Privately owned land Vs Nationalized land?
Privately owned land
75.9% (22)
75.9% (22)
Nationalized land
24.1% (7)
24.1% (7)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Privately owned land Vs Public land?

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Comocat:
Another dimension to this argument is what you own on your land. In many western states of the US, you don't own your water. For example, it was illegal in Colorado, until very recently to have cisterns over x 100 gallons. So even though it was raining over your property, it was illegal to collect the raindrops falling on your head, in any large amount. I don't know much about water or mineral rights, I just know it's an incredibly complex and archaic(and interesting) patchwork of laws.

There's good reason for that sort of law. If people just start storing and releasing water on an industrial scale, then water management for a region becomes one big unreliable clusterfuck.

So you ban it and allow it only under permit, which states conditions that secure the water management.

Also, otherwise you could for instance buy a ton of land along a river, store all the water, and blackmail farmers and ports downstream to pay you for water. That's not a situation you want to be possible.

Quaxar:

You seem to be implying that there is no need for a law and that simply the strongest party should own the land. So suppose I get together with a bunch of guys, we arm ourselves, march into a small town and claim ownership on all the land. But we allow them to stay there as long as we receive a tenth of their income and there's also a chance they can join our group if they are willing and together we will take over another area and do the same.

You summed up government pretty much to the word.

SimpleThunda':

Quaxar:

You seem to be implying that there is no need for a law and that simply the strongest party should own the land. So suppose I get together with a bunch of guys, we arm ourselves, march into a small town and claim ownership on all the land. But we allow them to stay there as long as we receive a tenth of their income and there's also a chance they can join our group if they are willing and together we will take over another area and do the same.

You summed up government pretty much to the word.

So then disbanding the gouvernment won't make any difference because we'll just do the same thing again and Anarchism is utterly pointless.

Quaxar:

SimpleThunda':

Quaxar:

You seem to be implying that there is no need for a law and that simply the strongest party should own the land. So suppose I get together with a bunch of guys, we arm ourselves, march into a small town and claim ownership on all the land. But we allow them to stay there as long as we receive a tenth of their income and there's also a chance they can join our group if they are willing and together we will take over another area and do the same.

You summed up government pretty much to the word.

So then disbanding the gouvernment won't make any difference because we'll just do the same thing again and Anarchism is utterly pointless.

No. The difference is how the world functions right now. All the problems that I just adressed.
Tearing down society means all those things cease to happen and we can start again and hopefully build up something that isn't as twisted as modern society is now.

Quaxar:

SimpleThunda':

Lilani:

I got the anarchy thing from your opinion on land and from the contempt you seem to have for the government ("I can force people off my land like a bully because that's what the government does.")

The only way I would want to steer a conversation about anarchistic ideals is that it would be one of the fastest way to bring society to a grinding halt. No standard of law and order means no standard of living can take root. It would come down to the person with the most power and the pointiest sticks, and while it would be "freedom" in the way of not having a government telling everyone what to do, that "freedom" would apply only to those who have clawed themselves above everyone else who will be out to tell them what to do. Which would be a very, very small number of people, and you would probably not be one of them.

Think of all the good it would do.

No more polution, no more exploitation of animals, no more greedy banks screwing over the entire world to fill their own pockets. No more governments controlling their population and spoon-feeding them with propaganda. No more governments sending their young men and women out to take a bullet to the skull for the sake of oil and the wallets of the people who own the government.

An end to a world of lies.

NOW this is starting to get off-topic... Feel free to PM me, though.

No more regulations on pollution and exploitation, greedy individuals screwing over others without legal repercussions, individuals or possibly a band of mohawk-sporting motorcyclists controlling the population through sheer terror, people taking bullets to the skull in a stupid effort to challenge the established social hierarchy that screwed them over.
A start to a world of madness.

You seem to be implying that there is no need for a law and that simply the strongest party should own the land. So suppose I get together with a bunch of guys, we arm ourselves, march into a small town and claim ownership on all the land. But we allow them to stay there as long as we receive a tenth of their income and there's also a chance they can join our group if they are willing and together we will take over another area and do the same. Justified, right? We can do what we want because there is no law to stop us from expanding and claiming everything as ours. It's the perfect un-Darwinian survival of the strongest.
You are suggesting feudalism, my friend. A system we got mostly rid of hundrets of years ago because it was so shit. I don't know what makes you think that the medieval approach is the most reasonable thing you can come up with regarding land ownership.

In the past we had no laws on pollution, subsequently companies just let their toxic sewage run free into the rivers. There was no ethical treatment of animals and food hygiene, nothing stopped you from using battery cages or selling meat of sick cattle. Bloody tribal war over control of the only green patches in a desert environment went on for ages before countries were invented.
To assume that getting rid of the scapegoat gouvernment would mean an age of perfect idyll is, quite frankly, absurdly naive.

In a world without government, things like polution, sewage dumping, ethical treatment of animals, etc, cease to be a problem, because things like mass production cease to exist. Society wouldn't be stable enough anymore for those things.

We already have greedy individuals screwing over the world for money.

The "mohawksporting-motorcycle-driving" gangs, that inspire terror, may aswell be the police.
After all, fear of the police and the law is what keeps everyone in check, which is the same thing as terror. We just gave it a different name.

Wars over a green patch of desert or wars over the black sludge in the desert.
Honestly, it boils down to the same thing.

Anarchy, to me, is a better alternative to the twisted society we live in today.

Atleast in an anarchist society a man is as free as he deserves to be.

SimpleThunda':

Quaxar:

SimpleThunda':

Think of all the good it would do.

No more polution, no more exploitation of animals, no more greedy banks screwing over the entire world to fill their own pockets. No more governments controlling their population and spoon-feeding them with propaganda. No more governments sending their young men and women out to take a bullet to the skull for the sake of oil and the wallets of the people who own the government.

An end to a world of lies.

NOW this is starting to get off-topic... Feel free to PM me, though.

No more regulations on pollution and exploitation, greedy individuals screwing over others without legal repercussions, individuals or possibly a band of mohawk-sporting motorcyclists controlling the population through sheer terror, people taking bullets to the skull in a stupid effort to challenge the established social hierarchy that screwed them over.
A start to a world of madness.

You seem to be implying that there is no need for a law and that simply the strongest party should own the land. So suppose I get together with a bunch of guys, we arm ourselves, march into a small town and claim ownership on all the land. But we allow them to stay there as long as we receive a tenth of their income and there's also a chance they can join our group if they are willing and together we will take over another area and do the same. Justified, right? We can do what we want because there is no law to stop us from expanding and claiming everything as ours. It's the perfect un-Darwinian survival of the strongest.
You are suggesting feudalism, my friend. A system we got mostly rid of hundrets of years ago because it was so shit. I don't know what makes you think that the medieval approach is the most reasonable thing you can come up with regarding land ownership.

In the past we had no laws on pollution, subsequently companies just let their toxic sewage run free into the rivers. There was no ethical treatment of animals and food hygiene, nothing stopped you from using battery cages or selling meat of sick cattle. Bloody tribal war over control of the only green patches in a desert environment went on for ages before countries were invented.
To assume that getting rid of the scapegoat gouvernment would mean an age of perfect idyll is, quite frankly, absurdly naive.

In a world without government, things like polution, sewage dumping, ethical treatment of animals, etc, cease to be a problem, because things like mass production cease to exist. Society wouldn't be stable enough anymore for those things.

We already have greedy individuals screwing over the world for money.

The "mohawksporting-motorcycle-driving" gangs, that inspire terror, may aswell be the police.
After all, fear of the police and the law is what keeps everyone in check, which is the same thing as terror. We just gave it a different name.

Wars over a green patch of desert or wars over the black sludge in the desert.
Honestly, it boils down to the same thing.

Anarchy, to me, is a better alternative to the twisted society we live in today.

Atleast in an anarchist society a man is as free as he deserves to be.

There is no such thing as anarchy.

There is only a brief period before someone goes 'I have more guns and followers; I am the local warlord now."

And then you're a junta, monarchy, tyranny, dictatorship, whatever.

See, to me everything your crying out is the cry of the college student liberal who doesn't actually have much experience dealing with the actual 'anarchies' you want.

The things your complaining about and hate are built into human nature. The governments, the religions, everything, is just going to spring up again. That's how humans work. 'Anarchy' isn't going to change it, just reset it so it can all happen again.

SimpleThunda':
In a world without government, things like polution, sewage dumping, ethical treatment of animals, etc, cease to be a problem, because things like mass production cease to exist. Society wouldn't be stable enough anymore for those things.

We already have greedy individuals screwing over the world for money.

The "mohawksporting-motorcycle-driving" gangs, that inspire terror, may aswell be the police.
After all, fear of the police and the law is what keeps everyone in check, which is the same thing as terror. We just gave it a different name.

Wars over a green patch of desert or wars over the black sludge in the desert.
Honestly, it boils down to the same thing.

Anarchy, to me, is a better alternative to the twisted society we live in today.

Atleast in an anarchist society a man is as free as he deserves to be.

Like the Communist, you have idealistic bases depending on a theoretical humanity that will never translate into the real world.

Getting rid of any gouvernment today would still leave the same society with all its products and demands tomorrow, just no regulating body that stops things like crime and mistreatment. You give up the judicial process in favor of self-justice. With demand for products still normal companies don't have to care about pollution regulations, work safety or minimum wages and are free to go back to Industrial Era labour conditions.
Furthermore, like the great Russian Revolution you basically accept the deaths of millions in a revolution plus immense health consequences for further generations as a good price to pay in exchange for overthrowing a system that, despite what you make it out to be, works and tries hard to keep its population healthy and safe. A "every man for himself" system is at best stagnation, why would anyone be compelled to do any research or help another one?

And I won't even get into the terror gouvernment thing of yours, that's so far out I can only ignore it...

Anarchistic experiments have been made before. Catalonia tried it for 3 years in the 30s, let me give you a quote:

Everybody created his own justice and administered it himself...Some used to call this 'taking a person for a ride' but I maintain that it was justice administered directly by the people in the complete absence of the regular judicial bodies.

Juan García Oliver, Anarchist minister of justice, 1936

Thousands were murdered based on assumptions, several thousand members of the Catholic Clergy were tortured and killed. An estimated quarter of all the deaths in the Spanish Civil War occured during the initial summer in Catalonia alone.

And in the US several projects were attempted; Utopia, Ohio is now a near-ghost town and a few like Modern Times, New York worked for some time with a small population until it eventually returned to regularity. And Christiania in Copenhagen exists more or less only on the basis of drug trades and the gay community.

Anarchy and Communism are both political ideals. To think these concepts can actually work for a modern society of this size is sheer lunacy, at best you can do it in small self-sufficient communities with people who are actually willing.

Quaxar:

SimpleThunda':
In a world without government, things like polution, sewage dumping, ethical treatment of animals, etc, cease to be a problem, because things like mass production cease to exist. Society wouldn't be stable enough anymore for those things.

We already have greedy individuals screwing over the world for money.

The "mohawksporting-motorcycle-driving" gangs, that inspire terror, may aswell be the police.
After all, fear of the police and the law is what keeps everyone in check, which is the same thing as terror. We just gave it a different name.

Wars over a green patch of desert or wars over the black sludge in the desert.
Honestly, it boils down to the same thing.

Anarchy, to me, is a better alternative to the twisted society we live in today.

Atleast in an anarchist society a man is as free as he deserves to be.

Like the Communist, you have idealistic bases depending on a theoretical humanity that will never translate into the real world.

Getting rid of any gouvernment today would still leave the same society with all its products and demands tomorrow, just no regulating body that stops things like crime and mistreatment. You give up the judicial process in favor of self-justice. With demand for products still normal companies don't have to care about pollution regulations, work safety or minimum wages and are free to go back to Industrial Era labour conditions.
Furthermore, like the great Russian Revolution you basically accept the deaths of millions in a revolution plus immense health consequences for further generations as a good price to pay in exchange for overthrowing a system that, despite what you make it out to be, works and tries hard to keep its population healthy and safe. A "every man for himself" system is at best stagnation, why would anyone be compelled to do any research or help another one?

And I won't even get into the terror gouvernment thing of yours, that's so far out I can only ignore it...

Anarchistic experiments have been made before. Catalonia tried it for 3 years in the 30s, let me give you a quote:

Everybody created his own justice and administered it himself...Some used to call this 'taking a person for a ride' but I maintain that it was justice administered directly by the people in the complete absence of the regular judicial bodies.

Juan García Oliver, Anarchist minister of justice, 1936

Thousands were murdered based on assumptions, several thousand members of the Catholic Clergy were tortured and killed. An estimated quarter of all the deaths in the Spanish Civil War occured during the initial summer in Catalonia alone.

And in the US several projects were attempted; Utopia, Ohio is now a near-ghost town and a few like Modern Times, New York worked for some time with a small population until it eventually returned to regularity. And Christiania in Copenhagen exists more or less only on the basis of drug trades and the gay community.

Anarchy and Communism are both political ideals. To think these concepts can actually work for a modern society of this size is sheer lunacy, at best you can do it in small self-sufficient communities with people who are actually willing.

I'll gladly trade a world of utter corruption for a world of violence.
The current elite is raping humanity and the earth and I, quite frankly, choose to not support them doing so.

To me an "every man for himself"-situation is not stagnation.

Technological, perhaps.

But look at what technology is doing with the world.
It's exploiting everything and everyone it can -for comfort-.

That's just what it is. We will only ever desire more and more.
We don't care how much suffering we inflict for it.

We say that empathy and compassion is what makes us human.

How many times have you felt empathy towards the kids that made all the shit you're wearing?
How many times have you felt empathy for the dog that's been skinned alive for your furcoat?
How many times have you felt empathy for the chicken that's literally been harvested for it's meat?

I'd say hypocrisy, delusion and gullibility is what makes us human.

Government is the catalyst in all of this, because it creates the stability that causes us to crave more and more, instead of "enough".

SimpleThunda':
I'll gladly trade a world of utter corruption for a world of violence.
The current elite is raping humanity and the earth and I, quite frankly, choose to not support them doing so.

Look, I understand you are a teenager and as such by biological default angry at any established hierarchy so I'm not even going to discuss that.

Let's just say while current democratic systems aren't absolutely ideal either they still work, while Anarchism and Communism alike are purely theoretical concepts that are impossible to establish over a large population and that have historically always failed in this regard, mostly in immensely bloody ways. You can argue for it all you like, the fact still remains that these concepts go against human nature itself and to say "no no, it didn't work in the past but THIS TIME we'll totally do it you guys" is naive.

SimpleThunda':
The concept of a person or a country having the "right" to a piece of the earth seems just completely stupid to me.

Mostly this. I'm not really sure how to make it work, though. Things were a lot better, in some ways, when your "land" just happened to be the open patch of earth you built your thatch-roof hut on, in your people's village.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked