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.

 

EPIC FAIL!!! The Left tries to connect Private Property Rights and Climate Change

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 





If you want to see the self evident sky, you're going to have to crawl out of that cave your hiding in, sport. You cannot reduce the world to fit into your limited Marxist's views. The Marxist must necessarily declare "liberty is a vague concept" otherwise the tenets of communism are self evidently undone.


So you mock my “limited Marxist’s [sic] views” and then go on to blabber about communism. I never brought up Marx. You waste your (and my) time with a straw man.

I question private property, so you immediately label me a Marxist. Can’t I be a Non-Marxist Socialist or an Anarchist? Quite a limited worldview you have there, “sport”.

I said “liberty” is a vague concept because there are many conceptions of liberty which have varied depending on historical period and culture.




Property, outside your limited Marxist view, extends to more than just land and "capital". It is not the Capitalist who declares human resources "capital", it is the Marxist who makes this qualification and diminished view of any individuals productive contribution to humanity. The Marxist will take that contribution and reduce it to "labor" cementing that effort as nothing more than the effect of market forces.


What? I clearly said private property. And there you go again, ranting about Marxism and my “limited” views. The irony is stunning.




Freedom and unalienable rights can have no credence under Marxist dogma. From a Constitutional of the United States of America perspective, Marxism is quite simply unconstitutional. It is so because it boldly and blatantly rejects the rule of law. In order to reduce the effort of any individual to nothing more than "labor", or "capital", the Marxist must be willing to deny the very existence of rights.


Gibberish – makes no sense at all.




You some how hope to convince others that your vague perceptions of the world is how everyone should perceive the world, but you can only rely upon empty rhetoric. All you have to offer is that you think truth is too vague to be self evident ergo facts have no meaning. You seem to think that you can rely on misdirection to pull a rabbit out of your hat and that everyone will believe freedom is more mystical than actual. So, you point to protozoa, apparently in the belief this some how refutes the assertion of universal characteristics of law and that rights are law. You are indoctrinated deeply enough in your dogma that you are convinced that protozoa do not have property rights, yet protozoa the world over ignore your smug assertions and go about their business. Perhaps you should sponsor legislation regulating protozoa too.


You are the one who insists that protozoa have “rights” to liberty and property. It is on you to provide evidence, not me to disprove it.




If the protozoa can effectively respond to your predatory needs then there is a natural agreement between predator and prey. Arguably, if you were to use protozoa to supply market demands, you are relying on the predatory strengths of protozoa, which suggests that protozoa benefits from this agreement between two predators to supply market demands. If microfungi is a problem in some area and protozoa is a natural predator that keeps microfungi in check and you have figured out how to effectively use protozoa to respond to an area infected with microfungi and for this protozoa benefits, why shouldn't you too?





Domestication is an agreement that is made. Not all creatures will agree to domestication. Lions, tigers and bears generally do not agree to domestication, this is self evident. Cattle, horses and certain dogs generally do agree to domestication. Wolves and coyotes, for whatever reasons, generally do not agree to domestication. Agreement is necessary for domestication to work.


Natural Agreement? Is this some sort of weird social contractarianism?

So some other animals are more suitable to domestication due to thousands of years of human interference. Brilliant... your point?



I ask you a few simple questions about unalienable rights and you give me this rant on Marxism that would make John Galt blush. Your obsession with Marxism (or at least what you think it is) is troubling.

If your tactic is to overload me with incomprehensible and irrelevant babble, then you are succeeding. Congratulations, “sport”.




posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96

Reminds me that China entire business is state controlled and they are the largest polluters in the world by which any laws and what government does here is all for nothing.

The current regulations championed by the left has made energy and food more expensive than any other time in history even medicines and healthcare everything cost wise has increased with government intervention.

Of course they spin that as evil corporation which means they outsource which means they are outside of US Federal jurisdiction.


China is still a people's republic in name only. One could argue a country that accepts every american and european investor, while purposefully keeping minimum wages and enviromental laws low, is nothing of what it used to be.

Also a government that prohibits a free internet, while encouraging free market principles, is as authoritarian(and corrupt) capitalist as you can get. They had authoritarianism before as well, but now it has become crony capitalism.

You cannot exploit the workforce with corporate power unless you either fool the people(as america does) or lay the ban hammer down hard(as china does).

I think cuba and north korea are the last two true peoples' republics, but they took reform way too far and created a 100% public economy under an iron fist. The people who push for communism are usually power-hungry idealists.

You are way off in your analysis, so I had to correct you!



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Karl Marx was a fraud! Socialism is a mixed economy and communism is not "a classless and stateless society" as that is anarchy. I have explained this many times in other threads, so why do you hammer the same misinformation?

Calling anyone that disagrees with capitalism a marxist, is identical to calling them a communist. Everyone and their stupid dog knew that russia and china were communist. The USSR was socialist in name only!

Hence why national socialism hated communism and capitalism at the same time. It was a middle of the road system with nationalism added to the mix. Nationalism means to expand your borders by military force and to be extremely patriotic.

Modern day equivalents in socialism have died as western europe and canada are becoming more capitalist than socialist. You should have called some proud german or dutchman a marxist and they would have slapped you in your face deservedly.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Quotes from wikipedia.


Eventually, socialism would give way to a communist stage of history: a classless, stateless system based on common ownership and free-access, superabundance and maximum freedom for individuals to develop their own capacities and talents. As a political movement, Marxism advocates the creation of such a society.


There you go! And again communism is "a classless and stateless system" only according to marxist communists. In reality it is anarchy. Classless means no class of citizens(everyone is theoretically equal) and stateless means no official recognition of sovereignity as a whole. If a state does not exist, then government cannot exist either.

People need to define the terms *state*, *government*, *freedom*, *sovereignty*, *mixed economy*, etc.


A Marxist understanding of history and of society has been adopted by academics studying in a wide range of disciplines, including archaeology, anthropology,[2] media studies,[3] political science, theater, history, sociological theory, art history and theory, cultural studies, education, economics, geography, literary criticism, aesthetics, critical psychology, and philosophy.[4]


No wonder there are so many confused people out there. A jewish hoaxster at it again.........


And guess what, marxism is in the communist portal of wikipedia. WOW they did get SOMETHING right!

Moreover they got mixed economy stated in wikipedia as a cross between capitalism and socialism. LOL!!!! Then wtf would socialism be


No original research allowed so I can't edit jack# there. Of course only verifiable marxist literature is allowed aka misinformation.



edit on 1/11/2012 by EarthCitizen07 because: add content



new topics

top topics
 
9
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join