Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Well screw the middle class.

Page 7 of 10 [ 148 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

14 Oct 2012, 8:47 am

Hopper wrote:
Then overthrow it already! Tch.

But really, that's a whole load of different arguments there. A government function is legitimate assuming it has democratic assent and doesn't go against whatever constitution or bill of rights etc that a particular country has. Where there is sufficient discord, there will be uprisings, civil wars etc. Where you break a law, the government assumes legitimacy in (if necessary) using force. That goes for every law, and would be the same even under the most minimal of governments. What those laws should be - if they should be at all - is a matter for political discourse. I'm a Socialist in the UK. I loathe a whole heap of stuff my government is doing. I follow a lot of debates and talks and thoughts on the left, and there is a lot of confusion as to what to do.


Part of the problem is that with the very split views on various things, democracy has a tendency to turn into a majority dictatorship. "You are free to leave", if this is a legitimate argument then it has to be legitimate in all cases where someone disagrees with government.

If there were more "2/3 majority" requirements it would most likely help, but if you take a lot of democratic countries a majority government does what it pleases. Even if it, thanks to voting districts or something similar has less than 50% of the votes.



Tim_Tex
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 46,689
Location: Houston, Texas

14 Oct 2012, 9:05 am

YippySkippy wrote:
A lot of people who consider themselves "middle class" don't actually fit the definition. For example, almost all working-class people consider themselves middle class.
When politicians say they will protect the middle class, they are using the broader definition whereby almost anyone who is not a millionaire or on welfare is included.


What *does* constitute middle class?


_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!


RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States

14 Oct 2012, 9:24 am

Jacoby wrote:
A world where collecting taxes isn't tantamount to being robbed at gunpoint? Just because you rationalize the use of theft and violence doesn't change it from being what it is. What do you think happens when you don't pay these taxes? They send men with guns to your house. Just because the robber has a noble cause doesn't excuse his ignoble actions and make him not a robber.

Much like most common thieves, the noble cause usually isn't so noble when you hold it up to sunlight. My personal beliefs are that the initiation force against another is wrong, you can disagree or delude yourself into thinking that these actions don't constitute force.

Capitalists love theft and violence. Walking over land and saying only I can use it because of a piece of paper. People on "my land" need to follow my orders or get shot. That's capitalism in a nutshell.

It amazes me how right wing libertarians can conflate with capitalism liberty, and act like aggression and authority are their main concerns.



Last edited by RushKing on 14 Oct 2012, 9:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

14 Oct 2012, 9:40 am

RushKing wrote:
Capitalists love theft and violence. Walking over land and saying only I can use it because of a piece of paper. People on "my land" need to follow my orders or get shot. That's capitalism in a nutshell.

It amazes me how right wing libertarians can conflate with capitalism liberty, and act like aggression is their main concern.


The "piece of paper" is simply an instrument that says the current owner bought the land from the prior owner.

The First Owner did NOT own the land. He took it for his use. Whatever is in Nature is permissible to take and use since it does not belong to anyone.

Paper is only a symbol. The fact of purchasing or taking from nature is a fact.

If we take what you said to its logical conclusion then there would be no property at all. Or all property would be collectively owned. Which brings up the question: why are you wearing your underwear. I did not give my permission for you to wear it.

ruveyn



Last edited by ruveyn on 14 Oct 2012, 9:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States

14 Oct 2012, 9:47 am

ruveyn wrote:
RushKing wrote:
Capitalists love theft and violence. Walking over land and saying only I can use it because of a piece of paper. People on "my land" need to follow my orders or get shot. That's capitalism in a nutshell.

It amazes me how right wing libertarians can conflate with capitalism liberty, and act like aggression is their main concern.


The "piece of paper" is simply an instrument that says the current owner bought the land from the prior owner.

The First Owner did own the land. He took it for his use. Whatever is in Nature is permissible to take and use since it does not belong to anyone.

Paper is only a symbol. The fact of purchasing or taking from nature is a fact.

If we take what you said to its logical conclusion then there would be no property at all. Or all property would be collectively owned. Which brings up the question: why are you wearing your underwear. I did not give my permission for you to wear it.

ruveyn

I believe property needs to be justified. Personal property improves our lives. Private property violates liberty.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

14 Oct 2012, 9:54 am

RushKing wrote:
I believe property needs to be justified. Personal property improves our lives. Private property violates liberty.


No it doesn't. Private property simple indicates what belongs to whom so there is no fighting over it.

Good fences make good neighbors.

ruveyn



RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States

14 Oct 2012, 10:08 am

ruveyn wrote:
RushKing wrote:
I believe property needs to be justified. Personal property improves our lives. Private property violates liberty.


No it doesn't. Private property simple indicates what belongs to whom so there is no fighting over it.

Good fences make good neighbors.

ruveyn

Private property is an indication of theft and aggression. Territorial behavior is violent.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

14 Oct 2012, 10:12 am

RushKing wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
RushKing wrote:
I believe property needs to be justified. Personal property improves our lives. Private property violates liberty.


No it doesn't. Private property simple indicates what belongs to whom so there is no fighting over it.

Good fences make good neighbors.

ruveyn

Private property is an indication of theft and aggression. Territorial behavior is violent.


Then you deny land ownership. See what kind of society you get with that denial. Something like the late stone age culture of the Aboriginal People of the world.

I prefer technology based civilization. For that we need property rights, both real and abstract.

I refuse to beg the rest of mankind for permission to grow veggies on a piece of land I took from nature. Or pick apples from a tree not owned by another person.

So let territorial nature be violent. It is a necessary evil. The alternative is some bogus communistic collective ownership scheme are always, always, always, results in tyranny and death. Study the late and unlamented Soviet Union or the currenty barely alive People's State of North Korea.

There is no property there, but somehow Dear Leader gets to own or at least control it.

ruveyn



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

14 Oct 2012, 10:21 am

RushKing wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
RushKing wrote:
I believe property needs to be justified. Personal property improves our lives. Private property violates liberty.


No it doesn't. Private property simple indicates what belongs to whom so there is no fighting over it.

Good fences make good neighbors.

ruveyn

Private property is an indication of theft and aggression. Territorial behavior is violent.


I do believe it was Thomas Paine who argued that the ownership of land is based in the refinement of that land. Or rather that land that nobody has invested time in, is public, whereas when someone invests time in it, that property becomes his as a result of his investment.

You cannot differentiate in a meaningful way between "personal property" and "private property" as the two are the same thing.



RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States

14 Oct 2012, 10:24 am

ruveyn wrote:
RushKing wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
RushKing wrote:
I believe property needs to be justified. Personal property improves our lives. Private property violates liberty.


No it doesn't. Private property simple indicates what belongs to whom so there is no fighting over it.

Good fences make good neighbors.

ruveyn

Private property is an indication of theft and aggression. Territorial behavior is violent.


Then you deny land ownership. See what kind of society you get with that denial. Something like the late stone age culture of the Aboriginal People of the world.

I prefer technology based civilization. For that we need property rights, both real and abstract.

I refuse to beg the rest of mankind for permission to grow veggies on a piece of land I took from nature. Or pick apples from a tree not owned by another person.

So let territorial nature be violent. It is a necessary evil. The alternative is some bogus communistic collective ownership scheme are always, always, always, results in tyranny and death. Study the late and unlamented Soviet Union or the currenty barely alive People's State of North Korea.

There is no property there, but somehow Dear Leader gets to own or at least control it.

ruveyn

So you respond with nothing but strawmans and other baseles assumptions.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

14 Oct 2012, 10:27 am

TM wrote:
[

You cannot differentiate in a meaningful way between "personal property" and "private property" as the two are the same thing.


But one can distinguish real property (real estate) from other kinds of property. Nature provides for free land, water, minerals in and on the ground. All the rest involve some kind of human made artifact. However all kinds of property are necessary to have a society that advances beyond killing animals and picking berries off of bushes.

Property is a necessary condition for civilization.

Without property, we are barbarian savages.

With property we are better (sometimes) but not nearly often enough.

ruveyn



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

14 Oct 2012, 10:38 am

ruveyn wrote:
TM wrote:
[

You cannot differentiate in a meaningful way between "personal property" and "private property" as the two are the same thing.


But one can distinguish real property (real estate) from other kinds of property. Nature provides for free land, water, minerals in and on the ground. All the rest involve some kind of human made artifact. However all kinds of property are necessary to have a society that advances beyond killing animals and picking berries off of bushes.

ruveyn


That wasn't part of my argument, but I do agree with you.



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

14 Oct 2012, 10:40 am

RushKing wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
RushKing wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
RushKing wrote:
I believe property needs to be justified. Personal property improves our lives. Private property violates liberty.


No it doesn't. Private property simple indicates what belongs to whom so there is no fighting over it.

Good fences make good neighbors.

ruveyn

Private property is an indication of theft and aggression. Territorial behavior is violent.


Then you deny land ownership. See what kind of society you get with that denial. Something like the late stone age culture of the Aboriginal People of the world.

I prefer technology based civilization. For that we need property rights, both real and abstract.

I refuse to beg the rest of mankind for permission to grow veggies on a piece of land I took from nature. Or pick apples from a tree not owned by another person.

So let territorial nature be violent. It is a necessary evil. The alternative is some bogus communistic collective ownership scheme are always, always, always, results in tyranny and death. Study the late and unlamented Soviet Union or the currenty barely alive People's State of North Korea.

There is no property there, but somehow Dear Leader gets to own or at least control it.

ruveyn

So you respond with nothing but strawmans and other baseles assumptions.


Well, you're not leaving much room for arguments outside of the one he made. Either you have private property, communal property or no property.

Private property would per your definition be violent aggression.

Communal property would be the same as Ruveyn argued.

No property, would render us unable to operate a modern society.



RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States

14 Oct 2012, 11:08 am

TM wrote:
RushKing wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
RushKing wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
RushKing wrote:
I believe property needs to be justified. Personal property improves our lives. Private property violates liberty.


No it doesn't. Private property simple indicates what belongs to whom so there is no fighting over it.

Good fences make good neighbors.

ruveyn

Private property is an indication of theft and aggression. Territorial behavior is violent.


Then you deny land ownership. See what kind of society you get with that denial. Something like the late stone age culture of the Aboriginal People of the world.

I prefer technology based civilization. For that we need property rights, both real and abstract.

I refuse to beg the rest of mankind for permission to grow veggies on a piece of land I took from nature. Or pick apples from a tree not owned by another person.

So let territorial nature be violent. It is a necessary evil. The alternative is some bogus communistic collective ownership scheme are always, always, always, results in tyranny and death. Study the late and unlamented Soviet Union or the currenty barely alive People's State of North Korea.

There is no property there, but somehow Dear Leader gets to own or at least control it.

ruveyn

So you respond with nothing but strawmans and other baseles assumptions.


Well, you're not leaving much room for arguments outside of the one he made. Either you have private property, communal property or no property.

Private property would per your definition be violent aggression.

Communal property would be the same as Ruveyn argued.

No property, would render us unable to operate a modern society.

In capitalism, if you don't own land to grow your own food, your only option is to starve or beg to become a wage slave. In an anarchist society, land is shared so you don't need permission from a landlord to grow food for yourself. Neither of you explained why land ownership is nessecary for technology to develope. Co-operatives can compete with eachother for votes.



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

14 Oct 2012, 11:34 am

RushKing wrote:
In capitalism, if you don't own land to grow your own food, your only option is to starve or beg to become a wage slave. In an anarchist society, land is shared so you don't need permission from a landlord to grow food for yourself. Neither of you explained why land ownership is nessecary for technology to develope. Co-operatives can compete with eachother for votes.


Land being shared is a possibility until people have started to grow food on it, then it becomes "taken" by someone, thus there are property rights. I.E. the vegetables I grow for myself are mine.

Land ownership is needed, because it makes it possible to develop further than no land ownership. I'm not going to put a ton of effort into developing a piece of land if nobody agrees that the proceeds are mine.



RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States

14 Oct 2012, 11:51 am

TM wrote:
RushKing wrote:
In capitalism, if you don't own land to grow your own food, your only option is to starve or beg to become a wage slave. In an anarchist society, land is shared so you don't need permission from a landlord to grow food for yourself. Neither of you explained why land ownership is nessecary for technology to develope. Co-operatives can compete with eachother for votes.


Land being shared is a possibility until people have started to grow food on it, then it becomes "taken" by someone, thus there are property rights. I.E. the vegetables I grow for myself are mine.

Land ownership is needed, because it makes it possible to develop further than no land ownership. I'm not going to put a ton of effort into developing a piece of land if nobody agrees that the proceeds are mine.

Land ownership is not needed, and the reality is that nothing truly belongs to anyone. We need to discuss when force and theft is justifiable. But I can't with capitalists because the refuse to agknoledge the fact that they already steal in the first place. I believe you should be free to keep the food you will eat. The stuff you grow and don't eat should be distributed.