my dad gave me the exact same analogy a week ago, i swear. this is a problem even in capitalist societies and it is called imminent domain. the solution in our proposed society is similar to the solution that is currently in place:

this means that they will find that person another place to live and then propose that person move there. difference is that in our proposed society, the person will actually have a say on whether or not they want to move. they actually stand a chance at fighting against it. in society today they don't have that option. it's move and be compensated or have a futile attempt at protesting your forced move.

you still don't get it. what gives you the right to a piece of land? how are you in any way free to lay claim to land? take it from Massasoit:

"What is this you call property? It cannot be the earth, for the land is our mother, nourishing all her children, beasts, birds, fish and all men. The woods, the streams, everything on it belongs to everybody and is for the use of all. How can one man say it belongs only to him?"

and also, for more on Native American views on property, go here:

http://www.adl.org/education/curriculum_connections/NA_Quotes.asp

three years, before it was crushed by force.

nice jab there

or at least apply for Apple. there's no guarantee they'll accept you.

or try one company greedy and creative enough to have a virtual monopoly on the industry.

or that company would use their immense amount of money to campaign and assure no one ever finds an alternative fuel source while simultaneously looking themselves for alternatives so that if they ever do come to fruition they can have a virtual monopoly on that industry too.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

I already posted a bunch of crap about the native americans, and instead of generalizing like u are I showed articles that looked at individual tribes.

once again you are forgetting the main principle behind participatory economics. only the people affected by that decision will have a vote making it work quicker. and who said there wouldn't be binding contracts?

i disagree.

and i gave you quotes from some of the most prominent Native Americans. your point?

in a participatory system there isn't anything forcing you to work for a company either. in it's crudest sense, participatory economics is much like doing chores around the house. you rotate chores with your brothers and sisters and if you choose to work you will have to do both tedious and unfavorable jobs and more favorable jobs.

how many times do i have to mention Standard Oil which had a VIRTUAL monopoly (88%) at it's peak performance. i've shown plenty of evidence which you haven't contradicted that showed how government involvement only slowed them down from gaining full control of the industry and eventually, along with other catalysts such as the Spindletop, Texas oil find of 1901, it steadily chipped away at their virtual monopoly until in 1911 it was broken up into over 30 different companies that were still big enough to be big corporations and many of them continue to exist including both Exxon and Mobil which merged quite recently and became the richest business in the United States.

unfortunately for the corporations the hypothetical i presented is based on things that have actually happened. scientists have been paid by big corporations to research and discredit global warming, the harmful effects of nicotene, etc. and that is just at the tip of the iceberg.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

contracts =/= a constitution. they can be enforced in ways that do not involve government or authority.

if a Native American speaks on how the many Native American societies he's been involved in work, that isn't a generalization. if Malcolm X said that most black people hate white people, that would be a generalization. and besides, i presented an entire page of quotes from Native Americans on the concept of property, not just one quote.

they don't need to have full control to have a significant amount of control over an industry to the point that they make things hard for everyone else. there is no such thing as full control anyways. even under a government monopoly, black markets will arise giving a percentage to the peddlers. once again, Standard had ZERO comparable competitors until 1901 and whenever one arose, they were either bought out or "coerced" (to put it nicely) into merging. i've provided evidence of the former numerous times, just look back into the other thread. as for the latter, i have provided several sources, many of which were without bias, that agreed to at least the first accusation. the 147 refineries were small and insignificant up until 1901, some later. and Standard still held significantly more than 50% of the market share up until 1911 when they were disbanded by the government. no business has held that much market share since under federal regulation. as for them keeping the prices low, that is inconsequential. a shitload of money was bound up in that corporation, which means the people at the top and the business itself was hording access to resources, for money represents a means to resources. while this creates wealth, it simultaneously creates poverty. more than anything it is poverty that i am opposed to.

maybe nicotine, but the country is still quite torn on global warming, which is in large part due to Exxon funding such scientists

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

i am? if i am, so are you by building a structure by which things would work in your ideal society.

????? i am not saying ALL Native American societies function that way. i am saying that a large portion of the most well-known societies functioned that way. and when someone who actively participated in and was a well-known representative of something says that the principles of their society are based thus, then i think that is one situation in which a quote does hold weight.

...and using corrupt tactics to coerce other businesses to sell the rights to their business to them.

...meanwhile they own 15 mansions, spanning over 1,000 acres each, buy up all the property they can possibly buy, and the money they use to purchase smaller items goes other owners of huge corporations that do the same thing, creating a cycle of money that simply circulates through the pockets of money hungry CEOs and other high up executives.

yes... and? and btw, fyi, there are still plenty of people who object to the idea of global warming in general, not just anthropogenic global warming.

and herein lies the problem. tons of evidence has been provided and global warming is now considered, by scientists who actually have merit and aren't in Exxon's pocket, to be a fact:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

ok. i think there's a better solution. it's called creating a society based on cooperation, not competition.

but the majority of the money stays within the small circle of people at the top.

dude, are you going to completely disregard the article i provided that discussed the scientific consensus that has been reached stating that global warming exists and is, in large part, man made? "there's no widely accepted view so I guess u helped prove my point. " that actually proves my point. the fact that the public still hasn't widely accepted global warming as anthropogenic while the scientific community has already come to a consensus shows how much power Exxon really has had.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

It's sort of like someone not wanting a house built across the street because it blocks the persons view of a field. In a cooperative society, people wouldn't make such objections because they are not assuming that they have dominant say.

and maybe one of these days it will actually sink in for you lol

i already described how it stays at the top.

and herein lies the problem. you care about economics. you think economics will fix everything. every problem we have is based on government getting involved in economics. but i digress. i didn't care much about global warming until recently either. this has nothing to do with global warming. this has to do with Exxon campaigning to conceal facts that show that greenhouse gases, which are created by man-made toxins during such processes as the emission of carbon from the tailpipe of a car, are actually the leading cause of global warming and that global warming is a serious issue. the reason they are doing this is because it will hurt their sales figures and the reason they are able to do it is because they have used cutthroat methods to become the leading business in the industry. they actually have enough money to manufacture consent and they are not afraid to do it and have halfway admitted to doing it. that is what is scary. that alone is enough to rethink the idea of a competitive free market system.

no. it doesn't have to be absolute. they have swayed enough opinions to keep the issue in limbo and keep people convinced not to switch to alternative fuel.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0