The British , US etc seems to like to put in to power Tyrants and override democratic choice of the peoples just like in the UK, there is no Democracy just a one party system with Three names ruled by another Foreign power the EU SSR / Globalists
What the CIA did was questionable, but I have very little sympathies for people that prefer theocracy or socialism. Mossadegh could have ushered in a communist government in Iran had the CIA not intervened. Sometimes one has to only many bad options to pick from....
Well Mossadegh was not a communist, he was more of an Iranian nationalist (and an aristocrat) that did have a communist party, as well as other factions, that were part of his national alliance. Obviously almost anything could happen, but I don't see how the evidence points to that being a likely hood.
His plan to nationalize Iranian oil could threaten other major companies in the region by setting a trend, and it immediately affected British Petroleum who controlled the Iranian oil fields. So much so that they had the British lobby the Americans for help to perform a coup detat while offering part of the oil deal to American companies.
Well those Oil fields belong to British Petroleum. They prospected the land. They discovered the oil. They invested the money. They developed the infrastructure. Nationalization is legalized stealing. Which the communists did when they came to Russia. They must have seen the pattern and become nervous.
British Petroleum (which was a British nationalized company at the time of the coup) was only able to gain access to that region by engaging in a war and forcing a treaty down Iran that put it under British influence during the early 1900s. It made a deal with its puppet dictator to get control of the area to extract the oil.
The British government interfered with the political freedom of the Iranians and BP's control of the oil did not come through voluntary interactions or homesteading of land. It came through "legalized theft" and slavery by war and puppet dictators. Mosaddeq (who was by no means perfect) even offered to purchase it from the oppressors who refused.
I see there are no heros in either side of this story. But I conceded to that at the beginning. But somehow I feel the libertarian means to resolve the issue would have never came up. It hardly does. And yet a puppet dictator from Britain on US does a better job of protecting private property than a popular native socialist leader. But to a people who does not recognize its benefits, even that becomes a source for misery. I suppose the best both sides can do is learn from their mistakes.
Many times the so called private property in these nations is not acquired through homesteading and/or voluntary interactions so it wouldn't be valid. In the British BP case it was theft and along with its political oppression would make its ownership claim illegitimate. I would say under libertarian ideas, both market and socialist.
It seems under Rothbard's and even Locke's idea of transformation being the way to legitimately acquire land (and the oil under it) would lie with the people who occupied it more so than the British who's company should have entered the commons after its oppression (especially considering the fact that it only got their beforehand through war).
I am not sure the oil underneath the land would belong to the people who transformed the land. But of course anyone who wants the oil needs to use the land. So would need to work with them, which you can't when you are busy oppressing them.
I do not think political oppression in itself would make any ownership claim illegitimate, only if political oppression leads to violation of property rights. I am not sure that BP's was a clear case of theft either, although that was part of the package.
Well I would agree it would depend on the level of oppression. However, stifling the political freedom in all of Iran would in my view need serious repatriations of some kind. BP was only able to gain access through a treaty that was forced on the nation after a war was launched by the British and Russians. That is a massive act of coercion and is not compatible with Lockean property rights. Also, Moss. even offered to pay the BP for the nationalization.
To agree to pay BP is tantamount to agreeing that they rightfully own what he wants. In which case they have the right to refuse to sell as well. Since what they had was not theirs to begin with, I find that point to be moot. The British traditionally never let property rights stand in the way of good clean empire building. Yet, the respected the idea. And its shows. Compared to colonies of other European nations, former British ones are doing well.
Not exactly. You can offer to pay someone to leave you alone or to give you back something that was stolen from you. Moss. knew he was going against a powerful nation so to attempt negotiation would be wise. Regardless, I think we agree that it was not legitimate under Lockean property rights.
You can pay someone to leave you alone in your own house? Or to return something that they stole from you? I would call it both ransom. I think Mossadegh was an a very tough spot and was not being very smart. Other rulers in the Middle East where. Even those at Saudi Arabia, which despite its oppressive nature, is a prosperous country with a high standard of living.
Yes it would be ransom in that case and in Iran. Just because you offer to pay someone does not mean automatically you view their claim as legitimate. It can be just strategic. Saudi Arabia a good standard of living? I mean come on the wealth is in the hands of the ruling class. The interference in Saudi Arabia and Iran were and are both more repressive than the British were to the colonies.
Yes, citizens of Saudi Arabia tend to have an extremely high standard of living. It comes at a price which freedom loving Westerners consider too high, yet it is there for most of them. The repressive regime in Saudi is repressive because it is trying to protect private property against the wishes of its citizenry. ...
Islam has a socialist streak to it. People belong to the community or Umma, and you are to treat the Umma like parts of your own body. So far by a combination of social reform, repression and bribery, spread the wealth schemes, creative application of Sharia law, etc., the Saudi regime has maintained an upper hand. But in the current age, I think social reform will take a more prominent role.
Well the Saudi oil company is a nationally owned industry as well. I agree on Islam though I do not think socialism in all cases is bad. It depends on what type it is and whether it is voluntary or not. Socialism can mean state owned (which has degrees) and worker owned.
I think socialism is evil. I am not a fan of democracy either, it is only weakened socialism. Voluntary does not mean much unless it is two private property owners talking about their property. If people volunteer to burn down my house, I will have problem with that. As for Saudi oil, it is not nationally owned. It is papered that way to be politically correct.
Well I don't know what you mean by it not being state owned to be politically correct. Like I said voluntary in the context of a consensus about what is property within a given area and then no special institutionalized privileges for organizations (such a state, mob, etc) to violate those ideas unless aggression is committed by the given party that violated those ideas to begin with.
Well that is where we disagree. Property rights whether based on mutalist, Lockean, communal or whatever are human ideas about what is legitimate and what is not. I am fine with different property ideas taking root though I think some work better than others. The example you gave would be a violation of property rights under the consensus that was made.
Disagree all you want. If you disagree with me when I say 'the heart pumps blood' it won't become true. Property rights likewise is a state in nature arising from the nature of man and the self-evident fact that he owns his own body. The fact that you seek agreement on this factor tells me that you are acting under the mistaken assumption that it is a matter of consensus, it is not. Not any more than self-ownership is a matter of consensus.
It may just be a semantic disagreement but I don't think so. Heart beating is something that you can measure and observe which exists with all humans. However, humans and the societies they inhabit worldwide have different conceptions of property. I would say there is no self evident fact that anyone owns anything. It is just a concept that only comes into reality through practice and acceptance. It doesn't exist anywhere as a code inscribed in the universe.
The only reason that I own something is because of the consensus (though contradictory and invalid under a no rulers framework like the state can tax, etc) under our modern system that most people view my ownership of such items and property as legitimate.
Unfortunately for you there is no reason to conclude from the observation of the heart that it is a pumping instrument, it was thought to be a furnace; just like there is no reason to conclude from the apparent motion of the planets about heliocentrism. And just like property, different societies had different concepts about all these theories...
Yes it requires context of the knowledge of the time. It is possible, though I don't think likely, under current science that the heart will be considered something else. Have you ever been on stickam?
..the fact that heart was a pumping instrument was first hypothesized by William Harvey an English physician and even he could not see the actual pumping take place. It would be stupid to tell that his concept of the heart must be given equal weight with all other concepts of heart developed by scientists from different societies and cultures. Nor is the matter up for vote. I am sorry, if consensus is all you have for property rights, you have very little.
I don't think they all need to be given equal weight because different ideas have different merits and in my view have better foundations than others. You don't have to have a webcam. I'll post the link in this video if you want to come by and discuss it or other topics.
I will take things one step further. The weight of an idea cannot be measured by its popularity. Lot of people can be wrong about something. That is the nature of popular misconceptions. Truth after all is not a democracy.
I don't think democracy makes truth value. Basically if every human died off hearts in other creatures would still beat and "do what they do" with our without our recognition. If we died off however, the different concepts of legitimate property rights, communal, Lockean, etc would cease to exist because it is a concept developed by humans (unless of course other creatures put it into practice) .
They would cease to exist because they are integral to our nature. Not because they are our fictions. If we died of hearts may continue to exist, but human hearts won't. For human nature to exist, the human is needed.
Actually it does. Humans evolved biologically to be self-conscious. Which is the basis of self-ownership. He uses this self owned body to alter what was unowned to use to sustain his body which he owns and by extending his nature on to the land that was unowned, he begins to own it. It is rooted in human biology. Yet, it can be studied as a separate subject, just like chemistry can be studied separately from physics even though it is rooted in physics.
Self conscious does not equal humans by nature must be autonomous. That is a human value that you and I share, but not some universal code and certainly from historical records was not practiced.
All you need to recognize is the difference between being autonomous and knowing that you are so If people where not autonomous to begin with, why would any ideology be necessary to forsake that sense of autonomy? It is only in adhering to that ideology that they act as if they are not autonomy. But it is only an act. They are autonomous and thus have to make a conscious decision to suppress it, mainly because they think it is for their own good, but even doing so they prove that they are not.
Mainly I would guess because most do not think about it due to their geographic, cultural, and historical upbringing and cannot gain their autonomy without support from others in an uprising if they can even theorize individual autonomy and what is tied to indiviual's labor.
Like I said before, it is not a natural human tendency to discover this kinds of truths. We are not born that way. There have to be social contexts which direct certain people towards such behavior. All the more important that their work be preserved and passed on, if only to learn from their mistakes.
I judge a country's government not by its popularity, but by its capacity to protect private property. Chile under military dictator Pinochet became far more prosperous than popular Marxist Salvador Allende. Do not mistake me here, I do not condone every action Pinochet took. But on balance he did more good than harm.
Well what do you mean by private property and how do you think it is legitimately acquired? Also, Chile's largest export to date is cooper which is a nationalized company. Socialism and liberal markets can be both be effective. That is why I think they should be voluntary to engage under the framework of a consensus on what is property and how is it legitimately acquired.
Also, though I do not agree with Allende's policies, he was not in power for that long, and the US heavily assaulted the economy the short amount of time he was in power.
Yes, the US traditionally have done everything in its power to undermine and destroy socialist regimes everywhere, especially closer to home in the Americas. I am critical of the methods, but not the idea in general. I think efforts should be moved from supporting puppets and oligarchs to winning hearts and minds. Some thing the US has traditionally not been very good at.
I do not think private property is a matter of consensus. Legitimate private property is that which can be traced back to its homesteaders. Yet having said that, any private property system that is tolerably stable is better that nothing. Chile is not an ideal type. Yet by moving from Allende to Pinochet, Chile moved economically in the right direction.
Well there is no objective standard for property. Homesteading (a western idea) is the one that I agree with the most, but it is a human invention nonetheless. Ideas of property have to be formed by a consensus of what is and isn't legitimate forms of property (though I would argue some work better than others). Still after Pinochet, Chile's largest export is a nationalized resource, copper.
Homesteading is not human invention. It is a means discovered by human beings to bring unowned resources into use. It is not exclusive to Western civilization either. It is how homo-sapiens that originated in Africa colonized the world. If it was not for homesteading, we could never begin using nature's bounty and would have died of cold and hunger.
Most of human history I would say was not based on the principle of homesteading. Feudalism (manoralism), tribalism, imperialism, and other slavish practices make up the bulk of human history. Homesteading is a method only used and thought legitimate by some humans. I really don't know of too many places it was practiced and respected.
Homesteading began even before tribalism or feudalism. It is only once land was homesteaded did those concepts take root. Why did not people immediately think of private property? Because people are not naturally inclined to. There are social situations that shape and direct these tendencies. And those social situations took time to develop.
People transformed the land but as far as it and the idea of it being owned free from state or other's coercion, it didn't happen (I personally don't know of any written history of it existing and being practiced).
No indeed. We who know better recognize those actions as homesteading. I do not think people of that time even had a word for it. Nevertheless that is what was happening.
@McDicker96 uuuh, no, that would be the Koran. Check out the entire history of Islam, the 1915 Armenian genocide, the repeated invasions of Europe preceding the defensive action (the crusades) of the Europeans, and the wars, enslavement, mutilations, and rape committed by the very founder of the religion. Mohammed promoted this behavior, and their holy book promotes this behavior, those Muslims who are not violent are either ignorant of this, or reject those parts of their book and founder
@staum607 yes and every Christian goes out and slaughters an ox as a sacrifice and stones disobedient children and murder homosexuals just like it says in the bible. people select which passages of their holy book to follow to the letter and which to only vaguely uphold. when a foreign power invades those advocating armed violence will be lent credence and those urging peace will be seen as quislings. Therefore people will tend to support the violent extremists in order to oppose the invaders
@McDicker96 your theory would work if history demonstrated it, unfortunately it doesn't. Islam has always spread by the sword (and probably always will) Christianity on the other hand found its greatest growth shortly after the invention of the printing press. Finally, if one uses a gramatical-historical hermeneutic to interpret the Bible and the Koran; one will find they are not even close to being similar in advocating violence.
Man dejavu or is this also going on today
Tonkintaz 1 week ago
The British , US etc seems to like to put in to power Tyrants and override democratic choice of the peoples just like in the UK, there is no Democracy just a one party system with Three names ruled by another Foreign power the EU SSR / Globalists
spiriitualemergency3 3 months ago
shit alle usa and arab!!!!!!!!!!!! fuck
iran720 4 months ago
Wow, I guess Ron Paul was right. Guiliani and McCain were wrong...no surprises here.
SBCDrummer1 6 months ago
be against the US government, not the US people
BEARARMZ 1 year ago 2
I'm supprised people can't see that Khomaini is the same thing
sod16 1 year ago
What the CIA did was questionable, but I have very little sympathies for people that prefer theocracy or socialism. Mossadegh could have ushered in a communist government in Iran had the CIA not intervened. Sometimes one has to only many bad options to pick from....
82abhilash 2 years ago
Well Mossadegh was not a communist, he was more of an Iranian nationalist (and an aristocrat) that did have a communist party, as well as other factions, that were part of his national alliance. Obviously almost anything could happen, but I don't see how the evidence points to that being a likely hood.
IndividualAutonomy 2 years ago
His plan to nationalize Iranian oil could threaten other major companies in the region by setting a trend, and it immediately affected British Petroleum who controlled the Iranian oil fields. So much so that they had the British lobby the Americans for help to perform a coup detat while offering part of the oil deal to American companies.
IndividualAutonomy 2 years ago
Well those Oil fields belong to British Petroleum. They prospected the land. They discovered the oil. They invested the money. They developed the infrastructure. Nationalization is legalized stealing. Which the communists did when they came to Russia. They must have seen the pattern and become nervous.
82abhilash 2 years ago
British Petroleum (which was a British nationalized company at the time of the coup) was only able to gain access to that region by engaging in a war and forcing a treaty down Iran that put it under British influence during the early 1900s. It made a deal with its puppet dictator to get control of the area to extract the oil.
IndividualAutonomy 2 years ago
The British government interfered with the political freedom of the Iranians and BP's control of the oil did not come through voluntary interactions or homesteading of land. It came through "legalized theft" and slavery by war and puppet dictators. Mosaddeq (who was by no means perfect) even offered to purchase it from the oppressors who refused.
IndividualAutonomy 2 years ago
I see there are no heros in either side of this story. But I conceded to that at the beginning. But somehow I feel the libertarian means to resolve the issue would have never came up. It hardly does. And yet a puppet dictator from Britain on US does a better job of protecting private property than a popular native socialist leader. But to a people who does not recognize its benefits, even that becomes a source for misery. I suppose the best both sides can do is learn from their mistakes.
82abhilash 2 years ago
Many times the so called private property in these nations is not acquired through homesteading and/or voluntary interactions so it wouldn't be valid. In the British BP case it was theft and along with its political oppression would make its ownership claim illegitimate. I would say under libertarian ideas, both market and socialist.
IndividualAutonomy 2 years ago
It seems under Rothbard's and even Locke's idea of transformation being the way to legitimately acquire land (and the oil under it) would lie with the people who occupied it more so than the British who's company should have entered the commons after its oppression (especially considering the fact that it only got their beforehand through war).
IndividualAutonomy 2 years ago
I am not sure the oil underneath the land would belong to the people who transformed the land. But of course anyone who wants the oil needs to use the land. So would need to work with them, which you can't when you are busy oppressing them.
82abhilash 2 years ago
I do not think political oppression in itself would make any ownership claim illegitimate, only if political oppression leads to violation of property rights. I am not sure that BP's was a clear case of theft either, although that was part of the package.
82abhilash 2 years ago
Well I would agree it would depend on the level of oppression. However, stifling the political freedom in all of Iran would in my view need serious repatriations of some kind. BP was only able to gain access through a treaty that was forced on the nation after a war was launched by the British and Russians. That is a massive act of coercion and is not compatible with Lockean property rights. Also, Moss. even offered to pay the BP for the nationalization.
IndividualAutonomy 2 years ago
To agree to pay BP is tantamount to agreeing that they rightfully own what he wants. In which case they have the right to refuse to sell as well. Since what they had was not theirs to begin with, I find that point to be moot. The British traditionally never let property rights stand in the way of good clean empire building. Yet, the respected the idea. And its shows. Compared to colonies of other European nations, former British ones are doing well.
82abhilash 2 years ago
Not exactly. You can offer to pay someone to leave you alone or to give you back something that was stolen from you. Moss. knew he was going against a powerful nation so to attempt negotiation would be wise. Regardless, I think we agree that it was not legitimate under Lockean property rights.
IndividualAutonomy 2 years ago
You can pay someone to leave you alone in your own house? Or to return something that they stole from you? I would call it both ransom. I think Mossadegh was an a very tough spot and was not being very smart. Other rulers in the Middle East where. Even those at Saudi Arabia, which despite its oppressive nature, is a prosperous country with a high standard of living.
82abhilash 2 years ago
Yes it would be ransom in that case and in Iran. Just because you offer to pay someone does not mean automatically you view their claim as legitimate. It can be just strategic. Saudi Arabia a good standard of living? I mean come on the wealth is in the hands of the ruling class. The interference in Saudi Arabia and Iran were and are both more repressive than the British were to the colonies.
IndividualAutonomy 2 years ago
Yes, citizens of Saudi Arabia tend to have an extremely high standard of living. It comes at a price which freedom loving Westerners consider too high, yet it is there for most of them. The repressive regime in Saudi is repressive because it is trying to protect private property against the wishes of its citizenry. ...
82abhilash 2 years ago
Islam has a socialist streak to it. People belong to the community or Umma, and you are to treat the Umma like parts of your own body. So far by a combination of social reform, repression and bribery, spread the wealth schemes, creative application of Sharia law, etc., the Saudi regime has maintained an upper hand. But in the current age, I think social reform will take a more prominent role.
82abhilash 2 years ago
Well the Saudi oil company is a nationally owned industry as well. I agree on Islam though I do not think socialism in all cases is bad. It depends on what type it is and whether it is voluntary or not. Socialism can mean state owned (which has degrees) and worker owned.
IndividualAutonomy 2 years ago
I think socialism is evil. I am not a fan of democracy either, it is only weakened socialism. Voluntary does not mean much unless it is two private property owners talking about their property. If people volunteer to burn down my house, I will have problem with that. As for Saudi oil, it is not nationally owned. It is papered that way to be politically correct.
82abhilash 2 years ago
Well I don't know what you mean by it not being state owned to be politically correct. Like I said voluntary in the context of a consensus about what is property within a given area and then no special institutionalized privileges for organizations (such a state, mob, etc) to violate those ideas unless aggression is committed by the given party that violated those ideas to begin with.
IndividualAutonomy 2 years ago
I said it before. What is property is not a matter of consensus.
82abhilash 2 years ago
Well that is where we disagree. Property rights whether based on mutalist, Lockean, communal or whatever are human ideas about what is legitimate and what is not. I am fine with different property ideas taking root though I think some work better than others. The example you gave would be a violation of property rights under the consensus that was made.
IndividualAutonomy 2 years ago
Disagree all you want. If you disagree with me when I say 'the heart pumps blood' it won't become true. Property rights likewise is a state in nature arising from the nature of man and the self-evident fact that he owns his own body. The fact that you seek agreement on this factor tells me that you are acting under the mistaken assumption that it is a matter of consensus, it is not. Not any more than self-ownership is a matter of consensus.
82abhilash 2 years ago
It may just be a semantic disagreement but I don't think so. Heart beating is something that you can measure and observe which exists with all humans. However, humans and the societies they inhabit worldwide have different conceptions of property. I would say there is no self evident fact that anyone owns anything. It is just a concept that only comes into reality through practice and acceptance. It doesn't exist anywhere as a code inscribed in the universe.
IndividualAutonomy 2 years ago
The only reason that I own something is because of the consensus (though contradictory and invalid under a no rulers framework like the state can tax, etc) under our modern system that most people view my ownership of such items and property as legitimate.
IndividualAutonomy 2 years ago
Unfortunately for you there is no reason to conclude from the observation of the heart that it is a pumping instrument, it was thought to be a furnace; just like there is no reason to conclude from the apparent motion of the planets about heliocentrism. And just like property, different societies had different concepts about all these theories...
82abhilash 2 years ago
Yes it requires context of the knowledge of the time. It is possible, though I don't think likely, under current science that the heart will be considered something else. Have you ever been on stickam?
IndividualAutonomy 2 years ago
I wrote some more. Here is the episode about William Havery on the heart
watch?v=A-BrWyAlCAM
82abhilash 2 years ago
No I have not been on stickam. I do not have a web cam, so I do not think I can.
82abhilash 2 years ago
..the fact that heart was a pumping instrument was first hypothesized by William Harvey an English physician and even he could not see the actual pumping take place. It would be stupid to tell that his concept of the heart must be given equal weight with all other concepts of heart developed by scientists from different societies and cultures. Nor is the matter up for vote. I am sorry, if consensus is all you have for property rights, you have very little.
82abhilash 2 years ago
I don't think they all need to be given equal weight because different ideas have different merits and in my view have better foundations than others. You don't have to have a webcam. I'll post the link in this video if you want to come by and discuss it or other topics.
IndividualAutonomy 2 years ago
I will take things one step further. The weight of an idea cannot be measured by its popularity. Lot of people can be wrong about something. That is the nature of popular misconceptions. Truth after all is not a democracy.
82abhilash 2 years ago
I don't think democracy makes truth value. Basically if every human died off hearts in other creatures would still beat and "do what they do" with our without our recognition. If we died off however, the different concepts of legitimate property rights, communal, Lockean, etc would cease to exist because it is a concept developed by humans (unless of course other creatures put it into practice) .
IndividualAutonomy 2 years ago
They would cease to exist because they are integral to our nature. Not because they are our fictions. If we died of hearts may continue to exist, but human hearts won't. For human nature to exist, the human is needed.
82abhilash 2 years ago
Yes but Lockean property rights does not arise from biological occurrences like a heart but from a human consensus about what is legitimate property.
IndividualAutonomy 2 years ago
Actually it does. Humans evolved biologically to be self-conscious. Which is the basis of self-ownership. He uses this self owned body to alter what was unowned to use to sustain his body which he owns and by extending his nature on to the land that was unowned, he begins to own it. It is rooted in human biology. Yet, it can be studied as a separate subject, just like chemistry can be studied separately from physics even though it is rooted in physics.
82abhilash 2 years ago
Self conscious does not equal humans by nature must be autonomous. That is a human value that you and I share, but not some universal code and certainly from historical records was not practiced.
IndividualAutonomy 2 years ago
All you need to recognize is the difference between being autonomous and knowing that you are so If people where not autonomous to begin with, why would any ideology be necessary to forsake that sense of autonomy? It is only in adhering to that ideology that they act as if they are not autonomy. But it is only an act. They are autonomous and thus have to make a conscious decision to suppress it, mainly because they think it is for their own good, but even doing so they prove that they are not.
82abhilash 2 years ago
Mainly I would guess because most do not think about it due to their geographic, cultural, and historical upbringing and cannot gain their autonomy without support from others in an uprising if they can even theorize individual autonomy and what is tied to indiviual's labor.
IndividualAutonomy 2 years ago
Like I said before, it is not a natural human tendency to discover this kinds of truths. We are not born that way. There have to be social contexts which direct certain people towards such behavior. All the more important that their work be preserved and passed on, if only to learn from their mistakes.
82abhilash 2 years ago
I judge a country's government not by its popularity, but by its capacity to protect private property. Chile under military dictator Pinochet became far more prosperous than popular Marxist Salvador Allende. Do not mistake me here, I do not condone every action Pinochet took. But on balance he did more good than harm.
82abhilash 2 years ago
Well what do you mean by private property and how do you think it is legitimately acquired? Also, Chile's largest export to date is cooper which is a nationalized company. Socialism and liberal markets can be both be effective. That is why I think they should be voluntary to engage under the framework of a consensus on what is property and how is it legitimately acquired.
IndividualAutonomy 2 years ago
Also, though I do not agree with Allende's policies, he was not in power for that long, and the US heavily assaulted the economy the short amount of time he was in power.
IndividualAutonomy 2 years ago
Yes, the US traditionally have done everything in its power to undermine and destroy socialist regimes everywhere, especially closer to home in the Americas. I am critical of the methods, but not the idea in general. I think efforts should be moved from supporting puppets and oligarchs to winning hearts and minds. Some thing the US has traditionally not been very good at.
82abhilash 2 years ago
I do not think private property is a matter of consensus. Legitimate private property is that which can be traced back to its homesteaders. Yet having said that, any private property system that is tolerably stable is better that nothing. Chile is not an ideal type. Yet by moving from Allende to Pinochet, Chile moved economically in the right direction.
82abhilash 2 years ago
Well there is no objective standard for property. Homesteading (a western idea) is the one that I agree with the most, but it is a human invention nonetheless. Ideas of property have to be formed by a consensus of what is and isn't legitimate forms of property (though I would argue some work better than others). Still after Pinochet, Chile's largest export is a nationalized resource, copper.
IndividualAutonomy 2 years ago
Homesteading is not human invention. It is a means discovered by human beings to bring unowned resources into use. It is not exclusive to Western civilization either. It is how homo-sapiens that originated in Africa colonized the world. If it was not for homesteading, we could never begin using nature's bounty and would have died of cold and hunger.
82abhilash 2 years ago
Most of human history I would say was not based on the principle of homesteading. Feudalism (manoralism), tribalism, imperialism, and other slavish practices make up the bulk of human history. Homesteading is a method only used and thought legitimate by some humans. I really don't know of too many places it was practiced and respected.
IndividualAutonomy 2 years ago
Homesteading began even before tribalism or feudalism. It is only once land was homesteaded did those concepts take root. Why did not people immediately think of private property? Because people are not naturally inclined to. There are social situations that shape and direct these tendencies. And those social situations took time to develop.
82abhilash 2 years ago
People transformed the land but as far as it and the idea of it being owned free from state or other's coercion, it didn't happen (I personally don't know of any written history of it existing and being practiced).
IndividualAutonomy 2 years ago
No indeed. We who know better recognize those actions as homesteading. I do not think people of that time even had a word for it. Nevertheless that is what was happening.
82abhilash 2 years ago
On the CIACoupsofTerrorism channel?
IndividualAutonomy 2 years ago
This is your best shit, man!
Keep exposing the government murderers!
larma7 2 years ago
Lalalala!!!! I can't hear you!
They hate us for our freedom! They hate us for our freedom!
Morrakiu 2 years ago 6
3:38
so america's directly responsible for the rise of muslim extremeism?
that really doesn't suprise me one bit
McDicker96 2 years ago 11
@McDicker96 uuuh, no, that would be the Koran. Check out the entire history of Islam, the 1915 Armenian genocide, the repeated invasions of Europe preceding the defensive action (the crusades) of the Europeans, and the wars, enslavement, mutilations, and rape committed by the very founder of the religion. Mohammed promoted this behavior, and their holy book promotes this behavior, those Muslims who are not violent are either ignorant of this, or reject those parts of their book and founder
staum607 1 year ago
@staum607 yes and every Christian goes out and slaughters an ox as a sacrifice and stones disobedient children and murder homosexuals just like it says in the bible. people select which passages of their holy book to follow to the letter and which to only vaguely uphold. when a foreign power invades those advocating armed violence will be lent credence and those urging peace will be seen as quislings. Therefore people will tend to support the violent extremists in order to oppose the invaders
McDicker96 1 year ago
@McDicker96 your theory would work if history demonstrated it, unfortunately it doesn't. Islam has always spread by the sword (and probably always will) Christianity on the other hand found its greatest growth shortly after the invention of the printing press. Finally, if one uses a gramatical-historical hermeneutic to interpret the Bible and the Koran; one will find they are not even close to being similar in advocating violence.
staum607 1 year ago
@McDicker96 Zionist interests inside and outside of America are responsible for the Anti-Muslim propaganda.
osirusoft1 3 months ago