The Individual Vs. The State, An Unusual Case

[FireIceTalon]

Private property for Marx = class relationships on control to the means of production, as opposed to what we think of today (personal property).

[kandrathe]

Private property for Marx = class relationships on control to the means of production, as opposed to what we think of today (personal property).

Oh, good. I'd hate to be last in line to use the communal toothbrush.

[FireIceTalon]

Private property for Marx = class relationships on control to the means of production, as opposed to what we think of today (personal property).

Oh, good. I'd hate to be last in line to use the communal toothbrush.

I lol'd. Kinda unappetizing to read though while eating.

[Alram]

Private property for Marx = class relationships on control to the means of production, as opposed to what we think of today (personal property).

So when Marx wrote "Abolition of property in land" he didn't really mean abolishing land ownership?

The communist manifesto also promotes "Abolition of all rights of inheritance." How do the neo-Marxists get around that one? If individuals can't inherit, their land and property goes to the state.

[LennyLen]

It's not about that. It's about honoring the wishes of those you love. It's about what he said to his wife, and his desire to hold true to that after she passes. To sound all corny for a second, that's love.

It hardly matters if she notices. Point is, he made an oath to her, and stood by it.

I'm going to make my loved ones promise to cut me in pieces and scatter them over your lawns. The fact that it's a promise makes it ok, so don't try to stop them.

[FireIceTalon]

Private property for Marx = class relationships on control to the means of production, as opposed to what we think of today (personal property).

So when Marx wrote "Abolition of property in land" he didn't really mean abolishing land ownership?

The communist manifesto also promotes "Abolition of all rights of inheritance." How do the neo-Marxists get around that one? If individuals can't inherit, their land and property goes to the state.

Comrade Alram, let us not derail this thread from the original topic.

However, I will be more than happy to continue this discussion with you privately, or if you wish to make another thread. Cheers.

I'm going to make my loved ones promise to cut me in pieces and scatter them over your lawns. The fact that it's a promise makes it ok, so don't try to stop them.

You want to scatter YOUR remains all over SOMEONE else's personal property, the man wants his wife buried on his own personal property - that is an entirely different proposition altogether. Your argument is a strawman, because it is in a completely different context than what me or shoju stated. You want to scatter your body parts all over your lawn? Go right on ahead.

[Alram]

Private property for Marx = class relationships on control to the means of production, as opposed to what we think of today (personal property).

So when Marx wrote "Abolition of property in land" he didn't really mean abolishing land ownership?

The communist manifesto also promotes "Abolition of all rights of inheritance." How do the neo-Marxists get around that one? If individuals can't inherit, their land and property goes to the state.

Comrade Alram, let us not derail this thread from the original topic.

However, I will be more than happy to continue this discussion with you privately, or if you wish to make another thread. Cheers.

I have no real interest in pursuing this issue further. It just came as a surprise to me that you were in favor of private property rights.

[FireIceTalon]

Private property for Marx = class relationships on control to the means of production, as opposed to what we think of today (personal property).

So when Marx wrote "Abolition of property in land" he didn't really mean abolishing land ownership?

The communist manifesto also promotes "Abolition of all rights of inheritance." How do the neo-Marxists get around that one? If individuals can't inherit, their land and property goes to the state.

Comrade Alram, let us not derail this thread from the original topic.

However, I will be more than happy to continue this discussion with you privately, or if you wish to make another thread. Cheers.

I have no real interest in pursuing this issue further. It just came as a surprise to me that you were in favor of personal property rights.

very well.

[eppie]

You want to scatter YOUR remains all over SOMEONE else's personal property, the man wants his wife buried on his own personal property - that is an entirely different proposition altogether. Your argument is a strawman, because it is in a completely different context than what me or shoju stated. You want to scatter your body parts all over your lawn? Go right on ahead.

Absolutely no strawman. And your response, especially the last sentence, is a good argument for showing lennylen makes a valid point.
Are you seriously thinking it is OK to scatter bodyparts of a deceased love-one in your own garden? Let's say on main street?
Rules are there not just to take away people's liberty but mainly to keep things a bit nice, friendly and civilized.

And indeed a promise from one old person to the other is not the highest law.

[FireIceTalon]

Im sure white Southern slave owners said the same thing, that laws existed to keep things "a bit nice, friendly, and civilized", even as they brutally whipped, beat, hung, raped, and shot among too many other atrocities to name, countless African slaves - since after all, it was legal to do so. I'm sure Stalin said the same thing as well, even as he threw millions of people (including even some of his own fellow Bolsheviks and other Communists, or anyone who disagreed with his policies) into gulag camps. Every monarch, Robespierre, Hitler, Mussolini, and Pinochet all probably thought so too. Rules in class antagonist societies are made by and for the benefit of the ruling class ALWAYS. The purpose of the State is to legitimize, through an ideological rule-of-law system, the suppression of one class of society by another, along with all the necessary economic, political, social and cultural divisions that are necessary for its existence. Granted, in a classless society, there would be rules, but those rules would benefit or effect everyone equally since there are no competing class interests and thus would be made in the best interest of the ENTIRE society, and moreover, they would be made democratically - by the people as they saw necessary instead of a powerful State apparatus that legitimizes the existence of a ruling class, by design. Your rational here, eppie, is an appeal to authority fallacy. Sorry comrade - I know your general views and I believe you are well meaning, but you are wrong here.

And yes, he is most definitely guilty of a strawman, because his argument completely misrepresents mine or shoju's points.

[eppie]

And yes, he is most definitely guilty of a strawman, because his argument completely misrepresents mine or shoju's points.

So if I understand correctly you are comparing the killing and torturing of people with some obstinate old man who wants to bury someone where he likes?

A society needs rules, and simply saying all rules are made to keep the common man down is a gross simplification of facts.

One reason for this is that most people are stupid, and don't see the consequences of what they are doing; stopping at red lights or not speeding in your car is an example. Burying people in a cemetery is another.

Torture and murder on the other hand, are torture and murder, and I think no-one would say that this man deserves the death penalty for what he did. So you can go and start talking about people's rights again, but please realize that you can't just throw everything on one pile.

I mean do you really honestly believe that the government of the US doesn't let this guy bury his wife where he wants because of some scheme to control the people?
If you say this about the war in Iraq, I agree with you, but in this case it just doesn't make any sense.

[FireIceTalon]

So if I understand correctly you are comparing the killing and torturing of people with some obstinate old man who wants to bury someone where he likes?

No. I made the point that the guy wants to bury his wife, on his property, and there is no legitimate reason, given the circumstances, for the State to intervene. Lenny misconstrued what I said by saying that it would be ok for his family to throw his body parts on someone else's lawn, which is completely different from my point. I don't think having your body parts tossed on someone else's property would be acceptable in ANY society.

A society needs rules, and simply saying all rules are made to keep the common man down is a gross simplification of facts.

Not exactly. A society does need rules, but it is WHO makes those rules, and on what premise and context they are made, and the consequence those rules have on anyone in society that concern me. By their very natures, class societies have rules of law systems designed by and for the ruling class. Of course, the system has to offer SOME small amount of protection for the little guy, or at least appear to, so as to prevent revolution and keep the masses pacified. You have to understand too, the ruling class doesn't *usually* need to use direct coercive force to protect their interests: their worldview and ideologies are projected through cultural hegemony and "sold" through mass media, the education system, and political pundits that is socially engineered to be adopted by the working class as the so-called "natural order" of things, or "common sense". I can name quite a few examples that we have here in America that are designed to uphold private capital, profits and that promote AND necessitate racism, chauvinism, etc. And I can do so not only with so-called sociological theory, but actual numbers and statistics in some cases as well. Shall I?

One reason for this is that most people are stupid, and don't see the consequences of what they are doing; stopping at red lights or not speeding in your car is an example. Burying people in a cemetery is another.

Dude, this is nonsense. Your outlook on our species is not only disturbing and pessimistic, but fundamentally wrong. If our species was as stupid as you say, we would have gone the way of the dinosaurs long ago. Thankfully, history has proven that we are much more clever than that. Our traffic system, while not perfect (as accidents do happen), does work very well by and large - so that isn't the best example to try and disprove my point. "Stupid" people aren't born stupid, they are in such a condition because of a social factor, whether it is a lack of education or a poor education - often in relation to the social class they are born into or some form of social engineering. And "stupid" is a rather politically incorrect term. Are poor kids with no education or little to eat in Somalia or other 3rd world nations "stupid"?? No, they are just a product of most unfortunate circumstances that is no fault of their own, caused by Capitalism and its neo-colonial tentacles.

Torture and murder on the other hand, are torture and murder, and I think no-one would say that this man deserves the death penalty for what he did. So you can go and start talking about people's rights again, but please realize that you can't just throw everything on one pile.

My point was, you were making an appeal to authority fallacy, and not so much the relative consequences. As I see it, ALL authority has the burden of proof of being able to justify its legitimacy, and in class based societies, it rarely can.

I mean do you really honestly believe that the government of the US doesn't let this guy bury his wife where he wants because of some scheme to control the people?
If you say this about the war in Iraq, I agree with you, but in this case it just doesn't make any sense.

They are worried about the property values going down if this guy does this, because then, all the real estate agents, mortgage brokers, and the Bankers/lending institutions will see their commissions and profits drop as a result (in theory, though I doubt the burying of his wife on his property would do this anyway).....profits before humanity, as usual. In a classless society, people would collectively decide and make the rules of burying your loved ones on YOUR personal property ok or not, and if they decided it was, they would also decide under what circumstances it would be acceptable, if any. Likewise, if it is decided that doing so isn't a good idea, the decision stands. Point is, the decision, either way, would be being made for what the best interest is, based on given material circumstances and in a democratic fashion, instead of for protecting PROFITS or the expansion of private capital by a undemocratic State based on hierarchy.

[LennyLen]

No. I made the point that the guy wants to bury his wife, on his property, and there is no legitimate reason, given the circumstances, for the State to intervene.

If you actually read what you said earlier, and what I quoted you on, you stated that the point was that he made an oath and stuck by it. Now you say the point is something else entirely. So, which is it? And how do you know there is no legitimate reason? The reason for why the request was denied was not given, That does not make it illegitimate.

[FireIceTalon]

Um, I made the same point to eppie that you quoted in my original point also; see post #19. You just chose not to quote the whole thing to suit your purposes

For what we know, the States reason has something to do with "state law gives the city some control over where people bury their loved ones and have cited concerns about long-term care, appearance, property values and the complaints of some neighbors".

Mr. Davis clearly stated that long term care and appearance wouldn't be an issue, so it must be something to do with either property values or neighbor complaints or both. There is certainly no health hazard involved in the given circumstances either, since she is buried within a enclosed concrete vault and a metal casket. If there were, that would be a different story and I would hold a different opinion. Long term care and appearance do not effect the interests of the State, but property values and neighbor complaints do, so one has to conclude that this must be their reasoning for denying him. If that is the case, which it seems to be, then it is BOGUS. He had the health dept legitimize it as a residential burial of which the State has no control over, and now it wants to make some noise because it is against THEIR interests in some fashion - but it certainly isn't harming anyone else. As I said before, the State or any authority ALWAYS has the burden of justifying its legitimacy, and here, as it usually does, it falls short. Again, I find the whole thing repulsive and they just need to leave this poor old man alone worry about things that ACTUALLY matter, like paving the fucking roads and bridges and building better schools.

[LennyLen]

You just chose not to quote the whole thing to suit your purposes

I didn't quote the "in the circumstances" part because neither you nor I actually know the circumstances. All we know is a small ammount that was given in an article. I quoted you saying what your point was.

[cheezz]

I don't know what the Duelfer report is, but I do remember what the UN inspectors had to say, which strangely enough, most people ignore. They decided that Saddam had WMD's because of what they didn't find, rather than what they did. There were literally tons of chemicals and biological agents which were accounted for back in the early nineties but had disappeared without a trace by the milennium. No information could be found about the location/existence for a whole lot of stuff that the inspectors saw in the nineties. I personally heard one of the chief inspectors say this in an interview with a news channel at the time they finished their inspections.

[eppie]

I don't know what the Duelfer report is, but I do remember what the UN inspectors had to say, which strangely enough, most people ignore. They decided that Saddam had WMD's because of what they didn't find, rather than what they did. There were literally tons of chemicals and biological agents which were accounted for back in the early nineties but had disappeared without a trace by the milennium. No information could be found about the location/existence for a whole lot of stuff that the inspectors saw in the nineties. I personally heard one of the chief inspectors say this in an interview with a news channel at the time they finished their inspections.

The UN inspectors were forced (by the US and brittain) to stay in Iraq until they would find something. In the process they have stated several times that they didn't think there were any WMDs. In the end they have been forced even more pursasively to come with a conclusion that would fit the US and UK.
Why do we have to keep talking about this when even Bush and Blair have admitted their mistakes? Colin Powell admitted he was lying, nothing has been found etc. etc. etc.

[Jester]

I don't know what the Duelfer report is, but I do remember what the UN inspectors had to say, which strangely enough, most people ignore. They decided that Saddam had WMD's because of what they didn't find, rather than what they did. There were literally tons of chemicals and biological agents which were accounted for back in the early nineties but had disappeared without a trace by the milennium. No information could be found about the location/existence for a whole lot of stuff that the inspectors saw in the nineties. I personally heard one of the chief inspectors say this in an interview with a news channel at the time they finished their inspections.

This is a serious misrepresentation of the position of Hans Blix and the UN inspection team. While they put public pressure on the Iraqi government many times to allow them greater access, and mentioned the various things that still needed to be accounted for to have a full inventory (and therefore, to definitively rule out that they had kept any.) The Iraqis position was that they'd destroyed it all, and that there were poor or nonexistent records. This seems plausible for a number of reasons. The Iraqis did not want to be invaded, so they did what they were asked, but they also did not want to be publicly seen as bowing to international pressure. The country was unstable and Saddam Hussein was losing his mind.

The inspectors never found anything, and neither did the coalition forces. Both groups have said so. What, then, does that say about the presence of WMD?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

This is a serious misrepresentation of the position of Hans Blix and the UN inspection team. While they put public pressure on the Iraqi government many times to allow them greater access, and mentioned the various things that still needed to be accounted for to have a full inventory (and therefore, to definitively rule out that they had kept any.) The Iraqis position was that they'd destroyed it all, and that there were poor or nonexistent records. This seems plausible for a number of reasons. The Iraqis did not want to be invaded, so they did what they were asked, but they also did not want to be publicly seen as bowing to international pressure. The country was unstable and Saddam Hussein was losing his mind.

The inspectors never found anything, and neither did the coalition forces. Both groups have said so. What, then, does that say about the presence of WMD?

What the UNSCOM 1990's and UNMVIC 2003 teams had were extensive manifests of pre-cursor materials, that may have been used for chemical and biological weapons. What the UN team wanted to see were either the items (used, or unused), or documentation of their use or destruction. Disarming Iraq - Excerpt.

From the US perspective, the UN actions were political cover to justify military action. I think the decision to go to war with Iraq was made well before GWB became the President -- It was clearly stated in the PNAC letter to Pres. Bill Clinton in 1998. (signed by many of the future War dept. in the Bush administration).

But, you also have contradictory information they did find, like this finding of chemical/biological warfare preparedness. Which would hardly be necessary without a reason to fear the use of such weapons. By whom? The only nation that had used them in the region (against their own population) was Iraq.

[Jester]

But, you also have contradictory information they did find, like this finding of chemical/biological warfare preparedness. Which would hardly be necessary without a reason to fear the use of such weapons. By whom? The only nation that had used them in the region (against their own population) was Iraq.

Every nation in the world has those, no? Iraq could have been plausibly attacked by any one of: Iran, Syria, Israel, or Saudi Arabia, not to mention the United States. Oh, and itself, of course.

Now, if they'd ever actually found any of the chemical weapons that they were supposedly so ready to use, that might be a bit more convincing.

-Jester