Proles

[BRUTALITOPS]

Proles will never save us - they will completely destroy us because they are mindless drones.

I was walking from the northeastern parking garage today, and from there I have to walk through the prole bus station. I looked around me and saw all the poor proles, and I knew in my mind that if they had the chance, they would vote for any law that would take away all my money so that they could buy 5 plasmas and have scarface going non-stop in their shacks.

Poor people take up space, they don't do anything, and are pretty much a drain. We still need them obviously to pick up our garbage and drive our busses, but that's about it.

I do not like proles.

[IHateGovernment]

Lol

[Care4all]

you are saying these poor ''PROLES'' work for a living as garbage men and lower menial jobs and the such, but don't get paid a living wage working for a living, thus are poor, and because of this....them being poor, (even though they work), you know ...that they would petition their government for help making ends meet, and THIS makes you hate these proles?

btw, what are proles?;)

[IHateGovernment]

The Proletariat Care. Marx wrote that the Proletariat are those who sell their labor to the Bourgeois who own the means of production.

Ever read 1984?

[IHateGovernment]

Thank you Mrs. Marx :p

[uscitizen]

I think of them a doles, or dolists, as in on the dole. but common laborors are not in that category as far as I am concerned.

[Beefy]

If there's an answer, it lies in the proles.

[Damocles]

Are you saying the Proles are liars?

[Beefy]

Are you saying the Proles are liars?

They're the only hope. The Ministry, Records and Love Departments have already been brainwashed. The hope lies in the proles.

[Damocles]

Obi-Wan was a Prole? I'm not getting you... ;)

[Beefy]

Obi-Wan was a Prole? I'm not getting you... ;)


Orwell man, Orwell.

[Care4all]

The Proletariat Care. Marx wrote that the Proletariat are those who sell their labor to the Bourgeois who own the means of production.

Ever read 1984?

ahhhhhh, yes, i read 1984 over 30 years ago ihg, i completely forgot....

hahaha! guess it is time to reread it! :)

care

[Damocles]

Obi-Wan, You're our only hope!

[BRUTALITOPS]

no see that's what i am saying beefy - the kind of government one would get in 1984 i think would be DUE to proles.

[Care4all]

Obi-Wan, You're our only hope!

''you are our only hope, obi wan kenobi...'' :) but Ben Kenobi is not a prole!

[OrnotBitwise]

If there's an answer, it lies in the proles.Right you are. Like it or not, they are the ones who count most. I say "they" because, my working-class-hero pretensions aside, I'm as much a member of the elite as anyone else on here.

I think Grind needs a cookie: his blood sugar's down and it's affecting his judgment again.

[OrnotBitwise]

no see that's what i am saying beefy - the kind of government one would get in 1984 i think would be DUE to proles.No, it will be perpetrated by people like you, Grind. And by people like me too, of course.

:D

[BRUTALITOPS]

Power for me would be a means, not an end.

[OrnotBitwise]

Power for me would be a means, not an end.
Ah, but to what end?

Everyone always thinks it's a means, not an end, for themselves. Everyone is almost always lying to themselves, too, but that's history for you.

[BRUTALITOPS]

well I would get absolute power, then declare myself and my property sovreign from any interference. Then everyone else could have at it and I would chill on my untaxable property and let someone else run the show.

[BRUTALITOPS]

see.. .that's all I want... If I am such a small and insignificant minority... let me just be absolutely free, and untaxable... and then everyone else can enjoy being taxed and made a slave. everybody wins.

[OrnotBitwise]

see.. .that's all I want... If I am such a small and insignificant minority... let me just be absolutely free, and untaxable... and then everyone else can enjoy being taxed and made a slave. everybody wins.
LOL! "Absolutely free?" Why don't you wish for the world to be made flat and be carried on the back of a giant turtle while you're about it.

[Beefy]

Power for me would be a means, not an end.

Ah to be young again. Power is the end, not the means. Power is the currency of the government, the ambitious politician, and the overall system. Money is the means, power is the end.

[BRUTALITOPS]

dear mbl,

Kindly shove it up your ass.

Power would help me become free, which is my true end. I don't care about being in power as long as I am free.

From,

Grind

[BRUTALITOPS]

LOL! "Absolutely free?" Why don't you wish for the world to be made flat and be carried on the back of a giant turtle while you're about it.

when I am king you will be the first against the wall.

0_0

[AnyOldIron]

Grind, you are an unsufferable snob, like Rob.

Lest you forget that to someone else, you will be the prole and they will pour scorn on your efforts.

Snobbery is ugly.

[AnyOldIron]

Power would help me become free, which is my true end. I don't care about being in power as long as I am free.

The freedom myth... If you wish to be truely free, you must abandon society and adopt natural freedom.

You must abandon protections such as those protecting you from being murdered or robbed, for example and adopt the 'laws of the jungle', as they say.

This absolute freedom day-dream is mutually exclusive with living in society.

[BRUTALITOPS]

If I gained so much power as to delcare myself free from the burden of having to serve society.. I think that would be better.

[BRUTALITOPS]

Grind, you are an unsufferable snob, like Rob.

Lest you forget that to someone else, you will be the prole and they will pour scorn on your efforts.

Snobbery is ugly.

then don't bitch about all the so-called social injustices that you perceive... (oh but I forgot.. more people agree with you so it's ok)

[AnyOldIron]

If I gained so much power as to delcare myself free from the burden of having to serve society.. I think that would be better.

So, your plan is to become a parasite, a leech?

You wish to take the advantages of living in society whilst paying none of the dues?

You must be gutted that you weren't born into the British Royal family?

[AnyOldIron]

then don't bitch about all the so-called social injustices that you perceive... (oh but I forgot.. more people agree with you so it's ok)

How is dealing with social problems related to snobbery or your plan to become a parasite, Grind?

[uscitizen]

Grind, but you would have to have people serving you, thereby propogating what you despise.

[uscitizen]

But then I guess you would build your own auto, refine your own gas, grow and process your own food, make your own moves, electronics,,,,,,,,,,,

[BRUTALITOPS]

yeah because we have ipods I need to get taxed... because I like watching tv I have to give back something to society....

Ever stop to think that If I like the amenities of society... I am PAYING for those amenities?

I don't see how that makes me a leech.

Oh yes... and as far as using roads would go.... I may just pay out of the goodness and kindness of my heart.

[OrnotBitwise]

Grind, specialization of labor simply cannot exist without government. Government can't exist without taxation. Therefor, if you want all the goodies, you've gotta ante up . . . just like everyone else.

[BRUTALITOPS]

well i am in the minority... so all those people out there that love taxes can volunterily pay. Besides, what evidence do you have to support that claim?

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Grind, specialization of labor simply cannot exist without government. Government can't exist without taxation. Therefor, if you want all the goodies, you've gotta ante up . . . just like everyone else.

What? Specialization of labour can't exist without the gov't? Ever heard of prostituion?

[AnyOldIron]

yeah because we have ipods I need to get taxed... because I like watching tv I have to give back something to society....

Ever stop to think that If I like the amenities of society... I am PAYING for those amenities?

I don't see how that makes me a leech.

You enjoy the luxuries of social freedom, the right not to be killed / attacked / robbed / to live in safety and enjoy rights.

To enjoy social freedoms you have to adopt social responsibilities.

If you want to enjoy social freedoms you have to enact social responsibilities.

Moaning that you want to be free of the responsibilities whilst enjoying the benefits of society is parasitic.

If you want a return to natural freedoms you have to adopt a natural attitude, leave society and submit yourself to the law of the jungle.

[BRUTALITOPS]

Most people aren't going to kill each other. Most of society can still enjoy amenities while not giving anything back.

Pretty sure I don't have to support welfare so I can watch my favorite tv shows. You are stretching big time any.

[uscitizen]

What? Specialization of labour can't exist without the gov't? Ever heard of prostituion?
Well there are a couple of age old things that just exist without any govt or anything. Prostitution, thievery, brewing and distilling.

[AnyOldIron]

Most people aren't going to kill each other. Most of society can still enjoy amenities while not giving anything back.

If people enjoyed the benefits of living in society without paying the costs of living in society then pretty soon it would descend into anarchy.

You just want to enjoy the benefits whilst others pick up the cost.

That makes you a parasite, like those who live on SS benefits and never contribute to society or groups like monarchies.

[AnyOldIron]

Living in society includes the ability to trade, to enjoy the comforts of living with protections against violence or theft, property rights, intellectual property rights etc.

These are social freedoms. Not natural freedoms.

With social freedoms come social responsibilities.

[uscitizen]

That makes you a parasite, like those who live on SS benefits and never contribute to society
//

Any, I have paid a lot of money into SS I will not be a leech untill I have drawn all out that I paid in. Also your SS benefits can be taxed in the USA.

[AnyOldIron]

Any, I have paid a lot of money into SS I will not be a leech untill I have drawn all out that I paid in. Also your SS benefits can be taxed in the USA.

But Grind, your desire is to live in society without paying these.

That you don't have the courage of your convictions (and thus leave society and not pay them) bears no relation to your desire...

Your desire is still to become a leech...

[OrnotBitwise]

Living in society includes the ability to trade, to enjoy the comforts of living with protections against violence or theft, property rights, intellectual property rights etc.

These are social freedoms. Not natural freedoms.

With social freedoms come social responsibilities.Too many people think of social benefits strictly in terms of services explicitly provided by the government. That is, as you point out here, naive.

Fundamentally, society is about personal security and stability. That is the purpose for which it exists. More correctly, that's the evolutionary, survival benefit it provides. As society becomes more complex and population density increases, government inevitably and necessarily also becomes larger and more complex. So too do our social responsibilities.

It is a grievous mistake to confuse personal freedoms that result from our social constructs with "natural" freedoms. In fact, there are no natural freedoms, other than what one can secure by brute force alone.

[AnyOldIron]

In fact, there are no natural freedoms, other than what one can secure by brute force alone.

Exactly. Grind would be a scared little boy if natural freedoms were in operation.

For example:

Many of those who chant the mantra freedom support property rights, yet the concept of property rights are a social freedom only gained by living in society. Without that social freedom, property would be possessed by whoever had the strength to defend it.

[uscitizen]

Darn, someone would take his Ipod ;)
And there would be no cops or anyone to help him.

[Damocles]

Darn, someone would take his Ipod ;)
And there would be no cops or anyone to help him.
Find them and take it back. Not too difficult there...

One can dispense with many of the "benefits" of government without enduring the supposed jungle and without leaving society itself.

[uscitizen]

IF one is capable of taking it back Damo.....
There is always someone bigger and meaner out there.

[Damocles]

IF one is capable of taking it back Damo.....
There is always someone bigger and meaner out there.
Hence you learn to use that powerful tool, the brain. It is the reason that humans can defeat the elephant, or even the whale.

[uscitizen]

Hence you learn to use that powerful tool, the brain. It is the reason that humans can defeat the elephant, or even the whale.

Yep it works sometimes, but sometimes the baddie is big mean and smart :(
For that we established civilization and societies.

[Damocles]

Yep it works sometimes, but sometimes the baddie is big mean and smart :(
For that we established civilization and societies.
Nah, then the baddie establishes his form of government.

The idea that one cannot avoid these people without the help of government, or that government protects everybody from them both are equally ridiculous ideas. While government may mete out some form of "justice" it never can protect you from the big baddies...

That society itself is government is the misconception that people are spreading here.

[uscitizen]

Perhaps that is part of the problem Damo. Society is becoming our government ?

[IHateGovernment]

Society and government are never the same thing. Only idealists living in neverland say such things. Whether we live in a dictatorship, monarchy, oligarchy or democracy those who hold the power in government belong to an elite that is not representative of society as a whole.

Whether or not this is a good or bad thing is another question.

[uscitizen]

I would think that if govt actually represented our society it would be a good thing.

[Cypress]

Hence you learn to use that powerful tool, the brain. It is the reason that humans can defeat the elephant, or even the whale.

Are you suggesting that we do without cops and police departments?

[Damocles]

Are you suggesting that we do without cops and police departments?
I am suggesting that a person who wished to live without the benefit of government could while still remaining in society. They are not one and the same.

I have proposed no plans to remove government from society.

[IHateGovernment]

I would think that if govt actually represented our society it would be a good thing.

Not me I have a low opinion of society. However I have an even lower opinion of government. Not a fan of the church or corporations either.

Maybe I just don't like anything.

[IHateGovernment]

One of the fallacies behind the idea that one cannot live in society without government is the idea that government is the wellspring of society and even civilization itself. Government is merely a tool.

Government exists of equal footing as organized religion and the market.

[BRUTALITOPS]

Living in society includes the ability to trade, to enjoy the comforts of living with protections against violence or theft, property rights, intellectual property rights etc.

These are social freedoms. Not natural freedoms.

With social freedoms come social responsibilities.

Society existed long before medicare anyoldiron.

[uscitizen]

and society created nursing homes, before that the families took care of their own.
Can't even envision getting old can you Grind ?

[BRUTALITOPS]

I think most families would take care of each other. I know I would take care of my own. I don't care about your family though, sorry.

[AnyOldIron]

One of the fallacies behind the idea that one cannot live in society without government is the idea that government is the wellspring of society and even civilization itself. Government is merely a tool.

Government exists of equal footing as organized religion and the market.

It is impossible to live in a society without some form of government, else you wouldn't live in society but by natural freedoms.

The ethos in the US seems to be to day-dream about some return to absolute, or natural, freedoms whilst maintaining social freedoms such as property rights.

This is an impossibility. Without some independent arbitrator it would be a case of take / do whatever you are capable of doing / taking. In that extent, effective government is the well spring of civilisation.

Government is fundamental to social living. You all might argue about the extent or form of government, but it is inevitable.

Anyone who claims otherwise, fantasizes....

[AnyOldIron]

Society existed long before medicare anyoldiron.

And your point is?

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Medicare is a piece of crap...

France spends LESS of their budget on healthcare than us, and we have crappier coverage.

[IHateGovernment]

It is impossible to live in a society without some form of government, else you wouldn't live in society but by natural freedoms.

that is false. Societies have existed that were not governed by a centralized authority which uses law to govern behavior. The societies operated using custom and informal social controls. These societies were smaller in scale and less technologically developed however the idea that society cannot exist without government is false.

Society creates government not the other way around.

The ethos in the US seems to be to day-dream about some return to absolute, or natural, freedoms whilst maintaining social freedoms such as property rights.

Who says this. My ethos is government that abandons the use of force in order to control behavior. Property rights are a legacy of government through the use of force. However to reverse that effect governmental use of force is also required.

Property rights do exist in the natural realm when confined to owning what you have created.

This is an impossibility. Without some independent arbitrator it would be a case of take / do whatever you are capable of doing / taking. In that extent, effective government is the well spring of civilisation.


Thats a serious leapo of logic there. You seem to make the erroneous conclusion that because government facilitates the maintenance and advance of civilization that it is the wellspring of civilization. This is a non sequitur. For your statement to be correct you would have to show how government allowed for the initial creation of civilization not just its aiding.

[uscitizen]

Society creates government not the other way around.
//
correct except for the latter stages of the governments cycle, where the government is shaping the society with leglislation.

[IHateGovernment]

I meant in an anthropological sense. Not a political sense.

[OrnotBitwise]

It is impossible to live in a society without some form of government, else you wouldn't live in society but by natural freedoms.

that is false. Societies have existed that were not governed by a centralized authority which uses law to govern behavior. The societies operated using custom and informal social controls. These societies were smaller in scale and less technologically developed however the idea that society cannot exist without government is false.
"Smaller in scale and less technologically developed?" LMAO! Yeah, that's a fair statement. So is saying that a virus is simpler than a human being.

First, those societies that have little or no centralized authority -- generally called acephalous societies -- exist solely at the hunter-gatherer level of social specialization. Secondly, they are no longer considered truly egalitarian either. Research since the 70s has shown that they are actually far more heirarchical than the first, rather credulous observers thought.

Society creates government not the other way around.
Does the chicken create the egg or the egg create the chicken? It's a nonsensical problem: the two are inextricable.

The ethos in the US seems to be to day-dream about some return to absolute, or natural, freedoms whilst maintaining social freedoms such as property rights.

Who says this. My ethos is government that abandons the use of force in order to control behavior. Property rights are a legacy of government through the use of force. However to reverse that effect governmental use of force is also required.

Property rights do exist in the natural realm when confined to owning what you have created.
No, they absolutely do not. There are no "property rights" -- no individual rights of any kind -- outside of social constructs.

Your mistake is to see government and law as resulting from the application of force. The relationship is far more organic than that.

[IHateGovernment]

First, those societies that have little or no centralized authority -- generally called acephalous societies -- exist solely at the hunter-gatherer level of social specialization. Secondly, they are no longer considered truly egalitarian either. Research since the 70s has shown that they are actually far more heirarchical than the first, rather credulous observers thought.

Regardless they were societies. It is culturalist to deny that they are. Hierarchy does not equate to government either. There were some Native American societies that lacked a government.

Does the chicken create the egg or the egg create the chicken? It's a nonsensical problem: the two are inextricable.

Simple the chicken creates the egg. An egg is just a chicken. The same follows here. Society came first then government.

No, they absolutely do not. There are no "property rights" -- no individual rights of any kind -- outside of social constructs.

I speak of natural rights. The natural state of a human without coercion brought upon him. In nature one owns one body or ones thoughts. It doesn't take a social construct to make that true. It is self evident. It takes an unnatural act to curtail ones ability to own their body or thoughts.

Your mistake is to see government and law as resulting from the application of force. The relationship is far more organic than that.

Law doesn't exist without the application of force or at least the threat of its use. A society that abandons this principle of the use of force behind the enforcement of law has abandoned government.

The use of informal societal controls are not governmental they are social.

[AnyOldIron]

First, those societies that have little or no centralized authority -- generally called acephalous societies -- exist solely at the hunter-gatherer level of social specialization.

Exactly my point. You either adhere to social freedoms (as JJR described them) or you exist in a state of natural freedom.

[AnyOldIron]

Regardless they were societies. It is culturalist to deny that they are. Hierarchy does not equate to government either. There were some Native American societies that lacked a government.

By that definition a wolf pack is a society.

Simple the chicken creates the egg. An egg is just a chicken. The same follows here. Society came first then government.

I've given the chicken / egg question a lot of thought. The egg came first. The preceding species would have laid an egg in which the genetic mutation that created the chicken species would have formed.


I speak of natural rights. The natural state of a human without coercion brought upon him.

There is no such thing, entity or state. Even in a state of natural freedoms coercion is brought about.

With natural freedoms, all have the right to do whatever they are capable of. If I want something and I can physically take it, I take it. Social freedoms protect the person from there things being taken.

Property rights, something so enshrined by those that believe the absolute freedom fantasy, is a social freedom, it isn't natural. You don't have property rights in nature.

In nature one owns one body or ones thoughts. It doesn't take a social construct to make that true. It is self evident. It takes an unnatural act to curtail ones ability to own their body or thoughts.

On the contrary, natural freedoms are the freedom to do whatever you are capable of, if I wish to kill and can physically do it, I do it.

It is social freedoms that protect the rights of the person not to be killed, just as the create property rights.

The use of informal societal controls are not governmental they are social.

And yet still use force to enforce them. The Alpha male uses force to coerce others in a wolf pack.

This means that government merely uses social controls that exist in natural freedoms...

[IHateGovernment]

By that definition a wolf pack is a society.

One could argue such a thing.

I've given the chicken / egg question a lot of thought. The egg came first. The preceding species would have laid an egg in which the genetic mutation that created the chicken species would have formed.

I agree but we are talking about creation. Chickens create eggs. Eggs don't create anything.

There is no such thing, entity or state. Even in a state of natural freedoms coercion is brought about.

With natural freedoms, all have the right to do whatever they are capable of. If I want something and I can physically take it, I take it. Social freedoms protect the person from there things being taken.

You misunderstand the premise of law based on natural rights. A society must recognize these rights but it does so because they are self evident instead of being nanded down from some centralized authority.

And yet still use force to enforce them. The Alpha male uses force to coerce others in a wolf pack.

This means that government merely uses social controls that exist in natural freedoms...

thats not what informal social controls are. Lets say a person in a community is abusive to others. Members of that community decide not to share the fruits of the community with the abusive member. There exercise of there own freedoms makes the abusive member way the consequences of his actions. He can continue to be abusive and be denied food from his fellows or he can get in line. This differs from government which has a body to enforce laws by physically punishing the offender if he disobeys.

[AnyOldIron]

I agree but we are talking about creation. Chickens create eggs. Eggs don't create anything.

Genetic mutations occur during reproduction. The species who created the first chicken weren't chickens. It was during the breeding of the preceding species that the chicken was created.

Thus the egg came first.

[uscitizen]

Tasty omlets ? :)

[AnyOldIron]

You misunderstand the premise of law based on natural rights. A society must recognize these rights but it does so because they are self evident instead of being nanded down from some centralized authority.

Natural rights are the rights to do whatever you like provided you physically can.

If I want your car, and can physically take it, I do so.

You do realise that property rights are a social, not a natural freedom?

[Damocles]

Property rights are an instinct, not a social structure. Even dogs fight over "their" property. People act like it is some complex thing only created by humans.

[uscitizen]

Yep Damo. Only humans have set up a society to protect the property rights of the weak though.

[AnyOldIron]

There exercise of there own freedoms makes the abusive member way the consequences of his actions. He can continue to be abusive and be denied food from his fellows or he can get in line. This differs from government which has a body to enforce laws by physically punishing the offender if he disobeys.

Deprivation of essentials is still physical coercion.

If I lay seige to a town, starving the population, am I not physically coercing the population?

[AnyOldIron]

Property rights are an instinct, not a social structure. Even dogs fight over "their" property. People act like it is some complex thing only created by humans.

There are no property rights in the state of nature, you only have the possessions you can defend.

It is only with social rights that you have protection of property regardless of your ability to defend it.

Property rights are a freedom afford by society, not nature.

[Damocles]

Yep Damo. Only humans have set up a society to protect the property rights of the weak though.
Not true. Dogs in a pack will protect even the weakest in their pack from "others". Their societies too, created by instinct, also protect the weak.

While there may be internal battling, their social structure is still created for protection.

[uscitizen]

Not true. Dogs in a pack will protect even the weakest in their pack from "others". Their societies too, created by instinct, also protect the weak.

While there may be internal battling, their social structure is still created for protection.

Their butt is not a property right, what about who eats first off a kill ?

[Damocles]

Property rights are an instinct, not a social structure. Even dogs fight over "their" property. People act like it is some complex thing only created by humans.

There are no property rights in the state of nature, you only have the possessions you can defend.

It is only with social rights that you have protection of property regardless of your ability to defend it.

Property rights are a freedom afford by society, not nature.
One would never feel the need to "defend" without an inherent belief in "rights". This is an instinct. Believing this to be only a complex structure created by humans is egocentrism and humanist, but it doesn't make it more true. A dog has a sense of property, otherwise they would not seek to protect what is "theirs".

[Damocles]

Their butt is not a property right, what about who eats first off a kill ?
Your life is the first form of "property" that most animals and humans feel. The idea that your own life isn't "property" is a humanist ideal.

Who eats first is built on the social structure, the entire kill is the property of the pack...

[AnyOldIron]

One would never feel the need to "defend" without an inherent belief in "rights".

A lion will defend its kill. Does a lion have an inherent belief in rights?

[Damocles]

As I said, it is an instinct, but it is clear they are protecting their property. Do you ever read more than the first two or three words of a complex post?

[AnyOldIron]

Your life is the first form of "property" that most animals and humans feel.

Are you claiming that animals understand the concept of property, rather than possession?

[uscitizen]

Life is not property, life is life. Property is what a life claims exclusive control over.

[Damocles]

Your life is the first form of "property" that most animals and humans feel.

Are you claiming that animals understand the concept of property, rather than possession?
One more time, since you never read the posts and will pretend I haven't three times already answered this inane question.

It is an instinct. It was clear that I said that the idea of property is an instinct from the very first post.

[Damocles]

Life is not property, life is life. Property is what a life claims exclusive control over.
Your meat body is your property. If it wasn't there would be no violation when raped.

[AnyOldIron]

As I said, it is an instinct, but it is clear they are protecting their property.

No you didn't. You said " One would never feel the need to "defend" without an inherent belief in "rights". "

Do animals have a sense of 'rights' in your opinion...lol

Look up the difference between 'property' and 'possession'.


Do you ever read more than the first two or three words of a complex post?

LOL

[OrnotBitwise]

Your meat body is your property. If it wasn't there would be no violation when raped.
Rape is not a violation of property rights. Your self is not merely your property, it is you.

Rape is rape. It has nothing to do with property. Neither does murder. They are culturally defined as crimes without reference to any rights of property.

[uscitizen]

Your meat body is your property. If it wasn't there would be no violation when raped.
that is an "advanced " societies definition. do dogs rape ?

[Damocles]

As I said, it is an instinct, but it is clear they are protecting their property.

No you didn't. You said " One would never feel the need to "defend" without an inherent belief in "rights". "

Do animals have a sense of 'rights' in your opinion...lol

Look up the difference between 'property' and 'possession'.


Do you ever read more than the first two or three words of a complex post?

LOL
That was not my first post on this subject. I stated that property is an instinct, not something created by societies or complex human structures.

[Damocles]

Rape is not a violation of property rights. Your self is not merely your property, it is you.

Rape is rape. It has nothing to do with property. Neither does murder. They are culturally defined as crimes without reference to any rights of property.
It is a violation of the most basic of property. Your own body.

[Damocles]

that is an "advanced " societies definition. do dogs rape ?
Their instinct for breeding is entirely different, one cannot compare.

[uscitizen]

You used dogs as an example Damo, do dogs rape ? Don't jump anround and cherry pick now, lets stick with dogs.

[Damocles]

You used dogs as an example Damo, do dogs rape ? Don't jump anround and cherry pick now, lets stick with dogs.
Once again, it's like asking if cars rape. The instinct is entirely different. This analogy is a bad one.

Dogs do "attack" and take from other packs, thus "stealing" would not be unknown. But since they do not have sex unless they are in heat it would be inane to try to compare.

[AnyOldIron]

I stated that property is an instinct,

Possession is an instinct, property is a social construct.

In the natural state, you possess what you can defend.

Under social freedoms, you own property that can be beyond that that you merely possess and can defend.

Have you never read Rousseau's Social Contract? He explains it very well...

[AnyOldIron]

Their instinct for breeding is entirely different, one cannot compare.

You cannot compare possession in natural freedom with property afforded by social freedoms..

[uscitizen]

Cars are not lifeforms Damo .....
Talk about inane.....
although some humans do worship them.

[Damocles]

I stated that property is an instinct,

Possession is an instinct, property is a social construct.

In the natural state, you possess what you can defend.

Under social freedoms, you own property that can be beyond that that you merely possess and can defend.

Have you never read Rousseau's Social Contract? He explains it very well...
Protection is a construct of society, much like that of the pack. Together they are stronger and can protect more of their property. Even among humans this same limitation exists.

[Damocles]

Cars are not lifeforms Damo .....
Talk about inane.....
although some humans do worship them.
Both are inane. It was a valid analogy. The car and the dogs do not have the same impulses as humans. Pretending that they do and trying to compare sex between the species may as well be using something that isn't a lifeform.

Dogs are driven to have sex because they are in heat, that is all. Humans are not and can "steal" and control another taking their most basic possession from them.

[uscitizen]

Protect more of the packs property, not the indivuidual members property. the strongest in the pack eat first the weakest last.

[AnyOldIron]

Protection is a construct of society, much like that of the pack.

Rhinos aren't social animals, yet they protect themselves and their young?

The concept of property, ie possessing beyond what you can defend, is a construct of society.

[Damocles]

Protect more of the packs property, not the indivuidual members property. the strongest in the pack eat first the weakest last.
Correct, but the kill belongs to the entire pack.

[Damocles]

Protection is a construct of society, much like that of the pack.

Rhinos aren't social animals, yet they protect themselves and their young?

The concept of property, ie possessing beyond what you can defend, is a construct of society.
Right, but not of complex society. The pack is an instinctual society which does the same thing. You only cement my point with this.

[uscitizen]

Both are inane. It was a valid analogy. The car and the dogs do not have the same impulses as humans. Pretending that they do and trying to compare sex between the species may as well be using something that isn't a lifeform.

Dogs are driven to have sex because they are in heat, that is all. Humans are not and can "steal" and control another taking their most basic possession from them.

Again Damo, cars are not lifeforms... And therefore cannot be equated to Dogs.
If I kick my car am I charged with cruelty to automobile ?

[AnyOldIron]

I'm going home now.

Have a good weekend y'all! :)

[uscitizen]

Yep any. Perhaps I will have damo convinced that a car is not a lifeform by monday :)

[Damocles]

Humans take great pride in creating these societies, and even when shown examples in nature still want to believe that they are unique. This is humanism and egocentrism. It does not change that the value of us/them, as well as "mine" is instinctual among many animal societies.

We gather together for protection, so do these groups...

[Damocles]

Yep any. Perhaps I will have damo convinced that a car is not a lifeform by monday :)
I stated it wasn't a lifeform as well. Pretending I did not doesn't change that I did, it just means that you are being dishonest. I directly answered why I used that analogy.

[Damocles]

I'm going home now.

Have a good weekend y'all! :)
Later!

[uscitizen]

I stated it wasn't a lifeform as well. Pretending I did not doesn't change that I did, it just means that you are being dishonest. I directly answered why I used that analogy.
And in that answer you still equated cars to dogs.

[Damocles]

No, in that answer I stated that you may as well have used "automobile" as it would have equal validity. I also explained why it would. Use a different example. Like "Is there assault?" rather than rape as the whole sexaul instinct is so entirely different as to be incapable of such a comparison.

There is no rape among dogs because the reproduction instinct and structure is built entirely differently than ours.

[uscitizen]

Having survived the younger human years I am not so sure your other statement is true either Damo.
"Dogs are driven to have sex because they are in heat, that is all. Humans are not and can "steal" and control another taking their most basic possession from them."
Humans are dirven very much by instinctive hormonal dirven sex as well.

[Damocles]

Yet they are also driven by enjoyment and thus have incentive to "take" what a dog does not have incentive to "take". This particular analogy is not actionable. Like I said, using something other than "rape" would be more valid.

[uscitizen]

I was not the one to use rape as an example....

[OrnotBitwise]

It is a violation of the most basic of property. Your own body.
You choose to interpret that instinct/reflex as "property". That is your interpretation, not mine. I find yours stretched to the point of near absurdity, frankly.

Territoriality and assertion of status are instinctive. Property is not. Even posession is not, except as an expression of territoriality and status. Property is a social construct the purpose of which is to help regulate and mitigate conflict over territory and status.

[Damocles]

However I did not use dogs and rape together. Anyway, yes, sometimes among dog packs there is rape. A dog seeking dominance will seek to take that possession from another.

[Damocles]

You choose to interpret that instinct/reflex as "property". That is your interpretation, not mine. I find yours stretched to the point of near absurdity, frankly.

Territoriality and assertion of status are instinctive. Property is not. Even posession is not, except as an expression of territoriality and status. Property is a social construct the purpose of which is to help regulate and mitigate conflict over territory and status.
I believe that this is egocentrism. Anybody watching two dogs fight over a possession know that they understand "mine". This is an instinct.

Believing that their social structure was not created to protect possessions from being taken, I believe is more egocentrism.

Humans want to believe that all things are special to them. Some things are. We create greater societies and increase protections for property, but the establishment of societies to protect property is not unique to the human animal.

[uscitizen]

No you did not use dogs and rape together, you jumped around to make your point, and did not stick with your dogs for the discussion.

[uscitizen]

But the protection of the property of the weak owner is pretty much if not entirely a construct of human society Damo.
Hence the "dog eat Dog" saying.

[Damocles]

But the protection of the property of the weak owner is pretty much if not entirely a construct of human society Damo.
Hence the "dog eat Dog" saying.
Once again, only when speaking of within the "us". Even the weakest dog gets protection from an outside pack and is allowed to eat from their kill.

[uscitizen]

Once again, only when speaking of within the "us". Even the weakest dog gets protection from an outside pack and is allowed to eat from their kill.
If there is any left after the stronger ones have their fill.

[OrnotBitwise]

I believe that this is egocentrism. Anybody watching two dogs fight over a possession know that they understand "mine". This is an instinct.

Believing that their social structure was not created to protect possessions from being taken, I believe is more egocentrism.

Humans want to believe that all things are special to them. Some things are. We create greater societies and increase protections for property, but the establishment of societies to protect property is not unique to the human animal.
It is your interpretation that dogs are fighting over posession. Most animal psychologists would disagree. Dogs fight over dominance and territory. Dogs do not have the same concept of posessions that we do. A domestic dog's territoriality may be focused on movable objects, yes, but that is not true among wild canines where territoriality does not have to be sublimated.

It is you who's indulging in egocentrism, I deem. You're trying to force all human instinctive responses into the framework dictated by your ideology.

It's all about status and territory, not property. Property rights are purely social constructs, albeit early and important ones. As such, your property rights are what society says they are: no more and no less. This is why they've changed so much over time and continue to evolve now.

[Damocles]

If there is any left after the stronger ones have their fill.
True. I did state only between "us", they get protection from "them"...

Their society is a bit different, they are a different animal and are not basing most of this on intelligence.

[Damocles]

It is your interpretation that dogs are fighting over posession. Most animal psychologists would disagree. Dogs fight over dominance and territory. Dogs do not have the same concept of posessions that we do. A domestic dog's territoriality may be focused on movable objects, yes, but that is not true among wild canines where territoriality does not have to be sublimated.

It is you who's indulging in egocentrism, I deem. You're trying to force all human instinctive responses into the framework dictated by your ideology.

It's all about status and territory, not property. Property rights are purely social constructs, albeit early and important ones. As such, your property rights are what society says they are: no more and no less. This is why they've changed so much over time and continue to evolve now.
The instinct is to protect their territory, their property. I stated it was instinct from the beginning.

This is again egocentrism. Humans are driven to feel superior.

[uscitizen]

Yep property rights continue to evolve , peasants can now own property, unless the govt wants to take it away from them. In a way we only pay each other to stay off our property with our rental fees (taxes) from our govt. If we don't pay those fees the government takes the property.

[Damocles]

I even stated that the human animal created greater societal constructs and extended greater protections. However pretending that this society does not protect property instinctually is pretense.

[Damocles]

Yep property rights continue to evolve , peasants can now own property, unless the govt wants to take it away from them. In a way we only pay each other to stay off our property with our rental fees (taxes) from our govt. If we don't pay those fees the government takes the property.
And they take them by force, using their superior strength to dominate the weaker individual.

[uscitizen]

True. I did state only between "us", they get protection from "them"...

Their society is a bit different, they are a different animal and are not basing most of this on intelligence.
The us and them still exists inside the pack level as well.
The pecking order and the weakest eating last....

[Damocles]

The us and them still exists inside the pack level as well.
The pecking order and the weakest eating last....
Which is what I stated. Only you can find contention in agreement. However even the weakest are extended protection from a "them". So you can find both among the dogs. It was a far better analogy than I first thought.

[uscitizen]

Which is what I stated. Only you can find contention in agreement. However even the weakest are extended protection from a "them". So you can find both among the dogs. It was a far better analogy than I first thought.
The weakest only live in times of plenty, the strongest survive all the time.
Where is the protection of property in that for the weak ? The weak just get the left overs. hmm might be more like humans after all ;)

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

no see that's what i am saying beefy - the kind of government one would get in 1984 i think would be DUE to proles.

It's not due to proles, it's due to the brainwashed EDUCATED class. Higher education = fascist indoctrination and elitism.

[Damocles]

AssHat resurrects the dead more often than Jesus.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

AssHat resurrects the dead more often than Jesus.

I am a miracle worker.

[BRUTALITOPS]

best thread ever lol

[maineman]

best thread ever lol

yo grind...how the hell are ya?
LTNS!

[Damocles]

Have they sewed your guts together yet? When do you get to taste real food again?