PDA

View Full Version : Iran building rocket bases in Venezuela



ColonialMarine0431
05-16-2011, 10:23 PM
Does anyone else see a threat here?


Iran building rocket bases in Venezuela

German paper says Iranians paid cash to build mid-range missile launch pads on Paraguana Peninsula; Iranian engineers visited site in Feb.

BERLIN – The Iranian government is moving forward with the construction of rocket launch bases in Venezuela, the German daily Die Welt wrote in its Friday edition.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is Teheran’s most important South American ally.

Iran is building intermediate- range missile launch pads on the Paraguaná Peninsula, and engineers from a construction firm – Khatam al-Anbia – owned by the Revolutionary Guards visited Paraguaná in February. Amir al-Hadschisadeh, the head of the Guard’s Air Force, participated in the visit, according to the report. Die Welt cited information from “Western security insiders.”

MORE (http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=220879)

PoliCon
05-16-2011, 10:31 PM
No more threatening than the Chinese military presence in South America . . . . Why hasn't someone done something about Hugo yet?

ColonialMarine0431
05-16-2011, 10:37 PM
Our so called leaders are just sitting on their hands. Maybe when a few missles land in Dallas they'll wake up.

PoliCon
05-16-2011, 10:44 PM
Our so called leaders are just sitting on their hands. Maybe when a few missles land in Dallas they'll wake up.

:rolleyes: this crew would claim that America deserves it and Dallas especially because JR Ewing was an oil man! :rolleyes:

Wei Wu Wei
05-16-2011, 10:45 PM
And the machine begins rolling to prepare for the invasion of Venezuela before 2020. They will take out the democratically elected Chavez and install a right-wing banana republic dictator for the sake of Freedom. :rolleyes:

djones520
05-16-2011, 10:47 PM
And the machine begins rolling to prepare for the invasion of Venezuela before 2020. They will take out the democratically elected Chavez and install a right-wing banana republic dictator for the sake of Freedom. :rolleyes:

Saddam was democratically elected as well. :rolleyes:

Wei Wu Wei
05-16-2011, 10:47 PM
We have enough nukes to vaporize every atom of any nation in the entire world. Can we please stop acting so insecure with these god damn pre-emptive invasions?

I know this all sounds a bit rash but the anti-veneuzuela propaganda has been going on for a while and the United States has a long history of overthrowing democratically elected governments for the interests of Big Business.

Rockntractor
05-16-2011, 10:48 PM
And the machine begins rolling to prepare for the invasion of Venezuela before 2020. They will take out the democratically elected Chavez and install a right-wing banana republic dictator for the sake of Freedom. :rolleyes:

Do you honestly think with their economy Chavez will last till 2020, or us on our present course for that matter.

Wei Wu Wei
05-16-2011, 10:49 PM
It's not about freedom, it's not about democracy, it's about big corporate interests and profit motives.

If you want to argue that it's about defense, then let's agree to burn them to the ground if they throw the first punch but this pre-emptive invasion strategy is insane, and is nothing more than an excuse.

If we can declare any country in the world to be "a threat", and invade them and overthrow their governments, even if they don't attack us directly, that is a totally insane precedent. We need to stop doing this shit.

djones520
05-16-2011, 10:51 PM
It's not about freedom, it's not about democracy, it's about big corporate interests and profit motives.

If you want to argue that it's about defense, then let's agree to burn them to the ground if they throw the first punch but this pre-emptive invasion strategy is insane, and is nothing more than an excuse.

If we can declare any country in the world to be "a threat", and invade them and overthrow their governments, even if they don't attack us directly, that is a totally insane precedent. We need to stop doing this shit.

So you justify using nukes to defend against conventional attacks?

Rockntractor
05-16-2011, 10:52 PM
It's not about freedom, it's not about democracy, it's about big corporate interests and profit motives.

If you want to argue that it's about defense, then let's agree to burn them to the ground if they throw the first punch but this pre-emptive invasion strategy is insane, and is nothing more than an excuse.

If we can declare any country in the world to be "a threat", and invade them and overthrow their governments, even if they don't attack us directly, that is a totally insane precedent. We need to stop doing this shit.

What is wrong with profit?

Wei Wu Wei
05-16-2011, 10:54 PM
Do you honestly think with their economy Chavez will last till 2020, or us on our present course for that matter.

The people of Venezuela love him. Obviously he isn't perfect, and has plenty of problems that need to be relentlessly criticized, but for the incredibly vast poor population of Venezuela, Chavez is the leader they've been waiting for. He is doing an awful lot to help the people who need help the most.

Anyone who tries to enact large scale changes like he has is going to be a very controversial figure, no doubt, but the poor people of Venezuela see in Chavez something they haven't seen in their lifetimes: someone who represents their interests.

Chavez is a fierce class warrior, and I understand not everyone agrees with that ideology but for an enormous population of exploited poor people, it's no wonder he is extremely popular. I think he has a great chance of making it to 2020 or longer, as long as the CIA doesn't assassinate him.


An example: People in America are all freaking out about gas prices being so high, and we're a very wealthy nation. In Venezuela, even the poor people can afford gasoline which costs about 10 cents per gallon. You may not agree with his ideology, but this is one practical example, 10 cent gasoline, that greatly helps the people who live there.

Wei Wu Wei
05-16-2011, 10:56 PM
So you justify using nukes to defend against conventional attacks?

Not really, but I'm making a point that we don't need to pre-emptively invade countries for self-defense. We are FAR more powerful than any of these nations we invade, our firepower alone is enough to ensure that America will never be defeated in a Real War waged against us by one of these poor foreign nations.

Of course I don't support using nukes against conventional attacks, I'm just saying we're so frickin strapped we don't need to act so insecure and invade every country that "threatens us".

PoliCon
05-16-2011, 10:58 PM
And the machine begins rolling to prepare for the invasion of Venezuela before 2020. They will take out the democratically elected Chavez and install a right-wing banana republic dictator for the sake of Freedom. :rolleyes:

you fucktard - democratically elected? the last election down there was more irregular than a constipated Michael Moore. :rolleyes:

PoliCon
05-16-2011, 10:59 PM
It's not about freedom, it's not about democracy, it's about big corporate interests and profit motives.

If you want to argue that it's about defense, then let's agree to burn them to the ground if they throw the first punch but this pre-emptive invasion strategy is insane, and is nothing more than an excuse.

If we can declare any country in the world to be "a threat", and invade them and overthrow their governments, even if they don't attack us directly, that is a totally insane precedent. We need to stop doing this shit.

I love how you trump FREEDOM with mob rule. :rolleyes: Holy hell are your values fucked. :rolleyes:

Rockntractor
05-16-2011, 10:59 PM
The people of Venezuela love him.

Are you so naive as to believe he would actually allow people to openly criticize him?

Wei Wu Wei
05-16-2011, 11:00 PM
What is wrong with profit?

There are times when the profit motives of a company run contrary to the interests of the people of that country.

When profits of a small group of big business owners are prioritised above the very real needs of the majority of the population, that's a problem. It's even more of a problem when these companies are foreign based companies that only exploit the massive population. It's worse of all when America decides to intervene on the interests of business at the expense of the people.



This is the issue with a Banana Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic)


When a country of poor exploited people decide to use their democratic power to elect a man who promises reform, which benefits the working poor people but hurts the profits of major foreign companies, and a foreign military power invades that country, overthrows that democratically-elected government, and installs a pro-business dictator, do you think that is okay?

Wei Wu Wei
05-16-2011, 11:02 PM
Are you so naive as to believe he would actually allow people to openly criticize him?

I'm not so naive to believe that he or his government are perfect, far from it, but compared to the people who have ruled that country before, Chavez is still a welcome relief for the majority of poor people.

PoliCon
05-16-2011, 11:04 PM
The people of Venezuela love him. Says who? The state run TV that does not allow any criticism of him on the air? :rolleyes:



Obviously he isn't perfect, and has plenty of problems that need to be relentlessly criticized, but for the incredibly vast poor population of Venezuela, Chavez is the leader they've been waiting for. He is doing an awful lot to help the people who need help the most.Which is of course why he has to out law and jail his opposition. :rolleyes:


Anyone who tries to enact large scale changes like he has is going to be a very controversial figure, no doubt, but the poor people of Venezuela see in Chavez something they haven't seen in their lifetimes: someone who represents their interests.Right because the food shortages and unemployment they have now was so very much "in their interest." Fucking dumb ass progressives with their holier than thou we know better than you how you should live your lives bullshit.


Chavez is a fierce class warrior, and I understand not everyone agrees with that ideology but for an enormous population of exploited poor people, it's no wonder he is extremely popular. I think he has a great chance of making it to 2020 or longer, as long as the CIA doesn't assassinate him.He is very popular isn't he . . . with the retarded commies on US college campi and amongest the fucktard hollywood elites.



An example: People in America are all freaking out about gas prices being so high, and we're a very wealthy nation. In Venezuela, even the poor people can afford gasoline which costs about 10 cents per gallon. You may not agree with his ideology, but this is one practical example, 10 cent gasoline, that greatly helps the people who live there. except that that artificial price has helped create other shortages in Venezuela. :rolleyes:

Wei Wu Wei
05-16-2011, 11:05 PM
I love how you trump FREEDOM with mob rule. :rolleyes: Holy hell are your values fucked. :rolleyes:

you get your definition of "Freedom" from the CATO institute and the Heritage Foundation. I know your game buddy.

when there is a popular democratic uprising against a brutal oppressive government, that is more of an expression of Freedom than any set of laws.

Poli I'll ask this to you directly:
When a country of poor exploited people decide to use their democratic power to elect a man who promises reform, which benefits the working poor people but hurts the profits of major foreign companies, and a foreign military power invades that country, overthrows that democratically-elected government, and installs a pro-business dictator, do you think that is okay?

PoliCon
05-16-2011, 11:09 PM
any regime that does not protect private property does not believe in freedom. period.

lacarnut
05-16-2011, 11:09 PM
The people of Venezuela love him. Obviously he isn't perfect, and has plenty of problems that need to be relentlessly criticized, but for the incredibly vast poor population of Venezuela, Chavez is the leader they've been waiting for. He is doing an awful lot to help the people who need help the most.

.

Why don't you move there and take a bunch of your screw ball friends?

Rockntractor
05-16-2011, 11:22 PM
Why don't you move there and take a bunch of your screw ball friends?

There is no money there. Communists would rather divide up everything we have earned through our sweat over the years. They see this country as a jackpot to divide up amongst themselves because they are more deserving than those who earned it.

Wei Wu Wei
05-16-2011, 11:23 PM
any regime that does not protect private property does not believe in freedom. period.

So freedom is all about property rights? Even more so than democracy or representative government?

So what's your opinion on Feudalism? Feudal systems protected private property like no others. They also thought private property was the single true value, even above democracy.

PoliCon
05-16-2011, 11:32 PM
So freedom is all about property rights? Even more so than democracy or representative government?

You fucking idiot - democracy is not about freedom - it's about mob rule. :rolleyes: Democracies don't give a shit about freedom - which is why our founding fathers did not give us a democracy but a REPUBLIC where freedom was codified and guaranteed as a God given right.


So what's your opinion on Feudalism? Feudal systems protected private property like no others. They also thought private property was the single true value, even above democracy.WTF are you talking about? Feudalism did not protect property rights - it protected inherited rights of supremacy and a class of elites. :rolleyes: Becuase the LORD could take what ever he wanted from the surfs. :rolleyes:

Articulate_Ape
05-16-2011, 11:35 PM
Venezuela? They have their own problems, big time. Iran too. Misery loves company, so I say let them hug each other to death. If they get feisty we give them the nuclear bombs they have been craving -- if you know what I mean.

Wei Wu Wei
05-16-2011, 11:38 PM
You fucking idiot - democracy is not about freedom - it's about mob rule. :rolleyes: Democracies don't give a shit about freedom - which is why our founding fathers did not give us a democracy but a REPUBLIC where freedom was codified and guaranteed as a God given right.

Democracy and representative government both apply to a republic ;)

Also, I'm not talking about the united states no need to sperg out



WTF are you talking about? Feudalism did not protect property rights - it protected inherited rights of supremacy and a class of elites. :rolleyes: Becuase the LORD could take what ever he wanted from the surfs. :rolleyes:

Um those ARE property rights. How on earth do you think the supreme class of elites were able to enforce their power and domination? Because they were really good looking? NO, because they OWNED ALL THE PROPERTY.

The laws that protected the ruling class in feudal systems were the right to inherent property, the right to have total control of your property, the right be gracious enough to allow serfs onto your property in exchange for a lifetime of debt and servitude. AKA - Private Property rights.

djones520
05-16-2011, 11:38 PM
Not really, but I'm making a point that we don't need to pre-emptively invade countries for self-defense. We are FAR more powerful than any of these nations we invade, our firepower alone is enough to ensure that America will never be defeated in a Real War waged against us by one of these poor foreign nations.

Of course I don't support using nukes against conventional attacks, I'm just saying we're so frickin strapped we don't need to act so insecure and invade every country that "threatens us".

And why should we put American civilians in the line of fire before we consider someone threatening enough to take out?

Worried about American Soldiers getting killed? Thanks for the thought, but I took that oath knowing it may lead to my death. So did everyone else. We're doing it to keep those civilians safe, and if it means invading some shit hole before they can start launching missiles into Florida, then I'm there ready to pull the trigger.

Wei Wu Wei
05-16-2011, 11:47 PM
And why should we put American civilians in the line of fire before we consider someone threatening enough to take out?

Worried about American Soldiers getting killed? Thanks for the thought, but I took that oath knowing it may lead to my death. So did everyone else. We're doing it to keep those civilians safe, and if it means invading some shit hole before they can start launching missiles into Florida, then I'm there ready to pull the trigger.

I'm also worried about people who are not Americans. They have lives too, they have families too, they suffer and feel pain and bleed and die just like we do.

If there is a Real War, where we must fight to defend ourselves from an enemy that is attacking or invading us or has declared war on us (like in WWII), then it is justified, but every war results in MASSIVE amounts of civilian casualties, destroys their nations, ruins their lives. We should not be so flippant about engaging in action that kills tens or hundreds of thousands of people, just because we "feel threatened".


Being the most powerful military force in the world is like being an N-th degree blackbelt in some Deadly Martial Art. It's good to have the tools and the skills, and if your life and your family's life is in direct danger then you are justified in using those skills to stop the enemy. However, you shouldn't be going around and breaking the neck of every guy who gives you a dirty look, or busting into their homes and taking them out in their sleep because you think they might attack you one day. These tools are meant to be used as little as possible. This is the first lesson people are supposed to get when they learn martial arts. We should apply this same logic on the national level.

PoliCon
05-16-2011, 11:48 PM
Democracy and representative government both apply to a republic ;)democracy applies to a republic only in the shit stained mine of a leftist who thinks communism is a good idea. A republic can integrate DEMOCRATIC principles - but that's quite different from actually being a democracy.


Also, I'm not talking about the united states no need to sperg outyou may be talking about the twisted ill informed caricature the left wants to make of the US - but you're not talking about the actual United States of America if speaking of a democracy.





Um those ARE property rights. How on earth do you think the supreme class of elites were able to enforce their power and domination? Because they were really good looking? NO, because they OWNED ALL THE PROPERTY.

You fucking idiot - they did not own ALL the property. :rolleyes: They owned all the LAND. There is more to property rights than just land. BTW - they gained control of the land through the implementation of progressivist principles. how shocking is that?


The laws that protected the ruling class in feudal systems were the right to inherent property, the right to have total control of your property, the right be gracious enough to allow serfs onto your property in exchange for a lifetime of debt and servitude. AKA - Private Property rights. You dumbass - it had nothing to do with inheriting property- more properly LAND - it was all about inheriting the TITLE because the LAND was tied to the TITLE. :rolleyes:

Wei Wu Wei
05-16-2011, 11:56 PM
You fucking idiot - they did not own ALL the property. :rolleyes: They owned all the LAND. There is more to property rights than just land. BTW - they gained control of the land through the implementation of progressivist principles. how shocking is that?

Yes that's true.

Land is one of the most primary forms of Private Property that relate to this discussion at hand. Land was the Private Property in dispute in the 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état.

Yes there is more to private property than Land, but historically speaking, in feudal times they were quite the same. In an agricultural society (like those of feudal times), Land was the primary means of production. Also, in feudal times, the rest of the tools used to work the land also belonged to the Lord, so it wasn't simply about land.

If you are talking about Personal Property (things like your home or your tv or your vehicle or the stuff that you use), then it is a different story. Private Property relates to the means of production, where many people use it and work it and contribute their own labor towards it's products - but they do not own it themselves, rather it is owned by someone else.




You dumbass - it had nothing to do with inheriting property- more properly LAND - it was all about inheriting the TITLE because the LAND was tied to the TITLE. :rolleyes:

Oh my mistake how silly of me. I thought they owned the land when really they just owned the title to the land. Boy is my face red.

Wei Wu Wei
05-16-2011, 11:58 PM
All this time I thought I owned my car too but welp it turns out I only own the title.


oh and poli, you mad?

djones520
05-17-2011, 12:59 AM
I'm also worried about people who are not Americans. They have lives too, they have families too, they suffer and feel pain and bleed and die just like we do.

If there is a Real War, where we must fight to defend ourselves from an enemy that is attacking or invading us or has declared war on us (like in WWII), then it is justified, but every war results in MASSIVE amounts of civilian casualties, destroys their nations, ruins their lives. We should not be so flippant about engaging in action that kills tens or hundreds of thousands of people, just because we "feel threatened".


Being the most powerful military force in the world is like being an N-th degree blackbelt in some Deadly Martial Art. It's good to have the tools and the skills, and if your life and your family's life is in direct danger then you are justified in using those skills to stop the enemy. However, you shouldn't be going around and breaking the neck of every guy who gives you a dirty look, or busting into their homes and taking them out in their sleep because you think they might attack you one day. These tools are meant to be used as little as possible. This is the first lesson people are supposed to get when they learn martial arts. We should apply this same logic on the national level.

If you want to talk Martial Arts, we can go there. These tools are meant to not be abused. But they are meant to be used when necessary. If you wait for the opponent to throw the first punch, you waited to long. If you wait for them to draw the knife, you waited to long. If you have the means to end the fight before it begins, then for your own safety you should. I've been a student my entire life, and that is what I have always been taught.

Innocents are caught in war. It's a sad fact. It's been so since the beginning of warfare. But the degree that the US military takes today to limit those casualties often times goes to the point that it makes it even harder to complete our mission.

When a nation who has preached that we should be destroyed is placing missiles within range of our shores, then we are only letting our people down by not reacting. I will share a thought for the innocent that may be caught in our path, but YOUR life is placed before theirs.

PoliCon
05-17-2011, 01:01 AM
Yes that's true.

Land is one of the most primary forms of Private Property that relate to this discussion at hand. Land was the Private Property in dispute in the 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état. It is one of MANY forms of private property - not the sole.


Yes there is more to private property than Land, but historically speaking, in feudal times they were quite the same. In an agricultural society (like those of feudal times), Land was the primary means of production. Also, in feudal times, the rest of the tools used to work the land also belonged to the Lord, so it wasn't simply about land. exactly - it wasn't just about land. The Lords owned the entire means of production from beginning to end and they were also the government - holy shit! Feudalism is a form of socialism! The government owns the means of production and takes from each and gives to each what they "need." :eek:


If you are talking about Personal Property (things like your home or your tv or your vehicle or the stuff that you use), then it is a different story. Private Property relates to the means of production, where many people use it and work it and contribute their own labor towards it's products - but they do not own it themselves, rather it is owned by someone else. No - it's not a different story. It's the same story. Either private property is sacrosanct or it's not. And any government that does not respect private property rights is not a government that believes in freedom.






Oh my mistake how silly of me. I thought they owned the land when really they just owned the title to the land. Boy is my face red.You really are about the stupidest fuck in the room. :rolleyes: Title as in KING or BARON or COUNT not a deed of ownership. :rolleyes: The land was attached to the TITLE. The man who inherited the TITLE inherited power over the land in return.

PoliCon
05-17-2011, 01:02 AM
All this time I thought I owned my car too but welp it turns out I only own the title.


oh and poli, you mad?

mad? annoyed. Disgusted. Fed up with having to constantly face your trolling class warfare bullshit - but mad? no.

Wei Wu Wei
05-17-2011, 02:10 AM
If you want to talk Martial Arts, we can go there. These tools are meant to not be abused. But they are meant to be used when necessary. If you wait for the opponent to throw the first punch, you waited to long. If you wait for them to draw the knife, you waited to long. If you have the means to end the fight before it begins, then for your own safety you should. I've been a student my entire life, and that is what I have always been taught.

The point is that you are supposed to use a great deal of restraint and only use force when necessary. The difference in war however, is that a preemptive strike doesn't just stop your foe before he draws a weapon, it also kills hundreds of thousands of civilians.



Innocents are caught in war. It's a sad fact. It's been so since the beginning of warfare. But the degree that the US military takes today to limit those casualties often times goes to the point that it makes it even harder to complete our mission.

This is why we should be extremely selective about what missions we choose to engage in. When the mission is some lofty goal like "ending terrorism", then we can fight literally forever, killing hundreds of thousands of innocents in the process, for the sake of "completing the mission".

Compare the number of foreign civilians who have died because of US military action since WWII to the number of US civilians who have died because of foreign military action. It's absolutely one-sided.

The inevitability of the consequences of war should not be used to downplay collateral damage, it should be one major reason for NOT entering wars unless it is absolutely necessary.

Of course different people are going to have different opinions about what's absolutely necessary, but having some shit-poor country dislike us is not a good enough reason wage a war. Having some shit-poor country threaten us isn't either. We should boost our defensive strategies, but pre-emptive invasions is not a defensive strategy, that's a war.

The blowback effects of being an aggressive global imperial force (such as militant resistance groups and terrorist attacks) will actually cause more US civilian deaths than any foreign military could if they tried to attack us. When we stomp around the entire world, invading countries pre-emptively, we just give people more reason to hate us. Being overly aggressive creates more enemies, and there is no way that we can ever "kill them all". The more civilians we kill in other countries, the more potential enemies are created.

If we put as much money and manpower into domestic counter-terrorism as we do into invading foreign countries, we could probably stop almost all terrorist attacks without killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people over the course of lengthy wars.



When a nation who has preached that we should be destroyed is placing missiles within range of our shores, then we are only letting our people down by not reacting. I will share a thought for the innocent that may be caught in our path, but YOUR life is placed before theirs.

These countries understand that America is an incredibly powerful military force. They know we have the capability to wipe their nations off the face of the planet. We should use our military might as a deterring force, keeping in mind that all military action causes collateral damage and collateral damage frequently causes blowback in the form of anti-Americanism.

Also, I love my life but I do not think that my stupid life is worth 1000 innocent poor people in another country. If saving thousands of innocent lives elsewhere puts my life at a slightly increased risk, then so be it.

Wei Wu Wei
05-17-2011, 02:35 AM
exactly - it wasn't just about land. The Lords owned the entire means of production from beginning to end and they were also the government - holy shit!

Yes. exactly.


Feudalism is a form of socialism!

No. not at all. You are using the CATO Institute definition of socialism here. You might as well be using 1942 cartoons for information about japanese culture.


The government owns the means of production and takes from each and gives to each what they "need." :eek:No - it's not a different story. It's the same story. Either private property is sacrosanct or it's not. And any government that does not respect private property rights is not a government that believes in freedom.

Why?

I hear this connection asserted all of the time, but why is Private Property equated to freedom? Why is the ability for one person to own the means of production necessary for "freedom"?

Please avoid tautologies if you can here. If all you mean by freedom is the ability for a person to control the means of production, then it doesn't do anything to explain why controlling the means of production is necessary for freedom.

I can elaborate a bit on how private control of the means of production necessarily results in economic exploitation and large scale domination and the eventual suppression of freedom, but I'll save it for if you ask.




You really are about the stupidest fuck in the room. :rolleyes: Title as in KING or BARON or COUNT not a deed of ownership. :rolleyes: The land was attached to the TITLE. The man who inherited the TITLE inherited power over the land in return.

okay big boy my mistake.


The point I intended to make, perhaps I didn't make it very well, was that this total domination over land ownership, which in an agricultural society is domination over the primary means of production, is what allowed for the feudal lords to sustain their political power. It was these legal traditions regarded property ownership that enabled the ruling class to keep their power until the merchant class was able to accumulate enough capital to challenge them politically.

This entire story is a story of people with economic power dominating the political system. This should highlight how private property laws are actually the laws which sustain systems of political domination, rather than liberation from them. Every major "progression" towards "freedom" throughout history necessarily involved breaking the ties between the current property owners and the political system. Capitalism allowed people who were not property owners to become property owners, which was a great improvement.

I do not deny that capitalism was a major step forward with regards to opening up who is able to own property, but why stop there? Why should we insist that it can go no further? Do you really think that humanity peaked and discovered absolute freedom in the 18th century? or was it the 19th century? The system has been evolving non-stop, at what point did we hit Peak Freedom?

I admit that the liberalization of property laws that came with the development of capitalism were a great leap forward towards the human project of Freedom, but I think it's silly to believe that this evolution stopped at some point.

At some point we need to realize that freedom goes beyond Private Property, and in fact, at a certain point, private property can become the limitation of Freedom.

Wei Wu Wei
05-17-2011, 02:37 AM
mad? annoyed. Disgusted. Fed up with having to constantly face your trolling class warfare bullshit - but mad? no.

you use very foul and angry language during a non-angry discussion. I understand using that sort of language in the Thunderdome, but you do it in almost every post in every forum, it's a little ridiculous.

I can only assume you are mad (or just butthurt) when you type like a frothing madman.

PoliCon
05-17-2011, 08:41 AM
you use very foul and angry language during a non-angry discussion. I understand using that sort of language in the Thunderdome, but you do it in almost every post in every forum, it's a little ridiculous.

I can only assume you are mad (or just butthurt) when you type like a frothing madman.

It's the language of ridicule. I'm done speaking nice to you when you spew utter bullshit like this. You wanna talk like a fucktard - be prepared to be called on it.

noonwitch
05-17-2011, 08:47 AM
It shouldn't be that hard to take out a bunch of targets on a penninsula. Why bother overthrowing a government with a war we can't afford when a couple of simple air strikes can eliminate the threat?

namvet
05-17-2011, 09:26 AM
http://www.moonbattery.com/animated-obama-01.gif

they do have an understanding

AmPat
05-17-2011, 09:26 AM
And the machine begins rolling to prepare for the invasion of Venezuela before 2020. They will take out the democratically elected Chavez and install a right-wing banana republic dictator for the sake of Freedom. :rolleyes:
I would tell you to stop being a fool but that would be like telling a jackass to walk upright on his hind legs. You just can't help but being what you are. :mad:

We all know your man Hugo was "DIMocRATically elected." He also has systematically destroyed that Dimocracy" that elected him.

AmPat
05-17-2011, 09:31 AM
It shouldn't be that hard to take out a bunch of targets on a penninsula. Why bother overthrowing a government with a war we can't afford when a couple of simple air strikes can eliminate the threat?
Good tactics if the intel is correct. Also, if you destroy hardware and not the turds in charge, you will just have to do all the bombing again later. Kicking an ant hill never destroys the ants, they just rebuild the hill.

PoliCon
05-17-2011, 09:43 AM
No. not at all. You are using the CATO Institute definition of socialism here. You might as well be using 1942 cartoons for information about japanese culture.

No actually - I'm using the standard economic definition of socialism. But then . . . so does CATO. :rolleyes:




Why?

I hear this connection asserted all of the time, but why is Private Property equated to freedom? Why is the ability for one person to own the means of production necessary for "freedom"? Are you serious? Even you cannot be this fucking stupid.




Please avoid tautologies if you can here. If all you mean by freedom is the ability for a person to control the means of production, then it doesn't do anything to explain why controlling the means of production is necessary for freedom.Once again fucktard - property is more than just the means of production. But if you can take from someone one form of property - no form of property is safe.


I can elaborate a bit on how private control of the means of production necessarily results in economic exploitation and large scale domination and the eventual suppression of freedom, but I'll save it for if you ask.FFS - go ahead and spout your class warfare communist bullshit - PLEASE! Make it clear to anyone and and everyone on this board just how big a fucktard you are.






okay big boy my mistake.


The point I intended to make, perhaps I didn't make it very well, was that this total domination over land ownership, which in an agricultural society is domination over the primary means of production, is what allowed for the feudal lords to sustain their political power. It was these legal traditions regarded property ownership that enabled the ruling class to keep their power until the merchant class was able to accumulate enough capital to challenge them politically.

Total domination of land ownership cannot be achieved in a free society. The feudal lords lost their domination when enterprising people began to come up with new and better ways to get things done and cut their state sponsored domination out of the loop. Only in YOUR preferred style of society can a group of people achieve hegemony over some aspect of life.


This entire story is a story of people with economic power dominating the political system. This should highlight how private property laws are actually the laws which sustain systems of political domination, rather than liberation from them. Every major "progression" towards "freedom" throughout history necessarily involved breaking the ties between the current property owners and the political system. Capitalism allowed people who were not property owners to become property owners, which was a great improvement.

FFS. YOU truly ARE a total fucktard. You love seeing things exactly the wrong way so that they support your claims of class warfare. It's not a story of people with economic power dominating the political system - its a story of people with POLITICAL power giving themselves DOMINION economically. Economic domination always comes from political domination not the other way round no matter how much Marx wants that to be the case. :rolleyes: Capitalism was born out of mercantilism not feudalism.


I do not deny that capitalism was a major step forward with regards to opening up who is able to own property, but why stop there? Why should we insist that it can go no further? Do you really think that humanity peaked and discovered absolute freedom in the 18th century? or was it the 19th century? The system has been evolving non-stop, at what point did we hit Peak Freedom?
No system that does not protect the rights of private property is a free system. The moment the system acts to TAKE from one - no matter what your bullshit reasons are for the TAKING - it stops being free.



I admit that the liberalization of property laws that came with the development of capitalism were a great leap forward towards the human project of Freedom, but I think it's silly to believe that this evolution stopped at some point. Do you hear yourself? The human project of freedom?? Evolution? Freedom is the natural state for humanity and a God given right. It did not EVOLVE. To say that it evolved is to say that it was granted by someone at some time - which also means that it can be taken away.


At some point we need to realize that freedom goes beyond Private Property, and in fact, at a certain point, private property can become the limitation of Freedom. Of course freedom goes BEYOND private property - no one is saying otherwise. :rolleyes: What has been said is that no society that fails to protect private property rights is actually free.

PoliCon
05-17-2011, 09:44 AM
It shouldn't be that hard to take out a bunch of targets on a penninsula. Why bother overthrowing a government with a war we can't afford when a couple of simple air strikes can eliminate the threat?

do you see Barry supporting such a plan? He's no JFK. :rolleyes:

Odysseus
05-17-2011, 01:11 PM
you get your definition of "Freedom" from the CATO institute and the Heritage Foundation. I know your game buddy.
And we know yours. Marx's definition of freedom is the equality of a mass grave. No thanks.


So freedom is all about property rights? Even more so than democracy or representative government?

So what's your opinion on Feudalism? Feudal systems protected private property like no others. They also thought private property was the single true value, even above democracy.
Feudalism didn't protect private property, it placed all property under the state. It's a system in which the state, in the form of a lord or other noble, owns all of the means of production. Feudalism is socialism.

I hear this connection asserted all of the time, but why is Private Property equated to freedom? Why is the ability for one person to own the means of production necessary for "freedom"?
Because all rights are derived from property rights. Think about it. What is the most basic right? The right to life, correct? But in order to sustain your life, you must produce the means to do so, either food, clothing and shelter, or goods which have value which can be traded for goods, clothing and shelter. In short, you must create property, and having created it, you must be free to trade it, save it, invest it or even destroy it.

noonwitch
05-17-2011, 01:26 PM
Good tactics if the intel is correct. Also, if you destroy hardware and not the turds in charge, you will just have to do all the bombing again later. Kicking an ant hill never destroys the ants, they just rebuild the hill.

You have a point. Who thought Castro would have stayed in power as long as he did? In 1960, no one thought he'd still be alive and in power 40+ years later. He only recently stepped down. Chavez could be around for a while, although the whackjob in Iran has a limited shelf-life.

Wei Wu Wei
05-17-2011, 07:28 PM
Because all rights are derived from property rights. Think about it. What is the most basic right? The right to life, correct? But in order to sustain your life, you must produce the means to do so, either food, clothing and shelter,


or goods which have value which can be traded for goods, clothing and shelter.

But these are distinctinctly different things. When you produce food or clothing or shelter for yourself, that is your own personal property.

When you produce a good for the purpose of trading it, you are making a Commodity.

Food and clothes that you produce for yourself are not commidities, and the commodities of food and clothes which you purchase and then use stop being commodities the moment they are taken out of the system of trade and put to use/consumed.

This clarification on the Commodity is crucial.

A person can create a good for their own use or they can create a commodity, and own it themselves before they trade it themselves, but none of this falls under the category of Private Property in the sense that I am using it here.

The problem with the Private ownership of the means of production of commodities is that other people are the ones who are imparting the necessary labor required to give the commodity it's Value, which is expressed in it's Exchange Value, which is represented in it's Price (with fluctuations occurring based on supply and demand changes). The value of a commodity originates in the labor used to create it, so the workers are the ones who, by using their labor power, create commodities. Private Ownership of the factory or land or whatever means that workers become alienated from the products of their own labor.

When I speak of Private Property, I am not talking about Personal Property (which is all of the stuff that you use or consume, that you feed yourself and your family with, including your clothes and your tv and your car and your toys and so on).

I know some people get extremely hung up on definitions, so let's just, for the sake of discussion, draw a distinction between these two.

Everything that you consume or your family consumes, that you use for their use-value (like clothing being used to clothe you, or food being used to eat) all fall under the category of Personal Property.

When you own the means of production, like say, a factory, which is used to extract value from workers who put in the labor needed to create goods, then this is Private Property.

Again, not everyone will agree with this distinction, but let's agree to use it just for this discussion:

I agree that there is nothing wrong with Personal Property, and my criticisms of Private Property are only with regard to the 2nd category listed there.

So, if we only look at the 2nd category of Private Property, why is that form of Property necessary for freedom? Why is private ownership of the means of production necessary for Freedom?


In short, you must create property, and having created it, you must be free to trade it, save it, invest it or even destroy it.

The problem here is misplacing the source of value in commodities. Value comes from the workers, because it is labor that creates commodities. Labor is the only commodity that produces more value than it's own value.

PoliCon
05-17-2011, 08:42 PM
You have a point. Who thought Castro would have stayed in power as long as he did? In 1960, no one thought he'd still be alive and in power 40+ years later. He only recently stepped down. Chavez could be around for a while, although the whackjob in Iran has a limited shelf-life.

Castro was never overthrown because the Cuban exiles living in Miami have grown fat and comfortable and LAZY and have no interest in fighting to take back what is theirs. They want someone else to hand it to them. :rolleyes:

PoliCon
05-17-2011, 09:00 PM
But these are distinctinctly different things. When you produce food or clothing or shelter for yourself, that is your own personal property.

When you produce a good for the purpose of trading it, you are making a Commodity. A commodity is nothing more than personal property you desire to exchange for other forms of personal property.


The problem with the Private ownership of the means of production of commodities is that other people are the ones who are imparting the necessary labor required to give the commodity it's Value, which is expressed in it's Exchange Value, which is represented in it's Price (with fluctuations occurring based on supply and demand changes). The value of a commodity originates in the labor used to create it, so the workers are the ones who, by using their labor power, create commodities. Private Ownership of the factory or land or whatever means that workers become alienated from the products of their own labor.
FFS - The owner of the means of production is also providing value - and is providing for others the opportunity to create private property of their own.

FOR EXAMPLE - I own a machine that can make a product. You have the skills to use the machine and produce the product - someone else owns the raw materials used by the machine to make the product. I give to the person with the raw materials private property in exchanges for private property - cash for raw materials. I then take the raw materials and my machine and come to you - make agreement to give you private property in exchange for you using your skills to turn my raw materials - private property - into a finished product - private property - using my machine - private property in exchange for cash - private property - for you skill - which is your private property. And tell me - if YOU screw up and make a faulty product who pays the price? Who has the risk? If I cannot sell the product do you still get paid?



When I speak of Private Property, I am not talking about Personal Property (which is all of the stuff that you use or consume, that you feed yourself and your family with, including your clothes and your tv and your car and your toys and so on).

I know some people get extremely hung up on definitions, so let's just, for the sake of discussion, draw a distinction between these two.Lets go with . . .NO. Private property is private property no matter what the PURPOSE of that property is. If I want to sit on it and hoard it rather than use it - it is still MINE.


So, if we only look at the 2nd category of Private Property, why is that form of Property necessary for freedom? Why is private ownership of the means of production necessary for Freedom?




The problem here is misplacing the source of value in commodities. Value comes from the workers, because it is labor that creates commodities. Labor is the only commodity that produces more value than it's own value.The workers SELL their value to the owners who then take the RISK on the results of the workers labor. Used to be that a shoe maker would make shoes and get paid when he managed to sell the shoes. Well we discovered that not every good shoe maker is a good shoe sales man and some brilliant and enterprising sales man once upon a time contracted with a brilliant shoe maker. See your fault is in assuming that there is no RISK involved ever in the process. You assume that just because someone makes a product that someone will of course buy it at a price that justifies the labor and the raw materials. Hell - factor in marketing costs . . . . research and development . . . . capital investments . . . . etc and then you learn that Marxist labor value is pure and utter BULLSHIT.

Odysseus
05-17-2011, 11:53 PM
But these are distinctinctly different things. When you produce food or clothing or shelter for yourself, that is your own personal property.

When you produce a good for the purpose of trading it, you are making a Commodity.

Food and clothes that you produce for yourself are not commidities, and the commodities of food and clothes which you purchase and then use stop being commodities the moment they are taken out of the system of trade and put to use/consumed.

This clarification on the Commodity is crucial.
It's also completely arbitrary. The goods that you create for yourself are no different than the goods that you create for sale or trade. What you dispose of is surplus, but how much of what you decide to dispose of is based on the costs vs. benefits. If I am offered enough for something that I intended to use, it becomes worth my while to sell it and use the money to either expand my production facility, buy a substitute, or go on vacation. It doesn't really matter what I choose to do with the surplus, or how much of what I produce becomes surplus, as long as the choice is mine.


A person can create a good for their own use or they can create a commodity, and own it themselves before they trade it themselves, but none of this falls under the category of Private Property in the sense that I am using it here.

The problem with the Private ownership of the means of production of commodities is that other people are the ones who are imparting the necessary labor required to give the commodity it's Value, which is expressed in it's Exchange Value, which is represented in it's Price (with fluctuations occurring based on supply and demand changes). The value of a commodity originates in the labor used to create it, so the workers are the ones who, by using their labor power, create commodities. Private Ownership of the factory or land or whatever means that workers become alienated from the products of their own labor.
Not this drivel again. "Alienation from the products of their own labor"? I can't believe that you believe this, and I'm not sure whether to pity you for your blindness, or be insulted that you presume that I'm stupid enough to buy it. You're anthropomorphizing a relationship between workers and their products, assuming emotional connections that don't exist. Have you ever had a real job? I mean, seriously, have you ever done anything besides being an academic? A software engineer isn't alienated from his code, it's what he produces. It's his product, which he exchanges for a salary. If he's any good, he takes pride in what he does, and his value as a worker is based on how well he does his job, but to pretend that he is "alienated" from the product of his labor is just absurd.


When I speak of Private Property, I am not talking about Personal Property (which is all of the stuff that you use or consume, that you feed yourself and your family with, including your clothes and your tv and your car and your toys and so on).

I know some people get extremely hung up on definitions, so let's just, for the sake of discussion, draw a distinction between these two.
No. Not for the sake of discussion, nor for any other sake. I don't do fantasy economics.


Everything that you consume or your family consumes, that you use for their use-value (like clothing being used to clothe you, or food being used to eat) all fall under the category of Personal Property.
No, it is all the same. There is no distinction. It's all private property until you choose to exchange it for someone else's private property.


When you own the means of production, like say, a factory, which is used to extract value from workers who put in the labor needed to create goods, then this is Private Property.
No. You are not "extracting" value from workers, you are making a trade. You are trading the wages that they want for the labor that you want. The end result is the product of the factory, which you sell for a profit. There is no exploitation, just voluntary contracts between people who are trading what they have.


Again, not everyone will agree with this distinction, but let's agree to use it just for this discussion:
I've got a better idea. Not everyone will agree that unicorn farts can power a city, but let's agree to use that for this discussion.


I agree that there is nothing wrong with Personal Property, and my criticisms of Private Property are only with regard to the 2nd category listed there.
Which is no different than the first category, but which you are pretending has some difference due to ideology.


So, if we only look at the 2nd category of Private Property, why is that form of Property necessary for freedom? Why is private ownership of the means of production necessary for Freedom?
Because it is all the same. If I own a single kiln, and produce X number of pots, some of which I can use, and some of which I can sell, then the only thing that determines what I keep and what I sell is how much I can realize on my initial investment of time, effort and capital. If, instead of keeping some of the pots, I sell them all, and invest in a second kiln, and take on an apprentice, I've increased my output, and provided a wage for the apprentice, who is free to save his money and buy his own kiln, or stay and work for me and spend his money on other pursuits. But, unless I own my own kiln, I can't decide to buy a second one and create more wealth. Unless I own what I produce, I cannot decide to sell more than I might have and use the surplus to expand my business. The elimination of private property eliminates my choices, my freedom to act in my own interest. That is what you are failing to understand. Without the capacity to decide how I use a surplus, the freedom to choose, I have no freedom to do anything else. Eliminating my ownership of a productive enterprise doesn't suddenly make a worker prudent, clever or diligent, it just punishes me for my prudence, planning and diligence.


The problem here is misplacing the source of value in commodities. Value comes from the workers, because it is labor that creates commodities. Labor is the only commodity that produces more value than it's own value.
No, the problem is pretending that there is a difference between what I produce for my own consumption and what I produce to sell. It all comes from the same place, and like Marx, who also never worked a day in his life, you romanticize labor that you have never done, and vilify intellectual efforts that you don't understand.

Castro was never overthrown because the Cuban exiles living in Miami have grown fat and comfortable and LAZY and have no interest in fighting to take back what is theirs. They want someone else to hand it to them. :rolleyes:
Well, getting their asses shot up after JFK pulled the air support at the Bay of Pigs might have impacted their enthusiasm a little, too.