|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Michael GordgeMichael Gordge Date: Oct 14, 2007 19:36
On Oct 14, 8:05 am, chazwin yahoo.com> wrote:> "When man began to desire private property then entered violence, and
> fraud, and theft, and rapine.
When everyone owns everything, no-one owns anything.
The flip side of ownership is responsibility, no ownership = no
responsibility.
You remove responsibility when you remove ownership.
You create irresponsibility by removing it.
You by default embrace responsibility by embracing ownership, the
reverse is also true.
The common's became fucked when no-one cared, people who own care.
Everyone owning everything means no-one owns anything.
Chazzzz''s is the piffle of the envy ridden irresponsible leftist
parasitical retards.
Michael Gordge
|
| |
|
| | 36 Comments |
|
|
Author: Bret CahillBret Cahill Date: Oct 14, 2007 20:20
>> "When man began to desire private property then entered violence, and
>> fraud, and theft, and rapine.
> When everyone owns everything,
Then liberdopia ain't breakin' out.
> The flip side of ownership is responsibility,
Which is what you get with everyone owning everything.
> You remove responsibility when you remove ownership.
Therefore it it is better if everyone owns everything.
> You create irresponsibility by removing it.
And you remove responsibility by creating it.
> You by default embrace responsibility by embracing ownership, the
> reverse is also true.
And you embrace nonsense by reading Randroids' posts.
Bret Cahill
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: Michael GordgeMichael Gordge Date: Oct 17, 2007 00:53
On Oct 15, 12:20 pm, Bret Cahill aol.com> wrote:>>> "When man began to desire private property then entered violence, and
>>> fraud, and theft, and rapine.
>> When everyone owns everything,
>
> Then liberdopia ain't breakin' out.
>
>> The flip side of ownership is responsibility,
>
> Which is what you get with everyone owning everything.
>
>> You remove responsibility when you remove ownership.
>
> Therefore it it is better if everyone owns everything.
>
>> You create irresponsibility by removing it.
>
> And you remove responsibility by creating it.
>
>> You by default embrace responsibility by embracing ownership, the ...
|
| Show full article (0.95Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Date: Oct 17, 2007 07:19
On 15 Okt, 04:36, Michael Gordge xtra.co.nz> wrote:> On Oct 14, 8:05 am, chazwin yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> "When man began to desire private property then entered violence, and
>> fraud, and theft, and rapine.
>
> When everyone owns everything, no-one owns anything.
>
> The flip side of ownership is responsibility, no ownership = no
> responsibility.
Amazing that so many groups, certain native american tribes for
example, managed to care for collectivelly 'owned' things vastly
better than the europeans who came and killed them.
|
| |
| 2 Comments |
|
|
Author: Michael GordgeMichael Gordge Date: Oct 18, 2007 01:21
On Oct 17, 11:19 pm, goodforthegan...@ gmail.com wrote: > On 15 Okt, 04:36, Michael Gordge xtra.co.nz> wrote:> Amazing that so many groups, certain native american tribes for
> example, managed to care for collectivelly 'owned' things vastly
> better than the europeans who came and killed them.
Is it? The evidence is, they'd still be blowing smoke through their
fucking teepee roof and crapping in the woods, if not all be dead, and
you sure as hell wouldn't have the internet to spew your nauseating
nasal whining sickening envy ridden commie fucking piffle.
MG
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Fred WeissFred Weiss Date: Oct 18, 2007 07:34
On Oct 17, 10:19 am, goodforthegan...@ gmail.com wrote:
> Amazing that so many groups, certain native american tribes for
> example, managed to care for collectivelly 'owned' things vastly
> better than the europeans who came and killed them.
On Oct 17, 10:19 am, goodforthegan...@ gmail.com wrote:
> Amazing that so many groups, certain native american tribes for
> example, managed to care for collectivelly 'owned' things vastly
> better than the europeans who came and killed them.
It wasn't amazing however that the "native americans" only had a life
expectancy of about 35.
And of course it isn't so much that they "managed to care for" these
things particularly well (as if it were a conscious decision). It is
more that they *lacked the means*, i.e. the knowledge, to do much with
them anyway. True, they couldn't do much damage (depending even on
what is meant in this context by "damage"). But then they couldn't do
much good either and thus were unable to advance much beyond a
subsistence existence.
Fred Weiss
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Fred WeissFred Weiss Date: Oct 18, 2007 11:38
On Oct 17, 10:19 am, goodforthegan...@ gmail.com wrote:
> Amazing that so many groups, certain native american tribes for
> example, managed to care for collectivelly 'owned' things vastly
> better than the europeans who came and killed them.
It wasn't amazing however that the "native americans" only had a life
expectancy of about 35.
And of course it isn't so much that they "managed to care for" these
things particularly well (as if it were a conscious decision). It is
more that they *lacked the means*, i.e. the knowledge, to do much with
them anyway. True, they couldn't do much damage (depending even on
what is meant in this context by "damage"). But then they couldn't do
much good either and thus were unable to advance much beyond a
subsistence existence.
Fred Weiss
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: chazwinchazwin Date: Oct 18, 2007 23:23
On Oct 18, 7:38 pm, Fred Weiss papertig.com> wrote:> On Oct 17, 10:19 am, goodforthegan...@ gmail.com wrote:
> >> Amazing that so many groups, certain native american tribes for
>> example, managed to care for collectivelly 'owned' things vastly
>> better than the europeans who came and killed them.
>
> It wasn't amazing however that the "native americans" only had a life
> expectancy of about 35.
Point one: this is false.
Point two: I fail to see how this is relevant. Most of the civilised
world had life expectancies of a little less than "native Americans"
right up until the last 100 years. Many civilised countries still have
poor life expenctancies.
|
| Show full article (1.25Kb) |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
Author: Fred WeissFred Weiss Date: Oct 19, 2007 06:43
On Oct 19, 2:23 am, chazwin yahoo.com> wrote:> On Oct 18, 7:38 pm, Fred Weiss papertig.com> wrote:
>>> On Oct 17, 10:19 am, goodforthegan...@ gmail.com wrote: >
>>> Amazing that so many groups, certain native american tribes for
>>> example, managed to care for collectivelly 'owned' things vastly
>>> better than the europeans who came and killed them.
>
>> It wasn't amazing however that the "native americans" only had a life
>> expectancy of about 35.
>
> Point one: this is false.
Actually, that number may even be high depending on how you measure
"life expectancy", namely from birth (factoring in child mortality
which was huge) or once a child had made it to the first year, i.e.
adult life expectancy.
|
| Show full article (1.50Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Malrassic ParkMalrassic Park Date: Oct 19, 2007 08:18
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 06:43:54 -0700, Fred Weiss
papertig.com> wrote:
>True, but European culture had within it the seeds which led to the
>science and technology which dramatically increased life expectancy.
>Aboriginal N. American culture, which was mostly Stone Age, did not
>and likely wouldn't have had for 1,000's of years. That science and
>technology exploded with the Industrial Revolution - which was a
>product of course of capitalism and thus *private property*. Not
>"collectivelly 'owned' things". However capitalism also contributed to
>and was essential to significant improvements in public health works
>(such as sewage systems).
Of course it comes down to reasoning techniques, not, as you claim,
culture. The "native Americans" reasoning utilized verbal imagery,
mythology, and gesturing with the arms to illustrate the mythology,
kind of like Hawaiian dancers except without the dancing.
But didn't the Europeans start out at a similar primitive level? And
didn't that primitive level contain within itself the seeds which
eventually led to the "European culture" you mentioned?
|
| Show full article (1.13Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
