Debates
20 Apr 23
22 Apr 23
@averagejoe1 saidlegality doesn't equal morality. when peasants toiled for nobles and got just enough to get by, it was all legal.
When we all post, and set up hypotheticals or analogies, I think we all stipulate that all monies are, for sake of argument and expediency, are acquired legally. How else could we have a level playing field. You remind me of that idiot, Jimmm682,, who, reading an analogy, said " well,, what if the man had stolen the money". Totally deflated an interesting discussion.
Your post tries to do the same thing. They stole the money? Jesus
Labor generates wealth and someone managed to make laws that one gets 99.9% of that labour's worth.
@averagejoe1 saidYes, "personal property". But more potatoes than you could ever consume is not "personal property". "Personal property" is based on possession and use as Alexander Berkman said:
OK, I re-read this. Note Marauder has set up in his post above that "one can use his personal property to his hearts content.". He says exactly that. Potato guy can use his potatoes to fill holes, eat, take to church, whatever....No One can get his potatoes.
But, you say, YOU say, you imply, that he Cannot 'continue owning them free from hassle' if people around h ...[text shortened]... se it to his heart's content'. You say he cannot if there are poor people around him. Same thing.
" Personal possession remains only in the things you use."
http://www.spunk.org/library/intro/faq/sp001547/secB3.html#secb31
22 Apr 23
1 edit
@zahlanzi saidSomething is either legal, or it's not. If you want to pepper posts with morality, you will not get much traction. No one likes immorality, or uncharitable people, but what a mire you would create if you made such concepts an issue.
legality doesn't equal morality. when peasants toiled for nobles and got just enough to get by, it was all legal.
Labor generates wealth and someone managed to make laws that one gets 99.9% of that labour's worth.
My query here is to understand Marauder who says a person may own and keep his personal property. Thousand is saying 'not if people around him are starving'. That gets into morality and charity, but that is not the issue . The issue is, the relationship between people in a society regarding their property.....personal and otherwise.
You might as well be saying..' if he wont share his potatoes, he is not being nice'. That is not the issue. Whew.
22 Apr 23
@averagejoe1 saidPeople are more important than property. That seems to be something you don't understand. The purpose of society is to secure the rights and lives of the People; to the extent that can be done by protecting property, fine, but where they come into conflict, see the first sentence of this post.
Something is either legal, or it's not. If you want to pepper posts with morality, you will not get much traction. No one likes immorality, or uncharitable people, but what a mire you would create if you made such concepts an issue.
My query here is to understand Marauder who says a person may own and keep his personal property. Thousand is saying 'not if people a ...[text shortened]... l be saying..' if he wont share his potatoes, he is not being nice'. That is not the issue. Whew.
22 Apr 23
@AverageJoe1
"In closing", cause I think we may lose Marauder right along here, the trap was that if you put Musk as the farmer, and his money as the potatoes, Marauder has just said that he should have his money to his heart's content. If Marauder comes back and changes that, he will have to say that all people who are poor are entitled to his money.
I am not saying which way is right. I am saying a liberal will struggle with trying to square points that cannot be squared.
@averagejoe1 said"Something is either legal, or it's not. "
Something is either legal, or it's not. If you want to pepper posts with morality, you will not get much traction. No one likes immorality, or uncharitable people, but what a mire you would create if you made such concepts an issue.
My query here is to understand Marauder who says a person may own and keep his personal property. Thousand is saying 'not if people a ...[text shortened]... l be saying..' if he wont share his potatoes, he is not being nice'. That is not the issue. Whew.
Awesome insight.
"If you want to pepper posts with morality, you will not get much traction."
Not with sociopaths, yes.
"No one likes immorality, or uncharitable people, "
You do.
"That gets into morality and charity, but that is not the issue"
Morality should be the driving force for legality.
"You might as well be saying..' if he wont share his potatoes, he is not being nice'. "
If he owns all the potatoes in the world and he paid the pickers and those that turn them into fries starvation wages he is not nice and we will force him to be nice.
We made slavery illegal. We "took" someones "property". It was a morality issue and we translated it into law. I don't shed a tear for the poor slave owners who suddenly had to make less profit
Just like that we need to make billionaires illegal. Being a billionaire is immoral and we have to put it into law.
22 Apr 23
@averagejoe1 saidYou might think you came up with a clever "trap" but you only did so by changing your original terms. Obviously someone growing potatoes in their yard could never amass so many that they could never consume them, so your change invalidated your first hypothetical.
@AverageJoe1
"In closing", cause I think we may lose Marauder right along here, the trap was that if you put Musk as the farmer, and his money as the potatoes, Marauder has just said that he should have his money to his heart's content. If Marauder comes back and changes that, he will have to say that all people who are poor are entitled to his money.
I am not sayi ...[text shortened]... is right. I am saying a liberal will struggle with trying to square points that cannot be squared.
There is really no "struggle" at all. The purpose of society (something you never want to discuss) is the protection of individuals' lives and rights and the economic and political system chosen should be designed with that purpose in mind. A system where one man can have almost unimaginable wealth while millions live in dire poverty is at war with Man's basic Nature.
22 Apr 23
@athousandyoung saidPlease state the sentence you refer to
Marauder said no such thing you liar.
@averagejoe1 saidProbably this one:
Please state the sentence you refer to
AJ: Marauder says he can keep all of his money and 'use it to his heart's content'.
His "money" the vast majority of which he acquired through the toil of others or by doing nothing is not "personal property" and thus different from the potatoes (not more than anyone could ever consume) that a person might grow in his yard.
@no1marauder saidThat a man can have so many potatoes was of course a metaphor, and Musk has a lot of dollars.
You might think you came up with a clever "trap" but you only did so by changing your original terms. Obviously someone growing potatoes in their yard could never amass so many that they could never consume them, so your change invalidated your first hypothetical.
There is really no "struggle" at all. The purpose of society (something you never want to discuss) is the ...[text shortened]... ve almost unimaginable wealth while millions live in dire poverty is at war with Man's basic Nature.
So I think I am on point with the comparison, sorry. You never did comment on the second part of your original post on this subject, the 'private property based pm capitalist or feudal versions of ownership'. In your Nirvana, how would that property be treated? If I have 3 cars and more than one house?.
I am trying to remain calm. Zalanzi is really out there, talking about everything he can think of. I do wish he would stay with the issue. And he used the word 'force' which gave me the willies. I see that coming, I am afraid.
Your take on personal property defined does not leave much property that can be 'mine', solely mine. So, is that the crux of your position? No one can really own anything individually, it is all everybody's,,,,,thus, the nirvana of having no government?
@no1marauder saidHaven't we already got such a system, designed with that purpose in mind? I don't follow you there.
The purpose of society (something you never want to discuss) is the protection of individuals' lives and rights and the economic and political system chosen should be designed with that purpose in mind. A system where one man can have almost unimaginable wealth while millions live in dire poverty is at war with Man's basic Nature.
But your next sentence gives me pause. Can a man not be allowed to reach for the stars, search for the best opportunity to better himself, to be all that he can be? You dare restrict this statement, to the extent that a man should be controlled to not grow his wealth and assets beyond what is reasonable????
How much, and by whom? Creepy stuff, Marauder. Zahlanzi may get off on it, but a grown man in the USA enjoying all that it has to offer? Tell me you are kidding. And what does his wealth have to do with you? You NEVER answer that one. Geez.
I'm glad your lot was not around when Henry Ford was earning a million dollars a day. I notice your lot has a distaste for genius.
Wouldn't mind if you drop on off, I did all the damage I wanted to!
My simplest analogies are always the best ones. They just come off the top of my head. It is difficult for you when you keep company with a guy who says housing is a right. Whew.
Remember, on the Biden mtg nightmare where the rich, according to the FHA Director, are paying more so that the less rich can pay less, is a fact, no matter how many links you send. Wrong on that one, too. But you are winning, it being Marx. So you cannot be too unhappy.
22 Apr 23
@averagejoe1 saidKeep up with the lies, Joe, that and pathetic stubborn ignorance seems like the only things you have.
Haven't we already got such a system, designed with that purpose in mind? I don't follow you there.
But your next sentence gives me pause. Can a man not be allowed to reach for the stars, search for the best opportunity to better himself, to be all that he can be? You dare restrict this statement, to the extent that a man should be controlled to not grow his wealth ...[text shortened]... send. Wrong on that one, too. But you are winning, it being Marx. So you cannot be too unhappy.
@averagejoe1 saidYou'd have the property you earned and could use. Others wouldn't get rich off your toil and own things they couldn't possibly use if they lived to be a thousand years old.
That a man can have so many potatoes was of course a metaphor, and Musk has a lot of dollars.
So I think I am on point with the comparison, sorry. You never did comment on the second part of your original post on this subject, the 'private property based pm capitalist or feudal versions of ownership'. In your Nirvana, how would that property be treated? If I have 3 ...[text shortened]... ally own anything individually, it is all everybody's,,,,,thus, the nirvana of having no government?
What kind of person really wants or needs more?
22 Apr 23
@no1marauder saidPlease please tell me and zahlanzi a lie in this post
Keep up with the lies, Joe, that and pathetic stubborn ignorance seems like the only things you have.
22 Apr 23
@averagejoe1 saidAJ: the rich, according to the FHA Director, are paying more so that the less rich can pay less,
Please please tell me and zahlanzi a lie in this post