Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - US Census worker murdered, "fed" written on his bo

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

US Census worker murdered, "fed" written on his bo
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 4:48 pm Post subject:

Before responding, let me point out to Rusty that ontheway had his chance to qualify his "Socialism is evil" ideology in the fashion you suggested, and passed on that opportunity. Quite the opposite, he directly affirms his beliefs still apply to those societies. So let's dispense with any fictions about straw mans thus forth.

Moving on...

ontheway wrote:

If you studied native Americans then you should have no trouble showing how they had property rights to land. Which tribes did this and where?

So, out of the many claims you made (no private property rights, no creating buildings, no improving the land, no agriculture, etc) which I've contested, you've chosen to contest only no property rights to land. An intelligent choice from a debate perspective: there was so much unused land in North America during the time of the Native Americans that land rights barely needed to be discussed for the most part. Unlike the modern era, where all land is "taken," there was plenty of land availible during this time period. As such, it's hardly surprising Native Americans didn't deal in land-specific property all that extensively: there was so much of it.

That said, you've put forward a challenge, so I should meet it. The most obvious example are the Hopi Indians*:

Quote:

The Hopi house hold ran down the maternal line. The women
inherited, or owned the homes. The uncle raised her children instead of their father because their father was raising his sisters children! The men were responsible for their mothers house, and their sister's.

The creation of buildings, private home ownership, and even estate rights. The only reason these concepts are less evident amongst many Native tribes is that they simply didn't need them. When land is so abundant, there's no point in bickering over the specifics, so they didn't. That doesn't mean that anyone who wanted to couldn't do more or less as they pleased with any given tract of land, it just means they didn't.

Where you go most astray is ignoring the reason many tribes chose to pool their farmlands. Socialism is only Socialism when the government is coercing you to pool your resources. No such thing happened among the Natives; there was no government to force them to do anything, and anyone who wanted to leave the group would have been allowed to do so. They often pooled their resources because it had benefits, not because they were coerced to. Many people owning a field, working that field, and sharing the results isn't Socialism any more than many people owning a company, working at that company, and sharing the results is. In both cases, you're pooling your labor and sharing the product of your own free will.

And of course the artificial focus you've given to my response shouldn't ignore the fact that in addition to this, Native Americans had property rights regarding material possessions as well. A person who created more had more, it didn't just vanish or get taken away from him. At worst, he might generous give some of his created wealth away, but generosity is by no means in conflict with Liberty.

Your attempt to construe these people as deficient of property rights, building construction, agriculture, and so forth is simply incorrect, and the fact that you'd say such things in attempt to defend your case says a lot about your case.

*Forgive me for the quality of the link, it was turned up with a casual internet search to show I didn't pull this out of no where. My actual source is the Book of the Hopi, which is sitting at my parent's home in America right now. Feel free to buy a copy and page through it if you like.

Last edited by Fox on Mon Sep 28, 2009 5:03 pm; edited 1 time in total

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 4:51 pm Post subject:

morrisonhotel wrote:

ontheway wrote:

You are correct that socialism is a major part of the state and continues to be so, and it has failed - horribly and disasterously.

You really do have a peculiar understanding of socialism, don't you?

Not just a peculiar one, an incorrect one. He outright uses the word incorrectly, and insists upon doing so. According to him, pretty much every government ever has been a Socialist. Even barely governed societies like our Natives, who were as free as a people could reasonably be, were too Socialist for him.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 4:54 pm Post subject:

Rusty Shackleford wrote:

morrisonhotel wrote:

ontheway wrote:

You are correct that socialism is a major part of the state and continues to be so, and it has failed - horribly and disasterously.

You really do have a peculiar understanding of socialism, don't you?

Good grief. What's to understand? USSR, Maoist China, Cuba, North Korea, Myanmar, Cambodia. Need I continue?

To properly describe ontheway's conception of Socialism, you shouldn't stop there. France, England, the United States, Japan, even the Native Americans as he's claimed in this thread. Under ontheway's definition of Socialism, pretty much every society ever has been Socialist.

So it's not really a very useful term, is it? It's no shocker almost no one else cares to agree with his definition: it's just not useful.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 4:56 pm Post subject:

ontheway wrote:

The idea of Liberty known as Libertarianism was not fully developed until the latter half of the 20th Century. It is the newest and most intellectually advanced concept of political-economic organization, so it would be unlikely to be found among primitive societies, except accidentally. It is where the world is moving toward as enlightenment and education spread.

And the idea of Socialism is also only recently fully developed, but that doesn't stop you from labelling things like taxes -- which have existed for ages before Socialism -- as Socialist.

If things that pre-date Socialism's "full development" can be Socialist, things that pre-date Libertarianism's "full development" can be Libertarian.

DWAEJIMORIGUKBAP

Joined: 28 May 2009
Location: Electron cloud

Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 4:57 pm Post subject:

Fox wrote:

morrisonhotel wrote:

ontheway wrote:

You are correct that socialism is a major part of the state and continues to be so, and it has failed - horribly and disasterously.

You really do have a peculiar understanding of socialism, don't you?

Methinks he confuses democracy (for the people / of the people) with Socialism in some ways.

He also seems to confuse heavy govt involvemnt / control (from reading his posts I think he's talking about Facism / authoritarianism) with socialism. I think this stems from the fact that he sees (correctly, mostly) socialist governments also having facist / autharitarianist aspects.

I don't know if he's a bad guy or not but his posts in this thread kinda don't warrant replying to as they're too confused / under informed... no offense....

caniff

Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map

Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 5:39 pm Post subject:

Yeah!! -edit------ I hit the quote button and not the edit button and the phone is ringing and I just can't do it anymore (runs and sobs in pillow)....

Triban

Joined: 14 Jul 2009
Location: Suwon Station

Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 5:55 pm Post subject:

ontheway wrote:

Fox wrote:

Rusty Shackleford wrote:

You do realize we are debating a big ol' straw man here, right? I don't think ontheway has ever purported his theories to apply to preindustrial peoples.

When did he exempt them? He talks about how government and his "Socialism" are utterly evil; I've never heard him limit that to "utterly evil if and only if you're in a post-industrial society, otherwise it's not only good, it's a requirement." As such, no, it's not a straw man. I would love to see him say industrializing requires what he calls Socialism, though, so if he wants to, I'll happily listen. Smile

Come on ontheway, say industrializing requires Socialism and prove Rusty's right about your thoughts. Wink

Rusty Shackleford wrote:

Secondly, Fox, you havn't really backed up your analysis of Native Americans with any evidence. Simply your analysis based on anecdotes.

That's because I'm fairly familiar with Native American society due to having a substantial interest them in high school and early college, and feel confident enough to simply speak on the matter. Anyone remotely familiar with these people know that there are examples of creating buildings, farming crops, and so forth to be found among America's first residents. Anyone familiar with them knows they had property rights. Ontheway's response alledging they didn't have these things was simply wrong.

Rusty Shackleford wrote:

Lastly, I don't believe this to be an apt analogy.

It's not an analogy, it's a correlation. These people lived many of ontheway's theories. These people did not do well for themselves while doing it.

If you studied native Americans then you should have no trouble showing how they had property rights to land.

It's because they didn't.

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--1345-Property_rights_and_Native_Americans.aspx

Even if you find some obscure Native American quote that ambiguously states they do, they traded that ish for fire water anyway.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 6:09 pm Post subject:

Triban wrote:

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--1345-Property_rights_and_Native_Americans.aspx

Quote:

Thus, in large degree, the colonists and later the U.S. government applied property rights to much of the continent for the first time. To be sure, this involved forcible expulsion of competing claimants to individual properties.

There can't be competing claimants to individual properties unless those competing claimants feel they have a right to those properties.

This article is just apologism for what Europeans did to the Native Americans. "Yeah, we took the entire North American continent, but they didn't really have or understand property rights, and they weren't making very good use of the land in our estimation, so really it was never theirs in the first place."

Triban

Joined: 14 Jul 2009
Location: Suwon Station

Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 7:29 pm Post subject:

Fox wrote:

"Yeah, we took the entire North American continent, but they didn't really have or understand property rights, and they weren't making very good use of the land in our estimation, so really it was never theirs in the first place."

You just responded for me. Imperialism at it's finest. Also, it wasn't that "they weren't making awesome use of the land, it was that we traded it for FIRE WATER. TRADED. FOR. BOOZE. End of story.

bucheon bum

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 8:05 pm Post subject:

interesting how a horrific murder has digressed to the standard libertarian-socialist argument that seems to be popping up on more and more threads on this forum.

DWAEJIMORIGUKBAP

Joined: 28 May 2009
Location: Electron cloud

Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 8:07 pm Post subject:

caniff wrote:

Yeah!!

-edit------

I hit the quote button and not the edit button and the phone is ringing and I just can't do it anymore (runs and sobs in pillow)....

Oh! You commie pinko!

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 9:01 pm Post subject:

bucheon bum wrote:

interesting how a horrific murder has digressed to the standard libertarian-socialist argument that seems to be popping up on more and more threads on this forum.

When the Libertarians on this board stop trying to link every single social issue that comes up to Socialism, maybe that will stop. Smile

morrisonhotel

Joined: 18 Jul 2009
Location: Gyeonggi-do

Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 10:27 pm Post subject:

DWAEJIMORIGUKBAP wrote:

The right in the US have done such a good job of blinding people with their extremist polarisation of Socialism on the left and what they will tell us is 'Conservatism' (read Facism for the real nomenclature) on the right that they'll have you believe it's a choice (or a war) between one or the other, heaven or Hell... Now look at France or Switzerland or Britain and see free market capitalism alongside some 'socialist' institutions such as national healthcare, pensions (pensions not going to be so hot in the UK in future) DECENT, llivable social security, council housing etc...

Interesting post. I think the most amusing thing about the health care debacle in the US at the moment is how unbelievably stupid the opponents are when they appear on television. They really can't tell the difference between democratic socialism (even though the proposals put forward are barely properly socialist) and communism. It's no wonder that there are people out there that think Americans are ignorant about politics.

Triban

Joined: 14 Jul 2009
Location: Suwon Station

Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 11:09 pm Post subject:

morrisonhotel wrote:

DWAEJIMORIGUKBAP wrote:

Take a step back, breath, and realize that there is no longer a right or a left.

DWAEJIMORIGUKBAP

Joined: 28 May 2009
Location: Electron cloud

Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 11:12 pm Post subject:

Triban wrote:

morrisonhotel wrote:

DWAEJIMORIGUKBAP wrote:

Take a step back, breath, and realize that there is no longer a right or a left.

Take a step back, then a good hard look and realsie you are out of touch with reality. There are probably pills you can take. oh, sorry I guess for 'right' I should have said 'republican' or' 'neocon' and for left I should have said, oh wait a minute, I wont even bother because they're the same thing and everyone knows what I mean anyway....

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
Page 5 of 7

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe