Welcome to our newest JazzFanz member!!!

[nightmare3983]

Welcome back franklin.

 

[addictionary]

I drink a lot of tea. It's not easy to get much caffeine from it, but the other benefits are great. Anti-oxidants, helps your pancreas, weight loss, etc.

I read part of a study that it can help those at risk of developing diabetus. Trout probably chews the leafs raw.

Welcome back frank.

 

[♪alt13]

I drink a lot of tea. It's not easy to get much caffeine from it, but the other benefits are great. Anti-oxidants, helps your pancreas, weight loss, etc.

I read part of a study that it can help those at risk of developing diabetus. Trout probably chews the leafs raw.

diabetes

I'm pretty sure only Utahns say dia-beat-us

 

[LogGrad98]

diabetes

I'm pretty sure only Utahns say dia-beat-us

die-beet-us thank you very much...I mean fer rill.

 

[b_line]

I saw a Wilford brimley meme that said "she asked me to give her the d, so I gave her diabeetus"

 

[♪alt13]

Could it be said that property cannot be revolutionary since it is older than the state itself.

How can property predate a state? Before the smallest form of governments there was no such thing as property. No one could say this is mine see I have a deed. Anything that they thought was theirs they had to fight to keep. There was only booty. If you had something it was not property it was just a thing you had possession of.

I think to understand what Proudhon means we have to consider definitions of property. When Proudhon says "property is robbery" he is speaking about the aristocratic definition(landlords, capitalists, etc.) and the statists definition(The 'people' own stuff) When he says that property is revolutionary he is speaking about a definition of personal property and he is specifically speaking against collectivism.

I would put it this way. Proudhon thought that "personal property" was just but that "private property" and "state property" were not.


Examples:
Personal-private-state
Anarchy-Aristocracy-Communism
Mutualism-Capitalism-Collectivism
Co-ops-Coorporations-State owned
Farm owned by farmer-Farm owned by landlord-Farm owned by state

 

[franklin]

diabetes

I'm pretty sure only Utahns say dia-beat-us

paincreass

 

[TroutBum]

I drink a lot of tea. It's not easy to get much caffeine from it, but the other benefits are great. Anti-oxidants, helps your pancreas, weight loss, etc.

I read part of a study that it can help those at risk of developing diabetus. Trout probably chews the leafs raw.

Interestingly, because of my liver issues my doctor asked me to start drinking tea about three years ago. I freaking love it. The only problem is that I only drink Snapple Peach Tea, and it has just as much sugar as Mtn. Dew and pretty much no other benefits.

It is g'damn delicious though!

 

[LogGrad98]

How can property predate a state? Before the smallest form of governments there was no such thing as property. No one could say this is mine see I have a deed. Anything that they thought was theirs they had to fight to keep. There was only booty. If you had something it was not property it was just a thing you had possession of.

I think to understand what Proudhon means we have to consider definitions of property. When Proudhon says "property is robbery" he is speaking about the aristocratic definition(landlords, capitalists, etc.) and the statists definition(The 'people' own stuff) When he says that property is revolutionary he is speaking about a definition of personal property and he is specifically speaking against collectivism.

I would put it this way. Proudhon thought that "personal property" was just but that "private property" and "state property" were not.


Examples:
Personal-private-state
Anarchy-Aristocracy-Communism
Mutualism-Capitalism-Collectivism
Co-ops-Coorporations-State owned
Farm owned by farmer-Farm owned by landlord-Farm owned by state

You know..."git off'n ma propertee, affore I blow yer head kleen off". Go anywhere not under the rule of a "state" and stake a claim, boom you are a property owner as long as you can defend it, yet you are not, in and of yourself, a state.

 

[addictionary]

How can property predate a state? Before the smallest form of governments there was no such thing as property. No one could say this is mine see I have a deed. Anything that they thought was theirs they had to fight to keep. There was only booty. If you had something it was not property it was just a thing you had possession of.

I think to understand what Proudhon means we have to consider definitions of property. When Proudhon says "property is robbery" he is speaking about the aristocratic definition(landlords, capitalists, etc.) and the statists definition(The 'people' own stuff) When he says that property is revolutionary he is speaking about a definition of personal property and he is specifically speaking against collectivism.

I would put it this way. Proudhon thought that "personal property" was just but that "private property" and "state property" were not.


Examples:
Personal-private-state
Anarchy-Aristocracy-Communism
Mutualism-Capitalism-Collectivism
Co-ops-Coorporations-State owned
Farm owned by farmer-Farm owned by landlord-Farm owned by state

That explains it better. The property that I believe predates state is a land owned by an group of homosapiens against another group of neanderthals; figuratively speaking. I believe it is enough to take it as an example of property regardless of a state and its constitution's existence, but if we define property something determined and justed by a certain state and its laws, then state predates property.

Then again, how important could it be to do that? What is state? What is constitution? Laws? Historically, aren't they created to protect the property and power of the ruler against growing masses of people? How would there be a state if there are as nothing to protect and put boundaries on? That's how I would like to think of it.

 

[franklin]

Interestingly, because of my liver issues my doctor asked me to start drinking tea about three years ago. I freaking love it. The only problem is that I only drink Snapple Peach Tea, and it has just as much sugar as Mtn. Dew and pretty much no other benefits.

It is g'damn delicious though!

Snapple is good stuff. If you want something with a little more flavor but no sugar then try a good chai. I like Gevalia's and take it without sugar. Currently drinking a cup of Tazo and it's kinda ****ty. That expensive mall Teavana is pretty good stuff too but you have to double the amount recommended to get a good cup and throw in a bag of lipton's green if you want any caffeine out of it. Buy it at Target too instead of the mall. Jade Citrus Mind is tasty.

 

[♪alt13]

You know..."git off'n ma propertee, affore I blow yer head kleen off". Go anywhere not under the rule of a "state" and stake a claim, boom you are a property owner as long as you can defend it, yet you are not, in and of yourself, a state.

Anarchy does not necessarily mean 'no state' or 'no rules'. archy as in monarchy defines who rules. A- or an- means no or not. So anarchy just means no rulers. It is the proclamation of an ideal just like democracy is. People speak about living in a democracy all the time even though we obviously are not technically living in a democratic country. People apply a level of literalism to Anarchy that they do not apply to any other political philosophy even though they have never read any of the anarchists. The ideal does not mean we throw pragmatic considerations out the window.

If you believe that we should strive to reduce the authority of the state to the absolute minimum we reasonably can, increase the authority of the self over the self to an absolute maximum, and that we should also strive to empower the all individuals rather than just the corporation or capitalist in the private sphere than you are an anarchist.

There are many flavors of anarchy and many different ideas about how to get there but the statement above, I think, pretty much sums up the general idea.

That explains it better. The property that I believe predates state is a land owned by an group of homosapiens against another group of neanderthals; figuratively speaking. I believe it is enough to take it as an example of property regardless of a state and its constitution's existence, but if we define property something determined and justed by a certain state and its laws, then state predates property.

Then again, how important could it be to do that? What is state? What is constitution? Laws? Historically, aren't they created to protect the property and power of the ruler against growing masses of people? How would there be a state if there are as nothing to protect and put boundaries on? That's how I would like to think of it.

Historically they are. He was referring to that as robbery.

The communists sought to make all property collective. He was speaking to them when he spoke about property being revolutionary. He realized that it would cripple the individual and the masses and put them at the mercy of the state. How can anyone stand against any action of the state in such a condition?