It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why do socialists want to take away the right to own private property?

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   
What happened in Porto-Allegre for years now would be worth a long thread here in the Political Conspiracies forum - but is there any conspiracies within ?...

Porto-Allegre has developped a living, efficient system of Participative Democracy were everyone is called up to directly, namely and personnally be invovlved in the politics upon which he depends, as much as all social and politicals problematics are solely ruled and dealed by the Commune as so (see Communards French Anarchist which took Paris in 1848 and 1870) : no superstructural problem ever interferes with the local, effective, real life and problematics of every citizen. Makes think of Ancient Greece, doesn't it ?

Transferring the politics at the local, at most regional level, through public Agoras & Fora's where everyone could participate... DEvelopping a Collective Corporation Paradigm where every worker benefits from the company he works for just as any "actionnaire" (who happens to do litterally NOTHING but putting money he doesn't use de facto eanywhere else in order to make such money...
)

Think Internet, make of Referendum the Common Rule for every biggie legislations and big reforms, make officially possible the request by any citizen for any New Law to be reviewed and evaluated by some "core Forum" or "Agora of Wises", if not "Areopage" composed of the most representative citizens, - if such a tiny representative manner be ever needed, as the all community could vote as well on every reform.

New Technologies Are The Key To a New AnarchoParticipative, Economically Communard, Regionally-Ruled Worldwide Non-Gouvernment

New Technology plus... an ounce of common-sense ! And here you go for a revolutionary move in an ultra-wealthy society the Western World has happened to become...

... Time's maybe short : one day it could be too late to also jump from Wild Capitalism to such a florishing, "humanshaped" Anarchist Paradigm...




[edit on 10-3-2009 by Rigel]




posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   
The real question is

Why would I CARE what socialists think?

It's just a matter of time before anyone who claims socialism will be laying face down in a pool of their own blood...

I hate to say it but, the guns, the numbers and the willingness to fight simply do not exist on the Liberal/socialist side

The votes, the agendas and the politics and even money ( in theory ) are there...

But the guns, the ammo, the supplies, the farm land, the Reproducing family base... it's all on those in opposition

Socialism stands... a snowflakes chance in Hell

Majority doesn't rule in a fight

Not when your Majority comes from within small isolated Urban centers that are completely dependent on the states that will mainly rise against them in a world where one farm feeds a Million people

Those against socialism don't even need to fight they can forget to turn the tractor on one day

Women, half children and agendas aren't ready for combat in the street

Aside from handfuls of completely untrained African Americans who are almost universally located together in set targetable locations... what MALE fighting force do the socialists have?

It's not like the Military will turn on it's own people, even over half the standing army will turn for the people...

And lets face it...where the Airforce goes and most of the Navy goes, is allot more important than what soldiers do, especially considering the infighting there would be among them...

And...we all know, where most of our pilots come from and it's not Oakland or Detroit

Really... who, what professions do the socialism supports come from... best Obama supporters i know are Teachers, Federal Employees who support this BS

No offense but a comfortable non aggressive non combative lot if I ever saw one.

I predict a rough bloody time ahead

With the non centrists ruling the day this time MASSIVELY before all is said and done...



Please don;t get me wrong, i'm a socially liberal guy and have spent half my life around Hippies and grew up in NYC

They don't have a hope in hell in a fight, not a bit of a chance...

You know it's great that for YEARS

we have seen the media show us Women cops and super chicks that can kick ass on big burly men with guns and low enforcement allows you to be hired if your 5' 1" and we have Gay rights and you can ...you know wait tables and not reproduce...

They will legalize weed now to get more hippies, but I for one am not fooled...

and

They will promise health care and raises to all Fed employees and that's numbers, they have "support" in votes

But the BASE is fictional

If your teaching class on a salary... in a city, you have enough preparation to survive when that check is gone for about 3 hrs

Unwed moms on welfare are about good for self urination on their leg when the first shot flies, cities are targets, tenement building are prisons

Some guy named Buck with 5 sons could take on an entire community in lower Manhattan and win that fight... sad but true...

Take for example Oklahoma city

What will the Urban socialist population do when there are even 1,000 Tim Mc Veys set loose in America?


DON'T GET ME WRONG, I'M NOT EXPRESSING MY POLITICS

I just can see right from the cuff here... which sides ass I should kiss, who's going to win

The laws on terror were written for this

But, the insurgent on this round is here and many have doctorates, they aren't dumb arses uneducated from some sand hole in the mideast that have to sneak in...

if .01% of the nation rises violently with a real effort...

The inner cities are toast, and socialism along with it



Right about now, I'm glad i'm an Avid spelunker... maybe I can sit this one out, it's going to be bad



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   
I'm afraid I can nothing for you, Dude.

Except those two lines, perhaps.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK

Socialism...The workers ownership/control of the means of production and distribution. (yet to happen in ANY country).

Nationalism...The government ownership/control of the...(almost ALL countries have nationalised systems).

I get your distinction. And I must say that I feel the same way about Nationalism as you apparently do. Whenever one entity has ownership over everything, every other entity will suffer because of it. That's human nature, to exploit others in order to further one's own interests.

This, I believe, it the reason why, as you pointed out, that your version of socialism has not yet been successful in any country. It simply goes against human nature. Look at any force of workers: do they try to help each other out, or do they try to each best the others, striving for superior working conditions, superior pay, superior benefits? I have seen the latter many times more than I can count, but I have yet to see the former.

There used to be a paper plant around this area that appeared to use many of your suggestions. Employees were paid very well, but were expected to remain at their posts until relieved by the next shift. That meant that tardy workers were frowned upon by their peers, while those who showed up on time were appreciated. Shift adjustments were typically left to the workers; if one person needed to be off for a day, someone else could fill their shift in return for the same favor on a day they needed to be off. Management allowed this on a regular basis as a matter of routine.

Employees could be fired by a representative board of workers. The only way new employees could be hired was if they were approved by this same board. As you might imagine, there was a huge waiting list of applicants begging for a job in this plant. Sadly, it was eventually sold out to a national chain of paper mills and the conditions I mentioned before were replaced by more traditional working arrangements.

That worked, but it only worked because there were still rules in effect by upper management. If people had been able to simply stop working whenever they felt someone should have been there to relieve them, even if that person had not shown up, then the plant could not have operated.

So it would be with any group that tried to perform a service. Those who will laze by and only do the bare minimum that is required will soon slow down and stop the more productive workers. Jealousy will run rampant. "I do twice the work as he does, so I should make twice as much." "I am here on time every day, and this guy is always showing up 30 minutes late. Yet he is making the same wages I am. Why should I not be late too?"


Social security, medicare etc., is not socialism. 'Social programs' are a product of capitalism because capitalism requires a poverty class, and what are we to do with that class of people, let them starve? The armchair capitalists probably says yes, because they don't fully understand the system they blindly support.

They are socialistic programs, but I understand your distinction yet again. Still, I fail to see how such a major change as you appear to be proposing would lead to anything other than anarchy and lack in the short term, which would destroy any support one might have for your version of socialism at the grass-roots level. Therefore, these programs, while not perfect (or even close to perfect IMHO) are the best we can manage without taking the risk I mention above.


BTW this thread is not about the merits of socialism, it was about what socialists mean by 'property', and I answered that question.

Yes, you did:

Originally posted by ANOK

If you are using a piece of land and live on it then that land is yours under common land ownership. The only land that you cannot claim a right to is land that is not being used.

My initial question to this is: What exactly constitutes 'use'?

As an example, my family owns about 90 acres of land, mostly wooded. I have claim to 40 or so of that (the partially developed area, plus some of the wooded). Out of that amount, maybe 5 acres have buildings on it and therefore could be considered to be being 'used' by those who took a casual look at our situation.

But that 35 acres behind me is being used. It is a refuge, a quiet place for me to retreat to when the cares of the world become too great. It is a source of firewood for heat. It is a source of food, containing a deer population. Those are uses, even though in order to maintain it for these uses, the natural state must also be maintained. It is not fenced, since the deer typically roam over several such tracts. It contains no buildings since those would scare off the deer. It contains no 'harvested' areas, as I prefer to maintain the natural beauty by being very selective about which trees I use for heat.

Under your proposal, would I be forced to live next to a housing development simply because some people who did not appreciate the natural beauty of the area decided they wanted to live there? Would my usage of the land be less important than their proposed use of it, simply because my usage was not as overt?

In an even earlier post, I believe you mentioned that a socialistic system would allow workers to produce more efficiently the things we need. But you fail to comprehend the fact that these 'needs' (more correctly 'wants', to be sure) change as new technology is created. This new technology only comes about through self-sacrifice by the creators of such technology; one does not typically profit while new ideas are being researched and developed, but rather profit greatly when such technologies are introduced to the public. It is a question of either profiting moderately in the present or greatly in the future, and is a decision each individual must make for themselves.

In your proposed system, where is the motive to create new technologies to benefit mankind? Who determines what services and products are to be made or done for others? What is frivolous and what is necessary? I'm sure you have an answer to all these questions, and an intelligent answer at that. But would others not have differing ideas, just as intelligent, but from a different perspective? So whose do we use?

I understand your concept, and many aspects of it are admirable. But I simply wonder if it is possible to implement, given the conditions of human nature.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   
Frankidealist:

As far as the question you ask goes, "Why do Socialists want to do away with private property," ANOK has done a great job answering that.

For broader themes, "socialism" has to be one of the most abused and misused words, particularly in American politics. Do not assume that everyone or everything that calls its/theirself "socialist" really is.

In terms of historical and economic theory, I think the crucial thing to understand is that Karl Marx (who was a historian and economist, not a politician) saw the critical driving force throughout human history to be who controls the means of production in a society, including the labor force.

Private property in this theory is a way of alienating (separating) the laborer from the product of his labor because in making labor exchangeable for cash it becomes a good that can be separated from the laborer.

Crucial to this way of thinking is that Marx understood work to be a fundamental characteristic of humanity; that he believed that the drive to leisure was a product of the unnatural separation of the worker from the work. Socialism as a stage on the path toward communism (which Marx believed to be the historical destination of man) is marked by differences in reward based on work done, so there is still a form of positive encouragement to work in the transition out of a capitalist society. The more you produce, the more you will get to keep; but the keeping is more a sort of right of usage than our notion of absolute possession.

In particular, inheritance rights are seen by many Socialists to perpetrate the capitalist dominance by reinforcing the class structure.

 


editing in some info from actual Socialists



The Socialist Labor Party of America, assembled at its 47th National Convention, reasserts the inalienable right of all human beings to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

We hold that the purpose of government must be to secure to every citizen the enjoyment of this right. Taught by experience we hold, furthermore, that this right is an illusion for the overwhelming majority of people—the working class—under the present system of economic despotism that is essentially destructive of their life, their liberty and their happiness.

We hold that humanity cannot exercise their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness without ownership of the land on and the tools of production with which to work. Deprived of these, the lives, liberty and fate of the workers are in the hands of the class that own those essentials for work and production.

Socialist Labor Party

 


Oh yeah, and everyone support the Debate Forum and check out the debate in my signature on whether or not the U.S. is ready for a move to a Socialist government


[edit on 3/10/09 by americandingbat]



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


I disagree with your assessment of Human Nature.

I believe this is one of the major stumbling blocks to the improvement of our lives. This is a major misconception that those who wish to maintain their power will try to tell you, that we need to be controlled by a centralised over-bearing authority.

It's the system that we have that perpetuates most bad Human Natures through fear. Fear, perpetuated by the state, is rampant in society on many levels.

Most people who believe Humans are naturally greedy, and even 'evil', obviously are not including themselves in this assessment. It's just everyone else that's bad. But in reality it's just a way you can justify supporting an unfair system without the guilt. You are the bad one for supporting a system that perpetuates that bad behaviour.

It is a fact that Humans are naturally altruistic.

www.goodnewsnetwork.org...

It's this system we live under that perpetuates bad behaviour, and those who have control of the state are the worse offenders. They use every trick in the book to perpetuate the natural Human tendency for survival.
Condition people to live in a constant state of fear and they are easy to control.
Consumerism, for example, is coerced through this new fear of being 'left behind' and not 'with it'. A waste of life and resources to keep those who control the economy wealthy and in control.

It's all about control. The 'system' is about keeping those at the top in control, not about making them rich. They're already rich. The system is to keep us all under economic slavery so we are 'kept in our place'. We are a threat to their power, so we are controlled to both supply the labour and to keep us from realising the illusion of their power.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 08:29 PM
link   
I'm no socialist, not by a long shot (in fact, I despise commies and other forms of monkeys on my back), HOWEVER ... in so far as private property (land), this is what I have to say about THAT:

(unfortunately) I was born on Earth, and as such, I find it intolerable that I must BUY the RIGHT to live here upon Earth.

I believe EVERYONE should, by birthright, be entitled to their FREE piece of THEIR home planet. The very idea that the idiots before us had some kind of RIGHT themselves to grab this entire planet for themselves, and now WE must buy a piece of it to live upon, is preposterous, intolerable, and VERY IMMORAL! Why do the animals on Earth live more free than we do? It's as if we ARE all slaves.

Time for a revolution!

[edit on 10-3-2009 by Divinorumus]



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK

I disagree with your assessment of Human Nature.

That would appear to be the prime difference in our positions. I make no secret of the fact that I am very cynical when it comes to humanity as a whole, although I do try to hold out hope that I may someday be proven wrong. Sadly, since we see society through different eyes, and since (in my view, anyway) the crux of our respective arguments is the way society would react to a truly socialistic arrangement, I see no way we can ever agree. Except, of course, to agree to disagree.



Most people who believe Humans are naturally greedy, and even 'evil', obviously are not including themselves in this assessment. It's just everyone else that's bad.

Oh, but no, at least not me.


Seriously, though, I do not see myself as immune to the traits I despise in others. I see myself as someone who would like to change, but is having a hard time of it... pretty much the same way I see most others.

You have made a very logical argument here ANON, and while I can't agree with you, I can respect the difference in our positions. Good debating with you.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 12:31 AM
link   
They can pay my mortgage if hey want my property..haha.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Hey mate I can respect that, thanx.

Yes I believe this incorrect assessment of our own nature is what keeps a lot of people from opening up to the idea of true freedom and liberty.

People think they're free, but when really pressed they admit that freedom scars them because of their negative view of other people, perpetuated by the media.

You have to realise we are not the evil people the MSM keeps trying to make us appear to be. Use some common sense and look around you. I live in a inner city high crime area, but even here it's not nearly as bad as the MSM paints it, nowhere near as bad. People around here just want to live in peace like anyone but when you're pushed into a corner, politically, socially and financially some people are going to act out. That IS Human nature.

It's funny, but I feel like a Human arguing with a non-Human and trying to convince you we're not really bad. No offense but maybe you just don't have the world experience to see how people really can do incredible things if we're allowed to. But as soon as we try to organise ourselves the authorities come in and try to discredit the organisation. Unions are the obvious example but it goes much further than that. The authorities don't like us being organised, because we then become a threat to the nice little system they have set up for themselves.

Go read about the Spanish revolution and how the farmers organised themselves using anarcho-socialist principles.


The role of anarchism in the Spanish Revolution or Spanish Civil War of 1936 is too often absent from histories of this struggle against fascism. Alongside the war millions of workers collectivised the land and took over industry to pursue their vision of a new society.

flag.blackened.net...

Please check it out and read. This is real PEOPLES history, not 'rich mans' his-story. You weren't taught this in school. They organised with NO central government, while at the same time fighting a war against the fascists. Ordinary working class people.

Also read 'Homage to Catalonia', by George Orwell if you get a chance, it's about the Spanish revolution/civil war.

It can be done, but it won't ever be done of we don't realise we can do it!



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArroyoMusic
They can pay my mortgage if hey want my property..haha.


See no one wants your property. Your property is yours unless you own land that is doing nothing, or you own a 'factory' that employs workers etc...

The land you live on would be yours, it would belong to no one but you. In this present state you don't even own the land your house in on. The government can come take it whenever they want, or the bank when their economic system fails you. Under socialism your PERSONAL PROPERTY will be safer than under capitalism. Thousands of people who thought they owned their own home are now homeless. They didn't really own that house did they? No they were under contract, that forced them to work to pay way more than the house was really worth, that said the house was yours after doing this for 30 years. Same thing with your car. You have to go into debt, to someone, in order to 'own' this necessary stuff.

We are all in bondage to the economy. Slaves to the capitalist system.

You don't realise you really own nothing, the state (banks, government) owns you!

The only thing capitalists produce is money, and look what it's doing for us now! We need food, housing, health care etc...

Why is the government bailing out the banks? Because capital is what they use to enslave us, capitalism protects capital (the banks, machinery etc.), using billions of OUR money to protect those that exploit us.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


One more time, 100 % agreed.

May Nestor Makhno also not be forgotten.

Edit :

reply to post by ANOK
 


Same agreement.


Edit : Nazism and Nihilist alike Weltanshauungen ("View of the World", litt.) are fuelled by [paganistisch] low/down/depreciative view of human kind. When monotheism, by the way, put the Human Kind forth up to the Ultimate Goal of the entire universe - even as a time process (so the creationism stuff as described symbolicaly within the Bible, - well the Torah, if not Tanakh, here.)


[edit on 11-3-2009 by Rigel]

[edit on 11-3-2009 by Rigel]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Good job ANOK, nice to see some educated people when it comes to the subject. There should be a thread for explaining socialism right on the main page.


Originally posted by mopusvindictus
The real question is

Why would I CARE what socialists think?
...


Public opinions could change rather quickly you know. And I don't get some parts of your post. You're saying socialism will die and that the right-conservatives will win? I highly doubt that, but only time will tell. Ideas like socialism won't just die cause you libertarian guys slaughter a lot of socialists (what do you mean most are black btw?) with your presumeably superior firepower.

[edit on 11-3-2009 by Mudler]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Town hall threat to seize empty homes: campaign to force owners to sell or rent out.



Anyone who leaves their house empty for six months or more should face the threat of losing it, ministers said yesterday.
They told town halls to pressure homeowners to sell up or rent out homes where no one is living.

Those who fail to get a house occupied before the deadline risk having it seized by their local authority and used to house council tenants.
The campaign to force homeowners to dispose of empty houses was launched by housing minister Margaret Beckett, who said the slowdown in construction of homes means empty ones must be used.

It is most likely to affect recently bereaved families who could face seeing the home of a dead relative taken if they delay too long in deciding what to do with it.

During the recession many families are likely to hang on to empty property because they cannot sell or let it, or because they are hoping for higher prices.

Councils have been told to send threatening letters warning homeowners of their powers to 'take over the running of the property and bring it back into use by force'.

Owners who fail to respond will then be sent questionnaires designed to establish whether the town hall has the legal right to seize their property.


www.dailymail.co.uk...

There are literally tens of thousands of council owned properties throughout the country that stand empty, but rather than fill those first, they would rather seize privately owned property and give it to some immigrant, whose only goal in life is to live off benefits and most importantly the government would make a nice profit.

Most English politicians have homes that are empty most of the time, which they also claim expenses for, but no doubt they'll be exempt from this legislation, but what's new. Greedy hypocrites.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK

Hey mate I can respect that, thanx.

The beauty of ATS. We can disagree without being disagreeable.


And I have to admit, you may not have changed my mind, but you have made me think. That's always a good thing.


You have to realise we are not the evil people the MSM keeps trying to make us appear to be. Use some common sense and look around you. I live in a inner city high crime area, but even here it's not nearly as bad as the MSM paints it, nowhere near as bad.



It's funny, but I feel like a Human arguing with a non-Human and trying to convince you we're not really bad. No offense but maybe you just don't have the world experience to see how people really can do incredible things if we're allowed to.

Ah, but you do proceed form a false assumption here. My view of humanity is not based on the MSM, but on my own experiences. I typically laugh at the MSM for trying to show me how good people really are.


As for my experience, well, I personally think a half-century of living, a decade of that traveling the US as an over-the-road truck driver, counts for something. It's true that I have never been outside of North America, although I do have some friends form countries other than the United States that I talk to frequently. I like hearing their viewpoints.


But as soon as we try to organise ourselves the authorities come in and try to discredit the organisation. Unions are the obvious example but it goes much further than that. The authorities don't like us being organised, because we then become a threat to the nice little system they have set up for themselves.

I can understand where you get this. In many times of distress during historical times, groups of people have successfully managed to govern themselves for a time. Unfortunately this arrangement always seems to evaporate, leaving us right back where we started from: the haves and the have-nots arguing about who should have what.

I really do wish I could subscribe to your world view, and nothing would delight me more than being able to say "You were right and I was wrong". I am not happy about my world view one bit; I simply do not see the goodness and compassion you mention on anything approaching a regular basis.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


I'm sorry to hear your life experiences of people has been so negative, but I would imagine the people you find on the highways of America are not a good example of the world at large. I mean who's nice to anyone when you've been driving all day and some trucker gets in your way..


But we're talking people in general here, not our own experiences really. I've had plenty of bad experiences with people, I'm no naive kid, but no one single experience, or person, is reflective of Human nature. There are many reasons people act out, and a large majority are directly connected to the 'system' we live in, poverty, inequality etc. Very few people are really naturally amoral.

And punishment obviously doesn't work, as crime goes on regardless of threats of punishment. The more laws they enact, the more criminals they create. Most crime is a direct result of the system, and of existing laws.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   
By reviewing all advanced religious organisations, from monasteries to early Christian Oorganisations and preaches, unto mystically-inspired (or claimed as such) social visions (St Augustinus, Th. of Aquino, Th. More, Jakob Boehme et al), one will -surprisingly ? - see that all of'em are more or less founded upon the Common... Wealth of all "properties" untill then owned by the members, also socially unified.

The question of private property, while mostly NOT OPPOSED in its REASONABLE ACCEPTION by the different religious paradigms, still is condemned as a social or political motive regarding the human collectivity's very evolution by most of religious trends aoround the world...

And this, for a very easy reason : greed, egotism, hybris, Megalomania-of-The-Rich, destructives feeling inspired by the effortless accumulation of pure money, which is, in all civilisations, the very same concentrated formula, virtualy universal equivalent of any sort of wealth, the first of them being the humanpower involving the life of millions of base-based people... Well...

Considering from there that all the Doom&Gloom, apocalyptic delirium which had conquered all sides of christianity for decades within the US, all that "psycho-social" mess is the result of the CULT OF PRIVATE PROPERTY as preacticed in the US... well... You all be judge.

Anarchism, for being not commonly-meant 'christian' but far more rather Christic, is truly the only one system that can pretend to replace, adn advantageously, the so called "demoCrapcy" we're supposed to support... from Tokyo to L.A. through Paris and Moscow.




[edit on 11-3-2009 by Rigel]

[edit on 11-3-2009 by Rigel]



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
I don't understand this.


Do you still not understand this? You haven't come back to your thread here to acknowledge our answers to your question?

You either don't understand, or don't want to understand the answer?

It would be polite to acknowledge the effort we've make to help you, no?

Or is it you really didn't want an answer, just replies that agreed with your misconceptions?

So many people think they're 'educated' on politics because they watch MSM political shows or whatever...
Stop listening to Rush lol, he reads directly from the neo-cons 'how to lie about anything political that we don't agree with' guide....



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Well to tell you the truth, In the US, nobody owns land. Even if you buy it, technically it isn't yours.

If you look at the constitution closely, there is a part that states that you are a tenant, not an owner. The government can take your land at any time for any reasons.

Furthermore, It's actually owned by the Vatican and the UK.

Not to burst anybodie's bubble.

I'll try and find the paper I read about it and post it up here.

~Keeper


PS: Owning land is stupid anyway, it belongs to all of us.



IT does belong to all of us . But some of us are not intelligent so we take and abuse this and take from others and claim it as our own.

It would be nice to share the land but somebody would misuse it or get greedy with it.

Just takes one person in power to kill an ideal situation for everybody else. Happens with everything else in life, would happen with this.


Question.

If we can't own anything, then what motivates us to work harder?

Won't we just get lazy and less productive and then be more dependent????

Uh oh maybe i just figured it out.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 11:39 PM
link   
Thank you ANOK and Merriam Weir for bringing sanity to what was otherwise a terrible display of American Ignorance. We're not all that stupid!

And Redneck, very articulate points, and much agreement, although I seem to have more faith in Socialism than you seem to, at least you bring an intelligent, forthright argument with more substance than "socialism bad!". All in all a very entertaining and thoughtful read.
I

Originally posted by mopusvindictus
The real question is

Why would I CARE what socialists think?

It's just a matter of time before anyone who claims socialism will be laying face down in a pool of their own blood...

I hate to say it but, the guns, the numbers and the willingness to fight simply do not exist on the Liberal/socialist side

The votes, the agendas and the politics and even money ( in theory ) are there...

But the guns, the ammo, the supplies, the farm land, the Reproducing family base... it's all on those in opposition

Socialism stands... a snowflakes chance in Hell

Majority doesn't rule in a fight

Not when your Majority comes from within small isolated Urban centers that are completely dependent on the states that will mainly rise against them in a world where one farm feeds a Million people



Dude, seriously, see some help. I don't know what kind of mind it takes to utter such nonsense, but I certainly wouldn't want to find out firsthand.

And it takes more than farmers, buddy.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join