The land may be for sale, but it is not likely affordable because of supply and demand. People live in cities because there is no more money in farming, so they look to cities to find work. I come from a family of farmers, but no one is doing that anymore. I think we really lost a better way of life when we lost the family farm.
Like I said, I'm not advocating for taking away your stuff. I am really only concerned with the extreme wealth of the top 1%. A lot of the wealth "belonging" to this top one percent more rightfully beongs to the workers that actually created the wealth with their labour. The truth is people everywhere are working and earning their money, but are not getting paid what their labour is worth.The near functional monopolies created by the mega-corporations outcompete small businesses, forcing people to work for these mega-corporations (who get richer and richer while paying workers less and less).
I don't beleive in absolute egalitarianism (which would have to be forced), but I feel the current state of affairs is more akin to a plutocracy than a free-market capitalist system (which would be more egalitarian). In order to reverse the effects of years of government policy which aids the concentration of wealth into the hands of the few, we would have to make a decision about what is legitimate ownership and what is illegitimate ownership. If it were to ever come about, a libertarian capitalist system would have to address this too, lest it end up as a total plutocracy with no government left to defend the rights of individuals. So I am suggesting that it would be fair for us take over that which is not being used. That way there is no forced repossession.
I am personably able to afford a place to live, food and leisure. So I don't think I envy the fat cats, although, I am young and just starting out. Housing costs where I live have tripled since I was a kid while average wages have stagnated and even dropped after considering inflation. The additional challenge for me to buy a house compared to my parents' generation hardly seems fair. (I can't see how I will ever be able to afford a house in such circumstances).
I blame this on the increasing wealth of the few.
The banks still made billions last year, while unemployment grew. Why?
But how many of the people being tortured are innocent? For example a lot of detainees from afghanistan were turned in by militants interested in receiving the bounty being offered by Americans. Many people of disliked minorities were turned in without any sort of evidence linking them to terrorist activities.
This is why we have a justice system that relies on evidence and not just suspicion. What if your neighbor had it out for you an accused you of a crime you did not commit? This is just one reason why torture is unacceptable. Not to mention any 'benefits' for the many are dubious at best, since war and torture creates animosity which leads inevitably to a future filled with more conflict, not less.
But how many of the people being tortured are innocent? This is why we have a justice system that relies on evidence not just suspicion. What if your neighbor had it out for you an accused you of a crime you did not commit? This is just one reason why torture is unacceptable. Not to mention any 'benefits' for the many are dubious at best, since war and torture creates animosity which leads inevitably to a future filled with more conflict, not less.
An interesting article if you want to look at the issue more deeply.
"But the claims about the deleterious effects of
second hand smoke are based on nothing more
than cooked statistics--there are no bodies, no
autopsy reports. But they have led to draconian
smoking bans imposed by govemments from
Califomia to New York to Ireland to Israel to
Australia to England. ln the process, civil liberties
have been trampled and smokers demonized,
driven into the streets and lately, in some places,
off the streets as anti-smoke zealors promote the
notion that outdoor smoking is virtually as irnidious
as indoor smoking."
Americans tend to see this as a contradiction because of the right-wing (sometimes contradictory) breed of libertarianism that dominates there, but it really isn't. First you have to understand that by socialism I do not mean state-socialism. I use socialism to mean a general beleif in egalitarianism. I do not advocate the use of coercion in any way, and this must logically preclude me from supporting the forced re-distribution of wealth such as taxes or communist-style economics.
I think that most of what you value about private-property would be maintained by my conception of use-occupancy-possession ownership.
I too, would love to own property, but the problem is that land is being hoarded by a few. The state would arrest me if I tried to hook up utilities and live in an abandonded house, or evict me if I tried to farm abandoned land. This is the extreme form of property ownership that I am interested in dismantling- because it is inarguably restricting my freedom.
When America was founded, there was land enough for everyone, and this is what made America such a great place. But now that 1% of Americans own 43% of the American wealth, the regular working class is getting squeezed. So essentially you are already sharing your wealth, but you are 'sharing it' only with the richest fat-cats in the country. You probably don' have enough wealth left to share with others if you wanted to.
So, I am not talking about taking your hard earned money, I'm talking about creating a more equal playing field for everyone.
Cheers :)
And also, your fourth and last comments are just not true. I looked into this a long time ago when the whole metling steel thing was bothering me. It turns out that (of course, it seems so obvious) the steel only had to get hot enough to become brittle and structurally unstable. It didn't have to actually melt or anything.
Happy debating :)
There is something so enticing about conspiracy theories, and they really evoke our natural mistrust for oppressive authorities like the American government. But for me, that's not a great reason to turn way from evidence-based and logical decision making. There is just no credible evidence that Bush had anything to do with it.
American foreign policy of the last few decades very much did help to create the conditions that caused 9/11 attacks to happen, but that's isn't the same thing as Bush actually being in any way responsible. Plus (in response to one of the comments) I don't see what this has to do with Iraq at all. I think the American media somehow manufactured this idea of a connection between those two countries - but it's just not there. I mean Osama Bin-Laden has way more connections to Saudi Arabia than to Iraq.
I do think the Bush administration took advantage of the tragic attacks on 9/11 to justify a totally unrelated neo-con experiment in Iraq. But IMO, it was crazy extremist terrorists that were responsible.
It seems that instead of having a system of strictly private and strictly state ownership, we could have a compromise between private property and possession (use & occupancy) ownership.
This show may have been funny and edgy when it came out, despite just trying to be a more offensive version of the Simpsons. Now it is just old and tired. The characters are all irritating, and each episode rehashes the same jokes and same poor humour.
