United Citizens of the world

"It is true that liberty is precious — so precious that it must be rationed."

Attributed to Lenin in a book by Sidney and Beatrice Webb (Soviet Communism: A New Civilization?)

And I'm not using Leninist as an epithet against him; he is indeed a Leninist.

Oh, of course he's a Leninist. The irony was that his statement was Orwellian and untrue, because it's such a cornerstone of our modern, democratic, free legal system

It depends on what you mean by civil rights legislation.

OK, let's go down the dark path of examples... how about the part of the legislation making it illegal to turn someone down for a job on the basis of race, sex or age? Are you saying that those are anti-freedom because they restrict the freedom of the employer to hire who he wishes?
 
OK, let's go down the dark path of examples... how about the part of the legislation making it illegal to turn someone down for a job on the basis of race, sex or age? Are you saying that those are anti-freedom because they restrict the freedom of the employer to hire who he wishes?
Laws like that, if they apply to private employers, they are infringing on the employers' property rights. There shouldn't be any barriers other than ability for public employment, though.
 
Laws like that, if they apply to private employers, they are infringing on the employers' property rights. There shouldn't be any barriers other than ability for public employment, though.

So all freedoms are equal, but some are more equal than others? Which is the Orwellian side again?
 
I think he harkens back to the "good old days".

no+irish+no+blacks+no+dogs.jpg
 
Do employees count as property these days?
 
So all freedoms are equal, but some are more equal than others? Which is the Orwellian side again?
It isn't at all inconsistent: government property is collectively owned by the citizenry. Everybody (within means) is compelled to pay for it and you can't voluntarily withdraw, so it must be open to all.

Do employees count as property these days?
Not the employees, but the land, the buildings, the cash registers, the forklifts, the boxes, etc.
 
Clearly the cash registers and forklift trucks deserve more rights than those pesky humans who have to operate them.
 
Well, if you own the company and all its assets outright, you might have a slight point. Impersonal corporations don't have the right not to be offended.
 
The list was going so well, with Secularism and decent politcal changes. Then Economic changes hit and I can't take them seriously anymore. Mind as well make their logo red and yellow.
 
Well, if you own the company and all its assets outright, you might have a slight point. Impersonal corporations don't have the right not to be offended.
If the collective owners of a corporation don't like a CEO's discriminatory policies, they can divest themselves from the company or boot him out.
 
Everyone is a communist if they don't enjoy being bummed in the gob by big business.
 
I like the list. I don't wholeheartedly agree with everything, but that is to be expected with such a long list. But I am disappointed that a movement calling itself "citizens of the world" has such a strong stain of American politics.

To cry "Ah Communism/Socialism" because an agenda tackles the bad excesses of our current economic system is intellectually lazy, boring and of no use except to promote the status quo in an awfully narrow-minded way.

@amadeus
If you want to defend your libertarian view, I suggest you do it in a more direct fashion, because your current method doesn't work at all. Except maybe rampant anarchism, every political model employs the restriction of freedom. It is after all the fundamental quality of any kind of order. I would expect you to know that.
 
I believe that political parties should identify with some system for the organization of society, and then derive their separate policy points from that. And not make a list of political points without any underlying, unifying idea.

That list includes a number of valid political points, but it's no basis for a party or movement, as such party would inevitably either morph into a nest of corruption and hypocrisy (like most parties today, where the policies they actually support depend on what benefits their active members the most), or split into many different and opposing parties if it ever started getting near a position of power (thereby ensuring it never actually got to power).
 
@amadeus
If you want to defend your libertarian view, I suggest you do it in a more direct fashion, because your current method doesn't work at all. Except maybe rampant anarchism, every political model employs the restriction of freedom. It is after all the fundamental quality of any kind of order. I would expect you to know that.

This. Libertarianism only considers property rights to be valid and worth of enforcement and defines such so strict that sometimes, even taxation becomes illegal. Any legal system that does only that is doomed to devour itself.
 
It isn't at all inconsistent: government property is collectively owned by the citizenry.
No, it's owned by the government. Any elected government only represents those people who actually voted for it; those who voted against it have the will of the elected imposed upon them against their will.

That's part of the reason a true socialist state is impossible (there are several others).
 
The OP inspired me:
Healthcare
We believe that:
-Healthcare should be free to everyone, regardless of their ability to pay.
Why stop there? Here's my plan for prosperity for every man, woman, and child:
Everything
aw3524 believes that:
-Everything should be free to everyone, regardless of their ability to pay.
Thank me later.

So all freedoms are equal, but some are more equal than others? Which is the Orwellian side again?
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 replaced government-sanctioned segregation with anti-discrimination laws (in matters of private property), violence with violence. Instead of allowing people to live and let live, the Act constituted further aggression on one's ability to freely contract and associate.

Shoving yourself down someone's throat is hardly a "freedom."
 
No, it's owned by the government.
That is not a contradiction, but describes the way the collective ownership is handled - by a central authority, the government.
Any elected government only represents those people who actually voted for it; those who voted against it have the will of the elected imposed upon them against their will.
First, in most political systems you don't vote against someone but for someone.
Secondly, that not everyone gets what he or she wants is the inevitable consequence of collective ownership and - again - no contradiction.
Thirdly, it is - as usual - not as simple as you portray it. For instance demonstrated by the political opposition democracies usually make use of (and which usually sways some power) and the fact that you usually don't vote for a government, but for different key positions in different elections.

But I concede that current voting systems are often very crude in representing the collective will.

@innonimatu
To predefine the way/economic system/whatever to achieve their goals would betray their dedication to politics based on evidence-lead rationality rather than tradition and personal opinion. And I refuse the notion that one has to betray this dedication to have a chance in getting something actually done. But I admit without hesitation that it makes it not easier.
 
That is not a contradiction, but describes the way the collective ownership is handled - by a central authority, the government.
And I already explained the contradiction inherent in it. Socialism is PUBLIC ownership of the means of production. NOT ownership by the government. A government is inherently a violation of collective ownership; a government concentrates power in the hands of a few people.

First, in most political systems you don't vote against someone but for someone.
Of course you do. A vote for one guy is a vote against everybody else. You're just being nitpicky. Suppose I wrote it this way: "Any elected government only represents those people who actually voted for it; those who voted for for someone else have the will of the elected imposed upon them against their will." The same point remains: an elected government only represents the will of the people who voted for the winner.

But I concede that current voting systems are often very crude in representing the collective will.
The collective will can't be accurately represented, because it doesn't actually exist. There is no single collective will. There are factions. Groups who disagree with each other. It's impossible to represent all religious people, for example, because half of them want to live in a Christian state and the other half want to live in an Islamic caliphate. Whereas I, as an atheist, wish both of those groups would bugger off and let me live in a secular state (which, of course, they generally won't).

That's why the Earth is made up of nations: the boundaries are the lines between peoples who can't agree with each other.
 
Top Bottom