights spelled out in the Declaration and the Constitution, but to violate the rights of some people in order to benefit others. Today's politicians want subsidies for farmers--by forcing non-farmers to pay for them; prescription drugs for the elderly--by forcing the non-elderly to pay for them; housing for the homeless--by forcing the non-homeless to pay for it. The more "democratic" our government becomes, the more we cannibalize our liberty, ultimately to the detriment of all.

This Election Day, therefore, we should reject those who wish to reduce our republic to mob rule. Instead, we should vote for those, to whatever extent they can be found, who are defenders of the essence of America: individual freedom.

Alex Epstein is a writer for the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

http://www.aynrand.org/

Of course our ability to take other people's freedom away is our most important right. And we should use it every chance we get. ;) That's what America is all about.

Of course our ability to take other people's freedom away is our most important right. And we should use it every chance we get. ;) That's what America is all about.

Elaborate your thoughts, as I'm a little confused.

Taking away freedom is not a right. It is called "law". And it should be minimalized at every opportunity.

Our most important right is to make. To create.

America is about the possibility of being a creator.

Which America are you talking about..? :)

Elaborate your thoughts, as I'm a little confused.

Taking away freedom is not a right. It is called "law". And it should be minimalized at every opportunity.

Our most important right is to make. To create.

America is about the possibility of being a creator.

Which America are you talking about..? :)

Which America are you talking about?!

My freedom of speach also includes my freedom of silence as well. There are alway at least three sides to an issue: The third side is responsibility: Since I do Not care which politician takes the office, then I am bound by the responsibility not to vote.

*poke*
First his name was Adolf (not Adolph) and second, he was not voted into power since back then, chancellors were appointed. In this case, Hitler was appointed by Hindenburg, the then President of Germany. This is not the case anymore today. Hitler would never be elected today.

Well said, but in the end an insidious piece that aims for the installation of facist corporate dictatorship, intentionally or not.

The right to have a voice in the concerns of the nation is fundamental. Few governments are more friendly to the notion of "private property" as a fundamental right as facists.

The rights to live and speak freely, assemble freely, and think what you wish are all infringed upon by the supposed "right" of "private property," as generally defined as owning things and doing whatever you want with them. In addition, it is essentially an arbitrary right, in the end going back to someone who says "Well, it's mine because I said so." This is not fundamental. The "right" of private property provided justification for owning slaves and abusing them to the point of death; the "right" of private property is used to restrict speech and expression. Zealots acting to defend this "right" seek to make the "thought criminal" of 1984 a legal reality.

Fundamentally speaking, the duty to take part in determine your own destiny politically does not conflict with these real fundamental rights; furthermore, the negation of the right to vote (the inability to have a say in how one's country, and therefore, ultimately, one's shared world of existence, is run) lies in direct contravention of such other fundamental rights as freedom of speech and thought. You don't have the right to strip away this voice from others.

The elections run by dictatorships are notoriously unfairly run; in numerous ways, they all involve stripping away this basic right, rather than reaffirming it. Similarly, the "right" the letter writer wishes to insist upon is nothing less than an infringement on all the others, including the "right" of determination; thus, why he speaks against democratic processes.

Furthermore, it is only by mutual consensus that we determine what the sum total of our current rights, duties, and priviledges - fundamental or not.

[QUOTE=TJHairball #7]
Well said, but in the end an insidious piece that aims for the installation of facist corporate dictatorship, intentionally or not.

The right to have a voice in the concerns of the nation is fundamental. Few governments are more friendly to the notion of "private property" as a fundamental right as facists.

The rights to live and speak freely, assemble freely, and think what you wish are all infringed upon by the supposed "right" of "private property," as generally defined as owning things and doing whatever you want with them. In addition, it is essentially an arbitrary right, in the end going back to someone who says "Well, it's mine because I said so." This is not fundamental. The "right" of private property provided justification for owning slaves and abusing them to the point of death; the "right" of private property is used to restrict speech and expression. Zealots acting to defend this "right" seek to make the "thought criminal" of 1984 a legal reality.

Fundamentally speaking, the duty to take part in determine your own destiny politically does not conflict with these real fundamental rights; furthermore, the negation of the right to vote (the inability to have a say in how one's country, and therefore, ultimately, one's shared world of existence, is run) lies in direct contravention of such other fundamental rights as freedom of speech and thought. You don't have the right to strip away this voice from others.

The elections run by dictatorships are notoriously unfairly run; in numerous ways, they all involve stripping away this basic right, rather than reaffirming it. Similarly, the "right" the letter writer wishes to insist upon is nothing less than an infringement on all the others, including the "right" of determination; thus, why he speaks against democratic processes.

Furthermore, it is only by mutual consensus that we determine what the sum total of our current rights, duties, and priviledges - fundamental or not.



In a fascist state (a statist state) the uber-thing (be it a dictator or dictatorial commitee) owns everything.

There is no ownership but that given by the uber-thing. Fascists will not tolerate private property.

Having a voice to use to influence the political powers of a society is fundamental, but rule by simple majority is nonsensical. It is mobocracy.

You think private property is a bad thing. That's fine. Please distribute it as you see fit. How much is redistributed to things you find unfit for distribution to..?

Once again, you have (and should always have) the right to speak, but there is no personal right to "run the show", even in having your vote "count" for anything.

.."The elections run by dictatorships are notoriously unfairly run; in numerous ways, they all involve stripping away this basic right, rather than reaffirming it. Similarly, the "right" the letter writer wishes to insist upon is nothing less than an infringement on all the others, including the "right" of determination; thus, why he speaks against democratic processes."..

What is the "right" that the writer wishes to inflict (insist) upon us..? The right of Freedom..? That's the way I read it.

You are against freedom..?!

You see freedom as an infringement on allother rights..?

What IS the right of determination..?

Where does he speak against democratic processes..? He merely points out that absolute democracy is mob rule, and was not what was envisioned and instituted in America.

About consensus: If you base society on an arbitrary consensus, as opposed to the observable universe, then you can justify anything. And the consequences of your arbitrariness are things that you would find most unpleasant.

The consensus of the evil is just rule under your "rights according to consensus" principle.

on the other hand, freedom cannot exist without the right to participation as equals for all involved in group decisions.

freedom requires a set of fundamental rights like speech and assembly and self-defense and privacy, etc (but not including capitalist property relations, as those lead to ridiculous and unnecessary levels of privilege and injustice), the right of equal participation in all collective decisions, and the right of groups to somehow opt out of certain decisions they do not agree with at all.

*poke*
First his name was Adolf (not Adolph) and second, he was not voted into power since back then, chancellors were appointed. In this case, Hitler was appointed by Hindenburg, the then President of Germany. This is not the case anymore today. Hitler would never be elected today.

True, and anyway, the last major election to the Reichstag in 1933 was undemocratic by any standards - terrorism by the Nazis, voter intimidation, etc. There was also the hysteria whipped up by the Reichstag fire that worked in their favour.

And even then, in that undemocratic election, they only got about 44% of the vote.

Ayn Rand sucks.

[QUOTE=Free Soviets #9]
on the other hand, freedom cannot exist without the right to participation as equals for all involved in group decisions.

freedom requires a set of fundamental rights like speech and assembly and self-defense and privacy, etc (but not including capitalist property relations, as those lead to ridiculous and unnecessary levels of privilege and injustice), the right of equal participation in all collective decisions, and the right of groups to somehow opt out of certain decisions they do not agree with at all.



.."on the other hand, freedom cannot exist without the right to participation as equals for all involved in group decisions."..

Why?

Freedom is the ability to do what one wants, within one's own constraints.

If one's "self constraints" coincide with the overall society's "constraints", regardless of whether you are a peon with no say in society's running, you still have your freedom.

Not everyone is interested or capable of governing.

You are a communistic fascist, where inappropriateness is the rule. You construct social organizations that are inherently dysfunctional, because they are not based on anything other than the hallucinations of your intelligencia.

That makes you, as I've said before (and constantly), like the ants and the fungus. You point out interesting holes and "places that should be cleaned" within society, and we thank you for that, but you will never be allowed to have much influence as you are from the powers of un-reality, not humanity within reality.

The adolescent can dream of ruling the land, but until adulthood (the great rightward shift) he will be a child.

Ayn Rand sucks.

Amen to that.

[QUOTE=The Weegies #10]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gigatron
*poke*
First his name was Adolf (not Adolph) and second, he was not voted into power since back then, chancellors were appointed. In this case, Hitler was appointed by Hindenburg, the then President of Germany. This is not the case anymore today. Hitler would never be elected today.



True, and anyway, the last major election to the Reichstag in 1933 was undemocratic by any standards - terrorism by the Nazis, voter intimidation, etc. There was also the hysteria whipped up by the Reichstag fire that worked in their favour.

And even then, in that undemocratic election, they only got about 44% of the vote.

Pretend you could go back to 2 months after Hitler came to power.

Ask 20 people on the streets of Berlin if they really didn't like the current situation.

How many people would complain?

The basic thing I'm illustrating is that unless a people actively revolt, they deserve what they have.

And the "faux" democratic process that brought Hitler to power is "democratic enough" to qualify as not undemocratic.

Even if only registered nazis were allowed to vote, it would still be a democratic process, as "those allowed to vote did vote and chose the elected".

Ayn Rand sucks.

Why..!?

Is it the ponderous writing style..?

Is it your immature understanding of the issues involved..?

Is it that she isn't cool like Britney..!?

:D

Even if only registered nazis were allowed to vote, it would still be a democratic process, as "those allowed to vote did vote and chose the elected".


When the power to rule a state is given only to a particular group of people, it's an oligarchy, not a democracy.

What I hate is those people who try to tell me I cant complain if I dont vote.
They operate under the assumption that everybody falls under the label of "Domocrat" or "Rpublican." It's total bull! If I dont wanna cast my vote to either one, is my opinion any less valid?

In a fascist state (a statist state) the uber-thing (be it a dictator or dictatorial commitee) owns everything.

There is no ownership but that given by the uber-thing. Fascists will not tolerate private property.

I may readily guess that you have a strange definition of facism, or that you confuse it somehow with Stalinist statist communism.

Facism commonly refers to the political movements found in Spain under Franco, Italy under Mussolini, and Germany under Hitler. Curiously enough, all valued the notion of private property quite highly; as a matter of fact, to the Facists of Yore, there was no greater threat offered than that of the elimination of private property (communism) and the corporate model (capitalistic, profit motivated, private property based) highly valued.

Facism cannot be considered lassez faire, in no small part because absolute political authority is placed (in practical terms) with the absolute leader (Mussolini, Hitler, Franco) and necessarily political authority includes authority over the monetary system's fundamental workings; necessarily, the strong militaries and internal oppressive organs favored by Facist government require some degree of taxation, but it is indubitably capitalistic.

Having a voice to use to influence the political powers of a society is fundamental, but rule by simple majority is nonsensical. It is mobocracy.
This argument is commonly offered with little to no support, and I am unsurprised to see it without even its customary token arguments to place in favor of it. "The masses must be kept in check in case they do something stupid," cry the critics of all systems involving voting.

You think private property is a bad thing. That's fine. Please distribute it as you see fit. How much is redistributed to things you find unfit for distribution to..?
You are attempting to make what kind of point here? Please clarify.

Once again, you have (and should always have) the right to speak, but there is no personal right to "run the show", even in having your vote "count" for anything.
*<i>review review...</i>*
Having a voice to use to influence the political powers of a society is fundamental.
Either you contradict yourself or believe that the sole method of self-determination qualifying as a "right" involves talking to some arbitrary figure of authority, with no garuantee of being listened to and no power that can be excersized. In either case I would say that you do not agree with the fundamental right of determination.

What is the "right" that the writer wishes to inflict (insist) upon us..? The right of Freedom..? That's the way I read it.
You are against freedom..?!
You see freedom as an infringement on allother rights..?
What IS the right of determination..?
That's funny... the way I read it, the writer wishes to insist upon the "right" of private property, as it is referred to, rather than freedom in general.

The right of determination is the right be at least involved in what the heck is going to happen with your life, put bluntly. Traditionally, this is referred to as "excersizing free will." You may also wish to refer to it as the "right to pursue happiness."

Where does he speak against democratic processes..? He merely points out that absolute democracy is mob rule, and was not what was envisioned and instituted in America.
About consensus: If you base society on an arbitrary consensus, as opposed to the observable universe, then you can justify anything. And the consequences of your arbitrariness are things that you would find most unpleasant.
Well, let's see ...
Every Election Day politicians, intellectuals, and activists propagate a seemingly patriotic but utterly un-American idea: the notion that our most important right--and the source of America's greatness--is the right to vote.
If that doesn't clearly imply that he thinks the "right to vote" is unAmerican and therefore a Bad Thing, I'd have to guess that you think he doesn't like American things.

"Democracy" does not mean a system that holds public elections for government officials; it means a system in which a majority vote rules everything and everyone, and in which the individual thus has no rights.
Here he defines democracy in a specific way and very clearly indicates that he firmly believes that democracy is a bad thing.

The consensus of the evil is just rule under your "rights according to consensus" principle.
Did I say it was a principle? I did most certainly not. I said that what people consider as rights (as a nation or a group) are determined by collective agreement.

Now, in dealing with a true consensus... if a group consensed (that mean all of them agreeing, folks) on a set of rights that included the right to beat the stuffing out of each other, I would have no trouble acknowledging it as just rule within that group. Of course, when they move out of that group and assume that the rest of the world, which has not agreed with them that the "right" to beat up other people is a real right, then suddenly they're not operating within a consensus.

As I've mentioned before, I do not believe in the right to infringe upon others' rights... and the so-called "right" of owning and doing what one wishes with private property infringes on "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness." It infringes on "free" speech, in practice. It interferes with the freedom of assembly. It conflicts with the right of determination.

Which of these things does not fit within a logically coherent system? The so-called "right" to own private property and do with it what you will.

Well, let's see ...

If that doesn't clearly imply that he thinks the "right to vote" is unAmerican and therefore a Bad Thing, I'd have to guess that you think he doesn't like American things.


Here he defines democracy in a specific way and very clearly indicates that he firmly believes that democracy is a bad thing.


Did I say it was a principle? I did most certainly not. I said that what people consider as rights (as a nation or a group) are determined by collective agreement.

Now, in dealing with a true consensus... if a group consensed (that mean all of them agreeing, folks) on a set of rights that included the right to beat the stuffing out of each other, I would have no trouble acknowledging it as just rule within that group. Of course, when they move out of that group and assume that the rest of the world, which has not agreed with them that the "right" to beat up other people is a real right, then suddenly they're not operating within a consensus.

As I've mentioned before, I do not believe in the right to infringe upon others' rights... and the so-called "right" of owning and doing what one wishes with private property infringes on "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness." It infringes on "free" speech, in practice. It interferes with the freedom of assembly. It conflicts with the right of determination.

Which of these things does not fit within a logically coherent system? The so-called "right" to own private property and do with it what you will.

How again does a right to property infringe on the rights to "Life, liberty and property?." You still have every right to these in America, so long as you don't pursue it at somebody else's expense. Isn't that fair? Or do you think that just because one guy is Bill gates he must be forced to take care of everybody else? Somehow, I don't think that's justified...especially when people can work.

How again does a right to property infringe on the rights to "Life, liberty and property?." You still have every right to these in America, so long as you don't pursue it at somebody else's expense. Isn't that fair? Or do you think that just because one guy is Bill gates he must be forced to take care of everybody else? Somehow, I don't think that's justified...especially when people can work.

The quote from the Declaration is "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," actually, however many times people have reworded it, and that's what I said. Now, if you think about it, you can probably come up with at least three very significant examples in which life, liberty, and/or the pursuit of happiness end up conflicting with the "right" to own stuff and do whatever you want with it, often politically referred to as the "right" or "freedom" of private property. If you genuinely cannot, and are confused, I'll start giving you examples, but I think you're probably capable of figuring out at least a couple for yourself, and you'll listen to yourself better than you will to me.

"So long as you don't pursue it at someone else's expense" is a phrase that should give you leads on how that, as an absolute right, isn't exactly compatible with other stated rights, as well as coming up with three examples.

on the other hand, freedom cannot exist without the right to participation as equals for all involved in group decisions. Why?

Freedom is the ability to do what one wants, within one's own constraints.

because if decisions are made which affect you and you have no say in them, you are not free - you are a slave, a thing to be ordered around.

the hallucinations of your intelligencia.

i ever mention that you don't use words quite right?

I may readily guess that you have a strange definition of facism, or that you confuse it somehow with Stalinist statist communism.

questioning the historical accuracy of iakeokeo's definition of fascism is fascism, you fascist.
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7348247&postcount=47

[QUOTE=TJHairball #18]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
In a fascist state (a statist state) the uber-thing (be it a dictator or dictatorial commitee) owns everything.

There is no ownership but that given by the uber-thing. Fascists will not tolerate private property.

I may readily guess that you have a strange definition of facism, or that you confuse it somehow with Stalinist statist communism.

Facism commonly refers to the political movements found in Spain under Franco, Italy under Mussolini, and Germany under Hitler. Curiously enough, all valued the notion of private property quite highly; as a matter of fact, to the Facists of Yore, there was no greater threat offered than that of the elimination of private property (communism) and the corporate model (capitalistic, profit motivated, private property based) highly valued.

Facism cannot be considered lassez faire, in no small part because absolute political authority is placed (in practical terms) with the absolute leader (Mussolini, Hitler, Franco) and necessarily political authority includes authority over the monetary system's fundamental workings; necessarily, the strong militaries and internal oppressive organs favored by Facist government require some degree of taxation, but it is indubitably capitalistic.

That would be correct. My definition of fascism is my own, probably not the academic norm, and as all political definitions, as valid as any other. If you have any questions regarding my definition simply ask. Preferably simple questions, please (not necessarily "simple" as in "little bus" but simple as in "as un-complex as possible" as those will get clearer answers :) ).

It seems odd to me that an "absolute political authority" would not also have "absolute property authority" over his "subjects". What was the confiscation of jewish property about if not the absolute ruler(s) "right" to "his" property, as the jews were not of "his" people..?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Having a voice to use to influence the political powers of a society is fundamental, but rule by simple majority is nonsensical. It is mobocracy.


This argument is commonly offered with little to no support, and I am unsurprised to see it without even its customary token arguments to place in favor of it. "The masses must be kept in check in case they do something stupid," cry the critics of all systems involving voting.

Heh he he,.. The author of that piece is not a critic of voting. He's simply pointing out that voting is not the identifying characteristic of a great society. Freedom is.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
You think private property is a bad thing. That's fine. Please distribute it as you see fit. How much is redistributed to things you find unfit for distribution to..?

You are attempting to make what kind of point here? Please clarify.

Those who profess communistic principles seldom live by them. Even as a thought experiment, redistribution of resources to "unworthy targets" (those things that one would consider a waste of resources) are almost never what people would do, although that is precisely what "property haters" would force upon those with property.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Once again, you have (and should always have) the right to speak, but there is no personal right to "run the show", even in having your vote "count" for anything.

*<i>review review...</i>*
Having a voice to use to influence the political powers of a society is fundamental.

Either you contradict yourself or believe that the sole method of self-determination qualifying as a "right" involves talking to some arbitrary figure of authority, with no garuantee of being listened to and no power that can be excersized. In either case I would say that you do not agree with the fundamental right of determination.

"The fundamental right of determination" means, to me, that I may do and say what I please at all times, and be rewarded or punished for my actions as the society around me sees fit.

There can be no "guarantee" of being listened to. There can only be a guarantee that if my will is to speak up, nothing can stop me from trying.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
What is the "right" that the writer wishes to inflict (insist) upon us..? The right of Freedom..? That's the way I read it.
You are against freedom..?!
You see freedom as an infringement on allother rights..?
What IS the right of determination..?


That's funny... the way I read it, the writer wishes to insist upon the "right" of private property, as it is referred to, rather than freedom in general.

The right of determination is the right be at least involved in what the heck is going to happen with your life, put bluntly. Traditionally, this is referred to as "excersizing free will." You may also wish to refer to it as the "right to pursue happiness."

The right of owning property IS freedom, as otherwise freedom is an arbitrary and meaningless word. There is no "freedom in general".

Your "right of determination" IS indeed precisely defined as (and only as) "free will". The only right(s) you have is your free will. Even encased in concrete you still, and only, have the right to use your mind and will.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Where does he speak against democratic processes..? He merely points out that absolute democracy is mob rule, and was not what was envisioned and instituted in America.
About consensus: If you base society on an arbitrary consensus, as opposed to the observable universe, then you can justify anything. And the consequences of your arbitrariness are things that you would find most unpleasant.


Well, let's see ...

Quote:
Every Election Day politicians, intellectuals, and activists propagate a seemingly patriotic but utterly un-American idea: the notion that our most important right--and the source of America's greatness--is the right to vote.


If that doesn't clearly imply that he thinks the "right to vote" is unAmerican and therefore a Bad Thing, I'd have to guess that you think he doesn't like American things.

The "un-American" part is that the "MOST IMPORTANT" right and source of America's greatness is the "right to vote".

Voting is a good thing, but not the most important thing. The most important thing is our freedom, and that freedom is concretized as "property ownership".

Without the freedom to own, to have concrete freedom, voting is a meaningless excercise in conversation.



Quote:
"Democracy" does not mean a system that holds public elections for government officials; it means a system in which a majority vote rules everything and everyone, and in which the individual thus has no rights.


Here he defines democracy in a specific way and very clearly indicates that he firmly believes that democracy is a bad thing.

He is refereing to "pure democracy". The total rule of the majority. The rule under which all minorities would be hopelessly persecuted. The rule of the mob.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
The consensus of the evil is just rule under your "rights according to consensus" principle.


Did I say it was a principle? I did most certainly not. I said that what people consider as rights (as a nation or a group) are determined by collective agreement.

Now, in dealing with a true consensus... if a group consensed (that mean all of them agreeing, folks) on a set of rights that included the right to beat the stuffing out of each other, I would have no trouble acknowledging it as just rule within that group. Of course, when they move out of that group and assume that the rest of the world, which has not agreed with them that the "right" to beat up other people is a real right, then suddenly they're not operating within a consensus.

As I've mentioned before, I do not believe in the right to infringe upon others' rights... and the so-called "right" of owning and doing what one wishes with private property infringes on "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness." It infringes on "free" speech, in practice. It interferes with the freedom of assembly. It conflicts with the right of determination.

Which of these things does not fit within a logically coherent system? The so-called "right" to own private property and do with it what you will.

You'll have to explain, obviously, how you feel the right of property infringes on all other (or however many you choose) rights, as I see that as silly.

Consensus gives us our laws. Laws are the antithesis of freedom. Laws are (or should be) only restrictive in nature. Laws do not "give" us rights, they restrict them. Freedom must be concrete to be real. The only reality (real things) IS reality, which in this physical universe is property.

Freedom in principle is "free will". Freedom in reality is property.

[QUOTE=TJHairball #20]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peri-Pella
How again does a right to property infringe on the rights to "Life, liberty and property?." You still have every right to these in America, so long as you don't pursue it at somebody else's expense. Isn't that fair? Or do you think that just because one guy is Bill gates he must be forced to take care of everybody else? Somehow, I don't think that's justified...especially when people can work.


The quote from the Declaration is "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," actually, however many times people have reworded it, and that's what I said. Now, if you think about it, you can probably come up with at least three very significant examples in which life, liberty, and/or the pursuit of happiness end up conflicting with the "right" to own stuff and do whatever you want with it, often politically referred to as the "right" or "freedom" of private property. If you genuinely cannot, and are confused, I'll start giving you examples, but I think you're probably capable of figuring out at least a couple for yourself, and you'll listen to yourself better than you will to me.

"So long as you don't pursue it at someone else's expense" is a phrase that should give you leads on how that, as an absolute right, isn't exactly compatible with other stated rights, as well as coming up with three examples.

I do love the argument that "property ownership" is ALWAYS bad (on principle) because it potentially interferes with "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

No "principle" exists in a vaccuum. The question simply boils down to whether you see (private) property rights as in your best interest, and the best interest of your society, or not.

The communist does not. Free people do. And free people will admit the negatives and challenges wroght by property, just as, I'm sure, the communist will admit to the negatives and challenges of communism.

I simply place my bet on freedom. A simple choice. And one I'm sure "the left" would allow me, as "choice" is their prime directive.

..Until the left takes over. At which point "choice" goes out the window with the other useless and archaic principles of the un-enlightened.

It's the leftist/fascist way. "Choice" until we rule, then "no choice for you!"

[QUOTE=Free Soviets #21]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Free Soviets
on the other hand, freedom cannot exist without the right to participation as equals for all involved in group decisions.

Why?

Freedom is the ability to do what one wants, within one's own constraints.


because if decisions are made which affect you and you have no say in them, you are not free - you are a slave, a thing to be ordered around.

Still haven't gotten that "shift key" thing to work..? :)

You are a slave only if you allow yourself to be a slave. If you live in a place where what you and your like-minded bretheren do not have enough say in your lives, I suggest you physically do something about it.

As some wise person said somewhere, "There is a certain FREEDOM in knowing that you are completely screwed.." <Anyone..? Anyone..? Bueller..? Anyone..?>

Freedom is fought for and MADE, not given. If you don't have it, create it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
the hallucinations of your intelligencia.


i ever mention that you don't use words quite right?

What does "i" mean at the beginning of that sentence of yours..?

My use of words are mine. Your use of the shift key is deficient. :D

I'd like to remind everybody that the right to vote is what makes a democracy. If there is no voting there is not democracy. You could theoretically have a democracy with no freedom of speech, religion or any of our basic rights, we could not, however have a democracy without voting.

This article is a very poorly stated argument, but I would agree with the title of the forum. But the right to vote is necessary in a democracy, so you could change the title to:

wait for it.....
....
...
....

America great due to freedom, not DEMOCRACY!

OMG, he didn't just denounce democracy did he?

[QUOTE=Free Soviets #22]
Quote:
Originally Posted by TJHairball
I may readily guess that you have a strange definition of facism, or that you confuse it somehow with Stalinist statist communism.

questioning the historical accuracy of iakeokeo's definition of fascism is fascism, you fascist.
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost....47&postcount=47

Heh he he he he... :D

Questioning my definition of "fascism" is not actually fascism,.. but anything coming from Free-Soviets would be fascism.

As Free is a fascist.

But that's not really the point, is it.. :)

[QUOTE=Sussudio #26]
I'd like to remind everybody that the right to vote is what makes a democracy. If there is no voting there is not democracy. You could theoretically have a democracy with no freedom of speech, religion or any of our basic rights, we could not, however have a democracy without voting.

This article is a very poorly stated argument, but I would agree with the title of the forum. But the right to vote is necessary in a democracy, so you could change the title to:

wait for it.....
....
...
....

America great due to freedom, not DEMOCRACY!

OMG, he didn't just denounce democracy did he?

And that's the POINT, you nit. (Secondarily, VOTING does not equal DEMOCRACY.)

America is great due PRIMARILY to it's freedom, not because of it's democracy..!

The democracy SUPPORTS the FREEDOM, and evolved out of the freedom, not the other way around.

The idiot left (aka fascists [see previous posts regarding this eqation of leftist with fascist]) would have us believe that America is great because FREEDOM supports DEMOCRACY.

Actually, the left would rather say that FREEDOM undercuts DEMOCRACY, but that is another thing to talk about.

Democracy, as pure democracy, is (equates to) mob rule. Minorites are utterly at the mercy of the majority. It is still "democracy", but it is NOT a good thing.

Some simple contentions:

If you base a society on "democracy" you will get mob rule eventually.
If you base a society on "property" you will get sensible democracy eventually.

Why is the first contention sensible? Because any society "BASED" on voting (pure majority rule) is at the whim of it's majority and the "group think" of that majority.

Why the second? Because any society "BASED" on property makes it's individual members consider their own self interests which makes them "conservative" in their interactions with "the people".

Why..!?

Is it the ponderous writing style..?
Is it your immature understanding of the issues involved..?
Is it that she isn't cool like Britney..!?

:D

I don't claim to speak for onion pirate, but his contention that Ayn Rand sucks is probably due to the fact that she's a pseudo-philosopher with a grasp of political and even financial reality that's about as firmly grounded as dandilion fluff.

There are only two works of absurd self-indulgence that I had to stop reading because of their stupidity. One was Marquis de Sade's praise of pure self-interest Julliette. The other was Ayn Rand's similar work Atlas Shrugged. It can be said in de Sade's defense that he did not have the benifit of Darwinian theory, a crude intuitive understanding of which was the basis of much of his philosophy, and that he was completly insane. Ayn Rand has no such excuses.

It is patently obvious to anyone who is not already wedded to the idea that unalloyed capitalism is a flawlessly self regulating principle (a notion that even a casual, yet informed, observation of world affairs would render obsolete) that her "philosophy" is nothing more than a self-indulgent self-justification for being a greedy self-centered sow. Similar defenses of greed were common during the decline of the Roman Empire, and because it was so obvious that unobstructed greed was a bad thing for the Empire there was a lot of intrest in proving that this was not the case.

The moral defenses that she sets forth for greed in Atlas Shrugged are as thin as Anne Coulter. At least when de Sade presented moral arguments in favor of being a sadistic murdering stealing bastard he presented arguments that countered those with which moral philosophers argued for virtue. Ayn Rand, on the other hand, simply portrays any character who holds beliefs that she herself does not espouse as complete idiots, and then she manipulates the plot so that they're always wrong.

Rather like how on the Cosby show there was a heirarchy of being right according to age, race, and gender, Ayn Rand enacts a similar one based only on greediness. Rearden is greedy, ergo his metallurgy is better than those who went with the more namby pamby approach of actually learning about chemistry and geology. Similarly the woman who runs the train company uses her superb business acumen to design superior bridges. Sure she has engineers for that, but they only know about such impractical liberal arts as metalurgy and mathematics (you know, engineering and such) so they doesn't understand the practicalities of such down to Earth affairs as engineering. If Aurthur Conan Doyle had enacted a similar approach to his stories every Sherlock Holmes mystery would have concluded with "Well Watson, I became suspicious when I saw him beating her to death with a lead pipe, but it was not until he screamed out "I killed the rotten bitch, I killed her dead ahahahahahah!" that I became certain.

How's that for a reason to think that Ayn Rand sucks?

[INDENT][QUOTE=Sussudio #26]

Some simple contentions:

If you base a society on "democracy" you will get mob rule eventually.
If you base a society on "property" you will get sensible democracy eventually.

Why is the first contention sensible? Because any society "BASED" on voting (pure majority rule) is at the whim of it's majority and the "group think" of that majority.

Why the second? Because any society "BASED" on property makes it's individual members consider their own self interests which makes them "conservative" in their interactions with "the people".[/FONT][/COLOR]

Society based on property does not make for democracy, and only the idiots who wrote The Pink Swastika believe that fascism is leftist. Communism is the ultimate over-the-cliff leftism and fascism is the over-the-cliff end to the right.

Society based on democracy eventually makes for sensible government as people start to realize that they can't always be sure that they will be in the majority in every instance and start to enact laws to protect minorities to which they may one day belong. Not just racial or ethnic minorities but also philosophical minorities like "people who want abortions" or "people who need more healthcare than they can afford."

Society based on property is feudalism, pure and simple. The basis of feudal society was that one guy owns all the local resources and if you want to benifit from them you have to do what he tells you. Work for him using his stuff or you fight for him to protect his stuff.

Eg. Walmart comes to town and drives everyone out of business. As the only business in town they're the only source of employment. In a purely property based society businesses would still only pay people with company vouchers for use only in the company store, and would only pay people less than it costs them to live so that they end up working for free. That's what happens with feudalism and it's what happens with unregulated capitalism. Fascism just means that a powerful government steps in and says that all of that is just fine.

[QUOTE=Sussudio #26]
I'd like to remind everybody that the right to vote is what makes a democracy. If there is no voting there is not democracy. You could theoretically have a democracy with no freedom of speech, religion or any of our basic rights, we could not, however have a democracy without voting.

This article is a very poorly stated argument, but I would agree with the title of the forum. But the right to vote is necessary in a democracy, so you could change the title to:

wait for it.....
....
...
....

America great due to freedom, not DEMOCRACY!

OMG, he didn't just denounce democracy did he?

And that's the POINT, you nit. (Secondarily, VOTING does not equal DEMOCRACY.)

America is great due PRIMARILY to it's freedom, not because of it's democracy..!

The democracy SUPPORTS the FREEDOM, and evolved out of the freedom, not the other way around.

The idiot left (aka fascists [see previous posts regarding this eqation of leftist with fascist]) would have us believe that America is great because FREEDOM supports DEMOCRACY.

Actually, the left would rather say that FREEDOM undercuts DEMOCRACY, but that is another thing to talk about.

Democracy, as pure democracy, is (equates to) mob rule. Minorites are utterly at the mercy of the majority. It is still "democracy", but it is NOT a good thing.

Some simple contentions:

If you base a society on "democracy" you will get mob rule eventually.
If you base a society on "property" you will get sensible democracy eventually.

Why is the first contention sensible? Because any society "BASED" on voting (pure majority rule) is at the whim of it's majority and the "group think" of that majority.

Why the second? Because any society "BASED" on property makes it's individual members consider their own self interests which makes them "conservative" in their interactions with "the people".


No, it is you who are wrong, I had planned a follow up post where I stated that I wasn't denouncing democracy, as my post and the original post were both simplistic statements.

Sure, America is great because of its freedom, not because of its democracy. However, it is that democracy that gives us the opportunity and responsibility to protect our freedoms. Social change and new liberties are granted through the government, which through voting is granted power by the people. The freedom taken away from the German and Russian people during the first half of this century is a prime example of what happens when people don't protect themselves with the vote.

Freedom makes this country great, but voting insures that freedom. That's the point, you nit.

because if decisions are made which affect you and you have no say in them, you are not free - you are a slave, a thing to be ordered around.

You are a slave only if you allow yourself to be a slave. If you live in a place where what you and your like-minded bretheren do not have enough say in your lives, I suggest you physically do something about it.

Freedom is fought for and MADE, not given. If you don't have it, create it.

what does that have to do with anything? the means of getting freedom has nothing to do with the determination of whether some particular situation we are examining exhibits the qualities we call "freedom".

[QUOTE=Domici #29]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Why..!?

Is it the ponderous writing style..?
Is it your immature understanding of the issues involved..?
Is it that she isn't cool like Britney..!?


I don't claim to speak for onion pirate, but his contention that Ayn Rand sucks is probably due to the fact that she's a pseudo-philosopher with a grasp of political and even financial reality that's about as firmly grounded as dandilion fluff.

There are only two works of absurd self-indulgence that I had to stop reading because of their stupidity. One was Marquis de Sade's praise of pure self-interest Julliette. The other was Ayn Rand's similar work Atlas Shrugged. It can be said in de Sade's defense that he did not have the benifit of Darwinian theory, a crude intuitive understanding of which was the basis of much of his philosophy, and that he was completly insane. Ayn Rand has no such excuses.

It is patently obvious to anyone who is not already wedded to the idea that unalloyed capitalism is a flawlessly self regulating principle (a notion that even a casual, yet informed, observation of world affairs would render obsolete) that her "philosophy" is nothing more than a self-indulgent self-justification for being a greedy self-centered sow. Similar defenses of greed were common during the decline of the Roman Empire, and because it was so obvious that unobstructed greed was a bad thing for the Empire there was a lot of intrest in proving that this was not the case.

The moral defenses that she sets forth for greed in Atlas Shrugged are as thin as Anne Coulter. At least when de Sade presented moral arguments in favor of being a sadistic murdering stealing bastard he presented arguments that countered those with which moral philosophers argued for virtue. Ayn Rand, on the other hand, simply portrays any character who holds beliefs that she herself does not espouse as complete idiots, and then she manipulates the plot so that they're always wrong.

Rather like how on the Cosby show there was a heirarchy of being right according to age, race, and gender, Ayn Rand enacts a similar one based only on greediness. Rearden is greedy, ergo his metallurgy is better than those who went with the more namby pamby approach of actually learning about chemistry and geology. Similarly the woman who runs the train company uses her superb business acumen to design superior bridges. Sure she has engineers for that, but they only know about such impractical liberal arts as metalurgy and mathematics (you know, engineering and such) so they doesn't understand the practicalities of such down to Earth affairs as engineering. If Aurthur Conan Doyle had enacted a similar approach to his stories every Sherlock Holmes mystery would have concluded with "Well Watson, I became suspicious when I saw him beating her to death with a lead pipe, but it was not until he screamed out "I killed the rotten bitch, I killed her dead ahahahahahah!" that I became certain.

How's that for a reason to think that Ayn Rand sucks?

That's pretty good indeed..!

I find your reasoning to be a series of assertions of opinion informed by your efite snobbery and "obvious superior intellect".

Your "..it is generally assumed.." phraseology is right out of the book. You are an excellent example of the "impotent mediocratic intelligencia".

Too bad you didn't enjoy the book.

I am immensly.

[QUOTE=Domici #30]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo

Some simple contentions:

If you base a society on "democracy" you will get mob rule eventually.
If you base a society on "property" you will get sensible democracy eventually.

Why is the first contention sensible? Because any society "BASED" on voting (pure majority rule) is at the whim of it's majority and the "group think" of that majority.

Why the second? Because any society "BASED" on property makes it's individual members consider their own self interests which makes them "conservative" in their interactions with "the people".



Society based on property does not make for democracy, and only the idiots who wrote The Pink Swastika believe that fascism is leftist. Communism is the ultimate over-the-cliff leftism and fascism is the over-the-cliff end to the right.

I call all communism fascist. By definition. Perhaps that's just my definition, but that's MY definition. You're more than free to disagree.


Society based on democracy eventually makes for sensible government as people start to realize that they can't always be sure that they will be in the majority in every instance and start to enact laws to protect minorities to which they may one day belong. Not just racial or ethnic minorities but also philosophical minorities like "people who want abortions" or "people who need more healthcare than they can afford."

Democracy is a tool to help the governors. Democracy evolves out of having something TO protect, not protecting something you don't have.


Society based on property is feudalism, pure and simple. The basis of feudal society was that one guy owns all the local resources and if you want to benifit from them you have to do what he tells you. Work for him using his stuff or you fight for him to protect his stuff.

And feudalism is the result of leftism/fascism. Society based on INDIVIDUAL property rights gives (did you catch the INDIVIDUAL there?) gives it's members something to strive and justly interact FOR.


Eg. Walmart comes to town and drives everyone out of business. As the only business in town they're the only source of employment. In a purely property based society businesses would still only pay people with company vouchers for use only in the company store, and would only pay people less than it costs them to live so that they end up working for free. That's what happens with feudalism and it's what happens with unregulated capitalism. Fascism just means that a powerful government steps in and says that all of that is just fine.

And all the peope of the town would, if they were what we might call HUMAN, move away to somewhere with better opportunities.

And if there were no better places to move to, or it was "forbidden" to move outside to a better place, then we'd have communism/fascism.

And those people would eventually revolt, or be helped by someone from outside their territory (who would undoubtedly be capitalistic/real) and change their conditions.

An I actually promoting violence over servitude. Damned Right..!

[QUOTE=Sussudio #31]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
[QUOTE=Sussudio #26]
I'd like to remind everybody that the right to vote is what makes a democracy. If there is no voting there is not democracy. You could theoretically have a democracy with no freedom of speech, religion or any of our basic rights, we could not, however have a democracy without voting.

This article is a very poorly stated argument, but I would agree with the title of the forum. But the right to vote is necessary in a democracy, so you could change the title to:

wait for it.....
....
...
....

America great due to freedom, not DEMOCRACY!

OMG, he didn't just denounce democracy did he?

And that's the POINT, you nit. (Secondarily, VOTING does not equal DEMOCRACY.)

America is great due PRIMARILY to it's freedom, not because of it's democracy..!

The democracy SUPPORTS the FREEDOM, and evolved out of the freedom, not the other way around.

The idiot left (aka fascists [see previous posts regarding this eqation of leftist with fascist]) would have us believe that America is great because FREEDOM supports DEMOCRACY.

Actually, the left would rather say that FREEDOM undercuts DEMOCRACY, but that is another thing to talk about.

Democracy, as pure democracy, is (equates to) mob rule. Minorites are utterly at the mercy of the majority. It is still "democracy", but it is NOT a good thing.

Some simple contentions:

If you base a society on "democracy" you will get mob rule eventually.
If you base a society on "property" you will get sensible democracy eventually.

Why is the first contention sensible? Because any society "BASED" on voting (pure majority rule) is at the whim of it's majority and the "group think" of that majority.

Why the second? Because any society "BASED" on property makes it's individual members consider their own self interests which makes them "conservative" in their interactions with "the people".



No, it is you who are wrong, I had planned a follow up post where I stated that I wasn't denouncing democracy, as my post and the original post were both simplistic statements.

Sure, America is great because of its freedom, not because of its democracy. However, it is that democracy that gives us the opportunity and responsibility to protect our freedoms. Social change and new liberties are granted through the government, which through voting is granted power by the people. The freedom taken away from the German and Russian people during the first half of this century is a prime example of what happens when people don't protect themselves with the vote.

Freedom makes this country great, but voting insures that freedom. That's the point, you nit.

Sorry about the "nit" thing, Jennine..! :) <Ghostbusters reference>

I absolutely agree with you. Our democracy (WE developed our brand of it and grew it) evolved from our "framers" desire to protect a society that they understood was based primarily on property rights.

Voting is good. But if the underlying reality of property rights is not there, then there is no society other than in the image of an intellectual overlord who controls all things.

Once again,.. the left would have voting without freedom. That is a recipe for societal collapse. Voting is great. Freedom is greater.

[QUOTE=Free Soviets #32]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Free Soviets
because if decisions are made which affect you and you have no say in them, you are not free - you are a slave, a thing to be ordered around.


You are a slave only if you allow yourself to be a slave. If you live in a place where what you and your like-minded bretheren do not have enough say in your lives, I suggest you physically do something about it.

Freedom is fought for and MADE, not given. If you don't have it, create it.


what does that have to do with anything? the means of getting freedom has nothing to do with the determination of whether some particular situation we are examining exhibits the qualities we call "freedom".

Please clarify your words, as they are meaningless. (typical leftist)

And are you still shift-keyless..!?

Poor baby.... :D

*ahem*

The appointed place at the appointed time, Iakeokeo? You're running late, and the crowd is restless.

[QUOTE=Free Soviets #32]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Free Soviets
because if decisions are made which affect you and you have no say in them, you are not free - you are a slave, a thing to be ordered around.


You are a slave only if you allow yourself to be a slave. If you live in a place where what you and your like-minded bretheren do not have enough say in your lives, I suggest you physically do something about it.

Freedom is fought for and MADE, not given. If you don't have it, create it.


what does that have to do with anything? the means of getting freedom has nothing to do with the determination of whether some particular situation we are examining exhibits the qualities we call "freedom".
It does, if the quality of "freedom" is a state of mind.

I gotta go, chickenshit. You wimped out like a young George Bush, BTW, and as a result your cred just dropped a few more points.

Go on, respond in 200-point rainbow coloured fonts, telling anyone not lapsed into a state of coma by your unending drivel about how leftists are threatening to make seem even more stiff and pretentious than you really are.

Pig.

I think Ayn Rand is making too much out of the statement by Clinton.

Clinton obviously said that just to ask people to go and vote.

America is great due to lots of stuff.

I absolutely agree with you. Our democracy (WE developed our brand of it and grew it) evolved from our "framers" desire to protect a society that they understood was based primarily on property rights.

Voting is good. But if the underlying reality of property rights is not there, then there is no society other than in the image of an intellectual overlord who controls all things.

Once again,.. the left would have voting without freedom. That is a recipe for societal collapse. Voting is great. Freedom is greater.[/FONT][/COLOR]


We seem to agree quite a bit, but I still don't understand your opinion that the left wants voting without freedom.

You made a good point responding to me, but it seems that most of your arguments on here seem to fall back on telling the person that they consider themselves members of the "intelligencia" and then claiming that they aren't intelligent.

You seem intelligent but you give up on logic and resort to fallacies too easily.

That would be correct. My definition of fascism is my own, probably not the academic norm, and as all political definitions, as valid as any other. If you have any questions regarding my definition simply ask. Preferably simple questions, please (not necessarily "simple" as in "little bus" but simple as in "as un-complex as possible" as those will get clearer answers :) ).

It seems odd to me that an "absolute political authority" would not also have "absolute property authority" over his "subjects". What was the confiscation of jewish property about if not the absolute ruler(s) "right" to "his" property, as the jews were not of "his" people..?
I would not call it merely "not the academic norm," but absurd. It would be like me defining the term "socialist" to mean "a society in which economic intercourse goes unregulated."

Facism was in no small part a reaction against communism, and largely defined itself therefore in opposition to it and "free" systems. Nevertheless, please state your definition clearly and explicitly. I'm curious what makes you choose to redefine such a frequently used word completely.
Those who profess communistic principles seldom live by them. Even as a thought experiment, redistribution of resources to "unworthy targets" (those things that one would consider a waste of resources) are almost never what people would do, although that is precisely what "property haters" would force upon those with property.
You again fail to explain yourself clearly. Considered a waste of resources by whom? The socialist does not view funding public health care as a "waste of resources," but you might. Nearly anyone, given authority, will allocate resources to what they consider important (i.e., not a waste), but priorities vastly differ. Given undelegatable authority, I would not allocate any resources to what I consider "wasteful" or "unworthy targets," but my definitions vary wildly.
"The fundamental right of determination" means, to me, that I may do and say what I please at all times, and be rewarded or punished for my actions as the society around me sees fit.
Ah. Then society may perfectly justifiably "punish" you by removing from you anything you consider private property. There we have it from your own mouth... communism is a form of libertarianism, no?

This reduces to no more than the statement that you have free will.
There can be no "guarantee" of being listened to. There can only be a guarantee that if my will is to speak up, nothing can stop me from trying.
Except someone else excersizing their will not to listen, or to shoot you in the back of the head, or hire someone else to keep you locked in a small soundproof booth? You may as well then live in an absolute dictatorship for all the determination you insist upon. Or the Matrix in that particularly hole-ridden film.

The right of owning property IS freedom, as otherwise freedom is an arbitrary and meaningless word. There is no "freedom in general".
Life? Pursuit of happiness? Not rotting in a cell somewhere? The only "freedom" of owning private property is to deprive others freedom of action.

Your "right of determination" IS indeed precisely defined as (and only as) "free will". The only right(s) you have is your free will. Even encased in concrete you still, and only, have the right to use your mind and will.
Actually, this is what your definition is. I recommend that you read mine again, because there are some subtleties that you missed. There is, to put it elegantly, a certain respect of that will involved.

About consensus: If you base society on an arbitrary consensus, as opposed to the observable universe, then you can justify anything. And the consequences of your arbitrariness are things that you would find most unpleasant.
Consensus is anything but arbitrary, and has very little to do with the observable universe. Now, if you think I, living in a society operated on the basis of absolute consensus for moral and functional decisions, will come across some new moral/functional rule that I find unpleasant, one of four things has happened. Either I have left this "perfect consensus" society, this unpleasantness is nonetheless something which I find morally justified, I have chosen to arbitrarily change what I consider unpleasant, or I have literally encountered unconsidered circumstances (a rather unusual thing that could occur in any society.)

Arbitrary as in private property, which also has little to do with the "real" observable universe either? That's a very arbitrary basis when you trace its roots.


Well, let's see ...

The "un-American" part is that the "MOST IMPORTANT" right and source of America's greatness is the "right to vote".
Voting is a good thing, but not the most important thing. The most important thing is our freedom, and that freedom is concretized as "property ownership".
Without the freedom to own, to have concrete freedom, voting is a meaningless excercise in conversation.
I reiterate that I disagree with the conclusions cited, of course, but I see how he may well have meant that.

He is refereing to "pure democracy". The total rule of the majority. The rule under which all minorities would be hopelessly persecuted. The rule of the mob.
He does not use the term "pure democracy," he uses the very general term of "democracy," and applies direct democracy in very specific sense for the sake of his argument. (A simple majority can pass whatever law they wish right then and there.)

You'll have to explain, obviously, how you feel the right of property infringes on all other (or however many you choose) rights, as I see that as silly.
Life: With food, shelter, and water all considered property, the right to do whatsoever one wishes with it produces the right to produce starvation, hypothermia, and exposure in the rest of the population.
Liberty: With land considered property, the very physical movement of the human body is restricted.
Determination: To consider private property and the completely "free" manipulation thereof a right is both to place severe restrictions on what sorts of determination are possible, particularly about what. In addition, there is no part of the "right" of private property that bars humans from being private property, i.e., absolutely subject by the "right" of property to the will of another. Both of these conflicts have come to light a great deal over the course of history, although the former only truly publicly, consciously, and identifiably in recent years.

Consensus gives us our laws. Laws are the antithesis of freedom. Laws are (or should be) only restrictive in nature. Laws do not "give" us rights, they restrict them. Freedom must be concrete to be real. The only reality (real things) IS reality, which in this physical universe is property.

Freedom in principle is "free will". Freedom in reality is property.
Ownership isn't a physical property and has no basis in physical reality. Private property is a purely arbitrary determination, and nothing short of law in and of itself. As a set of laws, private property fits your description of laws reasonably well - better than most laws, in fact.

Life, death, physical mobility, and even speech, however, are very physically measurable things, and all are closely and positively tied to the expression of free will, which is restricted by the "right" of private property.

My freedom of speach also includes my freedom of silence as well. There are alway at least three sides to an issue: The third side is responsibility: Since I do Not care which politician takes the office, then I am bound by the responsibility not to vote.


Amen!!!!

Today's politicians want subsidies for farmers--by forcing non-farmers to pay for them; prescription drugs for the elderly--by forcing the non-elderly to pay for them; housing for the homeless--by forcing the non-homeless to pay for it. The more "democratic" our government becomes, the more we cannibalize our liberty, ultimately to the detriment of all.

This Election Day, therefore, we should reject those who wish to reduce our republic to mob rule. Instead, we should vote for those, to whatever extent they can be found, who are defenders of the essence of America: individual freedom.
Yeah, vote Badnarik! :rolleyes:

I don't think there is anything wrong with a little mandatory compassion, ("housing for the homeless--by forcing the non-homeless to pay for it"). I don't regard freedom from taxes as a right that overrides the right to shelter.

I gotta go, chickenshit. You wimped out like a young George Bush, BTW, and as a result your cred just dropped a few more points.

Go on, respond in 200-point rainbow coloured fonts, telling anyone not lapsed into a state of coma by your unending drivel about how leftists are threatening to make seem even more stiff and pretentious than you really are.

Pig.

Why would he expect someone to come get involved in a stupid argument. If Iakeokeo would have gone there you would have wasted your time and accomplished nothing. If anyone wants to debate, say it, but don't just call out somebody to an argument.

The adolescent can dream of ruling the land, but until adulthood (the great rightward shift) he will be a child.
Not everyone turns into a libertarian when they get older. Live with that.

I gotta go, chickenshit. You wimped out like a young George Bush, BTW, and as a result your cred just dropped a few more points.

Go on, respond in 200-point rainbow coloured fonts, telling anyone not lapsed into a state of coma by your unending drivel about how leftists are threatening to make seem even more stiff and pretentious than you really are.

Pig.

Dobbs Town, please refrain from flaming and trolling. Even if you may believe Iak to be the scum at the bottom of the pond, we have something called "rules" in these forums, which ask that you remain polite. I have nothing against calling him out for a public debate, but politeness is the rule here.

What I hate is those people who try to tell me I cant complain if I dont vote.
They operate under the assumption that everybody falls under the label of "Domocrat" or "Republican." It's total bull! If I dont wanna cast my vote to either one, is my opinion any less valid?
If you don't vote don't complain. If you don't like Democrats or Republicans vote for a third party.

If you don't vote don't complain. If you don't like Democrats or Republicans vote for a third party.
It's quite possible he doesn't like any of the third parties either (and Nader has been disqualified from many ballots). If a person chooses not to vote in protest, I can understand that.

It's more apathy that I don't care for.

Oh, yes, and that reminds me that the rest of you could use a reminder...

The adolescent can dream of ruling the land, but until adulthood (the great rightward shift) he will be a child.

I'll put it bluntly for all who can't understand: No flaming. If you are unclear on what flaming means, it can be clarified.

Without the right to property, we don't have the right to much of anything. Can I feel safe and secure in a place that I call home, but in reality is "the people's" property? No. "My" car? "My" business?

http://www.aynrand.org/
If you agree with this article surely you cannot agree with US government or state attempts to ban gay marriage?

If you agree with this article surely you cannot agree with US government or state attempts to ban gay marriage?


I absolutely disagree with state and federal attempts to ban gay marriage. In the civil sense, marriage is no more than a contract with understood obligations on both parties. Banning gay marriage is just the government trying to support certain religious concepts of that contract.

If you don't vote don't complain. If you don't like Democrats or Republicans vote for a third party.
Oh no. It's the American way to vote for a potential winner, not a sure loser. ;-)

Third parties always run sure quacks....Badnarik, Nader, Petrouka, Cobb or whatever his name is. Those parties won't gain respectability until they respect themselves enough to have decent candidates.

That's pretty good indeed..!

I find your reasoning to be a series of assertions of opinion informed by your efite snobbery and "obvious superior intellect".

Your "..it is generally assumed.." phraseology is right out of the book. You are an excellent example of the "impotent mediocratic intelligencia".

Too bad you didn't enjoy the book.

I am immensly.


You are immensly? Does that mean you're very fat? It's about the only possible interpretation of of a proclomation that you exist immensly.

Your response is typical of Randian neo-cons. When people don't present a well reasoned argument for their disagreement with you, you just tell them that they're uninformed as you did with Onion Pirate's concise and accurate review of Ayn Rand.

So then I provide you with several criticisms of her work and all you can do is insult my character, about which you know nothing, yet you yourself are impotent to defend the work you seem to adore. You have offered not one defense of her philosophy except to say that you like it, which is no defense at all.

So do you have anything with which to back of your fondness for Objectivism or the insults you toss around so casually at those who criticize it? If you're going to call someone an effete snob you ought to have something to back it up with. I realize logical thought and literacy are seen as signs of weakness and irrelevance in many parts of this country, but Ayn Rand herself is one of the most outspoken critics of that sort of bumpkin anti-intellectualism, even if she is completly inept at defending her position.

[QUOTE=Domici]Your response is typical of Randian neo-cons. When people don't present a well reasoned argument for their disagreement with you, you just tell them that they're uninformed as you did with Onion Pirate's concise and accurate review of Ayn Rand.[QUOTE]

Since when has neoconservatism and Objectivism gone hand-in-hand? Hmmm...must be a new development....

Oh, yes, and that reminds me that the rest of you could use a reminder...

Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
The adolescent can dream of ruling the land, but until adulthood (the great rightward shift) he will be a child.

I'll put it bluntly for all who can't understand: No flaming. If you are unclear on what flaming means, it can be clarified.
This is not necessarily flaming, though I could be wrong.

It makes a point I find valid, as I have found that in my own lifetime I have moved from a very idealistic and left-wing attitude as a youth rightward, to what I consider a more centred understanding of people and their politics. I wouldn't call myself right-wing, but I am more conservative in my old age.

In my youth I believed in miracles. I thought everyone could live together in harmony, like on the Coke commercials ("I'd like to teach the world to sing..."). My heart cried out for the down-trodden masses, and communism (the ideal, not the Marxist practice) seemed like a pretty fair distribution of labour and resources. Age opens the eyes of people like me. I still feel the above, but it's tempered by common sense. Miracles are replaced by hard work and effort; harmony by cooperation and compromise; sharing the wealth with a need to survive the bottom of the totem pole; and sometimes it is necessary to be cruel to be kind, as in the case of hard-line sanctions of resources as a form of political punishment/coercion.

If you don't vote don't complain. If you don't like Democrats or Republicans vote for a third party.

A better way to go about it is to get involved in the primary elections.
African Americans turned the Democrats from the party of Jim Crowe to the party of civil rights by getting involved in the primaries. It is true that candidates will always try to be as much like their opponent as possible in the campaign to cut into their share of the voters, just like how all the ice cream trucks always show up at the same spot on the beach instead of spreading out, but if more people become active in the primaries you force their hand ahead of time.

If republicans payed more attention to their primaries then they might have a candidate that actually does something to prevent abortions and gay civil rights instead of just passing token legislation that does nothing but those things a pain in the ass. Democrats might end up with someone who is really in favor of socialized medicine and drug reform instead of someone who "promises to look at all of the scientific research once elected," which is something that every president since Nixon has done with marijuana still classified as a schedule 1 drug with no medical uses.

People: Two parties have Decided that you must decide between two candidates for an office that does matter only as a symbol: Regardless of who is chosen, the STATE will go on. We are long past the heroes that created the USA, and they were nothing but a bunch of rebels.

Since when has neoconservatism and Objectivism gone hand-in-hand? Hmmm...must be a new development....

neocomservatism nominally favors unrestrained capitalism and touts the belief that capiltalism is self-regulating. Those who espouse this idea are well aware that it is a load of crap, unlike Ayn Rand, but the economic philosophy that they espouse draws heavily on her arguments.

They both argue that unrestrained capitalism will lead those in control of the market forces to do what is in the best intrests of the consumer because otherwise their market share will suffer. This doesn't work, just take a look at the ice cream allegory that explains both business forces and political ones.

Two ice-cream trucks let's call their drivers Bob and Jim,set up shop on a 5 mile stretch of beach. Ideally they should park at mile marker 2 and mile marker 4. This means that half of the beach population will have to walk no more than a mile and a half to get to one truck or the other and the market is split exactly down the middle. So Bob sees that if he moves a little closer to Jim he'll have a market share of .6 instead of .5. Jim notices this and so he moves a little closer to the middle to get a market share of .5 and then goes a little further to get .6 for good measure. Eventually both ice cream men are in the middle and neither one has increased his market share. But now customers at mile markers 1 and 5 have to walk two and a half miles instead of one. This principle makes democrats just like rebuplicans, Burger King just like McDonalds, and Starbucks just like New World Coffee.

[QUOTE=TJHairball #18]
[INDENT]Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
In a fascist state (a statist state) the uber-thing (be it a dictator or dictatorial commitee) owns everything.

There is no ownership but that given by the uber-thing. Fascists will not tolerate private property.

I may readily guess that you have a strange definition of facism, or that you confuse it somehow with Stalinist statist communism.

"I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.' "

-- Through the Looking Glass

neocomservatism nominally favors unrestrained capitalism and touts the belief that capiltalism is self-regulating. Those who espouse this idea are well aware that it is a load of crap, unlike Ayn Rand, but the economic philosophy that they espouse draws heavily on her arguments.

They both argue that unrestrained capitalism will lead those in control of the market forces to do what is in the best intrests of the consumer because otherwise their market share will suffer. This doesn't work, just take a look at the ice cream allegory that explains both business forces and political ones..

Frankly, the argument that neoconservatives favor unrestrained capitalism is false on its face. Neoconservatism distinguishes itself from classical conservatism in its acceptance of the welfare state, among other things. Many of the intellectual founders are in no way, shape, or form laissez-faire capitalists, but ex Marxists.

Two ice-cream trucks let's call their drivers Bob and Jim,set up shop on a 5 mile stretch of beach. Ideally they should park at mile marker 2 and mile marker 4. This means that half of the beach population will have to walk no more than a mile and a half to get to one truck or the other and the market is split exactly down the middle. So Bob sees that if he moves a little closer to Jim he'll have a market share of .6 instead of .5. Jim notices this and so he moves a little closer to the middle to get a market share of .5 and then goes a little further to get .6 for good measure. Eventually both ice cream men are in the middle and neither one has increased his market share. But now customers at mile markers 1 and 5 have to walk two and a half miles instead of one. This principle makes democrats just like rebuplicans, Burger King just like McDonalds, and Starbucks just like New World Coffee.

This allegory is a little too basic to prove much of anything, much less how unrestrained capitalism is a failure. There are more variables involved than the location of the ice cream trucks relative to beach population.

I call all communism fascist. By definition. Perhaps that's just my definition, but that's MY definition. You're more than free to disagree.

These words already have definitions. You can no sooner expect us to accept your definitions than you can expect us to debate you in a foreign language. That's how language works.

Communism - A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

Fascism - a)A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
b)A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.

Democracy is a tool to help the governors. Democracy evolves out of having something TO protect, not protecting something you don't have
Government isn't about protecting. It's about making sure that things get done. Usually the best way to get people to do things is to make sure that they want to. Best way to do that is make sure there's a reward in it for them. Protecting rights is not the purpose of government merely a good idea for government to keep in mind.


And feudalism is the result of leftism/fascism. Society based on INDIVIDUAL property rights gives (did you catch the INDIVIDUAL there?) gives it's members something to strive and justly interact FOR.

No, Feudalism is based on anarchy. That's why any security you have you have to buy it from knights or private security guards. That same system becomes fascism when the people who were forced to pay downwards to private citizens for their security now have to pay upwards to a unifying government.


And all the peope of the town would, if they were what we might call HUMAN, move away to somewhere with better opportunities.

And if there were no better places to move to, or it was "forbidden" to move outside to a better place, then we'd have communism/fascism.

And those people would eventually revolt, or be helped by someone from outside their territory (who would undoubtedly be capitalistic/real) and change their conditions.

An I actually promoting violence over servitude. Damned Right..!

No, we would not have communism/fascism, we'd have fascism. It would be communism if the government either bought out, or simply nationalized the Walmart company. It's fascism if the government enacts laws that allow the company to do as it pleases without regard for the workers welfare. Communism and fascism are distinct ideas. Leninist communism resembled fascism strongly but you could easily have a communist democracy.

This allegory is a little too basic to prove much of anything, much less how unrestrained capitalism is a failure. There are more variables involved than the location of the ice cream trucks relative to beach population.

Allegories don't prove they demonstrate.
The proof is the fact that the same principle seems to hold true even in very complicated systems.
If you want proof that unrestrained capitalism is a failure you have to look at it. You can't look here, we're a mixed economy, not a capitalist one. We had to become a mixed economy because the less restrained one failed. The closest we came to unrestrained capitalism was just before the great depression. But even then we had isolationist policies.

Allegories don't prove they demonstrate.
The proof is the fact that the same principle seems to hold true even in very complicated systems.
If you want proof that unrestrained capitalism is a failure you have to look at it. You can't look here, we're a mixed economy, not a capitalist one. We had to become a mixed economy because the less restrained one failed. The closest we came to unrestrained capitalism was just before the great depression. But even then we had isolationist policies.

There is no principle in the allegory you've presented. Business owners have at their disposal more options than just changing location.

Furthermore, the great depression was never caused by a lack of restraint in the market.

I gotta go, chickenshit. You wimped out like a young George Bush, BTW, and as a result your cred just dropped a few more points.

Go on, respond in 200-point rainbow coloured fonts, telling anyone not lapsed into a state of coma by your unending drivel about how leftists are threatening to make seem even more stiff and pretentious than you really are.

Pig.

Sorry (or "soory" for you Canadans [spelling intended] out there) for the delay. Stuff happens. :)

Anyway, where were we...?

Oh,.. Right,.. "leftists are threatening". True.

And yes, I am insufferably stiff (a quality the left rather likes, A LOT, if you know what I mean) and intolerably pretentious.

You left out, asshole-like and opinionated barbarian savage panty-knibbler,.. though you did include chickenshit, which would not be accurate in my case.

Your turn..! :D

I think Ayn Rand is making too much out of the statement by Clinton.

Clinton obviously said that just to ask people to go and vote.

America is great due to lots of stuff.

Hear hear..!! :D

Though,.. I don't quite get the connection between Ayn Rand and Clinton..?

What are you about with that..?

[QUOTE=Sussudio #41]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
I absolutely agree with you. Our democracy (WE developed our brand of it and grew it) evolved from our "framers" desire to protect a society that they understood was based primarily on property rights.

Voting is good. But if the underlying reality of property rights is not there, then there is no society other than in the image of an intellectual overlord who controls all things.

Once again,.. the left would have voting without freedom. That is a recipe for societal collapse. Voting is great. Freedom is greater.


We seem to agree quite a bit, but I still don't understand your opinion that the left wants voting without freedom.

You made a good point responding to me, but it seems that most of your arguments on here seem to fall back on telling the person that they consider themselves members of the "intelligencia" and then claiming that they aren't intelligent.

You seem intelligent but you give up on logic and resort to fallacies too easily.

I'm a very simple person. I will always fall back on what is for me a clarity. It usually becomes quite clear to me that most of the pompous (not that I'm NOT pompous) leftists base their thoughts on some recieved information from "on high" (from their "cell leader") and are thus regurgitating the ideas of their "intelligencia".

I just calls 'em like I sees 'em.

I'm not saying they aren't intelligent, just un-thinking,.. or more accurately, hyper-thinking, which is un-thinking disguised as hyperbolic rationalization.

The "left wants voting without freedom" thing: The left loves voting, as it is the tool to control the "majority", which is a tool most amenable to their noise. Freedom IS private (individual) property ownership, which is self-admittedly an evil to the left.

They want their manipulation tool (voting), but not that which brings society into having a real base on which to operate (property).

[QUOTE=Siljhouettes #44]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Today's politicians want subsidies for farmers--by forcing non-farmers to pay for them; prescription drugs for the elderly--by forcing the non-elderly to pay for them; housing for the homeless--by forcing the non-homeless to pay for it. The more "democratic" our government becomes, the more we cannibalize our liberty, ultimately to the detriment of all.

This Election Day, therefore, we should reject those who wish to reduce our republic to mob rule. Instead, we should vote for those, to whatever extent they can be found, who are defenders of the essence of America: individual freedom.


Yeah, vote Badnarik!

I don't think there is anything wrong with a little mandatory compassion, ("housing for the homeless--by forcing the non-homeless to pay for it"). I don't regard freedom from taxes as a right that overrides the right to shelter.

Hmmm,... I certainly didn't write that, as anyone here who knows my "style" will attest.

So who did write that..?

Thanks Silj..! :D

[QUOTE=TJHairball #42]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
That would be correct. My definition of fascism is my own, probably not the academic norm, and as all political definitions, as valid as any other. If you have any questions regarding my definition simply ask. Preferably simple questions, please (not necessarily "simple" as in "little bus" but simple as in "as un-complex as possible" as those will get clearer answers ).

It seems odd to me that an "absolute political authority" would not also have "absolute property authority" over his "subjects". What was the confiscation of jewish property about if not the absolute ruler(s) "right" to "his" property, as the jews were not of "his" people..?


I would not call it merely "not the academic norm," but absurd. It would be like me defining the term "socialist" to mean "a society in which economic intercourse goes unregulated."

Facism was in no small part a reaction against communism, and largely defined itself therefore in opposition to it and "free" systems. Nevertheless, please state your definition clearly and explicitly. I'm curious what makes you choose to redefine such a frequently used word completely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Those who profess communistic principles seldom live by them. Even as a thought experiment, redistribution of resources to "unworthy targets" (those things that one would consider a waste of resources) are almost never what people would do, although that is precisely what "property haters" would force upon those with property.


You again fail to explain yourself clearly. Considered a waste of resources by whom? The socialist does not view funding public health care as a "waste of resources," but you might. Nearly anyone, given authority, will allocate resources to what they consider important (i.e., not a waste), but priorities vastly differ. Given undelegatable authority, I would not allocate any resources to what I consider "wasteful" or "unworthy targets," but my definitions vary wildly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
"The fundamental right of determination" means, to me, that I may do and say what I please at all times, and be rewarded or punished for my actions as the society around me sees fit.


Ah. Then society may perfectly justifiably "punish" you by removing from you anything you consider private property. There we have it from your own mouth... communism is a form of libertarianism, no?

This reduces to no more than the statement that you have free will.

Quote:
There can be no "guarantee" of being listened to. There can only be a guarantee that if my will is to speak up, nothing can stop me from trying.


Except someone else excersizing their will not to listen, or to shoot you in the back of the head, or hire someone else to keep you locked in a small soundproof booth? You may as well then live in an absolute dictatorship for all the determination you insist upon. Or the Matrix in that particularly hole-ridden film.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
The right of owning property IS freedom, as otherwise freedom is an arbitrary and meaningless word. There is no "freedom in general".


Life? Pursuit of happiness? Not rotting in a cell somewhere? The only "freedom" of owning private property is to deprive others freedom of action.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Your "right of determination" IS indeed precisely defined as (and only as) "free will". The only right(s) you have is your free will. Even encased in concrete you still, and only, have the right to use your mind and will.


Actually, this is what your definition is. I recommend that you read mine again, because there are some subtleties that you missed. There is, to put it elegantly, a certain respect of that will involved.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
About consensus: If you base society on an arbitrary consensus, as opposed to the observable universe, then you can justify anything. And the consequences of your arbitrariness are things that you would find most unpleasant.


Consensus is anything but arbitrary, and has very little to do with the observable universe. Now, if you think I, living in a society operated on the basis of absolute consensus for moral and functional decisions, will come across some new moral/functional rule that I find unpleasant, one of four things has happened. Either I have left this "perfect consensus" society, this unpleasantness is nonetheless something which I find morally justified, I have chosen to arbitrarily change what I consider unpleasant, or I have literally encountered unconsidered circumstances (a rather unusual thing that could occur in any society.)

Arbitrary as in private property, which also has little to do with the "real" observable universe either? That's a very arbitrary basis when you trace its roots.


Well, let's see ...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
The "un-American" part is that the "MOST IMPORTANT" right and source of America's greatness is the "right to vote".
Voting is a good thing, but not the most important thing. The most important thing is our freedom, and that freedom is concretized as "property ownership".
Without the freedom to own, to have concrete freedom, voting is a meaningless excercise in conversation.


I reiterate that I disagree with the conclusions cited, of course, but I see how he may well have meant that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
He is refereing to "pure democracy". The total rule of the majority. The rule under which all minorities would be hopelessly persecuted. The rule of the mob.


He does not use the term "pure democracy," he uses the very general term of "democracy," and applies direct democracy in very specific sense for the sake of his argument. (A simple majority can pass whatever law they wish right then and there.)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
You'll have to explain, obviously, how you feel the right of property infringes on all other (or however many you choose) rights, as I see that as silly.


Life: With food, shelter, and water all considered property, the right to do whatsoever one wishes with it produces the right to produce starvation, hypothermia, and exposure in the rest of the population.
Liberty: With land considered property, the very physical movement of the human body is restricted.
Determination: To consider private property and the completely "free" manipulation thereof a right is both to place severe restrictions on what sorts of determination are possible, particularly about what. In addition, there is no part of the "right" of private property that bars humans from being private property, i.e., absolutely subject by the "right" of property to the will of another. Both of these conflicts have come to light a great deal over the course of history, although the former only truly publicly, consciously, and identifiably in recent years.

Quote:
Consensus gives us our laws. Laws are the antithesis of freedom. Laws are (or should be) only restrictive in nature. Laws do not "give" us rights, they restrict them. Freedom must be concrete to be real. The only reality (real things) IS reality, which in this physical universe is property.

Freedom in principle is "free will". Freedom in reality is property.


Ownership isn't a physical property and has no basis in physical reality. Private property is a purely arbitrary determination, and nothing short of law in and of itself. As a set of laws, private property fits your description of laws reasonably well - better than most laws, in fact.

Life, death, physical mobility, and even speech, however, are very physically measurable things, and all are closely and positively tied to the expression of free will, which is restricted by the "right" of private property.



Too big to deal with effectively.

But here goes anyway,.. as best this poor simpleton can manage. :)

Words are very inexact. If you have a specific question about what I mean by an individual word (or phrase) ask a specific question related to it. Not "huh..!?".

Don't be so hide-bound and academic. As I'm only a simple savage, consider who your talking to, and whether you're really interested in learning what I mean, or if you're just trying to make "JFKerry debating points".

Now,.. onto the meat:

"Fascist". I have described what I mean.

"Wasteful": Wasteful to he who has resources to allocate.

"Society perfectly justified in removing my private property": Correct, but I don't have to like it and will fight against it. The crux is the word "Justified".

"I have nothing more (inherently) than free will": Correct. That is all we can truly have that is not confiscatable.

"Killing me will shut me up": True. But I SAID that no one can take away my free will to TRY to speak up.

.."Life? Pursuit of happiness? Not rotting in a cell somewhere? The only "freedom" of owning private property is to deprive others freedom of action."..

I disagree. And am actually rather intrigued with your reasoning here. I see how being able to deny access to "what is mine" as restrictive, as is any law, but I don't see how that is a "human rights violation" any more than any other law.

"Right of determination": I stated my understanding of what that means to me. I don't understand your inference regarding "respect".

"Consensus not being arbitrary": A group of humans can "consense" on anything. It is therefore arbitrary. It is a whim of said humans.

"The un-reality of private property": All matters of society eventually come to someone's will and the concretizing of that will. That usually means physically. There can either be an agreement or disagreement of someone's will with another's will. Property makes that will real. The enforcement of that will draws the boundaries of society. It is on these boundaries that society organizes itself.

"Democracy": Pure democracy bad. Representative democracy good-er. :)

.."Life: With food, shelter, and water all considered property, the right to do whatsoever one wishes with it produces the right to produce starvation, hypothermia, and exposure in the rest of the population."..

The right to life, to me, means the right to exist, unless otherwise societally determined that you are to be denied that right. "Owners" who use food, shelter and water, for example, as weapons will be judged and sentenced to whatever their society sees fit punishment for doing so, as is any criminal.


.."Liberty: With land considered property, the very physical movement of the human body is restricted."..

A mountain range limits the movement of human bodies as well. So what? The fact that I can't jump to the moon is also a "terrible injustice", but I've come to live with it.


.."Determination: To consider private property and the completely "free" manipulation thereof a right is both to place severe restrictions on what sorts of determination are possible, particularly about what. In addition, there is no part of the "right" of private property that bars humans from being private property, i.e., absolutely subject by the "right" of property to the will of another. Both of these conflicts have come to light a great deal over the course of history, although the former only truly publicly, consciously, and identifiably in recent years."..

You must be a lawyer. :)

I certainly don't argue the "right to do anything" with anything, especially the right of property.

Once again, as a leftist, you carry ideas into the realm of un-reality in your pursuit of power of those within society. If you can justify your cadre for confiscating other's property, you "feel better" about satisfying your lust for absolute power.

.."Ownership isn't a physical property and has no basis in physical reality. Private property is a purely arbitrary determination, and nothing short of law in and of itself. As a set of laws, private property fits your description of laws reasonably well - better than most laws, in fact."..

Ownership is a reality in that the "violation" of said property begets punishment. WHAT one owns is arbitrary. THAT one ownes it is a function of one's abilty to enforce that ownership. You're right. As laws are always and only restrictive in nature, the restriction of ownership to it's owner is indeed a "law"-like thing.

And I find no problem with that. You do. That's fine.

.."Life, death, physical mobility, and even speech, however, are very physically measurable things, and all are closely and positively tied to the expression of free will, which is restricted by the "right" of private property."..

Those things (life, mobility, speech) are ENHANCED by the right to private property because it gives them an organizing "seed" to work with.

No thing in an eco-system operates without the bounds given it by it's eco-system. The "bounds" of private property are the impetus for the societal eco-system. No movement (evolution), or "bad" movement, happens without the structure of these bounds.

And since no "absolute freedom" is possible, the leftist rails against a non-existant foe.

The "left wants voting without freedom" thing: The left loves voting, as it is the tool to control the "majority", which is a tool most amenable to their noise. Freedom IS private (individual) property ownership, which is self-admittedly an evil to the left.

They want their manipulation tool (voting), but not that which brings society into having a real base on which to operate (property).
The liberal is Aquarius. They love voting because it gives each individual a voice. They cannot understand why anyone would not want to have a voice, to cast their ballot and speak their individual mind. The (Western) liberal extends this attitude to his property, which is an expression of his individualism.

The social democrat is similar, but Capricorn. The social democrat loves voting because it gives the people a voice. The people speaking in one united voice is freedom. The social democrat recognizes the necessity of individual property, but insists that that services that directly affect the masses be government owned and operated.

The communist is Pisces, snuggled safely in the womb of humanity. The communist needs for everyone be the same; comfort in familiarity, comfort in numbers. Voting upsets the order of things, it rocks the boat, causes upsets. In the same vein, property should be the same and familiar no matter where he goes. (Note, this is actually a conservative left-wing attitude.)

[QUOTE=Sussudio #45]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dobbs Town
I gotta go, chickenshit. You wimped out like a young George Bush, BTW, and as a result your cred just dropped a few more points.

Go on, respond in 200-point rainbow coloured fonts, telling anyone not lapsed into a state of coma by your unending drivel about how leftists are threatening to make seem even more stiff and pretentious than you really are.

Pig.


Why would he expect someone to come get involved in a stupid argument. If Iakeokeo would have gone there you would have wasted your time and accomplished nothing. If anyone wants to debate, say it, but don't just call out somebody to an argument.

Suss, I love arguments, as should be obvious.

Whether argumentors "accomplish anything" is for those interested in the argument to decide. If you don't find it interesting, why are you here?

I happened to have to go do something, which is why I "went AFK".

Dobbs's impatience and NEED to "KICK MY ASS" with his powerful arguments, and not having my ass around to do it to, just shows him to be the whiney little infantile leftist worm that he is.

Thanks for caring, though..! :D

[QUOTE=Siljhouettes #46]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
The adolescent can dream of ruling the land, but until adulthood (the great rightward shift) he will be a child.

Not everyone turns into a libertarian when they get older. Live with that.

Oh,.. but they do,.. many just supress it.. to appease their clique and retain their tenure in society..! :)

Thus the predominance of self hating academics and aged-hippies. Heh he he he...

[QUOTE=TJHairball #47]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dobbs Town
I gotta go, chickenshit. You wimped out like a young George Bush, BTW, and as a result your cred just dropped a few more points.

Go on, respond in 200-point rainbow coloured fonts, telling anyone not lapsed into a state of coma by your unending drivel about how leftists are threatening to make seem even more stiff and pretentious than you really are.

Pig.


Dobbs Town, please refrain from flaming and trolling. Even if you may believe Iak to be the scum at the bottom of the pond, we have something called "rules" in these forums, which ask that you remain polite. I have nothing against calling him out for a public debate, but politeness is the rule here.

This amazes me, as I've been immensely "rude", by most standards..!

It's nice to see that my "rudeness" is actually seen for what it is. Pointed provocative prodding.

And alliterative too..!! :D

[QUOTE=Chodolo #49]


__________________
Quote of the Day:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
As history progresses in the coming years, the "civilian" deaths of Iraq will be seen as a minor wound suitable for some bactine and a band-aid.

Thank you for the honor of my words being spread by your graciousness and sig.

You are a clever dick aren't you..! :)

[QUOTE=TJHairball #50]
Oh, yes, and that reminds me that the rest of you could use a reminder...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
The adolescent can dream of ruling the land, but until adulthood (the great rightward shift) he will be a child.

I'll put it bluntly for all who can't understand: No flaming. If you are unclear on what flaming means, it can be clarified.

A statement regarding the unrealistic aspirations of the common adolescent and his eventual gaining of wisdom is flaming..!!

I think it's you, TJ, that needs a re-education about the term FLAMING..!

(( I'm surrounded by idiots... ))

[QUOTE=Siljhouettes #52]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
http://www.aynrand.org/


If you agree with this article surely you cannot agree with US government or state attempts to ban gay marriage?

All legal aspects of what we now call marriage should be civil contract matters.

If 15 consenting leftists want to "group marry", that would be a wild contract, but it should be enforcable.

Just my whacked out opinion,... as is it is always.

And what the fnoort-dip is the obsession (OCD-like) with gay-freakin'-marriage..!?

Are all gays OCD sufferers..!?

Actually,.. I understand it's an important issue to you all, as it makes you feel more "normal" to strive to claim what you think should be yours, but you must realize how it makes you look.

But then,.. why should you care how you look..!? That's not your problem.

[QUOTE=TJHairball #50]
Oh, yes, and that reminds me that the rest of you could use a reminder...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
The adolescent can dream of ruling the land, but until adulthood (the great rightward shift) he will be a child.

I'll put it bluntly for all who can't understand: No flaming. If you are unclear on what flaming means, it can be clarified.

A statement regarding the unrealistic aspirations of the common adolescent and his eventual gaining of wisdom is flaming..!!

I think it's you, TJ, that needs a re-education about the term FLAMING..!

(( I'm surrounded by idiots... ))
Yes! now that would be a flame. ;-)

The right...

Libertarians are Aries. The self is all-important, especially the rights of the self and things that might endanger those rights. Freedom is the freedom to move the self, at to assert the self at will. If someone doesn't like it, they can just move away!

Republicans, at least the neo-conservatives ones, are Taurus. Stubborn, bull-headed adherence to tradition and "the way it used to be." Freedom as property would fit here, as value is found in possessions and family/friends (who are an extension of one's possessions).

And the conservative party, such as we have in Canada, is Cancer, with emotional roots buried in history, family and tradition. There is room for new ideas here, but they must always be weighed against what came before as a measure of their worth.

Yes! now that would be a flame. ;-)

Flame, no (unlike his previous comment under discussion). Accusation of gross incompetence on the part of one of the seniormost members of the NationStates moderation staff, yes. Unwise, perhaps, but I won't hold that against him personally.

[QUOTE=Domici #56]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Domici #29

Quote: Iakeokeo
That's pretty good indeed..!

I find your reasoning to be a series of assertions of opinion informed by your efite snobbery and "obvious superior intellect".

Your "..it is generally assumed.." phraseology is right out of the book. You are an excellent example of the "impotent mediocratic intelligencia".

Too bad you didn't enjoy the book.

I am immensly.



You are immensly? Does that mean you're very fat? It's about the only possible interpretation of of a proclomation that you exist immensly.

Your response is typical of Randian neo-cons. When people don't present a well reasoned argument for their disagreement with you, you just tell them that they're uninformed as you did with Onion Pirate's concise and accurate review of Ayn Rand.

So then I provide you with several criticisms of her work and all you can do is insult my character, about which you know nothing, yet you yourself are impotent to defend the work you seem to adore. You have offered not one defense of her philosophy except to say that you like it, which is no defense at all.

So do you have anything with which to back of your fondness for Objectivism or the insults you toss around so casually at those who criticize it? If you're going to call someone an effete snob you ought to have something to back it up with. I realize logical thought and literacy are seen as signs of weakness and irrelevance in many parts of this country, but Ayn Rand herself is one of the most outspoken critics of that sort of bumpkin anti-intellectualism, even if she is completly inept at defending her position.



Heh he he he..! As an isolated sentence "I am immensely." might mean I'm a porker (which I'm working toward as the years advance, though I started as a pretty small person, so it doesn't show quite so much :) ), but in combination with the preceeding sentences it's meaning should be rather obvious.

It means "I'm enjoying the book immensely."

Onion's review was fine. As I said. And his reasoned response, which I agree was indeed a reasoned response, was "..a series of assertions of opinion informed by your efite snobbery and 'obvious superior intellect'."

That's my opinion of the "character" behind the words written by Onion Pirates. Simple as that.

I don't need to "defend" Rand's work. As with any piece of artifice (art), I leave it up to the reader to judge for themselves. I merely say "Read the book, I find it interesting!"

I find it interesting because it illustrates the "creeping crud" of the left, in my opinion (AS ALWAYS!), and that's about it.

Therefore, as I said, and as illustrated rather well in the "trial" scene of Riordan, I choose not to defend that which needs no defense.

My "insults", by the way, are good humored jabs at my "opponents" meant specifically to piss them off. Purposefully. In my opinion, as always (I shall stop stating this from here on), insults are "accepted", not "inflicted".

If you think my piddly words "insult" you, then you accept the insult. You can not insult me, as I don't need to defend myself from your "insults". I merely need, and choose, to speak my mind.

Trading "..I know you are but what am I..!" is a bit too childish, even for me. :)

Do I sound like an "anti-intellectual"..!? :D

I actually use punctuation and the shift-key, as opposed to so very many so-called "intellectuals" in these forums.

The problem is not intellectuals,.. it is the "intelligencia" who feel the need to PREDIGEST information and CRAM their chosen mindset "down" into thier minions minds,.. as opposed to simply having conversations and pointing at things that they find interesting.

[QUOTE=Willamena #58]
Quote:
Originally Posted by TJHairball
Oh, yes, and that reminds me that the rest of you could use a reminder...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
The adolescent can dream of ruling the land, but until adulthood (the great rightward shift) he will be a child.



I'll put it bluntly for all who can't understand: No flaming. If you are unclear on what flaming means, it can be clarified.


This is not necessarily flaming, though I could be wrong.

It makes a point I find valid, as I have found that in my own lifetime I have moved from a very idealistic and left-wing attitude as a youth rightward, to what I consider a more centred understanding of people and their politics. I wouldn't call myself right-wing, but I am more conservative in my old age.

In my youth I believed in miracles. I thought everyone could live together in harmony, like on the Coke commercials ("I'd like to teach the world to sing..."). My heart cried out for the down-trodden masses, and communism (the ideal, not the Marxist practice) seemed like a pretty fair distribution of labour and resources. Age opens the eyes of people like me. I still feel the above, but it's tempered by common sense. Miracles are replaced by hard work and effort; harmony by cooperation and compromise; sharing the wealth with a need to survive the bottom of the totem pole; and sometimes it is necessary to be cruel to be kind, as in the case of hard-line sanctions of resources as a form of political punishment/coercion.

I cried like a baby IN PUBLIC when J. Lennon was killed. "Imagine" was a veritable anthem for me.

Then the universe, and not my (BAD) societal mythmakers, showed me (through science and nature study) that reality is more interesting, more just, and more "humane" than the preposterous goody-goody unreal nonsense of the left. The right never even tried to "influence" me, as it was too busy doing elsewhat.

Some may feel this to be "a shameful sell-out" and "giving up your ideals",.. but I choose to see it as an awakening from childish fairy-tales into a realm of real wonder.

..and thus, the journey right.

[QUOTE=Domici #61]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Friedmanville
Since when has neoconservatism and Objectivism gone hand-in-hand? Hmmm...must be a new development....


neocomservatism nominally favors unrestrained capitalism and touts the belief that capiltalism is self-regulating. Those who espouse this idea are well aware that it is a load of crap, unlike Ayn Rand, but the economic philosophy that they espouse draws heavily on her arguments.

They both argue that unrestrained capitalism will lead those in control of the market forces to do what is in the best intrests of the consumer because otherwise their market share will suffer. This doesn't work, just take a look at the ice cream allegory that explains both business forces and political ones.

Two ice-cream trucks let's call their drivers Bob and Jim,set up shop on a 5 mile stretch of beach. Ideally they should park at mile marker 2 and mile marker 4. This means that half of the beach population will have to walk no more than a mile and a half to get to one truck or the other and the market is split exactly down the middle. So Bob sees that if he moves a little closer to Jim he'll have a market share of .6 instead of .5. Jim notices this and so he moves a little closer to the middle to get a market share of .5 and then goes a little further to get .6 for good measure. Eventually both ice cream men are in the middle and neither one has increased his market share. But now customers at mile markers 1 and 5 have to walk two and a half miles instead of one. This principle makes democrats just like rebuplicans, Burger King just like McDonalds, and Starbucks just like New World Coffee.

In real life, one of them eventually goes out of business due to non-differentiation of product. Period.

Then, the one who goes out of business:

*) If he's a leftist,.. cries a lot and runs back to live with mommie.
*) If he's a rightist,.. starts a new business with a better business model.

There is no such thing as "unrestrained capital". It can not happen for long. While is IS happening, much drama ensues, and the press has something to sell their product with.

The leftist, as perfectly demonstrated by Domici here, lives in a world of academic isolated text-book cases.

That is not the real world. Thus, the left is never to be trusted with ANYTHING real.

..which is why they HATE property, by the way. It is the linchpin of capitalism, and the basis of ANY real society.

And "real societies" are not what they're about.

[QUOTE=Katganistan #62]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
[QUOTE=TJHairball #18]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
In a fascist state (a statist state) the uber-thing (be it a dictator or dictatorial commitee) owns everything.

There is no ownership but that given by the uber-thing. Fascists will not tolerate private property.

I may readily guess that you have a strange definition of facism, or that you confuse it somehow with Stalinist statist communism.



"I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.' "

-- Through the Looking Glass

Heh he he... PRECISELY..!! :D

The answer to Alice's question is YES..!

BUT,.. it is up to the parties using the words to decide if they REALLY want to know the meaning of the other's "usage", or just want to bash the "heretic" user about the head for being "evil"..!

Does Alice want to explore Humpty's meaning, or just dismiss him as a stupid egghead..!?

And does the Egghead have ANY interest in the cute little lost girl..!?

:D

I cried like a baby IN PUBLIC when J. Lennon was killed. "Imagine" was a veritable anthem for me.

Then the universe, and not my (BAD) societal mythmakers, showed me (through science and nature study) that reality is more interesting, more just, and more "humane" than the preposterous goody-goody unreal nonsense of the left. The right never even tried to "influence" me, as it was too busy doing elsewhat.

Some may feel this to be "a shameful sell-out" and "giving up your ideals",.. but I choose to see it as an awakening from childish fairy-tales into a realm of real wonder.

..and thus, the journey right.
One thing I find very odd, coming to these boards, is seeing "young" attitudes --that is, people who hold the very same attitude that I held so long ago, but have moved past now. I have some sympathy for them, but find myself formulating arguments to oppose them.

Some I even post.

[QUOTE=Domici #65]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
I call all communism fascist. By definition. Perhaps that's just my definition, but that's MY definition. You're more than free to disagree.



These words already have definitions. You can no sooner expect us to accept your definitions than you can expect us to debate you in a foreign language. That's how language works.

Communism - A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

Fascism - a)A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
b)A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.

Thank you for the clarification of your understandings (if that's what that was), but words and phrases of such a nature (politico-philospophical) are SO fuzzy, or so overly technically precise (the overcomplex mirror-image cousin to the fuzzy), that they are veritably meaningless, except to evoke a "feeling".

Therefore, you can certainly question me about my specific thoughts on the meaning of these words, or ignore me as a crank.


Quote:
Democracy is a tool to help the governors. Democracy evolves out of having something TO protect, not protecting something you don't have


Government isn't about protecting. It's about making sure that things get done. Usually the best way to get people to do things is to make sure that they want to. Best way to do that is make sure there's a reward in it for them. Protecting rights is not the purpose of government merely a good idea for government to keep in mind.

Precisely leftist and precisely backwards. Governments (single) role is about setting an environment in which those who "work" can do so as sensibly as possible. Preiod.



Quote:
And feudalism is the result of leftism/fascism. Society based on INDIVIDUAL property rights gives (did you catch the INDIVIDUAL there?) gives it's members something to strive and justly interact FOR.

No, Feudalism is based on anarchy. That's why any security you have you have to buy it from knights or private security guards. That same system becomes fascism when the people who were forced to pay downwards to private citizens for their security now have to pay upwards to a unifying government.

Feudalism is about control of the weak majority by a powerful majority. Period. That is leftist/fascist.

Feudalism is ANYTHING but anarchy. Until it starts to shatter, as all leftist structures eventually do.




Quote:
And all the peope of the town would, if they were what we might call HUMAN, move away to somewhere with better opportunities.

And if there were no better places to move to, or it was "forbidden" to move outside to a better place, then we'd have communism/fascism.

And those people would eventually revolt, or be helped by someone from outside their territory (who would undoubtedly be capitalistic/real) and change their conditions.

An I actually promoting violence over servitude. Damned Right..!



No, we would not have communism/fascism, we'd have fascism. It would be communism if the government either bought out, or simply nationalized the Walmart company. It's fascism if the government enacts laws that allow the company to do as it pleases without regard for the workers welfare. Communism and fascism are distinct ideas. Leninist communism resembled fascism strongly but you could easily have a communist democracy.

I equate communism with fascism. Any leftist doctrine, any doctrine not based on private ownership of property is leftist, and all leftists are fascists due to the "power to do" being held solely in a dictator (the dictatorship of the pro.. something, I believe, is how someone said it somewhere). :)



To the more general question you have,.. that of language use. I do believe in the power of words. And that power can and IS used for miscommunication and subversion as well as for communication and understanding.

Your use of strict dictionary meanings of words to "support your case" is fine if you're EXPLAINING what you mean, but it is more than objectionable when it is used to say "This person is of the uneducated non-intelligencia, as I am, and is unworthy of being listened to by the enlightened".

And that is the prime directive, if you will, of the left. To brow-beat the masses with their noisy "intelligence" into servitute, allowing them to rule by fear and corruption of the true productive basis of any real society.

I equate communism with fascism. Any leftist doctrine, any doctrine not based on private ownership of property is leftist, and all leftists are fascists due to the "power to do" being held solely in a dictator (the dictatorship of the pro.. something, I believe, is how someone said it somewhere). :)

proletariat?

[QUOTE=Willamena #73]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
The "left wants voting without freedom" thing: The left loves voting, as it is the tool to control the "majority", which is a tool most amenable to their noise. Freedom IS private (individual) property ownership, which is self-admittedly an evil to the left.

They want their manipulation tool (voting), but not that which brings society into having a real base on which to operate (property).


The liberal is Aquarius. They love voting because it gives each individual a voice. They cannot understand why anyone would not want to have a voice, to cast their ballot and speak their individual mind. The (Western) liberal extends this attitude to his property, which is an expression of his individualism.

The social democrat is similar, but Capricorn. The social democrat loves voting because it gives the people a voice. The people speaking in one united voice is freedom. The social democrat recognizes the necessity of individual property, but insists that that services that directly affect the masses be government owned and operated.

The communist is Pisces, snuggled safely in the womb of humanity. The communist needs for everyone be the same; comfort in familiarity, comfort in numbers. Voting upsets the order of things, it rocks the boat, causes upsets. In the same vein, property should be the same and familiar no matter where he goes. (Note, this is actually a conservative left-wing attitude.)

I AM A LIBERAL,.. damn it..!! :)

I'm not joking here. I truly AM a liberal. I'm just a rightist liberal. Some keep calling that a "libertarian" for some reason, which I don't know enough about to self-confess to.

Am I a libertarian..? I really don't like "complex" labels, which is precisely why I use (pretty much) only "left" and "right", though I will occassionally use "communist" and "fascist".

But I equate fascist with communist, so that collapses that for me. They're just different flavors of the same thing to me. As I said, I'm a simple savage with a simple mind, and I like simple labels.

"Socialist" is "Communist"-lite, so that's how that collapses for me, as well.

I like your definitions:

"Liberal": the noisey brat that likes to do things and make stuff

"Social Democrat": the "good kid" in the sand box who actually SHARES

"Communist": the wanna-be post-fetus who just can't quite commit to that whole "cord-cutting" thing

Heh he he...! :D

[QUOTE=Willamena #80]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
[QUOTE=TJHairball #50]
Oh, yes, and that reminds me that the rest of you could use a reminder...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
The adolescent can dream of ruling the land, but until adulthood (the great rightward shift) he will be a child.

I'll put it bluntly for all who can't understand: No flaming. If you are unclear on what flaming means, it can be clarified.

A statement regarding the unrealistic aspirations of the common adolescent and his eventual gaining of wisdom is flaming..!!

I think it's you, TJ, that needs a re-education about the term FLAMING..!

(( I'm surrounded by idiots... ))


Yes! now that would be a flame. ;-)

Heh he he he..! :D

You know,.. if these "anti-flamers" ran the world, we'd all freeze to death..!

The right...

Libertarians are Aries. The self is all-important, especially the rights of the self and things that might endanger those rights. Freedom is the freedom to move the self, at to assert the self at will. If someone doesn't like it, they can just move away!

Republicans, at least the neo-conservatives ones, are Taurus. Stubborn, bull-headed adherence to tradition and "the way it used to be." Freedom as property would fit here, as value is found in possessions and family/friends (who are an extension of one's possessions).

And the conservative party, such as we have in Canada, is Cancer, with emotional roots buried in history, family and tradition. There is room for new ideas here, but they must always be weighed against what came before as a measure of their worth.

I do hope you understand my "Canadans" reference there.. a way back..

It's meant as a "loving" jab at my adored northward located cousins, the Canadans, who speak Canadan in the gorgeous country of Canadia.

(( Get it..!? :) ))

Anyway,..

"Libertarians": ..get the Fnoork outta my freakin' sandbox..!

"Republicans": Moo,.. don't touch those! Oh, it's you. Go ahead son.

"Canadan Conservatives": The OCD kid with the inferiority/god complex


(( Ouch! :D ))

[QUOTE=TJHairball #82]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willamena
Yes! now that would be a flame. ;-)



Flame, no (unlike his previous comment under discussion). Accusation of gross incompetence on the part of one of the seniormost members of the NationStates moderation staff, yes. Unwise, perhaps, but I won't hold that against him personally.

Heh he he... :D

I love you, you freaky hairball,.. the only "incompetents" I ever see here are those who:

*) can't take a freakin' joke.
*) REFUSE to use the freakin' shift-freakin'-key..!
*) use NO punctuation.
*) are more interested in "winning" than understanding.
*) did I say can't take a joke..?

But YOU,.. you're a gem...

..though I don't really need any more quartz.





(( JUST JOKING..!! ))

[QUOTE=Willamena #87]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
I cried like a baby IN PUBLIC when J. Lennon was killed. "Imagine" was a veritable anthem for me.

Then the universe, and not my (BAD) societal mythmakers, showed me (through science and nature study) that reality is more interesting, more just, and more "humane" than the preposterous goody-goody unreal nonsense of the left. The right never even tried to "influence" me, as it was too busy doing elsewhat.

Some may feel this to be "a shameful sell-out" and "giving up your ideals",.. but I choose to see it as an awakening from childish fairy-tales into a realm of real wonder.

..and thus, the journey right.

One thing I find very odd, coming to these boards, is seeing "young" attitudes --that is, people who hold the very same attitude that I held so long ago, but have moved past now. I have some sympathy for them, but find myself formulating arguments to oppose them.

Some I even post.

Exactly. But it shouldn't really be much of a surprise.

An "attitude" which they HATE beyond measure, as would, and does, ANY juvenile. How do you piss off an adolescent..? "You'll grow out of it..!" :D

Instant vial of nitroglycerine. Contained in a greased pig.

The problem is that they need to learn to "get over" their more-than-natural emotions of the moment, just like the oldsters need to "get over" their emotions to stifle the young'ns with the nearest pillow.

Why are the young so "CUTE"..? So we don't kill them.

Look to nature, the "it is", once again, for answers to your questions.

..they are provided free,.. except for that "have to actually LOOK" expenditure.

:)

[QUOTE=Willamena #89]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
I equate communism with fascism. Any leftist doctrine, any doctrine not based on private ownership of property is leftist, and all leftists are fascists due to the "power to do" being held solely in a dictator (the dictatorship of the pro.. something, I believe, is how someone said it somewhere).


proletariat?

(( OOC: Don't you love my oblique manner in only infering the self-admitted fascist tendencies of the left. It's a specialty of mine.

What..!? You mean other people beside you and me can SEE this..!?

DAMN..! I'm busted. ))

Too big to deal with effectively.
Don't blame me, you've been just as longwinded ;)

Words are very inexact. If you have a specific question about what I mean by an individual word (or phrase) ask a specific question related to it. Not "huh..!?".

Don't be so hide-bound and academic. As I'm only a simple savage, consider who your talking to, and whether you're really interested in learning what I mean, or if you're just trying to make "JFKerry debating points".

I am asking a specific question. I want an exact, explicit definition of what you mean by "facism." You've muttered something about private property not completely under the control of its owners, but haven't given me an explicit definition to work with. I like explicit definitions. They cut down on misunderstandings.

"Wasteful": Wasteful to he who has resources to allocate.
So wasteful refers to being wasteful by the definitions of he who is already rich? If this is the case, than no wonder you consider the areas in which a socialist or communist would spend "wasteful." Simply put, we live in a largely capitalist society, and getting rich while acting according to socialist and communist principles is rather unusual, to say the least, while acting in a manner that would be considered immoral according to communist principles helps make you richer.

I disagree. And am actually rather intrigued with your reasoning here. I see how being able to deny access to "what is mine" as restrictive, as is any law, but I don't see how that is a "human rights violation" any more than any other law.
It doesn't have to "violate human rights" in the sense of a UN investigation, but placing no restrictions on it gives it the ability to do so without any doubt.

"Private property" certainly doesn't restrict freedom any less than most other laws on the books. In fact, the laws regarding the treatment of private property cause more arrests than the laws regarding treatment of people. From 1984 to 2003, no year saw less than six times as many "property crimes" as "violent crimes." If we redefine robbery, which certainly involves, is motivated by, and is defined by the loss of property, as a "property crime," this ratio skyrockets to a minimum of 10.17 and a maximum of 14.07 for those years. Obviously enough, enforcing the strictures of private property is not a negligible proposition.

"Right of determination": I stated my understanding of what that means to me. I don't understand your inference regarding "respect".

"Consensus not being arbitrary": A group of humans can "consense" on anything. It is therefore arbitrary. It is a whim of said humans.
And therein lies the problem in your understanding of what it means to me as I have stated. To have come to a consensus on a matter is to consent to it, literally enough. If a group is operating within themselves on the basis of rules determined through consensus achieved on the parts of all who have a stake in the issue, then all affected have consented to these rules. There is nothing arbitrary about being under the effect of rules that you yourself have consented to. Complete consensus is, of course, an ideal situation; democratic behavior tends to be a general attempt at approaching it in a practical and rather limited manner.

Private property's roots come from no more than a partial consensus on the matter, typically (in the cases of most property) originating in the threat of violent force. How is it that you claim to own something? You got it from somebody else, who in turn got it etc., down to the point where somebody arbitrarily said "It's mine now, suckers!" At its roots, ownership of something comes down to the "arbitrary" determination of human beings, no less than any other societal agreement reached - and in many cases reached with a lower standard of agreement than the "simple majority," simply continuing through social inertia. It is nothing special.
"The un-reality of private property": All matters of society eventually come to someone's will and the concretizing of that will. That usually means physically. There can either be an agreement or disagreement of someone's will with another's will. Property makes that will real. The enforcement of that will draws the boundaries of society. It is on these boundaries that society organizes itself.

"Democracy": Pure democracy bad. Representative democracy good-er. :)
Property doesn't make will any more or less real; will excersized is action. Physical action or lack thereof, which may involve the speaking or writing of words, moving around, etc. Property is not a concrete form of will; it may be considered as an agreement reached between certain parties respecting the treatment of a specific physical entity at the most.

That many societies organize themselves on the basis of property and the limitations thereof is quite clear. (i.e., absolutist monarchism: "The king really owns everything in the country, he's just letting you use it for a while." The more absolute the monarchy, the closer it approaches the absolute "right" of private property. In milder cases, the king really only owns all the land. His "right" to deny access to his private property provides all the justification he needs for absolute rulership. Voila, the peasants don't need to be emancipated, for by your definition they already live in a society with perfect freedom.)

The right to life, to me, means the right to exist, unless otherwise societally determined that you are to be denied that right. "Owners" who use food, shelter and water, for example, as weapons will be judged and sentenced to whatever their society sees fit punishment for doing so, as is any criminal.
Which is a very broad, fundamental, and necessary restriction on the use and ownership of private property as an expression of authority over certain objects. A right cannot be, in my mind, truly fundamental if it conflicts with other fundamental rights, just as an axiom of a mathematical system cannot truly be an axiom of a consistent mathematical system if it contradicts another axiom of that mathematical system; either the system is inconsistent, or the "axiom" in question has been mislabeled as an axiom.

A mountain range limits the movement of human bodies as well. So what? The fact that I can't jump to the moon is also a "terrible injustice", but I've come to live with it.
You can, however, fly to the moon if you can convince enough people that you need to. You can also climb mountains, cut tunnels through them, fly over them, and go around them; it is also by no means an arbitrary limitation, nor applied by humans.
Private property is an arbitrary human applied limitation on the movements of bodies. Mountains, gravity, atmosphere or the lack thereof... these are all physical limitations due to very real, very observable, and very measurable physical properties of the objects in question. Property does not have this degree of reality in a scientific or philosophical sense.

You must be a lawyer. :)

I certainly don't argue the "right to do anything" with anything, especially the right of property.
Nope, although the career has been suggested to me at various points in my life. If you don't think that the "right" of private property involves doing whatever you want with it, you sure had me fooled for a while as to what you were talking about.
Once again, as a leftist, you carry ideas into the realm of un-reality in your pursuit of power of those within society. If you can justify your cadre for confiscating other's property, you "feel better" about satisfying your lust for absolute power.
It is very difficult for an individual to have absolute power in a democratically operated or consensus based society (well, in the most theoretical absolute cases of the latter, everybody has "absolute power" in a sense. Make of that what you will.) In fact, unless he or she is the only member of that society, or in some fashion external to the system has control over the opinions of the other members (e.g., "owns" them in a system that believes in the "right" of private property) then it is not possible to have absolute power. The confiscation of property is little different from its original establishment.
Those things (life, mobility, speech) are ENHANCED by the right to private property because it gives them an organizing "seed" to work with.
I see restriction, you see enhancement.
No thing in an eco-system operates without the bounds given it by it's eco-system. The "bounds" of private property are the impetus for the societal eco-system. No movement (evolution), or "bad" movement, happens without the structure of these bounds.
If one defines eco-system as the system of all areas affected, it doesn't, of course. That's why disenfranchisement within a democratic system is anti-democratic, and why everybody affected by an issue ideally takes part in the decisions on how society is to act upon that issue.

While many of the political decisions in history can be considered to at least be partially motivated through the basis of motivations relating to the concept of private property (including the political movement of communism) it is not fundamentally the only motivator of society any more than the only motivation of the individual is greed for material objects, and for the same reasons. After all, a society is comprised of individuals.
And since no "absolute freedom" is possible, the leftist rails against a non-existant foe.
Absolute freedom - whether as you define it, or as I define it - may seem a practical impossibility, but in general, I like to see more freedom, as I suspect do you. According, of course, to our respective and somewhat variant definitions.

In real life, one of them eventually goes out of business due to non-differentiation of product. Period.
In which case we come to the situation of a monopoly, which according to profit motivations is then encouraged to hike up prices. Now the consumers not only have to walk further than they did originally, but they either pay more than they did before or decide not to have ice cream. Until new competitors show up, there is no profit motivated reason for him not to charge the very limit of what the market will bear.

Then, the one who goes out of business:

*) If he's a leftist,.. cries a lot and runs back to live with mommie.
*) If he's a rightist,.. starts a new business with a better business model.
So if he's a rightist, he has rich parents or friends that will give or loan him the money to start up a new business in spite of the failure of his first business, while if he's a leftist, he must give up easily?

Do the rest of us a favor and refrain from pointless insults. As I've said before, there is no excuse for bad manners on these fora.

[QUOTE=TJHairball #96]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Too big to deal with effectively.


Don't blame me, you've been just as longwinded


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Words are very inexact. If you have a specific question about what I mean by an individual word (or phrase) ask a specific question related to it. Not "huh..!?".

Don't be so hide-bound and academic. As I'm only a simple savage, consider who your talking to, and whether you're really interested in learning what I mean, or if you're just trying to make "JFKerry debating points".

I am asking a specific question. I want an exact, explicit definition of what you mean by "facism." You've muttered something about private property not completely under the control of its owners, but haven't given me an explicit definition to work with. I like explicit definitions. They cut down on misunderstandings.

That would be like asking for a definition of the color blue, where examples and angstrom measures were not available.

I shall try anyway. To be fascist is what you might call complete totalitarianism. Period. The "dictator", be it one or more people, has absolute comtrol over all aspects of society. Or at least pretends to, which is it's ultimate downfall.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
"Wasteful": Wasteful to he who has resources to allocate.

So wasteful refers to being wasteful by the definitions of he who is already rich? If this is the case, than no wonder you consider the areas in which a socialist or communist would spend "wasteful." Simply put, we live in a largely capitalist society, and getting rich while acting according to socialist and communist principles is rather unusual, to say the least, while acting in a manner that would be considered immoral according to communist principles helps make you richer.

We agree here. :)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
I disagree. And am actually rather intrigued with your reasoning here. I see how being able to deny access to "what is mine" as restrictive, as is any law, but I don't see how that is a "human rights violation" any more than any other law.


It doesn't have to "violate human rights" in the sense of a UN investigation, but placing no restrictions on it gives it the ability to do so without any doubt.

"Private property" certainly doesn't restrict freedom any less than most other laws on the books. In fact, the laws regarding the treatment of private property cause more arrests than the laws regarding treatment of people. From 1984 to 2003, no year saw less than six times as many "property crimes" as "violent crimes." If we redefine robbery, which certainly involves, is motivated by, and is defined by the loss of property, as a "property crime," this ratio skyrockets to a minimum of 10.17 and a maximum of 14.07 for those years. Obviously enough, enforcing the strictures of private property is not a negligible proposition.

I don't advocate "no restrictions" on the behaviors of private property owners.

Eliminating private property ownership rights to "make the crime statistics look better" is perverse.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
"Right of determination": I stated my understanding of what that means to me. I don't understand your inference regarding "respect".

"Consensus not being arbitrary": A group of humans can "consense" on anything. It is therefore arbitrary. It is a whim of said humans.

And therein lies the problem in your understanding of what it means to me as I have stated. To have come to a consensus on a matter is to consent to it, literally enough. If a group is operating within themselves on the basis of rules determined through consensus achieved on the parts of all who have a stake in the issue, then all affected have consented to these rules. There is nothing arbitrary about being under the effect of rules that you yourself have consented to. Complete consensus is, of course, an ideal situation; democratic behavior tends to be a general attempt at approaching it in a practical and rather limited manner.

Private property's roots come from no more than a partial consensus on the matter, typically (in the cases of most property) originating in the threat of violent force. How is it that you claim to own something? You got it from somebody else, who in turn got it etc., down to the point where somebody arbitrarily said "It's mine now, suckers!" At its roots, ownership of something comes down to the "arbitrary" determination of human beings, no less than any other societal agreement reached - and in many cases reached with a lower standard of agreement than the "simple majority," simply continuing through social inertia. It is nothing special.

.."If a group is operating within themselves on the basis of rules determined through consensus achieved on the parts of all who have a stake in the issue, then all affected have consented to these rules. There is nothing arbitrary about being under the effect of rules that you yourself have consented to."..

Being a part of a consensus is not arbitrary. The subject OF the consensus is totally arbitrary.

.."Private property's roots come from no more than a partial consensus on the matter, typically (in the cases of most property) originating in the threat of violent force."..

This is a meaningless chicken-and-egg problem. It is merely an excuse of the non-possessing to claim the possesions of others. Period.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
"The un-reality of private property": All matters of society eventually come to someone's will and the concretizing of that will. That usually means physically. There can either be an agreement or disagreement of someone's will with another's will. Property makes that will real. The enforcement of that will draws the boundaries of society. It is on these boundaries that society organizes itself.

"Democracy": Pure democracy bad. Representative democracy good-er.


Property doesn't make will any more or less real; will excersized is action. Physical action or lack thereof, which may involve the speaking or writing of words, moving around, etc. Property is not a concrete form of will; it may be considered as an agreement reached between certain parties respecting the treatment of a specific physical entity at the most.

That many societies organize themselves on the basis of property and the limitations thereof is quite clear. (i.e., absolutist monarchism: "The king really owns everything in the country, he's just letting you use it for a while." The more absolute the monarchy, the closer it approaches the absolute "right" of private property. In milder cases, the king really only owns all the land. His "right" to deny access to his private property provides all the justification he needs for absolute rulership. Voila, the peasants don't need to be emancipated, for by your definition they already live in a society with perfect freedom.)

You have your opinion, I have mine. I understand your wish to place the blame for all evils in the world on individual property ownership. It is a typical reaction to the world by adolescents everywhere who see anyone having more than themselves, or those they sympathize with. Very understandable.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
The right to life, to me, means the right to exist, unless otherwise societally determined that you are to be denied that right. "Owners" who use food, shelter and water, for example, as weapons will be judged and sentenced to whatever their society sees fit punishment for doing so, as is any criminal.


Which is a very broad, fundamental, and necessary restriction on the use and ownership of private property as an expression of authority over certain objects. A right cannot be, in my mind, truly fundamental if it conflicts with other fundamental rights, just as an axiom of a mathematical system cannot truly be an axiom of a consistent mathematical system if it contradicts another axiom of that mathematical system; either the system is inconsistent, or the "axiom" in question has been mislabeled as an axiom.

Your axiomatic system is flawed. You see a contradiction where you wish to see one, for your own purposes.

The mind of the leftist is too mechanical. It hallucinates because it has no basis in reality. The rightist knows that you can't control any more than a tiny portion of "the machine" (whatever system that may be). The leftist thinks he can, and fills in the "holes" with hallucinations.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
A mountain range limits the movement of human bodies as well. So what? The fact that I can't jump to the moon is also a "terrible injustice", but I've come to live with it.

You can, however, fly to the moon if you can convince enough people that you need to. You can also climb mountains, cut tunnels through them, fly over them, and go around them; it is also by no means an arbitrary limitation, nor applied by humans.
Private property is an arbitrary human applied limitation on the movements of bodies. Mountains, gravity, atmosphere or the lack thereof... these are all physical limitations due to very real, very observable, and very measurable physical properties of the objects in question. Property does not have this degree of reality in a scientific or philosophical sense.

The fact that a property owner can kill a trespasser, if the owner has the means, is all the "reality" that is necessary to support the system.

Whether you consider that "moral" does not negate the reality of a dead trespasser.

Whether you consider this situation "moral" is up to you.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
You must be a lawyer.

I certainly don't argue the "right to do anything" with anything, especially the right of property.


Nope, although the career has been suggested to me at various points in my life. If you don't think that the "right" of private property involves doing whatever you want with it, you sure had me fooled for a while as to what you were talking about.

Heh he he,.. I am a "realist". The word "REAL" comes up A LOT in my writings.

As a realist, the concept of having absolute freedom of ANYTHING is non-sense.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Once again, as a leftist, you carry ideas into the realm of un-reality in your pursuit of power of those within society. If you can justify your cadre for confiscating other's property, you "feel better" about satisfying your lust for absolute power.

It is very difficult for an individual to have absolute power in a democratically operated or consensus based society (well, in the most theoretical absolute cases of the latter, everybody has "absolute power" in a sense. Make of that what you will.) In fact, unless he or she is the only member of that society, or in some fashion external to the system has control over the opinions of the other members (e.g., "owns" them in a system that believes in the "right" of private property) then it is not possible to have absolute power. The confiscation of property is little different from its original establishment.

I agree that "actual absolute real honest to goodness power" is impossible to achieve, but you only need a "big chunk" to really muck up a society.

And my point was that the left has a MANDATE to control as much as possible, and if you can "make everybody FEEL better" in confiscating other's property, you (the dictator) can wield them like a knife.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Those things (life, mobility, speech) are ENHANCED by the right to private property because it gives them an organizing "seed" to work with.

I see restriction, you see enhancement.

:)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
No thing in an eco-system operates without the bounds given it by it's eco-system. The "bounds" of private property are the impetus for the societal eco-system. No movement (evolution), or "bad" movement, happens without the structure of these bounds.


If one defines eco-system as the system of all areas affected, it doesn't, of course. That's why disenfranchisement within a democratic system is anti-democratic, and why everybody affected by an issue ideally takes part in the decisions on how society is to act upon that issue.

While many of the political decisions in history can be considered to at least be partially motivated through the basis of motivations relating to the concept of private property (including the political movement of communism) it is not fundamentally the only motivator of society any more than the only motivation of the individual is greed for material objects, and for the same reasons. After all, a society is comprised of individuals.

Your systems are too esoteric for me, apparently, as I have no idea what you mean.

I was refering to the fact that if you have nothing to strive for, you have no reason to strive. I'm not saying that "property" is the ONLY reason to strive, only that it's the only SUITABLE one to concentrate on for a real society.

All other potential "reasons to strive" are too inconcrete to be reliable AS primary reasons to strive.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
And since no "absolute freedom" is possible, the leftist rails against a non-existant foe.


Absolute freedom - whether as you define it, or as I define it - may seem a practical impossibility, but in general, I like to see more freedom, as I suspect do you. According, of course, to our respective and somewhat variant definitions.

Absolutely correct..!! Our "societal foundations" simply differ.

This whole discussion is a classic "Kane and Abel" story. We both want a safe place for our progeny, and as good a life as possible for everyone.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
In real life, one of them eventually goes out of business due to non-differentiation of product. Period.


In which case we come to the situation of a monopoly, which according to profit motivations is then encouraged to hike up prices. Now the consumers not only have to walk further than they did originally, but they either pay more than they did before or decide not to have ice cream. Until new competitors show up, there is no profit motivated reason for him not to charge the very limit of what the market will bear.

"Until new competitors show up..!?" The impatience of the left, in their adolescent unreal world of "give it to me NOW!!", is stupendously amusing.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Then, the one who goes out of business:

*) If he's a leftist,.. cries a lot and runs back to live with mommie.
*) If he's a rightist,.. starts a new business with a better business model.


So if he's a rightist, he has rich parents or friends that will give or loan him the money to start up a new business in spite of the failure of his first business, while if he's a leftist, he must give up easily?

Do the rest of us a favor and refrain from pointless insults. As I've said before, there is no excuse for bad manners on these fora.

If he's a rightist he either has saved for this situation, or can smooth talk someone into believing in his ability, despite the failure.

And yes, leftists are weenies. Heh he he he...!

The leftist, luckily living as he does in a capitalistic society, has the same opportunity as the rightist, so it's up to him.

If he lived in a leftist society, this problem wouldn't come up because there would be no ice-cream. And no reason for any.


Don't take my obvious insults as insults because they're only insults if insults is what you want them to be.

They are otherwise non-insults, better known as prodding. :D

[QUOTE=Willamena #73]The liberal is Aquarius. They love voting because it gives each individual a voice. They cannot understand why anyone would not want to have a voice, to cast their ballot and speak their individual mind. The (Western) liberal extends this attitude to his property, which is an expression of his individualism.

The social democrat is similar, but Capricorn. The social democrat loves voting because it gives the people a voice. The people speaking in one united voice is freedom. The social democrat recognizes the necessity of individual property, but insists that that services that directly affect the masses be government owned and operated.

The communist is Pisces, snuggled safely in the womb of humanity. The communist needs for everyone be the same; comfort in familiarity, comfort in numbers. Voting upsets the order of things, it rocks the boat, causes upsets. In the same vein, property should be the same and familiar no matter where he goes. (Note, this is actually a conservative left-wing attitude.)

I AM A LIBERAL,.. damn it..!! :)
Haha, why am I not surprised? But that I identify the political parties in astrological symbolism doesn't meant that everyone born to that sign belongs to that political party... I hope that's clear.

I'm not joking here. I truly AM a liberal. I'm just a rightist liberal. Some keep calling that a "libertarian" for some reason, which I don't know enough about to self-confess to.
I know what you mean. I get called an Existentialist and a Diest... (no clue)

Am I a libertarian..? I really don't like "complex" labels, which is precisely why I use (pretty much) only "left" and "right", though I will occassionally use "communist" and "fascist".
*still waiting for someone to call Iakeokeo on his equating of idealism with leftism and materialism with rightism* ;-)

I like your definitions:

"Liberal": the noisey brat that likes to do things and make stuff

"Social Democrat": the "good kid" in the sand box who actually SHARES

"Communist": the wanna-be post-fetus who just can't quite commit to that whole "cord-cutting" thing

Heh he he...! :D
Thanks.

Elaborate your thoughts, as I'm a little confused.

Indeed you are. You see, there is this thing called "sarcasm". I like to employ it. I usually indicate my doing so using the ;) smiley.

I think anyone who doesn't vote should by law be forced not to be able to whinge about any politician for until they vote lol

[QUOTE=Willamena #98]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
[QUOTE=Willamena #73]The liberal is Aquarius. They love voting because it gives each individual a voice. They cannot understand why anyone would not want to have a voice, to cast their ballot and speak their individual mind. The (Western) liberal extends this attitude to his property, which is an expression of his individualism.

The social democrat is similar, but Capricorn. The social democrat loves voting because it gives the people a voice. The people speaking in one united voice is freedom. The social democrat recognizes the necessity of individual property, but insists that that services that directly affect the masses be government owned and operated.

The communist is Pisces, snuggled safely in the womb of humanity. The communist needs for everyone be the same; comfort in familiarity, comfort in numbers. Voting upsets the order of things, it rocks the boat, causes upsets. In the same vein, property should be the same and familiar no matter where he goes. (Note, this is actually a conservative left-wing attitude.)

I AM A LIBERAL,.. damn it..!!


Haha, why am I not surprised? But that I identify the political parties in astrological symbolism doesn't meant that everyone born to that sign belongs to that political party... I hope that's clear.

Except that I'm a Gemini..!! Where does THAT put me,.. other than the schizoid ward...!?

I'm presently listening to some cool Hawai'ian slack-key rap. VERY interesting...! And it's IN hawai'ian..! "Ka ha.... we hiki nau'a.. pa'hehe..!"



Quote:
I'm not joking here. I truly AM a liberal. I'm just a rightist liberal. Some keep calling that a "libertarian" for some reason, which I don't know enough about to self-confess to.


I know what you mean. I get called an Existentialist and a Diest... (no clue)

People love to label things. What was the first thing Adam did, again..!? :)


Quote:
Am I a libertarian..? I really don't like "complex" labels, which is precisely why I use (pretty much) only "left" and "right", though I will occassionally use "communist" and "fascist".


*still waiting for someone to call Iakeokeo on his equating of idealism with leftism and materialism with rightism* ;-)

Idealism is only dangerous (meaning stupidly applied information) if it is used a basis for anything important that requires a basis in reality, and the basis of society itself is pretty important.

Leftism is just evilness crystalized. Period.

Rightism is just non-leftism.

Materialism has always not made sense to me as a word. I must just have this mental block with it, for some, no doubt infantile traumatic, reason.

Like I keep saying, I'm just a freakin' simple savage. Give the poor primitive a break, eh..!?


Quote:
I like your definitions:

"Liberal": the noisey brat that likes to do things and make stuff

"Social Democrat": the "good kid" in the sand box who actually SHARES

"Communist": the wanna-be post-fetus who just can't quite commit to that whole "cord-cutting" thing

Heh he he...!


Thanks.

Welcome..! :D

Except that I'm a Gemini..!! Where does THAT put me,.. other than the schizoid ward...!?
I don't know any more political parties. ;-)

Politics is not my forte.

Idealism is only dangerous (meaning stupidly applied information) if it is used a basis for anything important that requires a basis in reality, and the basis of society itself is pretty important.
The philosophy of idealism (not the making of ideals), the opposite of materialism, extolls the faculty by which "it is" can be visualised, god abstracted, and the whole understood in the mind. It holds perception as the only "reality".

Leftism is just evilness crystalized. Period.
I don't believe in evil; just love and mistakes.

Rightism is just non-leftism.
The opposite of nothing is nothing?

Materialism has always not made sense to me as a word. I must just have this mental block with it, for some, no doubt infantile traumatic, reason.
The philosophy of materialism takes things too literally - only the material world is real. Things we think, feel, dream; these things are not real, and therefore not worthy of serious consideration.

Neither materialism nor idealism alone are adequate to describe reality. And "either left or right" is not adequate to describe all people.

That would be like asking for a definition of the color blue, where examples and angstrom measures were not available.

I shall try anyway. To be fascist is what you might call complete totalitarianism. Period. The "dictator", be it one or more people, has absolute comtrol over all aspects of society. Or at least pretends to, which is it's ultimate downfall.
First, it is not at all like defining the color blue without the use of wavelengths or examples. (Blue could also be defined in terms of neurological/biological reactions, but I'll leave that aside for now.) Such word equivalents are quite readily available in politics and philosophy, and your excuses ring hollow in my ears.
Second, that "definition" can, depending on how you stretch it, either be applied to none or all of the societies on earth. It is, in other words, meaningless. If you cannot define the term meaningfully, why are you using it?
I don't advocate "no restrictions" on the behaviors of private property owners.

Eliminating private property ownership rights to "make the crime statistics look better" is perverse.
If you think I was speaking of "making crime statistics look better," you are sadly shortsighted. Refer back to your previous arguments - namely, the statement that society restricts freedoms through laws. This is a rather simple empirical point - one of numerous points that could be made along such lines - demonstrating how the restrictions society places on freedom are greater through the laws of private property than any other laws it uses.
Being a part of a consensus is not arbitrary. The subject OF the consensus is totally arbitrary.
This is a meaningless chicken-and-egg problem. It is merely an excuse of the non-possessing to claim the possesions of others. Period.
Far from being a "meaningless chicken-and-egg problem" it is a demonstration of how private property comes, ultimately, out of the same source as decisions by society to confiscate private property. There is little unusual about reflexivity.

To phrase the notion as it would have been put in a monarchy: What is granted by royal fiat, can be taken away by royal fiat.
You have your opinion, I have mine. I understand your wish to place the blame for all evils in the world on individual property ownership. It is a typical reaction to the world by adolescents everywhere who see anyone having more than themselves, or those they sympathize with. Very understandable.
You put words in my mouth and then insult me while claiming to patronize me. I have not claimed (and do not believe) that all of the "evils in the world" are due to private property.
Your axiomatic system is flawed. You see a contradiction where you wish to see one, for your own purposes.
If you see a contradiction in any of my systems, I would appreciate you pointing it out specifically, just as I have pointed out the contradictions that I see in such systems as equate "private property" in some sense with a fundamental right while trying to retain any other commonly used fundamental right.
The mind of the leftist is too mechanical. It hallucinates because it has no basis in reality. The rightist knows that you can't control any more than a tiny portion of "the machine" (whatever system that may be). The leftist thinks he can, and fills in the "holes" with hallucinations.
Ahh, so rightism is now defined by feelings of helplessness, while leftism by delusions of grandeur and mechanical processes? If I didn't think your statement to be quite thoroughly devoid of accurate meaning, I'd think you were admitting that the left uses logic (a process that is in some ways mechanical) while the right does not.

The fact that a property owner can kill a trespasser, if the owner has the means, is all the "reality" that is necessary to support the system.
Whether you consider that "moral" does not negate the reality of a dead trespasser.
Whether you consider this situation "moral" is up to you.
As far as possibilities go, trespassers are capable of killing landowners, if they have the means. That is also reality, along with the reality that your example is rather meaningless.
I agree that "actual absolute real honest to goodness power" is impossible to achieve, but you only need a "big chunk" to really muck up a society.

And my point was that the left has a MANDATE to control as much as possible, and if you can "make everybody FEEL better" in confiscating other's property, you (the dictator) can wield them like a knife.
"Big chunks" which are granted wholesale to the wealthiest advocates of private property? Which, one might note, has mucked up society in a number of ways?

"Making everybody feel good" by having the "right" of "private property" enables the unscrupulous powerbroker to manipulate them like a knife. Hm. Rings at least as well, and given what I have seen of the traditional uses of the term "right" and "left," I would say the right seems to have a stronger tendancy to try to concentrate greater power into fewer hands than the left.

Your systems are too esoteric for me, apparently, as I have no idea what you mean.
That you have no idea what I mean appears to be your theme of the week.

I was refering to the fact that if you have nothing to strive for, you have no reason to strive. I'm not saying that "property" is the ONLY reason to strive, only that it's the only SUITABLE one to concentrate on for a real society.

All other potential "reasons to strive" are too inconcrete to be reliable AS primary reasons to strive.
Private property is no more concrete than any other reason to strive. In fact, it is less measurable than many - such as survival, or even good health, or even being able to make use of things, a motivation cousin to but more concrete than owning things. It is as abstract as any other religious or ideological motivation, and is reliable only in that it exalts shortsighted behavior.
Until new competitors show up..!?" The impatience of the left, in their adolescent unreal world of "give it to me NOW!!", is stupendously amusing.
If he's a rightist he either has saved for this situation, or can smooth talk someone into believing in his ability, despite the failure.
And yes, leftists are weenies. Heh he he he...!
The leftist, luckily living as he does in a capitalistic society, has the same opportunity as the rightist, so it's up to him.
If he lived in a leftist society, this problem wouldn't come up because there would be no ice-cream. And no reason for any.
Don't take my obvious insults as insults because they're only insults if insults is what you want them to be.
They are otherwise non-insults, better known as prodding. :D
Actually, these are distinctly insults, and even I will run out of patience eventually with your unreasoning ad hominem attacks on "leftists" and ascribations of virtues to "rightists." However, well before the point at which I have run out of patience with you personally (by experience, at least several months prior), you will have run out of warnings professionally in a very real, rule-bound fashion.

I'm going to tell you very officially and very bluntly. The moderation staff here at NationStates enforces the rules which we have set out about flaming, flame-baiting, and trolling. At this point in time, you've been repeating the first two offenses with clear intent to continue. Consider this your final official warning before facing consequences, as much as I hate to say it. Rules are rules, and you've been breaking them.

[QUOTE=TJHairball #103]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
That would be like asking for a definition of the color blue, where examples and angstrom measures were not available.

I shall try anyway. To be fascist is what you might call complete totalitarianism. Period. The "dictator", be it one or more people, has absolute comtrol over all aspects of society. Or at least pretends to, which is it's ultimate downfall.


First, it is not at all like defining the color blue without the use of wavelengths or examples. (Blue could also be defined in terms of neurological/biological reactions, but I'll leave that aside for now.) Such word equivalents are quite readily available in politics and philosophy, and your excuses ring hollow in my ears.
Second, that "definition" can, depending on how you stretch it, either be applied to none or all of the societies on earth. It is, in other words, meaningless. If you cannot define the term meaningfully, why are you using it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
I don't advocate "no restrictions" on the behaviors of private property owners.

Eliminating private property ownership rights to "make the crime statistics look better" is perverse.


If you think I was speaking of "making crime statistics look better," you are sadly shortsighted. Refer back to your previous arguments - namely, the statement that society restricts freedoms through laws. This is a rather simple empirical point - one of numerous points that could be made along such lines - demonstrating how the restrictions society places on freedom are greater through the laws of private property than any other laws it uses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Being a part of a consensus is not arbitrary. The subject OF the consensus is totally arbitrary.
This is a meaningless chicken-and-egg problem. It is merely an excuse of the non-possessing to claim the possesions of others. Period.


Far from being a "meaningless chicken-and-egg problem" it is a demonstration of how private property comes, ultimately, out of the same source as decisions by society to confiscate private property. There is little unusual about reflexivity.

To phrase the notion as it would have been put in a monarchy: What is granted by royal fiat, can be taken away by royal fiat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
You have your opinion, I have mine. I understand your wish to place the blame for all evils in the world on individual property ownership. It is a typical reaction to the world by adolescents everywhere who see anyone having more than themselves, or those they sympathize with. Very understandable.


You put words in my mouth and then insult me while claiming to patronize me. I have not claimed (and do not believe) that all of the "evils in the world" are due to private property.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Your axiomatic system is flawed. You see a contradiction where you wish to see one, for your own purposes.


If you see a contradiction in any of my systems, I would appreciate you pointing it out specifically, just as I have pointed out the contradictions that I see in such systems as equate "private property" in some sense with a fundamental right while trying to retain any other commonly used fundamental right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
The mind of the leftist is too mechanical. It hallucinates because it has no basis in reality. The rightist knows that you can't control any more than a tiny portion of "the machine" (whatever system that may be). The leftist thinks he can, and fills in the "holes" with hallucinations.


Ahh, so rightism is now defined by feelings of helplessness, while leftism by delusions of grandeur and mechanical processes? If I didn't think your statement to be quite thoroughly devoid of accurate meaning, I'd think you were admitting that the left uses logic (a process that is in some ways mechanical) while the right does not.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
The fact that a property owner can kill a trespasser, if the owner has the means, is all the "reality" that is necessary to support the system.
Whether you consider that "moral" does not negate the reality of a dead trespasser.
Whether you consider this situation "moral" is up to you.


As far as possibilities go, trespassers are capable of killing landowners, if they have the means. That is also reality, along with the reality that your example is rather meaningless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
I agree that "actual absolute real honest to goodness power" is impossible to achieve, but you only need a "big chunk" to really muck up a society.

And my point was that the left has a MANDATE to control as much as possible, and if you can "make everybody FEEL better" in confiscating other's property, you (the dictator) can wield them like a knife.


"Big chunks" which are granted wholesale to the wealthiest advocates of private property? Which, one might note, has mucked up society in a number of ways?

"Making everybody feel good" by having the "right" of "private property" enables the unscrupulous powerbroker to manipulate them like a knife. Hm. Rings at least as well, and given what I have seen of the traditional uses of the term "right" and "left," I would say the right seems to have a stronger tendancy to try to concentrate greater power into fewer hands than the left.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Your systems are too esoteric for me, apparently, as I have no idea what you mean.


That you have no idea what I mean appears to be your theme of the week.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
I was refering to the fact that if you have nothing to strive for, you have no reason to strive. I'm not saying that "property" is the ONLY reason to strive, only that it's the only SUITABLE one to concentrate on for a real society.

All other potential "reasons to strive" are too inconcrete to be reliable AS primary reasons to strive.


Private property is no more concrete than any other reason to strive. In fact, it is less measurable than many - such as survival, or even good health, or even being able to make use of things, a motivation cousin to but more concrete than owning things. It is as abstract as any other religious or ideological motivation, and is reliable only in that it exalts shortsighted behavior.

Quote:
Until new competitors show up..!?" The impatience of the left, in their adolescent unreal world of "give it to me NOW!!", is stupendously amusing.
If he's a rightist he either has saved for this situation, or can smooth talk someone into believing in his ability, despite the failure.
And yes, leftists are weenies. Heh he he he...!
The leftist, luckily living as he does in a capitalistic society, has the same opportunity as the rightist, so it's up to him.
If he lived in a leftist society, this problem wouldn't come up because there would be no ice-cream. And no reason for any.
Don't take my obvious insults as insults because they're only insults if insults is what you want them to be.
They are otherwise non-insults, better known as prodding.


Actually, these are distinctly insults, and even I will run out of patience eventually with your unreasoning ad hominem attacks on "leftists" and ascribations of virtues to "rightists." However, well before the point at which I have run out of patience with you personally (by experience, at least several months prior), you will have run out of warnings professionally in a very real, rule-bound fashion.

I'm going to tell you very officially and very bluntly. The moderation staff here at NationStates enforces the rules which we have set out about flaming, flame-baiting, and trolling. At this point in time, you've been repeating the first two offenses with clear intent to continue. Consider this your final official warning before facing consequences, as much as I hate to say it. Rules are rules, and you've been breaking them.

Heh he he.. and the left proves itself incapable, once again, of abiding dissent, as Iakeokeo has been banned.

May you have a lovely time in your censored leftist wasteland.

Thank you for the opportunity to converse with you all, as I chose to, before the "oh so tolerant left" shut me down for being "interesting".

Bye-bye now. :D