View Poll Results: Is property self justifying

Voters
12. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, property is an innate right, your exclusive rights to your property is self justifying

    9 75.00%
  • No, if you want exlusive rights to something it must be justfiable.

    3 25.00%
Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 94

Thread: Is porperty Self justifying?

  1. #71
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,062

    Re: Is porperty Self justifying?

    Quote Originally Posted by RGacky3 View Post
    yeah ...
    The point being that the model of property possession is an accepted institution in the US. And there is NOT a popular movement to change that reality.



    No ... Your right to your home is debendant on your possession of it, if you move out of the area, and the community needs teh building you use to call home, but is now just your property, why should you still have property rights over it? Your right to the home was respected and upheld by the community based on the fact that it made sense.
    A community can only gain possession of private property through legal channels. A group of citizens cannot just decide to take private property whether the owner is present or not. When you leave a vehicle in a parking spot and another citizen takes the vehicle without permission it is called stealing. But if the vehicle is abandoned for certain amount of time it is legal to put in a claim for possession of the vehicle.



    No one ever asked me about the economic structure, nor most Americans.
    That is a weird thing to say. Its almost as if you expect to have individual rights.

    You made the jump from having rights over possession and not initiation force to take it away from you, right to total property rights without any justification ...
    You didnt seem to understand my point. My point was that property rights are well accepted in the US. In fact it is quite rare that anyone in the US does not accept property rights. And those that do not accept property rights are usually either in the extreme Left, Anarchists, or in the extreme Right. Or simply the scabs of society.


    And if its a social construct, if the system of property doesn't work anymore then society has a right to change it.
    Who wants to change the basic concept of property rights in the US? After all freedom is based on property rights. The US Constitution is a piece of paper that enforces society to respect property. Religion, opinions, and free communication are all property rights that must be enforced through the cooperation of those in any community. Since we recognize that such freedoms (including the right to own things) can be taken away by individuals and groups within our society we have formed a Government to fairly enforce the Constitution.

    At first only white male owners of real estate and a good amount of personal property could vote in the US. It was later decided that all people should retain the right to vote. Society made the decision and made the necessary changes.

  2. #72
    Sage
    RGacky3's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Last Seen
    08-25-15 @ 05:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,570

    Re: Is porperty Self justifying?

    The point being that the model of property possession is an accepted institution in the US. And there is NOT a popular movement to change that reality.
    Sure, however
    A: Property rights in the US is not fundemental, i.e. the government CAN take property if needed for the common good (legally) with reasonable (not market) compensation.
    B: Just because it is law doesn't make it justified, I'm talking philisophically here.

    A community can only gain possession of private property through legal channels. A group of citizens cannot just decide to take private property whether the owner is present or not. When you leave a vehicle in a parking spot and another citizen takes the vehicle without permission it is called stealing. But if the vehicle is abandoned for certain amount of time it is legal to put in a claim for possession of the vehicle.
    You can't appeal to legality of property laws to justify the legality of property laws.

    That is a weird thing to say. Its almost as if you expect to have individual rights.
    No its not, its a strange thing to say that "we collectively made a contract" to have the amount of private property that we have, because that decision wasn't actually made by the people.

    You didnt seem to understand my point. My point was that property rights are well accepted in the US. In fact it is quite rare that anyone in the US does not accept property rights. And those that do not accept property rights are usually either in the extreme Left, Anarchists, or in the extreme Right. Or simply the scabs of society.
    The extreme right are generally propertarians.

    But thats fine, but its not really relevant.

    Unless your assertion is that the fact that people accept it makes it right, meaning if most people stopped accepting it it would not be right.

    Who wants to change the basic concept of property rights in the US? After all freedom is based on property rights.
    I'm asking a meta question about property.

    Also how the hell is freedom based on property rights????

    The US Constitution is a piece of paper that enforces society to respect property. Religion, opinions, and free communication are all property rights that must be enforced through the cooperation of those in any community. Since we recognize that such freedoms (including the right to own things) can be taken away by individuals and groups within our society we have formed a Government to fairly enforce the Constitution.
    The right to own things (beyond possession) is not a freedom, its the right to exclusivity, i.e. its the right to take away other peoples freedom, if you own a huge estate, and someone picks and apple on it, what property laws do is allow you to restrict people form picking apples, even though doing so doesn't affect your concrete freedom at all.

    Thre is a fundemental difference between free speach, opinions, faith and property, having opinions doesn't restrict other peoples opinions.

    At first only white male owners of real estate and a good amount of personal property could vote in the US. It was later decided that all people should retain the right to vote. Society made the decision and made the necessary changes.
    Ok, so then I take it you thinkg property is NOT fundemental, and is subject to community desicions, (thus making taxes not stealing).

  3. #73
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,062

    Re: Is porperty Self justifying?

    Quote Originally Posted by RGacky3 View Post
    Sure, however
    A: Property rights in the US is not fundemental, i.e. the government CAN take property if needed for the common good (legally) with reasonable (not market) compensation.
    B: Just because it is law doesn't make it justified, I'm talking philisophically here.
    I agree that laws do not justify everything.



    You can't appeal to legality of property laws to justify the legality of property laws.
    True



    No its not, its a strange thing to say that "we collectively made a contract" to have the amount of private property that we have, because that decision wasn't actually made by the people.
    A contract is an agreement. Most Americans are agreeable with the legal concept of property rights.


    The extreme right are generally propertarians.

    But thats fine, but its not really relevant.
    And the extreme Left is generally collectivism, which is relevant to property rights just as much as the extreme Rights view of property.

    Unless your assertion is that the fact that people accept it makes it right, meaning if most people stopped accepting it it would not be right.
    No, I am pointing out that in our culture we do not accept that by owning a piece of land that we are harming the rights of others, which is our collective ethical opinion. We would need to make a huge cultural change to think otherwise as a nation.


    I'm asking a meta question about property.
    Then you are asking if property is moral? If so then the answer is subjective at best.

    Also how the hell is freedom based on property rights????
    No property rights = no freedom.



    The right to own things (beyond possession) is not a freedom, its the right to exclusivity, i.e. its the right to take away other peoples freedom, if you own a huge estate, and someone picks and apple on it, what property laws do is allow you to restrict people form picking apples, even though doing so doesn't affect your concrete freedom at all.
    Not being allowed to pick an apple from a tree does not harm the freedom of the person wanting to pick the apple either. They can simply find another tree or plant one themselves. All apples and apple trees are not under the possession of the single estate, only the trees on the single estate. But we do have regulatory laws that govern such monopolies. Recently locally a outside investor in New Mexico wanted to purchase water rights with no good reason. Their application was denied since they did not provide and establish a reason that would benefit the local population or the regional population or the citizens of the state of New Mexico. http://www.ose.state.nm.us/PDF/Publi...annual-rpt.pdf

    Thre is a fundemental difference between free speach, opinions, faith and property, having opinions doesn't restrict other peoples opinions.
    a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.



    Ok, so then I take it you thinkg property is NOT fundemental, and is subject to community desicions, (thus making taxes not stealing).
    Interesting. Kind of a trap that you are trying lay here. The US Government is in existence to serve the people as an extension of the peoples will. Tax's are necessary to ensure the will of of the people. Of course tax's can be unjust. Take that so called Obamacare tax that has everyone up in arms for example. What makes that tax unjust is not just because it could be considered an living tax, but because the tax is not the will of the people.

    Anyway property rights are one of the fundamental principles of this country.

    If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights: they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other governments. Property: James Madison, Property

  4. #74
    Sage
    RGacky3's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Last Seen
    08-25-15 @ 05:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,570

    Re: Is porperty Self justifying?

    A contract is an agreement. Most Americans are agreeable with the legal concept of property rights.
    Its never been posed as a qeustion, or ever been able to be disputed, just like during monarchies when there was no mechanism to challenge them, everyone went along with it.

    And the extreme Left is generally collectivism, which is relevant to property rights just as much as the extreme Rights view of property.
    The "extreme left" are mostly anarchists ... not really collectivists, but this whole collectivism vrs individualism is a false dictomy, its really democracy vrs plutocracy, since economics is an inherently social activity.

    No, I am pointing out that in our culture we do not accept that by owning a piece of land that we are harming the rights of others, which is our collective ethical opinion. We would need to make a huge cultural change to think otherwise as a nation.
    Right now, but that doesn't make it inherently right.

    Also its fallacious to say its our collective ethical opnion, because we've never had another option.

    No property rights = no freedom.
    This paper is simply an assertion not an argument, but anyway

    Quote Originally Posted by madison
    This term in its particular application means "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."

    In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.

    The former definition is the real definition, and the main part is the exclusion part.

    The latter definition is arbitrary and can mean anything, and its a idealistic concept without any reality in concrete isntitutional reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by madison
    He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.

    He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

    He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.

    In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.
    None of those things are property, you dont' need any exclusive right of property, infact the opposite, those values are meaningless IF YOU HAVE exlusive rights to it, such as liberty, its meaningless unless its universal, religion, is almost always a communal concept, the same with free choice. The only time they become property is with intellectual property, which is forced exclusion, not of thought, but of implimentation of thought.

    Quote Originally Posted by madison
    Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.
    Except that most of the time property IS power.

    Quote Originally Posted by madison
    Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.
    An assersion posing as an axiom, also what ever "is his own" is arbitrary.

    Quote Originally Posted by madison
    According to this standard of merit, the praise of affording a just securing to property, should be sparingly bestowed on a government which, however scrupulously guarding the possessions of individuals, does not protect them in the enjoyment and communication of their opinions, in which they have an equal, and in the estimation of some, a more valuable property.
    Since when has merit determined who gets property.

    I could continue, but my point is that article doesn't show anything really.

    When it comes to Liberty I'll quote Bakunin

    Quote Originally Posted by Bakunin
    I am a fanatic lover of liberty, considering it as the unique condition under which intelligence, dignity and human happiness can develop and grow; not the purely formal liberty conceded, measured out and regulated by the State, an eternal lie which in reality represents nothing more than the privilege of some founded on the slavery of the rest; not the individualistic, egoistic, shabby, and fictitious liberty extolled by the School of J.-J. Rousseau and other schools of bourgeois liberalism, which considers the would-be rights of all men, represented by the State which limits the rights of each — an idea that leads inevitably to the reduction of the rights of each to zero. No, I mean the only kind of liberty that is worthy of the name, liberty that consists in the full development of all the material, intellectual and moral powers that are latent in each person; liberty that recognizes no restrictions other than those determined by the laws of our own individual nature, which cannot properly be regarded as restrictions since these laws are not imposed by any outside legislator beside or above us, but are immanent and inherent, forming the very basis of our material, intellectual and moral being — they do not limit us but are the real and immediate conditions of our freedom.
    Not being allowed to pick an apple from a tree does not harm the freedom of the person wanting to pick the apple either. They can simply find another tree or plant one themselves. All apples and apple trees are not under the possession of the single estate, only the trees on the single estate. But we do have regulatory laws that govern such monopolies. Recently locally a outside investor in New Mexico wanted to purchase water rights with no good reason. Their application was denied since they did not provide and establish a reason that would benefit the local population or the regional population or the citizens of the state of New Mexico. http://www.ose.state.nm.us/PDF/Publi...annual-rpt.pdf
    No you can't, you need to have land first, and have seeds,.

    BTW, I agree we DO have laws, but I'm talkinga bout the philosophy of property here.

    a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.
    I explained why that is bull****, opinions do NOT need exclusionary laws for their value, infact the very opposite is true.

    Interesting. Kind of a trap that you are trying lay here. The US Government is in existence to serve the people as an extension of the peoples will. Tax's are necessary to ensure the will of of the people. Of course tax's can be unjust. Take that so called Obamacare tax that has everyone up in arms for example. What makes that tax unjust is not just because it could be considered an living tax, but because the tax is not the will of the people.
    Its not a trap, what I'm saying is that people consider taxation to be a form of theft because tehy consider property fundemenatal and the state not.

    Anyway property rights are one of the fundamental principles of this country.
    I don't consider that to be an authority on morality ... Laws don't make right.

    If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights: they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other governments. Property: James Madison, Property
    That was one founding fathers opinion, other had other opinions ... Also since when does their opinion count more than anyone elses?

  5. #75
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    09-18-12 @ 08:07 AM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    3,245

    Re: Is porperty Self justifying?

    Justification is foundationalist.

    If property is not self-justifying, it raises to know where justification comes from.

    Coherentism is circular. You can't have coherence without foundations. You can't have a puzzle without puzzle pieces.

    Rights to privacy need private property. Private property needs properness.

    Unless you want to say someone is entitled to assault you on the street short of mob justice, then you have to believe in this.
    Last edited by Daktoria; 07-09-12 at 08:16 AM.

  6. #76
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,062

    Re: Is porperty Self justifying?

    Quote Originally Posted by RGacky3 View Post
    Its never been posed as a qeustion, or ever been able to be disputed, just like during monarchies when there was no mechanism to challenge them, everyone went along with it.



    The "extreme left" are mostly anarchists ... not really collectivists, but this whole collectivism vrs individualism is a false dictomy, its really democracy vrs plutocracy, since economics is an inherently social activity.



    Right now, but that doesn't make it inherently right.

    Also its fallacious to say its our collective ethical opnion, because we've never had another option.



    This paper is simply an assertion not an argument, but anyway




    The former definition is the real definition, and the main part is the exclusion part.

    The latter definition is arbitrary and can mean anything, and its a idealistic concept without any reality in concrete isntitutional reality.



    None of those things are property, you dont' need any exclusive right of property, infact the opposite, those values are meaningless IF YOU HAVE exlusive rights to it, such as liberty, its meaningless unless its universal, religion, is almost always a communal concept, the same with free choice. The only time they become property is with intellectual property, which is forced exclusion, not of thought, but of implimentation of thought.



    Except that most of the time property IS power.



    An assersion posing as an axiom, also what ever "is his own" is arbitrary.



    Since when has merit determined who gets property.

    I could continue, but my point is that article doesn't show anything really.

    When it comes to Liberty I'll quote Bakunin





    No you can't, you need to have land first, and have seeds,.

    BTW, I agree we DO have laws, but I'm talkinga bout the philosophy of property here.



    I explained why that is bull****, opinions do NOT need exclusionary laws for their value, infact the very opposite is true.



    Its not a trap, what I'm saying is that people consider taxation to be a form of theft because tehy consider property fundemenatal and the state not.



    I don't consider that to be an authority on morality ... Laws don't make right.



    That was one founding fathers opinion, other had other opinions ... Also since when does their opinion count more than anyone elses?

    If there is a fire in a building we cannot all descend the fireman's later at once.

    We cannot all eat the same apple.

    If you ban private property who banned it? Bakunin's ideas are meaningless since it would require the same amount of exclusion of personal rights to enforce his ideas. We cannot all enjoy some liberties at the same time in the same place. Bakunin and yourself seem to be asserting that since we cannot all enjoy those liberties at the same time that we shouldn't have those liberties at all. We cannot all own the same property at the same time so then no one can own property since it excludes the right s of others?


    If that is what you are asserting (and correct me if you are not, but so far it seems to be) then where does this philosophy end? Will it be deemed unfair for me to possess anything, since I must store my things somewhere and that space would disallow someone else from using that space? So far Im not finding much logic in Bakunin's ideas even though the assertion was written well and sounded great on the surface. But its the details that go array and make the entire assertion childish and idiotic. For the simply fact that we cannot all eat the same apple. But even Bakunin's ideas require laws to enforce them which would be going against Bakunin's ideas, hence the reason why I assert that they are childish and idiotic.
    Last edited by FreedomFromAll; 07-09-12 at 12:41 PM.

  7. #77
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    09-18-12 @ 08:07 AM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    3,245

    Re: Is porperty Self justifying?

    I'm not sure leftists have a sense of time. They seem to believe results just happen, ignoring the process which makes them happen.

  8. #78
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: Is porperty Self justifying?

    The only way someone "owns" anything is either by the laws of the land, cultural mores, or their ability to defend it. It's not rocket science.
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  9. #79
    Sage
    RGacky3's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Last Seen
    08-25-15 @ 05:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,570

    Re: Is porperty Self justifying?

    If there is a fire in a building we cannot all descend the fireman's later at once.

    We cannot all eat the same apple.

    If you ban private property who banned it? Bakunin's ideas are meaningless since it would require the same amount of exclusion of personal rights to enforce his ideas. We cannot all enjoy some liberties at the same time in the same place. Bakunin and yourself seem to be asserting that since we cannot all enjoy those liberties at the same time that we shouldn't have those liberties at all. We cannot all own the same property at the same time so then no one can own property since it excludes the right s of others?


    If that is what you are asserting (and correct me if you are not, but so far it seems to be) then where does this philosophy end? Will it be deemed unfair for me to possess anything, since I must store my things somewhere and that space would disallow someone else from using that space? So far Im not finding much logic in Bakunin's ideas even though the assertion was written well and sounded great on the surface. But its the details that go array and make the entire assertion childish and idiotic. For the simply fact that we cannot all eat the same apple. But even Bakunin's ideas require laws to enforce them which would be going against Bakunin's ideas, hence the reason why I assert that they are childish and idiotic.
    Having an apple and eating it doesn't require private property.

    You don't need to ban private property to abolish it, you just need to stop enforcing it.

    Why would you need to exclude ANY personal rights?

    Of coarse we can enjoy liberties at the same time, we can all have thoughts, we can all move, we can all talk, when our actions come into conflict they must be resovled democratically, not juts by saying "I OWN THIS and you are excluded, and here is the states guns to show that."

    Use and property are not the same thing neither are possession and property.

    It would'nt be deemed unfair for oyu to possess stuff, I'm saying if someone else NEEDS the stuff you have, it must be worked out democratically rather than tyrannically.

    Your making the horrible mistake of confusing possession and property, possession means you juts have it, if you have it, it woudl be understandable that you would expect that other people would'nt take it from you, and most people would probably go along with it because they also possess stuff, but property is different.

    Property would be you owning ALL the apples in an area, leaving the area, and then having everyone else in the area excluded from eating the apples would be property.

  10. #80
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,062

    Re: Is porperty Self justifying?

    Quote Originally Posted by RGacky3 View Post
    Having an apple and eating it doesn't require private property.
    Again we cannot all eat the same apple. One person will get to eat at least the part they took a bite of. Meaning that someone else did not get to eat that bite. Which would mean that some people will be excluded from eating the apple.

    You don't need to ban private property to abolish it, you just need to stop enforcing it.
    Stop enforcing private property is the same as banning it. What you are proposing is not an honest way to run a country. I mean you obviously have the goal of abolishing property rights so you enploy a method that achieves that end but refuse to call it banning private property. Geesh we are not that naive we can see goal and what would be the effect.
    Why would you need to exclude ANY personal rights?
    Well because there are many situations where we cant all be involved in any given activity since it would be logistically impossible.

    Of coarse we can enjoy liberties at the same time, we can all have thoughts, we can all move, we can all talk, when our actions come into conflict they must be resovled democratically, not juts by saying "I OWN THIS and you are excluded, and here is the states guns to show that."
    So then laws/rules are a part of this philosophical discussion of property? I ask this because you just described a situation that requires some form of organization. We presently in the US have a valid form of organization to settle conflicts. Why should we stop using our current laws to enforce new ones?

    Use and property are not the same thing neither are possession and property.
    Property | Define Property at Dictionary.com
    prop·er·ty   [prop-er-tee]
    noun, plural prop·er·ties.
    1.that which a person owns; the possession or possessions of a particular owner: They lost all their property in the fire.
    2.goods, land, etc., considered as possessions: The corporation is a means for the common ownership of property.
    3.a piece of land or real estate: property on Main Street.

    pos·ses·sion   [puh-zesh-uhn]
    noun
    1.the act or fact of possessing.
    2.the state of being possessed.
    3.ownership.
    4.Law . actual holding or occupancy, either with or without rights of ownership.
    5.a thing possessed: He packed all his possessions into one trunk.


    I dont think that you are communicating well your thoughts here. I simply stated that in order to own property it must be in your possession. You do not need to be present to be in possession of property to still have your right to own it. For example if we were fishing and we both caught a fish each and nature called and when you came back I was eating both fish, I would not be justified by any means in eating YOUR fish. You caught the fish so the fish was your possession and your property and everyone else was excluded from owning your fish.



    It would'nt be deemed unfair for oyu to possess stuff, I'm saying if someone else NEEDS the stuff you have, it must be worked out democratically rather than tyrannically.
    Why must my possessions by up for grabs by my neighbors? All they would need to do is to vote that they want everything in my possession and now it would be me being excluded from my possessions. Why should have to justify my needs for my possessions? Are you proposing that we should all ask the permission of our neighbors on every single possession that we thought we owned? Such a system would turn to chaos so fats that the system wouldnt even have existed for a day.

    Your making the horrible mistake of confusing possession and property, possession means you juts have it, if you have it, it woudl be understandable that you would expect that other people would'nt take it from you, and most people would probably go along with it because they also possess stuff, but property is different.

    Property would be you owning ALL the apples in an area, leaving the area, and then having everyone else in the area excluded from eating the apples would be property.
    I dont think that you quite understand what you are saying. On one hand your telling me that its ok to have possessions and since other people have possessions I MIGHT be in luck and they will let me keep my possessions. That is unless my peers are assholes, then Im **** out of luck.

    What also has not convinced me is that you are accusing everyone that owns land as being a tyrant. Why do you think that people want to own their homes? Its called privacy. See we Americans consider our homes (whether we own them or not) as an extension of our person. As a home owner myself I know that I am not a tyrant keeping people excluded form my possessions and my trees or my garden. I do not own all of the gardens or houses in the area. I just own one small house on a small lot just like my neighbors do. In fact the only people that are in my town are people who live here or are visiting other people that live here. No one is actually being excluded in reality. In fact if you wanted to live in this town there are houses for sell. There is plenty of opportunity to own your own home here. Your idea of voting for possessions is called a dictatorship by the majority. Like I said it would be extremely easy to tack advantage of people such a society. All it tacks is team work. If I wanted your fish in your world all I would need is a friend or two. Theses no difference in your dreamed of society than a bunch of thugs taking possessions by force. If I lived in a apartment building on the ground floor all I would need to do to move to higher floor (if thats what I desired) was to convince other people to vote me into where I wanted to be. And whoever was in that spot is **** out of luck.

    In America we came up with a better society than what you are proposing. Your so called democratic method is not really democratic in any real sense. Instead it is ruthless and primitive assbackwards, my gang is bigger than your gang.

Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •