communism

[vladimir]

... When I get a job, I negotiate the best possible deal for myself. ... If you're not happy with what you're being paid, find someone else to work for.

Yeh? How long have you been in the labor market? Do you really believe the usual employment contract is a mutual term of consent between two equally consenting parties? Yeh, you can always ask your brother to loan you a couple of million dollars to set up a business, or maybe you can beg for a loan from a friendly bank, or maybe just take the few hundred dollars you've managed to save and a mortgage on your house and set up a small business to compete with IBM(c), Microsoft(c), Sears(c), Best Buy(c), etc.?

Some of my family were Southern plantation owners. The Northern armies of liberation ruined their businesses and they had to work for "yankees" who took over the economy. Many of them own retail businesses or work for the government. I've worked for government (mostly schools) and been a small-business owner myself. Even so, that side of the family came out way ahead of the African-Americans whom the Northern armies supposedly "freed". And I take this as an ethical imperative to support my African-American brothers and sisters in their demands for a fair deal. My White-Southern family has come a long way.

This whole notion of "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" is a cruel joke and a bad metaphor. Examine the histories of almost any of the ongoing and successful businesses in the U.S., and you'll find that there was some big start-up money (or at least some very expensive ivy-league education and family support) involved - and usually some nepotism, fraud, and outright theft.

What's more, when you lose one job or quit it, you'll have to explain to the next employer why this was the case. And there are commercial spy agencies such as Equifax to help them doublecheck what you tell them. If this isn't totalitarianism, I don't know what is. What's more, I've been turned down on job applications because of my religious beliefs or because I did some work for the civil-rights movement (which is a common experience of many).

It was democracy that paved the way for capitalism, not the other way around.
 
   

[Damascus]

Same old story, the Haves (or think they are)think Laissez Faire Capitalism is just dandy. It could be if there is a level playing field to work from, but when dose that happen? The have nots are looking for some scraps to be throne to them. It just that we live in a "FU I got mine" culture if you got screwed it must be your fault or your just lazy. Not that pure collectivism is the answer. We have never seen a proper non-elite form of capitalism or communism ever.

It doesnt help that the only popular economic belief systems also cater to the very few. Only the upper middle classes will use their dogma to convince the lower class to fight against the current ruling class (for the good of all). When they (upper and ruling) trade places  the new ruling class basically ignores the lower class that gets the brunt. Wow, I guess that's the answer to why people don't wish to wake up. In the end it still only benefits the few(no-matter which system your in).

[Damascus]

P.S. "They call it the American dream because you have to be asleep to believe it." The late George Carlin.

"Its a big club but your not in it" The late George Carlin.

[Dig]

Yeh? How long have you been in the labor market? Do you really believe the usual employment contract is a mutual term of consent between two equally consenting parties? Yeh, you can always ask your brother to loan you a couple of million dollars to set up a business, or maybe you can beg for a loan from a friendly bank, or maybe just take the few hundred dollars you've managed to save and a mortgage on your house and set up a small business to compete with IBM(c), Microsoft(c), Sears(c), Best Buy(c), etc.?

Some of my family were Southern plantation owners. The Northern armies of liberation ruined their businesses and they had to work for "yankees" who took over the economy. Many of them own retail businesses or work for the government. I've worked for government (mostly schools) and been a small-business owner myself. Even so, that side of the family came out way ahead of the African-Americans whom the Northern armies supposedly "freed". And I take this as an ethical imperative to support my African-American brothers and sisters in their demands for a fair deal. My White-Southern family has come a long way.

This whole notion of "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" is a cruel joke and a bad metaphor. Examine the histories of almost any of the ongoing and successful businesses in the U.S., and you'll find that there was some big start-up money (or at least some very expensive ivy-league education and family support) involved - and usually some nepotism, fraud, and outright theft.

What's more, when you lose one job or quit it, you'll have to explain to the next employer why this was the case. And there are commercial spy agencies such as Equifax to help them doublecheck what you tell them. If this isn't totalitarianism, I don't know what is. What's more, I've been turned down on job applications because of my religious beliefs or because I did some work for the civil-rights movement (which is a common experience of many).

It was democracy that paved the way for capitalism, not the other way around.
 
   

free market capitalism goes hand in hand with limited government, freedom, and liberty (US constitution).  We do not live in a democracy, we live in a republic with public servants that are electable under a democratic process (there is a big difference)

in a true democracy, 51% of the people can take away 49% of the citizens rights and freedoms (like the right to maket your services to the labor market).

In a republic 99% of the people cannot take away 1% of the people's rights and freedoms.  They are unalienable.

[Cruise4]

Once again you deliberately mis-understand what I have said. I don't know why you do this.

"everyone has their basic needs for free"

I have stated exactly how a number of times now.

"run a collectivist society without taking from some and giving to others"

You appear oblivious of the fact that this is exactly what happens now. I'm addressing the implicit unfairness already present in the current system.

I'm seriously starting to wonder whether some people have an agenda on the finance front and it's not to the betterment of the human condition, but rather to hold onto what they have via the feudal/slave system we have had to endure.

Anyway those who can add two and two will understand the proposition I laid out and why it's head and shoulders above what we have now.

[aLLyOuRbAsE]

how can you blame corporate fascism on free markets? thats like blaming stalin on "true" communism.

and as for "how", you have not, you have said a lot of nice ideals, but when it comes down to the nitty gritty, like decisions beng made etc, you have copped out, like all collectivists have to, because they cant answer it without plainly stating that the individual would be stripped of their freedom.

i am not oblivious that there is corruption in our present system, but i dont blame individual liberty for it, it is when individual liberty has been perverted, like government coming in and micro managing the economy etc.

you have not answered any of my questions, who decides who gets what job? promotions? who decides what people need? who decides peoples ability? whats the point of free enterprise if you cant keep the profits? who's going to clean the toilets if no-one's going to pay them? sure we have a ystem where we take from some to give to others...that is wrong and should be stopped, but you tell me how you can run a collectivist society without doing the same damn thing!

[Damascus]

I forgot to post these links to back up my reasoning.

social darwinism:
http://www.crf-usa.org/bria/bria19_2b.htm

Keynesian economics not that I agree with every part though:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/keynes/general-theory/

Note: That Keynes was not a marxists: Its just one of the sites that post the original theories rather then the neo-Keynesian stuff that has been altered quite a bit.

[life0repeats]

a lot of people making the argument for communism are arguing for no government - anarchism.  and the people making the argument against communism are pointing out the dictatorship communist governments.  its two different things and while people certainly understand that they still aren't differentiating in their arguments - besides one or two people. 

and to those saying capitalism worked in this country for the first few hundreds years have to admit that it was capitalism built on the back of slavery.  subtract slave labor from the equation and can it really work?  i tend to think it can't since I don't know of a situation it has worked. 

and please don't bring up we are still slaves since its an insult to the former slaves that really did have no freedom.  we can at least change jobs or move or decide to go into business for ourselves - and that's not even going into we don't have to worry about our children being sold or traded away with us having no say in it. 

also, i think "collectivism" is said as a dirty word on here.  but aren't most things partly done as a collective?  i don't make my decisions based strictly on my wants and needs i factor in my wifes wants/needs.  i factor in my daughters wants/needs.  i also factor in other family and friends and how my actions will affect them and my relationships with them.  and for most people i think that's the case.  its not all about the individual.  the point isn't against individual rights though.  its about demonizing a word that isn't negative, but has been turned into a label that has negative connotations.  i think there we need to differentiate collectives by the people and forced collectives run by the government.  voluntarily working with others is a good thing.  having the government force it upon us is a different story.

[Damascus]

Yea, there is a difference between slaves and peasants. We have basically a gigantic company store because of the fed and are rapidly devolving into feudalism.

[DNS]

I would contend that with the advances in medicine since Marx first developed his theories, they would not only apply to “wealth” but also to “health.” By which I mean if it is moral to take money from a richer man to give it a poorer man then the man richer in money if poorer in health would have a claim on the richer health of the man poorer in money – e.g. if he needs a kidney transplant and the poorer man has two functioning. After all property rights are an extension of self-ownership. If one is not entitled to his property in full one cannot be entitled to his body in full either.

Would those of you who believe in income redistribution be in favor of organ redistribution?

[aLLyOuRbAsE]

a lot of people making the argument for communism are arguing for no government - anarchism.  and the people making the argument against communism are pointing out the dictatorship communist governments.  its two different things and while people certainly understand that they still aren't differentiating in their arguments - besides one or two people. 

and to those saying capitalism worked in this country for the first few hundreds years have to admit that it was capitalism built on the back of slavery.  subtract slave labor from the equation and can it really work?  i tend to think it can't since I don't know of a situation it has worked. 

and please don't bring up we are still slaves since its an insult to the former slaves that really did have no freedom.  we can at least change jobs or move or decide to go into business for ourselves - and that's not even going into we don't have to worry about our children being sold or traded away with us having no say in it. 

also, i think "collectivism" is said as a dirty word on here.  but aren't most things partly done as a collective?  i don't make my decisions based strictly on my wants and needs i factor in my wifes wants/needs.  i factor in my daughters wants/needs.  i also factor in other family and friends and how my actions will affect them and my relationships with them.  and for most people i think that's the case.  its not all about the individual.  the point isn't against individual rights though.  its about demonizing a word that isn't negative, but has been turned into a label that has negative connotations.  i think there we need to differentiate collectives by the people and forced collectives run by the government.  voluntarily working with others is a good thing.  having the government force it upon us is a different story.

having concern for you family and friends, or even the rest of the world, is not inhibited by individual rights, it is not the use of "collective" that is meant by a political discussion, -when the word "collectivism" is used, things like rights, and law are implied, not social conduct.

i really wish this argument was more focused, we seem to bypass things like philosophy, rights/law etc in favour of talking about the corruption of the other side and the ideals of the favoured side. it is from this context (rights, law, philospohy) that we can see both sides in the clearest light, with one side believing all rights derive from the individual, the other side that rights should be to serve the collective (im sure some would choose different words there, but that's the crux of the matter).

i obviously favour that rights derive from the individual, as the individual is the object, from which the abstraction, or collective, is drawn.

i can understand why some people would be drawn to such altruistic notions as "help everybody, all of the time", its not hard to empathise with that, but it is easy, for me, to see the flaws of such a notion, especially when it is to be achieved by removing/restricting rights from the individual.

its like, "we're going to help all individuals by taking from some to give to others", its like spreading democracy through the barrel of a gun, or enforcing charity with the threat of prosecution or exclusion.

i guess to me, you either own you own life, or you don't...

[aLLyOuRbAsE]

I would contend that with the advances in medicine since Marx first developed his theories, they would not only apply to “wealth” but also to “health.” By which I mean if it is moral to take money from a richer man to give it a poorer man then the man richer in money if poorer in health would have a claim on the richer health of the man poorer in money – e.g. if he needs a kidney transplant and the poorer man has two functioning. After all property rights are an extension of self-ownership. If one is not entitled to his property in full one cannot be entitled to his body in full either.

Would those of you who believe in income redistribution be in favor of organ redistribution?

 

[Freeski]

having concern for you family and friends, or even the rest of the world, is not inhibited by individual rights, it is not the use of "collective" that is meant by a political discussion, -when the word "collectivism" is used, things like rights, and law are implied, not social conduct.

i really wish this argument was more focused, we seem to bypass things like philosophy, rights/law etc in favour of talking about the corruption of the other side and the ideals of the favoured side. it is from this context (rights, law, philospohy) that we can see both sides in the clearest light, with one side believing all rights derive from the individual, the other side that rights should be to serve the collective (im sure some would choose different words there, but that's the crux of the matter).

i obviously favour that rights derive from the individual, as the individual is the object, from which the abstraction, or collective, is drawn.

i can understand why some people would be drawn to such altruistic notions as "help everybody, all of the time", its not hard to empathise with that, but it is easy, for me, to see the flaws of such a notion, especially when it is to be achieved by removing/restricting rights from the individual.

its like, "we're going to help all individuals by taking from some to give to others", its like spreading democracy through the barrel of a gun, or enforcing charity with the threat of prosecution or exclusion.

i guess to me, you either own you own life, or you don't...

Very well said... it's like here in Canada, (as another example); they legislate culture, especially francophone culture, and with the strongarm of the law. That culture can flourish on its own, and it will flourish if it is worth it to just one or more individuals. Otherwise it's not worthy of flourishing at all. Why should it be, nobody wants it? Screw the tyranny of the majority. I prefer my freedom.

But then, why are individualists also intent on creating groups and entire cultures, like the truth movement, and other stuff? Because it's voluntary. We need to sever ties with everything involuntary. It's that simple.

[vladimir]

If real communalism (commune-ism) is ever to be achieved, it will have to be achieved by free individuals acting in concert: not by any forced collective. An auto plant is a forced collective. The military is a forced collective. That's not to say, however, that such freely associating individuals can't avail themselves of the advanced organizational techniques of the auto industry or the military.

But here's something we have to be aware of, I think. Human beings are only hired or signed/drafted as part of the auto industry or the military, respectively, if those institutions need them. Right now as we speak, a large proportion (probably the greatest proportion) of the work done in the auto industry is being done by robots. The military is also planning to replace soldiers eventually by robots and are using robot aircraft already. Now I'm not against robots: I've even had some courses in robotics. But look how many scriveners (it's an old word for copyist/bookkeeper: Bob Cratchet in A Christmas Story was a good example) have been replaced by computer programs. I've personally had a small role in making this possible through my part in the software industry. Labor costs are a major cost to industry and trade, and there are whole disciplines devoted to figuring out how to eliminate as many of the human element in production and trade as possible, and as rapidly as possible. Still, who can be against progress, unless they're a Luddite?

This process of replacing the human element with machines is not limited, and it's highly exportable. Of course, if you're one of the diminishing number of those who actually own the means of mass production, you don't have anything to worry about for the foreseeable future. But what happens when a few financiers are able to run everything with a few Wunderkinds (German for "brainy people", "exceptional talents"). What's to become of the millions who are made redundant?

This is a terrific discussion on the Forum, and I'm content to withdraw and let it flow. But please keep it serious. I'm worried about the future. And yet, the future is full of possibility. We can't let failed experiments like capitalism and forced collectivism hold us back.
 

[Cruise4]

"you have not answered any of my questions"

I haven't this time because you are being ingenuous. A good portion of the so called questions you raise are implicitly answered in an earlier post and by continuing to ask them all you do is show you either haven't read it or haven't understood it. If you looked and took the time to think you might notice No Tax, No Government, Total Individual Freedom, Free Energy Role, remember Antigravity, how water can be delivered free, how electricity can be free, how housing can be free, how bureaucracy is wiped out, how capitalism benefits everyone BY DEFAULT, how welfare is BUILT IN, how decisions are made...

Regarding Law... you do know I propose no laws and go from there. Why? Because most laws we have now are fraudulent. The Law is a major part of their control mechanism. Like all these things law sounds good which is how it becomes accepted, but does making murder illegal stop murders? The crime is the murder and when it happens it must be dealt with. As I've said before Communities can appoint their own Justice systems based on locals dealing with locals who know the locals and their history... like it used to be done and without all this poisoning and fraudulent capitalism crap people would be better behaved anyway. NOTE to Ally: I haven't said NO LAW!

I suggest start thinking and stop reacting to words like Communism or collectivism. The latter has been mislabelled within our societies and nobody is suggesting the dictatorship/communism scenario... the very opposite in fact. Two buddies sharing similar points of view are a collective, a family is a collective... why are you so misrepresenting the word collective? Of course we are a collective at species level? It's just nonsense.

Please point out the restrictions imposed in my earlier post. And as regards rights.... what are you talking about? If anyone won't go into specifics, or cannot handle alternative's or won't discuss them... it's you.

There is a slight issue caused by current situations I'd guess. The US has a good reason to cry 'Constitution' just now. I accept that. But discussion's such as this thread are about 'improving' and 'later' and 'what else could we have'.

Much comes down to resource usage. I take the view all resources are owned by everyone and everyone must be compensated for their usage. This is self evidently true. What we have now is a robbery by the few of the many and mining rights and all such fraudulent agreements is criminal activity.

Not only are you not promoting individual freedom but you are promoting a return to a slave system. And who's interested in discussing that? What we want is sensible 'alternatives' not endless rehashing of slave systems.

I try to tell someone about the  National Health System/Big Pharma scam the other day and they come back with so if you break your leg you won't go to the doctor? Can you understand the logic disconnect here? Another example is telling someone about property tax fraud and they come back with 'Do you use roads'. It sounds good, to them, but is actually a laughingly unintelligent remark.

These discussions remind me of that same disconnect. Thankfully there are some who can expand their minds still to encompass discussing alternative's in a sensible fashion not just argue from another set in stone position that we've all seen, heard and understand before.

[aLLyOuRbAsE]

this set in stone position i argue from is that rights are derived from the individual, you are suggesting that rights should be to serve the collective, i disagree.

ive also yet to hear a single point from any "collectivist" on here that is not based in some dreamy utopia land where everyone and everything is benign simply because we've gotten rid of private property.

and let's get one thing clear right now, i read and hear a lot of people say "oh, well, look, this is free market capitalism, look where its got us", this is BS, what we have is state capitalism, free markets and individual rights are not to blame for the monopolies, or the transfer of wealth, or any other "reason" cited for the need to abolish private property.

what you seem to be proposing, cruise4, is that we live in some kind of tribal communes, where all these "communes" get along with each other and justice doesnt need to be written down or organised...of course, thats not utopian at all...  

cruise4, you either own you own life, or you dont, its that simple, this whole discussion is rooted in the right to life, liberty, and property, one side says they are absolute, the other says they are inferior to the will or benefit of the collective.

i know we might not agree, but please do me a favour, i never use the word "collective" in relation to social conduct or thought, i use it in the philosophical and political sense, so of course im going to react negatively to it, because i see it as the debasement of my freedom as an individual, but dont think i dont get what you're saying, i get it, and i know when you use that word, you are not referring to stalin or marx.

whats the point of free enterprise if there are no gains? how do you propose to meet demand when there is no incentive to produce? (i realise you are saying we can all do the jobs we like etc, but no-one wants to clean the toilets...)

you say that free market capitalism is the taking from some to give to others (i disagree), but even if it were, so is yours, the enforcement of equality is not equality.

[TruthHunter]

cruise4, you either own you own life, or you dont, its that simple, this whole discussion is rooted in the right to life, liberty, and property, one side says they are absolute, the other says they are inferior to the will or benefit of the collective.


This is precisely the point. Do I own myself, or does the collective own me? If the individual owns himself, there can be no communism/socialism/collectivism, whatever you want to call it. The only way those things work is if we are all born as property of the state and the state has the right to determine our station in life. I simply can't believe the number of people in this thread who are so willing to knowingly hand themselves over as slaves to the state. If you come out of the mall to find your car and it's stolen, how would you like for the police to tell you "It's the property of the collective" and take no action? That is what you are advocating. You own nothing, the collective owns everything so you have no right to say "This is mine." No thanks.

[Freeski]

TruthHunter says "I simply can't believe the number of people in this thread who are so willing to knowingly hand themselves over as slaves to the state."

It's a good point, but don't pick on this thread. Most of us are the same.

[TruthHunter]

TruthHunter says "I simply can't believe the number of people in this thread who are so willing to knowingly hand themselves over as slaves to the state."

It's a good point, but don't pick on this thread. Most of us are the same.

No, that is the entire point. All the people in this thread claim to be awake to the slavery and death that is being planned by the NWO, but in the same breath they say that they would like to live as a communist/socialist/collectivist, or whatever. Huh?? Does that make sense? They object to one form of tyranny but are in favor of another? I'll take freedom over collectivism and retain my right to own myself and my property. If you don't have the right to own property, or even to own yourself, then what freedom do you truly have?

[Freeski]

No, that is the entire point. All the people in this thread claim to be awake to the slavery and death that is being planned by the NWO, but in the same breath they say that they would like to live as a communist/socialist/collectivist, or whatever. Huh?? Does that make sense? They object to one form of tyranny but are in favor of another? I'll take freedom over collectivism and retain my right to own myself and my property. If you don't have the right to own property, or even to own yourself, then what freedom do you truly have?

Well I agree 100%

[aLLyOuRbAsE]

If you don't have the right to own property, or even to own yourself, then what freedom do you truly have?

+1

[life0repeats]

TruthHunter says "I simply can't believe the number of people in this thread who are so willing to knowingly hand themselves over as slaves to the state."

It's a good point, but don't pick on this thread. Most of us are the same.

i don't think its a good point since i think it misrepresents the view from those favoring communism - they don't want to give up freedom to the the state since they don't want "the state" to exist.  no government to hand over freedom to.   that's why i think this topic on the 2nd page has gone in circles to an extent.

[aLLyOuRbAsE]

i don't think its a good point since i think it misrepresents the view from those favoring communism - they don't want to give up freedom to the the state since they don't want "the state" to exist.  no government to hand over freedom to.   that's why i think this topic on the 2nd page has gone in circles to an extent.

it is exactly the point, whether you favour state or not, if you were for individual freedom with no state, then you'd be an anarcho-capitalist not an anarcho-communist. the fundamental difference, as i have said many times, is the difference in opinion of rights, one side for individual rights, the other for rights to serve the collective, as well as one side for private property, the other side for no or restricted private property.

[Cruise4]

Owning land is robbery/deprivation of others. Individual extraction of resources is robbery. Until you learn this, no progress will be made. Every last mistake that results in what we are facing now will occur again for the simple reason you start off from a basis of criminality... again.

(Land Rights... you have the same security of tenure/occupation as if you owned it. What's the difference here.... hmm no buying or selling hassles, no real estate crooks, no criminal lawyers or accountants etc. etc.)

The Indians had it right. Some of you have it wrong. I still say a few of you haven't understood the first thing about the sytem I outlined, purely because if you had, you would realise it gives more Individual freedom that the very system you propose... so how are you labelling me anti-individual. It's ridiculous.

Some Classic lies:
"this set in stone position i argue from is that rights are derived from the individual, you are suggesting that rights should be to serve the collective"

I didn't, I haven't and you are making it up.

"You own nothing, the collective owns everything so you have no right to say "This is mine." No thanks."

A total lie.

"whats the point of free enterprise if there are no gains? how do you propose to meet demand when there is no incentive to produce? (i realise you are saying we can all do the jobs we like etc, but no-one wants to clean the toilets...)"

If you really did understand you wouldn't ask this question because free enteprise would result in more gains and demand will be met in the same way as now. The reasons people clean toilets now are because they want more spending power... exactly as they would under my plan.

"what you seem to be proposing, cruise4, is that we live in some kind of tribal communes"

Another lie. I could virtually repeat all your posts and show the whole lot is one of reading into it what you want to read, not what's there.

I'm telling you, you haven't understood what I wrote. Whether you wish to is the question.

Why can't you guys argue about what IS said instead of what you would like to believe WAS said.

[TruthHunter]

Tell me this, how is it that you figure you are somehow entitled to receive a benefit from a company that BUYS a piece of land, BUYS the mineral rights for whatever is found under it, and then pulls what they find from under the ground? Do YOU own any of it? Did YOU do any of the work required to extract it from the ground? Did YOU put up any of the money to pay for the equipment or the workers to pull the resource out of the ground? Where then, do your rights to receive money from the exploitation of the resource come from? The only people with a right to profit are those actually involved. Do you claim a right to a share of the profits generated by Wal Mart? How about the Las Vegas casinos? Are you entitled to a cut from them? Should I be sending you a check every year for my productivity? You keep saying your proposed system takes nothing away from anybody, but that is exactly what it does. If you don't work, and I do, how are you equally entitled to have your needs met? As far as I'm concerned, if you don't work, you don't eat. The only thing you are entitled to is what you can pay for yourself. Nobody else should have to provide you with anything. You aren't automatically born with any ownership of anything, which is the only way what you suggest would work.

[aLLyOuRbAsE]

TruthHunter, you know i agree with you, and Cruise4, im sure you wont like me speaking for you, but i think the rationale behind what Cruise4 is suggesting is that we are all of one race, one world, one universe, therefore everybody owns everything, or put another way, nobody owns anything, that the earth or even the universe belongs to all of us. now, TruthHunter, im sure you are probably like me, and can understand that, but simply disagree that it is a sound basis from which to derive rights, i would have no problem if something like Cruise4 is suggesting existed, as long as it was born out of voluntary action, but in a political discussion it is fanciful day dreaming, utopian if you like, and this thread was started to understand communism, as a political system, not what people think the ultimate existence for mankind ought to be.

i do however want to point out i agree with Cruise4 on a great many different things, for instance, that it is entirely plausible that things like energy should be so abundant that they are nearly free (nothing is absolutely free), and i, like Cruise4, am surprised we havent clocked that one yet.

however, communism, capitalism, theocracy, these are all systems for the interaction of human beings within a society, and from this context i can see no more moral system than that of individual rights, mutual consent, and voluntary contracts...and before someone goes spouting off, "but that's what we've got now", you're wrong, and you should look into that (as goingetheric's line goes...lol)

[life0repeats]

i've been enjoying this topic...it hit a lull for a bit but has picked back up.  actually has me going back and researching the topic to get a deeper understanding of communism, capitalism, etc.  i appreciate the responses back and forth on the subject.   

[DNS]

Owning land is robbery/deprivation of others. Individual extraction of resources is robbery. Until you learn this, no progress will be made. Every last mistake that results in what we are facing now will occur again for the simple reason you start off from a basis of criminality... again.

The idea that land / resource extraction / ownership is robbery is an argument for collective rights. To be consistent you must assert that all resources are owned collectively, or your theory is invalidated by inconsistency. Consistency is a basic element of epistemic logic.

So it must follow that one doesn’t own ones person, or the organs contained therein, the collective does. The collective can dispose of it, in whole or in part, by majority vote. One is a “robber” simply for breathing in oxygen and expelling carbon dioxide without the prior approval of the collective. One is a “robber” for drinking water that hasn’t been allocated him by the collective. I could go on and on but you get the point.

I hold that the homesteading axiom is an a priori truth. Ownership applies to the first person to work a given area or resource, whether it is for minerals, farming, housing, etc. This also applies to ones body, as ones self is obviously the first person to work it or make use of it. It would also apply to the air one breathes and the water one drinks.

I am free, and would like individuals operating under the auspices of the state to stop infringing upon that freedom, so all others must be free. Sine qua non. Rich or poor, fat or slim, black, white, or any shade in between, a person’s body and previously un-owned resources obtained through use of ones body as well as those obtained through mutually agreed contract are owned by the individual and only subject to disposal at his/her discretion. A crime is committed when coercive force is applied to said property. This is the consistency of my position. 

[Cruise4]

I have already said resources are owned by all. Whose born with a certificate of ownership for land parcel A in hand? Who is to buy the sky? How can you not understand these things are not for sale to anyone. According to you if someone sells the Sky to company A, they can suck it all up and take it to the Moon? Of course not. And who's got the deeds to show God sold any land to anyone in the first place? He didn't. It was robbed and then sold on at some point. Robber Barons is a just phrase.

"So it must follow that one doesn’t own ones person"

How do you work that one out?

The money thing starts even before the creation of money. It all starts from Resource usage. We should be caretakers of land, not owners. If the people wish to 'allow' Company X to mine for whatever as there's no environmental or other impediment the company needs to pay for that priviledge... not the people as happens now. The company pays a 'rent' (sort of) to exploit a mineral to make a profit. I also doubt I need to remind you taxes are taken now. Its not a 'benefit. It's payment for their exploitation that the people allow.

"Tell me this, how is it that you figure you are somehow entitled to receive a benefit from a company that BUYS a piece of land, BUYS the mineral rights for whatever is found under it, and then pulls what they find from under the ground?"

So you are all for Shell, BP and Exxon acting as they do? They are fully entitled to profit from their work.... BUT its not their oil. It's everyone's so if they wish to exploit it everyone should reap the benefit 'for the loss of the oil and the occupied land to extract' the former perhaps being lost and the latter taking the place of other pursuits. The only thing the company buys is the use of the oil to make a profit. If something is sold now the money goes straight into some criminal's pocket. Who's given Bush the right to sell your country's resources to anyone? Or ours in the UK? The robbery starts and ends with resources and the current ownership system 'ensures' the same result we are dealing with now occurs again. Don't you think it might be prudent to see and discuss if there's a better way? I do. I assume you are against welfare and pensions in any form?

How do you not see that what you suggest is exactly how they set up the crookery in the first place across the board. The Amazon Rain Forest doesn't belong to whichever criminal 'buys it'. It's a 'world resource'. It belongs to the people and only the people should decide whether its cut down or not from the viewpoint of free and open shared knowledge. Ditto Water, Ditto Air etc.

"If you don't work, and I do"

Who's said only exploiters work? Everyone can do what they want. An exploiter will only attempt to exploit if he thinks he can make a profit. But if they want to use 'our' oil they compensate us for its loss.

"You aren't automatically born with any ownership of anything,"

But you are born into a 'shared world'.

I'm going to drop this thread. If we can't agree that resources are owned by everyone there is no common ground. It's a shame because that scenario I outlined doesn't half solve a lot of issues and negates many problems, including eradication of poverty once and for all.

I actually think the reason for whats happening is to overcome this own everything mentality. Its wrong, bogus and criminal and anti-humanitarian and holds us back terribly. Surely a world where everyone has an income and is therefore a potential customer serves Capitalism better than now?

[Cruise4]

"and this thread was started to understand communism, as a political system"

I do understand that. But I don't agree with the usual label of communist. I think its an example of them using spin. I am completely against the normal 'Communism' but maintain its a dictatorship. I am against professional Government and totally in favour of individualism. But whilst I'm something of a hermit I recognise others tend to group into families, friends, pubs, nightclubs, countries, earthlings, political factions(Ha) and so on. Talk of community has its place even when dealing with individualism. I might be a hermit but widen the scope a bit to a county and lo and behold I'm now part of a community. No man is an island, although I usually try 

An addition to my post above:

"An exploiter will only attempt to exploit if he thinks he can make a profit."

Profit is a driving force to such an individual. Playing Music might be to another. Walking might be to another. Just because one person is a greedy so and so doesn't mean he has the right to own everything. Other skills are just as important to the overall well-being of humanity and shouldn't be discriminated against just because their talent doesn't lie in the profit making field.

[life0repeats]

from reading up on the subject as i said i've been doing since the topic started i'm understanding certain communisms to see private property two fold.  1) private property that shouldn't be abolished such as me owning a pair of shoes.  or me owning a piece of land that i currently am living on.  and in possession of.  2) being private property that i dont live on but have with the intention of producing capital from (for example to mine for gold).  the 2nd circumstance wouldn't be allowed under communism since the resource is one that doesn't originally belong to anyone thus can't be sold to anyone person/company.  and in history most of the resources that have been acquired were not acquired by people selling the land they lived on to people who then lived there and worked that land they lived on.  often times its been land they didn't live on and land they took control over with force - such as Native Americans being run off land that was found to have gold on it.  would this be an accurate understanding of some forms of communism? - of course not the form actually ever practiced by the State though.

[Cruise4]

I would say so. Look at Cecil Rhodes and the mapping out of African Resources, when it happened, why it happened and look whats happened since. Of course once you've robbed one people (like the Native American Indians), you have the wherewithall to move on to the next robbery and this is why they are globalists and why they set up economic disparity. Its all a very nice scam... for them. Should the people decide or the company decide? I say the people. And rather than the government receiving the money to supposedly spend on behalf of the people, I say the people should get it direct otherwise rampant corruption always happens. Look at the Alaskan Oil Field non development. That could save your country. If it was down to the people I'm sure you'd use it at this time. But who's in control? The Corrupt Corporations who 'BUY the land'. It's outrageous!

[aLLyOuRbAsE]

Cruise4, no-one can own all the air, suck it up, and ship it to mars, just the same way no-one can buy up all soil, and ship it to mars, i mean for heavens sake, lets take the first example of the sky (or air i presume you mean), wouldnt it somewhat impede the right to life to remove the air/sky? rather than the actual feasability of removing the sky.

And who's got the deeds to show God sold any land to anyone in the first place?

which God? your God?

 We should be caretakers of land, not owners. If the people wish to 'allow' Company X to mine for whatever as there's no environmental or other impediment the company needs to pay for that priviledge..

ok, so this is another wild utopian collectivist statement, first, "we should be caretakers, not owners", wow, great...how? you just get rid of private property and boom, we all just get along and share like the care bears? oh, i spose we've magically transcended to higher plane now we've gotten rid of that pesky right to private property - which is an extension of the right to life, which DNS has pointed out. and what if there is disagreement about how best to be a caretaker? majority vote on everything?

you talk about the "people" as if it is a single entity that can just make decisions (about individuals no less), but how? direct democracy?

 So you are all for Shell, BP and Exxon acting as they do?

oh come now, now you are the one who is being dis-ingenuous, you know full well that these companies, and many others, flaunt the individual right to private property, and trample all over the principles of individual rights, mutual consent, and the course of free markets that those principles would denote.

by saying that we believe in the right to private property, does not mean we endorse its abuse or corruption, the abuse of liberty is not liberty, its tyranny.

 Who's said only exploiters work? Everyone can do what they want. An exploiter will only attempt to exploit if he thinks he can make a profit. But if they want to use 'our' oil they compensate us for its loss.

here's another absolute cracker from you, Cruise4, ok, first "everybody can do what they want", how many people do you know that just love to clean toilets like its their only dream in life? and moving on, this is the real cracker "But if they want to use 'our' oil they compensate us for its loss." how do "we" come to that decision? who's there making sure this "compensation" gets used evenly or wisely?

you seem to place a lot of not only faith, but also responsibility into this abstract notion you call "us", that is what i have the most problem with, that you would take the rights and responsibilities of the individual, the object, and hand them over to this "us", this collective, the abstraction.

[aLLyOuRbAsE]

and btw, in no way is what ive said an endorsement of the displacement of indigenous people, i find that assertion quite offensive really, it goes against every fibre of the natural law from which individual rights are derived.

[DNS]

"So it must follow that one doesn’t own ones person"

How do you work that one out?

Simply put, you can not have your cake and eat it too. If collective rights are to be applied to land ownership they must be applied to ownership of all things, including ones person. You cannot logically have collective rights apply to some things and individual rights apply to others. Such a contradiction is illogical and based on faulty (inconsistent) premises. If you wish to deny the rules of logic there is no basis for a reasonable debate.

You also seem to operating under the faulty premise that any one of us arguing against the various flavors of communism are in favor of the criminal actions of the elite. We are not they are based on use of coercive force, which none of us are advocating. The application of coercive force is criminal and should be dealt with as such. Coercive force cannot be applied to un-owned property in the system we are advocating, only to property (including ones person) owned by a given individual. Nor can un-owned property be claimed without first making use of it. Please re-read my post in regards to the homesteading axiom.

I have no problem with any number of persons pooling resources and homesteading a given area to achieve the kind of voluntary collective you seem to be advocating. I don’t think, even among voluntary participants, that it would work. I am all for free individuals attempting to prove me wrong, though. There will be a lot of previously government “owned” land available, for homesteading, if a proper minarchy is re-established or a Spooner type anarchy is established.

[TruthHunter]

"If the people wish to 'allow' Company X to mine for whatever as there's no environmental or other impediment the company needs to pay for that priviledge"

What do you think a company does when they buy a piece of land and the right to work it? When they buy equipment and hire workers to do the work? The company DOES pay for the privilege of exploiting the resource. When a company buys or leases a piece of land from the federal government, that money is supposed to go to the treasury, so it benefits us all because it gives the government money to pay for other things that we need. The jobs they create and the profits they generate also create tax liabilities, so government at all levels benefit and through them, we benefit.

[Cruise4]

The NWO starts and finishes at the resource level. If you cannot deal with changing that area, go ahead, beat this one and wait for the New NWO to rise again. You want to beat the NWO but leave the slave system in place. It's delusional.

There's some really stupid statements coming from some of you. I can't help but appear rude by saying a few of you don't appear to have the intellectual capability for this discussion IMO, so I won't waste my time further, but this might be interesting if you haven't seen it...

Eustace Mullins Tells It Like It Is
7-31-8
 
Part 1. Eustace Mullins talks about the New World Order
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2209342295571464429&q=&hl=en
 
 Part 2. Eustace Mullins talks about the New World Order
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6872345824011823396&q=&hl=en
 
 Part 3. Eustace Mullins talks about the New World Order
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2629580060972787209&q=&hl=en
 
 Part 4. Eustace Mullins talks about the New World Order
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6675740575547251524&q=&hl=en
 
 Part 5. Eustace Mullins talks about the New World Order
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6322915987632976225&q=&hl=en
 
 Part 6. Eustace Mullins talks about the New World Order
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3662355956641585997&q=&hl=en
 
 Part 7. Eustace Mullins talks about the New World Order
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2771889396325787213&q=&hl=en
 
 Eustace Mullins presents: The World Order
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7644857907453201814&q=&hl=en

[Cruise4]

I lied about leaving this thread it seems...

These aren't my ideas btw. I have seen them at various sites and just recognised the value. Here's one such site worth perusing if anyone is genuinely interested in alternative ways of doing things...

http://www.jamesrobertson.com/links.htm

and I don't agree with every last thing said on these websites either.

[aLLyOuRbAsE]

The NWO starts and finishes at the resource level.

so what you are saying is that the NWO arises from the intrinsic individual right to own your own life?

[life0repeats]

so what you are saying is that the NWO arises from the intrinsic individual right to own your own life?

what i think he's saying is that controlling the resources - oil, water, food production, etc - is a necessity for the NWO.  without the ability to control those and other resources their power is severely limited.