Communist Education?

[Agathon]

Give it up Ogie, your performance shows that you have been badly outgunned in this thread.

There are plenty of right wing Apolytoners who can mount a decent defence of their position, but you ain't one of them.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ramo

Ned's gonna start up his "workers of the field" story again. Run for the hills!

Oh no!! I'll save him the trouble.

The Parable of the Field

Although I thought my parable of the dead Ned provided a fitting end to that saga.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
But who gets to decide what is a "benefit to society" or what is a "cost to society"?

That's all up to the political system. The political system determines whether the economic system will benefit individuals or society as a whole. A properly working political system will do the latter.

[Saras]

I'm tired enought with explaining to silly Lithuanian corporates that borrowing in floating rate (say, Euribor+0.7%) is not necessarily "cheaper" than borrowing in fixed rate to be arsed to plough through all this pseudoscientific cack.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
GePap

Two simple statements
1) Because as citizens we have no right to choose productions.
2) That is reserved for the property owners.

Any reason to think either of these two statements are not factual with respect to current US law.

Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce. Governments have the right to tax. State governments have the right to seize property (emminent domain). The Constitution recognizes that the government (which is supposedly an extention of the citizenry) has the right to regulate commerce and seize and tax property. Furthermore, the government even has the caacity to compell you to do certain things with your property.

But my question was a moral one, not one based on the Constitution. Why shouldn't citizens have every right to determine what is or isn't produced? Property is a social construct. It only exists because we agree to make it exist. If we decide we don't want to abide by that convention as a society anymore, the property doesn't exist. All property is, is an agreement to limit yourself (in that we agere not to tramp all over your "property," etc).

[Saras]

--Property is a social construct. It only exists because we agree to make it exist."

No, it is an extention of my right to life. Discussion dead-ended.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Saras

No, it is an extention of my right to life. Discussion dead-ended.

And that's not a BAM.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Saras
--Property is a social construct. It only exists because we agree to make it exist."

No, it is an extention of my right to life. Discussion dead-ended.

"When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism and militarism are incapable of being conquered."

-Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Racism, materialism and militarism are not your right.

[JohnT]

Speaking of BAM.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Saras
--Property is a social construct. It only exists because we agree to make it exist."

No, it is an extention of my right to life. Discussion dead-ended.

What gives you a right to live?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by JohnT
Speaking of BAM.

The difference is that there is a connection between people placing property rights over people and the evils of society. There is no connection between the right to life and the right to property. In fact, property rights are incompatable with the right to life and the right to equality.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Kidicious


That's all up to the political system. The political system determines whether the economic system will benefit individuals or society as a whole. A properly working political system will do the latter.

A fundamentally flawed premise which obviates the need for an individual to improve their standing. As such and additionallly it goes counter to the inalienable rights described in the Declaration namely the rights of Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness.

Or maybe you disagree with the initial premise that all men are created equal and are endowed with certain inalienable rights.

Implicit in this statement is that man determines for himself what happiness is.

Whatever the case, if and when you commies come to power better bring a lot of white out to correct the mistakes of the Declaration and Constitution.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce. Governments have the right to tax. State governments have the right to seize property (emminent domain). The Constitution recognizes that the government (which is supposedly an extention of the citizenry) has the right to regulate commerce and seize and tax property. Furthermore, the government even has the caacity to compell you to do certain things with your property.

But my question was a moral one, not one based on the Constitution. Why shouldn't citizens have every right to determine what is or isn't produced? Property is a social construct. It only exists because we agree to make it exist. If we decide we don't want to abide by that convention as a society anymore, the property doesn't exist. All property is, is an agreement to limit yourself (in that we agere not to tramp all over your "property," etc).

As I said before, a representative government is not the same as citizens having the right to determine productions. As long as the representative has the ability and right to vote different from his constituency the citizens have no right. The more tenuously the association of citizen to the actual decision the less voice. Notice the distinction voice verses right. Their voice may be heard but ignored.

And what are morals other than social constructs. You choose to ignore property as a tangible item yet rely on morals to support your claims. Pick and choose your constructs my friend.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


A fundamentally flawed premise which obviates the need for an individual to improve their standing. As such and additionallly it goes counter to the inalienable rights described in the Declaration namely the rights of Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness.

Or maybe you disagree with the initial premise that all men are created equal and are endowed with certain inalienable rights.

Implicit in this statement is that man determines for himself what happiness is.

Whatever the case, if and when you commies come to power better bring a lot of white out to correct the mistakes of the Declaration and Constitution.

I would love to use some white out on the Constitution. As far as the right to pursue happiness is concerned, its vague and useless. If you want to grant a right, make it clear.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
And what are morals other than social constructs. You choose to ignore property as a tangible item yet rely on morals to support your claims. Pick and choose your constructs my friend.

Actually I don't. I fully recognize that moral structures are human creations. The fact that a set of human relations is in existence doesn't presuppose it's naturalness. Slavery existed for a very long time, an people argued it was just, and natural, and moral. Today we see those arguments as FoS. Equally, the right to property in land, capital, etc., is no more no more natural than the right to property in humans.

BTW, the DoI has no legal standing in the USA. The rights enshrined in that document have no legal valdity. The rights to life, liberty, and property, however, we assured in the 14th Amendment, and you may not be deprived of them except by due process of law. In other words, the government does not recognize them as absolute, nor do the citizens. We may take away your rights to life, liberty, and property in order to maximize the public good.