Sam, your politics are reprehensible to me

[SamTheButcher]

NM (or anyone else that agrees with him) I think that you are making wrong assumptions about my political beliefs. You are passing judgment on my beliefs when you dont even know them. Thats not fair. Here are some of my political beliefs. Once you know then if you still find them reprehensible thats up to you. I hope that you dont because it would mean that you support tyranny and oppression over freedom and liberty.

This pretty long. I actually cut it short. Still it only takes about 5-10 mins to read. Not that big a deal. But if you want to say you dont like my politics or beliefs you should know them and be able to support your reasons why. Otherwise it is nothing but ignorance and prejudice towards me without justification or support that is behind your negative feelings toward my beliefs.

It is so depressing to me that so many people today are in support of socialistic ideas. That these people are willing to give up their freedoms and liberties to have a big Gov. to take care of them. These people look at other people that have more than them (the rich) and in a total disregard for the freedoms and liberties of others they want the Gov. to take from those people and give it to them. I cant for the life of me understand how so many people are willing to have the Rights of others stomped on because they want their stuff. Meanwhile the Gov. continues to grow and more and more is power is given to it resulting in the lose of freedom for everyone. I am surprised at how many Mythers are in support of this. My hope is that it is from ignorance that they feel this way and not because of greed or laziness or the idea that as long as it benefits them personally they dont care if other people Rights are taken away. So although this is a reply to NM I would like to hear from others that support socialist ideas and lets debate it. Maybe through this some of you will have your eyes open and Freedom and Liberty in America and the World will have a little more support. I will start it out and if you disagree with or think any of the points I make here are wrong explain why. Maybe you could change mine and other peoples minds that socialism is good.

I believe people should be free to do whatever they want without taking from or hurting another person. Which would therefore take away that persons freedom. I believe in personal liberty and responsibility. How could you have a problem with that.

Here are some quotes that express my beliefs better than I could.

Thomas Jefferson:

The duty of Government:
"A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circlue of our felicities."
In other words the Governments job is to protect peoples freedom and liberty from being interfered with from another person. It is not the Gov. job to take away that which a person has earned.

"If we can but prevent the government from wasting the labours of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy."
This is a big problem that we have today. The Gov. takes (by force) what a person has earned then wastes it on Gov programs that they tell us is to help us.

"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." It is wrong to force one person to take care of and pay for another person or to support and pay for something he is totally against. This Natural Right of man has been stomped on in America today. Many people are forced to give away 25%-60%+ of what they have earned and worked for to give to others who have not earned it and to programs they are totally against. Right now in America today if you are a person who works you are FORCED by the Gov. to pay for and support people and their lifestyles who are perfectly capable of supporting themselves but refuse to. If you do not pay for and support these people ultimately the Gov. will kill you. Is that freedom?


"Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition." This is the reason that Gov. has all of the programs it does that support people and encourage them not to work (like welfare programs). The people that live off of the Gov. dole become dependent and ultimately not much more than slaves of the Gov. It also takes away peoples pride that comes naturally from personal accomplishments earned through effort and personal sacrifice. Those together set up a perfect situation for people that have ambition for power IE the people that provide for and give to the Gov dependents. When someone or a Gov. provides for your needs you become subservient to them. Yet millions of people today have been taught and convinced that they cannot survive without the Gov. supporting them. These people have already lost their sense of pride and self-worth believing that they cant even take care of their own self. This is exactly what the people in control want them to believe. That they NEED the Gov to be their caretakers. I dont need a caretaker. I can provide for and take care of myself through my own work and effort.

On top of that the resources that the Gov. uses to put people into subservience are resources that are taken by FORCE from the people that do provide for themselves. This in turn reduces that person ability to be self sufficient.


"Our greatest happiness does not depend on the condition of life in which chance has placed us, but is always the result of a good conscience, good health, occupation, and freedom in all just pursuits."

"It is neither wealth nor splendor; but tranquility and occupation which give you happiness." So many people dont understand this and believe that happiness comes from money and possessions or the condition in life chance has placed them in. When they lack in those things they believe that they cant be happy. They then look at others who do have those things and because they have been convinced that they NEED the Gov to support them they want the Gov. to take them from others (the rich) and give it to them. When in reality happiness comes from a good conscience and self-worth that is achieved through personal achievement earned in just ways that dont take away from the Rights and Freedoms of others. As everyone should know when your work for and earn something it brings much more satisfaction, pride and happiness than when something is taken from another and given to you.

"It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world." This has been totally forgotten by most of the World. Our Gov. in its effort to control people by providing for their needs have put all of us and future generations in such debt that it will bring the World into war.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." So many people claim they believe this yet they have no problem when the Rights and Liberties are taken from other people by the Gov. IE take money and possessions from others and given to them.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."

"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government."Many people want a big Gov. full of regulations and laws to try to have everything calm and easy. For every Law that is written a Right and a freedom taken away. So the timid would rather give up their Rights and Freedoms to have a sense of calm and safety. Through their timidness they hand over their Freedom to a big and corrupt Gov. forging their owns chains of bondage. I would rather be Free and deal with the challenges that go with Freedom. Dont most people think it is best for an animal to be free and live with the dangers that go with that than to be kept safe in a cage?

"Nothing can stop the man with the right mental attitude from achieving his goal; nothing on earth can help the man with the wrong mental attitude." This is why some people achieve and gain more and why some people will never live up to their potential. The latter is what happens when a person is convinced that they cant make it from their own efforts. That is what so many people are taught today. "You need the Gov. to help, you cant make it on your own" I believe it is much more from a weakness of mind and spirit that so many people accept this over a weakness of body or ability. People that accept this and support socialism are admitting that they are so weak in whatever way that they cant make it on their own. Even some that start out life with more than most. Yet some people start out in the worst situations and circumstances and become successful because they dont accept the idea that they cant do it on their own and they have the right mental attitude to persevere.

More to come on Big Banks and Big Business which I think even with some of you socialist believers we may have some agreement and you will agree with Thomas Jefferson. The reason though that the Big Banks and a lot of big business have the power and control is because of big Gov. We (in America) handed more power to the Gov. because of peoples fear "Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." Out of their fear Americans handed over more power to the Gov. Who then gave that power to the Federal Reserve who controls the Big Banks and is the root to a lot of our problems. This occurred from and the financial situation America is in, didnt come from a lack of Gov. but from too much Gov. At one time the individual people had much more control of Americas Banking System and there were more smaller local Banks but we gave up that control for what we thought would be financial safety but it made things much worse. Yet socialist keep wanting to hand more and more power over to a big Gov. in the hopes that it will somehow make their lives safer and easier. Time and time again it makes the problem worse. All that happens is person Freedom is lost and Gov. gains control.

[NewMutator]

Sam, all due respect, but you have misdirected rage. I don't have a problem with you. I have a problem with your political stances that you have posted not only here but also on the MWC forums last year. I feel you are the one being misleading and not the other way around (demonizing "other" political attitudes).

However, I don't feel so strongly that I'm aching to set the record straight. Go ahead and feel you are correct. Personal liberty and all that.

[SamTheButcher]

Sam, all due respect, but you have misdirected rage. I don't have a problem with you. I have a problem with your political stances that you have posted not only here but also on the MWC forums last year. I feel you are the one being misleading and not the other way around (demonizing "other" political attitudes).

However, I don't feel so strongly that I'm aching to set the record straight. Go ahead and feel you are correct. Personal liberty and all that.

I think you are a cool guy NM so dont take this in a negative way. This is just one subject we dont agree on.

It is disappointing that you feel that way. I dont have misdirected rage. I dont have rage at all actually. You said you have a problem with my political stances but you dont say why. It makes me think that either you dont know my political stances or you are someone that supports politics that steal peoples Freedoms and Liberties. Which if you do support the oppression of others (which I think you are a good person so I think you may unknowingly support that) I would like to be able to get you to change your mind and be in support of personal Liberty and Freedom.

As it is right now you are just making false accusation toward me with nothing to back it up. I gave a lot of examples of things I believe in and you didnt address or show what you thought was so reprehensible of any. If you do support Socialist ideas and you are against personal Freedom and Liberty and abhor my belief in those cant you support it? Can anyone here? Lets have a debate because when you are forced to support your believes it either strengthens them if they are right or destroys them if they are wrong. Both are good things.

I am not being misleading in any way at all.

You can say I am demonizing "other" political attitudes or beliefs but when those beliefs are based on oppression of people they should be demonized. It is not always ok for people to believe in and act on whatever they want. Some beliefs ARE wrong. Members of the KKK or Nazis believe that they should kill and oppress innocent people just because they are different. That is an "other" political attitude and it should be demonized because it IS wrong.

Its not about me wanting to be right. It is about there are so many people today (and some here) that are falling for and following political systems that take away peoples Freedom. I believe that if reasoned with most people would support Freedom and that if forced to support with logic, oppressive and Liberty robbing political systems like socialism their support would fall apart. They would realize the oppressive nature of systems like that. Or they would have to admit that they support systems like that because they want other people stuff given to them. Basically they support oppressive system like socialism because of their greed and disregard for other people.

[NewMutator]

What accusations have I made that are false? My personal distaste with what you have shared regarding your beliefs?

If you are pro-freedom how come you are not an anarchist? You seem to me to be a propertarian-libertarian, and I sympathize with that. However I think asserting one's right to private property (not to be confused with personal property) is the definition of theft (see colonialism). I also can't abide by your penchant to rationalize genetic Darwinism (your belief that black people, or anyone genetically different from you, should blame themselves for their problems, for example). I'm not an advocate for 'statolatry' either, in case you wish to paint me as one of your evil socialists. I just think that view lacks compassion, and find it reprehensible for that reason. I'm a compatibilist by nature, so I don't feel that either people have self-determination, or they're genetically predisposed automatons. I actually reject Aristotelian logic here, because I don't see Nature and Nurture as competing explanations, but aspects of the same process. Hopefully that clears up some of your misconceptions about me.

[adrenaline]

Sam, you should write a book and call it "Endless Rants About Things Nobody Gives a Shit About", then follow it up with a sequal entitled "Nobody Will Read this Book".

[SamTheButcher]

What accusations have I made that are false?

That I have misdirected rage and that I am being misleading.

And this especially

(your belief that black people, or anyone genetically different from you, should blame themselves for their problems, for example)

It is not that I feel that because someone is genetically different from me that they should blame themselves for their problems. I do believe though that a lot of peoples problems like many Blacks for example (but defiantly not exclusively cause many Whites and other ethnicity's are the same way) is a result of their own actions or lack of, especially in America. The people that claim otherwise and say that Blacks or other groups somehow need special treatment are the real racist. Claiming that Blacks need special programs (affirmative action) are saying that Blacks arent capable of taking care of themselves or lacking personally in something that Whites dont. I believe everyone should be treated equally. 90%+ or so of Americans that live in bad conditions I do believe it is their own fault that they dont change that. It is mostly their fault for listening to and believing people that tell them "You cant make it on your own. Everyone is against you. You need the Gov. to step in and help you." It is like a child who's parents constantly tell them they are worthless after time the child comes to believe that. That is exactly what most social programs like welfare etc do.

I guess I do to some extent believe in Social Darwinism but that is only because I recognize that everyone is different. Some people are just born with gifts that others arent. Some people are more intelligent, some healthier etc, etc. Because of that not everyone is going to have as much stuff as others. But that doesnt mean that they cant be happy. I dont have a lot of stuff or money but I am happy. I have 13 acres that I bought a few years ago that I am building (slowly because I have to work jobs that pay) a small homestead. To raise my own food and to be as self sufficient as is possible. I have had no big advantages in life other than a strong sense of pride and a good work ethic. Yet when I finally reach my goal I will be as happy as a person could be. Happiness is success. If I can do that there is no reason that 99% of every other American cant. And once I build that do you really believe I should no have the Right to own what I will have worked so hard for?

I think the problem for a lot of Americans is they just want more and more stuff and when someone has more than they do they hate it and they want to Gov. to take if from the ones that have it and give it to them..

If you are pro-freedom how come you are not an anarchist?

The reason that I'm not an anarchist is because I do believe we need some laws but only to the extent to protect one persons Right and Freedoms from being taken from by another. As in people should be free to do whatever they want unless they hurt someone else in the process physically or financially. One mans Rights end where they violate another mans.

You seem to me to be a propertarian-libertarian, and I sympathize with that. However I think asserting one's right to private property (not to be confused with personal property) is the definition of theft (see colonialism)

"Propertarian libertarian philosophies define liberty as non-aggression (an arrangement in which no person or group "aggresses" against any other party), where aggression is defined as the violation of private property.[35] This philosophy implicitly recognizes private property as the sole source of legitimate authority. Propertarian libertarians hold that societies in which private property rights are enforced are the only ones that are both ethical and lead to the best possible outcomes.[42] They generally support the free-market, and are not opposed to any concentration of power (e.g. monopolies), provided it is brought about through non-coercive means"

The definitions vary but under this definition yes I am. I also dont see how there can be a distinction between private property and personal property. They are in essence the same thing. How could you distinguish between the two? Are someones clothes or other possessions personal or private property? What about someones food? What about a persons home? What about the land that the home sits on? Should all of someones clothing, food, homes and the land they sit on not be owned by them? Shouldnt a person be able to build a home, plant a garden, raise animals etc and actually own those things? Wouldnt it be a gross violation of someones Freedoms and Liberties for them to work for create and build those things and then not to actually own them. Without ownership and if a person doesnt have a Right to keep and do with as they please the fruits of their own labor they have nothing. Would you have it be that someone buys a piece of land builds a house plants a garden and anyone that wants to can come onto that land and take or destroy anything they wish? If a person didnt have private property Rights they would also have no Right to stop that from happening. In a society like that with no private property why would anyone want to be a builder or creator or make improvements to anything if they didnt own it and it could be taken from them by anyone that wanted?

Please and this is serious. Explain to me how a society could function without private property?

Here is an article on how the Pilgrims tried socialist type system and it was a failure and many of them starved so the went to a capitalist or actually a proletarian-libertarian type system. Please read this because you can see what happens when non-private property socialist type system are used. The Governor kept a journal of the experiment and explains exactly what happened. They signed a contract to do this for seven years.

"Pilgrims were to pool, for common benefit, “all profits and benefits that are got by trade, traffic, trucking, working, fishing, or any other means of any person or persons…” It further noted “that at the end of the seven years, the capital and profits, viz. the houses, lands, goods and chattels, be equally divided betwixt the Adventurers and Planters…” During this time the colonists were to “have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock and goods of the said colony.”

This is the very definition of a socialist/non-private property type system. What happened was many people claimed inability to work and the people that did work were not happy that they were doing all the work and not being compensated.

The socialist experiment Bradford added, “was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to the benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense….”

After many people starved to death and the rest were close to it that changed the system. Each family was given their own piece of land to do with as they pleased and were responsible for themselves. This resulted in great prosperity for all. The people that had earlier claimed they couldnt work suddenly had to so they did. The people that did work before worked harder because they could keep what they had worked for.

Read the whole thing so you can see for yourself. You can actually find the Governors actual journal. Both systems were tried the socialist type system failed and it failed for the same reasons it always does. The more capitalist proletarian-libertarian type system created prosperity for all.

Pilgrim Story: 2 Links because read together they give a more complete history of events.
http://www.gingpac.org/thanksgiving-the ... -communism
http://www.libertyunderfire.org/2011/11/1430/

[SamTheButcher]

Sam, you should write a book and call it "Endless Rants About Things Nobody Gives a Shit About", then follow it up with a sequal entitled "Nobody Will Read this Book".

Actually a lot of people care greatly about what I am talking about. What I want to know is why you dont?

[NewMutator]

Here's an example of what I would call your misdirected rage: "Liberals/socialist are some of the most greedy, hateful, deceitful people there is."

I also think that characterizing an entire group as aberrant or amoral IS misleading for obvious reasons. I cannot accept that propertarian-libertarianism has exclusive purchase on the moral high ground. I find such assertions absurd.

I'm actually really loathe to discuss my beliefs because "those who can, do; those who can't, teach." Words cannot change anyone's mind, they merely serve to divide people ideologically due to ego investment in linguistic definitions.

I "get" where you're coming from, I just think it's overly simplistic and that the failings of free market capitalism have to be addressed as well. That means that as much as we want to capitalism to reward "winners", to not address the political concerns of "losers" is potentially deleterious to the entire enterprise.

Everyone says that people should be treated equally but the reality is that we just don't do that. We all practice nepotism or cronyism when we can get away with it. That's just how we are. We protect our adopted "in-group" and label as potential threats anyone excluded from that. The fact is that we want to maintain wealth and privilege in those groups with which we share genetic parity. That is why white folks had no problem with government until an "outsider" took office; all of a sudden there's this massive push to radicalize despite very little difference with prior administrations in terms of policy. This isn't something that operates on a conscious level, normally.

The fact is people devise post-hoc rationalizations for their behavior, which is essentially irrational.

Hard work doesn't always result in success; this is a myth that's been peddled for some time to convince people to settle for the status quo. Not every poor person can lift themselves out of poverty from hard work alone. The essence of this myth is that if you're poor, it's because you haven't worked hard enough. I'm fairly sure we can put this myth to rest.

My thought is the law is designed to protect the privileged. Its enforcement is an act of aggression, so there goes your non-agression policy.

Personal property is your person and what is in your immediate possession (food, clothes, tools to complete certain tasks, so forth). Private property is essentially real-estate.

The awarding of private property can be seen as a means of preempting contention. Propertarians start from the premise that all land is up for grabs until claimed. I think that's absurd. It seems more ethical to view land as belonging to the commons before being allocated as private property. In other words, private property isn't "owned" -- it's rented. In exchange for exclusive property access, one enters into contract, paying appropriate taxes which are then distributed as basic income. Taxes on land value shouldn't disincentivize economic transactions like taxes on income or capital does. This is just one idea, and it would work through a basic contract.

[pallidice]

I did not read pretty much any of this but thats ok.... If you would like to keep hold of ur sanity 2 things in life you dont get involved with or at least state your opinoin about are politics and religion.
However being the hipicrate that i am here they are 1)fuck politics
2)fuck religion
3)fuck sam
4)fuck LN
5)fuck everyone else
GOOD DAY

[NewMutator]

fack you pallidice!!!

[adrenaline]

Actually a lot of people care greatly about what I am talking about. What I want to know is why you dont?

Oh it's not that I DON'T care... it's that I refuse to read your endlessly long psycho rants so, in fact, I have no fucking idea what you are talking about.

[SamTheButcher]

NM did you read the Pilgrim story? It totally proves that the idea of no property rights and socialist type systems dont work. Under that socialist type system the people starved and fought with and had resentment toward each other. It also gave people incentive to work and do less. There was a lot of theft. It is the same results we see today in inner cities or other places where welfare type programs are prevalent.

When they switched over to a Propertarian libertarian type system everyone was more successful, worked harder, produced more and in general got along better. One version I read of the story also talks about how they also became more generous because everyone had more and there wasnt the resentment that comes from some people working and BEING FORCED to support people that did not work. The Governor even talks about people that claimed under the socialist type system they couldnt work suddenly being able to work when they became responsible for themselves. This is exactly the same problems we have today. The Propertarian libertarian system actually helped people realize their full potential.

Read it and explain to me why it is that a Propertarian libertarian type system was so successful when the socialist type system was so bad. Since you believe Propertarian libertarian is so bad. Why did it work so good? It is one thing to theorize on something it is another to see it actually used.

A few main points. Starts out they try a system like you support no private property ect.

"At first, they decided to turn their back on all the institutions of the England that had been their home. This included the institution of private property, which they declared to be the basis of greed, averse, and selfishness. Instead, they were determined to live the “Platonic ideal” of collectivism, in which all work would be done in common, with the rewards of their collective efforts evenly divided among the colonists. Farming was done in common, as well as housekeeping and child raising. This was supposed to lead to prosperity and brotherly love."

“For in this instance, community of property (so far as it went) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment which would have been to the general benefit and comfort. For the young men who were most able and fit for service objected to being forced to spend their time and strength in working for other men’s wives and children, without any recompense. The strong man or the resourceful man had no more share of food, clothes, etc., than the weak man who was not able to do a quarter the other could. This was thought injustice. The aged and graver men, who were ranked and equalized in labour, food, clothes, etc., with the humbler and younger ones, thought it some indignity and disrespect to them. As for men’s wives who were obliged to do service for other men, such as cooking, washing their clothes, etc., they considered it a kind of slavery, and many husbands would not brook it.

That system cause massive problems. People start hating and resenting each other etc. They go hungry and everyone suffers.

They change to a private property capitalist type system. Everything improve for everyone. Even people that claime before they couldnt work suddenly did. These are exactly the same problems we have today when socialism type systems are used. The more socialist a society gets the worse it gets.

“At length after much debate, the Governor, with the advice of the chief among them, allowed each man to plant corn for his own household, and to trust to themselves for that; in all other things to go on in the general way as before. So every family was assigned a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number with that in view, — for present purposes only, and making no division for inheritance, — all boys and children being included under some family. This was very successful. It made all hands very industrious, so that much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could devise, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better satisfaction. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to plant corn, while before they would allege weakness and inability; and to have compelled them would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.

Please explain why the Capitalist type Private Property system worked and the Non-Private Property Socialist System Failed? When you say the Socialist type system shuold work better

The communal experiment failed because it violated basic human nature and the value of private property and rewards for individual initiative. The indolent seized what they wished and the productive became disillusioned and stopped producing.

http://www.livinglakecountry.com/blogs/ ... 48908.html
http://www.libertyunderfire.org/2011/11/1430/
http://www.gingpac.org/thanksgiving-the ... -communism
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1740899/posts

[SamTheButcher]

Here is an article about the difference between countries with strong Private Property Rights vs those with weak Private Property Rights.

http://www.heritage.org/index/book/chapter-5

The countries with strong Private Property Rights are way more successful. If Private Property is wrong why does it work so good to make a countries population so much more successful?

One example Chile. Chile is a South American Country that doesnt even have as many Natural Resources as some of its neighbors but while its neighbors languish in poverty Chile is successful. The number 1 reason. Chile has strong Private Property Rights. Therefore when a person can own land and reap the benefits of their labor people work harder.


Chile. Chile is a powerful example of a country that has entirely avoided the resource curse; it is blessed with substantial natural resources and has the highest GDP per capita in the region. Copper has long been an important source of income and Chile’s primary export, and although its share of GDP has declined steadily since the 1980s, it still accounts for a large proportion of exports and government income. Reliance on mining and other natural resources, however, has not proven to be an impediment to growth.

In fact, Chile stands out among South American countries not for any substantial differences in resource availability, but rather because of its commitment to private property rights and economic freedoms. Businesses have incentives to grow and diversify because entrepreneurs and investors know that they will reap the benefits of their risks.

Coupled with a strong commitment to trade liberalization, Chile’s pro–free market policies have spurred the rapid expansion of international trade, especially in agriculture. Wine, salmon, and fruit are particularly strong exports, despite the fact that a relatively small percentage of the population is devoted to these industries. The result of pro-investment and pro-business policy in Chile has been a robust economy that grew roughly 5 percent in 2010 despite suffering a debilitating earthquake in February of that year.

The actual proof of Private Property Rights goes totally against the Socialist type non-Private Property Rights you and other supports. How can you still say Private Property is bad? Private Property helps everyone in a country. How can you be against prosperity for a countries people. By denying them of Private Property it hurts the population.

These are reasons I say Liberals/Socialist are so bad because even though their beliefs are proven wrong over and over in real life they still push for and support systems that oppress populations and force them into poverty. When there are solutions for poverty but Liberals fight to stop the solutions from being implemented. The only thing that can explain it is either their beliefs no matter how wrong (which they obviously are) are more important than peoples live or they actually want people in poverty with no means to help themselves so that the Liberal/Socialist can control them. To me thats evil and abhorrent.

[NewMutator]

I think you need to re-read the definition of proof.

There are many examples of "socialist" systems working throughout history, usually in the form of tight-knit communities. In fact, self-implosion wasn't even a problem in a lot of cases. The threat came from outside aggressors (like the Roman Catholic empire).

In contemporary times Scandinavia is often given as a good example of a successful socialistic system. Something you've probably never heard of is Mincome, which was a Canadian UBI experiment in the '70s. Seems it worked pretty well!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome

Get it through your head, Sam. I never said private property is "wrong" or "bad". Your entire argument rests on defining me as a commie pinko, which I'm not. I only said I reject the premise of propertarianism, which is "first come, first served" for a number of reasons. It makes more sense to see property as leased from the commons and subject to contractual terms in which commoners are fairly compensated (in the form of a real-estate tax) in exchange for their pledge to not claim possession of the land in question. Taxes collected in such a way will then be distributed as a universal basic income.

It's just absurd to think any good can come from a "finders keepers" approach to land distribution. This leads to all kind of atrocities like those that resulted from colonization.

The problem with postulating historical narratives to support your conclusions is that it's easy to fall prey to something known in Latin as post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this therefore because of this). That's why your "proof" is questionable. Data, or evidence, should not be conflated with proof, especially in a context such as this, because causation can be erroneously inferred or misattributed. The presence of possible joint effects can also throw your logic into question.

For that reason I think you're no better than the people you demonize. Good day.

[SamTheButcher]

Ive been reading what you have wrote. But your not addressing some of the points I made. Did you read the Pilgrim story? You didnt comment on why it worked out like it did. You didnt respond to the link I had of the study of countries with Private Property vs those without. There are examples after example of real life situations were Private Property Capitalist type Societies work so much better.

How do you think that happens?

BTW Scandinavia is Socialistic but it doesnt prove that it doesnt work. Also it isnt even purely Socialistic it is in the sense of High Taxes and big Welfare programs but on the other hand Sacandinavia.

"They are vibrantly capitalist in the sense that they have low levels of interference in markets by the government, low levels of regulation, low levels of nationalization of industry and capital, and almost no protectionism. "

"Ultra-capitalist Switzerland, which no one would mistake for a socialist country and which has a population similar in size to that of Sweden, appears to have poverty rates lower than those in the Scandinavian utopias."

Scandinavia is not that great. It is not an example of Socialism being successful. I have addressed your comment. Please address mine on why the Pilgrim Socialism failed and also on the study of Private Property Rights making countries more successful.

http://www.paoracle.com/SocialismWORKS!/?sw=Sweden
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/internati ... t-paradise
http://www.libsdebunked.com/socialism/s ... -argument/

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNtyV0CXfzU[/youtube]

[NewMutator]

Why should I address all your points? Why not address mine instead?

EDIT: "I have addressed your comment."

No you haven't. You're trying to get me to argue a point I haven't made (that communism is good or that capitalism is bad). I offered Scandinavia as a counterpoint to your claim that socialism doesn't work / is evil. The fact that it's not 100% socialist is irrelevant, since your position is that ALL socialist policies result in failure.

Please stick to what I have said. For instance, my critique of propertarianism is not that property should be abolished but rather that its initial premise (first possession) is fundamentally flawed.

I haven't addressed your pilgrim example because I'm not sure what bearing it has on this discussion. A counterexample of something similar working (as long as we're cherry picking to bolster our respective positions) is the kibbutzim of Palestine. How do you rationalize their relative success?

[NewMutator]

You see, you want this to be a capitalism vs communism debate. But it isn't. It's about the first possession theory of property. Until you understand that there is nothing to debate with you.

[SamTheButcher]

You see, you want this to be a capitalism vs communism debate. But it isn't. It's about the first possession theory of property. Until you understand that there is nothing to debate with you.

You started out saying that you didnt believe in Private Property Rights. You now are saying first possession theory but that is something that doesnt really pertain to America now. All land now is bought from someone or some organization. Someone pays for the land that they possess and in essence they really do just rent it because they have to pay property taxes or the Gov. will take the land away. Also you said you thought my politics are reprehensible I have been showing you my politics and there havent been any yet that you have said are examples of that and why they are reprehensible. I have been trying to show you a Free/Libertarian type society is best for everyone. And that Socialistic type societies are inherently oppressive and lead to more and greater misery for people. The right to Private Property is a corner stone to a Free people and Society.

Even early on in America the colonist bought the lands from Native Americans. Then in the 1800's the belief of Divine Providence was mutated into Manifest Destiny. The early colonist had very strong Christians beliefs and would not just take land from other people.

Early Americans like our Founders believed in Divine Providence Which was that if you live right and follow the teachings of Christ. God will help you and things will work for the good of all. So basically Love Your Neighbor, Dont lie, or steal and do good in your own life and God will bless you. It doesnt matter if you dont believe in God. What matters is that they believed if they did right and lived good lives things would work for the best of all.

Then with Andrew Jackson (one of the first Progressives) 1800's in America it became Manifest Destiny. So instead of living a righteous life and doing good and God will make everything work out good. It became "We are on a mission from God and we will make or Manifest our Destiny. That used that belief to justify the stealing of land and killing Native Americans and other atrocities. Something I am totally against. Most people associate this with the Founders and early colonist but it wasnt the case. The early colonist got along with Native Americans.

I know that you may not be a fan of Glenn Beck but here is a video where he discusses this and gives a more detailed account of it and shows the difference. He starts talking about it t around 5 min mark. I have more I can show you from Historians like David Barton they actual writings from the Founders and other historical documents that prove everything Glenn says happened. In case you think he may be making it up.

I did it as a link because there are 4 parts the link has all 4.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uo9w0Au ... 53A972DB68

Another resource http://www.wallbuilders.com/default.asp

[NewMutator]

You started out saying that you didnt believe in Private Property Rights.

No I did not. Here is what I said:

"I think asserting one's right to private property (not to be confused with personal property) is the definition of theft (see colonialism)."

Claiming exclusive rights to property (land) is theft from the commons, as I've been at pains to explain.

"that doesnt really pertain to America now"

Is/ought problem. Following your logic, your position doesn't pertain to America either because we don't use libertarian principles as a society (we use liberal socialist principles). Just because what is is a certain way doesn't mean it ought to be. Just because we use an unethical system of land distribution (first possession theory) doesn't make it good or desirable.

According to your logic, if we discover that something is unethical, we cannot (or should not) move to change it. That's just silly, as I'm sure anyone would tell you.

"I have been trying to show you a Free/Libertarian type society is best for everyone. And that Socialistic type societies are inherently oppressive and lead to more and greater misery for people."

"Also you said you thought my politics are reprehensible I have been showing you my politics and there havent been any yet that you have said are examples of that and why they are reprehensible."

I've already explained why, so I'm not sure what you find confusing, but the former quote provides a good example of what I find reprehensible about your brand of activism. That you impose your views on others ("if more people listened to Glenn Beck and others like him America would be doing much better") despite your faulty logic and bias blind spot is particularly heinous. Capitalism/socialism/communism are not inherently good or bad. Yet your modus operandi is to demonstrate that they are. It's an impossible task; you're forced to cherry pick data, oversimplify, misattribute causation, and extract prescriptions from an ambiguous historical record to support your claims. To top it off, you try to dress up your ideological conviction as "proven" despite evidence to the contrary (some of which I have even provided for you).

Now all that would normally be fine, if your ideology was benign. But it isn't. You go out of your way to deny others compassion, and I find that odious. You're no better than the communists you despise, and the tyrants you excoriate. You say you are for freedom, but you have no qualms about attacking others for holding different opinions (particularly Marxists). It's very curious, no? Your political philosophy isn't about freedom, it's about conformity.

"The right to Private Property is a corner stone to a Free people and Society."

That's called an axiom. You don't arrive there by reason. You just assume it's true.

[NewMutator]

Also, our entire system is based on first possession theory. Just because all land has been claimed by someone doesn't mean it's no longer relevant. We're just dealing with the logical fallout.

Because land belongs to the commons (ergo no one owns it) taxes acquired through leasing property would be used exclusively to compensate commoners via contract. There is no need for income tax under this system. The net result would be implementation of a UBI (universal basic income). Rather than deterring creativity or curbing production of capital, this would lead to an increase in self-directed innovation and entrepreneurship. It's very common for propertarians to assume people are by nature lazy. I won't even begin to address the question of whether excessive preoccupation with industry is healthy or not, but I think it's pretty clear that this assumption is not borne out by the facts.

Dan Pink helps us put this myth to rest: http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation.html

I'm not really sure if this conversation is worth pursuing or not, Sam. Feel free to prove me wrong.

[SamTheButcher]

Maybe I am confused on your view of Private Property. You say this.

"I think asserting one's right to private property (not to be confused with personal property) is the definition of theft (see colonialism)."

Claiming exclusive rights to property (land) is theft from the commons, as I've been at pains to explain.

Because land belongs to the commons (ergo no one owns it) taxes acquired through leasing property would be used exclusively to compensate commoners via contract. There is no need for income tax under this system. The net result would be implementation of a UBI (universal basic income).

Which sounds to me like you are against Private Property. You say you think someone having a Right to Private Property is theft and that claiming the Right to property is theft. Also that all land belongs to the commons. How could that mean anything else other than you are against Private Property ownership?

Then you say this.

For instance, my critique of propertarianism is not that property should be abolished but rather that its initial premise (first possession) is fundamentally flawed.

Get it through your head, Sam. I never said private property is "wrong" or "bad".

That sounds totally contradictory to me. You say all land belongs to the commons and no one owns it. Then you say that Private Property is not wrong or bad and shouldnt be abolished. Please clear up for me these seemingly contradicting statements.

Even if you stick to just that you dont believe land should be on a first come first bases. I think you are failing to realize that all land had been divided on a first come first bases. It has been like that since life first walked on land. Even animals mark off and defended their territories of land. If you move up in time to mankind and the first Native Americans. They took land on a first come first served bases. They actually came to an area of land killed and chased off animals that were here first. The Native Americans then fought for took and divided land between themselves. There is no other way for land to become Private Property. I did not say that I thought it was ok to take land from someone. I said I believe in the Right for someone to own a piece of land bought or given to them. So if you are not against Private Property (which I'm not sure because you seem to me have taken different positions on that) There is no other way for Property to be owned other than through "first possession" How can it happen any other way?
Here is the only way Private Property can come to be.
1) Land is vacant of life.
2)Plants and animals move into that land. Every Plant and every animals claims its own piece of that land. Plants claim their piece, ants claim their piece for their colonies, larger animals claim larger territories so on. In many cases the plants and animals force out previous plants and animals. Each bit becomes the property of the respective inhabitant
3)Humans move into that land. They kill and push out plants and animals that had previous claim to that land. The land then becomes the property of those Humans
4)Sometimes other Humans move in kill and push out the previous Humans. Even Natives did this. One tribe takes land from another tribe. Right or wrong thats the way it works. That land now becomes the property of those people.
5)Sometimes land is purchased from the previous Human inhabitant. It now becomes the property of the purchaser.

So no matter what Private Property is first obtained by first possession. There is no other way for it to work. So how can you be against first possession? Thats like being against gravity. It just IS you cant do anything about it.

If you are against Private Property (and I cant tell for sure) well thats a different thing. Which I have given you plenty of resource where you can see how much better Private Property Rights works over no Private Property. Did you see the study that compared countries with strong Private Property Rights vs countries without?

I will watch the video you posted and comment on your other comments later. I dont have time at the moment.

[NewMutator]

Yeah, I'm not "anti-private property" per se; like I said, I think land ownership can be simulated through contracts. That's a lot less disruptive to our present system than saying all private property should be abolished or confiscated by the state. The reason you don't understand it is because it's not communism but a form of libertarianism where individual rights to property are not sovereign but negotiated. Claiming private ownership without entering into contract is theft -- and that's the bread and butter of the propertarian system, which I reject (I don't agree that someone can just claim ownership over land that belongs to the commons). There's no contradiction from where I sit. The extent that you think so reflects a simplified understanding of this issue.

Again, you are performing a naturalistic fallacy when you say "all land had been divided on a first come first [basis]." It's not a valid argument to say "well we did that for awhile before so that means it's good or desirable or natural." Using the same logic I can make a case for slavery, rape, war. Sure animals appear to be territorial, but animals aren't human, so there's an important disjunctive with your analogy.

Regardless of whether all land was seized by the rule of first possession, all that would need to be done is the negotiation of contracts compensating commoners in exchange for exclusive land access. "Ownership" as it exists today remains intact in practice, though in theory land wouldn't be owned but leased (from the commons). I'm not advocating changing history, just changing our present practices so that they comport with what we know to be ethical. I don't see why this is so difficult to accept.

It's not like being "against" gravity at all. That's disanalogous. I reject first possession on ethical grounds, not because I don't "believe" in it.

As for your saying there's nothing I can do about it: Not that long ago kingships and monarchies were the norm. There was nothing anybody could do about it. Take a look at the world today and you begin to appreciate the impermanence of manmade political structures. I think it's shortsighted of you to make an argument that things will (or should) forever stay the same.

If after reading this you're still confused, then I'm afraid there's nothing left for me to say on this subject. And anyway, you made this thread to discuss your political views, not mine.

[switch]

STB: http://politicsforum.org/
Go here and tell them about your political opinion. The forum users there may be able to help deprogram the unfortunate brainwashing and disinformation that has apparently been used to control your thoughts for what I can only imagine are decades.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISkqQ3hpW5E[/youtube]
*inb4 switch's blade

I'm not saying that you are an FBI provocateur, just that you might be.

[vigor]

Words cannot change anyone's mind, they merely serve to divide people ideologically due to ego investment in linguistic definitions

Really, political campaigns have no effect then? And the bias of the school system can't change anyone's mind in that direction either? Then why bother talking?

[NewMutator]

Why bother indeed.

[falcon]

[spongefile]

I once had a very fruitful conversation with someone about the whole libertarian vs. "socialism" debate (socialism isn't what Scandinavia has, by the way...the word keeps being used wrong, but let's pretend it means when lots of your taxes get spent on things that also benefit others) and the conclusion was as follows:

Libertarian: The government shouldn't take some of my money to help other people, because I think PEOPLE ARE LAZY, SOFT AND WHINY and pretty much anybody can be successful if only they try because the world is fair. Charities should help the few people actually in need, because I trust their (and my, because I choose who to fund) judgement more than the government's.

"Socialist": The government should take some of my money to help other people, because I think PEOPLE ARE BIASED, GREEDY AND SELFISH and the deck is stacked against certain people so hard that they won't make it even if they do try, and this is not their fault, because the world is not fair. Charities have their own agendas, people tend to give only to charities that help people like themselves(if they give at all), so I trust the government to be more even-handed.

Both arguments can come from a rational place, with different views on human nature, and on which negative aspects of it are worse.

[MR BIG BKK]

I've never used this abbreviation, but will in this case.
LOL!

Sam, you should write a book and call it "Endless Rants About Things Nobody Gives a Shit About", then follow it up with a sequal entitled "Nobody Will Read this Book".