the sin of property.

Originally posted by menace71
How can you buy the sky or the air ?

With money of course. Not that difficult really. Of course they are so valuable that most countries claim public (government) ownership over them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading

Originally posted by RJHinds
So are you for communism? That did not last in the Soviet Union. It doesn't seem right to me. 😏

Russian style communism isn't the only alternative to capitalism.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I say that's nonsense. The US allows free migration within its borders as does much of Europe. Why do they not experience those problems? If they do, why haven't they instituted immigration controls? Oh wait, movement of labour is actually an economic benefit.
The flow of people to cities, especially successful ones happens all around the world, and although it needs to be effectively managed, it is ultimately a good thing.

i was referring to global migration. if all international borders were removed the influx of of migrants could potentially be counter productive. national migration is different as the wealth disparity between different towns and cities is usually relativity small. like i say in principle im not against the idea, im just not sure it would work.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
i was referring to global migration. if all international borders were removed the influx of of migrants could potentially be counter productive. national migration is different as the wealth disparity between different towns and cities is usually relativity small. like i say in principle im not against the idea, im just not sure it would work.

You a wrong on all counts. Global migration already exists, and would not be as significant as you fear should boarder restrictions be removed. National migration in some nations is very significant (think of China or India) and is often dues to wealth disparity within countries.
As for your fear that 'it might not work', the truth is you are really just Xenophobic and afraid that all the poor people would migrate to your area and 'steal' all the jobs. The reality however is that you wanting to keep the poor people poor and disadvantaged to your own benefit is outright selfishness and has nothing to do with the impracticalities of global migration.
Xenophobia however is a very short sighted view as migration almost always economically benefits the country or area receiving migrants.
When Europe opened up to poor eastern European countries there was fear of mass migration, but did it turn out that badly? Do you believe the poor Europeans benefited or lost out? Do you believe the rich Europeans benefited or lost out?
Is the UK being flooded by Greek migrants?

[edit]Please don't take any of this as a personal attack on yourself.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You a wrong on all counts. Global migration already exists, and would not be as significant as you fear should boarder restrictions be removed. National migration in some nations is very significant (think of China or India) and is often dues to wealth disparity within countries.
As for your fear that 'it might not work', the truth is you are really just elieve the rich Europeans benefited or lost out?
Is the UK being flooded by Greek migrants?

im willing to accept that i may be wrong regarding my fears of what would happen in a world without borders. the fears still remain though. as a person who embraces multiculturalism and defends the rights of migrant workers its a shame that you would chose to see my motives as those of a person selfishly worrying about their own little corner of the planet. rather than a genuine effort to look at the sociological and economic effects of zero global migration control. my concerns (albeit potentially wrong) were more aimed at a town or cities ability school, house and possibly feed large influxes of people.

you are right about the benefits of migration in history, but i never disagreed with this. i dont think there has ever been a situation in which the whole planet became border free, so we are in uncharted territory as to what exactly would happen in this hypothetical scenario.

once again to just to clarify, i am not a xenophobe.

edit: its hard not to be slightly offended when somebody calls you a xenophobe, but im a big boy and i know what i believe. so dont worry about it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Russian style communism isn't the only alternative to capitalism.

Do you think the Cuban style communism is any different? I haven't seen a communist style government that I would choose over what we have in the USA, even though I know it has flaws.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Do you think the Cuban style communism is any different? I haven't seen a communist style government that I would choose over what we have in the USA, even though I know it has flaws.

Capitalism will eventually fail for the same reason Communism fails.

Personal greed.

Capitalism manages to maintain itself for longer because personal greed is a given inside capitalism, whereas personal greed is somewhat antithetical to communism.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Capitalism will eventually fail for the same reason Communism fails.

Personal greed.

Capitalism manages to maintain itself for longer because personal greed is a given inside capitalism, whereas personal greed is somewhat antithetical to communism.

That does not tell me anything that makes me believe Communism is a better form of government.

Originally posted by RJHinds
That does not tell me anything that makes me believe Communism is a better form of government.

Neither communism nor capitalism are forms of governments. Rather, they are economic systems.

Originally posted by hakima
Neither communism nor capitalism are forms of governments. Rather, they are economic systems.

Of course you are right, but I was using the term in a more common manner as to how a government operates such as capitalist, socialist, and communist. For example the second definition for communism is given below:


2. Communism

a. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
b. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/communism

We don't really have a pure capitalist or a pure communist economy. The governments controls both to varing degrees.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Do you think the Cuban style communism is any different? I haven't seen a communist style government that I would choose over what we have in the USA, even though I know it has flaws.

Yes, I believe the Cuban style is different, though I don't know how much different. But I wasn't talking about Cuba. I was merely pointing out that there are not only two options, pure capitalism or communist dictatorship. Its a false dichotomy.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
as a person who embraces multiculturalism and defends the rights of migrant workers its a shame that you would chose to see my motives as those of a person selfishly worrying about their own little corner of the planet.

Sorry, it wasn't meant as a personal attack. I believe many people in 1st world nations do have selfish motives for maintaining the status quo but I fully accept that you may not be like that at all. I admit I went a bit overboard trying to get the debate going as I find people remarkably unwilling to discuss this topic.

my concerns (albeit potentially wrong) were more aimed at a town or cities ability school, house and possibly feed large influxes of people.
It all depends on what sort of people you are talking about. You already conceded that in developed nations with relatively wealthy people, such problems are minimal. After all, people will stop moving into an area if housing costs get to high, or conditions become unsatisfactory.
But what about poor people moving from poorer nations? Lets say they move to a large city in a first world nation and that city fails to school, house and possibly feed them. Where I come from (Zambia) a significant proportion of people are already not adequately schooled, housed or even fed. They would however mostly only move to a new country if conditions there were better than were they are now. So even if the conditions were not adequate by your standards, the end result is still better for the people. So your only remaining concern might be a lowering of standards for the current rich residents (hence my accusations of selfish protectionism).

i dont think there has ever been a situation in which the whole planet became border free, so we are in uncharted territory as to what exactly would happen in this hypothetical scenario.
Yet we have precedents with large countries/ regions such as the US, Europe and China and we can look at what happens there. After all, a quarter of the world lives in China and they have the largest migrations and great wealth disparities between regions. If the US or China instituted internal border controls, people would be up in arms about rights. Yet surprisingly, almost everyone seems to recognise without question the right of countries to maintain strict border controls.

Originally posted by RJHinds
So are you for communism? That did not last in the Soviet Union. It doesn't seem right to me. 😏

As twitehead mentioned there are other alternatives.
(I am a refugee from Soviet communism , so I know it sucks)

I reckon capitalism will make way for a better, more fairer system.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
and water!!! private ownership of our water supply is so wrong.

My friend on the disabled pension just got a water bill for $100 for 6 months.
That is wrong and completely new. I hope this trend doesn't continue

Originally posted by stellspalfie
one of my favorite songs has the lyric -

'the sin of property, we do disdain, no man has the right to buy and sell the land for private gain'.

as an atheist home owner it often plays on my conscience, i pretty much agree with the lyric and am therefore being a giant hypocrite.

the song is based on a english 1600's christian movement called th ...[text shortened]... think theists and non-theists included.

(be warned, ive got my serious debate face on)

I believe you should be able to buy and sell land, food, cars, toys, cloths, or
pretty much what ever. I'm not a fond believer in being owned by the state.
Kelly