Total Posts:63|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Communist Manifesto's Success

wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2009 4:04:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
So far, 5 out of 10 goals in the Communist manifest have been achieved (marked with an X)

(#)Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

(X)A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

(#)Abolition of all right of inheritance.

(X)Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

(X)Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

(X)Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

(#)Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

(#)Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

(#)Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equal distribution of the population over the country.

(X)Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2009 5:29:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Property was abolished, just really quietly, and replaced with a contradiction in terms known as "fee simple property," which is, in essence, ownership without ownership :).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2009 5:30:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/14/2009 5:29:26 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Property was abolished, just really quietly, and replaced with a contradiction in terms known as "fee simple property," which is, in essence, ownership without ownership :).

How's that work?
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2009 5:32:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/14/2009 5:30:33 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/14/2009 5:29:26 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Property was abolished, just really quietly, and replaced with a contradiction in terms known as "fee simple property," which is, in essence, ownership without ownership :).

How's that work?

You "own" it until the government decides you don't, otherwise known as emient domain :).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2009 5:50:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/14/2009 5:32:05 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/14/2009 5:30:33 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/14/2009 5:29:26 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Property was abolished, just really quietly, and replaced with a contradiction in terms known as "fee simple property," which is, in essence, ownership without ownership :).

How's that work?

You "own" it until the government decides you don't, otherwise known as emient domain :).

It is still "private" property, though the private is in quotations. Eminent domain is like a middle ground.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2009 6:54:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/14/2009 5:50:11 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/14/2009 5:32:05 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/14/2009 5:30:33 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/14/2009 5:29:26 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Property was abolished, just really quietly, and replaced with a contradiction in terms known as "fee simple property," which is, in essence, ownership without ownership :).

How's that work?

You "own" it until the government decides you don't, otherwise known as emient domain :).

It is still "private" property, though the private is in quotations. Eminent domain is like a middle ground.

Bringing any principle into a "middle ground" with its mortal enemy is abolishing the principle.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2009 7:17:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/14/2009 6:54:27 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Bringing any principle into a "middle ground" with its mortal enemy is abolishing the principle.

I concur with Ragnar on this.

To me, eminent violates the third amendment of the U.S. Constitution which the states must abide by.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2009 7:18:42 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I don't believe that eminent domain is just; however, I don't believe that it means that we have collective property.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 12:29:06 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/14/2009 7:17:34 PM, PervRat wrote:
At 8/14/2009 6:54:27 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Bringing any principle into a "middle ground" with its mortal enemy is abolishing the principle.

I concur with Ragnar on this.
Be careful what you concur with. Do you know what that implies?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
s0m31john
Posts: 1,879
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 12:40:10 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Agreed with R_R.

If I own property now a days I'm renting from the government. If I stop paying taxes, etc, I lose it. Doesn't sound like private, sounds like rent.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 12:54:17 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/15/2009 12:40:10 AM, s0m31john wrote:
Agreed with R_R.

If I own property now a days I'm renting from the government. If I stop paying taxes, etc, I lose it. Doesn't sound like private, sounds like rent.

With in mind, we are actually at

(X)Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

(X)A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

(X)Abolition of all right of inheritance.

(X)Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

(X)Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

(X)Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

(#)Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

(#)Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

(#)Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equal distribution of the population over the country.

(X)Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

7/10.

I've heard it's 9/10 from a few places, but I don't know the args for which ones.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 1:01:05 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/15/2009 12:40:10 AM, s0m31john wrote:
Agreed with R_R.

If I own property now a days I'm renting from the government. If I stop paying taxes, etc, I lose it. Doesn't sound like private, sounds like rent.

Umm, what?

Eminent domain has nothing to do with whether or not you pay taxes ... even if you are current on taxes, the government can seize your land if it wants to, in order to make a road or luxury condos.

If you dodge taxes, I believe the government should be able to take your property, but that's not what eminent domain is. Eminent domain is taking property from citizens who pay their taxes.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 1:34:52 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
(#)Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
Tennessee Valley authority and instruments of electricity production might count for part of that


(#)Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Wasn't there that "army of young men in the forests" in the New Deal, that all the liberals in the papers are begging to have back? As for liability of all to labor, depends on which state you're in.


(#)Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries ; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equal distribution of the population over the country.
The combination of agriculture and manufacturing isn't really political as such, but federalism has eroded and so has the independence of cities within states to a lesser extent (cause there was less to erode). The population isn't equally distributed though, but that's just silly.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 2:22:43 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/14/2009 4:04:11 PM, wjmelements wrote:
So far, 5 out of 10 goals in the Communist manifest have been achieved (marked with an X)

(#)Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

(X)A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

(#)Abolition of all right of inheritance.

Right.

(X)Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

That's not true.

(X)Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

Not true.

(X)Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

Half-true.

(#)Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

(#)Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

(#)Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equal distribution of the population over the country.

(X)Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

True.

So, not five, but two and a half.
So prove me wrong, then.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2009 9:29:27 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/15/2009 2:22:43 AM, regebro wrote:
(X)Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

Half-true.

What do you mean "half true"? Governments, local, state, and federal, own roads. There are a few private roads, but not very many.
The radio waves are owned and regulated by the government, and rented out to individuals. The same goes with the television waves and the telephone lines.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 3:40:11 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/15/2009 9:29:27 AM, wjmelements wrote:
What do you mean "half true"? Governments, local, state, and federal, own roads. There are a few private roads, but not very many.

But the traffic on it is private. Hence, half-true.

The radio waves are owned and regulated by the government, and rented out to individuals. The same goes with the television waves and the telephone lines.

But most telecommunications today aren't run on telephone lines, but on private networks of fiber or on private mobile phone networks, which indeed are regulated by the state, but still run by private companies.

Hence. Half true.

2.5 out of 10. Not success by any means.
So prove me wrong, then.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 3:41:35 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/15/2009 12:40:10 AM, s0m31john wrote:
Agreed with R_R.

If I own property now a days I'm renting from the government. If I stop paying taxes, etc, I lose it. Doesn't sound like private, sounds like rent.

Except that it isn't true. You don't lose your property because yo stop paying taxes anymore that you lose it if you stop paying private debtors.
So prove me wrong, then.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 10:06:06 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/16/2009 3:40:11 AM, regebro wrote:
At 8/15/2009 9:29:27 AM, wjmelements wrote:
What do you mean "half true"? Governments, local, state, and federal, own roads. There are a few private roads, but not very many.

But the traffic on it is private. Hence, half-true.

Hadn't thought of it that way.
Airspace, airports, seaports, roads, and highways are all owned by the state. Sure, companies rent spots in those airports and seaports and individuals can own vehicles, but they cannot use them without going through the government in one way or another, which was the objective of the goal.

The radio waves are owned and regulated by the government, and rented out to individuals. The same goes with the television waves and the telephone lines.

But most telecommunications today aren't run on telephone lines, but on private networks of fiber or on private mobile phone networks, which indeed are regulated by the state, but still run by private companies.

Mobile phone networks use radio waves, which are owned and regulated by the state, which leases them to private companies.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 10:08:50 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/15/2009 2:22:43 AM, regebro wrote:
(X)Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

Not true.

Okay, let's break this one down as well.
by means of a naional bank
The Federal Reserve
with state capital
The Dollar
and an exclusive monopoly
It is even illegal to use gold to barter for goods now. I don't see any domestic competition for the dollar and the Fed.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 10:11:29 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
To what country or countries does this apply to?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 10:16:33 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/16/2009 10:08:50 AM, wjmelements wrote:
It is even illegal to use gold to barter for goods now.

Is there any reasoning behind that?
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 10:20:35 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/16/2009 10:16:33 AM, mongeese wrote:
At 8/16/2009 10:08:50 AM, wjmelements wrote:
It is even illegal to use gold to barter for goods now.

Is there any reasoning behind that?

If there is any, I haven't found it yet.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 10:21:28 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/16/2009 10:11:29 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
To what country or countries does this apply to?

This is specifically about the United States, but most of the Western nations have at least 4 of these objectives accomplished.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 10:21:46 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/16/2009 10:20:35 AM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/16/2009 10:16:33 AM, mongeese wrote:
At 8/16/2009 10:08:50 AM, wjmelements wrote:
It is even illegal to use gold to barter for goods now.

Is there any reasoning behind that?

If there is any, I haven't found it yet.

I guess it does make the sales tax easier. Although, one could easily weigh the gold, and tax based on the weight.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 10:24:03 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/16/2009 10:20:35 AM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/16/2009 10:16:33 AM, mongeese wrote:
At 8/16/2009 10:08:50 AM, wjmelements wrote:
It is even illegal to use gold to barter for goods now.

Is there any reasoning behind that?

If there is any, I haven't found it yet.

Well not exactly an explanation but further to that Gold is heavily regulated. If you found/stole a bar of gold you can not just sell it no questions asked. At least that is my understanding.

Allowing people to barter with Gold would allow 'illegitimate' gold to enter the mainstream economy easily. I guess.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 10:25:48 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/16/2009 10:24:03 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Allowing people to barter with Gold would allow 'illegitimate' gold to enter the mainstream economy easily. I guess.

The same goes for allowing people to sell their cars and weapons.

Such an argument is weak at its core (but I don't think you really believe it anyways).
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 10:31:17 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/16/2009 10:25:48 AM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/16/2009 10:24:03 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Allowing people to barter with Gold would allow 'illegitimate' gold to enter the mainstream economy easily. I guess.

The same goes for allowing people to sell their cars and weapons.

Such an argument is weak at its core (but I don't think you really believe it anyways).

It was not really an argument, just airy fairy speculation!
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2009 8:15:06 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/16/2009 3:41:35 AM, regebro wrote:
At 8/15/2009 12:40:10 AM, s0m31john wrote:
Agreed with R_R.

If I own property now a days I'm renting from the government. If I stop paying taxes, etc, I lose it. Doesn't sound like private, sounds like rent.

Except that it isn't true. You don't lose your property because yo stop paying taxes anymore that you lose it if you stop paying private debtors.
http://www.gather.com...

At 8/16/2009 10:20:35 AM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/16/2009 10:16:33 AM, mongeese wrote:
At 8/16/2009 10:08:50 AM, wjmelements wrote:
It is even illegal to use gold to barter for goods now.

Is there any reasoning behind that?

If there is any, I haven't found it yet.
Private gold ownership was illegal in FDR's day, with exceptions for jewelry and dentists. If people were allowed to buy things with something valuable, it would have undermined the gunmint's ability to buy things with the dollar in the time of crisis, at least without making the gun naked and therefore scaring away voters.
I presume it's a precaution along similar lines.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2009 10:51:48 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/16/2009 10:08:50 AM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/15/2009 2:22:43 AM, regebro wrote:
(X)Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

Not true.

Okay, let's break this one down as well.
by means of a naional bank
The Federal Reserve
with state capital
The Dollar
and an exclusive monopoly
It is even illegal to use gold to barter for goods now. I don't see any domestic competition for the dollar and the Fed.

It says credit, not currency.
So prove me wrong, then.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2009 10:54:38 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/16/2009 8:15:06 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/16/2009 3:41:35 AM, regebro wrote:
At 8/15/2009 12:40:10 AM, s0m31john wrote:
Agreed with R_R.

If I own property now a days I'm renting from the government. If I stop paying taxes, etc, I lose it. Doesn't sound like private, sounds like rent.

Except that it isn't true. You don't lose your property because yo stop paying taxes anymore that you lose it if you stop paying private debtors.
http://www.gather.com...

Yes, and? If you don't pay your debtors, your property will be seized to pay off the debts. Taxes are no exception for this. You claimed this is somehow unique for taxes, it is not.

There is still 2.5 of 10 points in the manifesto that has happened.
So prove me wrong, then.