Those things can not be applied to law as a religious maxim, or else it is theocracy.
However, those things are not religious in themselves and can be applied in other ways.
You should learn what communism actually is, instead of repeating what your told to think.
What would you imagine a communist would say is the difference between personal and private property, and the of the rights to "seize" either one?
It tells me you believe that god is evil, and you support a evil god.
People have used shells(and sticks) before, so one could also say that money comes from the sea as well:
Communism is the freest "market" there is. Most supporters understand it to be a gift economy Which should allow for greater quality of life to be had once it reaches a large scale through making private interests also public interests and vice versa.
The so called "free market" results in socialized losses and private gains.
Your seriously arguing that taxes create classes? How fucking delusional are you?
Everyone Having to give something to a entity under certain conditions is the singular cause of there being disparity in the relationship to the means of production, you'll have tough luck proving that one. |
Business and government are one of a kind, and can not be separated.
The same goes for the teacher, and distraction is the right word.
Yes they are, they following the teachings of Jesus Christ and share in some central doctrines.
They are christian sects, are you seriously going to argue that only one sect of Christianity is actually the true "Christians"? Maybe it's mormans, or perhaps orthodox, maybe one of the early Indian churches...
you can buy what leads to love, love isn't magic, something causes it, and what ever causes it can likely be bought somewhere down the line.
Communists support not only socialism, but the working class. The state is the vehicle of class war, you mistake my support of one side for support of government, and fail to realize how your own support of the other side also supports government, although a much more entrenched and permanent one.
I'm sure I read actualizable demand somewhere, although I may of been summing up an idea, irregardless its similar to or the same as effectual demand, as the phrase itself implies.
Its not simpler to hit enter than it is to go on a 4 month journey?
If you measure significance by time for example, then the thing which lets you message someone half way across the world in a second is much more significant than the mountain that would of otherwise made you deliver it 3 months later. The mountain doesn't even enter into the equation anymore, its no longer an obstacle, no longer significant to the question of communication.
As for those things you mentioned, technology is not there yet, but it will be.
If a teacher is distracted by another's student's religious expression which does no harm to anyone else, that is probably the teacher's problem and she/he should find another job or be given consoling to help with those issues.
Your point? sure if a guy wants to hook up two girls and they don't mind him watching why not.
Because they are not watching or fantasying about rape, but sex.
Unlike the pedophile porn watcher, they are watching and fantasying about rape.
child porn is really a misnomer.
Is there adds along side the video, or marketing information being gathered?
if so then merely viewing it can be contributing to harm.
Although I do agree that if you happen across it that it isn't something that should be punished.
If they are exhibitionists, would denying them the ability to be such reduce their activities? if the point is to be exhibitionist, then why do the act?
If you make it legal then specialized sites will spring up which allows for secure uploads and so on, and which can't be traced. You would allow security to be provided as a service to a wider number of potential producers, decreasing a barrier to entry.
If part of the driving force to production is sharing with the community, then disabling the ability to share diminishes production.
I also see no reason why we would have to decriminalize something to also treat it.
Perhaps they go out to watch it in person, or to set up such a situation for women they know.
YEa, ETHNOCENTRISM!, fuck those native Americans and their traditions, and every other non-white, non-male, non-property owning fuck eh?
Marriage is first and foremost a institution of PROPERTY, it is part of property law and has always been, second it shouldn't be distorted into being a bigoted, racist, homophobia shit because some arguments that were made against interracial marriage are actually still being applied to other discriminated groups. How about you come up with something original?
