Attitude toward property is communistic

[Athena]

Here is an argument against democracy.
"Attitude toward property is communistic - negating property rights"

Here is part of my argument of why it is a good thing democracy tends towards communistic property.

Oregon allowed foreign miners to come in take mineral resources and leave open pits than now contaminating the ground and streams. These streams dump into the ocean, and are poisoning the ocean. There is now so much mercury in tuna fish, that doctors are warning pregnant women not to eat tuna fish. The mercury in the fish can cause birth defects. Mercury is highly poisonous and shouldn't be ingested for any reason.

About 18 miles of rivers that where once the breeding grounds for salmon are too deadly to support salmon life, and this is part of the devastation to the fishing industry. The solmon fleet was shut down this year because of the sacarity of solmon, and this means fishermen will loose their boats and possibly the homes. There are not many jobs on the coast when people can not fish. There is no money to clean up the contamination and it is spreading.

The problem in Oregon is massive and the federal funds are not there to clean up the huge mess, and the owners of these mines can not held responsible, as many are long dead, or from other countries. Largely the problem is so huge because it started with early mines when people ignorant of such matters. Anyway, now the people who live with this polution may be taxed to clean it up. They never benefited from the mines. Those who benefited took the minerals and left. If workers benefited it was very temporary. Gold and silver towns that once supported rich populations are ghost towns today. Businesses and homes became worthless, because there was no longer term planning, and down stream and years later the polution is reaching to the ocean and may onto your dinner plate.

We all share this planet and it is a lot smaller than once thought. The past is very much with us today, and the future of our children and their children depends on our decisions. The ancients understood the close connection between humans and earth, and not being communistic is not wise. The USA did a very successful smear against communism, and hopefully everyone will broaden their understanding of it, and realize it isn't new, and it isn't all bad.

[Mayberry]

Here is part of my argument of why it is a good thing democracy tends towards communistic property. What!? I really don't get you Athena. What part of "communism doesn't work" don't you understand? Would you really have all of us living in those hideous public tenaments from the old Soviet Union? Do you support "eminent domain"? Would you steal someone's private property and give it to developers for the "greater good"? Communistic property is a travesty and has no place in a democracy. INDIVIDUAL rights. Remember?

[Nathan Brazil]

Anyone claiming that a communist sense of property is ideal is fooling themselves. Look at Eastern Europe, for example.

A libertarian model towards property would be better. What's that? Libertarianism presumes that one's freedom stops where it begins to impinge on the freedom of others. One can't swing his cat by the tail if the cat will hit his neighbor in the face. One shouldn't be allowed to operate a business, including a mine, if that operation extends beyond the business's property line onto another's land. You want to run a strip mine? That's nice, you need to provide a place of your own for the overburden, and you have to demonstrate that the neighbor's property won't be damaged. That would include some reasonable assessment of how property values will be damaged by the alteration in the view, as well as impacts to water tables and general environment that extend across property lines.

It's not that the neighbors have a right to control each other's property, as the commie fools would like, but that the neighbors don't have a right to damage the property of others.

[Labrocca]

I like Nathan's view on this. While Athena I think has a similar perspective where she doesn't want the environment trashed I think Athena's usage of the C word has riled a few here.


Athena you explained well an example of how capitalism has screwed our environment but have not explained well how communism would be better overall. I think Nathan has done a great explanation of how things could be improved politically for the environment.

[Nathan Brazil]

It boils down to:

"It's your mess, you clean it up." (we don't want 'em digging in the dirt if they're going to be acting like children, do we?)

and

"Don't tread on me." or, most definitely "not in my backyard", when it really is YOUR backyard.

[dsanthony]

Anyone claiming that a communist sense of property is ideal is fooling themselves.Â*Â*Look at Eastern Europe, for example.

A libertarian model towards property would be better.Â*Â*What's that?Â*Â*Libertarianism presumes that one's freedom stops where it begins to impinge on the freedom of others.Â*Â*One can't swing his cat by the tail if the cat will hit his neighbor in the face.Â*Â*One shouldn't be allowed to operate a business, including a mine, if that operation extends beyond the business's property line onto another's land.Â*Â*You want to run a strip mine?Â*Â*That's nice, you need to provide a place of your own for the overburden, and you have to demonstrate that the neighbor's property won't be damaged.Â*Â*That would include some reasonable assessment of how property values will be damaged by the alteration in the view, as well as impacts to water tables and general environment that extend across property lines.

It's not that the neighbors have a right to control each other's property, as the commie fools would like, but that the neighbors don't have a right to damage the property of others.


I'll just remind you that the earliest Christians, those from the 1st century, lived in communistic communities.

As for libertarianism... it's always struck me as watered-down anarchism. Perhaps in the "homestead" days a libertarian lifestyle can work. In modern society, EVERYTHING you do brings you in contact and potential conflict with others. The lazze faire attitude of libertarians would quickly dissolve into gunfire, because people have widely varying views of what is appropriate or what injures them.

[Mayberry]

As for libertarianism... it's always struck me as watered-down anarchism. Perhaps in the "homestead" days a libertarian lifestyle can work. In modern society, EVERYTHING you do brings you in contact and potential conflict with others. The lazze faire attitude of libertarians would quickly dissolve into gunfire, because people have widely varying views of what is appropriate or what injures them. I have to disagree with that. To me, Libertarianism merely stands for a return to the Constitution and common sense. I believe things should be dealt with on a case by case basis with a healthy dose of common sense, instead of the "Big Brother" blanket approach currently employed. Basic respect for private property is the basis for "civilization" as we know it. It doesn't need to be spelled out in volumes of legalese bullsh1t. We waste so much time, money, and energy wading through all this stuff that could be put to much better use. The premise is simple, and was laid out centuries ago. Regardless of one's faith, there are 10 Commandments that apply to everyone, and that is all we really need. I'm not a practicing Christian, I don't push Christianity, but anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that the 10 Commandments make sense. Most of the laws that have been enacted since are so vague and full of loopholes as to be useless. So why keep them? They can be manipulated to serve special interests, or applied to favor a certain outcome, as seen fit by the powers that be. I should be free to do whatever I want, so long as I don't infringe on someone else's safety or property. Business is horribly stifled by bureaucracy so that many who would go to work for themselves are either unable or unwilling to wade through the regulatory nightmare caused by our present legal system and government. There are many more reasons for Libertarianism than not.

[BoogyMan]

I'll just remind you that the earliest Christians, those from the 1st century, lived in communistic communities.Â*Â*


Lets have book, chapter, and verse for early christians having the suggested communistic political leanings?

[Nathan Brazil]

As for libertarianism... it's always struck me as watered-down anarchism.Â*Â*Perhaps in the "homestead" days a libertarian lifestyle can work.Â*Â*In modern society, EVERYTHING you do brings you in contact and potential conflict with others.Â*Â*The lazze faire attitude of libertarians would quickly dissolve into gunfire, because people have widely varying views of what is appropriate or what injures them.


Ah, the old "anarchy" argument invoked by people ignorant of what freedom means and what it requires.

Anarchy is "no government"...which always evolves a mob leader, or several of them, who then vie for control.

Libertarianism requires a minimum law to maintain order and protect freedom, but not so much that individual freedom is endangerered.

What do you have against individual freedom that respects the freedoms and properties of others?

[Nathan Brazil]

. I'm not a practicing Christian, I don't push Christianity, but anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that the 10 Commandments make sense.

Yeah, once you figure out what they're truly for. That first one, about keeping no god but Him, is all about maintaining tribal political power inside the tribe. Frankly, it has no place in a free society.

Honor thy mama and poppa? Screw 'em, if they want respect from their children, let them earn it. This is another commandment suitable for a neo-bronze age patriarchal nomadism, not something relevant to a modern cosmopolitan society. Today's incarnation is called Socialist Security, a massive ponzi scheme transferring money from the poorest classes to the richest.

[dsanthony]

Regardless of one's faith, there are 10 Commandments that apply to everyone, and that is all we really need

Did you really say that? I'm sure Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus and athiests would disagree vehemently. But it is representative of the naive and one-sided world view which most libertarians hold.

As I said, in sparsely populated areas libertarianism could work. In modern societies, where your neighbor lives a few feet away and likely holds starkly different views of the world, libertarianism would quickly devolve into anarchy and bloodshed.

[Nathan Brazil]

Regardless of one's faith, there are 10 Commandments that apply to everyone, and that is all we really need

Did you really say that?Â*Â*I'm sure Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus and athiests would disagree vehemently.Â*Â*But it is representative of the naive and one-sided world view which most libertarians hold.Â*Â*

As I said, in sparsely populated areas libertarianism could work.Â*Â*In modern societies, where your neighbor lives a few feet away and likely holds starkly different views of the world, libertarianism would quickly devolve into anarchy and bloodshed.


Why? Because the non-libertarian insists on violating the freedoms of others? So they get themselves shot. What's the big deal? Eventually people have to learn to how to be free, or they make themselves slaves. Since death is preferable to slavery, it may just require a little bloodshed to determine if the world's society will be a slave society or a society of free men.

I see you haven't presented a reasoned argument against libertarianism (there aren't any), just one of the many variants of "the animals prefer slavery" argument.

[dsanthony]

Regardless of one's faith, there are 10 Commandments that apply to everyone, and that is all we really need

Did you really say that?Â*Â*I'm sure Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus and athiests would disagree vehemently.Â*Â*But it is representative of the naive and one-sided world view which most libertarians hold.Â*Â*

As I said, in sparsely populated areas libertarianism could work.Â*Â*In modern societies, where your neighbor lives a few feet away and likely holds starkly different views of the world, libertarianism would quickly devolve into anarchy and bloodshed.


Why?Â*Â*Because the non-libertarian insists on violating the freedoms of others?Â*Â*So they get themselves shot. What's the big deal?Â*Â*Eventually people have to learn to how to be free, or they make themselves slaves.Â*Â*Since death is preferable to slavery, it may just require a little bloodshed to determine if the world's society will be a slave society or a society of free men.

I see you haven't presented a reasoned argument against libertarianism (there aren't any), just one of the many variants of "the animals prefer slavery" argument.


As the events in Seattle show, the situation would probably NOT be libertarians "shooting" others. You're vastly outnumbered and would be wiped out in short order.

[Nathan Brazil]

As the events in Seattle show, the situation would probably NOT be libertarians "shooting" others.Â*Â*You're vastly outnumbered and would be wiped out in short order.


What "events in Seattle"? Are you referring to the Marxist/Communist inspired pretend-anarchist displays of juvenile behavior at one of the G7 or whatever it was conferences a half-dozen years ago? What's that got to do with libertarianism? You need to clarify what you meant, if that isn't what you were intending.

Besides which, all you've said so far is that the number of people wanting to be slaves or slave owners exceeds the number of people who undserstand and desire freedom. And that's a unique moment in history how?

[Mayberry]

Well, Nathan pretty much made my reply for me (right on), but I have to ask, why is it As the events in Seattle show, the situation would probably NOT be libertarians "shooting" others. You're vastly outnumbered and would be wiped out in short order. you believe that libertarians would not be able to exist in a modern society, besides close proximity? Libertarians are all about minding their own business, and being left alone. So unless a bunch of left wingers launched an attack, Libertarians wouldn't bother a soul. And I second the question, What events in Seattle?

[kanyon40]

I'll just remind you that the earliest Christians, those from the 1st century, lived in communistic communities.Â*Â*


Lets have book, chapter, and verse for early christians having the suggested communistic political leanings?




How is this? Acts 4:32-34 32 "Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. 33With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. 34There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. 35They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need."

Ok, before I get the responses about posting scripture or before people think that I support communism (which I emphatically and whole heartedy don't), I only posted that scripture because it was specifcally asked for in another post. I don't believe that this kind of thing would work today because communism totally depends on the goodheartedness of people and for people to not be greedy. It also requires everyone to share the same morals and principles. Since I oppose government sanctioned morality and have great value for the interplay of ideas, I would never even want to see this kind of thing attempted. It is far better to let people be motivated to achieve, then let those who wish to help the less fortunate do it while those that don't wish to don't have to.

Forcing us to hold communistic property regulations in this country is as absurd as it is dangerous and counter to that which this country stands for. People don't come from all over the world for government regulation. Most come because they are tired of that regulation in their own countries and they want to go somewhere where they can aspire to something and be something- somewhere where hard work and motivation are considered virtues that can yield great rewards. Take that away, and we lose the soul of our nation.

[kanyon40]

I am going to respond to my own last post because I don't think I made my argument well enough. I quote that bible passage because BoogyMan requested it. While those "communist" principles worked for those Christians in that setting, it needs to be understood why it worked. They were all willing participants. That is the only way communist values can work. The reason it never will (nor should it) work in America (or any other society for that matter) is because communism is forced on people. I don't want to have communist principles. Doesn't sound like Nathan does. Doesn't sound like Mayberry does. So just within the posters on this thread, we have already shown how communist principles of property couldn't work. Since most of us reject them on principle, we could and would never willingly submit ourselves to them.

Furthermore, such property principles go against the founding fathers' intentions and desires for this country. Our "unalienable rights" as we know them are "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." As originally written, they were "Life, Liberty, and Property." This was changed to pursuit of happiness because happiness encompasses more than just property, while including the chance at individual property ownership. The original "property" statement was there because many people coming to America from Europe specifically didn't have the right to pursue individually owned property and the founding fathers wanted to make sure that America was the people's land, including the right to own property. If we were to take private property ownership away and place it in the hands of the government, we go right back to the situation that the founding fathers DIDN'T want for this nation. Though that seems to be where our country is going by and large- we are continually moving further from what this country was founded to be.

[Nathan Brazil]

Oh, you had it right, no need to apologize for that. Small societies CAN be successfully communist. Large societies cannot.

The difference? Knowing thy neighbor. When everything is shared, it's possible to shirk. when everyone knows everyone else, the shirker is known and persuaded to do his share. That clearly won't work in a modern society without some sort of gauleiter arrangement.

[Athena]

Oh, you had it right, no need to apologize for that.Â*Â*Small societies CAN be successfully communist.Â*Â*Large societies cannot.

The difference?Â*Â*Knowing thy neighbor.Â*Â*When everything is shared, it's possible to shirk.Â*Â*when everyone knows everyone else, the shirker is known and persuaded to do his share.Â*Â*That clearly won't work in a modern society without some sort of gauleiter arrangement.


Actually before 1958 the culture transmitted through public education created a lot of social pressure for being good workers and for caring about everyone in the common wealth.Â*Â*I know people think these are Christian values, but the values are expressed in classical Greek and Roman literature.Â*Â*

I love Athenians patron goddess, Athena, who taught men to make their own laws.Â*Â*Being a good citizen means making the best contribution to society we can make, and it is painfully shameful to be as a parasite onÂ*Â*society.Â*Â*There may be disagreement with this statement, but then we have different educations.Â*Â*Literacracy in Greek and Roman classics results in a perspective and feelings that compel people to do the right thing.Â*Â*

Nothing is more powerful than culture.Â*Â*When we changed education in 1958, we changed our culture.Â*Â*In the past people would have been ashamed of being as blatantly materialistic and self centered as many appear to be today.Â*Â*Accepting welfare was so shameful, Social Security was based on aged not need.Â*Â*At the time it was implemented, the idea was to get older people to retire so younger people could have their jobs, ad since the average life expectancy was 45, very few were expected to live long enought to collect Social Security at a worn out 65 years of age.Â*Â*If Social Security had been based on need, few would have accepted the shame that would have gone with accepting Social Security.Â*Â*

I grew up when these old values were an important part of our lives.Â*Â*Unfortunately, not even our present leaders understand the importance of culture and the role mass education has to play in manifesting culture.Â*Â*What you say about our nature, is the result of education for technology for New World Order purpose.Â*Â*But this nature is the result of education.Â*Â*Humans are pliable and what they are taught is what they manifest.Â*Â*

With horror I observe a young generation that has no shame about ripping off government. In fact some of most successful business people have achieved great success by specializing in ripping off the government and the public. I witness young people who think everyone goes to jail and feel no shame about it. Using our jails to make people pay traffic fines has effectively removed the shame of going to jail, at least for lower class that is more apt to end up in jail for financial reasons. And when very succssful business people scam the government, like Halbroughton (sp?) the only shame of accepting welfare is the poverty. We have institutionalized immorality.

[Athena]

I'll just remind you that the earliest Christians, those from the 1st century, lived in communistic communities.Â*Â*


Lets have book, chapter, and verse for early christians having the suggested communistic political leanings?




How is this?Â*Â*Acts 4:32-34 32 "Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. 33With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. 34There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. 35They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need."

Ok, before I get the responses about posting scripture or before people think that I support communism (which I emphatically and whole heartedy don't), I only posted that scripture because it was specifcally asked for in another post.Â*Â*I don't believe that this kind of thing would work today because communism totally depends on the goodheartedness of people and for people to not be greedy.Â*Â*It also requires everyone to share the same morals and principles.Â*Â*Since I oppose government sanctioned morality and have great value for the interplay of ideas, I would never even want to see this kind of thing attempted.Â*Â*It is far better to let people be motivated to achieve, then let those who wish to help the less fortunate do it while those that don't wish to don't have to.

Forcing us to hold communistic property regulations in this country is as absurd as it is dangerous and counter to that which this country stands for.Â*Â*People don't come from all over the world for government regulation.Â*Â*Most come because they are tired of that regulation in their own countries and they want to go somewhere where they can aspire to something and be something- somewhere where hard work and motivation are considered virtues that can yield great rewards.Â*Â*Take that away, and we lose the soul of our nation.


Why oppose government scantioned morality? The US became a great nation in part because it had an abundance of natural resources, and in part because it used public education to teach a set of American values.
We had perhaps on the most moral nation on earth, before changing public education. Only highly moral people can have liberty, so what is wrong with the morality of democracy being transmitted through public education for good citizenship?

Every group of people on earth, transmitted through story telling a morality that bonded them together and gave them social coherence. The purpose of mythology is to prepare the young for aduthood and bond people together harmoneously with shared values and social agreements. Religious teaching is not different. Why should the church be the only source of moral education? Please, keep in mind the Deist understanding of God when you answer, and don't assume only those who worship the God of Abraham have an understanding of God and morals. The other understandings of God that are equally valid.

[Nathan Brazil]

Why oppose government scantioned morality?

Because Clinton typifies government "morality".


We had perhaps on the most moral nation on earth, before changing public education.

Nonsense. We had FDR as president. You know, Mr. Ponzi Scheme hisself.

There are three basic absolutes to any morality:

1) You can't initiate violence, except in self-defense.

2) You can't steal.

3) You can't commit fraud, ie, dishonor a contract, either written or oral.

That's it.