How can you utilize elements of two systems that completely contradict each other? If someone tells you that 1=1, and another person tells you that 1=2, how do you mix those things together? If you poured gasolene into a glass of water, would you call that a "mixed drink"?
Um. No. But I can pour something else flammable into it and call it a mixed drink. Other than that, what can I say. I calls 'em likes I sees 'em, and the United States has a mixed economy.
Your question here is spurious. The term "squatter" implies that property rights exist within a society and therefore ownership exists in that society. Yet "squatters", by definition, deny any right to property. How can I have ownership of something in a society that does not respect ownership?
Your whole premise is spurious. And what does the implication of the word "squatter" have to do with anything? Would it have helped if I used the word "bum" instead?
The act of squatting implies that ownership is based on nothing more than possession. In that case, when one forcibly removes a squatter from a piece of property, one is simply playing by the squatters own established rules of ownership. There is nothing more illogical or violent about forcibly removing a squatter from your property than there is about removing a rapist from your body.
The act of squatting can imply whatever the squatter and squattee want - if they exist in a purely capitalist society, the implications of their acts would in no way fundamentally change the nature of that society.
For the record, I never mentioned logic - and forcibly removing a rapist from your body would require violence, whether you're comfortable with the definition or not.
no, but a rum and coke ends up being better than either of its parts standing alone. both are fine on their own but have their problems. you put them together and you get the best of both worlds.
Rum and coke mix together. They do not contradict each other. Their natures do not make them unmixable.
yes there is, becos forcibly removing them from your property does violence to their body.
"Their" body? How can they make claim to "their" body?
they did not do violence to your body and a human's body is worth more than any piece of property.
Based on what standard? How is a "human's body" worth more than any piece of property? If I offered to trade you 10,000 acres of land filled with gold for your labor, would you deny that deal?
thus, your response is violent in that is inflicts damage upon them that is far worse than the damage done to you.
How? I'm not suggesting I have a right to kill a squatter or beat him to a bloody pulp. I recognize that the squatter owns his own life. The squatter, however, recognizes no ownership. If I simply physically remove him from my property, all I've done is exchange with him based on his own ideals and his own moral code.
Wealth always regulates itself. An engine is always an engine. A dollar is always a dollar.
People, on the other hand, have the ability to regulate themselves or not to.
im not following this one. those with unlimited wealth have no reason to restrain themselves and nobody can force them to do it. so they abuse their wealth... they buy power and government officials to make themselves even wealthier. they do more indirect violence to the less privileged than the indirect "violence" of taxation can ever accomplish through the threat of jail, starvation, or outright murder. you're offering the workers a choice: die on the job for me, or starve your family to work for me. you see no violence in that choice?
Um. No. But I can pour something else flammable into it and call it a mixed drink. Other than that, what can I say. I calls 'em likes I sees 'em, and the United States has a mixed economy.
To "call it like you see it", you need some kind of factual evidence. Otherwise, you're simply calling it what you want to call it.
Your whole premise is spurious. And what does the implication of the word "squatter" have to do with anything? Would it have helped if I used the word "bum" instead?
Bum wouldn't imply a person claiming to own or have a right my property by merely sitting on it. Bum would imply all sorts of things.
The act of squatting can imply whatever the squatter and squattee want - if they exist in a purely capitalist society, the implications of their acts would in no way fundamentally change the nature of that society.
Of course it would. One cannot have a "capitalist society" without capitalist individuals comprising that society.
For the record, I never mentioned logic - and forcibly removing a rapist from your body would require violence, whether you're comfortable with the definition or not.
I'm completely comfortable with that definition. But violence against a rapist is completely consistent with exchange. You're giving equal value to equal value.
This is simply untrue. Eminent domain wherein a person is compensated is the exception. The rule is the confiscation of property as "evidence" or as "tax". Furthermore, the compensation that does exist could easily be removed if the whims of the state change.
Huh? If I buy drugs, who will take them? If I exchange labor for salary, who will take half of it? And where is the compensation and due process for that?
not the whim of the state, the values of the people. it would take a constitutional amendment to do away with just compensation.
that salary tax is your rent for living in this great country
I didn't say that we were communist because we're not capitalist. I said we're communist because our economy is dominated by the state and our property is owned by the state -- the two hallmarks of communism.
First, the government does control all capital in this country. Check your wallet.
Secondly, where in the definition of communism does it prescribe that the vice president make 10000000000 times as much as joe american ?
1. the money is only a symbol, a marker to reflect how much your capital is worth. it doesn't mean the us owns it, just that they hve provided an easy way for everyone to swap goods so that i don't have to trade you 2 beaver pelts for a happy meal at mcd's.
2. as i recall, the core of communism is empowering the proletariat, the working class. this means, in simple terms, the ceo does not get all the money and all the power... the workers do. thus, dick cheney and other ceo's making 100000000 times as much money as their workers violates the very core of communism, which is that all share equally, regardless of merit
im not following this one. those with unlimited wealth have no reason to restrain themselves and nobody can force them to do it. so they abuse their wealth... they buy power and government officials to make themselves even wealthier.
"Buying power", in the context you're using it, implies buying control of men, irrespective of the will of those men. If I "buy power" by simply buying off a government official who will tell you what to do, I'm not a capitalist.
You seem to be confusing "capitalist" with "rich person". Those terms are not synonymous.
they do more indirect violence to the less privileged than the indirect "violence" of taxation can ever accomplish through the threat of jail, starvation, or outright murder. you're offering the workers a choice: die on the job for me, or starve your family to work for me. you see no violence in that choice?
It depends on how that choice is arrived at. If I kidnap you and then force you to labor for me, then yes, that is violent. If I steal your food and then only give it back to you if you labor for me, then yes, that is violent. But if I'm the only employer in your system, and I've made no aggressive actions against your body or your property, then no, there is no violence there.
again, not making sense. what is that supposed to mean?
It means that power cannot corrupt you. You, however, can use power corruptly. "Power" cannot make a decision, nor can it define values. Only living things can define values and make decisions. If you use power corruptly, that has little to do with the power you have -- it has everything to do with the person you are.
Rum and coke mix together. They do not contradict each other. Their natures do not make them unmixable.
sure they do. and neither do capitalism and communism. now before you go "huh"... rum is an alcoholic drink, coke is a sweet carbonated drink. but both are drinks. capitalism is hands off economics, communism is totally regulated economics. but they're both still economic systems. and you CAN mix them... it's called socialism. a general freedom of economy, but with some regulation and protection against abuse. im sorry, but im a bit more concerned about the abuse of the weak by the strong than i am about the "abuse" of a rich guy having to pay a few taxes. quit being a pussy man
Based on what standard? How is a "human's body" worth more than any piece of property? If I offered to trade you 10,000 acres of land filled with gold for your labor, would you deny that deal?
becos my body is worth more to me than 10,000 acres of land filled with gold. if you wanted to buy my body in the sense that you OWN it as you own your property, it's worth a hell of a lot more than that lot of property. ownership is indefinite. you're talking, at best, about renting my body, not owning it. you cannot own someone else's body, ever. that is called slavery. their body is worth more than any piece of property becos it can never be bought.
How? I'm not suggesting I have a right to kill a squatter or beat him to a bloody pulp. I recognize that the squatter owns his own life. The squatter, however, recognizes no ownership. If I simply physically remove him from my property, all I've done is exchange with him based on his own ideals and his own moral code.
but you are, your system demands it. your property is absolute and their body and soul and personhood (under your ideology) are worth no more than their labor can provide to you. so if a poor mcd's worker with no skills tries to steal your diamond, you are entitled to kill, maim, batter, and destroy him to protect the greater value of your diamond. becos he's worth less than the diamond. you said yourself right up above that someone's life and body aren't worth any more than property... their only value is their ability to work for you. they're the means to your end and have no inherent value themselves.
not the whim of the state, the values of the people. it would take a constitutional amendment to do away with just compensation.
that salary tax is your rent for living in this great country
No, it doesn't. Everyday property in this country is expropriated without "constitutional amendment". If I buy a pound of marijuana from you, and I get caught, I will not be compensated it when the state removes it from my possession. If I sell you my labor, the state will take half of it without consitutional amendment or compensation. And if you take my property from me to build a highway, you already determine the value of my compensation. No amendment will be required to change the subjective definition you've already applied to "just compenstation".
1. the money is only a symbol, a marker to reflect how much your capital is worth. it doesn't mean the us owns it, just that they hve provided an easy way for everyone to swap goods so that i don't have to trade you 2 beaver pelts for a happy meal at mcd's.
Incorrect. The United States government invented paper money in order to incur debt, not to provide me with a way to swap goods. Everyday they act to devalue the currency in your pocket.
2. as i recall, the core of communism is empowering the proletariat, the working class. this means, in simple terms, the ceo does not get all the money and all the power... the workers do. thus, dick cheney and other ceo's making 100000000 times as much money as their workers violates the very core of communism, which is that all share equally, regardless of merit
Equal money and power are not prescribed by communism. Money and power relative to need are prescribed by communism. And nothing within a communist system has a greater "need" than the state. That is why the heads of communist states tend to have a bit more than the needs of the "proletariat".
To "call it like you see it", you need some kind of factual evidence. Otherwise, you're simply calling it what you want to call it.
I know you addressed it in regards to soulsinging's post, but alcohol and water do contradict each other.
One is flammable, the other extinguishes flame.
One dehydrates, the other hydrates.
One is a downer, the other an energizer.
One causes insanity type symptoms, the other helps to alieviate those symptoms.
As for calling it like I see it, my evidence is people buy property all the time. Then, often they sell it for a profit. Most of which they keep.
Of course it would. One cannot have a "capitalist society" without capitalist individuals comprising that society.
So if you have a purely capitalist society, and someone living within that society doesn't believe that pure capitalism is the best method to run that society, then that society is immediately not capitalist anymore? Jesus Christ, dude, how the hell do you go about implementing and keeping a purely capitalist society? If you don't believe a purely capitalist society can exist, I'll agree with you. If you do believe it's possible, I hope to god the ones that don't agree with you are well armed.
"Buying power", in the context you're using it, implies buying control of men, irrespective of the will of those men. If I "buy power" by simply buying off a government official who will tell you what to do, I'm not a capitalist.
You seem to be confusing "capitalist" with "rich person". Those terms are not synonymous.
how not? you paid money for services. that is capitalism.
It depends on how that choice is arrived at. If I kidnap you and then force you to labor for me, then yes, that is violent. If I steal your food and then only give it back to you if you labor for me, then yes, that is violent. But if I'm the only employer in your system, and I've made no aggressive actions against your body or your property, then no, there is no violence there.
but how does one become or remain the only employer in the system? the same way the us government stays on top here... union busters, organized crime, teaching lessons to the workers, cutting costs by making the workplace hazardous, etc. you cannot tell me you've never read the dark side of the industrial revolution and abuse of free market capitalism. these regulations bemoan came about for a reason... it HAD to be done becos those on top were doing far more damage to many more people than any regulations could ever do to them.
It means that power cannot corrupt you. You, however, can use power corruptly. "Power" cannot make a decision, nor can it define values. Only living things can define values and make decisions. If you use power corruptly, that has little to do with the power you have -- it has everything to do with the person you are.
and my point is that it is INEVITABLE that those with power will use it corruptly, becos it is addictive and like any good crackhead, you need more. it has nothing to do with the person you are. this is human nature. addictions twist the person you are into something else. and all things that spark good feelings (a line of coke or the thrill of making more money) are addictive.
Equal money and power are not prescribed by communism. Money and power relative to need are prescribed by communism. And nothing within a communist system has a greater "need" than the state. That is why the heads of communist states tend to have a bit more than the needs of the "proletariat".
and why is that? becos they get a taste of power and they want and need more so they become self-serving, just as the winners in capitalism do.
so... do you want government to have that unlimited power to control things, or the wealthy elite to have that unlimited power to control things? that's your choice in capitalism vs. communism.
or, you can do the unthinkable, mix these economic theories, and set these two up as checks on each other... as we do right now.
cos otherwise, your argument is pointless. you say capitalists shouldn't abuse others, but we know they do and will. i could just as easily say communists shouldn't take more for themselves, but we know they do and will. if everyone in the system was willing to play by the rules, sure, we'd have capitalist and communist utopias. but they don't. so it's just a matter of picking your poison.
sure they do. and neither do capitalism and communism. now before you go "huh"... rum is an alcoholic drink, coke is a sweet carbonated drink. but both are drinks. capitalism is hands off economics, communism is totally regulated economics. but they're both still economic systems. and you CAN mix them... it's called socialism. a general freedom of economy, but with some regulation and protection against abuse. im sorry, but im a bit more concerned about the abuse of the weak by the strong than i am about the "abuse" of a rich guy having to pay a few taxes.
You cannot have "a general freedom of economy". That's just a pathetic obfuscation for control. If I lock you in a room, you don't have a "general freedom of movement". You are forcibly confined.
Socialism is not a mix of communism and capitalism. It is a pre-statist communist economy. There is no individual ownership of property in socialism. Ownership is collective.
quit being a pussy man
Awesome.
we covered that already.
Where?
becos my body is worth more to me than 10,000 acres of land filled with gold. if you wanted to buy my body in the sense that you OWN it as you own your property, it's worth a hell of a lot more than that lot of property.
Ok. Name your price. If I want to own your body for 24 hours, what would it cost me?
ownership is indefinite. you're talking, at best, about renting my body, not owning it. you cannot own someone else's body, ever. that is called slavery. their body is worth more than any piece of property becos it can never be bought.
Slavery would violate your will. If you agree to it, it isn't slavery. And ownership is not really "indefinite". Ownership is transferrable, based on willful exchange. I own something until I sell it.
Finally, a body can certainly be bought. Laborers sell their bodies. So do prostitutes. People sell their organs.
but you are, your system demands it. your property is absolute and their body and soul and personhood (under your ideology) are worth no more than their labor can provide to you. so if a poor mcd's worker with no skills tries to steal your diamond, you are entitled to kill, maim, batter, and destroy him to protect the greater value of your diamond.
Huh? If someone "steals my diamond", my response to him has nothing to do with the value of that diamond. My response is only based on the fact that he doesn't believe in property. There is no justice in killing, maiming, battering or destroying a theif. There is only justice in recovering what he stole.
becos he's worth less than the diamond. you said yourself right up above that someone's life and body aren't worth any more than property...
No. I said it depends on the life, the body, the property, and the wills of those involved.
their only value is their ability to work for you. they're the means to your end and have no inherent value themselves.
No one is ever a "means to my end". If you've understood anything I've said in these posts, you would understand how that completely contradicts it all.
Comments
Your whole premise is spurious. And what does the implication of the word "squatter" have to do with anything? Would it have helped if I used the word "bum" instead?
The act of squatting can imply whatever the squatter and squattee want - if they exist in a purely capitalist society, the implications of their acts would in no way fundamentally change the nature of that society.
For the record, I never mentioned logic - and forcibly removing a rapist from your body would require violence, whether you're comfortable with the definition or not.
Rum and coke mix together. They do not contradict each other. Their natures do not make them unmixable.
"Their" body? How can they make claim to "their" body?
Based on what standard? How is a "human's body" worth more than any piece of property? If I offered to trade you 10,000 acres of land filled with gold for your labor, would you deny that deal?
How? I'm not suggesting I have a right to kill a squatter or beat him to a bloody pulp. I recognize that the squatter owns his own life. The squatter, however, recognizes no ownership. If I simply physically remove him from my property, all I've done is exchange with him based on his own ideals and his own moral code.
im not following this one. those with unlimited wealth have no reason to restrain themselves and nobody can force them to do it. so they abuse their wealth... they buy power and government officials to make themselves even wealthier. they do more indirect violence to the less privileged than the indirect "violence" of taxation can ever accomplish through the threat of jail, starvation, or outright murder. you're offering the workers a choice: die on the job for me, or starve your family to work for me. you see no violence in that choice?
again, not making sense. what is that supposed to mean?
To "call it like you see it", you need some kind of factual evidence. Otherwise, you're simply calling it what you want to call it.
Bum wouldn't imply a person claiming to own or have a right my property by merely sitting on it. Bum would imply all sorts of things.
Of course it would. One cannot have a "capitalist society" without capitalist individuals comprising that society.
I'm completely comfortable with that definition. But violence against a rapist is completely consistent with exchange. You're giving equal value to equal value.
not the whim of the state, the values of the people. it would take a constitutional amendment to do away with just compensation.
that salary tax is your rent for living in this great country
1. the money is only a symbol, a marker to reflect how much your capital is worth. it doesn't mean the us owns it, just that they hve provided an easy way for everyone to swap goods so that i don't have to trade you 2 beaver pelts for a happy meal at mcd's.
2. as i recall, the core of communism is empowering the proletariat, the working class. this means, in simple terms, the ceo does not get all the money and all the power... the workers do. thus, dick cheney and other ceo's making 100000000 times as much money as their workers violates the very core of communism, which is that all share equally, regardless of merit
"Buying power", in the context you're using it, implies buying control of men, irrespective of the will of those men. If I "buy power" by simply buying off a government official who will tell you what to do, I'm not a capitalist.
You seem to be confusing "capitalist" with "rich person". Those terms are not synonymous.
It depends on how that choice is arrived at. If I kidnap you and then force you to labor for me, then yes, that is violent. If I steal your food and then only give it back to you if you labor for me, then yes, that is violent. But if I'm the only employer in your system, and I've made no aggressive actions against your body or your property, then no, there is no violence there.
It means that power cannot corrupt you. You, however, can use power corruptly. "Power" cannot make a decision, nor can it define values. Only living things can define values and make decisions. If you use power corruptly, that has little to do with the power you have -- it has everything to do with the person you are.
sure they do. and neither do capitalism and communism. now before you go "huh"... rum is an alcoholic drink, coke is a sweet carbonated drink. but both are drinks. capitalism is hands off economics, communism is totally regulated economics. but they're both still economic systems. and you CAN mix them... it's called socialism. a general freedom of economy, but with some regulation and protection against abuse. im sorry, but im a bit more concerned about the abuse of the weak by the strong than i am about the "abuse" of a rich guy having to pay a few taxes. quit being a pussy man
we covered that already.
becos my body is worth more to me than 10,000 acres of land filled with gold. if you wanted to buy my body in the sense that you OWN it as you own your property, it's worth a hell of a lot more than that lot of property. ownership is indefinite. you're talking, at best, about renting my body, not owning it. you cannot own someone else's body, ever. that is called slavery. their body is worth more than any piece of property becos it can never be bought.
but you are, your system demands it. your property is absolute and their body and soul and personhood (under your ideology) are worth no more than their labor can provide to you. so if a poor mcd's worker with no skills tries to steal your diamond, you are entitled to kill, maim, batter, and destroy him to protect the greater value of your diamond. becos he's worth less than the diamond. you said yourself right up above that someone's life and body aren't worth any more than property... their only value is their ability to work for you. they're the means to your end and have no inherent value themselves.
No, it doesn't. Everyday property in this country is expropriated without "constitutional amendment". If I buy a pound of marijuana from you, and I get caught, I will not be compensated it when the state removes it from my possession. If I sell you my labor, the state will take half of it without consitutional amendment or compensation. And if you take my property from me to build a highway, you already determine the value of my compensation. No amendment will be required to change the subjective definition you've already applied to "just compenstation".
Incorrect. The United States government invented paper money in order to incur debt, not to provide me with a way to swap goods. Everyday they act to devalue the currency in your pocket.
Equal money and power are not prescribed by communism. Money and power relative to need are prescribed by communism. And nothing within a communist system has a greater "need" than the state. That is why the heads of communist states tend to have a bit more than the needs of the "proletariat".
One is flammable, the other extinguishes flame.
One dehydrates, the other hydrates.
One is a downer, the other an energizer.
One causes insanity type symptoms, the other helps to alieviate those symptoms.
As for calling it like I see it, my evidence is people buy property all the time. Then, often they sell it for a profit. Most of which they keep.
Bum it is, then.
So if you have a purely capitalist society, and someone living within that society doesn't believe that pure capitalism is the best method to run that society, then that society is immediately not capitalist anymore? Jesus Christ, dude, how the hell do you go about implementing and keeping a purely capitalist society? If you don't believe a purely capitalist society can exist, I'll agree with you. If you do believe it's possible, I hope to god the ones that don't agree with you are well armed.
how not? you paid money for services. that is capitalism.
but how does one become or remain the only employer in the system? the same way the us government stays on top here... union busters, organized crime, teaching lessons to the workers, cutting costs by making the workplace hazardous, etc. you cannot tell me you've never read the dark side of the industrial revolution and abuse of free market capitalism. these regulations bemoan came about for a reason... it HAD to be done becos those on top were doing far more damage to many more people than any regulations could ever do to them.
and my point is that it is INEVITABLE that those with power will use it corruptly, becos it is addictive and like any good crackhead, you need more. it has nothing to do with the person you are. this is human nature. addictions twist the person you are into something else. and all things that spark good feelings (a line of coke or the thrill of making more money) are addictive.
and why is that? becos they get a taste of power and they want and need more so they become self-serving, just as the winners in capitalism do.
so... do you want government to have that unlimited power to control things, or the wealthy elite to have that unlimited power to control things? that's your choice in capitalism vs. communism.
or, you can do the unthinkable, mix these economic theories, and set these two up as checks on each other... as we do right now.
cos otherwise, your argument is pointless. you say capitalists shouldn't abuse others, but we know they do and will. i could just as easily say communists shouldn't take more for themselves, but we know they do and will. if everyone in the system was willing to play by the rules, sure, we'd have capitalist and communist utopias. but they don't. so it's just a matter of picking your poison.
You cannot have "a general freedom of economy". That's just a pathetic obfuscation for control. If I lock you in a room, you don't have a "general freedom of movement". You are forcibly confined.
Socialism is not a mix of communism and capitalism. It is a pre-statist communist economy. There is no individual ownership of property in socialism. Ownership is collective.
Awesome.
Where?
Ok. Name your price. If I want to own your body for 24 hours, what would it cost me?
Slavery would violate your will. If you agree to it, it isn't slavery. And ownership is not really "indefinite". Ownership is transferrable, based on willful exchange. I own something until I sell it.
Finally, a body can certainly be bought. Laborers sell their bodies. So do prostitutes. People sell their organs.
Huh? If someone "steals my diamond", my response to him has nothing to do with the value of that diamond. My response is only based on the fact that he doesn't believe in property. There is no justice in killing, maiming, battering or destroying a theif. There is only justice in recovering what he stole.
No. I said it depends on the life, the body, the property, and the wills of those involved.
No one is ever a "means to my end". If you've understood anything I've said in these posts, you would understand how that completely contradicts it all.