Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How it can be NOT brutal, when it's about exploitation and coercion?
As once Russian poet said - "There is a King in this world, and this king is ruthless. His name is Hunger."
Take a note - as long as the government is NOT taking your means of productions ( i.e. your SOURCE of wealth,) it's not communism/socialism/whateverism.
Legal references are not my invention.
Taking a share is a denial of absolute ownership - the key feature of PRIVATE PROPERTY... abolished by Communism.
"PRIVATE PROPERTY - As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels."
- - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
Oh and when it takes something of yours ( in this case taxes,) it DOES give you something in return as compensation. This compensation is called a "developed country" you live in, not a third world dumpster you'd live in, without those taxes and their redistribution. Now when the government will start taking away your PROPERTY ( like say your condominium that you rent out)) in order to place there the "leeches" - then you'll be talking, since this condominium would be your "means of productions" - i.e. source of income.
Spin what thou will, but the FACTS and DEFINITIONS refute your post.
Amendment V, US Constitution 1789
... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
JUST COMPENSATION is in lawful money (see USCON).
LAWFUL MONEY - "The terms 'lawful money' and 'lawful money of the United States' shall be construed to mean gold or silver coin of the United States..."
Title 12 United States Code, Sec. 152.
"Developed" country is not compensation, just or otherwise.
Since 1933, the government has been TAKING property from one to GIVE to another, which IS nothing less than COMMUNISM.
And that ownership need not be completely nationalized for it to be collectively owned.
"OWNERSHIP - ... Ownership of property is either absolute or qualified. The ownership of property is absolute when a single person has the absolute dominion over it... The ownership is qualified when it is shared with one or more persons, when the time of enjoyment is deferred or limited, or when the use is restricted. "
- - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p. 1106
When government is "sharing" ownership of your property, it's not PRIVATE PROPERTY, absolutely owned.
Taking a share is a denial of absolute ownership - the key feature of PRIVATE PROPERTY... abolished by Communism.
"PRIVATE PROPERTY - As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels."
- - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217.
Spin what thou will, but the FACTS and DEFINITIONS refute your post.
Amendment V, US Constitution 1789
... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
JUST COMPENSATION is in lawful money (see USCON).
LAWFUL MONEY - "The terms 'lawful money' and 'lawful money of the United States' shall be construed to mean gold or silver coin of the United States..."
Title 12 United States Code, Sec. 152.
Pay attention, that the centerpiece of Marx ( i.e. COMMUNIST) theory is not "money" per se, but "means of production." ( I am pointing at this, since you keep on referencing to "Communism" for some reason or the other.) Because Marx, apparently, doesn't see the money as a source of a problem, but something more tangible, that allows the inequality to exist - namely the "means of production" that facilitate money, based on the "surplus value" theory ( according to Marx.) And as long as the part of "means of production" ( i.e. the source that helps one accumulate money) is not addressed and passed under government's control, you have no ground to speak of "communism" ( or socialism for this matter.) Because your own invention "And that ownership need not be completely nationalized for it to be collectively owned" is just that - an invention, where "communism" is concerned.
Quote:
"Developed" country is not compensation, just or otherwise.
I guess if you are not satisfied with this kind of compensation, you are always free to leave and migrate to the third world country.
Who am I to argue?
Bringing up sweat shops in an effort to denigrate capitalism in a thread about communism. How droll.
Hey I'm not the one who claimed that no coercion exists in capitalism just pointing out that point is a lie.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
