It means exactly what it says. My life is not subject to popular vote. My liberty is not subject to popular vote. My private property is not subject to popular vote. Any vote that purports to remove any of the three will be met with force in defense of my natural, unalienable and fundamental human rights.sandinista wrote:Besides the sloganism, what do you mean by that? Life, liberty and property? Sounds like some kind of libraian mantra that makes about as much sense as any religious mantra. The rest of your post is just more slogansim. "protect individual liberty and rights"?? rights to what? Liberty meaning what? You and JimC should have a cliche contest.Seth wrote:Individual rights to life, liberty and property are not subject to popular vote.
The Almighty Unions
Re: The Almighty Unions
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
Re: The Almighty Unions
Seth wrote:It's not a lack of imagination. Marxists are full of imagination. It's due to human nature and factual historical experience. No society without authoritarianism has ever existed, on a large scale, anywhere on earth, ever in its history.some people can't imagine a society without authoritarianism
http://www.astronomy.pomona.edu/archeo/ ... skimo.htmlThe Inuit did not possess a highly organized society. In fact, organization in their society was almost non-existant and there were no divisions of rank or class.
Seth wrote:Your utopian view of the world is ignorant of history and psychology.

''The only way to reduce the number of nuclear weapons is to use them.''
—Rush Limbaugh
—Rush Limbaugh
Re: The Almighty Unions
You want to go live in the Arctic in an igloo and hunt for seals with bone-tipped spears, be my guest.egbert wrote:Seth wrote:It's not a lack of imagination. Marxists are full of imagination. It's due to human nature and factual historical experience. No society without authoritarianism has ever existed, on a large scale, anywhere on earth, ever in its history.some people can't imagine a society without authoritarianismhttp://www.astronomy.pomona.edu/archeo/ ... skimo.htmlThe Inuit did not possess a highly organized society. In fact, organization in their society was almost non-existant and there were no divisions of rank or class.
Seth wrote:Your utopian view of the world is ignorant of history and psychology.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
- sandinista
- Posts: 2546
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:15 pm
- About me: It’s a plot, but busta can you tell me who’s greedier?
Big corporations, the pigs or the media? - Contact:
Re: The Almighty Unions
Of course all those things are "subject to popular vote". What are you talking about? There are no laws where you live?Seth wrote:It means exactly what it says. My life is not subject to popular vote. My liberty is not subject to popular vote. My private property is not subject to popular vote. Any vote that purports to remove any of the three will be met with force in defense of my natural, unalienable and fundamental human rights.sandinista wrote:Besides the sloganism, what do you mean by that? Life, liberty and property? Sounds like some kind of libraian mantra that makes about as much sense as any religious mantra. The rest of your post is just more slogansim. "protect individual liberty and rights"?? rights to what? Liberty meaning what? You and JimC should have a cliche contest.Seth wrote:Individual rights to life, liberty and property are not subject to popular vote.
Our struggle is not against actual corrupt individuals, but against those in power in general, against their authority, against the global order and the ideological mystification which sustains it.
- Warren Dew
- Posts: 3781
- Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 1:41 pm
- Location: Somerville, MA, USA
- Contact:
Re: The Almighty Unions
From your source:egbert wrote:Seth wrote:No society without authoritarianism has ever existed, on a large scale, anywhere on earth, ever in its history.http://www.astronomy.pomona.edu/archeo/ ... skimo.htmlThe Inuit did not possess a highly organized society. In fact, organization in their society was almost non-existant and there were no divisions of rank or class.
Sounds kind of authoritarian to me.Needless to say, only a few leadership roles existed in Inuit society. Centered around the family, the eldest male served as an authority ...
- JimC
- The sentimental bloke
- Posts: 74169
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
- About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: The Almighty Unions
Now you edge away from your original absolutist position, rightly pointing out that "works" is a relative judgement. Seth would probably want to say that no aspect of existing or past socialist societies worked, but if he did, he would be wrong as well.sandinista wrote:Another broken record. I suppose you think there are no absolutist statements?JimC wrote:Another absolutist statementsandinista wrote:
...BTW, capitalism has never, ever worked either.
They exist, obviously, but I suppose by that statement you mean that I think there should be no absolutist statements. They may be valid sometimes, but the "never, ever worked" is a blatantly incorrect statement, because it is absolute in a context that needs shades of grey. I have no problem with you pointing out the ills associated with capitalism, but such blanket statements are empty rhetoric, not argument.
Like every one of your posts talking about absolutist definitions like left right and center?JimC wrote:and one with no real meaning.
They are not absolutist, but you probably have a point that they are very vague, do not fit the nuances of individual opinion, and often don't really contribute effectively to the debate. I will try to be more precise in future.
depends how you define "works". Any society "works" if you define "work" to suit your position.JimC wrote:Even at its worst, it still works
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!
And my gin!
- sandinista
- Posts: 2546
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:15 pm
- About me: It’s a plot, but busta can you tell me who’s greedier?
Big corporations, the pigs or the media? - Contact:
Re: The Almighty Unions
Why the red writing?
Thanks.JimC wrote:They exist, obviously
It is arguable if they are absolutist or not. The way you refer to those terms consistantly is, IMO, absolutist. Again though, thanks.JimC wrote:They are not absolutist, but you probably have a point that they are very vague, do not fit the nuances of individual opinion, and often don't really contribute effectively to the debate. I will try to be more precise in future.
Our struggle is not against actual corrupt individuals, but against those in power in general, against their authority, against the global order and the ideological mystification which sustains it.
- JimC
- The sentimental bloke
- Posts: 74169
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
- About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: The Almighty Unions
Exploring the "left" part of my centre-left position?sandinista wrote:Why the red writing?


Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!
And my gin!
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: The Almighty Unions
That's true. Capitalism isn't a "shining bastion of personal freedom," because it doesn't purport to be there. Capitalism is a system where there is privately owned property and the means of production is for the larger part owned privately. That economic system can exist within a political system that protects individual freedom, or in a system which does not (except that capitalism does require the freedom to own private property and the means of production - beyond that, other freedoms are not required for capitalism to be the economic system).JimC wrote:This is yet another symptom of absolutism, whether it be of the left or of the right. Tongue in cheek, I use the term "monster" for capitalism; I know that sandinista and others will see it unreservedly as a monstrous system of selfish greed that grinds the proletariat into the dust, and I know that seth and others will see it purely as a shining bastion of personal freedom...sandinista wrote:"become" indeed. Already there jimbo.egbert wrote:Become? We've been there already see Anti-Trust laws and Robber Barons. And now the "Global economy" scam is being used to force workers to "compete" in a race to the bottom.JimC wrote: Without unions, things would be very unbalanced indeed. The power of capital, and its understandable desire to drive wages and conditions as low as possible, means that individual workers have little chance to gain a fair share if they act alone. Collective, organised action by workers is vital; without it, capitalism would tend to become the total monster that sandinista thinks it is already...
As usual, the truth lies somewhere in-between...![]()
The thing is, in countries where capitalism is allowed, or at least the economies are "mixed" (allowing the private ownership of property and some private ownership of the means of production), we can see that other liberal protections on individual liberties are also protected. People tend to have, in capitalist and mixed economies, a lot of personal freedoms, including speech, religion, press, arms-bearing to some extent, security in their persons, houses papers and effects, etc. The right to own property tends to logically result in the protection of other rights - moreover, if a person owns real property, he or she tends to have the right to do what he or she wants to do on that property (within reason, generally allowing for restrictions on behavior that constitute nuisances or harm neighboring properties, and subject to neutrally and equally applied zoning and use ordinances). Usually, the right to exclude or include others on one's own property, the right to say what one wants on one's own property, etc., results in at least a level of personal freedom that is above that which exists in countries that do not allow the private ownership of real property.
The abuses of the industrial revolution were largely a function of a lack of reasonable legislation. What is often confused by those scorning capitalism is laissez-faire capitalism with capitalism. Capitalism need not be completely laissez-faire in order to still be capitalism. We get a lot of folks scorning capitalism who are suggesting that capitalism means that there are not laws restricting the conduct of businesses and employers. Capitalism, however, need not be anarcho-capitalism. That is one form of capitalism, but it is not a requirement or even the dominant form. There isn't any mathematical precision we can lend to the issue, and plainly the government can legislate away the private ownership of the means of production by making laws and regulations that do so through the back door.JimC wrote:
There have been times (eg. early in the industrial revolution) and places (eg. many third world countries today) where capitalism comes truly close to deserving that moniker, whatever innovations or economic growth it was fostering. However, where working people can organise, and where progressive governments can legislate, a workable, pragmatic system will evolve where the excesses of capitalist greed are checked and balanced. The far left will grumble that the underlying system has not been radically overhauled; they refuse to see the sobering lessons of history which come from previous attempts at communist government, always lamely claiming that true socialism is just around the corner, given one more chance...
Usually, those third world sweat shops exist in political systems that are not liberal constitutional democracies. For example - China. Where a country has a decent representative democracy that is sworn to respect individual liberty and the fundamental rights of man, the appalling conditions tend to be dismantled over time because of the ability of people to expose the conditions to the disinfecting sunlight of truth and reason. A sweatshop in China has little chance of being dismantled because those that protest in China are thrown in prison, if not worse. A sweatshop in the US or France will likely be found out, and picketed. And, the rights of individual employees have champions and those champions ride voting blocs into power, and those persons act create governmental institutions that protect those voting blocs (like labor boards, and workers rights and safety commissions).JimC wrote:
The champions of capital will rightly point to the innovation, drive and efficiency which accrue from a free enterprise system; what they want, however, is for the shackles to be removed, and the beast allowed to control absolutely how it treats its labour force. The fruits of that are to be seen in third world sweatshops, where non-unionised labour toil under appalling conditions, without hindance from the corrupt governments that welcome unscrupulous corporations to their countries. Perhaps there, one day, another Lenin will arise. If so, we know whose fault it will be...
Re: The Almighty Unions
There are a plethora of laws. But the fact remains that the people of the community, either my local community or the national community, cannot get together and vote to end my life, or imprison me merely because they choose to do so, or take my property without providing "just compensation."sandinista wrote:Of course all those things are "subject to popular vote". What are you talking about? There are no laws where you live?Seth wrote:It means exactly what it says. My life is not subject to popular vote. My liberty is not subject to popular vote. My private property is not subject to popular vote. Any vote that purports to remove any of the three will be met with force in defense of my natural, unalienable and fundamental human rights.sandinista wrote:Besides the sloganism, what do you mean by that? Life, liberty and property? Sounds like some kind of libraian mantra that makes about as much sense as any religious mantra. The rest of your post is just more slogansim. "protect individual liberty and rights"?? rights to what? Liberty meaning what? You and JimC should have a cliche contest.Seth wrote:Individual rights to life, liberty and property are not subject to popular vote.
Fundamental, unalienable rights are not subject to being revoked by popular vote. That's a bedrock principle of our nation. This does not mean that the exercise of those rights may not be reasonably regulated in the public interest, but that's something entirely different from the tyranny of the majority.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
- sandinista
- Posts: 2546
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:15 pm
- About me: It’s a plot, but busta can you tell me who’s greedier?
Big corporations, the pigs or the media? - Contact:
Re: The Almighty Unions
If there are a plethora of laws, don't they interfere with your precious liberty? Where on earth do people get together to vote to kill someone? Of course you can get imprisoned because the government chooses to, just break a law. Break a drug law and you're property will be taken away as well. What fundamental rights are you talking about? "the exercise of those rights may not be reasonably regulated in the public interest"?? Your all over the map on this one.Seth wrote:There are a plethora of laws. But the fact remains that the people of the community, either my local community or the national community, cannot get together and vote to end my life, or imprison me merely because they choose to do so, or take my property without providing "just compensation."sandinista wrote:Of course all those things are "subject to popular vote". What are you talking about? There are no laws where you live?Seth wrote:It means exactly what it says. My life is not subject to popular vote. My liberty is not subject to popular vote. My private property is not subject to popular vote. Any vote that purports to remove any of the three will be met with force in defense of my natural, unalienable and fundamental human rights.sandinista wrote:Besides the sloganism, what do you mean by that? Life, liberty and property? Sounds like some kind of libraian mantra that makes about as much sense as any religious mantra. The rest of your post is just more slogansim. "protect individual liberty and rights"?? rights to what? Liberty meaning what? You and JimC should have a cliche contest.Seth wrote:Individual rights to life, liberty and property are not subject to popular vote.
Fundamental, unalienable rights are not subject to being revoked by popular vote. That's a bedrock principle of our nation. This does not mean that the exercise of those rights may not be reasonably regulated in the public interest, but that's something entirely different from the tyranny of the majority.

Our struggle is not against actual corrupt individuals, but against those in power in general, against their authority, against the global order and the ideological mystification which sustains it.
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: The Almighty Unions
Almost all laws interfere with liberty. However, liberty is never unfettered. We live in a Republic. The fact that liberty is something to value doesn't mean that a society has to be anarchic.
I think what he means about reasonable regulation is something like time,place and manner restrictions on free speech. Like, you're free to demonstrate and scream and yell about the G-whatever summit, but you can stand outside my house with a bullhorn and keep me awake all night doing it.
I think what he means about reasonable regulation is something like time,place and manner restrictions on free speech. Like, you're free to demonstrate and scream and yell about the G-whatever summit, but you can stand outside my house with a bullhorn and keep me awake all night doing it.
Re: The Almighty Unions
Rwanda. Iran. Iraq. Syria. Africa. South America. Europe. Asia. It happens all over the planet, any time some group gets together and decides to kill members of their own community for no better reason than that they don't like them.sandinista wrote:
If there are a plethora of laws, don't they interfere with your precious liberty? Where on earth do people get together to vote to kill someone?
Wrong. That's called "the rule of law." Imprisonment for violation of law occurs, in the US, only AFTER due process. The presumption of our system is "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law." Therefore, your statement is non sequitur. The government cannot simply "choose" to imprison me, it must have probable cause to believe that I have committed a crime (violated a law) before it can even ARREST me and bring me to trial, and in a criminal case (as opposed to civil) it must PROVE to a jury of my peers that I am guilty beyond ALL REASONABLE DOUBT. I am presumed to be innocent until that time.Of course you can get imprisoned because the government chooses to, just break a law.
This is unlike most socialist nations and all tyrannies, where you CAN be seized and imprisoned without cause or legal justification, merely on the say-so of the government. China is notorious for doing so, as was, of course, Stalinist Russia, and a gazillion other tin-pot dictatorships like Zimbabwe.
Not quite. Asset forfeiture is highly constitutionally suspect, but it is based on the legal presumption that IF (and only if) the particular property involved can be linked directly to the profits of an illegal drug transaction, that they are therefore the fruits of a crime and may be seized by the government. But the government cannot simply "take away" your property...unlike in socialist nations where the concept of private property doesn't exist or is severely restricted...it must first prove that it's the fruits of a criminal enterprise.Break a drug law and you're property will be taken away as well.
Among them are life, liberty, property, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom of the press, freedom of peaceable assembly, freedom of association, freedom of disassociation, freedom of speech, freedom of petition to redress grievances, freedom of the vote, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to substantive and procedural due process of law, the right to a trial by a jury of my peers, the right to the writ of habeas corpus, the right to be secure in my person and home from unreasonable search and seizure, the right to refuse to quarter soldiers except in time of war, the right to personal medical privacy, the right to serve on a jury, the right to run for and hold public office, and a host of other fundamental, unalienable rights.What fundamental rights are you talking about?
Not really, it's just that you are evidently too ignorant to understand complex legal, philosophical and political arguments. You should probably stick to playing your Gameboy and popping your zits."the exercise of those rights may not be reasonably regulated in the public interest"?? Your all over the map on this one.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
- sandinista
- Posts: 2546
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:15 pm
- About me: It’s a plot, but busta can you tell me who’s greedier?
Big corporations, the pigs or the media? - Contact:
Re: The Almighty Unions
I was directing the question at seth. Anyway, he said specifically, "Individual rights to life, liberty and property are not subject to popular vote.". That sounds wrong. Take drug laws for instance, it would seem to me that the individual right to do drugs, any drug really, is subject to popular vote. Would you not have to elect a president that would start the ball rolling for federal legalization? With the same example, a persons life and property are also effected by these laws. Just seems funny an american talking about "Individual rights to life, liberty and property" and defending them to the deathCoito ergo sum wrote:Almost all laws interfere with liberty. However, liberty is never unfettered. We live in a Republic. The fact that liberty is something to value doesn't mean that a society has to be anarchic.
I think what he means about reasonable regulation is something like time,place and manner restrictions on free speech. Like, you're free to demonstrate and scream and yell about the G-whatever summit, but you can stand outside my house with a bullhorn and keep me awake all night doing it.

Our struggle is not against actual corrupt individuals, but against those in power in general, against their authority, against the global order and the ideological mystification which sustains it.
- sandinista
- Posts: 2546
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:15 pm
- About me: It’s a plot, but busta can you tell me who’s greedier?
Big corporations, the pigs or the media? - Contact:
Re: The Almighty Unions
Really, they get together, have a vote and kill someone? Like a death election?Seth wrote:Rwanda. Iran. Iraq. Syria. Africa. South America. Europe. Asia. It happens all over the planet, any time some group gets together and decides to kill members of their own community for no better reason than that they don't like them.
doesn't matter, the state makes the laws and chooses which ones to enforce by prison sentences. Sometimes the state will simply murder you. (waco as an example)Seth wrote:Wrong. That's called "the rule of law." Imprisonment for violation of law occurs, in the US, only AFTER due process....
yes, quite. You're property can be seized. Simply by making money through the sale of drugs. All your "ifs" don't make any difference to the fact that the government CAN simply take away your property.Seth wrote:Not quite. Asset forfeiture is highly constitutionally suspect, but it is based on the legal presumption that IF (and only if) the particular property involved can be linked directly to the profits of an illegal drug transaction, that they are therefore the fruits of a crime and may be seized by the government. But the government cannot simply "take away" your property...
More sloganism. Everything you listed has exceptions and in most cases degrees. As in some are "free'er" than others. Some are outright ignored (the right to substantive and procedural due process of law). I still can't see how "liberty" is a "right" when "liberty" doesn't even really exist.Seth wrote:Among them are life, liberty, property, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom of the press, freedom of peaceable assembly, freedom of association, freedom of disassociation, freedom of speech, freedom of petition to redress grievances, freedom of the vote, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to substantive and procedural due process of law, the right to a trial by a jury of my peers, the right to the writ of habeas corpus, the right to be secure in my person and home from unreasonable search and seizure, the right to refuse to quarter soldiers except in time of war, the right to personal medical privacy, the right to serve on a jury, the right to run for and hold public office, and a host of other fundamental, unalienable rights.
Oh a personal attack. Wow...really? You're ideology and dogma doesn't stand up so you resort to the old personal attack. Predictable and pathetic.Seth wrote:Not really, it's just that you are evidently too ignorant to understand complex legal, philosophical and political arguments. You should probably stick to playing your Gameboy and popping your zits.
Our struggle is not against actual corrupt individuals, but against those in power in general, against their authority, against the global order and the ideological mystification which sustains it.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 16 guests