21-01-2004 08:55									#421
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Incorrect facts do.

	21-01-2004 08:57									#422
	Increase Your PM Length

Please enlighten me then on the incorrectness of the facts as they relate to today.

I'll even spot you one.

Here is the original quote:
Because as citizens we have no right to choose productions. That is reserved for the property owners.

	21-01-2004 09:00									#423
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Because it's not a fact, it's an opinion about morality. It's incorrect to call it a fact.

	21-01-2004 09:04									#424
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

So you have legal precedence or say a passage in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that guarantees Citizens the right to determine productions.

Please produce. Its not moral issue.

	21-01-2004 09:05									#425
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

che asked you to justify it. That's how this whole argument started.

	21-01-2004 09:06									#426
	Put an end to popups!

And my response was simply why not? It's a fact.

	21-01-2004 09:11									#427
	Support Apolyton

If someone yells at me for being lazy, they wouldn't buy it if I say, "Why not? It's a fact." That isn't an argument.

	21-01-2004 09:13									#428
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I don't know if it is or isn't. Are you lazy?

	21-01-2004 09:16									#429
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

In the meantime I await the passage indicating citizens are guaranteed that right.

	21-01-2004 09:16									#430
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Ramo, if he fails t understand, or refuses to understand the difference between stating opinions and facts, and what makes something a fact, don't waste your time.

	21-01-2004 09:17									#431
	Put an end to popups!

Point is, the fact that one is lazy is not an argument that one should be lazy.

	21-01-2004 09:20									#432
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

GePap

Two simple statements
1) Because as citizens we have no right to choose productions.
2) That is reserved for the property owners.


Any reason to think either of these two statements are not factual with respect to current US law.

	21-01-2004 09:24									#433
	Suffering from ads?

Point of the matter is the ones advocating a change in either of these two facts require compelling arguements why it should be changed not vice versa.

And to date, I have yet to hear so.

	21-01-2004 09:29									#434
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe GePap Two simple statements 1) Because as citizens we have no right to choose productions. 2) That is reserved for the property owners. Any reason to think either of these two statements are not factual with respect to current US law.

1. What the hell does that mean? Certainly as citizens, for example, we have the right to vote to determine military spending programs that lead to military contracts that lead to...productions!

So, to begin with, number 1 is vague and inaccurately written.

2. "property owners" refers to people who own real estate generally- and real estate is classfied as one of the means of production.

So again, this is inaccurtaely written. Plus, of course, you can argue that the state can and has the right to regulate porduction. Private owners can not build jet fighters for themsleves, without approval from the state. You can;t make food prodcuts and so forth without following reguatory guidelines, so forth and so on.

	21-01-2004 09:39									#435
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by GePap 1. What the hell does that mean? Certainly as citizens, for example, we have the right to vote to determine military spending programs that lead to military contracts that lead to...productions!

Not so representatives are given the authority to act on the bahalf of their constituency wherein military contracts are given to property owners who choose to either obligate or not obligate their contracts.
.

Citizens are not guaranteed this right except through their representative who may or may not choose to align his views with his constituency. Absolutely no guarantee.

quote: 2. "property owners" refers to people who own real estate generally- and real estate is classfied as one of the means of production.

Property owners in the broader sense including but not limitted to real estate owners, owners of machinery, etc. moreover owners of means of production.

	21-01-2004 19:07									#436
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Give it up Ogie, your performance shows that you have been badly outgunned in this thread.

There are plenty of right wing Apolytoners who can mount a decent defence of their position, but you ain't one of them.

	21-01-2004 19:29									#437
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Ramo Ned's gonna start up his "workers of the field" story again. Run for the hills!

Oh no!! I'll save him the trouble.

The Parable of the Field

Although I thought my parable of the dead Ned provided a fitting end to that saga.

	21-01-2004 21:18									#438
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe But who gets to decide what is a "benefit to society" or what is a "cost to society"?

That's all up to the political system. The political system determines whether the economic system will benefit individuals or society as a whole. A properly working political system will do the latter.

	21-01-2004 21:38									#439
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I'm tired enought with explaining to silly Lithuanian corporates that borrowing in floating rate (say, Euribor+0.7%) is not necessarily "cheaper" than borrowing in fixed rate to be arsed to plough through all this pseudoscientific cack.

	21-01-2004 21:52									#440
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe GePap Two simple statements 1) Because as citizens we have no right to choose productions. 2) That is reserved for the property owners. Any reason to think either of these two statements are not factual with respect to current US law.

Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce. Governments have the right to tax. State governments have the right to seize property (emminent domain). The Constitution recognizes that the government (which is supposedly an extention of the citizenry) has the right to regulate commerce and seize and tax property. Furthermore, the government even has the caacity to compell you to do certain things with your property.

But my question was a moral one, not one based on the Constitution. Why shouldn't citizens have every right to determine what is or isn't produced? Property is a social construct. It only exists because we agree to make it exist. If we decide we don't want to abide by that convention as a society anymore, the property doesn't exist. All property is, is an agreement to limit yourself (in that we agere not to tramp all over your "property," etc).

	21-01-2004 22:05									#441
	Inflate your Upload Space

--Property is a social construct. It only exists because we agree to make it exist."

No, it is an extention of my right to life. Discussion dead-ended.

	21-01-2004 22:20									#442
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Saras No, it is an extention of my right to life. Discussion dead-ended.

And that's not a BAM.

	21-01-2004 22:26									#443
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Saras --Property is a social construct. It only exists because we agree to make it exist." No, it is an extention of my right to life. Discussion dead-ended.

"When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism and militarism are incapable of being conquered."

-Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Racism, materialism and militarism are not your right.

	21-01-2004 22:27									#444
	Suffering from ads?

Speaking of BAM.

	21-01-2004 22:28									#445
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Saras --Property is a social construct. It only exists because we agree to make it exist." No, it is an extention of my right to life. Discussion dead-ended.

What gives you a right to live?

	21-01-2004 22:56									#446
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by JohnT Speaking of BAM.

The difference is that there is a connection between people placing property rights over people and the evils of society. There is no connection between the right to life and the right to property. In fact, property rights are incompatable with the right to life and the right to equality.

	21-01-2004 23:17									#447
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious That's all up to the political system. The political system determines whether the economic system will benefit individuals or society as a whole. A properly working political system will do the latter.

A fundamentally flawed premise which obviates the need for an individual to improve their standing. As such and additionallly it goes counter to the inalienable rights described in the Declaration namely the rights of Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness.

Or maybe you disagree with the initial premise that all men are created equal and are endowed with certain inalienable rights.

Implicit in this statement is that man determines for himself what happiness is.

Whatever the case, if and when you commies come to power better bring a lot of white out to correct the mistakes of the Declaration and Constitution.

	21-01-2004 23:26									#448
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce. Governments have the right to tax. State governments have the right to seize property (emminent domain). The Constitution recognizes that the government (which is supposedly an extention of the citizenry) has the right to regulate commerce and seize and tax property. Furthermore, the government even has the caacity to compell you to do certain things with your property. But my question was a moral one, not one based on the Constitution. Why shouldn't citizens have every right to determine what is or isn't produced? Property is a social construct. It only exists because we agree to make it exist. If we decide we don't want to abide by that convention as a society anymore, the property doesn't exist. All property is, is an agreement to limit yourself (in that we agere not to tramp all over your "property," etc).

As I said before, a representative government is not the same as citizens having the right to determine productions. As long as the representative has the ability and right to vote different from his constituency the citizens have no right. The more tenuously the association of citizen to the actual decision the less voice. Notice the distinction voice verses right. Their voice may be heard but ignored.

And what are morals other than social constructs. You choose to ignore property as a tangible item yet rely on morals to support your claims. Pick and choose your constructs my friend.

	21-01-2004 23:37									#449
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe A fundamentally flawed premise which obviates the need for an individual to improve their standing. As such and additionallly it goes counter to the inalienable rights described in the Declaration namely the rights of Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness. Or maybe you disagree with the initial premise that all men are created equal and are endowed with certain inalienable rights. Implicit in this statement is that man determines for himself what happiness is. Whatever the case, if and when you commies come to power better bring a lot of white out to correct the mistakes of the Declaration and Constitution.

I would love to use some white out on the Constitution. As far as the right to pursue happiness is concerned, its vague and useless. If you want to grant a right, make it clear.

	21-01-2004 23:50									#450
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe And what are morals other than social constructs. You choose to ignore property as a tangible item yet rely on morals to support your claims. Pick and choose your constructs my friend.

Actually I don't. I fully recognize that moral structures are human creations. The fact that a set of human relations is in existence doesn't presuppose it's naturalness. Slavery existed for a very long time, an people argued it was just, and natural, and moral. Today we see those arguments as FoS. Equally, the right to property in land, capital, etc., is no more no more natural than the right to property in humans.

BTW, the DoI has no legal standing in the USA. The rights enshrined in that document have no legal valdity. The rights to life, liberty, and property, however, we assured in the 14th Amendment, and you may not be deprived of them except by due process of law. In other words, the government does not recognize them as absolute, nor do the citizens. We may take away your rights to life, liberty, and property in order to maximize the public good.