PDA

View Full Version : Handcuffed man beaten, tazed, and killed by Border Control Police.



Wei Wu Wei
04-24-2012, 11:47 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUz-HjQLKjg

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/pbs-airs-footage-case-illegal-immigrant-killed-border-article-1.1066053

Disturbing new footage, aired on PBS, appearing to show federal agents beating and Tasering a handcuffed illegal immigrant hours before his death sheds new light on a case that has drawn scrutiny on the U.S. border patrol.

The case of Anastacio Hernandez Rojas gained national media attention in 2010 after he died following a confrontation with border patrol agents who were trying to deport him.

Rojas, 42, and his brother were caught on May 28 sneaking from Mexico into San Diego, where he lived for more than a decade.

Rojas' family said the new videos support their claim that the agents used excessive force on him during the arrest.

The videos were aired in a PBS report called “Need to Know” on Friday.

One clip appeared to show nearly a dozen agents hitting Rojas, then repeatedly shocking him with a stun gun as he lay handcuffed on the ground at a border crossing in San Ysidro, in San Diego County.

Seattle resident Ashley Young, who said she shot the video from a nearby footbridge, told PBS she didn't see Rojas resisting and felt like she was watching "someone be murdered."


"It has been two years since Anastacio was killed, and the medical examiner ruled it a homicide, and we are still fighting to get simple discovery," the family's attorney Eugene Iredale told Reuters.

"They applied 3,000 volts of electricity over and over to a helpless, handcuffed man and left him hogtied until he was brain-dead," he said.




http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/21/us-usa-border-taser-idUSBRE83K02C20120421

In a grainy video clip shot in May 2010 on the California side of the U.S.-Mexico border, an illegal immigrant lies on the ground in a fetal position, circled by at least a dozen federal agents as one repeatedly shocks him with an electric stun gun.

....

The lawsuit, filed in January 2011, disputes federal authorities' assertions that he became combative, saying instead that Hernandez-Rojas became the victim of abuse when he asked to see an immigration judge. A border agent responded by slamming him against a wall and kicking him so hard in the ankles that it reopened a surgical wound in his lower leg.

Hernandez-Rojas was then driven to a border crossing at San Ysidro to be summarily deported, and was assaulted by a group of agents there when he again demanded medical attention and a hearing before a judge, the complaint says.

Shoved to the ground while handcuffed, Hernandez-Rojas was set upon by several agents who repeatedly punched, kicked and stomped on his head and body, then stood back as one officer administered a series of five electric shocks to him with a Taser, according to the lawsuit.

....

According to the complaint, agents then beat Hernandez-Rojas more and used plastic zip-ties to strap his ankles to his wrists, leaving him in that hog-tied position as he stopped breathing. He was resuscitated but died later at a hospital without ever regaining consciousness, the suit says.

San Diego Police Department investigators and the county medical examiner both ruled the death a homicide, according to the complaint, which names 12 federal agents and the government as defendants.

But the U.S. attorney overseeing the case cited a coroner's finding of methamphetamine in Hernandez-Rojas' body and said the agents' action was appropriate in responding to "assaultive, violent and out-of-control conduct" by Hernandez-Rojas.

The previously undisclosed footage, obtained by a lawyer for the man's family in a wrongful-death suit brought against the U.S. government, appears in a Public Broadcasting Service television documentary set to air nationally on Friday night.




-------------------------------------


The police investigation and the medical examiner cited this as a homicide. However, it's been pointed that drugs were found in his system.

Did having drugs in his system (how much, or whether they were even still active has not been released) justify this use of force that led to his death?

They claim that he was combative, and the police tazing him repeatedly screams "STOP RESISTING" as he tazes him multiple times. However, from the video taken, you can see that Rojas was on the ground handcuffed.

When you have a dozen police officers surrounding a handcuffed man on the ground, does the handcuffed man pose so much of a threat that this much force needs to be used?

What seems frightening from the claim that he was being combative, and the officer screaming "stop resisting" as he shocked the man to death, all the while seeing that the man is on the ground surrounded by trained professionals. If laying on the ground handcuffed and squirming/yelling is grounds for this level of force, we have a problem. It seems as if police know that they have a free card to use any level of force, up to and including killing someone, if they "feel they are in danger" or if the subject is "resisting". Can a police officer simply yell "stop resisting!" and kill a person, when all the person is doing is squirming on the ground? It seems so...

Bailey
04-24-2012, 12:54 PM
He shouldn't have tried to enter this country, if this happened more people probably wouldn't risk coming here. You know the old saying, you have to break eggs to make an omelet.

NJCardFan
04-24-2012, 01:16 PM
If he had drugs in his system chances are he wasn't compliant, even in cuffs hence the "stop resisting" comment. Just because you are cuffed, doesn't mean you are no longer a threat. In case you think I'm making this up, even in prison, I saw an inmate who was shackled complete with the black box kick someone in the face. In this video, you can see this guy won't stay down and is seen kicking. He's not being compliant.

Rockntractor
04-24-2012, 01:21 PM
We need landmines.

Apache
04-24-2012, 01:27 PM
Your point Wei?

Apache
04-24-2012, 01:30 PM
Can a police officer simply yell "stop resisting!" and kill a person, when all the person is doing is squirming on the ground? It seems so...

they need to do it 19,999,999 more times, just to make sure :evil-grin:

Wei Wu Wei
04-24-2012, 01:47 PM
If he had drugs in his system chances are he wasn't compliant, even in cuffs hence the "stop resisting" comment. Just because you are cuffed, doesn't mean you are no longer a threat. In case you think I'm making this up, even in prison, I saw an inmate who was shackled complete with the black box kick someone in the face. In this video, you can see this guy won't stay down and is seen kicking. He's not being compliant.

He isn't just cuffed, he is on the ground. The man doesn't get up off the ground in the video. He is handcuffed and laying on the ground surrounded by a dozen police officers. How much of a threat is he there?

What is wrong with the police force where anything other than total limp passivity is met with lethal or near-lethal force? Tell me something, and be totally honest with yourself. If you are handcuffed and laying on the ground, while a group of men beat you and taze you, would you personally even be able to lay perfectly still?

Not being compliant is something to take into account, but beating, tazing, and killing the man is in no way an appropriate response to squirming on the ground. Especially when the police have well over 10 men to help control the man.


There are eye-witnesses who say that Rojas was not fighting back.


Here's another video:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=48f_1335049318&comments=1

Warning: There are some graphic images there

Wei Wu Wei
04-24-2012, 01:48 PM
He shouldn't have tried to enter this country, if this happened more people probably wouldn't risk coming here. You know the old saying, you have to break eggs to make an omelet.

If you do not comply with the new Obamacare laws, or any other laws or regulations passed by this or any other administration, does that authorize police to beat or kill you?

Wei Wu Wei
04-24-2012, 01:50 PM
The medical examiner ruled this a homicide. It's interesting that small-government conservatives see government officials murdering a person to be a funny or good thing.

noonwitch
04-24-2012, 01:52 PM
That video is very difficult to see clearly.


The case sounds somewhat similar to the Malice Green case. If what the article says is true, they beat him in the head after the cuffs were on. He died of a head injury.

Juries are not sympathetic if it can be established that the agents continued to beat the guy after he was in handcuffs. They weren't here.

Rockntractor
04-24-2012, 01:54 PM
If you do not comply with the new Obamacare laws, or any other laws or regulations passed by this or any other administration, does that authorize police to beat or kill you?

You tell me, the socialist governments you subscribe to have. Killed hundreds of millions.


Sent from my ADR6325 using Tapatalk 2

Wei Wu Wei
04-24-2012, 02:07 PM
You tell me, the socialist governments you subscribe to have. Killed hundreds of millions.

I've never expressed sympathy or support for totalitarian governments murdering people.

You think me using a Marxist concept to analyze a situation means I support Stalinist show trials and murder? That's an extreme leap, it's laughable.

Meanwhile, people here are openly saying this event itself is a good thing, but that is acceptable?

Wei Wu Wei
04-24-2012, 02:10 PM
Juries are not sympathetic if it can be established that the agents continued to beat the guy after he was in handcuffs. They weren't here.

Juries (in fact, most people in general it seems) tend to take police statements as articles of fact.

Eyewitness accounts are up for scrutiny, victim testimony is always taken with a pile of salt, but a police report is usually taken as Factual Proof.

It's a not-so-strange psychological phenomenon.

Rockntractor
04-24-2012, 02:26 PM
I've never expressed sympathy or support for totalitarian governments murdering people.

You think me using a Marxist concept to analyze a situation means I support Stalinist show trials and murder? That's an extreme leap, it's laughable.

Meanwhile, people here are openly saying this event itself is a good thing, but that is acceptable?

You are a communist and historically all communist regimes have been murderous so I have a hard time with your supposed outrage over anything like this.

NJCardFan
04-24-2012, 02:43 PM
Funny how people who've never been in this position like to make opinions on how to handle things. As I've said, I've seen shackled inmates do damage. Also, you don't know what happened before the video started and, yes, if you're told to stop resisting then yes you will be met with force. Simple solution, when told to stop resisting, stop resisting. It's not that hard to figure out. If you're rights are being violated by being detained, fighting back isn't going to help matter much. This guy was told to stop resisting(looking at the video, he is trying to get up) and didn't listen. Also, the tazer or beating didn't kill him, the heart attack did apparently and considering the autopsy showed he had drugs in his system I don't suppose it's possible the drugs game him the cardiac arrest. :rolleyes:

Artois
04-24-2012, 02:53 PM
As I've said, I've seen shackled inmates do damage.

Also, the tazer or beating didn't kill him, the heart attack did apparently and considering the autopsy showed he had drugs in his system I don't suppose it's possible the drugs game him the cardiac arrest. :rolleyes:

You're absolutely right that a person in shackles or handcuffs can still present a danger.

Didn't the medical examiner also rule it as a homicide though? We can't take the drug results of the autopsy, and than ignore the ME's overall conclusion.

Drugs in your system can very well contribute to a heart attack when placed under sudden trauma, which unfortunately may have been introduced by the beating and tazering by the officers. A friend of mine even killed a thief just by tackling him, do to the trauma of being tackled while stressed out from running with drugs in his system. He's still battling that legal mess, years later.

For what it's worth, I wouldn't even consider passing a judgement or condemnation of the officers over a quick glance of that grainy video. I would say that it poses some questions and warrants a professional investigation though.

NJCardFan
04-24-2012, 03:36 PM
If that's the case then the officers will be dealt with accordingly. However, wee wee posting this is nothing more than a failed attempt at showing this country as a police state which is funny considering his political leanings.

Wei Wu Wei
04-24-2012, 04:23 PM
You are a communist and historically all communist regimes have been murderous so I have a hard time with your supposed outrage over anything like this.

You fixate too hard on your made up labels. I think the history of the Soviet Union was perhaps the greatest tragedy in human history. It's perhaps even more tragic than the Fascist atrocities in places like Nazi Germany, Mussolini's Italy, or Pinochet's Chile. While those things were undoubtedly horrible, they were open about their evil intentions. In the Soviet Union, they had noble goals that went horribly wrong and there is no excusing the events that occurred, for example, under Stalin.

In no way would I support a Stalinist state nor would I support a "return to the early 20th century" with a repeat of the Russian revolution. Those were absolute failures and it's important to take a real, honest look at what occurred there, rather than simply broad brushing the entire century and assuming anything associated with the Soviet Union is evil.

The unforgivable tragedy of the Soviet Union is almost matched by it's greatness, the level of advancement they made in their first 50 years as well as the level of terror, was absolutely unprecedented in all of human history

This is worthy of true academic investigation and historical analysis, not blind generalizations and uninformed blow-harding.

If you want to call me a communist, fine have fun with that, but you'll have to figure out how you define that because I wouldn't support a return to any of the 20th century communist regimes.

Apache
04-24-2012, 04:33 PM
You fixate too hard on your made up labels. I think the history of the Soviet Union was perhaps the greatest tragedy in human history..

Yet you are way too eager to bring that same shit here. IT. DOES. NOT. WORK. Nothing you, or your side stands for works, EVER!

Rebel Yell
04-24-2012, 04:36 PM
There are eye-witnesses who say that Rojas was not fighting back.


Let me guess, the eye witnesses' names are.....
Sanchez, Lupe', Hernandez, Chavez......

Wei Wu Wei
04-24-2012, 04:37 PM
Let me guess, the eye witnesses' names are.....
Sanchez, Lupe', Hernandez, Chavez......

Suppose they are, what does that mean?

Please use a logical line of reason rather than implications dot dot dot dot

Bailey
04-24-2012, 04:47 PM
If you do not comply with the new Obamacare laws, or any other laws or regulations passed by this or any other administration, does that authorize police to beat or kill you?

I'm a US citizen

Bailey
04-24-2012, 04:52 PM
Suppose they are, what does that mean?

Please use a logical line of reason rather than implications dot dot dot dot

Ya they would never lie for someone of their own kind against a gringo.

Hawkgirl
04-24-2012, 05:34 PM
Y
If you want to call me a communist, fine have fun with that, but you'll have to figure out how you define that because I wouldn't support a return to any of the 20th century communist regimes.

Please give us an example of Communist regime that you would support.

Wei Wu Wei
04-24-2012, 06:13 PM
Please give us an example of Communist regime that you would support.

I'm not able to think of an example or a description.

Hawkgirl
04-24-2012, 06:26 PM
I'm not able to think of an example or a description.
And you expect us to take you seriously with that response? My almost 3 year old would have given me a better answer.

Wei Wu Wei
04-24-2012, 06:29 PM
Ya they would never lie for someone of their own kind against a gringo.

Interesting reasoning.

Well let's take a look:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/video/video-i-think-i-witnessed-someone-being-murdered/13687/

The witness who filmed the video is Ashley Young. She is, as you put it, "of the same kind" as the "gringo" police. If you are implying that people would lie to protect "their own kind" racially, then she must be telling the truth.


There is much more of her interview, and in fact the entire PBS special here:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/video/need-to-know-april-20-2012-crossing-the-line/13640/

Wei Wu Wei
04-24-2012, 06:33 PM
And you expect us to take you seriously with that response? My almost 3 year old would have given me a better answer.

Your 3 year old can think of a new form of communist organization worthy of support? Wow. Can you?

The communist regimes of the 20th century have been tragic failures. I can't think of a new arrangement of communism that would avoid the pitfalls of the previous ones.

You are the one calling me a communist, that's your label for me. Don't act surprised when my words don't match your label. Don't act surprised when I tell you I wouldn't support a new Soviet Union, because I've always said that.

Apache
04-24-2012, 06:44 PM
I'm not able to think of an example or a description.

Why is that, Wei?

Couldn't be because it doesn't work... Nah!


Could someone quote this, so captain communist can see it? Seems the the lil' man has me on ignore :biggrin-new:

Odysseus
04-24-2012, 06:50 PM
If you do not comply with the new Obamacare laws, or any other laws or regulations passed by this or any other administration, does that authorize police to beat or kill you?

That depends on how you react when they come to arrest you.


I've never expressed sympathy or support for totalitarian governments murdering people.

Does that include the Palestinian Authority? For that matter, you do support those governments by opposing the democratic ones that have to defend themselves against them.


You think me using a Marxist concept to analyze a situation means I support Stalinist show trials and murder? That's an extreme leap, it's laughable.

No, we think that it means that you are an imbecile. That's not to say that you wouldn't have supported the show trials and murders back in the day, but since they are common knowledge, it's easier for you to feign outrage over the crimes of past progressives, if it allows you to ignore the crimes of current ones. But whenever the mass murderers of today attack the innocent, you do everything in your power to obscure the difference between victim and murderer.


Meanwhile, people here are openly saying this event itself is a good thing, but that is acceptable?

No, we just don't believe you. You are not a credible source.

Wei Wu Wei
04-24-2012, 06:55 PM
Why is that, Wei?

Couldn't be because it doesn't work... Nah!

Not exactly. That's far too broad of a brush to use here.

20th century communism did work in some regards in some countries. It also failed in some other regards in some other countries.

Overall, the horrors of 20th century communism make it unacceptable, even if some successes can be found.

I think this discussion would be better placed in a thread of it's own, but I'd be happy to continue elaborating if anyone wants to make that thread.


Could someone quote this, so captain communist can see it? Seems the the lil' man has me on ignore :biggrin-new:

I don't use the ignore function.

Odysseus
04-24-2012, 07:17 PM
Not exactly. That's far too broad of a brush to use here.

20th century communism did work in some regards in some countries. It also failed in some other regards in some other countries.

Overall, the horrors of 20th century communism make it unacceptable, even if some successes can be found.

I think this discussion would be better placed in a thread of it's own, but I'd be happy to continue elaborating if anyone wants to make that thread.

I don't use the ignore function.

Name one place where it worked. Just one.

Hawkgirl
04-24-2012, 07:23 PM
20th century communism did work in some regards in some countries.

Where?

Apache
04-24-2012, 07:31 PM
Not exactly. That's far too broad of a brush to use here.

20th century communism did work in some regards in some countries. It also failed in some other regards in some other countries.

Overall, the horrors of 20th century communism make it unacceptable, even if some successes can be found.

I think this discussion would be better placed in a thread of it's own, but I'd be happy to continue elaborating if anyone wants to make that thread.



.

Really? For someone who espouses communism, surely you can come up with one example that you support. One example that has worked...

Or you can drop the charade and admit that communism doesn't work. People don't strive, thrive or progress under communism. By its very model, communism is doomed to fail and crush those under it.

Rockntractor
04-24-2012, 08:24 PM
Really? For someone who espouses communism, surely you can come up with one example that you support. One example that has worked...

Or you can drop the charade and admit that communism doesn't work. People don't strive, thrive or progress under communism. By its very model, communism is doomed to fail and crush those under it.

In my opinion communism is only a tool that dictators use to gain absolute power, they dangle that carrot of fairness and equality, wealth sharing for all, and by the time people realize it's a hoax, it is too late.

Apache
04-24-2012, 08:27 PM
Wei, you've got three call-outs. All asking the same question...

Chuck58
04-24-2012, 08:51 PM
Suppose they are, what does that mean?

Please use a logical line of reason rather than implications dot dot dot dot

It means that Sanchez, Lupe', Hernandez, Chavez...... aren't going to side with Border Patrol. Also, in case you hadn't noticed, a sizable number of Border Patrol agents nowadays are Hispanic ancestry. I wonder how many in the video are named Garcia, Gonzales, Candelaria, etc.

Lastly, it's one less illegal to have to deal with in the future.

Apache
04-24-2012, 09:04 PM
In my opinion communism is only a tool that dictators use to gain absolute power, they dangle that carrot of fairness and equality, wealth sharing for all, and by the time people realize it's a hoax, it is too late.

That's what is going on now, for America. The problem is, too many people are fighting it. Most Americans are happy working for what they get... The lazy few and the one's like Wei are busy trying to undermine America's foundation to make a "Utopia" that, under man, can never and will never exist.

Chuck58
04-24-2012, 09:10 PM
That's what is going on now, for America. The problem is, too many people are fighting it. Most Americans are happy working for what they get... The lazy few and the one's like Wei are busy trying to undermine America's foundation to make a "Utopia" that, under man, can never and will never exist.

Well, to be fair, communism worked very well for the Politburo and those high ranking communist officials. It just sucked for all the rest of the people.

Rockntractor
04-24-2012, 09:21 PM
Well, to be fair, communism worked very well for the Politburo and those high ranking communist officials. It just sucked for all the rest of the people.

In the Soviet union as well as China most high up officials were either executed or imprisoned at some point, few died of natural causes.

Apache
04-24-2012, 09:48 PM
Well, to be fair, communism worked very well for the Politburo and those high ranking communist officials. It just sucked for all the rest of the people.

Ah yes! The EXACT thing the #Occutards are railing against... The 1%. The true 1%...

The purest form of communism, where everyone is equal, in everything, cannot be achived by mankind. Human nature itself, makes that goal unattainable. The different goals, ethics, aspirations, motivations etc. are too much for communism to overcome, thusly to maintain the illusion, power must be brought to bear. Those with power will demand more for themselves, eliminating a true communist society...



BTW Wei, still waiting...

Hawkgirl
04-24-2012, 09:57 PM
The only place people will truly be equal is in a cemetery.

Apache
04-24-2012, 10:10 PM
The only place people will truly be equal is in a cemetery.

Tell that to Ted Williams. :biggrin-new:

Wei Wu Wei
04-24-2012, 10:57 PM
Name one place where it worked. Just one.

Let's take the most obvious example: The Soviet Union.

While the history of communism in this country is something we should not repeat, we have to give credit where it's due.

In a measly 50 years, they went from a mostly agricultural peasant society to being a booming superpower. In that time they exerted the brunt of the force that defeated Nazi Germany in WWII, they became incredibly technologically advanced and were the first human beings to send a sattelite into space, the first human beings in space themselves, the first to succeed in a soft landing on another planet, and many other technological firsts. The reason the Cold War was so tense was precisely because of the magnitude of their successes.

That's not to say it didn't fail horribly in other areas, in such a way that it deserves harsh denouncement, but if we want to be intellectually honest about this we need to look at the entire picture.



Another example is Cuba in terms of literacy. Yes Cuba has a lot of problems but this is something they did extremely well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Literacy_Campaign

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/latin-lessons-what-can-we-learn-from-the-worldrsquos-most-ambitious-literacy-campaign-2124433.html


The Cuban Literacy Campaign (Spanish: Campaña Nacional de Alfabetización en Cuba) was a year-long effort to abolish illiteracy in Cuba after the triumph of the Cuban Revolution.[1] It began on January 1 and ended on December 22, 1961, becoming the world's most ambitious and organized literacy campaign.[2][3]

Before 1959 the official literacy rate for Cuba was between 60-76 %, with educational access in rural areas and a lack of instructors the main determining factor.[4] As a result, the Cuban government of Fidel Castro at Che Guevara's behest dubbed 1961 the "year of education", and sent "literacy brigades" out into the countryside to construct schools, train new educators, and teach the predominately illiterate Guajiros (peasants) to read and write. The campaign was "a remarkable success", and by the completion of the campaign, 707,212 adults were taught to read and write, raising the national literacy rate to 96 %


Before the revolutionary government nationalized schools, private institutions often excluded large segments of society; wealthy Cubans often received exemplary instruction in private schools, while children of the working class received low-quality education, or did not attend school at all.[7] Education became accessible to a much larger segment of the population after 1959. The percentage of children enrolled in school in Cuba(ages 6–12) increased dramatically over the years:

1953—56%
1970—88%
1986—nearly 100%[1]

It is estimated that 268,000 Cubans worked to eliminate illiteracy during the Year of Education, and around 707,000 Cubans became literate by December 22, 1961.[20] By 1962, the country’s literacy rate was 96%, one of the highest in the world.[11]


The statistics alone are enough to make the parent of the average British schoolchild green with envy: there is a strict maximum of 25 children per primary-school class, many of which have as few as 20. Secondary schools are striving towards only 15 pupils per class – less than half the UK norm.

Irrespective of your class, your income or where you live, education at every level is free, and standards are high. The primary-school curriculum includes dance and gardening, lessons on health and hygiene, and, naturally, revolutionary history. Children are expected to help each other so that no one in the class lags too far behind. And parents must work closely with teachers as part of every child's education and social development.

Expectations are high; indiscipline and truancy are rare; school meals and uniforms are free. Although computers in good working order may be scarce, it is not uncommon for schools to open at 6.30am and close 12 hours later, providing free morning and after-school care for working parents with no extended family. "Mobile teachers" are deployed to homes if children are unable to come to school because of sickness or disability.

Micro-universities which offer part-time and distance learning have been set up in the provinces over the past few years, as competition for the country's 15 universities has become so fierce that some require 90 per cent exam averages to guarantee entry. Adult education at all levels, from Open University-type degrees to English- and French-language classes on TV, is free and popular.

The vast majority of Cuba's 150,000 teachers have studied for a minimum of five years, half to master's level. And despite financial woes which prompted the government to recently announce one million public-sector job cuts, it has promised to keep investing in free education at all levels.

Cuba spends 10 per cent of its central budget on education, compared with 4 per cent in the UK and just 2 per cent in the US, according to Unesco. The result is that three out of five Cubans over the age of 16 are in some type of formal, higher education. Wherever you travel in Cuba, just about everyone can read and write, and many have one or more academic qualifications.

That is a remarkable success story and one that should not be ignored or denied.

Retread
04-24-2012, 11:08 PM
The Soviet Union did not have Communism regardless of the words used.

Apache
04-24-2012, 11:31 PM
Let's take the most obvious example: The Soviet Union.

While the history of communism in this country is something we should not repeat, we have to give credit where it's due.

In a measly 50 years, they went from a mostly agricultural peasant society to being a booming superpower. In that time they exerted the brunt of the force that defeated Nazi Germany in WWII, they became incredibly technologically advanced and were the first human beings to send a sattelite into space, the first human beings in space themselves, the first to succeed in a soft landing on another planet, and many other technological firsts. The reason the Cold War was so tense was precisely because of the magnitude of their successes.

That's not to say it didn't fail horribly in other areas, in such a way that it deserves harsh denouncement, but if we want to be intellectually honest about this we need to look at the entire picture.



.


Constructing this utopia was seen as though a war on poverty, exploitation, imperialism, and inequality. And for the greater good, as in a real war, people are killed. And thus this war for the communist utopia had its necessary enemy casualties, the clergy, bourgeoisie, capitalists, wreckers, counterrevolutionaries, rightists, tyrants, rich, landlords, and noncombatants that unfortunately got caught in the battle. In a war millions may die, but the cause may be well justified, as in the defeat of Hitler and an utterly racist Nazism. And to many communists, the cause of a communist utopia was such as to justify all the deaths. The irony of this is that communism in practice, even after decades of total control, did not improve the lot of the average person, but usually made their living conditions worse than before the revolution. It is not by chance that the greatest famines have occurred within the Soviet Union (about 5,000,000 dead during 1921-23 and 7,000,000 from 1932-3) and communist China (about 27,000,000 dead from 1959-61). In total almost 55,000,000 people died in various communist famines and associated diseases, a little over 10,000,000 of them from democidal famine. This is as though the total population of Turkey, Iran, or Thailand had been completely wiped out. And that something like 35,000,000 people fled communist countries as refugees, as though the countries of Argentina or Columbia had been totally emptied of all their people, was an unparalleled vote against the utopian pretensions of Marxism-Leninism.

LINK (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM)

So 12,000,000 dead by enforced starvation (note that doesn't include the Great Purge, the disappeared and those that were outright murdered) justify the space-race?

Wei Wu Wei
04-24-2012, 11:31 PM
The Soviet Union did not have Communism regardless of the words used.

Many people who call themselves communists today would agree. They would say "what the Soviet Union had was not real communism, if they had only been more true to the Communist Cause, things would not have gone so horribly".

While we can say the Soviet Union was certainly not a classless society or a stateless society, I think this is a dangerous cop-out and is more apologetic than we should be.

Whatever it is that they had, the states that referred to themselves as communist in the 20th century did terrible things and experienced horrible tragedies. We can call them whatever you want, but what's important is taking an intellectually honest look at the history there and learning from it. That means not making broad ignorant statements.

Rockntractor
04-24-2012, 11:35 PM
Many people who call themselves communists today would agree. They would say "what the Soviet Union had was not real communism, if they had only been more true to the Communist Cause, things would not have gone so horribly".

While we can say the Soviet Union was certainly not a classless society or a stateless society, I think this is a dangerous cop-out and is more apologetic than we should be.

Whatever it is that they had, the states that referred to themselves as communist in the 20th century did terrible things and experienced horrible tragedies. We can call them whatever you want, but what's important is taking an intellectually honest look at the history there and learning from it. That means not making broad ignorant statements.

Read this and get back with me.
The Great Terror: A Reassessment
Robert Conquest

http://www.amazon.com/The-Great-Terror-A-Reassessment/dp/0195317009/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1335324849&sr=8-1

Apache
04-24-2012, 11:36 PM
Many people who call themselves communists today would agree. They would say "what the Soviet Union had was not real communism, if they had only been more true to the Communist Cause, things would not have gone so horribly".

.

So you are now back-tracking. You cannot name one place where communism worked. You know there is nothing wrong with admitting that you erred...

Wei Wu Wei
04-24-2012, 11:54 PM
LINK (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM)

So 12,000,000 dead by enforced starvation (note that doesn't include the Great Purge, the disappeared and those that were outright murdered) justify the space-race?

Who are you even arguing against?

I couldn't have made it any clearer. I never said that the horrors of 20th century communism were justifiable at all, in fact I said the exact opposite.

I swear I could say the sky is blue and you'd argue just because you believe you have to argue with me.

Wei Wu Wei
04-24-2012, 11:56 PM
So you are now back-tracking. You cannot name one place where communism worked. You know there is nothing wrong with admitting that you erred...

I was paraphrasing an argument given by some people who call themselves communists, and immediately went on to say that such an argument was a cop-out.

NJCardFan
04-25-2012, 12:34 AM
Communism works. It really does. Unfortunately it only works in Fantasy Land. On paper, communism is a beautiful thing. Socialism too. But then again, I'm quite sure the game plan for the 1940 NFL Championship game for the Washington Redskins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1940_NFL_Championship_Game) looked good on paper too. See, what people like wee wee are too naive to understand is that communism is not human nature. It's not meant to lift anyone up(outside of the inner party) and it can only serve to bring people down. See, communism and socialism is supposed to make everyone equal with everyone contributing, however, reality is that with both, the few prop up the majority. After a while, the producers will stop working as hard because they'll believe, quite correctly, that there's no reason to bust one's ass if the non-producers are going to end up with the same as everyone else. Here, let Ronald Reagan teach you how this works:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZxoLR_boRg

Apache
04-25-2012, 12:57 AM
Who are you even arguing against?

I couldn't have made it any clearer. I never said that the horrors of 20th century communism were justifiable at all, in fact I said the exact opposite.

I swear I could say the sky is blue and you'd argue just because you believe you have to argue with me.

You. You were asked, multiple times, where communism has worked. You go on to extole the virtues of the USSR and Cuba, while claiming that they weren't communist. Millions in the USSR died for the technological advances, and I'd have to guess hundreds of thousands in Cuba for literacy...

You can't say, "It worked here and here, but they weren't communist." The question is simple. Where has communism worked?
The answer is equally simple. Communism doesn't work without the brute force needed to grind the human spirit to dust.

Hawkgirl
04-25-2012, 01:18 AM
Since I lived in Miami for a number years and knew many Cubans and now work with many Cubans, they would vehemently disagree with you about Communism working in Cuba. The only people it worked for were Castro and his "officers", their "schooling" is nothing but propaganda. This is not my opinion, but the opinion of Cubans who lived under Castro and fled to the US. The healthcare in Cuba is also disgusting and you'd be lucky to get a clean sheet. Again, this is from actual Cubans who lived under Castro. Perhaps Castro and his officers get the best..but the people don't.

Many of you proponents of Communism are quite ignorant of the facts and it's quite disturbing how you defend it.

NJCardFan
04-25-2012, 04:41 AM
Since I lived in Miami for a number years and knew many Cubans and now work with many Cubans, they would vehemently disagree with you about Communism working in Cuba. The only people it worked for were Castro and his "officers", their "schooling" is nothing but propaganda. This is not my opinion, but the opinion of Cubans who lived under Castro and fled to the US. The healthcare in Cuba is also disgusting and you'd be lucky to get a clean sheet. Again, this is from actual Cubans who lived under Castro. Perhaps Castro and his officers get the best..but the people don't.

Many of you proponents of Communism are quite ignorant of the facts and it's quite disturbing how you defend it.
So what you're saying is that Michael Moore lied?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLF1ORIeXPg

Novaheart
04-25-2012, 08:32 AM
There are eye-witnesses who say that Rojas was not fighting back.


There were witnesses to Oscar Grant as well. Doesn't alter the fact that he was a POS who should have been home with his kid instead of brawling on the BART on New Years Eve. Doesn't alter the fact that if he hadn't been a criminal, he wouldn't have been on the platform, and Officer Mehserle wouldn't have accidentally shot and killed him.

Illegal aliens aren't citizens, they don't belong here, they are by definition criminals, and if they weren't here then there wouldn't be incidents like this.

Novaheart
04-25-2012, 08:46 AM
He isn't just cuffed, he is on the ground.

I don't have the magic glasses that make the balcony video informative.

How blatant is this criminality of these illegals that they video tape from balconies, and threaten lawsuits.

BTW- five children. Do the math on that one. Two illegals with five children. That's 30 million more people on top of the 12 million illegals in one generation. In 16-18 years that 30 million will double itself.

30 million children of illegals is 360 BILLION DOLLARS in automatic public expense. That's not counting their healthcare, food stamps, and other social services.

It's sad that Rojas is dead. Why, it wasn't that long ago that my dad had his first heart attack. Of course, he didn't have meth in his system. Funny how that woman (who apparently doesn't speak English) thinks that we should take into consideration that Rojas had five kids, but blows right past the meth.

Being an adult means taking a hard position where emotions vie for equal time. Rojas was an illegal aliens, and now he's an example and a warning. Period.

Apocalypse
04-25-2012, 09:21 AM
Did a quick search on this as the only souces seem to be liberal. Found this.


The medical examiner also said methamphetamines and hypertension played a role in Rojas’ death.

When asked if Rojas may have died from a combination of methamphetamines and a heart attack instead of a brutal beating, Ramirez responded, “Well whatever, that’s what we want to make sure. ”

Bailey
04-25-2012, 11:09 AM
There were witnesses to Oscar Grant as well. Doesn't alter the fact that he was a POS who should have been home with his kid instead of brawling on the BART on New Years Eve. Doesn't alter the fact that if he hadn't been a criminal, he wouldn't have been on the platform, and Officer Mehserle wouldn't have accidentally shot and killed him.

Illegal aliens aren't citizens, they don't belong here, they are by definition criminals, and if they weren't here then there wouldn't be incidents like this.

I cant believe it but I agree with 100%, they don't deserve constitutional rights like US citizens and legal residents.

Odysseus
04-25-2012, 11:09 AM
Let's take the most obvious example: The Soviet Union.

While the history of communism in this country is something we should not repeat, we have to give credit where it's due.

In a measly 50 years, they went from a mostly agricultural peasant society to being a booming superpower. In that time they exerted the brunt of the force that defeated Nazi Germany in WWII, they became incredibly technologically advanced and were the first human beings to send a sattelite into space, the first human beings in space themselves, the first to succeed in a soft landing on another planet, and many other technological firsts. The reason the Cold War was so tense was precisely because of the magnitude of their successes.

That's not to say it didn't fail horribly in other areas, in such a way that it deserves harsh denouncement, but if we want to be intellectually honest about this we need to look at the entire picture.

This ignores a host of contrary data. First, the industrialization of the USSR was accomplished through the deliberate application of mass slave labor in the gulag system. Persons who were deemed necessary to the success of a project were imprisoned on trumped up charges and put to work. This was done with engineers, doctors, scientists, laborers, you name it. In this, they were doing exactly what Peter the Great did when he built St. Petersburg, but nobody calls that a triumph of Feudalism. Second, the Russian defeat of Germany demanded some aid that they don't like to acknowledge. The US sent over 17 million tons of aid to the USSR. We did this while simultaneously fighting two fronts (the Soviets only fought on one) and arming the rest of the allied forces. Soviet industry didn't defeat Germany, US industry did. Third, the space race was begun by the Soviets with captured German scientists, but within a decade, we surpassed them. The first man in space was a Russian, but the only men to set foot on the Moon were Americans. Finally, the Soviet advances in other areas in which they threatened us during the Cold War were almost entirely the result of looted information or technologies. Their atomic bomb was built from plans provided by spies, not by innovative Soviet science. Their missile program came from the captured Germans. And, let's remember that in order to achieve their massive weapons programs, the Soviets had to starve vast sectors of their economy. The Soviets and their client states imposed harsh deprivations on their populations in order to build their arsenals, and yet their weapons were, by and large, utter crap when compared to ours, and failed dismally when put to use against ours. For example, the Bekaa Valley campaign during the first Lebanese war pitted Israelis flying American fighters and using American doctrine against Syrians using Soviet fighters and Soviet doctrine, with the end result of the complete destruction of the Syrian air force, against one Israeli loss due to mechanical failure. Desert Storm showed what happened when US M1 Abrams tanks met T-72s for the first time (no Abrams losses, compared to the utter destruction of every T-72 engaged). Despite beggaring themselves and their neighbors and satellites, destroying their previously productive economic sectors and devoting everything that they had to military and industrial advancement, they still failed to beat the west in exactly those areas. In other words, the best efforts of the slaves of the commissariat were nothing compared to the efforts of free people, engaged in commerce.

Nice try, Wei, but you fail again.


Another example is Cuba in terms of literacy. Yes Cuba has a lot of problems but this is something they did extremely well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Literacy_Campaign

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/latin-lessons-what-can-we-learn-from-the-worldrsquos-most-ambitious-literacy-campaign-2124433.html


That is a remarkable success story and one that should not be ignored or denied.

Ignored, no. Denied? Well, let's see. Cuba claims that within one year, 1961, the literacy rate increased from 76% to 96%. Was this independently verified? Ever? Or is this the same kind of accomplishment that communist states routinely claim, but never actually prove? Like the completion of the last several five-year plans, or the last record wheat harvest that somehow never manages to produce as much bread as the previous ones? Or the elections in which Castro routinely receives 99% of the vote? Or those magnificent Cuban hospitals that somehow managed to burn Hugo Chavez during his radiation treatments for a form of cancer that has a far higher survival rate in the US?

It's Potemkin literacy.


Many people who call themselves communists today would agree. They would say "what the Soviet Union had was not real communism, if they had only been more true to the Communist Cause, things would not have gone so horribly".

When the Soviet Union collapsed, I made it a point to walk past Revolution Books in NYC in order to see the party line. They had a big banner in their window that read, "Phony Communism is Dead! Mao More Than Ever!" A week before that, they were firm supporters of the Soviets. Like Stalin, they had retroactively erased the Soviets from the communist sphere. Now you are doing the same thing.


While we can say the Soviet Union was certainly not a classless society or a stateless society, I think this is a dangerous cop-out and is more apologetic than we should be.

Would you like me to post how many times you have made exactly this cop-out?


Whatever it is that they had, the states that referred to themselves as communist in the 20th century did terrible things and experienced horrible tragedies. We can call them whatever you want, but what's important is taking an intellectually honest look at the history there and learning from it. That means not making broad ignorant statements.

There is nothing ignorant in saying that communism doesn't work. It has failed whenever it has been applied, and only the retroactive redefinition of the application as somehow not being truly communist obscures this. The truly ignorant statement is that communism works in theory, but not in practice. Theory is proven or disproven by being put into practice. If the practice fails 100% of the time, no matter who implements it or how, then the theory is wrong and should be discarded. Your sad devotion to that ridiculous antiquated notion of economics would be quaint if it weren't for the fact that there is a school system that is foolish enough to trust you with the minds of students. Let nostalgia for Marx end with the Soviet gulags, the Chinese Laogai, the North Korean famine, the Cambodian killing fields and the rest of the charnel houses of the last century.

Bailey
04-25-2012, 11:10 AM
As someone once said "play stupid games win stupid prizes", I think they went to easy on them, there should be machine gun nests at the border mowing them down.

m00
04-25-2012, 07:56 PM
I've never expressed sympathy or support for totalitarian governments murdering people.


Aren't you an Obama supporter? And didn't Obama sign the National Defence Authorization Act into law -- which allows the federal government to assassinate US citizens on US soil without a trial? Or are you saying that governments murdering people is okay, as long as the government isn't strictly totalitarian?

Wei Wu Wei
04-25-2012, 10:31 PM
Aren't you an Obama supporter?

No I'm not.


And didn't Obama sign the National Defence Authorization Act into law -- which allows the federal government to assassinate US citizens on US soil without a trial?

Yes he did, and many stupid party-towing liberals didn't seem to have a problem with it. The conservatives I see on Fox News regularly were happy about it also.

I, however, was staunchly opposed to it.


Or are you saying that governments murdering people is okay, as long as the government isn't strictly totalitarian?

Not at all.

Rockntractor
04-25-2012, 10:36 PM
No I'm not.



Yes he did, and many stupid party-towing liberals didn't seem to have a problem with it. The conservatives I see on Fox News regularly were happy about it also.

I, however, was staunchly opposed to it.



Not at all.

Who did you vote for in the last presidential election?

NJCardFan
04-25-2012, 10:47 PM
Who did you vote for in the last presidential election?

You're not going to get an honest answer.

Odysseus
04-26-2012, 12:21 AM
No I'm not.

No? Okay, then who do you plan to vote for? Who did you vote for in 2008?


Yes he did, and many stupid party-towing liberals didn't seem to have a problem with it. The conservatives I see on Fox News regularly were happy about it also.

I, however, was staunchly opposed to it.

Why? Socialism is inherently coercive. The individual right to property is the basis for all other rights, and without it, there are no other rights. A state that demands control of property is one that recognizes no other rights. The state cannot dictate the absolute control of property without force, and the ultimate force is lethal force. For the state to control all property, it must have the power to kill its own citizens. If you favor socialism, communism or any other form of collectivist state, then you favor the state having the power to enforce its confiscatory policies with full lethality. You won't admit this, of course, and you may not even recognize it, but we do.


Not at all.

Of course not. A non-totalitarian state would govern through consensus or persuasion. It is only a totalitarian state that demands the ability to kill its people at will. Given your philosophical outlook, you therefore would not condone a non-totalitarian state killing its own citizens, but a lethal totalitarian state would not be a problem for you.

m00
04-26-2012, 04:24 PM
...The conservatives I see on Fox News regularly...


Personally, I think that's an oxymoron. Or at least, there is a very small-tent narrow definition of conservatism that seems prevalent in the media. It happens to be a big government variety. Which, when you look at who owns the media outlets, it makes some sense.

Rockntractor
04-26-2012, 04:36 PM
Personally, I think that's an oxymoron. Or at least, there is a very small-tent narrow definition of conservatism that seems prevalent in the media. It happens to be a big government variety. Which, when you look at who owns the media outlets, it makes some sense.

Not long ago I heard that fox news was 85 % registered Democrat, I wish I had saved the link.

Wei Wu Wei
04-28-2012, 11:19 AM
Who did you vote for in the last presidential election?

I voted for Obama.

I've admitted multiple times on this site that I naively got swept up in the hype and empty rhetoric, the symbolic gesture of voting for a black man, and that I still had one last shred of support for the Democratic party that had let me down many times before.

I admitted that since then I've abandoned that group of clowns and in person I am more staunchly and vocally critical of the Democratic party than I am of the Republicans.


No? Okay, then who do you plan to vote for? Who did you vote for in 2008?

I'm not sure who I plan to vote for. I'm not going to be naive though. I know my vote doesn't matter to the outcome of this election, and I know the outcome of this election doesn't really matter in the larger scheme of things. Both major parties are corporatist, big-government, socialism-for-the-wealthy, war mongering, plutocratic parties who only serve the interests those with the financial/institutional power to help them.

Getting caught up in the Dem vs GOP thing is worthless. It's just a game, just a spectacle. They hype it up just so people feel like they actually have some control over their government, but a false choice between two bad candidates isn't really exercising democratic control.

Politics should be engaged at the local level, in your community with organization. Huffing and puffing about tabloid cable news and casting a pointless vote every few years is just a pacifier.




Why? Socialism is inherently coercive. The individual right to property is the basis for all other rights, and without it, there are no other rights.

Whoa now. You're going to have to show me a line of logical reasoning to support this assertion. I understand it's a philosophic argument, but it seems to fly in the face of our most basic practices.

Children do not have to right to purchase property, but they have powerful protection of their rights to not be killed, abused, forced into slave labor, etc.

Even prisoners are given rights when they aren't allowed to purchase property.

Explain how a person having the right to own private property is a precondition or basis for their rights to life, their rights to worship freely, etc.

In a nation like Cuba, people have not had the right to own private property (means of production), but their government explicitly recognizes other rights, such as the right to free education or access to health care. This is not an argument concerning the quality of their education or healthcare so don't bother, it's about their government recognizing their rights to the education and healthcare that they do have, while denying the right to private property.

How is that possible?


A state that demands control of property is one that recognizes no other rights. The state cannot dictate the absolute control of property without force, and the ultimate force is lethal force. For the state to control all property, it must have the power to kill its own citizens.

Okay your argument is:

A. The state can only forbid control of property if they reserve the right to use lethal force.
B. A state that has the power to kill its own citizens recognizes no rights.


This line of logic applies to any state government with any laws. The United States enforces all of our laws by giving the police the authority to kill citizens if they resist the enforcement of those laws.

Our government kills people not just as a means to enforce laws (like shooting someone resisting arrest), but even as a punishment for breaking laws.

Your logic says that if a government reserves the right to kill its own citizens to enforce its authority, that said government recognizes no rights.

The United States reserves the right to kill its own citizens to enforce its authority (and it exercises this right regularly). So if your logic is sound, you must admit that the US government recognizes no rights.

NJCardFan
04-28-2012, 11:25 AM
I voted for Obama.



Say no more.

Wei Wu Wei
04-28-2012, 11:43 AM
Say no more.

http://i.imgur.com/GRW7d.jpg

Zathras
04-28-2012, 11:53 AM
http://imagemacros.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/mantis.jpg

Fixed for accuracy.

Odysseus
04-28-2012, 12:25 PM
I voted for Obama.

I've admitted multiple times on this site that I naively got swept up in the hype and empty rhetoric, the symbolic gesture of voting for a black man, and that I still had one last shred of support for the Democratic party that had let me down many times before.

I admitted that since then I've abandoned that group of clowns and in person I am more staunchly and vocally critical of the Democratic party than I am of the Republicans.

Everywhere but here, that is. Here you only criticize Republicans, and occasionally try to convince us that Obama is one.


I'm not sure who I plan to vote for. I'm not going to be naive though. I know my vote doesn't matter to the outcome of this election, and I know the outcome of this election doesn't really matter in the larger scheme of things. Both major parties are corporatist, big-government, socialism-for-the-wealthy, war mongering, plutocratic parties who only serve the interests those with the financial/institutional power to help them.

Getting caught up in the Dem vs GOP thing is worthless. It's just a game, just a spectacle. They hype it up just so people feel like they actually have some control over their government, but a false choice between two bad candidates isn't really exercising democratic control.

Politics should be engaged at the local level, in your community with organization. Huffing and puffing about tabloid cable news and casting a pointless vote every few years is just a pacifier.

Yeah, we've heard this before. If that's what you truly believe, then why are you posting here?


Whoa now. You're going to have to show me a line of logical reasoning to support this assertion. I understand it's a philosophic argument, but it seems to fly in the face of our most basic practices.

The basic practices of collectivization? Of slaughtering kulaks, the bourgeoisie, the various property owners in every state that your ilk has taken over? That doesn't fly in the face of your most basic practices, it is your most basic practice.


Children do not have to right to purchase property, but they have powerful protection of their rights to not be killed, abused, forced into slave labor, etc.

That is false. Children can own property. They are limited, based on their not being presumed to give consent to contractual agreements due to their ages, from exercising full control of their property until they reach their age of majority, but when a child does engage in commerce, they are permitted to do so provided that their interests are represented by a responsible adult.


Even prisoners are given rights when they aren't allowed to purchase property.
Prisoners cannot own or purchase property? Where is that in the law?


Explain how a person having the right to own private property is a precondition or basis for their rights to life, their rights to worship freely, etc.

Easy. The right to live is predicated on the ability to sustain your life through your own efforts. One who is not permitted to keep or dispose of the fruits of their efforts, i.e., their property, has no liberty. They cannot sustain their lives, and their other rights are similarly truncated. Every right in the Bill of Rights is predicated on the presumption of property rights. Take freedom of speech, for example. Is your speech truly free if the government can take everything that you own? Can you criticize it if your property will be forfeit as a consequence? The right to keep and bear arms is derived from the right to protect oneself, one's family and one's property. The Third Amendment, against Quartering, was a direct response to the English Crown's abrogation of property rights. The fourth Amendment explicitly cites the right to be secure in our papers, homes and persons. Need I continue?


In a nation like Cuba, people have not had the right to own private property (means of production), but their government explicitly recognizes other rights, such as the right to free education or access to health care. This is not an argument concerning the quality of their education or healthcare so don't bother, it's about their government recognizing their rights to the education and healthcare that they do have, while denying the right to private property.

How is that possible?

The sham health care and education presented by the Cuban government is an example of the absence of property rights. People who are allowed to keep and own property are free to spend it on real health care. People whose livelihoods are beyond the reach of government can choose how they and their children will be educated, and pay for it besides. People whose homes are secure do not fear a knock on the door in the middle of the night. You complain about millionaires owning more than their employees, but when the government owns everything and the people have nothing, you say nothing. Cuba is a tyranny because the people own nothing and the government owns everything.


Okay your argument is:

A. The state can only forbid control of property if they reserve the right to use lethal force.
B. A state that has the power to kill its own citizens recognizes no rights.

No. That is not my argument. My argument is that a state that forbids the ownership of private property has no constraints upon it, that it will use lethal force at will, without consequences. It is also that a government that forbids the private ownership of property will use that force in order to enforce its will against those who resist the confiscation of their property, that those who do not conform will be subjected to the full force of the state, including lethal force. That is why socialism is inherently coercive, because it must impose a unifying conformity on all people, regardless of their differences.



This line of logic applies to any state government with any laws. The United States enforces all of our laws by giving the police the authority to kill citizens if they resist the enforcement of those laws.

Our government kills people not just as a means to enforce laws (like shooting someone resisting arrest), but even as a punishment for breaking laws.

Your logic says that if a government reserves the right to kill its own citizens to enforce its authority, that said government recognizes no rights.

The United States reserves the right to kill its own citizens to enforce its authority (and it exercises this right regularly). So if your logic is sound, you must admit that the US government recognizes no rights.

Since your rebuttal is based on a complete misstatement of my argument, there is no need for me to admit anything of the sort. All governments have the authority to use force. It is the defining characteristic of government. Any transaction in which government is involved has, behind it, the threat of force. It is only the strict limitation on the power of government to encroach in areas beyond its legitimate scope that protects us from this.

Wei Wu Wei
04-28-2012, 05:37 PM
Everywhere but here, that is. Here you only criticize Republicans, and occasionally try to convince us that Obama is one.

I criticize Obama often here and have openly admitted my lack of critical thought when supporting him in 2008. I don't think I've ever seen you, or anyone else admit to being wrong or changing positions on issues here.

My opinions about liberalism have changed, I was wrong. My opinions about abortion have been loosened up through thought, reflection, and respectful discussions with conservatives. My opinions about multiculturalism, "tolerance", and identity politics have shifted. My support for Democrats and Obama has disintegrated.

I'm able to agree with conservatives on many issues, even if our perspectives don't line up. I agree with libertarians on many issues, even if our perspectives don't line up.

Have you been able to change your positions through critical thinking and talking to left-wingers? From what I read, it seems as if you are a right-wing hardliner and GOP loyalist. Is there anything you can agree with liberals or leftists on?



That is false. Children can own property. They are limited, based on their not being presumed to give consent to contractual agreements due to their ages, from exercising full control of their property until they reach their age of majority, but when a child does engage in commerce, they are permitted to do so provided that their interests are represented by a responsible adult.

You are right, children can own property through different means (such as inheritance.) What I should have said, is children cannot control property on their own, nor can they purchase property.




Easy. The right to live is predicated on the ability to sustain your life through your own efforts. One who is not permitted to keep or dispose of the fruits of their efforts, i.e., their property, has no liberty.

Okay let's take this one step at a time. There are many issues here to address, and they should be addressed separately. I hope you will not conflate all of this into one blurred question and answer it by attacking something else.

1. The right to live is predicated on the ability to sustain your life through your own efforts? If that is true, then an unborn fetus has no right to life because it cannot sustain it's life on it's own. The same applies to people in persistent vegetative states such as Terri Schavio (my spelling may be wrong here, as it often is.)

This extends on to people who are disabled.

2. If you are defining private property as a "fruit of one's efforts" (and if this should not be taken as a definition, please correct me), then businesses or business assets which are inherited are excluded from this.

3. This also brings into questions investments. If I put money into a savings account and it accumulates interest, in what way is interest accumulation a "product of labor?" (assuming labor and efforts are interchangeable).

4. This one is important. You consider private property to be the fruit of one's labor, so let's consider this. Man A works on a farm. He works the land, plants the seeds, tends the fields, harvests the crops, loads the crops up and takes them to a market where he sells them. Let's say Man A does every single step of the labor needed to produce and sell the commodities in question, including placing orders on supplies and managing the money that comes in. However, the farm land is owned by Man B. Is the commodity produced a product of Man A's labor, or Man B's labor? Which man's labor produces the "fruit" in question?

Some would say that Man B makes an investment on the land, takes out loans, and uses the money earned to pay back the loan. This is only possible though, because Man B claims ownership of the commodities which Man A produces with his labor.


They cannot sustain their lives, and their other rights are similarly truncated. Every right in the Bill of Rights is predicated on the presumption of property rights. Take freedom of speech, for example. Is your speech truly free if the government can take everything that you own?

It seems it would be as long as it's not taken as a punishment for speech. If the government seized all businesses in the nation, but the former business owners were allowed to say whatever they wanted and go on tv and write books, how is that an infringement of speech?


Can you criticize it if your property will be forfeit as a consequence?

that's a different question.

the state is allowed to punish people with death in the US, but that is not an infringement on speech, as long as you aren't killed for what you say. Do you agree with that?


The right to keep and bear arms is derived from the right to protect oneself, one's family and one's property.

The right to keep and bear arms still functions as a right to protect oneself, one's family and one's personal property. The inability to own a factory doesn't infringe on the right to bear arms.


The Third Amendment, against Quartering, was a direct response to the English Crown's abrogation of property rights. The fourth Amendment explicitly cites the right to be secure in our papers, homes and persons. Need I continue?

For the sake of having this discussions, we should make a distinction between private and personal property. You don't have to agree with this distinction being applied legally, that's fine, but in order to have a discussion where we aren't talking about different things, we should clarify our concepts.

I am discussion Private Property, which, to put it in very simple terms, means private ownership of the means of production (yes a classic marxist designation calm down). Personal property, which are the items and goods you use or consume yourself, is something different.

The 3rd and 4th amendments cover personal property, and would continue to function even without private property.

I'm not arguing that the government should confiscate all private property, I'm merely demonstrating that our rights are not necessarily tied to the right to own private property as you claim.




The sham health care and education presented by the Cuban government is an example of the absence of property rights. People who are allowed to keep and own property are free to spend it on real health care. People whose livelihoods are beyond the reach of government can choose how they and their children will be educated, and pay for it besides. People whose homes are secure do not fear a knock on the door in the middle of the night. You complain about millionaires owning more than their employees, but when the government owns everything and the people have nothing, you say nothing. Cuba is a tyranny because the people own nothing and the government owns everything.

You did not address my point whatsoever, you simply are saying cuba is bad and not free.

Cubans enjoy rights like health care and education. Yes it's true that if you are in America and you have a well paying job with good health insurance you can afford better quality health care, that is not the point and doesn't address the point. Yes it's true that if you are in America and you have the money to afford a top notch private school you will get a great education, again that has nothing to do with the argument I was presenting.

My argument is:

A. The post-revolution government in Cuba has not recognized the right to own private property (although Personal Property is fine).
B. The post-revolution government in Cuba recognizes the right for all people to have access to education and health care without paying anything out-of-pocket.
Therefore: C: A government can recognize Rights, without necessarily recognizing the right to own property.

A very simple argument.




No. That is not my argument. My argument is that a state that forbids the ownership of private property has no constraints upon it, that it will use lethal force at will, without consequences.

You will have to demonstrate this with a line of reasoning.

(Before anyone gets hysterical, as I know some people will, I should clearly state that I am not advocating this, it is a thought-experiment used for the purpose of illustrating the soundness of a philosophic argument.)

Suppose the exact same US constitution, except with an amendment that states that individuals cannot own private property (means of production), and that all means of production are collectively owned by the state.

Why wouldn't the other rights, say those in the Bill of Rights, function? If the government takes over Exxon, would that prohibit the CEO or shareholders of exxon from writing books expressing their anger about it? Would that allow police to enter the personal homes of shareholders without reasonable cause and warrants? Would that require upper management to worship Allah or prohibit them from going to church?


It is also that a government that forbids the private ownership of property will use that force in order to enforce its will against those who resist the confiscation of their property, that those who do not conform will be subjected to the full force of the state, including lethal force.

A government that has ANY laws will use lethal force to enforce those laws against those who disobey the law. How is that specific to property laws?


That is why socialism is inherently coercive, because it must impose a unifying conformity on all people, regardless of their differences.

This is just rambling (that's okay I ramble a lot too).

Wei Wu Wei
04-28-2012, 05:39 PM
Since your rebuttal is based on a complete misstatement of my argument, there is no need for me to admit anything of the sort.

I will keep trying to understand your argument using logical terms and a line of reasoning, and it helps if you keep your arguments more focused.


All governments have the authority to use force. It is the defining characteristic of government. Any transaction in which government is involved has, behind it, the threat of force. It is only the strict limitation on the power of government to encroach in areas beyond its legitimate scope that protects us from this.

Yes we consider the government to be limited to a legitimate scope, but that very scope of legitimacy has been debated since the nation was formed. A government isn't a natural physical thing with set properties or rules like the atomic weight of Helium. It's a purely symbolic, social structure that exists only as a set of concepts and relations. When you address a social symbolic entity like this as if it were a solid physical thing, you blind yourself to your own presuppositions.

Odysseus
04-28-2012, 07:09 PM
I criticize Obama often here and have openly admitted my lack of critical thought when supporting him in 2008. I don't think I've ever seen you, or anyone else admit to being wrong or changing positions on issues here.

Sure we do. I used to be pro-choice. I was a registered Democrat until 1989. I grew up and grew to the right.


My opinions about liberalism have changed, I was wrong. My opinions about abortion have been loosened up through thought, reflection, and respectful discussions with conservatives. My opinions about multiculturalism, "tolerance", and identity politics have shifted. My support for Democrats and Obama has disintegrated.

I'm able to agree with conservatives on many issues, even if our perspectives don't line up. I agree with libertarians on many issues, even if our perspectives don't line up.

Have you been able to change your positions through critical thinking and talking to left-wingers? From what I read, it seems as if you are a right-wing hardliner and GOP loyalist. Is there anything you can agree with liberals or leftists on?

This isn't about me having to prove myself to you. It's about you making unsupported statements that you cannot back up.


You are right, children can own property through different means (such as inheritance.) What I should have said, is children cannot control property on their own, nor can they purchase property.

This is true, but they can own it, and that is what matters. The government cannot unilaterally take it away from them. They have a right to own property.


Okay let's take this one step at a time. There are many issues here to address, and they should be addressed separately. I hope you will not conflate all of this into one blurred question and answer it by attacking something else.

1. The right to live is predicated on the ability to sustain your life through your own efforts? If that is true, then an unborn fetus has no right to life because it cannot sustain it's life on it's own. The same applies to people in persistent vegetative states such as Terri Schavio (my spelling may be wrong here, as it often is.)

This extends on to people who are disabled.

Nice try. The right to live is the first, most basic of rights, without which all others are meaningless. The right to sustain your life through the creation and acquisition of property is a logical corollary of that right, but if someone cannot sustain his or herself, it does not eliminate the first right.


2. If you are defining private property as a "fruit of one's efforts" (and if this should not be taken as a definition, please correct me), then businesses or business assets which are inherited are excluded from this.

No, again. All property is the result of somebody's efforts, either intellectual, physical or both, but the right to inherit isn't a right of the heir, it is a right of the person who bequeaths it. The property that my children will someday inherit from me is my property. When I die, my last will is the statement of how I want my property disposed of. Hence the term "last will". It is literally the last expression of my will. Their inheritance is based on my right to keep and dispose of my property as I see fit. Once it is no longer mine, then it belongs to my heirs, and it is theirs to use as they see fit.


3. This also brings into questions investments. If I put money into a savings account and it accumulates interest, in what way is interest accumulation a "product of labor?" (assuming labor and efforts are interchangeable).

My savings account is a loan to the bank, at a fixed rate of interest. It allows my money to be used for other purposes (such as mortgages, business loans, etc.). The amount of return on a loan is based on the supply of money available and the demands of various borrowers, as well as their likelihood of paying off the loan. High risk loans carry higher interest rates. My investment is a calculated risk, and calculation is effort, too.


4. This one is important. You consider private property to be the fruit of one's labor, so let's consider this. Man A works on a farm. He works the land, plants the seeds, tends the fields, harvests the crops, loads the crops up and takes them to a market where he sells them. Let's say Man A does every single step of the labor needed to produce and sell the commodities in question, including placing orders on supplies and managing the money that comes in. However, the farm land is owned by Man B. Is the commodity produced a product of Man A's labor, or Man B's labor? Which man's labor produces the "fruit" in question?

Nice sleight of hand there. I never equated effort and labor. You're trying to take this back to Marxist labor theory.

In answer to your question, it depends on the contract between A and B. If A is a hired hand, he gets a salary. If he is a tenant farmer, he gets a percentage of the produce or the sale. If he is a partner in the business, then he has a share of the company, based on their contractual obligations. It all depends on what they agree to, and that will depend on a variety of factors. Is land scarce or plentiful? Is labor scarce or plentiful? If land is scarce, and the labor supply is high, the deal for a laborer is going to be less lucrative than if land is plentiful and labor is scarce.


Some would say that Man B makes an investment on the land, takes out loans, and uses the money earned to pay back the loan. This is only possible though, because Man B claims ownership of the commodities which Man A produces with his labor.

Or not. The owner of the land has other options. He can let it lay fallow, parcel it out and sell it, develop it for other uses, or sit in one corner of it and paint landscapes all day. You are attempting to apply an arbitrary morality to voluntary transactions which are completely moral with or without your approval.


It seems it would be as long as it's not taken as a punishment for speech. If the government seized all businesses in the nation, but the former business owners were allowed to say whatever they wanted and go on tv and write books, how is that an infringement of speech?

How long would the former business owners be permitted to call the government thieves on government-owned stations? Can you cite an example of a state-owned media monopoly that is permitted to criticize the state?


that's a different question.

the state is allowed to punish people with death in the US, but that is not an infringement on speech, as long as you aren't killed for what you say. Do you agree with that?

Of course.


The right to keep and bear arms still functions as a right to protect oneself, one's family and one's personal property. The inability to own a factory doesn't infringe on the right to bear arms.

A state that can take your factory, your home, your car or any other property can take your arms as well. And a state that wants to take your factory, your home, your car or any other property will start with your arms, because it will make all other resistance futile.

Odysseus
04-28-2012, 07:10 PM
For the sake of having this discussions, we should make a distinction between private and personal property. You don't have to agree with this distinction being applied legally, that's fine, but in order to have a discussion where we aren't talking about different things, we should clarify our concepts.

I am discussion Private Property, which, to put it in very simple terms, means private ownership of the means of production (yes a classic marxist designation calm down). Personal property, which are the items and goods you use or consume yourself, is something different.

The 3rd and 4th amendments cover personal property, and would continue to function even without private property.

I know what you are saying, and it is a false distinction. All property is property. My car, my house and my business are my property, and there is no difference between them. For example, if I own a house, and move, but keep it as a rental property, it becomes a business. At that point, the Marxist definition changes it from my personal property to my private property, and permits its expropriation. It's still my house, and I may have intended to retire to it somewhere down the line, but that's no longer an option. Let's say that I own a family farm, and we have a harvest. I hire temporary labor to bring in the crops, which I have nurtured throughout the year. My personal land then becomes private land. If I work my land and have a surplus that I sell, my surplus marks me as a business, rather than a subsistence farmer. My property is therefore changed arbitrarily from personal to private to public. Marx's distinction is therefore nonsensical.


I'm not arguing that the government should confiscate all private property, I'm merely demonstrating that our rights are not necessarily tied to the right to own private property as you claim.

But, as a socialist, you do advocate it. And you are wrong. Property rights are the basis of all other rights, with one exception, which I have explained above.


You did not address my point whatsoever, you simply are saying cuba is bad and not free.

If, by not addressing your point, you mean that I demonstrated that it is not valid, then you are correct. Cuba is bad, and is not free, because it has no property rights. However, since you want to play that, let's have at it again.


Cubans enjoy rights like health care and education. Yes it's true that if you are in America and you have a well paying job with good health insurance you can afford better quality health care, that is not the point and doesn't address the point. Yes it's true that if you are in America and you have the money to afford a top notch private school you will get a great education, again that has nothing to do with the argument I was presenting.

First of all, health care and education are not rights. You cannot have a right that is contingent on someone else supplying it for free. I do not have the right to uncompensated labor from someone else, because I do not have the right to make that person my slave. It doesn't matter if that person is a doctor, a teacher, or the person whose taxes pay for the doctor or teacher. The state cannot simply decide that health care or education is a right. Again, back to property: A doctor's practice, his business, is his private property. I have no right to demand his services, but I have every right to purchase them, if he is willing to sell them. If I demand his services without his consent, then I have enslaved him, and he has no rights. If the government enslaves him on my behalf, he is still enslaved. Without property rights, the doctor is a slave to the state.


My argument is:

A. The post-revolution government in Cuba has not recognized the right to own private property (although Personal Property is fine).

A false distinction, and neither is secure.


B. The post-revolution government in Cuba recognizes the right for all people to have access to education and health care without paying anything out-of-pocket.

i.e., the Cuban government has enslaved teachers and doctors, who no longer have the right to sell their services.


Therefore: C: A government can recognize Rights, without necessarily recognizing the right to own property.
Except that the government has not recognized a right, it has enslaved one group of people and forced them to provide services to another group, which it then claims is a right. However, since nobody has any rights, the health care and educational services are not rights, so much as the largess of a sovereign to his serfs. They are the bones thrown to dogs by feudal lords. If a feudal lord "recognized" a right to eat for free, and fed his serfs and dogs the same scraps, can you truly say that these are rights?


A very simple argument.

Wrong arguments often are.


You will have to demonstrate this with a line of reasoning.

(Before anyone gets hysterical, as I know some people will, I should clearly state that I am not advocating this, it is a thought-experiment used for the purpose of illustrating the soundness of a philosophic argument.)

Suppose the exact same US constitution, except with an amendment that states that individuals cannot own private property (means of production), and that all means of production are collectively owned by the state.

Why wouldn't the other rights, say those in the Bill of Rights, function? If the government takes over Exxon, would that prohibit the CEO or shareholders of exxon from writing books expressing their anger about it?
Well, for one thing, the government would own all of the publishing houses. Does Hugo Chavez permit dissent? Does Castro?


Would that allow police to enter the personal homes of shareholders without reasonable cause and warrants?

Of course it would. If you live in state-owned housing, the state has the same rights as your landlord, which is control of the property, but unlike a private landlord, it also controls the courts and the enforcement of law, therefore it can evict you at will, and if it can do that, then anything short of eviction, such as opening your doors to the police, are hardly impositions. After all, the police can simply evict you from your home and then search it. No property rights, no home ownership rights.

[QUOTE=Wei Wu Wei;500559]Would that require upper management to worship Allah or prohibit them from going to church?

It might, if the state decided that only those who worship a certain way could work in state-run enterprises, which would be all of them. That's pretty much the idea behind the various communist states' persecution of religious groups.


A government that has ANY laws will use lethal force to enforce those laws against those who disobey the law. How is that specific to property laws?

That is not true. A government in which property is privately held will not use lethal force against petty thieves, for example. It is only when the state owns all property that petty crimes become crimes against the state.


This is just rambling (that's okay I ramble a lot too).

No, it's actually a major component of my argument against socialism. Equality of results demands that the state ignore individual differences in talent and effort. A socialist state that demands the expropriation of property to distribute equally will end up giving the same-sized parcels of land to skilled farmers and unskilled urban dwellers, with the result that the former will grow food and the latter will starve. Eventually, the state will have to collect the food and redistribute it. A skilled farmer cannot buy his neighbor's land with his surplus and make it productive, and the neighbor cannot sell his parcel and use the money to build a business that he might be able to run. Stultifying conformity is imposed.


I will keep trying to understand your argument using logical terms and a line of reasoning, and it helps if you keep your arguments more focused.
Your inability to grasp my argument does not mean that it is not focused.


Yes we consider the government to be limited to a legitimate scope, but that very scope of legitimacy has been debated since the nation was formed. A government isn't a natural physical thing with set properties or rules like the atomic weight of Helium. It's a purely symbolic, social structure that exists only as a set of concepts and relations. When you address a social symbolic entity like this as if it were a solid physical thing, you blind yourself to your own presuppositions.

It is not purely symbolic. It is very real. It exercises real power. When you use phrases like "social symbolic entity", you are babbling. The government of the United States is a group of institutions, defined by law and populated according to law. It has legally mandated divisions, which have legally mandated powers which are limited by the basic documents which established it, and which were ratified by the representatives of the governed. It is real, and it is a solid, physical thing. To pretend otherwise is to attempt to deconstruct reality, but reality doesn't take kindly to being deconstructed.

Rockntractor
04-28-2012, 07:24 PM
Once again Ody mops the floor with Wei emo, everything is right with the universe.http://www.picgifs.com/smileys/smileys-and-emoticons/3d/smileys-3d-415740.png (http://www.picgifs.com/smileys/)

Wei Wu Wei
04-28-2012, 08:26 PM
Sure we do. I used to be pro-choice. I was a registered Democrat until 1989. I grew up and grew to the right.

Interesting





This is true, but they can own it, and that is what matters. The government cannot unilaterally take it away from them. They have a right to own property.

Fair enough.




Nice try. The right to live is the first, most basic of rights, without which all others are meaningless. The right to sustain your life through the creation and acquisition of property is a logical corollary of that right, but if someone cannot sustain his or herself, it does not eliminate the first right.

Well it seemed earlier you were arguing that the right to life required the right to own property, because the right to life necessitates a right to sustain oneself and property acquisition is necessary for this.

I'm curious how you argue that property acquisition is necessary for the right to life. People can and do live full lives without owning any private property.

1. If a person can live their entire life without owning private property, how can you argue that the right to life necessitates the right to property? How would a person who never owns property's right to life be affected by their inability to purchase property?

If the right to sustain oneself is not necessary for the right to life, as you say in the case of abortion, then it doesn't matter whether or not property acquisition is a right, because it's not necessary to preserve the right to life.

We can agree that a person has a right to live, but how is owning a business necessary for that?




No, again. All property is the result of somebody's efforts, either intellectual, physical or both, but the right to inherit isn't a right of the heir, it is a right of the person who bequeaths it. The property that my children will someday inherit from me is my property. When I die, my last will is the statement of how I want my property disposed of. Hence the term "last will". It is literally the last expression of my will. Their inheritance is based on my right to keep and dispose of my property as I see fit. Once it is no longer mine, then it belongs to my heirs, and it is theirs to use as they see fit.

Okay that's fine for an elaboration on inheritance rights, but I was asking how inheriting property represents the product of one's own effort? That's fine if you say it's someone else's effort and given to a person, but that doesn't explain how receiving it = effort on one's own part.






My savings account is a loan to the bank, at a fixed rate of interest. It allows my money to be used for other purposes (such as mortgages, business loans, etc.). The amount of return on a loan is based on the supply of money available and the demands of various borrowers, as well as their likelihood of paying off the loan. High risk loans carry higher interest rates. My investment is a calculated risk, and calculation is effort, too.

So you are saying that the mental decision required to put money into an account that will accumulate interest is the effort that makes interest a "product of one's effort?"

It sounds like you are saying anything at all, including making a decision counts as effort. Does deciding to wake up, get dressed, and walk several blocks to a welfare office to get money that you've calculated into your budget count as effort?




Nice sleight of hand there. I never equated effort and labor. You're trying to take this back to Marxist labor theory.

I figured you may not agree that effort is the same as labor, which opens up the door for any sort of labor, as in the welfare example listed above.


In answer to your question, it depends on the contract between A and B. If A is a hired hand, he gets a salary. If he is a tenant farmer, he gets a percentage of the produce or the sale. If he is a partner in the business, then he has a share of the company, based on their contractual obligations. It all depends on what they agree to, and that will depend on a variety of factors. Is land scarce or plentiful? Is labor scarce or plentiful? If land is scarce, and the labor supply is high, the deal for a laborer is going to be less lucrative than if land is plentiful and labor is scarce.

Assume A is a hired hand. You are saying the commodities produced by A's labor belong to B and a portion is given to A because of an agreement between A and B?

What this means then, is that the fruits of the labor belong to whom they belong to because of a social agreement, rather than simply going to the person who did the work to produce it. The commodity produced does not go to the person who's effort produced it. It belongs to the person who owns it and is divided up according to an agreement.

Workers work for wages precisely because they do not own the products of their own labor. This economic relationship between the owner of the land and the worker of the land only functions because the worker does not own the products that he produces with his labor.

Therefore, your implication that private property is the product of one's own labor is incorrect. It's an expression of a social relationship. A owner of private property can "earn" money without doing a single iota of work towards producing goods, selling goods, or running the business (as if often done by shareholders of companies).

Private property can belong to someone without them doing any productive work whatsoever, while a person who do all the work can have no ownership over the property.




Or not. The owner of the land has other options. He can let it lay fallow, parcel it out and sell it, develop it for other uses, or sit in one corner of it and paint landscapes all day. You are attempting to apply an arbitrary morality to voluntary transactions which are completely moral with or without your approval.

I'm not ascribing morality to it.




How long would the former business owners be permitted to call the government thieves on government-owned stations? Can you cite an example of a state-owned media monopoly that is permitted to criticize the state?

Are you saying that the people who own the media control the messages? Is this true when the media is owned my mega-corporations?

Also, non-profit organizations can and do produce news media. If an organization is not producing a commodity, it's not a private business and wouldn't be government controlled.

What would stop a non-profit organization from speaking their mind?






A state that can take your factory, your home, your car or any other property can take your arms as well. And a state that wants to take your factory, your home, your car or any other property will start with your arms, because it will make all other resistance futile.

A state interesed in private property would have no interest in your car or your home or your record collection or anything else like that.

Wei Wu Wei
04-28-2012, 09:14 PM
I know what you are saying, and it is a false distinction. All property is property.

Again, you don't have to agree with this in a legal sense, but the distinction is important because when I say "no private property", I'm not talking about any goods for individual use. Property that is used to produce commodities to be sold on the market for profit is different than property that you consume for their own uses.

A house used for shelter is not the same as a house used for rent. Private property requires other people, a flow of money, and economic activity.


My car, my house and my business are my property, and there is no difference between them. For example, if I own a house, and move, but keep it as a rental property, it becomes a business. At that point, the Marxist definition changes it from my personal property to my private property, and permits its expropriation. It's still my house, and I may have intended to retire to it somewhere down the line, but that's no longer an option. Let's say that I own a family farm, and we have a harvest. I hire temporary labor to bring in the crops, which I have nurtured throughout the year. My personal land then becomes private land. If I work my land and have a surplus that I sell, my surplus marks me as a business, rather than a subsistence farmer. My property is therefore changed arbitrarily from personal to private to public. Marx's distinction is therefore nonsensical.


It's not nonsensical and existing US laws already recognize the difference between these. I'll give a simple example:

Say I purchase a movie, Iron Man 2. That DVD belongs to me, it's my Personal Property. I can watch it, I can make wind chimes out of it, I can submerge it in water, I can eat it if I so choose. If I play it on a big screen tv and eat popcorn that is perfectly fine. However, if I decide to charge people to come into my house and watch the movie, it's different.

How is that different? Why is it that playing it on the tv is fine, but charging people to see it is not? It's because US law recognizes a difference between property that is used for your own consumption and property that is used as a business to generate money.

In a sense, the law already recognizes the difference between Personal Property and Private Property. So let's use your logic:

It's my DVD and there is no difference between property I own and property I use to generate money. I can put the DVD into my DVD player and that's fine, but at some arbitrary moment, when I charge money for my friends to come watch, it becomes illegal? Even if I charge money to see it, I can still use it as Personal Property in the future. If I wanted, a month from now I could watch it myself without charging anything. So why does the law treat one of these issues differently?

It's because they are different. You own the movie for Personal use, but not for Private use. This distinction is the only way these laws can function.



But, as a socialist, you do advocate it. And you are wrong. Property rights are the basis of all other rights, with one exception, which I have explained above.

What about the freedom of religion? If the State owned all private property, how would that prevent you from going to church?

Private property owners are not allowed to discriminate based on religion, so if the state owned the property, it would be illegal for the state to do so.

In fact, millions of Americans already work for state-owned institutions and they have no infringements on their rights of religion, speech, or anything else.




If, by not addressing your point, you mean that I demonstrated that it is not valid, then you are correct. Cuba is bad, and is not free, because it has no property rights. However, since you want to play that, let's have at it again.

First of all, health care and education are not rights.

The government recognizes them as rights.



You cannot have a right that is contingent on someone else supplying it for free. I do not have the right to uncompensated labor from someone else, because I do not have the right to make that person my slave.

Just because you don't pay them doesn't mean they are not paid. If someone breaks into my home and the police come, I don't have to hand them my credit card to pay for them, and they are not slaves.

I have a right to be secure in my person and home, and the police are meant to protect that right, and the police are a free service. It's true that they are paid with taxes, but even if a person doesn't pay taxes, they still have the right to equal protection under the law.

So you can, indeed have a right that is contingent on someone else supplying it for free.


It doesn't matter if that person is a doctor, a teacher, or the person whose taxes pay for the doctor or teacher. The state cannot simply decide that health care or education is a right.

Why not? It seems that your argument that you can't have a right that is contingent on someone else supplying it for free doesn't hold up.

Do you have another argument, or can you refine your first argument to address my criticism?


Again, back to property: A doctor's practice, his business, is his private property. I have no right to demand his services, but I have every right to purchase them, if he is willing to sell them. If I demand his services without his consent, then I have enslaved him, and he has no rights. If the government enslaves him on my behalf, he is still enslaved. Without property rights, the doctor is a slave to the state.

Are public school teachers slaves? Parents and children have a right to demand their services without paying them, and tax payers foot the bill for that too.








Except that the government has not recognized a right, it has enslaved one group of people and forced them to provide services to another group, which it then claims is a right. However, since nobody has any rights, the health care and educational services are not rights, so much as the largess of a sovereign to his serfs. They are the bones thrown to dogs by feudal lords. If a feudal lord "recognized" a right to eat for free, and fed his serfs and dogs the same scraps, can you truly say that these are rights?

Are you a slave? You work for the government. I don't have to write you a check to do your job, even if that job benefits me. If the US is invaded by a foreign army I can demand that the military work to defend the nation, without having to pay upfront.

Now I know you are going to try to illustrate the difference between government functions that are necessary and constitutionally authorized vs those that are not. However, before you do, I should point out that that is an argument about the role of the government, not an argument about what is at hand here.

What we are discussing here is whether you can have a right that requires someone else to do something without you paying them up front. Police, military, teachers, social workers, and all other government employees do this all the time.




[quote]Well, for one thing, the government w
ould own all of the publishing houses. Does Hugo Chavez permit dissent? Does Castro?

PBS is a non-profit media organization that regularly has right-wingers on the air espousing anti-government viewpoints.




Would that allow police to enter the personal homes of shareholders without reasonable cause and warrants?

Of course it would. If you live in state-owned housing, the state has the same rights as your landlord, which is control of the property, but unlike a private landlord, it also controls the courts and the enforcement of law, therefore it can evict you at will, and if it can do that, then anything short of eviction, such as opening your doors to the police, are hardly impositions. After all, the police can simply evict you from your home and then search it. No property rights, no home ownership rights.

First, you could still have your own home, just not be the landlord of a rented property.

Second, public housing already exists and the people who live there still have their rights. The police cannot arbitrarily enter their homes without going through the proper legal routes. The fact that these not privately owned doesn't mean you don't have rights in them.

Even if the state did have the same rights as your landlord, that still doesn't mean they have unlimited rights. Almost every state in the US has restrictions on when and how landlords can enter a home. Landlords also must give notice before evictions.




It might, if the state decided that only those who worship a certain way could work in state-run enterprises, which would be all of them. That's pretty much the idea behind the various communist states' persecution of religious groups.

That's already illegal for the state to do with it's employees. Having more employees wouldn't change that.





That is not true. A government in which property is privately held will not use lethal force against petty thieves, for example. It is only when the state owns all property that petty crimes become crimes against the state.

1. Stealing land is not petty thievery. Again, you're conflating the two forms of property.

2. Also, the state certainly would use lethal force against a petty thief who resisted the police.

3. Crimes against the state do not mean lethal punishment. Tax evasion is a crime against the state but you don't get the death sentence for it.

Wei Wu Wei
04-28-2012, 09:14 PM
No, it's actually a major component of my argument against socialism. Equality of results demands that the state ignore individual differences in talent and effort.

I'm not talking about equality of results.


A socialist state that demands the expropriation of property to distribute equally will end up giving the same-sized parcels of land to skilled farmers and unskilled urban dwellers, with the result that the former will grow food and the latter will starve.

Except that I'm not arguing about distributing wealth or property evenly.


Eventually, the state will have to collect the food and redistribute it. A skilled farmer cannot buy his neighbor's land with his surplus and make it productive, and the neighbor cannot sell his parcel and use the money to build a business that he might be able to run. Stultifying conformity is imposed.

okay





It is not purely symbolic. It is very real. It exercises real power. When you use phrases like "social symbolic entity", you are babbling.

Just because something is symbolic doesn't mean it does not effect real people.

Humans live in a world that is partially symbolic, and they react to those symbolic structures as if they were actually physical realities.

Physical reality is stuff like matter, energy, mass, momentum. Laws, social roles, organizational structures, relationships, and so on are not part of physical reality.

Although symbolic structures have real effects on people, they are not part of physical reality, and they should not be looked at in the same way that physicists look at atoms. Their status as concepts, symbols, and relationships means they need to be examined differently, taking into the account how concepts, symbols, and relationships function, rather than treating them like hard aspects of material reality.




The government of the United States is a group of institutions, defined by law and populated according to law. It has legally mandated divisions, which have legally mandated powers which are limited by the basic documents which established it, and which were ratified by the representatives of the governed. It is real, and it is a solid, physical thing.

No it's not. Law isn't a solid, physical thing.

Can you tell me the atomic weight of Law? Can you tell me the density of law at sea level? How much energy is required to accelerate Law from 0 to 100 mph in a vacuum? Which periodic elements constitute law?

It is not a physical, material thing. Neither are the relationships in question, the roles in question, etc. etc.


To pretend otherwise is to attempt to deconstruct reality, but reality doesn't take kindly to being deconstructed.

The reality humans experience is not the same as Material Reality. Humans live in a world that is full of categories, structures, relationships, names, and distinctions that are purely symbolic.

this seems like a different discussion but I'd enjoy having it.

Adam Wood
04-28-2012, 09:18 PM
The case of Anastacio Hernandez Rojas gained national media attention in 2010 after he died following a confrontation with border patrol agents who were trying to deport him.

Rojas, 42, and his brother were caught on May 28 sneaking from Mexico into San Diego, where he lived for more than a decade.They should have used a trebuchet and launched him to Guatemala.

(h/t daveman)

Odysseus
04-29-2012, 01:48 AM
Well it seemed earlier you were arguing that the right to life required the right to own property, because the right to life necessitates a right to sustain oneself and property acquisition is necessary for this.

I'm curious how you argue that property acquisition is necessary for the right to life. People can and do live full lives without owning any private property.
This is only true if you accept Marx's arbitrary distinction between private and personal property. People cannot live without food, clothing and shelter. If they rent, rather than own, they still own the money by which they pay for these things. Wages are property, too.


1. If a person can live their entire life without owning private property, how can you argue that the right to life necessitates the right to property? How would a person who never owns property's right to life be affected by their inability to purchase property?

There is no legal inability to purchase property in a free economy.


If the right to sustain oneself is not necessary for the right to life, as you say in the case of abortion, then it doesn't matter whether or not property acquisition is a right, because it's not necessary to preserve the right to life.

This argument is only valid if you accept the premise that a parent has no responsibilities to care for a minor child.


We can agree that a person has a right to live, but how is owning a business necessary for that?

Everybody who engages in commerce is the owner of a business. A laborer sells his labor, which is a commodity. The means of production for his business is his physical strength, his dexterity or his skills. That's what you don't get. The state that owns the means of production doesn't simply take control of factories, shops or infrastructure, it takes possession of us.


Okay that's fine for an elaboration on inheritance rights, but I was asking how inheriting property represents the product of one's own effort? That's fine if you say it's someone else's effort and given to a person, but that doesn't explain how receiving it = effort on one's own part.

I didn't say that it did. I also said that it down't matter. The state has no more business robbing my heirs than it does robbing my grave.


So you are saying that the mental decision required to put money into an account that will accumulate interest is the effort that makes interest a "product of one's effort?"

Absolutely. If you think that making a living from investing doesn't require effort, you need to try it.


It sounds like you are saying anything at all, including making a decision counts as effort. Does deciding to wake up, get dressed, and walk several blocks to a welfare office to get money that you've calculated into your budget count as effort?[/QUOTE[

Obviously not. It generates no economic growth. As I explained at length, an investment in a savings account is a loan to the bank. The bank pays the interest in return for the loan, and uses the principle to lend to others who are a somewhat higher risk than the bank. Those loans permit the borrowers to engage in commerce beyond the scope of their immediate resources. Money lent to a business is productive. Money given away to non-workers is not.

[QUOTE=Wei Wu Wei;500576]I figured you may not agree that effort is the same as labor, which opens up the door for any sort of labor, as in the welfare example listed above.

And yet you tried to introduce it again.


Assume A is a hired hand. You are saying the commodities produced by A's labor belong to B and a portion is given to A because of an agreement between A and B?
Yep.

What this means then, is that the fruits of the labor belong to whom they belong to because of a social agreement, rather than simply going to the person who did the work to produce it. The commodity produced does not go to the person who's effort produced it. It belongs to the person who owns it and is divided up according to an agreement.
What you casually dismiss as a social agreement is called contract law, which is the basis of all voluntary transactions.


Workers work for wages precisely because they do not own the products of their own labor. This economic relationship between the owner of the land and the worker of the land only functions because the worker does not own the products that he produces with his labor.

Therefore, your implication that private property is the product of one's own labor is incorrect. It's an expression of a social relationship. A owner of private property can "earn" money without doing a single iota of work towards producing goods, selling goods, or running the business (as if often done by shareholders of companies).

Private property can belong to someone without them doing any productive work whatsoever, while a person who do all the work can have no ownership over the property.

Risk of capital is a form of effort. The laborer risks nothing if the goods that he produces do not sell, as he is free to pursue other work. His employer is invested in a farm, factory or other productive enterprise. The risk to his investment justifies his compensation.


I'm not ascribing morality to it.

Of course you are. Why else do you object to private ownership of property?


Are you saying that the people who own the media control the messages? Is this true when the media is owned my mega-corporations?

When was the last time that you saw ABC do an expose on Disney?


Also, non-profit organizations can and do produce news media. If an organization is not producing a commodity, it's not a private business and wouldn't be government controlled.

You didn't say non-profit, you said state-controlled.


What would stop a non-profit organization from speaking their mind?

The money must come from somewhere. A non-profit isn't going to attack its donors, and if its donors include the government, or specifically one party within the government, then that non-profit will do everything in its power to ensure that it continues to have access to those grants.


A state interesed in private property would have no interest in your car or your home or your record collection or anything else like that.

Really? Then why do my heirs have to pay taxes on those things?

Odysseus
04-29-2012, 01:49 AM
Again, you don't have to agree with this in a legal sense, but the distinction is important because when I say "no private property", I'm not talking about any goods for individual use. Property that is used to produce commodities to be sold on the market for profit is different than property that you consume for their own uses.

A house used for shelter is not the same as a house used for rent. Private property requires other people, a flow of money, and economic activity.

A house used for shelter can also generate income. For example, a portion can be rented out. It can be used as collateral for a business loan. It can be a home office. Does the state have the right to take over the rooms in my home that are used for my business?


It's not nonsensical and existing US laws already recognize the difference between these. I'll give a simple example:

Say I purchase a movie, Iron Man 2. That DVD belongs to me, it's my Personal Property. I can watch it, I can make wind chimes out of it, I can submerge it in water, I can eat it if I so choose. If I play it on a big screen tv and eat popcorn that is perfectly fine. However, if I decide to charge people to come into my house and watch the movie, it's different.

How is that different? Why is it that playing it on the tv is fine, but charging people to see it is not? It's because US law recognizes a difference between property that is used for your own consumption and property that is used as a business to generate money.

Wrong again. The DVD is your property. The content of the DVD is the property of the copyright holder. The contract by which you purchase the DVD (the fine print on the back) specifies exactly what you are buying and the terms of use.


In a sense, the law already recognizes the difference between Personal Property and Private Property. So let's use your logic:

It's my DVD and there is no difference between property I own and property I use to generate money. I can put the DVD into my DVD player and that's fine, but at some arbitrary moment, when I charge money for my friends to come watch, it becomes illegal? Even if I charge money to see it, I can still use it as Personal Property in the future. If I wanted, a month from now I could watch it myself without charging anything. So why does the law treat one of these issues differently?

It's because they are different. You own the movie for Personal use, but not for Private use. This distinction is the only way these laws can function.

That is not my logic. It is your misrepresentation of the nature of property. You own the physical piece of plastic, but you do not own the movie that is recorded on it. It is protected by copyright, and is not your property. Your purchase of the DVD entitles you to view the contents, but not to charge others for it. This is a contractual agreement that is explicitly stated on the package at the time of purchase. Pretending that the movie on the disk is simply an extension of your property demonstrates either a complete lack of understanding of copyrights and intellectual property, or willful dishonesty.


What about the freedom of religion? If the State owned all private property, how would that prevent you from going to church?

Well, for one thing, the state could tear down churches at will. In fact, that's pretty much what happened to the abbey's of Britain under Henry VIII.


Private property owners are not allowed to discriminate based on religion, so if the state owned the property, it would be illegal for the state to do so.

That is not true. Private property owners do have the right to discriminate based on religion if the religion is a part of the institution. For example, a church can mandate that its employees be members of the church. Also, the current interpretation of religious liberty in that regard is an extremely narrow one. At one time, it was perfectly acceptable for individuals to choose who they would conduct business with based on religious affiliations. And, you are making a distinction between a state-owned church, which would answer to the state, and a private church which is regulated by it.


In fact, millions of Americans already work for state-owned institutions and they have no infringements on their rights of religion, speech, or anything else.

Really? I guess that you haven't been following the case of the Marine who is being dishonorably discharged for disparaging Obama.


The government recognizes them as rights.
So? If a cat has kittens in an oven, and the Cuban government recognizes them as biscuits, does that make it so?


Just because you don't pay them doesn't mean they are not paid. If someone breaks into my home and the police come, I don't have to hand them my credit card to pay for them, and they are not slaves.

I have a right to be secure in my person and home, and the police are meant to protect that right, and the police are a free service. It's true that they are paid with taxes, but even if a person doesn't pay taxes, they still have the right to equal protection under the law.

So you can, indeed have a right that is contingent on someone else supplying it for free.

Please tell me that you don't teach civics. Seriously. Or economics. That would be very scary.

Police are not providers of a service, they are law enforcement officers of the state. If you don't understand the difference between a law enforcement official who maintains public order and a doctor who provides a personal service, then you really don't understand a single thing about the public and private sectors.


Why not? It seems that your argument that you can't have a right that is contingent on someone else supplying it for free doesn't hold up.

Sure it does. You really don't understand what a right is, do you? A right isn't simply something that the state promises you. A right is a freedom to act in an area in which you are sovereign. I have the right to seek to enter into a contract to procure health care, but I do not have the right to compel a doctor to provide it.


Do you have another argument, or can you refine your first argument to address my criticism?

There's no need for another one. The first one was perfectly adequate.


Are public school teachers slaves? Parents and children have a right to demand their services without paying them, and tax payers foot the bill for that too.

Actually, parents and children have an extremely difficult time getting teachers to produce. Teachers seem to work for unions, rather than schools.


Are you a slave? You work for the government. I don't have to write you a check to do your job, even if that job benefits me. If the US is invaded by a foreign army I can demand that the military work to defend the nation, without having to pay upfront.

Actually, I'm a volunteer. I'm not a slave, but I'm far more constrained in my liberties as a condition of my employment than most people. And while you can demand anything that you like of the military, we don't take our orders from you, we take them from our chain of command.


Now I know you are going to try to illustrate the difference between government functions that are necessary and constitutionally authorized vs those that are not. However, before you do, I should point out that that is an argument about the role of the government, not an argument about what is at hand here.

But the role of government is what is at hand here. Rights do not come from government. The government cannot simply declare that something is a right and expect reality to bend to its will. A government that seeks to guarantee things that it cannot control will not be able to guarantee the things that it can control.


What we are discussing here is whether you can have a right that requires someone else to do something without you paying them up front. Police, military, teachers, social workers, and all other government employees do this all the time.

You are using verbal gymnastics to distort my position. Government employees in the US are free to leave their jobs if they find the terms of employment onerous. In communist states, where the state is the sole employer (it owns all of the means of production, remember?), one cannot quit the state.

Odysseus
04-29-2012, 01:49 AM
PBS is a non-profit media organization that regularly has right-wingers on the air espousing anti-government viewpoints.

In your dreams. First, PBS is not owned by the government. Second, I'd like to see what you consider right-wingers on PBS. Third, PBS knows which people in the government support it, and never bites the hand that feeds it.


First, you could still have your own home, just not be the landlord of a rented property.

So, I cannot rent a room in my home?


Second, public housing already exists and the people who live there still have their rights. The police cannot arbitrarily enter their homes without going through the proper legal routes. The fact that these not privately owned doesn't mean you don't have rights in them.

Really? Public housing projects are hardly bastions of individual rights. For one thing, the residence in those projects is contingent on having income below a certain level, so those who live in them are constrained in their commercial activities. Second, public housing authorities are notoriously lax in providing services. A private landlord who treated tenants the way that public housing agencies did would soon find himself without tenants.


Even if the state did have the same rights as your landlord, that still doesn't mean they have unlimited rights. Almost every state in the US has restrictions on when and how landlords can enter a home. Landlords also must give notice before evictions.

You're missing the point again. The state wouldn't have the same rights as a landlord, it would have greater rights. Imagine a landlord who wasn't constrained by law, who owned the courts, the police, the fire department, the IRS and every other agency, public and private. The state would be more powerful than any landlord would ever want to be.


That's already illegal for the state to do with it's employees. Having more employees wouldn't change that.

But the state wouldn't have more employees, it would have all employees, since all businesses would be state run. There would be no check on state power. It could do whatever it wanted to whoever it wanted. It could decide that it didn't like the Catholic Church's ban on abortion and mandate that it provide birth control with the Eucharist if it wanted to, because nobody could say no to it. It would be all-powerful.


1. Stealing land is not petty thievery. Again, you're conflating the two forms of property.
No, you are making an artificial distinction between forms of property. I didn't say land, but in the USSR, simply keeping food that you grew would get you shot. In China, any form of financial chicanery could result in the death penalty. States without property rights treat property crimes as crimes against the state.


2. Also, the state certainly would use lethal force against a petty thief who resisted the police.

Only if the officer believed that his life was in danger. Using lethal force to protect your life is not the same as using it against a kid who hoarded grain.

3. Crimes against the state do not mean lethal punishment. Tax evasion is a crime against the state but you don't get the death sentence for it.
Not in the US, which has property rights, you don't, but in communist states, withholding property from the government would get you killed. Again, look at the Soviet and Chinese examples.

I'm not talking about equality of results.

Of course you are. "From each according to his ability, and to each according to his need."


Except that I'm not arguing about distributing wealth or property evenly.

True, the party always gets the lion's share of the redistribution, but it doesn't matter. Any system that takes property away from the people who create it in order to give it to those who didn't is going to create poverty.


okay
No, not okay. It's one of the reasons that we oppose socialism.


Just because something is symbolic doesn't mean it does not effect real people.

Humans live in a world that is partially symbolic, and they react to those symbolic structures as if they were actually physical realities.

Physical reality is stuff like matter, energy, mass, momentum. Laws, social roles, organizational structures, relationships, and so on are not part of physical reality.

Although symbolic structures have real effects on people, they are not part of physical reality, and they should not be looked at in the same way that physicists look at atoms. Their status as concepts, symbols, and relationships means they need to be examined differently, taking into the account how concepts, symbols, and relationships function, rather than treating them like hard aspects of material reality.

No it's not. Law isn't a solid, physical thing.

Can you tell me the atomic weight of Law? Can you tell me the density of law at sea level? How much energy is required to accelerate Law from 0 to 100 mph in a vacuum? Which periodic elements constitute law?

It is not a physical, material thing. Neither are the relationships in question, the roles in question, etc. etc.

You are mixing physics and politics in an attempt to obscure the issues with verbal gymnastics.


The reality humans experience is not the same as Material Reality. Humans live in a world that is full of categories, structures, relationships, names, and distinctions that are purely symbolic.

this seems like a different discussion but I'd enjoy having it.

Then I hope that you find someone else who'd enjoy it as well. However, it won't be me.

txradioguy
04-29-2012, 05:07 AM
Yet you are way too eager to bring that same shit here. IT. DOES. NOT. WORK. Nothing you, or your side stands for works, EVER!

Wee Wee only admits the USSR failed because he believes...as does the President...that if Democrats had only been in charge it would have succeeded.

Wee Wee thinks that if he could only be in charge...Communism in the U.S. would work.

Odysseus
04-29-2012, 10:52 AM
Wee Wee only admits the USSR failed because he believes...as does the President...that if Democrats had only been in charge it would have succeeded.

Wee Wee thinks that if he could only be in charge...Communism in the U.S. would work.

Wei admits the USSR failed because he cannot deny it without becoming an object of ridicule. He continues to agitate for the same policies while denying that this is his intent, not because he thinks that it will go better this time if only he and his ilk are in charge, but because he wants to be in charge. If that happens, then everything will work out, because Wei and his cronies are so obviously superior to the rest of us. Progressives are motivated by a deep disdain for for their neighbors and a preening sense of their own superiority. The progressive mindset was stated eloquently by Sen. William Borah, a progressive Republican, on the occasion of Hitler's invasion of Poland, when he said, “Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.” The idea that Hitler might have abandoned his plans of global conquest and genocide because a legislator from a country that he despised whispered a few honeyed phrases to him encapsulates the hubris of the progressive. Meanwhile, those who see through it are relentlessly demonized, because their ideas cannot stand in the light of day. Progressives loathe the democratic processes that thwart their ideas, and reject the common sense of the people that they seek to rule. This is why they oppose alternative media and free speech, because it undermines their attempts to control the narrative and market their candidates. Obama, for example, campaigned as a centrist (except when he was off the script and then made seriously alarming statements that demonstrated his true character), and every progressive outfit played along, even to the point of manufacturing memes of racism against those who tried to lift the curtain.

txradioguy
04-29-2012, 02:14 PM
Wei admits the USSR failed because he cannot deny it without becoming an object of ridicule. He continues to agitate for the same policies while denying that this is his intent, not because he thinks that it will go better this time if only he and his ilk are in charge, but because he wants to be in charge. If that happens, then everything will work out, because Wei and his cronies are so obviously superior to the rest of us. Progressives are motivated by a deep disdain for for their neighbors and a preening sense of their own superiority. The progressive mindset was stated eloquently by Sen. William Borah, a progressive Republican, on the occasion of Hitler's invasion of Poland, when he said, “Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.” The idea that Hitler might have abandoned his plans of global conquest and genocide because a legislator from a country that he despised whispered a few honeyed phrases to him encapsulates the hubris of the progressive. Meanwhile, those who see through it are relentlessly demonized, because their ideas cannot stand in the light of day. Progressives loathe the democratic processes that thwart their ideas, and reject the common sense of the people that they seek to rule. This is why they oppose alternative media and free speech, because it undermines their attempts to control the narrative and market their candidates. Obama, for example, campaigned as a centrist (except when he was off the script and then made seriously alarming statements that demonstrated his true character), and every progressive outfit played along, even to the point of manufacturing memes of racism against those who tried to lift the curtain.


:thumbsup: I know I'm repeating myself for the millionth time...but excellent post!