|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted March 20, 2009 06:30 PM |
|
|
Why do you like useless posts? I know what you can do with unclaimed property. However what I can't get is how come, if capitalism has NOTHING to do with it like you said, how come THEN it BECOMES PART of capitalism if it HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT???
or at least, that's how it's supposed to, right?
Seriously mate, look at this scenario:
Some socialist state is awesome. However, due to some maniac, all people in it are evaporated with a strange device he built. This 'maniac' is not capitalistic, but he dies. This action isn't either. Then comes another guy, who was a friend of this maniac. He then settles down into this "socialist land" (lol that sounds so weird) with all the benefits of it. Then he says "hail capitalism!" as if capitalism worked so well and provided him that and he deserves it. WTF?
In short, you cannot "hail" capitalism without first using some NON-CAPITALISTIC ways to achieve it. If you ask me, that's a complete hypocrite way. If you want capitalism to have NOTHING to do with unclaimed property, then do NOT ESTABLISH CAPITALISTIC hypocrisy on the unclaimed property. Just basic, simple logic.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted March 20, 2009 07:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If property is unclaimed, then one can claim it and put a price tag on it.
If property is claimed, one can't do anything about it unless one wishes to buy it for that price.
The guy who claims property on the moon has no basis for his claim.
The moon is unclaimed, why can't it claimed for the selfishness of the claimer then? 
Quote:
This post makes absolutely no sense. For example, "capitalists/imperialists". If they are imperialists, then they are not capitalists. And capitalist dictators? I wasn't aware that having some of the strongest regulation in the world make a country capitalist. Just look at economic freedom. Africa isn't very high.
If i create a company and then start making a nice amount of money, then i start of a daugther company in the 3rd world somewhere and abuse the country for profite. I think that is highly capitalistic, do you?
Imperialisme is kind of a society acting capitalistic on the purpose of nations, claiming and taking for profit and only profit. If enslaving several races is what makes profite, then we have the full right to do so. And the profite is OUR profite.
Capitalisme is: "Money and making it, MORE MORE!", imperialisme is "We got the divine right to do whatever we please for whatever reason, WE ARE SUPERIOR!". Basicaly there is a small link, a capitalistic imperialistic society created the hell we know as Africa. And parts of that creation remains and stops it from evolving onwards.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 20, 2009 08:01 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Capitalisme is: "Money and making it, MORE MORE!", imperialisme is "We got the divine right to do whatever we please for whatever reason, WE ARE SUPERIOR!". Basicaly there is a small link, a capitalistic imperialistic society created the hell we know as Africa. And parts of that creation remains and stops it from evolving onwards.
Only Africa? I think that was the only freaking scenario behind the whole "New World" colonization too 
But yeah it's not like Americans take capitalism for granted these days 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted March 20, 2009 08:36 PM |
|
|
TheDeath: yeah, but i pointed at Africa because they are the "word part" that is most screwd over in ways. Parts of Asia got it better, but then again............. i did forget to mention South America.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 20, 2009 08:54 PM |
|
|
TheDeath:
Claiming land that no one owns is capitalistic.
Quote:
how come THEN it BECOMES PART of capitalism if it HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT???
How come batteries BECOME PART of a laptop if they HAVE NOTHING DO DO WITH IT???
Quote:
Some socialist state is awesome. However, due to some maniac, all people in it are evaporated with a strange device he built. This 'maniac' is not capitalistic, but he dies. This action isn't either. Then comes another guy, who was a friend of this maniac. He then settles down into this "socialist land" (lol that sounds so weird) with all the benefits of it. Then he says "hail capitalism!" as if capitalism worked so well and provided him that and he deserves it. WTF?
What's there to WTF about? There were people who owned land in common. Then the people disappeared and now the land isn't owned by anybody, so someone can come along and claim it.
Plus, look up Georgism. It's worried about land ownership, and is still rather capitalistic.
del_diablo:
Quote:
The moon is unclaimed, why can't it claimed for the selfishness of the claimer then?
Because we have no societal mechanism for claiming the moon.
Quote:
abuse the country for profite
What do you mean by that?
There's quite a difference between capitalism and barbarism. Imperialism is fundamentally violent and barbaric and an initiation of force. Capitalism is absolutely opposed to the initiation of force. Complete opposites. Imperialism is an enemy of capitalism.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 20, 2009 09:23 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Claiming land that no one owns is capitalistic.
But the criteria for qualifying whether you own or not is ALSO capitalistic. It's circular logic. I mean, these things weren't considered the same in Stalin's Soviet Union you know.
Quote:
How come batteries BECOME PART of a laptop if they HAVE NOTHING DO DO WITH IT???
Who said anything about batteries or that they have nothing to do with "laptops"? (of course for argument's sake you have to "define" what a laptop is: is it the combination of the components it has and the monitor and the casing? by that definition, batteries don't become "part" of the laptop)
Quote:
What's there to WTF about? There were people who owned land in common. Then the people disappeared and now the land isn't owned by anybody, so someone can come along and claim it.
Plus, look up Georgism. It's worried about land ownership, and is still rather capitalistic.
Like I said, I'm not blaming the whole concept of capitalism here, but the absolute hypocrisy of taking property and then daring to set it "private", which fits into some (but not all!) capitalist systems. Some are "softer" so to speak, and obviously I'll have the biggest problem with the roughest ones.
Quote:
Because we have no societal mechanism for claiming the moon.
That's the hypocrisy here: such societal mechanism comes from the government. NOTHING the government does should decide when it is to give to someone as 'private' -- ok that didn't sound very good, here's an example:
There's a war. Government A wins against B. The whole 'properties' there are now left to oblivion. Maybe they are the government's? That would be too socialistic. What, instead, we have is the ABSOLUTE HYPOCRITICAL way to "sell them" (i.e the government sells them) or "put them up for auction". I cannot emphasize how hypocritical this is: first it is THE government, the one that is supposed to represent the people, which now decides how much something is worth but then sells it to SOMEONE which becomes PRIVATE. Clearly it is not for the majority, as only the rich benefit from this. It is worse than corruption!
Another way would be to "divide them" equally up for the people, but that has exploits dynamically -- it seems good "at the moment", but in the future, it'll still be unfair, unless it takes some active role into this 'business'.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted March 20, 2009 09:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Because we have no societal mechanism for claiming the moon.
What about the USA back in 1820?
South and North pole?
Greenland?
And the list goes on........
Quote:
What do you mean by that?
Your country got a nice amount of clean spring water, so i dig up my company over there by whatever means and the sells off the water. Billions of galleons a day of water, and i earn a heck of a profite on it. The country does not earn on it on the countruary, it loses on it.
Quote:
There's quite a difference between capitalism and barbarism. Imperialism is fundamentally violent and barbaric and an initiation of force. Capitalism is absolutely opposed to the initiation of force. Complete opposites. Imperialism is an enemy of capitalism.
I claim that you claim that. Capitalisme only implies that i must earn money, "The American Dream" anybody?
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 20, 2009 09:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
such societal mechanism comes from the government
Wrong. Property is a naturally arising relationship between individuals, things, and society, and doesn't require the existence of government.
Why do we have property? It's not because the government says we do. Fundamentally, it is because humans act, and in acting, they use stuff that they have. Of course, people with more stuff are at an advantage vis-a-vis people with less stuff. But what happens when people take stuff from each other by force? They waste energy and often destroy stuff - and this struggle is a loss. Thus, the concept of property was created, where stuff and energy would not be destroyed in interpersonal struggle.
Making ownership of property illegal would have very similar consequences to making murder legal.
Quote:
I cannot emphasize how hypocritical this is: first it is THE government, the one that is supposed to represent the people, which now decides how much something is worth
Nope. People's demand determines how much something is worth. If the government decides to sell it for too high of a price, then people will simply not buy all of it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 20, 2009 09:57 PM |
|
|
I'll just quote the relevant part:Quote:
...It's not because the government says we do...
What? You mean, it's not those damn papers that "recognize" this abstract concept called property?
Cool, man the Moon is my property, you know, I've been there myself. No, in case you ask, the government is a bastard and doesn't want to recognize it, but I heard it's not because it says so, so I still have hope? What must I do? Sign government papers?
And if the government doesn't say so, then can I bomb up your house? Of course with full consequences that you might be tempted to kill me in revenge later, but that's a tiny problem compared to the police (err, I mean government-recognized crime).
Quote:
Nope. People's demand determines how much something is worth. If the government decides to sell it for too high of a price, then people will simply not buy all of it.
It's called an auction, and if they don't buy it, it's not like it makes a difference -- it'll still be the governments', and sooner or later it will be sold. It doesn't even matter that it *is* sold, what it matters is that it is attempted to make it PRIVATE on BEHALF of everyone (since that's what the damn government is supposed to represent). That's what tips me off.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 20, 2009 11:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You mean, it's not those damn papers that "recognize" this abstract concept called property?
No, of course not.
There is neither a governmental nor societal mechanism for owning the moon. So you can't own it. There is a societal mechanism for owning, say, a house. But not the moon.
Quote:
And if the government doesn't say so, then can I bomb up your house?
That would be extremely inefficient - it would destroy the resources used to make my house and the bomb, as well as waste your energy (trying to bomb it) and mine (trying to get revenge). It would hurt both of us.
Quote:
It's called an auction, and if they don't buy it, it's not like it makes a difference
But isn't the whole point that the government sets the price? And if it sells it at auction, then it's not setting the price, is it? And it's definitely not setting the price if it's not selling it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 21, 2009 07:31 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 19:33, 21 Mar 2009.
|
Quote:
No, of course not.
There is neither a governmental nor societal mechanism for owning the moon. So you can't own it. There is a societal mechanism for owning, say, a house. But not the moon.
You mean you can't own land?
Quote:
That would be extremely inefficient - it would destroy the resources used to make my house and the bomb, as well as waste your energy (trying to bomb it) and mine (trying to get revenge). It would hurt both of us.
LOL.
That was the whole point in the example -- i.e to make your house disappear, so why would that be a goal? Of course I wouldn't do this to you, but if I wouldn't be caught up by police, you can be damn sure I would bomb those 10 mansions millionaires have 
Quote:
But isn't the whole point that the government sets the price? And if it sells it at auction, then it's not setting the price, is it? And it's definitely not setting the price if it's not selling it.
No that's not the point. The point is that WHATEVER price it is, it's going to be private once bought. Utter fail, might I say. You know, it's like the government just found out an abandoned factory and now gives it to someone while that someone now works under PRIVATE "law" (not government's land or public or whatever you want to call it) for FREE (i.e no auction or price, just to be extreme in this scenario). This is an extreme example, but it does show the stupidity, hypocrisy and favoritism (of rich of course) when I DID NOT sign up ANYWHERE for that.
That's exactly like TAKING TAXES from the people to invest in PRIVATE stuff -- or 'research' something that the PRIVATE sector benefits, not the entire public (i.e public domain). Hypocrisy at its finest.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted March 21, 2009 07:46 PM |
|
|
Since mvassiles ignored my post, i guess i was right all along 
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 21, 2009 07:54 PM |
|
|
del_diablo:
Sorry, I just didn't see your post.
Quote:
What about the USA back in 1820?
South and North pole?
Greenland?
And the list goes on........
Indeed, we have relatively little societal mechanism for claiming uninhabitable territory. As for the US back in 1820, Indian removal was wrong. Period.
Quote:
Your country got a nice amount of clean spring water
Is it the government's water? No? Then the country doesn't have it, any more than the US "has" Bill Gates.
TheDeath:
Quote:
You mean you can't own land?
I mean that with the current societal mechanisms being what they are, I can't own land on the moon.
Quote:
Of course I wouldn't do this to you, but if I wouldn't be caught up by police, you can be damn sure I would bomb those 10 mansions millionaires have
Why? Most of them have never done anything wrong.
Quote:
You know, it's like the government just found out an abandoned factory and now gives it to someone while that someone now works under PRIVATE "law" (not government's land or public or whatever you want to call it) for FREE (i.e no auction or price, just to be extreme in this scenario).
...and?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 21, 2009 08:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I mean that with the current societal mechanisms being what they are, I can't own land on the moon.
For goodness' sake what the hell is the point in this? Even if it is so (the dude in the link I posted earned a lot of money ON THIS so he has a different opinion), what's the point you're trying to make? Derail the subject?
The subject is about UNCLAIMED LAND. Is that so hard to get? Why complicate matters with "exceptions" or how it is "in the real world" cause we know in the real world there isn't any method as in theory (including capitalism). Just focus on the theory. I don't care if in practice it is 'different', I am talking about how much hypocrisy is in this version of capitalism (as in the METHOD, the THEORY, the DEFINITION, whatever).
Quote:
Why? Most of them have never done anything wrong.
From your viewpoint of course not, probably your viewpoint also agrees with Princes inheriting the crown and then doing what they want without any association with the one who they got from since, well, they haven't done anything (in naive terms). The moment he was crowned is the moment he gained all the responsibility and everything of his father -- unless of course he says "no" or destroys or reforms what his father did (in the other 'direction' so to speak).
I'm not going to punish them, as in make them suffer (as in attack them personally or something). I'm only going to take away what isn't "rightfully theirs". See? Since they probably got it from inheriting or buying off from someone who shouldn't even be able to have owned it either (but that "someone" should be 'punished' like this also, it's like a chain reaction -- of course 'punished' isn't a good word, see above).
Quote:
...and?
Hypocrisy in action? (as in everyone has equal opportunities BS)
Check the other (more clear) example with taxes.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 21, 2009 08:13 PM |
|
|
The point is that the social mechanisms for owning different stuff in different places is different. Why is that so hard to understand? Property isn't just a homogeneous pool!
Quote:
probably your viewpoint also agrees with Princes inheriting the crown and then doing what they want without any association with the one who they got from since, well, they haven't done anything
Except, you know, I'm against titles of nobility.
Quote:
I'm only going to take away what isn't "rightfully theirs".
Who are you to judge that?
Quote:
Hypocrisy in action?
Where?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted March 21, 2009 08:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Indeed, we have relatively little societal mechanism for claiming uninhabitable territory.
Does not change the fact that lands we never had become claimed.
Quote:
]Is it the government's water? No? Then the country doesn't have it, any more than the US "has" Bill Gates.
But then again, you ignore my post and what i am talking about. I just buy the land and start exploting, nothing can be really earn more money for me than that.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 21, 2009 08:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The point is that the social mechanisms for owning different stuff in different places is different. Why is that so hard to understand? Property isn't just a homogeneous pool!
The reason there are exceptions is to:
1) mask out the obvious hypocrisy so the majority of people don't complain
2) simply because IT DOESN'T WORK without exceptions. Because the whole system sucks. Because there is no justice, no equal opportunities, no fairness.
Quote:
Except, you know, I'm against titles of nobility.
The point was about inheritance.
If you inherit your father's "stuff", and you wish to continue it, then expect whatever guilt your father had to be placed on you (if, of course, it happened with the things you inherited). For example, if he's in debt or something and you inherit his money.
Quote:
Who are you to judge that?
Who is HE to buy "claimed" land? You know, I want to have the same opportunities. That is, if he claimed (indirectly) the land, I want to claim it too. See?
Justice.
Quote:
Where?
This is the last time I'll reply to your pointless and annoying questions since I have explicitly told you to read my example with the taxes. 
Government assigns funding for something, let's say research. Taxes for EVERYONE, PUBLIC. Some of that gets into some dudes who developed something. Then the government suddenly decides to get this development to private parties (maybe for a fee or at an auction). Where does that leave the FREAKING AVERAGE CITIZEN, THE TAX PAYER?
Everyone paid for it, it should be freakingly open to the public domain where everyone has access to. This is what happens with land ALWAYS.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 21, 2009 08:38 PM |
|
|
You know, I'm not even going to bother discussing this with you. I have already told you a hundred times, and you still won't listen.
To clarify: not being able to own land on the Moon is not an exception. It is a different situation.
And I'm completely against inheritance taxes, right? O wait.
And just look up Georgism.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 21, 2009 08:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
To clarify: not being able to own land on the Moon is not an exception. It is a different situation.
Different situation than what? Unclaimed land? Why?
But it's typical -- why did you ask "Where" if you don't bother right now to even comment on that?
As for inheritance tax, you still don't get it man. This isn't necessarily about inheritance as per the law, but what a man DOES... everything is inheritance. If he doesn't, then (in most cases/governments I'm aware of) the things get put up to an auction. This is bad, as the example with the taxes explains -- well it's not "bad", just hypocritical
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted March 21, 2009 09:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You know, I'm not even going to bother discussing this with you. I have already told you a hundred times, and you still won't listen.
The thing is that we also told you a 1000 times and still you won't listen either
____________
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
