|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
posted March 23, 2009 02:22 PM |
|
Edited by Moonlith at 14:24, 23 Mar 2009.
|
@ Consis:
Quote:
but don't these morons - er, congressmen - read any history? Are they not aware that the United States was BORN as a rebellion against abuse of taxation?
Nope.
Quote:
Congress completely blew it by wrecklessly passing the bailout without thinking it through; I can't believe they're about to make it hundreds of times worse by breaking (rewriting) the law because they don't like the results of their own bungling.
I can 
Quote:
God, we need new politicians in Congress...
Glad you are starting to see things my way ^^
@ Mvass:
Quote:
Indeed, we have relatively little societal mechanism for claiming uninhabitable territory. As for the US back in 1820, Indian removal was wrong. Period.
And yet you are totally advocating the very same behavior in this thread? What the hell dude?
When European settlers came to America they outright claimed the land because it was 'unclaimed' dispite the natives living there. And here you are, claiming that was wrong, and at the same time advocating that sort of behavior is perfectly okay?
Quote:
Quote:
I'm only going to take away what isn't "rightfully theirs".
Who are you to judge that?
Who are YOU to judge something is 'unclaimed' just because there are no -sentient- beings living there? We are but animals.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 23, 2009 02:28 PM |
|
|
Claiming land isn't wrong. Claiming land which other people own, however, is.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted March 23, 2009 02:29 PM |
|
|
And still we obviously have 'more right' to claim land than other living beings? What would stop us from driving out all the animals and expand, hm? Surely you have no moral dilemma with that.
Yes we are back on that topic again.
____________
|
|
DeadMan
Known Hero
The True Humanitarian
|
|
posted March 23, 2009 02:54 PM |
|
|
The fake left, while sipping on their lattes and examining their manicures, have nevertheless stumbled upon one of the main causes of inequality - land ownership. When the commons became enclosed, the few who got land prospered, while the rest suffered. All land has to be owned in common.
____________
I don't matter. You don't matter. But we matter.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 23, 2009 02:59 PM |
|
|
Quote:
All land has to be owned in common.
And that's nothing but the truth and the alpha and omega of it.
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted March 23, 2009 04:34 PM |
|
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted March 23, 2009 04:50 PM |
|
|
Now, all we need is a hebrew quote to finish up these obscure language references
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 23, 2009 05:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Claiming land isn't wrong. Claiming land which other people own, however, is.
How do you define "own"? How do you know whether someone owns something? What if that 'society' is 100% socialistic and has no concept of land being owned by some individual? They will likely stare at you in a funny way when you ask "is this yours?" (ok suppose they speak english ).
So what then? What conclusion do you draw? The one that "I think it's theirs, but that's just my opinion" -- and apparently this opinion is able to either kill/enslave/take away that land or not -- pretty important opinion if you ask me.
Remember that the Europeans had vastly different concepts than the Aztecs as well (to ignore the indians as it was even worse with the Aztecs). You know even the Romans used to call the Greeks "barbarians" or especially the northern societies (this means: "My opinion on the matter: **** their properties, it ain't theirs!")... like you say to animals, for example, kicking a bear out of his cave and saying "**** his property, it ain't his!".
So much for the "harmless opinion" concept.
But what is even worse is the concept of an INDIVIDUAL doing this (i.e private), makes it all the more a "harmless opinion" (sarcasm).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 23, 2009 09:41 PM |
|
|
Moonlith:
Animals can't claim property because they are incapable of contract.
DeadMan:
Quote:
The fake left, while sipping on their lattes and examining their manicures
lulz
JJ:
If all land is owned in common, then who would manage it?
TheDeath:
Quote:
How do you know whether someone owns something?
Let's say you come to my house. Do you really need the government to tell you that it's my house?
Quote:
What if that 'society' is 100% socialistic and has no concept of land being owned by some individual?
Then you take that society as the owner.
Plus, Greeks can make contracts with Romans - but not with bears. 
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 23, 2009 09:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
JJ:
If all land is owned in common, then who would manage it?
"Manage it"? What do you mean? Community would own the land. Everyone could LEASE land. FRom th community.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 23, 2009 09:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Animals can't claim property because they are incapable of contract.
I'm pretty sure the Aztecs had a really similar view of contracts, if any, as the Europeans... right?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 24, 2009 02:19 AM |
|
|
JJ:
Leasing land? Who would determine the price?
TheDeath:
The Aztecs, being humans, were capable of contract. It doesn't mean that they had the same idea of contract - just that they were capable of it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted March 24, 2009 02:22 AM |
|
Edited by Moonlith at 02:23, 24 Mar 2009.
|
That didn't do them much good either huh
But you're starting to rework your definition repeatedly the more you get called out on it. Keep it simple and just come out already about being a merciless tyrant who doesn't give two cents about non-sentient living entities.
I hope it makes you happy knowing that.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 24, 2009 02:33 AM |
|
|
Quote:
But you're starting to rework your definition repeatedly the more you get called out on it.
How so?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 24, 2009 06:59 AM |
|
|
Quote:
JJ:
Leasing land? Who would determine the price?
Depends on the economy in place, does it?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 24, 2009 01:25 PM |
|
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 24, 2009 02:48 PM |
|
|
|
In practise, all land isn't equal, obviously, so leasing price would be determined by supply and demand FOR LIVING SPACE. For commercially used land the community would set a price, basically a rent. In case of exploiting natural resources this woulde always be a joined venture between "the community" and the people, corporation, comradeship or whatever entity would try to exploit them.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 24, 2009 09:30 PM |
|
|
The problem with land being owned in common is the tragedy of the commons - someone could lease the land, then use up all the resources, then stop leasing it, and the owner would be left with nothing.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 24, 2009 09:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The Aztecs, being humans, were capable of contract. It doesn't mean that they had the same idea of contract - just that they were capable of it.
ROFL. Why should they do the contract? That would be like saying "they are capable of being europeans", or in animal's case, "they are not capable of being human".
You may say, for example, that elephants are not capable of contract, which is some abstract concept inherent to you (not even all humans, I doubt the Aztecs were). Why not the reverse? Are you capable of being an elephant? Why choose something that YOU devise?
In other words, why choose something that the one who is aggressive/takes action (i.e claims) is "capable of"? That would be like choosing a killer because "some 'others' aren't capable of killing people", "but if they are, then I won't kill them."
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 24, 2009 10:07 PM |
|
|
Are you able to send information? Are you capable of receiving information? Are you capable of independent thinking? Then you are capable of making a contract.
Quote:
Why should they do the contract?
What contract?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
