Refusing Asylum seekers and priveledges supplied to them and citizens on benefits(UK)

[Starbucks]

im replying to this without reading any replies in case people are gonna spoil it for me, as im liking it so far, cant wait until the person dies

MAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

(becky says i am morbid )

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by queball
So corporations will go to huge corporate cities - it's just the locals that have a say isn't it? Or the whole world?

The whole world would obviously have a "say" in some issues - e.g. there are some parts of the world which affect the whole world. Whether Mr Smith opens a Fish and Chip shop on the Walworth Road, SE London does not affect _that_ many people. Whether the Amazon rainforest is burnt down probably affects a larger number of people. Of course, the scope of interaction would depend between local agreements, etc.

Broadly speaking, a service which affects only local people would be in the remit of purely people in a region. A service which has a wider impact (say, an airport) would have a wider set of inputs than just those living near to a proposed site. The exact nature of what land is used for "local" needs and what issues are "regional" (or national, international) is obviously a more complicated issue but would probably come down to some kind of reciprocal agreements between regions.

There's no specific problem with lawsuits, they are an excellent way to remedy specific problems. If Farmer Jones destroys my fence when doing some works then a lawsuit (or arbritration of another kind) is a good way of settling a matter. Of course, if the issue is that Father Jones owns 500,000 acres of land in South Africa and there are millions of homeless/inadequately housed people then a set lawsuit is less useful.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Starbucks
im replying to this without reading any replies in case people are gonna spoil it for me, as im liking it so far, cant wait until the person dies

heh. I presume this shouldn't be here.

[Starbucks]

tl;dr

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Starbucks
tl;dr

Evidently.

[queball]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks

There's no specific problem with lawsuits, they are an excellent way to remedy specific problems. If Farmer Jones destroys my fence when doing some works then a lawsuit (or arbritration of another kind) is a good way of settling a matter. Of course, if the issue is that Father Jones owns 500,000 acres of land in South Africa and there are millions of homeless/inadequately housed people then a set lawsuit is less useful.

But Kyoto-protocol style agreements are better than undermining the property system. Say my job is advertising penis-enlargement pills, it doesn't matter how many times I get evicted, I could operate from a cardboard box if need be.

Things like the rainforest are interesting. It seems that once someone is given ownership of a piece of land or sea they decide it's more profitable to either preserve the wildlife (nature reserves) or to extract the natural resources responsibly (managed forests, managed fishing). Deforestation takes place because of a lack of reliable long-term property rights and rule of law, IMO. We should really impose strict laws prohibiting contact with primitive nations but that's another thread. It's just wrong to think that it's the capitalist incentive that causes pollution; governments with any sense enact laws to keep things fair. Should I be allowed to go burn a huge forest as long as I don't make any money? Besides, statist-communist countries seem to love going on huge environment-destroying vanity projects eg. cotton growing in Russia, that dam in China.

We have certain exceptions to land rights. The National Heritage seems to be able to appropriate any land it likes (with compensation). Public opinion seems to affect landowner's rights on issues like fox hunting. Protests, angry letters, bad PR and so on are fine, but whisking away people's land just creates unneeded risk for everyone. Would paediatricians find it hard to buy a house?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by queball
Would paediatricians find it hard to buy a house?

Housing, as a fundamental human need (or right, if you prefer), wouldn't be "democratically" (for want of a better word) allocated. At least, that's how I would say things would go. But people wouldn't "own" their home in the traditional sense.

The issue with the rainforest is that an owner is perfectly entitled to burn down their trees if they so desire. There is no contract that an owner of some land is in to prohibit them. If you are saying "Well, it's OK because we've put a law against people doing that", then that's cool, but then you're not talking about property rights in the same fashion I am. If you are advocating an interventionist state which decides what people can do on their private property then that's fine, becuase you've solved (albeit in a different way) the problems I'm talking about.

And you're quite right : But places like Brazil simply have problems due to the incredible range on inequality which exists and the class war which rages in parts of the country (war in a sense that the army does ocassionally kill peasants in disputes over land). Hoping for an idealistic form of capitalism is fine and dandy but that is very far from what's in place. Indeed, where countries (like Brazil, but others too) have tried to undertake independent development they have been attacked (indirectly usually but directly also) by the imperialist centres of power.

[queball]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
The issue with the rainforest is that an owner is perfectly entitled to burn down their trees if they so desire. There is no contract that an owner of some land is in to prohibit them.

Well, if the fire could spread then the neighbours sue, like you aren't allowed to dig a big hole in your garden that weakens your neighbour's foundations. Laws against destroying wildlife are possible. Even if a couple of crazies burn down their forest we'll still have oxygen.

If you are saying "Well, it's OK because we've put a law against people doing that", then that's cool, but then you're not talking about property rights in the same fashion I am. If you are advocating an interventionist state which decides what people can do on their private property then that's fine, becuase you've solved (albeit in a different way) the problems I'm talking about.

Nah, I still go for private courts . The way I see it there are only a few possibilities:
- My land use harms some people specifically, they sue and justice is done.
- My land use harms humanity generally. I get sued by a freelance lawyer or charity or something.
- My land use harms the local community generally. They have a mayor who they have sold certain legal rights to so he can represent them in court; I get sued.
- My land use doesn't harm anyone, and no-one minds.
- My land use doesn't harm anyone but people think it could be better used; the value of the land goes up and soon I can't pay my rates. In an emergency my land gets stolen by a martial law organisation or something, I dunno.
In each case, everyone is happy.

And you're quite right : But places like Brazil simply have problems due to the incredible range on inequality which exists and the class war which rages in parts of the country (war in a sense that the army does ocassionally kill peasants in disputes over land). Hoping for an idealistic form of capitalism is fine and dandy but that is very far from what's in place. Indeed, where countries (like Brazil, but others too) have tried to undertake independent development they have been attacked (indirectly usually but directly also) by the imperialist centres of power.

Same as hoping for idealistic communism surely? This just seems like an argument for a grassroots capitalist revolution. Isn't Brazil the country where a campaign of assigning land rights has really helped against poverty? In the meantime we should do whatever we can to limit the destruction through tariffs and stuff I guess.

[W]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
The issue with the rainforest is that an owner is perfectly entitled to burn down their trees if they so desire. There is no contract that an owner of some land is in to prohibit them. If you are saying "Well, it's OK because we've put a law against people doing that", then that's cool, but then you're not talking about property rights in the same fashion I am. If you are advocating an interventionist state which decides what people can do on their private property then that's fine, becuase you've solved (albeit in a different way) the problems I'm talking about.

What problems? This is how it's done everywhere around the world today. If you visit me, there is the government and the police to hunt me down and punish me if I place my property (a dagger) in your heart. I see no difference between laws limiting my use of my own weapons and laws limiting my use of my own rainforest.

If you're thinking gun crime will go away if you say that all guns are owned by humanity, you're a bit deluded...

[Umbrall]

Experience would seem to indicate that systems of goverment based on someones theories on how things ought to be, fail horribly when exposed to reality.

In the emergent systems of human mass interaction, coffeshop ideas and goverments crash and burn.

Every attempt to introduce a propertyless system have failed hard, at monstrous enviromental and humane costs.

One would think that, faced with a 100% failiure ratio -each one a massive tragedy- people would be able to reach a conclusion. Just because they are unable to see a flaw in the fundamental assumptions behind such a system does not mean such a flaw does not exist.

[pablissimo]

I'm disturbingly happy with the notion of land ownership, if only because of the instability eliminating it in anything but the ultra-long-term would create. Idealism's all well and good. Not overly useful though.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Umbrall
Every attempt to introduce a propertyless system have failed hard, at monstrous enviromental and humane costs.

(a) At one stage, that could have been said about democracy, or post-monarchist system
(b) There has never been an attempt at a post-capitalist system.

[Umbrall]

a) What stage would that be? Also, the best countries to live in seem to be constitutional monarchies.

b) Soviet Russia, North Korea, Cambodia, etc, etc, ad nauseam. All stared out to be 'post-capitalist'. And after their excesses came to light, their supporters started trying to find reasons why they hadn't really started out to be 'post-capitalist' Rather than face the fact that the systems didn't have sufficient self-correction built in.
It is quite a vicious meme.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Umbrall
b) Soviet Russia, North Korea, Cambodia, etc, etc, ad nauseam. All stared out to be 'post-capitalist'.

When the hell was Cambodia capitalist? Or North Korea or Russia for that matter. These countries were feudal (broadly speaking). To be post-capitalist, you need to have capitalism first. I'm pretty sure no-one said these countries were post-capitalist - rather they were attempts at socialism, generally directly stemming directly from national liberation or anti-feudal struggles.

And if you had suggested in say, 1600 that a country's political decisions should be made primarily by a government formed from a vote of all citizens over 18 then you would probably have been considered a radical subversive.

Finally, as for monstrous and human costs - I don't see any real difference with the countries. The modern capitalist system is built on a fair toll of past barbarism as well, lest we forget. (African slave trade, inter-imperialist wars, colonisation of the Americas, etc, etc)

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Umbrall
b) Soviet Russia, North Korea, Cambodia, etc, etc, ad nauseam. All stared out to be 'post-capitalist'. And after their excesses came to light, their supporters started trying to find reasons why they hadn't really started out to be 'post-capitalist' Rather than face the fact that the systems didn't have sufficient self-correction built in.
It is quite a vicious meme.

from my reading of Marx, I got the impression that Marxist Communism was intended for post-industrial revolution countries. Of which, none of those were at the time of their "communist" takeovers.

[Umbrall]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
When the hell was Cambodia capitalist? Or North Korea or Russia for that matter. These countries were feudal (broadly speaking). To be post-capitalist, you need to have capitalism first. I'm pretty sure no-one said these countries were post-capitalist - rather they were attempts at socialism, generally directly stemming directly from national liberation or anti-feudal struggles.

They had a good frequency of commercial memes. Strong comercial cultures. The problem is, the word 'capitalism' is in the same class as 'evil spirit' Not a real thing, a word used to describe reality in a way that does not approximate it very well. You have 'mechanisms', emergent systems in extelligent structures and various degrees of adaption to them.

East Germany and countries in eastern europe were also industrialised when communism was introduced. The result was the same.

And if you had suggested in say, 1600 that a country's political decisions should be made primarily by a government formed from a vote of all citizens over 18 then you would probably have been considered a radical subversive.

In some areas. In other areas, you would have found that quite an old idea.

Finally, as for monstrous and human costs - I don't see any real difference with the countries. The modern capitalist system is built on a fair toll of past barbarism as well, lest we forget. (African slave trade, inter-imperialist wars, colonisation of the Americas, etc, etc)

The difference is that in the capitalist countries, as you pointed out, this is in the past.

You sound as though you believe that just because a country of a different political system engaged in the slave trade hundreds of years ago, your pet political system should be allowed concentration camps today! To say that such and such country did a horrible thing 200 years ago does in no way excuse anyone from comitting atrocities today. That is the worst kind of sloppy thinking.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Umbrall
That is the worst kind of sloppy thinking.

I quite agree. Which is fortunate, since it's completley the opposite of what I actually say. At what point have I advocated concentration camps? I'm all for strawmen, but that's silly.

In fact, I probably agree with Chomsky on this one. If, for instance, we implemented socialism tommorow in the UK (not that the conditions are right, etc - but hypothetically) and the United States (or whomever) were to attack (which is a possibility, albeit through covert ops, economics blockades, etc) - then I would not resort to any military measure whatsoever (my first suggestion in such a society would be to abolish the army).

My only point re : capitalisms past crimes (not that they are all in the past, there is still a very real violent class war going on in many regions - just ask landless peasants in Brazil, or Colombia for that matter) - is your earlier implications that capitalism had no such blotches.

As for Eastern Europe - there were two real "novel" implementations of state-socialism (which is very different from what I'm discussing, btw) Yugoslavia (via Tito and the Partisans as part of a national liberation struggle) and Russia (by Lenin, Trotsky, et al). Pretty much (I'm simpifying here) everywhere else was simply overrun by the advancing Red Army in 1944/45. That cannot realistically be described even state-socialism.

Saying that a country having "commercial memes" makes it capitalist is fair enough, but you'll need to develop a new economic and political set of analysis for that. You can then describe the Roman's as capitalist (I've heard particularly deranged Trots echo that once or twice, so you might have company there) since, hey, they had commerce. When I say capitalism I'm talking about a level of development - there are numerous places in the world (e.g. parts of Africa) which are still not at a capitalist stage of development (and thanks to Imperialism, may never get there).

[Umbrall]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
I quite agree. Which is fortunate, since it's completley the opposite of what I actually say. At what point have I advocated concentration camps? I'm all for strawmen, but that's silly.

I quite admit that you never advocated concentration camps. In saying that you saw no real difference with the countries, as the modern capitalist system is built on a fair toll of past barbarism as well, I read the "no real difference " to mean between countries that had comitted injustices in the past, and those that commited them today.
I mentioned concentration camps as an example of what one ends up with if past injustice is allowed to excuse present-day actions. (Apply to the middle east at will)

In fact, I probably agree with Chomsky on this one. If, for instance, we implemented socialism tommorow in the UK (not that the conditions are right, etc - but hypothetically) and the United States (or whomever) were to attack (which is a possibility, albeit through covert ops, economics blockades, etc) - then I would not resort to any military measure whatsoever (my first suggestion in such a society would be to abolish the army).

My only point re : capitalisms past crimes (not that they are all in the past, there is still a very real violent class war going on in many regions - just ask landless peasants in Brazil, or Colombia for that matter) - is your earlier implications that capitalism had no such blotches.

I did not mean to imply that 'capitalism' had no bloches. Merely that it has worked occasionally, thus making it better than a propertyless system which has never been known to work.

Saying that a country having "commercial memes" makes it capitalist is fair enough, but you'll need to develop a new economic and political set of analysis for that. You can then describe the Roman's as capitalist (I've heard particularly deranged Trots echo that once or twice, so you might have company there) since, hey, they had commerce. When I say capitalism I'm talking about a level of development - there are numerous places in the world (e.g. parts of Africa) which are still not at a capitalist stage of development (and thanks to Imperialism, may never get there).

I don't particularily want to call any country capitalist. I don't believe the word is functional. I would as soon base a political system on the musings of a ninteenth-century fabulist, as I would seek surgery with a physican who believed in the "four humours" theory of disease.

Incidentally, while I've heard the notion that a post-capitalist system has never been tried before, none of the people who advocate this has ever been particularily eager to introduce capitalism to feudal societies. Pecuilarly enough.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Umbrall
Incidentally, while I've heard the notion that a post-capitalist system has never been tried before, none of the people who advocate this has ever been particularily eager to introduce capitalism to feudal societies. Pecuilarly enough.

Well, this really depends on what you mean by "capitalism" once again. But in terms of economic growth (capitalist level of development, if you would like) then I am the number one proponent to think that Africa would be much, much, much (repeat ad nausea) better off with more economic development. The problem is that under capitalism (in the global system sense) this doesn't seem to be happening...