A national right of self-determination

icedancer2theend said:
Yeah kudos that Obama has done nothing to fix the problem- he did not write the law that allows homeowners to remain in their homes- that's the purview of the lenders, so thank them!

That's it apple- if you are going to be such an idiot go talk to someone else. Foreclosure is never a good thing for a society or economy. But I digress,you have done nothing to support an argument against a national right to self determination. What you have done is play your inane game, as per usual, of creating straw-man arguments- later.
Click to expand...

I thought I explained that. I had understood a "national right" to mean a Federal Right such as a Federal Right to free speech or a Federal Right to legal counsel. If you read my original post you'll notice I was referring to individuals vs the collective and I believe the collective overrides the individual in matters of Eminent domain.

Did that clear it up?
 
apple0154 said:
I thought I explained that. I had understood a "national right" to mean a Federal Right such as a Federal Right to free speech or a Federal Right to legal counsel. If you read my original post you'll notice I was referring to individuals vs the collective and I believe the collective overrides the individual in matters of Eminent domain.

Did that clear it up?
Click to expand...

Eminent domain ?.....do you even kinow wtf it means...??? Obviously not......
Taxing , or confiscating anothers money to give to others is not emenent domain.....not even close.....

Eminent domain (United States, compulsory purchase) is an action of the state to seize a citizen's private property, expropriate property, or seize a citizen's rights in property with due monetary compensation, but without the owner's consent.

The property is taken either for government use or by delegation to third parties who will devote it to public or civic use or, in some cases, economic development. The most common uses of property taken by eminent domain are for public utilities, highways, and railroads.

Displaying your utter stupidity as you do is embarrassing even to the rest of us.....idiots like you shouldn't even be allowed to vote.....
 
icedancer2theend said:
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.
Click to expand...

Rosa Luxemburg opposed the national right to self determinism because she was an anti-nationalist and believed that nationality was bullshit fed to us by the elites in order to keep the proletariat down. However, a national right to self-determination, the consent of the governed, "right of revolution", the mandate of heaven - these are all value neutral ideas. People can raise revolution in order to defeat the tyranny that state-enforced property has over free people's just as well as they can to protect their God given right to property from the government. It's important to note that Rosa Luxemburg's primary opponent over the right to national self-determination was Vladmir Lenin.
 
bravo said:
Eminent domain ?.....do you even kinow wtf it means...??? Obviously not......
Taxing , or confiscating anothers money to give to others is not emenent domain.....not even close.....

Eminent domain (United States, compulsory purchase) is an action of the state to seize a citizen's private property, expropriate property, or seize a citizen's rights in property with due monetary compensation, but without the owner's consent.

The property is taken either for government use or by delegation to third parties who will devote it to public or civic use or, in some cases, economic development. The most common uses of property taken by eminent domain are for public utilities, highways, and railroads.

Displaying your utter stupidity as you do is embarrassing even to the rest of us.....idiots like you shouldn't even be allowed to vote.....
Click to expand...

We were discussing the difference between a new house and a house that had been in the family for years when it came to determining the value when Eminent domain was being implemented. Obviously, it has nothing to do with taxes unless you're saying that paying your taxes with money that had been in the family is worth more than regular money.
 
Emperor Lusgelnio said:
Rosa Luxemburg opposed the national right to self determinism because she was an anti-nationalist and believed that nationality was bullshit fed to us by the elites in order to keep the proletariat down. However, a national right to self-determination, the consent of the governed, "right of revolution", the mandate of heaven - these are all value neutral ideas. People can raise revolution in order to defeat the tyranny that state-enforced property has over free people's just as well as they can to protect their God given right to property from the government. It's important to note that Rosa Luxemburg's primary opponent over the right to national self-determination was Vladmir Lenin.
Click to expand...

Ummm I read the link too. So do you oppose the national right to individualism?
 
icedancer2theend said:
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.
Click to expand...

Of course. Capitalism cannot exist without the government. Capitalism is a state that exists due to artificial impositions on the people.

Not that I oppose artificial impositions. That would, of course, be stupid. Everything is artificial. Without the artificial, we would have nothing.

Whether or not someone recognizes a right to revolution is really not all that relevant. The government is always under threat of revolution - it is the ultimate check on the power of every government, and has been all through history. Totalitarian tactics can sometimes keep a government that should perhaps not be in power in power, but people with that kind of ability to be cruel tend to be forged only in the fires of revolution and the hatred of political extremism. The successors of the totalitarians have a tendency to tone things down and moderate - sometimes leading to revolution, sometimes leading to democratization, other times merely leading to a stopgap that is not quite as bad (China comes to mind here). This has been the case in pretty much every totalitarian government that has existed in the 21st century - with, of course, the exception of governments that have been kept in the hands of one family, such as North Korea and Saudi Arabia. I guess this is because children have a stake in the in the projects of their parents that even appointed successors do not - a tragedy for those that now suffer.

Anyway, I think that, should your system really have been the ultimate state of nature, the ultimate form of freedom that all people should happily labor under for all eternity, it would probably be the system we have now. It is curious that it isn't, is it not? That all the forces of history, all the struggles of man, have, at this final stop (amongst many final stops), arrived at what we have now, rather than the system that is clearly, objectively superior in all respects to any other? Makes it seem as if there's really perhaps not as much to it as you say, as if it's really just the meaningless ramblings of some ideological nutjob, much like many other ideological nutjobs have rambled throughout history, with every bit as much dedication and fervor as you have now. Also, I imagine that people probably wouldn't have chosen to overthrow similar systems in the 19th century, apparently due to their confused beliefs about the suffering and hardship that it caused - second times a charm, I guess?
 
Emperor Lusgelnio said:
Of course. Capitalism cannot exist without the government. Capitalism is a state that exists due to artificial impositions on the people.

Not that I oppose artificial impositions. That would, of course, be stupid. Everything is artificial. Without the artificial, we would have nothing.

Whether or not someone recognizes a right to revolution is really not all that relevant. The government is always under threat of revolution - it is the ultimate check on the power of every government, and has been all through history. Totalitarian tactics can sometimes keep a government that should perhaps not be in power in power, but people with that kind of ability to be cruel tend to be forged only in the fires of revolution and the hatred of political extremism. The successors of the totalitarians have a tendency to tone things down and moderate - sometimes leading to revolution, sometimes leading to democratization, other times merely leading to a stopgap that is not quite as bad (China comes to mind here). This has been the case in pretty much every totalitarian government that has existed in the 21st century - with, of course, the exception of governments that have been kept in the hands of one family, such as North Korea and Saudi Arabia. I guess this is because children have a stake in the in the projects of their parents that even appointed successors do not - a tragedy for those that now suffer.

Anyway, I think that, should your system really have been the ultimate state of nature, the ultimate form of freedom that all people should happily labor under for all eternity, it would probably be the system we have now. It is curious that it isn't, is it not? That all the forces of history, all the struggles of man, have, at this final stop (amongst many final stops), arrived at what we have now, rather than the system that is clearly, objectively superior in all respects to any other? Makes it seem as if there's really perhaps not as much to it as you say, as if it's really just the meaningless ramblings of some ideological nutjob, much like many other ideological nutjobs have rambled throughout history, with every bit as much dedication and fervor as you have now. Also, I imagine that people probably wouldn't have chosen to overthrow similar systems in the 19th century, apparently due to their confused beliefs about the suffering and hardship that it caused - second times a charm, I guess?
Click to expand...

you have some good points, but why are you so focused on "artificial?"
 
icedancer2theend said:
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.
Click to expand...

A right to someone else's labor? You merely think that we should allow everything to be freely traded at its market value - which isn't so bad of an idea. But value is not determined by labor. That is the error in thought that lead to Marxism.
 
Emperor Lusgelnio said:
A right to someone else's labor? You merely think that we should allow everything to be freely traded at its market value - which isn't so bad of an idea. But value is not determined by labor. That is the error in thought that lead to Marxism.
Click to expand...

do you realize you just transposed she said....?
 
Emperor Lusgelnio said:
A right to someone else's labor? You merely think that we should allow everything to be freely traded at its market value - which isn't so bad of an idea. But value is not determined by labor. That is the error in thought that lead to Marxism.
Click to expand...

Well said! Reminds me of the old saying, "I'm paid for what I know, not what I do.
 
Emperor Lusgelnio said:
Of course. Capitalism cannot exist without the government. Capitalism is a state that exists due to artificial impositions on the people.

Not that I oppose artificial impositions. That would, of course, be stupid. Everything is artificial. Without the artificial, we would have nothing.

Whether or not someone recognizes a right to revolution is really not all that relevant. The government is always under threat of revolution - it is the ultimate check on the power of every government, and has been all through history. Totalitarian tactics can sometimes keep a government that should perhaps not be in power in power, but people with that kind of ability to be cruel tend to be forged only in the fires of revolution and the hatred of political extremism. The successors of the totalitarians have a tendency to tone things down and moderate - sometimes leading to revolution, sometimes leading to democratization, other times merely leading to a stopgap that is not quite as bad (China comes to mind here). This has been the case in pretty much every totalitarian government that has existed in the 21st century - with, of course, the exception of governments that have been kept in the hands of one family, such as North Korea and Saudi Arabia. I guess this is because children have a stake in the in the projects of their parents that even appointed successors do not - a tragedy for those that now suffer.

Anyway, I think that, should your system really have been the ultimate state of nature, the ultimate form of freedom that all people should happily labor under for all eternity, it would probably be the system we have now. It is curious that it isn't, is it not? That all the forces of history, all the struggles of man, have, at this final stop (amongst many final stops), arrived at what we have now, rather than the system that is clearly, objectively superior in all respects to any other? Makes it seem as if there's really perhaps not as much to it as you say, as if it's really just the meaningless ramblings of some ideological nutjob, much like many other ideological nutjobs have rambled throughout history, with every bit as much dedication and fervor as you have now. Also, I imagine that people probably wouldn't have chosen to overthrow similar systems in the 19th century, apparently due to their confused beliefs about the suffering and hardship that it caused - second times a charm, I guess?
Click to expand...

I am not certain what you are saying here (see bold). Which system other then the one we now have is superior? I believe that a system of government must have checks and balances against totalitarianism. I believe that it is needed because ultimately men are sinners. I know you don't agree with me on that principle- but nonetheless, all we have to do is look down the annals of history to see that mans attempts at self governance have been precarious adventures fraught with war and strife- no matter the system.
 
Emperor Lusgelnio said:
A right to someone else's labor? You merely think that we should allow everything to be freely traded at its market value - which isn't so bad of an idea. But value is not determined by labor. That is the error in thought that lead to Marxism.
Click to expand...

What I meant by that is if a government is allowed to have a shopping list for itself- then ultimately they must have rights to our labor (income or property).
 
icedancer2theend said:
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.
Click to expand...

Shelter and clothing are pretty luxurious, aren't they? Try telling a nomadic tribesman that everyone deserves a house - utterly ridiculous.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
The fact that you can't stay on track, is the reason you haven't been able to help anyone.

Everything that is offered, you try to spin in a direction that makes you feel more comfortable.
Click to expand...

Yes, when someone supports their arguments by merely asserting that it is true, as you do, the only thing you can really do is spin in another direction. Obviously, the only thing else you can do is accept that their arguments are true which, I am sure, would provide the other with much delight and, perhaps, surprise that such a silly tactic worked at all. However, most people are not willing to do that.
 
bravo said:
YOU ARE FREE to do anything you see fit, other than dictate to others what they should ro need or are required to
Click to expand...

Within a set of social rules and regulations in which you assume consent for me to be punished for violating. In other words, I'm not free at all, besides in those sets of things in which I am free, just like in any other society throughout history.
 
bravo said:
We've made " the determination " that we will not tolerate tyranny of the majority.....( group)

Our freedom on self determination will not be over ruled by any "group" without a revolution.


If we did give it up, the entire country would be Christian instead of just 80%........
Only Christians would hold office.
Church attendance would be mandatory, so would prayer in school.....etc.....so get a fuckin' grip on reality......read that Constitution and have someone explain it to you.
Click to expand...

I don't think that most Christians would support a thing. Otherwise, there's really not much a piece of paper written 200 years ago could do about it in the long run.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top