Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Topic closed!!!
Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD
no public education -> private education -> no right for education, only if you buy it (so no right for the poor)
no public police -> private police (mafia) -> still no laws (enforcement to be precise) -> no rights
About healthcare... well I'm happier that anybody can go to the doctor if he/she gets sick, so people actually have the right to be basically healthy now (of course they can become fat/alcoholic/etc, if they wish). That's what you'd like to take away.
Everything would be possible, for money. Bread and all the rights too. That's why poor people wouldn't have rights. They would have to spend their money on bread.
no public police -> private police (mafia) -> still no laws (enforcement to be precise) -> no rights
About healthcare... well I'm happier that anybody can go to the doctor if he/she gets sick, so people actually have the right to be basically healthy now (of course they can become fat/alcoholic/etc, if they wish). That's what you'd like to take away.
Everything would be possible, for money. Bread and all the rights too. That's why poor people wouldn't have rights. They would have to spend their money on bread.
That's what you'd like to take away.
And there it is. The moral highground.
I want to take healtcare away from people. I want them to get sick. I want them to starve to death.
The point is that due to the inconsistency I pointed out earlier (but for some reason, you seem to ignore), you have no ground to stand on.
And there it is. The moral highground.
I want to take healtcare away from people. I want them to get sick. I want them to starve to death.
The point is that due to the inconsistency I pointed out earlier (but for some reason, you seem to ignore), you have no ground to stand on.
I see you've retreated. Nice. :D
You did not read me well ;-)
Public lands are owned by his population but they decide to entrust these lands to an organization called government ;-)
And i don't in other countries, but in France, when you want to buy/sell a house, the state has the privilege to buy it before any other people.
Finally, about the question of property, it was and still is only about the question of the stronger against the weaker nothing more... And property and freedom are in each side of a balance... so such is some space consideration (body, soil etc...), and there will be some property, freedom will be limitated... Even more, the idea of freedom is not a true idea (read Spinoza) because we can only talk about sapce of freedom. If you want total freedom then property should not exist and if we follow the reasoning with no property then freedom become useless (like hapiness has a sense only if we can feel the woe - and furthermore, no good-no evil - no culpability - no right) and no property --> no freedom --> no right.
To resume, we are animals with some brain useful to play with concepts and atoms, but we stay animals (as predators) and the idea to be owner will stay inside us as the idea of space of freedom.
(edited)
Public lands are owned by his population but they decide to entrust these lands to an organization called government ;-)
And i don't in other countries, but in France, when you want to buy/sell a house, the state has the privilege to buy it before any other people.
Finally, about the question of property, it was and still is only about the question of the stronger against the weaker nothing more... And property and freedom are in each side of a balance... so such is some space consideration (body, soil etc...), and there will be some property, freedom will be limitated... Even more, the idea of freedom is not a true idea (read Spinoza) because we can only talk about sapce of freedom. If you want total freedom then property should not exist and if we follow the reasoning with no property then freedom become useless (like hapiness has a sense only if we can feel the woe - and furthermore, no good-no evil - no culpability - no right) and no property --> no freedom --> no right.
To resume, we are animals with some brain useful to play with concepts and atoms, but we stay animals (as predators) and the idea to be owner will stay inside us as the idea of space of freedom.
(edited)
Public lands are owned by his population but they decide to entrust these lands to an organization called government
I know you meant this. I asked when? When did they decide that? Were they the rightful owners to begin with? Is there some sort of document that proves this?
And i don't in other countries, but in France, when you want to buy/sell a house, the state has the privilege to buy it before any other people.
Well, I never heard of such a thing in Belgium. Belgium is just a little less socialist than France ;-)
Finally, about the question of property, it was and still is only about the question of the stronger against the weaker nothing more... And property and freedom are in each side of a balance... so such is some space consideration (body, soil etc...), and there will be some property, freedom will be limitated... Even more, the idea of freedom is not a true idea (read Spinoza) because we can only talk about sapce of freedom. If you want total freedom then property should not exist and if we follow the reasoning with no property then freedom become useless (like hapiness has a sense only if we can feel the woe - and furthermore, no good-no evil - no culpability - no right) and no property --> no freedom --> no right.
I've already explained why this is not true in my opinion. Because (private) property is the basis of freedom (the property of your own body). Unless you define freedom differently than I do.
I know you meant this. I asked when? When did they decide that? Were they the rightful owners to begin with? Is there some sort of document that proves this?
And i don't in other countries, but in France, when you want to buy/sell a house, the state has the privilege to buy it before any other people.
Well, I never heard of such a thing in Belgium. Belgium is just a little less socialist than France ;-)
Finally, about the question of property, it was and still is only about the question of the stronger against the weaker nothing more... And property and freedom are in each side of a balance... so such is some space consideration (body, soil etc...), and there will be some property, freedom will be limitated... Even more, the idea of freedom is not a true idea (read Spinoza) because we can only talk about sapce of freedom. If you want total freedom then property should not exist and if we follow the reasoning with no property then freedom become useless (like hapiness has a sense only if we can feel the woe - and furthermore, no good-no evil - no culpability - no right) and no property --> no freedom --> no right.
I've already explained why this is not true in my opinion. Because (private) property is the basis of freedom (the property of your own body). Unless you define freedom differently than I do.
Not to be cruel... But: money makes the world go round. Survival of the fittest has become survival of the wealthiest. We are to many people in this world to pay for all in health care, it's just not affordable. Btw, you can still give care with less miney, the care will just not be up to date with nowadays standards... You van easily give sth cheap that helps just a little bit less but still helps.
I just want to say: welcome to this century ;)
I just want to say: welcome to this century ;)
I am strongly in favour of open borders. The current system leads to huge disparities (a leading scientist in Vietnam, where I currently live, earns as much as somebody doing simple administrative work in the Netherlands) that are based on nothing but location. It is extremely inconvenient in many cases (have you ever tried to work outside of the EU? A lot of bureaucracy etc.).
On the other hand, and Levitate knows that, I am a supporter of collective social security. For social benefits related to work (which I am not so much in favour of anymore, except for in cases in which somebody is not able to work anymore), it is quite simple. You can relate that to your previous contribution (e.g. one month of support per half a year that you worked, or whatever). But for education (especially) and healthcare I am a bit stuck on how one would organize that. Is anyone aware of a theory of how you that could be organized in the transition phase (I tried to google for something, but I could find)? If you have an equilibrium after a while, you can make up some system, but this transition period is hard to manage.
On the other hand, and Levitate knows that, I am a supporter of collective social security. For social benefits related to work (which I am not so much in favour of anymore, except for in cases in which somebody is not able to work anymore), it is quite simple. You can relate that to your previous contribution (e.g. one month of support per half a year that you worked, or whatever). But for education (especially) and healthcare I am a bit stuck on how one would organize that. Is anyone aware of a theory of how you that could be organized in the transition phase (I tried to google for something, but I could find)? If you have an equilibrium after a while, you can make up some system, but this transition period is hard to manage.
After reading your answer i can see you define freedom differently than i do too.
Then your definition is pointless. How can you talk about freedom if there is no 'I'. If I am not the owner of my body, how can 'I' - which at that time is a void concept - have freedom?
The power of the people, sometimes it is possible to change things, this is a small start. Also in the Netherlands it happened, the labor union stopped doing business with this criminal organisation which is breaking Geneva Convention Laws. So that's great :) Maybe someday a total boycott of israel is possible when more people start to care, as what happened with South Africa and their apartheid.
Link: End G4S's complicity in Israel’s prison system
(edited)
Link: End G4S's complicity in Israel’s prison system
(edited)
Then you did not read well what i expressed : the idea of freedom has a sense only with property in a balance exchange... We can't talk about freedom alone but with space of freedom, each time you talk about freedom everywhere it is related to space... You talk about your body... Your body is limitated ;-)... As he is limitated and you're not alone (with no retraint), there are other limits around you stopping your idea of freedom (without the idea of space) and your freedom is restrained and when you talk about to be owner of land, about to be owner of a culture (for freedom of speech))... Then, if you want to keep your useless idea of freedom to reach unlimitated level (your idea of freedom would reach total level) then property must not exist then by extension, if property would not exist then freedom becomes useless too (simple to understand no ?)
Then you did not read well what i expressed
I did, maybe you didn't express yourself very well :p
the idea of freedom has a sense only with property in a balance exchange...
This is what I disagree with, because for me, freedom and property are on the same side of the balance (I've explained why freedom is only relevant if one has at least his own body as property).
Then, if you want to keep your useless idea of freedom to reach unlimitated level (your idea of freedom would reach total level) then property must not exist then by extension, if property would not exist then freedom becomes useless too (simple to understand no ?)
Freedom is always limited to the border at which someone else's freedom starts, because if that was not the case, there would be no freedom at all. I'm not suggesting we should be allowed to do everything we want because of our freedom. I don't have the freedom to kill you, and the reason for that is that that is not freedom (as your freedom would be violated).
Maybe you'd better understand if it was in French :p
I did, maybe you didn't express yourself very well :p
the idea of freedom has a sense only with property in a balance exchange...
This is what I disagree with, because for me, freedom and property are on the same side of the balance (I've explained why freedom is only relevant if one has at least his own body as property).
Then, if you want to keep your useless idea of freedom to reach unlimitated level (your idea of freedom would reach total level) then property must not exist then by extension, if property would not exist then freedom becomes useless too (simple to understand no ?)
Freedom is always limited to the border at which someone else's freedom starts, because if that was not the case, there would be no freedom at all. I'm not suggesting we should be allowed to do everything we want because of our freedom. I don't have the freedom to kill you, and the reason for that is that that is not freedom (as your freedom would be violated).
Maybe you'd better understand if it was in French :p
guys it's all very simple:
freedom doesn't exist.
In reality thi is a neutral idea. A no-significant concept.
We can use it in incompatible concepts with no itself contraddictions..
Freedom of speech is incompatible with freedom to repress oppositors.
freedom to move is against freedom to arrest people.
freedom from autority is incompatible with freedom of authority to rule..
but all those are freedoms too..
in fact we use to defy freedom using (ONLY) our owns preference and we say freedom is what we want to.. and it's not what we don't..
but reality is that freedom means nothing, except you specify freedom OF what (od FROM what)..
I think we must choose to replace that word with the specific word we need to defy our speech:
-right to talk (not freedom of speech), right to move (not freedom of movement), right to have (not freedom of property?!?!?)
-indipendece from otherr countries (not freedom from other countries)
-license to (hunt-drive-possess weapon-etc), not freedom to..
that will make us simpler to comprehend that what we call freedom is often something a question of rules.. and that shows how stupid is to claim that state must not intervene in regulation..
when HE CREATES freedom.
freedom doesn't exist.
In reality thi is a neutral idea. A no-significant concept.
We can use it in incompatible concepts with no itself contraddictions..
Freedom of speech is incompatible with freedom to repress oppositors.
freedom to move is against freedom to arrest people.
freedom from autority is incompatible with freedom of authority to rule..
but all those are freedoms too..
in fact we use to defy freedom using (ONLY) our owns preference and we say freedom is what we want to.. and it's not what we don't..
but reality is that freedom means nothing, except you specify freedom OF what (od FROM what)..
I think we must choose to replace that word with the specific word we need to defy our speech:
-right to talk (not freedom of speech), right to move (not freedom of movement), right to have (not freedom of property?!?!?)
-indipendece from otherr countries (not freedom from other countries)
-license to (hunt-drive-possess weapon-etc), not freedom to..
that will make us simpler to comprehend that what we call freedom is often something a question of rules.. and that shows how stupid is to claim that state must not intervene in regulation..
when HE CREATES freedom.
The power of the people, sometimes it is possible to change things, this is a small start. Also in the Netherlands it happened, the labor union stopped doing business with this criminal organisation which is breaking Geneva Convention Laws. So that's great :) Maybe someday a total boycott of israel is possible when more people start to care, as what happened with South Africa and their apartheid.
Link: End G4S's complicity in Israel’s prison system
So you are proposing that "the people" should boycott the only democratic country in the region, with only a few religious extremists in the government as opposed to all the other dumb fucks around them? Instead of helping them to find a solution with some of those normal people around them who are not sending rockets across the borders on a daily basis?
I do sincerely hope there are not a lot of those people out there! And for once I am happy not to be one of those people.
I will probably not read your answer. just in case.
Link: End G4S's complicity in Israel’s prison system
So you are proposing that "the people" should boycott the only democratic country in the region, with only a few religious extremists in the government as opposed to all the other dumb fucks around them? Instead of helping them to find a solution with some of those normal people around them who are not sending rockets across the borders on a daily basis?
I do sincerely hope there are not a lot of those people out there! And for once I am happy not to be one of those people.
I will probably not read your answer. just in case.
(I warn you, that you probably shouldn't read this either, but:)
That's a democratic country for Israeli people only. South Africa was also a democratic wealth-state for white people under the apartheid regime.
On the other hand, half of Israel's population is Palestinian and they are only second-rate citizens, just like black people were in South Africa.
Israel is so civilized, that some of their generals don't travel to Europe, because they would be arrested for war crimes.
Not sending rockets across the borders? Maybe not on a daily basis, but they have destroyed South-Lebanon, just because Hezbollah - a terrorist organisation, which has headquarters in Lebanon, but which doesn't represent that state or nation - captured 4 Israeli soldiers.
As I see, that's a limited, semi-fascist democracy, which make the region very unstable. I sympathized with their Labour Party government from more than 10 years ago, they wanted peace. But I consider Nethanjahu and his kind similarly guilty as Hezbollah and Hamas leaders.
That's a democratic country for Israeli people only. South Africa was also a democratic wealth-state for white people under the apartheid regime.
On the other hand, half of Israel's population is Palestinian and they are only second-rate citizens, just like black people were in South Africa.
Israel is so civilized, that some of their generals don't travel to Europe, because they would be arrested for war crimes.
Not sending rockets across the borders? Maybe not on a daily basis, but they have destroyed South-Lebanon, just because Hezbollah - a terrorist organisation, which has headquarters in Lebanon, but which doesn't represent that state or nation - captured 4 Israeli soldiers.
As I see, that's a limited, semi-fascist democracy, which make the region very unstable. I sympathized with their Labour Party government from more than 10 years ago, they wanted peace. But I consider Nethanjahu and his kind similarly guilty as Hezbollah and Hamas leaders.
So your choice is to help those religious fanatics around then.
Congrats, stupidity times ten!
Congrats, stupidity times ten!