[Fasces]

So, another arbitrary limitation to the principle of self-ownership. This is not a consistent concept.

[Capitalist_Eagle]

It is an arbitrary number for the sake of the law; it has no bearing on the actual concept of self-ownership.

You seem quite keen to diminish the idea of self-ownership and autonomy. I sense some underlying motive; of course, your ideology is listed as "nationalist" which is quite synonymous with fascism, so I am not surprised.

[Fasces]

It's a non-consistent idea, and a poor basis for political philosophy. Even another anarchist has recognized that. I have no motive in shitting on your idea - this is a discussion forum, and I am discussing the merits and weaknesses of it. I don't care what you believe, but I will discuss it. I am not trying to shut down an idea, not that it matters, as this particular concept has no credibility in the first place.

You will notice, Capitalist_Eagle, that there is a vibrant fascist community on this site. I do hope that, if you will begin to use terms, you can step away from attempting to redefine them, as so many libertarians in the United States do, and accept the standard international definitions. Fascist, on this site, is not a slur, but an adjective for many users.

[Capitalist_Eagle]

I am well aware of what fascist means. I was not using it as a slur. I was using it as a political philosophy based on Mussolini's Fascist Manifesto.

[Fasces]

That would be capital F fascist, certainly, though I have my doubts as to whether you know what the contents of that manifesto are. Nor is the Doctrine of Fascism the sole document that helped codify fascist thought (or even the most important one).

[Capitalist_Eagle]

Trust me, I am well acquainted with fascism (used to be a member of Fascist International forums before it got removed).

[Fasces]

That's fine, but irrelevant. Suffice to say, I am not out to undermine you. I am simply discussing with you the merits, or lack of them, in the principle of self-ownership.

[Capitalist_Eagle]

Until you suggest another principle which would support liberty and autonomy, then this discussion is pointless.

[Fasces]

I don't believe humans to be free or autonomous. They are constrained by a variety of things, including social duties and expectations, cultural values and morals, and the mental schema imparted unto them by their society. Men have only the liberty they choose to value and give themselves, collectively, as a society. In the United States there is a high value on individual liberty, and individualism. This is not a universal belief. The people of the world are not libertarians waiting to be liberated from dictatorship. In many areas, they have democratically chosen to adopt a restrictive government, and popularly support their demagogues. This does not make them less human, or make them oppressed. They have other, different, values, and this affects their society. This is OK.

Men are defined by their tribe. Tribes have varying values. There are no universal values, and no universal rights.

[Capitalist_Eagle]

It is stupid, is what it is .

[Fasces]

Yes, and democratic traditions in Iraq and Afghanistan were quickly adopted by a people who just wanted to be free.

Please. Is it so hard to believe that the only reason you hold liberty as such a core and fundamental value to all persons because you happened to be born in a country that socially and culturally idolizes individual liberty?

The Japanese have the most liberal constitution on the planet - would you call their society open? Would you call their political process free and transparent? The potential is there, but the nation isn't. The nation doesn't have the same values, and it doesn't matter that the rights exist: they choose to largely reject them anyway.

[Capitalist_Eagle]

I don't disagree that most people would rather sell their liberty for security. I am only saying that it is stupid to do so.

[Fasces]

Who are you to say what is stupid? I would say it is stupid to hold greater value for an abstract vote than for a consistent supply of bread, or medical care. The fact is that human beings hold different values, and an axiomatic, universal, approach to some concept of inalienable rights ignores that fact.

[Cartertonian]

Gentlemen, might I remind you that PoFo's Newbie Guide says:

As this is a forum for adults (or at very least mature individuals) to discuss politics; immature, one-line posts will not be tolerated! Don't be surprised if any of yours disappear. Chances are if you think it's a crappy one-liner, it probably is. Might want to stop before you click that "submit" button and rethink it. Most particularly in forums in the Issues and Ideologies sections (note: one liners are generally acceptable in the Gorkiy Park forum).

[Capitalist_Eagle]

Fasces, why should I hold a higher value to bread and medical care if I must sacrifice my liberty to do so? I would rather die free than live as a slave.

[Fasces]

Spoken as a man who has never gone hungry.

[Capitalist_Eagle]

Nonsense. I grew up in a working class family which struggled from time to time.

[Fasces]

Must...cast....vote...

[Capitalist_Eagle]

And what is that picture supposed to convey?

Thanks to the industrial revolution and capitalism, more people than ever before are able to eat. The United States exports a great deal of food; the "poor workers" in foreign countries who are employed at factories earning $1.50 an hour previously earned nothing per hour rummaging through garbage. Capitalism and technology have led to greater production and have improved the quality of life of the ordinary citizen (I am apt of the Henry Ford analogy; he invented the assembly line, growing fabulously wealthy while simultaneously enabling millions of people around the country to be able to afford automobiles, increasing their quality of life and productivity.

Farmers in the 19th and early 20th century, in fact, produced so much food that the price of food fell sharply (which, of course, became a problem; that is how productive they were)?

How successful have collective farms been?
Where do you see the most starvation, in free market countries where the rule of law prevails, or in communist or despotist nations where dictators or warlords prevail?

[Fasces]

I did not assault capitalism. That is not the discussion. Capitalism can exist in a non-free state, such as Chile under Pinochet, or Singapore. The two are not the same. One does not need to be free to engage in capitalism.

The simple fact is that most people on this planet do not give two shits about liberty, and would rather have food to eat. If you want to talk economics - people around the world generally get more utils out of stuffing their belly than casting a vote.