One question each for far leftists and rightists

And some say that there should be a limit on how much land any one person can own. That does not preclude having property rights, and having ownership of land. It just means having some limits, so that no one person can control such a significant percentage of resources, that they become in effect their own little fiefdom, outside of laws, and buying Congressmen to make new laws on their behalf.

The first order of business, if America wants a Congress that represents the majority of the population, the 90% who are not mega wealthy, is to demand total transparency from the representatives. EVERY single aspect of their daily activities must be accounted for. That requires they must sacrifice their privacy if they wish to be representatives. If that were the standard, then people who opt to become a politician would be doing so for noble reasons, knowing they are sacrificing for the common good, as opposed to self interest and profiteering from the highest bidding lobbyists.

Since the Congress thinks that it is perfectly okay for CIA,NSA,HSA, etc. to spy on American citizens, I say its even more important, for Congresspersons to be monitored by camera 24/7, so that American citizens can see where they are going, who they are meeting with, and what they are discussing. And any politician discovered to have secret accounts, or secret transactions, meetings, will be brought before public trial to explain, and if found wanting, will have to serve time in prison., or at very least must immediately resign.

 

I lean Right, but that concept you pointed out could not happen, it's a scene from a B-rated movie we would not let it happen. But yes, what is mine is mine and you will have to pry it from my dead body if I don't want to give it to you. Maybe a leftist would hand his property over...and then go hug a tree.

 

No. I don't really see how they're similar, though. It seems to me that we do have a pretty massive wealth redistribution plan in America, but it all redistributes the wealth upward. People are far more likely to lose their homes (and their laptops and possibly their vital organs) to a wealthy person than the other way around.

I'm not a rightist, and I can't claim to understand rightists, but I think they would regard that as excellent.

 

Yes, I agree. It's just that these days the low-skill jobs are all overseas so you have to have a college degree in something (usually engineering or medicine), or have expertise in a trade, to get a non-(*)(*)(*)(*)-poor joke of a job.

Employers of engineers etc. these days pretty much only accept college graduates, and college takes money either in the form of loans and/or grants, unless you're already rich enough to go to a private college (which are disproportionately expensive to their "quality").

Nothing's "free", no matter what political system is in place. That's not what I meant, Einstein. What I meant is that I hate both Big Monopoly Government and it's love buddy, Big Monopoly Business.

 

Why not? Because you'd suffocate? In other words, you'd advocate stealing their property (air) so you could be better off?

Actually I'm pretty sure everyone would be that way when it comes to something that they view as theirs. But different people view different things as being rightfully owned in different situations.

 

You don't have to claim that you don't understand Conservatives - I can vouch for that as a fact now.

Conservatives would consider the act murder. Goes to show you how much you understand.

 

I dont have a problem with the personal property of the working class, what i have a problem with is corporate property and the property of rich people, who have only gotten so rich because they exploit other people

 

I'm not talking about conservatives (i.e. people who want less government control), but rather rightists (people who love big business controlling us indirectly).

So I ask. Why would that be murder? Wouldn't an absolute rightist say that since no one laid claim to private ownership of any oxygen gas molecules, that this hypothetical company(ies) would have the right to suck any of it up that was floating around in the atmosphere and then charge people anything for it?

 

Yes, but this is not necessarily capitalism's fault. China is cheating, rather severely. Ignoring environmental protection, oppressing their working class, subsidizing their exports, etc.

It's a problem of fair trade vs. free trade, which our government has rather sold us out on.

Isn't it though? I mean, maybe you didn't know you meant it, but that's the root issue here. If something is not free - meaning that it is scarce - that thing must be rationed in some way. We can either ration by price in the free market, or we can ration by waiting in line for the government to hand it out. In other words, anything not free will be controlled by one system or the other, and I choose capitalism.

I can sympathize with your dislike of "Big Monopoly Government" and "Big Monopoly Business" . . . there is another choice: small business.

Find them, love them.

 

I have to agree completely with this.

If there were a magical entity that could actually create goods and services like that and give them to us for free, I'd choose it over capitalism. But there isn't

Huge businesses aren't all "bad"; but Big Car, Big Fossil Fuel and Big Outsourcing do sorta suck.

 

You mean corporate "business"? Right wingers often say "it's just business" when corporate gangsters slice your throat. Take Mitt Pinkslip for example. He probably thinks he "worked" for his cash and doesn't realize he just took other people's work from them, then patted himself on the back. It's a sick mentality, I know...reason America is so screwed at this point.

 

The USA does this with radiofrequencies. They actually sell the exclusive rights to use a certain frequency to private companies. Then if the government wants to take back the right, it has to pay the company more money than it gave to begin with, because the value of the frequency typically increases over time. This is effectively commoditising something that no one should be allowed to own! Just like slavery.

 

Are you a liberal simply because you want a fair wage for your labor? For that you promote all those other social and political agendas in the left's ideology? Did you ever consider just 'leaving the herd'? Striking out on your own and attaining a personal goal? Of Course, if the left gets their wishes, the chances of that happening would be diminished greatly. You could get your free education and free food and a free place to curl up at night in. Free 'electricity' for you free car. But with free market businesses being closed down and replaced by food banks, clothing banks, public showers, free drug dispensaries and free medical clinics...that education would be moot.
You want a better income? Get a better job. Find a way to increase your value to your employer...or better yet, do something innovative.

 

Pretty idiotic hypothetical, wouldn't you say?

[/quote]The point is that centrism, or possibly, capitalistic geoism, is the most sensible approach.

These are both far-fetched questions, but they get the job done I'd say[/QUOTE]

Your questions are dripping with your hate for the conservative ideology , as you perceive it. The idea that there are people who never had a chance - like you - shows that you are a far left liberal. I guess that you are correct that you don't have a chance with that burden.

 

Yes, scarce resources must be rationed, but why should some individuals be impoverished by scarcity while others are enriched by it?

The free market is much more efficient, but why not use those scarcity-rents as the basis of taxation?

There is another way. Allow the market to allocate scarce natural resources but tax the owners of those resources for the full scarcity rent.

Capitalism -- where the resource owner keeps the scarcity rent -- is not economically efficient. An example of the inefficiencies of capitalism can easily be shown in the case of a fresh water aquifer. Those individuals who occupy the land directly above the deepest part of the aquifer have the perverse incentive to waste water. Since those individuals will be the last to run out of fresh water, they can increase their scarcity-rent income by wasting water so that the surrounding lands water wells run dry. Then with increased fresh water scarcity the value of their holding increases astronomically.

That perverse incentive to waste fresh water can be eliminated simply by using scarcity-rents as the basis of taxation. If resource owners know that increased scarcity will only result in increased taxation, then the resource owners will have no incentive to create even more scarcity through waste. So, unlike the current capitalist system which rewards people for creating or elevating the level of scarcity, a system whereby government was funded through scarcity rents would see that everybody suffer equally from scarcity. This type of taxation creates a community wide incentive to reduce waste of scarce natural resources.

You can learn more about the benefits of taxing scarcity-rents here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax

 

Land, water, Earth, etc. cannot be "owned" by a corporate power nor anyone who has no stake or claim to it legitimately. The problem is that all of what people conjecture or protest that they "own" such as land, water(rights), vegitation, animals, etc they do not, being that they did not put them here. So to me this question is fallacious at best. The only ownship that one has is of himself or herself if they are not the original occupants of the area in which they currently occupy.

As for this question, you cannot in fact label something moral or justice if there is no real morality nor justice at the root foundation of what is being proposed.

 

Why rely on government, which is the problem? If people had any decency, moral obligation, moral straightness, or any good at all, their practices would reflect such. Although they may live at the top of the aquifer, they would have the straightness/moral consciousness to limit their usage of said water for the good of everyone. Those living those in low-laying areas around the aquifer would practice the same. It is a question of moral consciousness which cannot be legislated or mandated by any government. Such things come the the core center of your being if you have any good within you.

 

So said mininig company pollutes the air and water and land around it to make it completely uninhabitable by the time they've finished. They've destroyed the resources that belongs to no one and now no one can use them. What should said mining company do about it? Did they have the right to pollute it beyond usable?

 

Everyones definition of fair is different.

 

Would not the old west of the 1800s best descibe what pure capitalism would turn into? Every man for himself by the barrel of a gun?

 

Question. Who do you think has the greatest impact in interference into the energy markets? Gov't or the energy companies themselves?

 

There are those that don't know how to bake or have the capacity to figure it out for a variety of reasons.
And some that may know how to bake, lack the resources to get the material to bake for a variety of reasons.

 

Left and right is not about property.

At least I want democratic control over businesses, not government owned businesses.

That's not counting the fallacy of confusing private property with personal property.

I want private personal property, and cooperative property in sense of the businesses owning factories and farms being cooperatives.

 

I know. My point is that becuase it's not scarce, it could never be controlled like that in the first place.

Depends on how you guage your scale. If the majority of this country were left-wing anarchists, then left-wing anarchism would be considered "centrist" and our current fascist-corporatist police state would be considered "extreme".