Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[gnarlylove]

Disclaimer: this post is intended to apply to a genuinely free society, not the one we are currently in. Such principles would be too great a shock in our current system to be viable.

Private property and violence must effectively cease for genuine liberty to exist. If violence, which is a form of coercion is tolerable between humans, then there simply is limited/no genuine freedom for that society. Some would be free while others would not. This isn't genuine liberty or we would be right back to needing laws and government. We all agree government tends to allow certain freedoms but terminates others. Hence, not a genuinely free society.

By agreeing to set aside violent/coercive tendencies we can create a just and free society. That would mean getting all of humanity to put down and destroy our weapons. I know idiots will take this as pussyville but so what? Use of weapons always harms both sides and does not create liberty. Anyway, like I said, this is not meant as policy for today. It's to get us to understand what genuine liberty actually is. It certainly does not involve coercion in ANY FORM. The "freedom" to create weapons is not a freedom worth having since it limits freedom, ultimately.

Secondly, we must remove private property in order to move forward to an ideal state of affairs where genuine liberty exists for each person. I admit this idea untenable today but if anyone thinks a genuinely free society can exist with private property at its foundation, you are mistaken.

Sharing the limited bounty on this planet is crucial for survival. Claiming ownership creates strife and conflict. For example, "This is mine and you must stay away." While I'm not saying we must each take one bite of food and pass it to our neighbor to ensure freedom for all, we will need to openly share without hesitation. This wouldn't work in our society since people have under-developed concepts of sharing.

Freedom is not defined by our ability to claim ownership or our ability to mass personal economic wealth. Although massing fortunes does not immediately conflict with liberty, once it begins to encroach on the ability of others to get what they need, then it is a problem to genuine liberty.

Our modern tautology of private property=freedom makes progress towards real freedom stunted. We must reduce our egos and fan our altruistic side. This will likely take centuries given our current circumstances. Otherwise, we will always have society based on the privilege of some founded on the slavery of the rest. If you own something AND it prevents me from having access to what I NEED, then this is a problem. If I merely WANT what you have, then the point is moot and freedom still exists. NEEDS are very different from WANTS.

Capitalism has created private property thugs who think property is the be all end all of humanity. What makes us think private property is essential? The idea of private property has only been around since John Locke just under 200 years ago. Private property is just a baby as far as human societies have been concerned. What makes us think this concept gives liberty it wings? Maybe it would if we lived on an infinite planet but we all know our resources are finite and must be shared.

The only reason we think private property is essential is our gigantic egos that ALWAYS WANT MORE STUFF. To own is to feed our ego and every single person including myself on this thread wants more than what we've got. But to OWN not share. To share is to NOT OWN. Hence, private property gets us into trouble on a finite world.

I'm sure many will quip and say "humanity is naturally inclined to be thugs and try to steal." This is true in our current society but I strongly believe this is not our nature. We are not required to want more than we need. The only mechanism to do that is the ego and the ego is our problem.

Although initial bands of humans were marauders and this continued into the modern era, we only become such because we are encouraged to "take what's 'ours'." Well, what's ours is equally everyone elses. To think we actually own something is insane. No one carries possessions into or out of this world and so private property is fleeting at best.

When we get more, we want even more. This is either encouraged by society or discouraged--it is not a part of our fundamental essence. We can choose to be satisfied with what we have AS LONG AS ITS MEETING OUR NEEDS. This viscous cycle of wanting more must cease in a society that boasts genuine liberty. Otherwise one will always take more than their fair share and we will require governments or power structures OUTSIDE ourselves to make sure its fair and everyone is getting their NEEDS (not wants) met.

Conclusion: Our current society has warped our understanding so bad that we cannot create a society with genuine liberty. Until we recognize this we will flounder and many needs will be trampled underfoot so that we can attain our fleeting desires. From birth Christmas instills this idea.

I know people will be up in arms about my post but if you are don't just respond with disingenuous glibs. I want some genuine challenges to my basic two premises: Violence/Coercion must be removed from all as well as private property as its conceived of today. Maybe there will be a different version of property in this ideal world but not like the one we have today.

 

[RKMBrown]

The issue is unchecked power.

It does not matter if the person or group committing a crime is an authority figure or not. Unchecked power will almost always result in corruption.

Take away a corrupt government's power and the same people that corrupted the government will be back the next day with a different title.

Thus the issue is not government, the issue is unchecked power to take people's liberty away from them. Thus the issue really is authoritarians who desire to force others to bend to their will.

 

[gnarlylove]

"In the dual state civil liberties are abolished in the name of national security.

"Official bodies operate with impunity outside the law.

"In the dual state the government can convict citizens on secret evidence in secret courts.

"It can strip citizens of due process and detain, torture or assassinate them, serving as judge, jury and executioner.

"It rules according to its own arbitrary whims and prerogatives.

"The outward forms of democratic participation—voting, competing political parties, judicial oversight and legislation—are hollow, political stagecraft.

Chris Hedges: Our Sinister Dual State - Chris Hedges - Truthdig

Indeed, Benjamin Franklin said "They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

In other words, Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.

 

[bripat9643]

Anyone who works for the government is either a) a piece of shit or b) really ignorant

I keep reading the same old worn out templates. The government is full of corruption but the private sector isn't?

The difference is the private sector has zero power over me. The government (unfortunately) now has nearly unlimited power over me. And that is the difference chief.

If I don't like the way McDonald's conducts their business, I can tell them to go fuck themselves. Think I can do that with the IRS? Why don't you try it and let me know how it works out...

The clearest and simplest way to say it is that government can use guns, private companies can only offer you money. That's a fundamental difference in the kind of "power" each has. Exxon can't kill you, but the government can and often does.

 

[RKMBrown]

You have mistakenly burdened government with all the executive screw ups and do not realize these narrow interests are largely responsible for the extreme corruption and dysfunction in our present government. If we could pinpoint the SOURCE of this corruption, it is the Federal Reserve. Is that a government agency? No. It is a private central bank that literally operates the government as well as the rest of the private sector.

O...M...G.... only the left-wing wackadoo's on USMB could claim the Federal Reserve is "private"...

Son, there is nothing "private" about the Federal Reserve. It was established by an act of Congress. It is under complete and total control of the federal government. It answers to the federal government. It reports to the federal government. It operates under the direction of the federal government.

The Federal Reserve System (also known as the Federal Reserve, and informally as the Fed) is the central banking system of the United States. It was created on December 23, 1913, with the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act, largely in response to a series of financial panics, particularly a severe panic in 1907.

Federal Reserve System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The Federal Reserve is the central bank of the United States. Its unique structure includes

a federal government agency, the Board of Governors, in Washington, D.C., and
12 regional Reserve Banks.

Federal Reserve System

The fed is a private organization. The board of governors are selected by the US Government and report to the dept of treasury. The banks are not run by the board of governors. The fed is not a federal government agency. But it is supposed to report to the US Treasury. Reporting to the treasury has amounted to summary reports. They effectively operate autonomously and don't even have to produce audits of their activities, because Congress and the Treasury refuse to do their constitutionally directed job. They abdicated their job to the fed and cartel.

The link you provided to the Wikipedia is talking about a system. Which is like a diagram or a model of what happens. It's just a drawing explaining how the parts are supposed to work together.

 

[Erand7899]

Back in 1787 they thought that by adopting a CONSTITUTION that government would be confined to protecting our liberties. Well they were wrong - we now have a gargantuan welfare/warfare police state.

Since we no longer have an Article III Judiciary we are on our own.

So quit dreaming.

.

Apparently, you don't have an answer to the question, so you punt to the question of whether, or not, our government is still constitutional.

I am no fan of big government, and would love to be able to put our federal government back into the box it climbed out of. However, that does not lead me to conclude that we would be better off without government. A limited government is necessary to protect private property, protect citizens from one another, and protect the society from other societies.

That is your position my man. The government has the most might, the most weapons, and the biggest weapons and they determine who gets what and how much of it they get. They also de facto own every single piece of property in the USA since I have to pay tribute to them in order to pseudo-own a piece of property.

Strange you advocate the same thing you cry as foul

Stranger still, is the inability of any of you to explain, how your governmentless society can protect private property, or protect citizens from each other, or from other societies.

As I stated, I am not fond of a lot of government, but are we really in a situation where we only have a choice between overpowering government, and no government at all?

Perhaps you should all learn Russian or Chinese before you put this no government idea to the test.

 

[P@triot]

Disclaimer: this post is intended to apply to a genuinely free society, not the one we are currently in. Such principles would be too great a shock in our current system to be viable.

Private property and violence must effectively cease for genuine liberty to exist. If violence, which is a form of coercion is tolerable between humans, then there simply is limited/no genuine freedom for that society. Some would be free while others would not. This isn't genuine liberty or we would be right back to needing laws and government. We all agree government tends to allow certain freedoms but terminates others. Hence, not a genuinely free society.

By agreeing to set aside violent/coercive tendencies we can create a just and free society. That would mean getting all of humanity to put down and destroy our weapons. I know idiots will take this as pussyville but so what? Use of weapons always harms both sides and does not create liberty. Anyway, like I said, this is not meant as policy for today. It's to get us to understand what genuine liberty actually is. It certainly does not involve coercion in ANY FORM. The "freedom" to create weapons is not a freedom worth having since it limits freedom, ultimately.

Secondly, we must remove private property in order to move forward to an ideal state of affairs where genuine liberty exists for each person. I admit this idea untenable today but if anyone thinks a genuinely free society can exist with private property at its foundation, you are mistaken.

Sharing the limited bounty on this planet is crucial for survival. Claiming ownership creates strife and conflict. For example, "This is mine and you must stay away." While I'm not saying we must each take one bite of food and pass it to our neighbor to ensure freedom for all, we will need to openly share without hesitation. This wouldn't work in our society since people have under-developed concepts of sharing.

Freedom is not defined by our ability to claim ownership or our ability to mass personal economic wealth. Although massing fortunes does not immediately conflict with liberty, once it begins to encroach on the ability of others to get what they need, then it is a problem to genuine liberty.

Our modern tautology of private property=freedom makes progress towards real freedom stunted. We must reduce our egos and fan our altruistic side. This will likely take centuries given our current circumstances. Otherwise, we will always have society based on the privilege of some founded on the slavery of the rest. If you own something AND it prevents me from having access to what I NEED, then this is a problem. If I merely WANT what you have, then the point is moot and freedom still exists. NEEDS are very different from WANTS.

Capitalism has created private property thugs who think property is the be all end all of humanity. What makes us think private property is essential? The idea of private property has only been around since John Locke just under 200 years ago. Private property is just a baby as far as human societies have been concerned. What makes us think this concept gives liberty it wings? Maybe it would if we lived on an infinite planet but we all know our resources are finite and must be shared.

The only reason we think private property is essential is our gigantic egos that ALWAYS WANT MORE STUFF. To own is to feed our ego and every single person including myself on this thread wants more than what we've got. But to OWN not share. To share is to NOT OWN. Hence, private property gets us into trouble on a finite world.

I'm sure many will quip and say "humanity is naturally inclined to be thugs and try to steal." This is true in our current society but I strongly believe this is not our nature. We are not required to want more than we need. The only mechanism to do that is the ego and the ego is our problem.

Although initial bands of humans were marauders and this continued into the modern era, we only become such because we are encouraged to "take what's 'ours'." Well, what's ours is equally everyone elses. To think we actually own something is insane. No one carries possessions into or out of this world and so private property is fleeting at best.

When we get more, we want even more. This is either encouraged by society or discouraged--it is not a part of our fundamental essence. We can choose to be satisfied with what we have AS LONG AS ITS MEETING OUR NEEDS. This viscous cycle of wanting more must cease in a society that boasts genuine liberty. Otherwise one will always take more than their fair share and we will require governments or power structures OUTSIDE ourselves to make sure its fair and everyone is getting their NEEDS (not wants) met.

Conclusion: Our current society has warped our understanding so bad that we cannot create a society with genuine liberty. Until we recognize this we will flounder and many needs will be trampled underfoot so that we can attain our fleeting desires. From birth Christmas instills this idea.

I know people will be up in arms about my post but if you are don't just respond with disingenuous glibs. I want some genuine challenges to my basic two premises: Violence/Coercion must be removed from all as well as private property as its conceived of today. Maybe there will be a different version of property in this ideal world but not like the one we have today.

There is only one way to respond to something this fuck'n stupid...

[ame=http://youtu.be/g4bftQ4xxFc]Everything That Guy Just Said is Bullshit - YouTube[/ame]

 

[P@triot]

You have mistakenly burdened government with all the executive screw ups and do not realize these narrow interests are largely responsible for the extreme corruption and dysfunction in our present government. If we could pinpoint the SOURCE of this corruption, it is the Federal Reserve. Is that a government agency? No. It is a private central bank that literally operates the government as well as the rest of the private sector.

O...M...G.... only the left-wing wackadoo's on USMB could claim the Federal Reserve is "private"...

Son, there is nothing "private" about the Federal Reserve. It was established by an act of Congress. It is under complete and total control of the federal government. It answers to the federal government. It reports to the federal government. It operates under the direction of the federal government.

The Federal Reserve System (also known as the Federal Reserve, and informally as the Fed) is the central banking system of the United States. It was created on December 23, 1913, with the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act, largely in response to a series of financial panics, particularly a severe panic in 1907.

Federal Reserve System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The Federal Reserve is the central bank of the United States. Its unique structure includes

a federal government agency, the Board of Governors, in Washington, D.C., and
12 regional Reserve Banks.

Federal Reserve System

The fed is a private organization. The board of governors are selected by the US Government and report to the dept of treasury. The banks are not run by the board of governors. The fed is not a federal government agency. But it is supposed to report to the US Treasury. Reporting to the treasury has amounted to summary reports. They effectively operate autonomously and don't even have to produce audits of their activities, because Congress and the Treasury refuse to do their constitutionally directed job. They abdicated their job to the fed and cartel.

This is akin to saying the IRS is "private" because Congress doesn't do their job and allows them to harass Tea Party members. Or Congress itself is "private" because they don't do their constitutional responsibility of passing a budget.

The fact that anyone thinks the federal (key word) reserve is "private" is fall-down hilarious.

It is fully owned and fully operated by the federal government. Period. Because the federal government doesn't do their job does not make something magically "private". If that were the case, nobody is more "private" than Barack Obama.

 

[gnarlylove]

The difference is the private sector has zero power over me. The government (unfortunately) now has nearly unlimited power over me. And that is the difference chief.

If I don't like the way McDonald's conducts their business, I can tell them to go fuck themselves. Think I can do that with the IRS? Why don't you try it and let me know how it works out...

I don't know why the rule of thumb is something doesn't have power over you if it doesn't hold a gun to your head.

Apparently no one has studied forms of coercion. They can be entirely subtle and out of reach. Hence you think you're free from the private sector since they don't have a gun to your head but you're not.

You have given up your liberty for the private corporations to produce your food and chop your wood for the convenience of paying someone else to do it and even deliver it to your door step.

You accept convenience in exchange for your utter dependence on them. HMMM. Doesn't sound very free to me. I know you can go buy a piece of land and create independence but you won't do that. Why? Because the private sector corporations have convinced you their authority over resources is convenient, too convenient to ever give up. So when you are in a downtown area what do you see? And endless sea of ads. If those ads weren't there do you think you'd buy those same products? This is a study that cannot be done since all areas of commerce are inundated with ads.

So you can say "I'm free" but you've never not depended 100% on their provisions. As for me I have lived in a barn outside corporate advertising influence for months at a time and you know what, I experienced a freedom that does not exist in your world (or my current world).

Do we really think companies would continue to spend trillions of dollars on advertising if it didn't work? The fact that you DO buy all those products advertised is sufficient reason to think it plays a coercive role in your life. Is there a gun to your head? NO. Does there need to be to get you to do something? Ever heard of peer pressure? Non-violent coercion? These are perhaps more effective than holding a gun to your head BECAUSE YOU THINK YOU ARE FREE!

 

[dblack]

The difference is the private sector has zero power over me. The government (unfortunately) now has nearly unlimited power over me. And that is the difference chief.

If I don't like the way McDonald's conducts their business, I can tell them to go fuck themselves. Think I can do that with the IRS? Why don't you try it and let me know how it works out...

I don't know why the rule of thumb is something doesn't have power over you if it doesn't hold a gun to your head.

Apparently no one has studied forms of coercion.

There's a radical, qualitative difference between physical violence and all other "forms" of coercion.

They can be entirely subtle and out of reach. Hence you think you're free from the private sector since they don't have a gun to your head but you're not.

Ultimately, yes, in the most meaningful way, I am.

You have given up your liberty to produce you food and chop your own wood for the convenience of paying someone else to do it and even deliver it to your door step.

You accept convenience in exchange for your utter dependence on them. HMMM. Doesn't sound very free to me. I know you can go buy a piece of land and create independence but you won't do that. Why? Because the private sector corporations have convinced you their authority over resources is convenient, too convenient to every give up. So when you are in a downtown area what do you see? And endless sea of ads. If those ads were there do you think you'd buy those same products? This is a study that cannot be done since all areas of commerce are inundated with ads.

So you can say "I'm free" but you've never not depended 100% on their provisions. As for me I have lived in a barn outside corporate advertising influence for months at a time and you know what, I experienced a freedom that does not exist in your world (or my current world).

Do we really think companies would continue to spend trillions of dollars on advertising if it didn't work? The fact that you DO buy all those products advertised is sufficient reason to think it plays a coercive role in your life. Is there a gun to your head? NO. Does there need to be to get you to do something? Ever heard of peer pressure? Non-violent coercion? These are perhaps more effective than holding a gun to your head BECAUSE YOU THINK YOU ARE FREE!

In a free society, all of these conveniences can be rejected at any time. People do it more frequently than, perhaps, you are aware of. It's not impossible. It might be inconvenient, it might involve work and sacrifices most of us aren't willing to make, but you won't be shot, and you won't go to jail for going your own way. That's a fundamental difference that you can't simply deny.

 

[gnarlylove]

Of course you can reject those conveniences on principle. Will you ever? The answer is no.
I already responded to this objection (I know you can go buy a piece of land and create independence but you won't do that. Why? Because the private sector corporations have convinced you their authority over resources is convenient, too convenient to every give up). The fact you just repeat the mantra that most everyone believes means nothing. Unless something radically different happened in global society, you are hooked 100% on those products. GO ahead and repeat it again but ti doesn't change the fact that your truly operational self is not free (although your theoretical self is).

 

[Contumacious]

Apparently, you don't have an answer to the question, so you punt to the question of whether, or not, our government is still constitutional.

I am no fan of big government, and would love to be able to put our federal government back into the box it climbed out of. However, that does not lead me to conclude that we would be better off without government. A limited government is necessary to protect private property, protect citizens from one another, and protect the society from other societies.

That is your position my man. The government has the most might, the most weapons, and the biggest weapons and they determine who gets what and how much of it they get. They also de facto own every single piece of property in the USA since I have to pay tribute to them in order to pseudo-own a piece of property.

Strange you advocate the same thing you cry as foul

Stranger still, is the inability of any of you to explain, how your governmentless society can protect private property, or protect citizens from each other, or from other societies.

.

Even more stranger still, is your inability to explain, how is it that you can not buy a firearm and defend yourself and yours.

Even more more more stranger still, is your inability to explain, what you intend to do different in order to prevent the government from again becoming a continuing criminal enterprise.

.

 

[dblack]

Of course you can reject those conveniences on principle. Will you ever? The answer is no.

I already have, in many ways. I haven't watched television in fifteen years. I limit my exposure to most popular advertising to probably less than five percent what the average person experiences. I don't use credit cards. I don't maintain debt. Seriously, it's not as hard as you seem to think.

As an aside, have you ever seen the movie "Off the Map"?

 

[RKMBrown]

O...M...G.... only the left-wing wackadoo's on USMB could claim the Federal Reserve is "private"...

Son, there is nothing "private" about the Federal Reserve. It was established by an act of Congress. It is under complete and total control of the federal government. It answers to the federal government. It reports to the federal government. It operates under the direction of the federal government.

The Federal Reserve System (also known as the Federal Reserve, and informally as the Fed) is the central banking system of the United States. It was created on December 23, 1913, with the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act, largely in response to a series of financial panics, particularly a severe panic in 1907.

Federal Reserve System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The Federal Reserve is the central bank of the United States. Its unique structure includes

a federal government agency, the Board of Governors, in Washington, D.C., and
12 regional Reserve Banks.

Federal Reserve System

The fed is a private organization. The board of governors are selected by the US Government and report to the dept of treasury. The banks are not run by the board of governors. The fed is not a federal government agency. But it is supposed to report to the US Treasury. Reporting to the treasury has amounted to summary reports. They effectively operate autonomously and don't even have to produce audits of their activities, because Congress and the Treasury refuse to do their constitutionally directed job. They abdicated their job to the fed and cartel.

This is akin to saying the IRS is "private" because Congress doesn't do their job and allows them to harass Tea Party members. Or Congress itself is "private" because they don't do their constitutional responsibility of passing a budget.

The fact that anyone thinks the federal (key word) reserve is "private" is fall-down hilarious.

It is fully owned and fully operated by the federal government. Period. Because the federal government doesn't do their job does not make something magically "private". If that were the case, nobody is more "private" than Barack Obama.

They named it "fed" to confuse you. It's apparently working. You are not listening to me big guy. It is a private organization that they decided to give the name fed to make it sound all official like. The U.S. Department of Treasury prints and destroys the reserve notes in your wallet. The Fed, which I repeat, is a private organization goes about the process of lending money to central banks that are members of the cartel aka. the central bank.. All of which are private. The board of governors is just a group of guys that we pay a lot to set policy regarding what the fed is supposed to be doing. That does not mean the fed is not private.

Is federal ammo a part of the federal government? I think not.

 

[gnarlylove]

For a moderately educated person, its not. But is that education easy to obtain? It is. Do people tend to seek it out? The answer is around you. Everyone in my family and everyone I know participates in buying advertised products on a daily basis. Whether its because they were advertised or not is hard to say. We'd like to think we have control over ourselves but we aren't in control of our entire body. We don't control our nervous system, our heart, or even much of what we think about. Thoughts tend to appear and disappear sometimes disconnected from the apropos situation.

All I'm looking for is for you to admit advertising is significant on society. Whether it affects you as much as everyone else is not my point. You and I are not the only ones that constitute American society. We are outliers.

Off the Map, I haven't. Sounds relevant.

 

[P@triot]

Disclaimer: this post is intended to apply to a genuinely free society, not the one we are currently in. Such principles would be too great a shock in our current system to be viable.

Disclaimer: GL's absurd is actually intended to sell communism in a "softer" light.

Private property and violence must effectively cease for genuine liberty to exist. If violence, which is a form of coercion is tolerable between humans, then there simply is limited/no genuine freedom for that society. Some would be free while others would not. This isn't genuine liberty or we would be right back to needing laws and government. We all agree government tends to allow certain freedoms but terminates others. Hence, not a genuinely free society.

Quite the contrary, liberty can only exist where private property exists. I have no freedom when I'm standing on someone else's land. I'm only truly free when it's my land and nobody else has any rights to it.

By agreeing to set aside violent/coercive tendencies we can create a just and free society. That would mean getting all of humanity to put down and destroy our weapons. I know idiots will take this as pussyville but so what? Use of weapons always harms both sides and does not create liberty. Anyway, like I said, this is not meant as policy for today. It's to get us to understand what genuine liberty actually is. It certainly does not involve coercion in ANY FORM. The "freedom" to create weapons is not a freedom worth having since it limits freedom, ultimately.

Once again, pure stupidity. I only have liberty when I have the means to defend myself. Once I "put down my weapons" I'm at the mercy of someone who wasn't dumb enough to set theirs down.

Secondly, we must remove private property in order to move forward to an ideal state of affairs where genuine liberty exists for each person. I admit this idea untenable today but if anyone thinks a genuinely free society can exist with private property at its foundation, you are mistaken.

We already addressed this above. All you're doing here is trying to push asinine communism by using a different pitch. This is so far beyond the bounds of logic or reason that there really is no proper adjective for it. Fuck'n stupid just doesn't quite cover something this fuck'n stupid.

Sharing the limited bounty on this planet is crucial for survival. Claiming ownership creates strife and conflict. For example, "This is mine and you must stay away." While I'm not saying we must each take one bite of food and pass it to our neighbor to ensure freedom for all, we will need to openly share without hesitation. This wouldn't work in our society since people have under-developed concepts of sharing.

There is no "strife" or "conflict". The U.S. is sovereign property and nobody disputes that. My land is my land - I have all of the documents to prove it. And nobody disputes that as well.

Freedom is not defined by our ability to claim ownership or our ability to mass personal economic wealth. Although massing fortunes does not immediately conflict with liberty, once it begins to encroach on the ability of others to get what they need, then it is a problem to genuine liberty.

No - freedom is defined by not allowing idiots like you to tell me I don't have the right to purse "ownership", or "wealth", or anything else I choose to purse which is in conflict with your pot-smoking, kumbaya form of communism.

Our modern tautology of private property=freedom makes progress towards real freedom stunted. We must reduce our egos and fan our altruistic side. This will likely take centuries given our current circumstances. Otherwise, we will always have society based on the privilege of some founded on the slavery of the rest. If you own something AND it prevents me from having access to what I NEED, then this is a problem. If I merely WANT what you have, then the point is moot and freedom still exists. NEEDS are very different from WANTS.

In short - you want what other people have but you're too lazy to work for it. So instead, you're going to claim that "true freedom" means you are entitled to what everyone else has (including their property, wealth, etc.)? You're a special kind of imbecile. You're the warped "leader" who tries to convince his followers that God wants you to fuck their wives. Sadly, there are a few that are going to follow you're special form of insanity. Thankfully, it is a very few. The rest of us laugh at your buffoonery.

Capitalism has created private property thugs who think property is the be all end all of humanity. What makes us think private property is essential? The idea of private property has only been around since John Locke just under 200 years ago. Private property is just a baby as far as human societies have been concerned. What makes us think this concept gives liberty it wings? Maybe it would if we lived on an infinite planet but we all know our resources are finite and must be shared.

The fact that you just acknowledged that the time frame of liberty coincides with the time frame of private property pretty much proves what I said at the beginning - that liberty is literally impossible without private property.

The only reason we think private property is essential is our gigantic egos that ALWAYS WANT MORE STUFF. To own is to feed our ego and every single person including myself on this thread wants more than what we've got. But to OWN not share. To share is to NOT OWN. Hence, private property gets us into trouble on a finite world.

No asshole - I want private property to ensure that I have unfettered space between myself & my family and assholes like you. It has nothing to do with "ego" and everything to do with privacy. We all need a place to get away from people like you.

I'm sure many will quip and say "humanity is naturally inclined to be thugs and try to steal." This is true in our current society but I strongly believe this is not our nature. We are not required to want more than we need. The only mechanism to do that is the ego and the ego is our problem.

The only ego here is yours and your arrogant belief that you know best for everyone and you know why people want what they want and do what they do. Check your ego first chief before you preach to others about theirs.

Although initial bands of humans were marauders and this continued into the modern era, we only become such because we are encouraged to "take what's 'ours'." Well, what's ours is equally everyone elses. To think we actually own something is insane. No one carries possessions into or out of this world and so private property is fleeting at best.

So my children are not mine? Really stupid? And the things that I labored for are not mine? And my property - which I purchased and have the legal documents proving it is mine - is not mine?

Once again, this is just you wanting what others have but being far too lazy and too deviant to pursue it through honest means. You want to play David Koresh and hope to convince everyone that you can fuck their wives since they aren't really their wives to begin with...

When we get more, we want even more. This is either encouraged by society or discouraged--it is not a part of our fundamental essence. We can choose to be satisfied with what we have AS LONG AS ITS MEETING OUR NEEDS. This viscous cycle of wanting more must cease in a society that boasts genuine liberty. Otherwise one will always take more than their fair share and we will require governments or power structures OUTSIDE ourselves to make sure its fair and everyone is getting their NEEDS (not wants) met.

Ok - then immediately surrender every possession you have to me. And I mean everything. Even your food. Even your clothes. After all, they aren't yours and the only reason you want either is for your absurd ego. So I want you standing outside my door naked and possessionless in 45 minutes....

(Wait a second, I better rethink that with this wackadoo)

Conclusion: Our current society has warped our understanding so bad that we cannot create a society with genuine liberty. Until we recognize this we will flounder and many needs will be trampled underfoot so that we can attain our fleeting desires. From birth Christmas instills this idea.

I know people will be up in arms about my post but if you are don't just respond with disingenuous glibs. I want some genuine challenges to my basic two premises: Violence/Coercion must be removed from all as well as private property as its conceived of today. Maybe there will be a different version of property in this ideal world but not like the one we have today.

Conclusion: you're a typical snake-oil salesman who thinks he can sell the people on communism through kumbaya. Sorry chief, America is not buying what you're sellling.

 

[RKMBrown]

Federal Reserve Bank Ownership

 

[Erand7899]

That is your position my man. The government has the most might, the most weapons, and the biggest weapons and they determine who gets what and how much of it they get. They also de facto own every single piece of property in the USA since I have to pay tribute to them in order to pseudo-own a piece of property.

Strange you advocate the same thing you cry as foul

Stranger still, is the inability of any of you to explain, how your governmentless society can protect private property, or protect citizens from each other, or from other societies.

.

Even more stranger still, is your inability to explain, how is it that you can not buy a firearm and defend yourself and yours.

Even more more more stranger still, is your inability to explain, what you intend to do different in order to prevent the government from again becoming a continuing criminal enterprise.

.

I am fairly adequately prepared to defend myself and my family from normal threats, but I am not prepared to defend my property from organized crime, a gang of thugs, or an invading army.

Now that we have done away with the strawman, why don't you explain how your desired world would protect your private property from those who would not hesitate to kill you and your family to take it?

Government will always become just as corrupt as the society that puts it in power and keeps it in power. Fifty years ago, Obama would already have been impeached and removed from office. Today, few seem to really care that the administration is corrupt.

Government is like fire, necessary and beneficial when carefully controlled, but cruel and highly destructive when out of control. That does not mean that we can do without government, any more than we can do without fire.

 

[dblack]

For a moderately educated person, its not. But is that education easy to obtain? It is. Do people tend to seek it out? The answer is around you. Everyone in my family and everyone I know participates in buying advertised products on a daily basis. Whether its because they were advertised or not is hard to say. We'd like to think we have control over ourselves but we aren't in control of our entire body. We don't control our nervous system, our heart, or even much of what we think about. Thoughts tend to appear and disappear sometimes disconnected from the apropos situation.

All I'm looking for is for you to admit advertising is significant on society. Whether it affects you as much as everyone else is not my point. You and I are not the only ones that constitute American society. We are outliers.

Off the Map, I haven't. Sounds relevant.

I've been talking about political freedom, not the subtle ins and outs of existential freedom. Anyway, yeah, advertising has a profound effect on society - that's one of the reasons I avoid it. But ultimately, people are (politically) free to turn off their televisions and live on their own terms. It's not a freedom we should give up simply because most people don't exercise it.

 

[gnarlylove]

Quite the contrary, liberty can only exist where private property exists. I have no freedom when I'm standing on someone else's land. I'm only truly free when it's my land and nobody else has any rights to it.

You have justified private property to yourself and I give you that. But saying your standing on someone elses land ASSUMES private property is INHERENT. So I guess before John Locke wrote Two Treatises on Government people simply did not have freedom?

You are using tautology to justify your belief. Indeed, if we assume private property is real, it is indeed real. I'm not arguing for that. I know private property is "real" but you are committing the fallacy of reification if you think private property has always existed and exists independent of humanity. Private property depends on humans agreeing on private property.

Conclusion: you're a typical snake-oil salesman who thinks he can sell the people on communism through kumbaya. Sorry chief, America is not buying what you're sellling.

Let me refer you back to the disclaimer. I said this doesn't work for us today. I agree with you but you want to assert your dominance. So what do you do? Spray names and actually agree with me by saying you disagree. I know this won't work. why? Because of egos like yours. So instead we are stuck with government to defend against your gun touting megalomania.