4 ms·
Next let's talk about the right to live on a piece of land without paying someone else for the privilege.
by 13of40 9y ago
Next let's talk about the right to live on a piece of land without paying someone else for the privilege.
- sangnoir 9y agoStep 1. Get the biggest, baddest gun Step 2. Plant a flag[0] Step 3. Declare the land now belongs to you and a descendants. 0. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTduy7Qkvk8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTduy7Qkvk8
- branchless 9y agoLove this: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/COQgS0MUcAA7-RK.png https://pbs.twimg.com/media/COQgS0MUcAA7-RK.png
- cousin_it 9y agoI have a lot of sympathy for that argument, but what if the land was bought, not inherited?
- branchless 9y agoRecently? They can be compensated, up to a point. We can change this mess.
- cousin_it 9y agoThe difficulty of transition seems to be one of the main reasons why Georgism rarely gets implemented in practice. It's having a bit of internet revival lately though, I hope more people become aware of it.
- branchless 9y agoAgreed. One day owning land in perpetuity will be seen in the same way as owning a slave. It's an absurd context, you own a wedge of the earth because your great-granddad took it.
- ue_ 9y agoI very much agree, I think that the concept of property, the concept of possession, and the abolishment of the former should be discussed more, though it's strange that it's often taken for a given in political discussions, despite the work of Proudhon (What is Property?) and further by Bakunin, Kropotkin and Marx (who was very much in admiration of and inspired by Proudhon's book). If anyone is interested in reading the book, which I can only describe as captivating and cutting, you can read it here: https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/proudhon/property/ https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/proudho... Thank you for mentioning this, I hope more people become interested in the idea.
- duncan_bayne 9y agoSo do I - I hope they study the history of countries that were the victims of Marxist revolutions, and come to recognise it for the monstrous evil that it is. Communists killed an order of magnitude more people than the Fascists did. The Khmer Rouge killed around a quarter of their entire population. As well as Marx, interested people should read Mises as well, and decide for themselves which approach is the moral one: https://mises.org/library/liberalism-classical-tradition https://mises.org/library/liberalism-classical-tradition
- ue_ 9y agoThey should also study the history of Communist thinkers during these regimes. I mentioned in another comment a while ago: >Socialist critics [during the time of the USSR and others] include George Orwell (known for his criticism of totalitarian Socialism in Animal Farm), economist I.I Rubin, the anarchists which the USSR suppressed, Luxemburg, Bordiga, Bookchin, and later on Hobsbawm, Trotsky (to some extent), Sylvia Pankhurt (and various other feminists) etc. Furthermore, Communism does not necessarily entail Marxism-Leninism or even Marxism. Do you not think it should be the responsibility of modern day Marxists to find problems with previous attempted implementations, and find ways to fix those problems? Marxism is after all a method of analysis, and can be recursively applied to itself. Mises is an interesting choice for a 'moral' theory, given the theory of primitive accumulation, property acquired through barbarism, and the exploitative and environmentally damaging nature of capitalism itself, regardless of application. Marx's theory does not rely upon notions of morality, though - it posits merely what is in the interest of the workers themselves. This is why Marx and Engels hoped to advance a scientific theory of Socialism. Edit: it's also rather comical that the term 'libertarian' was transformed to be about some narrow form of property ownership rather than freedom itself, ironically not realising the tyranny of property and its contrast with the ideas of equality, freedom and justice (Proudhon talks about this in the link in my previous comment). Bookchin and Chomsky have talked about this change, too.
- wolfgke 9y agoRelevant: Nick Middleton - An Atlas of Countries That Don't Exist: A Compendium of Fifty Unrecognized and Largely Unnoticed States
- teddyh 9y agoNo. You are advocating for a communist/anarchist idea, which has no relevance to this topic.
- tanderson92 9y agoMany of the people discussing it do think it is directly relevant, myself included. Consider downvoting and moving along if you find it off-topic? And by the way, communism isn't exactly a word you have to be afraid of, and accusing someone of opposing capitalism doesn't shut down the conversation nor mean they are incorrect.
- teddyh 9y agoIt was not my intention to use “communist/anarchist” as something people ought to be afraid of; it is merely completely irrelevant to this issue. I doubt that Stallman himself would consider them relevant since he, in my experience, takes every opportunity to disassociate himself from communism and anarchism; he is instead concerned with copyright, software patents, and other impediments to scientific progress. Therefore, to try to drag those former kinds of ideas into a thread specifically about the latter is to deliberately cause inflammatory and irrelevant discussion, and also to cause opponents of these former ideologies to connect the two in their minds, creating FUD about the latter.
- tanderson92 9y agoWhy must the bounds of our discourse be drawn by the interests of the author of a piece? I don't see any reason to do that and it certainly isn't the determinant of what is 'relevant'
- teddyh 9y agoUltimately, of course, the decision falls to the moderators. In the mean time, however, we are all of us allowed to express our opinions on what is relevant and what is not.
- 9y ago