A national right of self-determination

[icedancer2theend]

In looking at damo's "today in history about Rosa Luxemburg". I noted an interesting fact that I think gets at the heart of all class warfare. Namely the philosophical idea of self-determination. It is this idea that capitalism supports and socialism attacks. I am of course talking in its logical conclusions. If, as Rosa Luxemburg states, it, self determination, is not a national right, how can one protect his property from the state? He cannot.

 

[apple0154]

In looking at damo's "today in history about Rosa Luxemburg". I noted an interesting fact that I think gets at the heart of all class warfare. Namely the philosophical idea of self-determination. It is this idea that capitalism supports and socialism attacks. I am of course talking in its logical conclusions. If, as Rosa Luxemburg states, it, self determination, is not a national right, how can one protect his property from the state? He cannot.

What inherent right does one have to belong to a group (society) and then do as they please? In the case of taking property one is compensated so they are not obliged to contribute disproportionately. On the other hand it would be illogical for one to have the power to impede the group (society) out of mere selfishness.

 

[icedancer2theend]

What inherent right does one have to belong to a group (society) and then do as they please? In the case of taking property one is compensated so they are not obliged to contribute disproportionately. On the other hand it would be illogical for one to have the power to impede the group (society) out of mere selfishness.

You, like others who support a government that can take property by some sort of self imposed right, ignore that capitalists are supportive of a "limited" government, not a total lack of government.

 

[apple0154]

You, like others who support a government that can take property by some sort of self imposed right, ignore that capitalists are supportive of a "limited" government, not a total lack of government.

But self determination is not a national right and it's absurd of Rosa or anyone else to suggest it is. Society or a country, at the fundamental level, is just a group of people and when push comes to shove the group has to take priority over the individual. Regarding "capitalists are supportive of a 'limited' government" the same can be said of today's socialists. For example, taking ones property for the benefit of the group is not the same as telling someone where they have to live. All it's doing is telling the person they can not live in a certain place (limited involvement).

The crux of the problem is the vast majority of people who object to the taking of their property are either selfish/greedy or malcontents.

 

[icedancer2theend]

But self determination is not a national right and it's absurd of Rosa or anyone else to suggest it is. Society or a country, at the fundamental level, is just a group of people and when push comes to shove the group has to take priority over the individual. Regarding "capitalists are supportive of a 'limited' government" the same can be said of today's socialists. For example, taking ones property for the benefit of the group is not the same as telling someone where they have to live. All it's doing is telling the person they can not live in a certain place (limited involvement).

The crux of the problem is the vast majority of people who object to the taking of their property are either selfish/greedy or malcontents.

Rosa was a communist- she, like you, stood against it- You can read about her in damos link. The best government has no rights- those belong to individuals. No, apple, the problem is that the vast majority of people want to work and get ahead, but they are manipulated by socialism to think that they have a right to another citizens labor and the goods that result from it. The freest system is one that allows equal opportunity via laws and policy- not one that attempts to make things equal; by taking from one to give to another.

 

[apple0154]

Rosa was a communist- she, like you, stood against it- You can read about her in damos link. The best government has no rights- those belong to individuals. No, apple, the problem is that the vast majority of people want to work and get ahead, but they are manipulated by socialism to think that they have a right to another citizens labor and the goods that result from it. The freest system is one that allows equal opportunity via laws and policy- not one that attempts to make things equal; by taking from one to give to another.

I couldn't find Damo's link but I did a Google on her.

There is no such thing as "equal opportunity" as 3D's signature shows bearing a former comment I made. Look at all the anti-discrimination laws we have. Sex, color, religion, age, etc. People in positions of power (employers, law enforcement, etc) all have preferences and biases. The most obvious ones we can legislate against but others are too subtle or subjective and people are affected by them. Then there's plain luck. In most cases luck and circumstance are the major contributors to success. Ten people working on an invention but the first one to succeed and patent it wins. That doesn't mean the other nine were lazy.

The freest system is one than recognizes the inequality and attempts to balance it out. But beyond that being part of a group means supporting fellow members. If an individual does not suffer by helping another what possible reason would they have for not helping other than selfishness/greed?

 

[icedancer2theend]

I couldn't find Damo's link but I did a Google on her.

There is no such thing as "equal opportunity" as 3D's signature shows bearing a former comment I made. Look at all the anti-discrimination laws we have. Sex, color, religion, age, etc. People in positions of power (employers, law enforcement, etc) all have preferences and biases. The most obvious ones we can legislate against but others are too subtle or subjective and people are affected by them. Then there's plain luck. In most cases luck and circumstance are the major contributors to success. Ten people working on an invention but the first one to succeed and patent it wins. That doesn't mean the other nine were lazy.

The freest system is one than recognizes the inequality and attempts to balance it out. But beyond that being part of a group means supporting fellow members. If an individual does not suffer by helping another what possible reason would they have for not helping other than selfishness/greed?

You, mistake provision to guarantee opportunity, with a provision to guarantee success. The government's role is in the former not the latter. For the very reasons you name we cannot have a government with its innate ability to fuck up, being in charge of deciding how much is fair. Instead we rely on checks in power to right wrongs. We are always reforming our laws and policies because they, like us, are imperfect- this is not reason to invite a small contingent of people in power, to take control over our goods and labor. Indeed it is all the more reason (knowing mans failures and biases) to avoid such a thing!

 

[Phantasmal]

What inherent right does one have to belong to a group (society) and then do as they please? In the case of taking property one is compensated so they are not obliged to contribute disproportionately. On the other hand it would be illogical for one to have the power to impede the group (society) out of mere selfishness.

Utopian Socialism
Mark Chapter 10:21-25 21Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” 22At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth. 23Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!” 24The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

 

[NOVA]

But self determination is not a national right and it's absurd of Rosa or anyone else to suggest it is. Society or a country, at the fundamental level, is just a group of people and when push comes to shove the group has to take priority over the individual. Regarding "capitalists are supportive of a 'limited' government" the same can be said of today's socialists. For example, taking ones property for the benefit of the group is not the same as telling someone where they have to live. All it's doing is telling the person they can not live in a certain place (limited involvement).

The crux of the problem is the vast majority of people who object to the taking of their property are either selfish/greedy or malcontents.

Utterly amazing......the most un-American and totalitarian concept written by a pinhead liberal / Democrat I've seen in some time.....

self determination is not a national right ?.......Not only is it a "national" right....its an inalienable right, a basic right of individual liberty and freedom.....

the most basic right written in the Constitution of the United States......

Does anyone really wonder why the left is so despised and their philosophy so hated by

US patriots that revere our Constitution for articulating the freedom we love and have had our sons and daughters die for over and over....

and Apple....for you I give you a hearty "fuck you".

 

[NOVA]

Utopian Socialism
Mark Chapter 10:21-25 21Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” 22At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth. 23Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!” 24The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Whats this..?......Another left wing liberal fanatic forcing their religious beliefs down the throat of everyone else ?.....a left wing Evangelical Fundie ?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

What inherent right does one have to belong to a group (society) and then do as they please? In the case of taking property one is compensated so they are not obliged to contribute disproportionately. On the other hand it would be illogical for one to have the power to impede the group (society) out of mere selfishness.

How can you say that there is "compensation", when the entity that is doing the taking is also the one that sets the level of "compensation"?

Is there a difference between two homes, fairly close to each other, both being about the same size?
One being a new home that was just built and the other being a home that was passed down from from parent to child and then from that child to their own child.
How do you compensate for this?
Especially when it's being done, so that some corporation can come in and build a mall; which years later sits empty.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Utopian Socialism
Mark Chapter 10:21-25 21Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” 22At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth. 23Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!” 24The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Have you sold your home and possessions; because if not, then STFU.

 

[icedancer2theend]

Whats this..?......Another left wing liberal fanatic forcing their religious beliefs down the throat of everyone else ?.....a left wing Evangelical Fundie ?

No just stoopie toad mishandling the gospel once again.

 

[apple0154]

You, mistake provision to guarantee opportunity, with a provision to guarantee success. The government's role is in the former not the latter. For the very reasons you name we cannot have a government with its innate ability to fuck up, being in charge of deciding how much is fair. Instead we rely on checks in power to right wrongs. We are always reforming our laws and policies because they, like us, are imperfect- this is not reason to invite a small contingent of people in power, to take control over our goods and labor. Indeed it is all the more reason (knowing mans failures and biases) to avoid such a thing!

Not to guarantee success but to guarantee basic necessities. People do not protest because they want a new car or a bigger home. They want a roof over their head, food and medical care. As to people in power making decisions the people in power can be removed by votes. If the same people continually remained in power you would have a point.

 

[apple0154]

Utterly amazing......the most un-American and totalitarian concept written by a pinhead liberal / Democrat I've seen in some time.....

self determination is not a national right ?.......Not only is it a "national" right....its an inalienable right, a basic right of individual liberty and freedom.....

the most basic right written in the Constitution of the United States......

Does anyone really wonder why the left is so despised and their philosophy so hated by

US patriots that revere our Constitution for articulating the freedom we love and have had our sons and daughters die for over and over....

and Apple....for you I give you a hearty "fuck you".

It appears I misread national right for individual right. As my post shows I said it is the group that makes the determination.

 

[icedancer2theend]

Not to guarantee success but to guarantee basic necessities. People do not protest because they want a new car or a bigger home. They want a roof over their head, food and medical care. As to people in power making decisions the people in power can be removed by votes. If the same people continually remained in power you would have a point.

Not so. Government could then have a never ending shopping list (meaning an unending excuse to take from an individual). Government must be limited in its power and scope for men to truly have liberty. Yes, people do protest because they want more stuff- not just necessities. I am not opposed to safety nets, but I am totally opposed to supporting lifestyles. What you and numerous liberals ignore is that all truly needy people can get basic necessities met already-

 

[apple0154]

How can you say that there is "compensation", when the entity that is doing the taking is also the one that sets the level of "compensation"?

Is there a difference between two homes, fairly close to each other, both being about the same size?
One being a new home that was just built and the other being a home that was passed down from from parent to child and then from that child to their own child.
How do you compensate for this?
Especially when it's being done, so that some corporation can come in and build a mall; which years later sits empty.

If we make exceptions how would any insurance policy work? Does the person whose TV belonged to their mother get more compensation than the guy in the neighboring apartment who lost an identical TV in the building fire? If the home that is owned by succeeding generations is of more value I wonder what the owner's attitude would be if the municipality taxed them accordingly.

Oh, your grandfather owned your house? In that case there's a 20% surcharge on land tax because if we have to employ Eminent domain in the future I'm sure you'll insist on a higher value than your neighbors.

 

[apple0154]

Not so. Government could then have a never ending shopping list (meaning an unending excuse to take from an individual). Government must be limited in its power and scope for men to truly have liberty. Yes, people do protest because they want more stuff- not just necessities. I am not opposed to safety nets, but I am totally opposed to supporting lifestyles. What you and numerous liberals ignore is that all truly needy people can get basic necessities met already-

Basic necessities after they have lost their home and the family has split up.

As to liberty how can one be truly free without some guarantees in place? Is the person free who doesn't know where their next meal is coming from? Is the person free who is constantly worried about losing their home? What is liberty if one illness or accident can take everything a person has worked their life to acquire?

 

[apple0154]

Not so. Government could then have a never ending shopping list (meaning an unending excuse to take from an individual). Government must be limited in its power and scope for men to truly have liberty. Yes, people do protest because they want more stuff- not just necessities. I am not opposed to safety nets, but I am totally opposed to supporting lifestyles. What you and numerous liberals ignore is that all truly needy people can get basic necessities met already-

As an added note what lifestyle is supported? Has the chronic unemployed individual been offered a job? Have they had a complete physical to ensure they are not suffering from an illness? Have they lived on hot dogs for the past year and have a serious vitamin deficiency? Unless sufficient help is offered there's not much of a decision to be made deciding between going for a job interview or lining up at the food bank.

In this day and age there's no excuse for anything less than a comprehensive package to help individuals.

 

[icedancer2theend]

As an added note what lifestyle is supported? Has the chronic unemployed individual been offered a job? Have they had a complete physical to ensure they are not suffering from an illness? Have they lived on hot dogs for the past year and have a serious vitamin deficiency? Unless sufficient help is offered there's not much of a decision to be made deciding between going for a job interview or lining up at the food bank.

In this day and age there's no excuse for anything less than a comprehensive package to help individuals.

What is a basic necessity? All of these are available within numerous safety nets for the needy.
1. Air
2. Water
3. Food
4. Shelter
5. Clothing
These are a humans basic needs. Everything else is a luxury.