26 Jan 18
Originally posted by @wajomaTo repeat:
If your system is right, and it results in a happy prosperous society it will grow and amass more collectively owned land. Who wants a 1/4th or 1/8th acre piece of dirt with a humble house on it when folk can just wander about sleeping and living where ever they like, you're going to have no problem convincing people it's the better way to go, and they will ...[text shortened]... , you'll be able to point to them and say "That is not the way to live, let that be an example."
You might want to recheck the hundreds of posts where the difference between "private" and "personal" property was explained to you.
Thieves and capitalists want more of the means of production than they could ever personally use and thus require State intervention to defend their usurpation of the resources that exist on this world (which then require others to give up their freedom so that they are not deprived of the means to exist). You never quite get around to explaining why that is justified.
26 Jan 18
Originally posted by @no1marauderI'm trying to get a grasp on your position. At a particular moment the entire surface of the planet should be divided evenly by 7 billion and they should then be forbidden from trading that property. Or is it that no one can own anything in which case the crime of breaking and entering would be instantaneously wiped.
To repeat:
You might want to recheck the hundreds of posts where the difference between "private" and "personal" property was explained to you.
Thieves and capitalists want more of the means of production than they could ever personally use and thus require State intervention to defend their usurpation of the resources that exist on this world (wh ...[text shortened]... deprived of the means to exist). You never quite get around to explaining why that is justified.
You are free to acquire property from others through mutually agreed terms, you are free to give up your property to those who don't believe in property.
26 Jan 18
Originally posted by @wajomaAgain, you keep refusing to admit the difference between "private" and "personal" property. Since it has been explained to you at least a 100 times on this board, you are either extraordinarily stupid or ideologically blinded. To refuse to admit that one has any moral claim to "private property" i.e. state-protected monopolies of certain objects or privileges which are used to exploit others hardly does away to one's rights to personal possession i.e. ownership of things that are not used to exploit others.
I'm trying to get a grasp on your position. At a particular moment the entire surface of the planet should be divided evenly by 7 billion and they should then be forbidden from trading that property. Or is it that no one can own anything in which case the crime of breaking and entering would be instantaneously wiped.
You are free to acquire property fro ...[text shortened]... ally agreed terms, you are free to give up your property to those who don't believe in property.
As Alexander Berkman stated: Personal possession remains only in the things you use. Thus, your watch is your own, but the watch factory belongs to the people. Land, machinery, and all other public utilities will be collective property, neither to be bought nor sold. Actual use will be considered the only title -- not to ownership but to possession."
http://www.spunk.org/library/intro/faq/sp001547/secB3.html#secb31
Of course, virtually everyone believes in personal property, but you and Person A somehow believe that you are entitled to own things and then force others to make those things profitable for you under pain of death. If society rejects your unnatural claim to "private property" i.e. a claim that the State should enforce your ownership of things that you do not possess and will use to exploit others, you absurdly assert that "freedom" is lessened. In fact, the opposite of true.
27 Jan 18
The post that was quoted here has been removedThe short answer is propaganda. Rational thinking is what propaganda suppresses. If the propaganda is effective enough it will manipulate who most people vote for and democracy becomes a secret dictatorship.
Trump got a lot of media coverage that money could never buy. It doesn't matter if a lot of it was bad coverage. The news media used Bengazi to pump up Hitlery's name recognition and it worked. Bad coverage is better than no coverage.
People vote for who they hear about the most. The corporate news media knows this very well. Democracy in the USA is a sham!
Originally posted by @shavixmirPreviously: "Corporations don't make decisions for you, goobermint does."
Well, that’s just not true though, is it?
What I don’t get is why you think letting corporations dictate to you is better than having an elected government dictate to you.
Do you have some examples shav, of a corporation making decisions for you. Because examples of goobermint controlling, limiting and licensing almost every aspect of your life are not hard to come by.
I'm as opposed to corporations dictating as to guvamint dictating. The problem is that guvamint wields so much power they sell themselves to corporations. Financial and political backing in exchange for all kinds of protection rackets. If you want to reduce corporate power then reduce guvamint power to act at their behest.
28 Jan 18
Originally posted by @wajomaCorporations dictate policy to governments.
Previously: [b]"Corporations don't make decisions for you, goobermint does."
Do you have some examples shav, of a corporation making decisions for you. Because examples of goobermint controlling, limiting and licensing almost every aspect of your life are not hard to come by.
I'm as opposed to corporations dictating as to guvamint dictating. The ...[text shortened]... ckets. If you want to reduce corporate power then reduce guvamint power to act at their behest.[/b]
Everything from minimal wages to healthcare systems are influenced by corporations.
But, when you go to work tomorrow morning; the corporation dictates what time you start and where you sit and how you dress and which language you have to speak, which style you have to write in, what time you can have your lunch...
That is pretty intrusive.
Originally posted by @wajomaCorporations having devastating effects on the enviroment due to massive pollution and removal of large patches of forests, for example.
Previously: [b]"Corporations don't make decisions for you, goobermint does."
Do you have some examples shav, of a corporation making decisions for you. Because examples of goobermint controlling, limiting and licensing almost every aspect of your life are not hard to come by.[/b]
This directly influences our day to day lives.
Not to mention the effect they have on our non-human friends:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-volkswagen-emissions-monkey-study/german-carmakers-condemn-use-of-monkeys-in-diesel-fumes-study-idUSKBN1FG0W2
28 Jan 18
Originally posted by @no1marauderJust have some dolt like Nancy Pelosi decide what part of it, if any, you need and take what you don't.
Maybe you could explain how this would work in practice.
Person A says "I own 1 million acres of land and no one else is allowed to use it".
Persons B-Z say that "according to socialist principals, you are not allowed to own that much land as it deprives others of the possibility of feeding themselves free of your domination".
So how does a "free society" resolve such conflicting claims?
Sounds fair to me, especially when they live like kings themselves. Certainly no one will ever dictate what personal property of their they should ever give up.