Marx refer about tax as below in Communist manifest
MIYACHI TATSUO
Psychiatric Department
Komaki municipal hosipital
1-20.JOHBUHSHI
KOMAKI CITY
AICHI PREF.
486-0044
TEL:0568-76-4131
FAX 0568-76-4145
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty
generally
[was: Re: [PEN-L:16559] Re: Re: neomercantilism, trade]
David Shemano wrote: Why would abolishing private property free people
from material want? I can understand the theoretical argument that
abolishing private property would free people from poverty, but is not
material want relative
Law as aggressive protector of private property.
Thanks to Les S. for this:
From slashhdot.org: "A Canadian court has ruled that a farmer growing
genetically modified canola without a license violated Monsanto's patent and
owes damages. Percy Schmeiser claims that the seeds blew ont
Charles, it is worse than that. He has been breeding and collecting his own
seeds for decades, developing his own distinctive strains. He sued Monsanto
for contaminating his crops with the pollen.
Charles Brown wrote:
Law as aggressive protector of private property.
Thanks to Les S
Let me get this straight. Monsanto's private property is intellectual
property, essentially a legal fiction on par with M.'s corporate
personhood. The farmer's land is mere _real_ property, essentially also a
legal fiction but having a common law history going back many, many
centuries. So
Intellectual property is old, too: Patents are in the constitution, and were
known (I am sure) for centuries before that. Property is a "fiction," but it
has a social objectivity that makes it quite real. --jks
Let me get this straight. Monsanto's private property is intellectua
At 08:25 AM 3/30/01 -0800, you wrote:
Let me get this straight. Monsanto's private property is intellectual
property, essentially a legal fiction on par with M.'s corporate
personhood. The farmer's land is mere _real_ property, essentially also a
legal fiction but having a common law history
The court held that
regardless of whether he planted them deliberately or if he merely found
them growing on his farm, it was his responsibility to destroy the seeds and
seedlings or pay royalties.
I'm not familiar with Canadian patent law, but in general those bodies
of law that, grouped
On the ancient and long history of private property of different types especially in
European history, see Engels' _The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the
State_.
Private property is the legal crystalization of class exploitative relations of
production. So, it is the numero uno
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/30/01 12:40PM
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 12:07:50 -0500, Charles Brown wrote:
Private property is the legal crystalization of class exploitative relations of
production. So, it is the numero uno
effective principle of bourgeois law and jurisprudence , today's exploitative form
Charles Brown wrote:
-
People owning stuff is personal property. The aim is not to abolish personal
property. Individual consumer goods would be personally owned.
Private property has the technical connotation of ownership of the social
productive means that are necessary
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 13:48:02 -0500, Charles Brown wrote:
Private property has the technical connotation of ownership of the social productive
means that are necessary to production in a society with an enormous division of
labor or soicalization and specialization of the production process
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/30/01 01:52PM
Charles Brown wrote:
-
People owning stuff is personal property. The aim is not to abolish personal
property. Individual consumer goods would be personally owned.
Private property has the technical connotation of ownership of the social
-
From: "Andrew Hagen" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 12:40 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:9826] Re: Law as aggressive protector of private property
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 12:07:50 -0500, Charles Brown wrote:
Private property is the legal crystalizatio
there is still exchange (not the market) in
socialism.
---
Maybe I am just being dense. You defined "private property" (which you seek
to abolish) in your previous post as "Private property has the technical
connotation of ownership of the social productive means tha
David S. wrote:
Maybe I am just being dense. You defined "private property" (which you seek
to abolish) in your previous post as "Private property has the technical
connotation of ownership of the social productive means that are necessary
to production in a society with an en
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 12:07:50 -0500, Charles Brown wrote:
Private property is the legal crystalization of class exploitative relations of
production. So, it is the numero uno
effective principle of bourgeois law and jurisprudence , today's exploitative form of
productive relations
I wrote: as I've argued before, Mao didn't have complete control. He had
to respond
to the power and influence of CCP cadres, while the fact that his power
was
originally based on a peasant revolution limited his power.
Dennis Rodman -- no, Redmond -- wrote:
Not what the historical
: David Shemano [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 4:29 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:5814] RE: Re: Private Property
Thank you for your many comments to my posts. It is not my intention to get
into an extended debate with any of you about socialism v. capitalism
and others who would identify themselves as
conservative.
David Shemano
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mikalac Norman S
NSSC
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 4:58 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: [PEN-L:5852] RE: RE: Re: Private Property
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/08/00 03:23PM
Feel
free to take advantage of my perspective if you think it would be helpful to
advance your own understanding.
Take care,
David Shemano
((
CB: Thanks for being such a nice conservative, David.
At 07:58 AM 12/8/00 -0500, you wrote:
i can't find cyber-forums with a Conservatism or Right (meaning to the
Left of Nazism and Monarchism) perspective at the same level of erudition as
presented in PEN-L.* do they exist?
what, the Rush Limbaugh ditto-heads don't strive for intellectual
On Wed, 6 Dec 2000, David Shemano wrote:
space begins. "Private property" is my shorthand for saying the rules will
provide that with respect to any specific resource, commodity, etc., a
single individual gets to decide issues of possession, use and transfer.
And if one p
ons of the
question, the fact is that externalities allow the violation of my freedom.
(It's traditional to discuss issues of freedom in very individualistic
terms, so I'm doing so.) If a company pollutes the air, it's violating my
freedom, denying me the availability of fresh air. It's using its &q
At 08:18 AM 12/7/00 -0800, you wrote:
And if one person owns literally *everything*, the way that, say, Mao
Zedong once owned mainland China through that Absolutist-style holding
company otherwise known as the CCP?
as I've argued before, Mao didn't have complete control. He had to respond
to
Thank you for your many comments to my posts. It is not my intention to get
into an extended debate with any of you about socialism v. capitalism. I
think such a debate is about ends and not means and this forum is not
appropriate for such a debate.
Let me make a suggestion. I am not an
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Jim Devine wrote:
as I've argued before, Mao didn't have complete control. He had to respond
to the power and influence of CCP cadres, while the fact that his power was
originally based on a peasant revolution limited his power.
Not what the historical record says. Mao
I am
a practicing corporate bankruptcy attorney. (My motto is capitalism
without
bankruptcy is like Christianity without hell).
Some of us here belong to the wor;d's third oldest profession and there are
legal discussions intermittwently; pitch in if you have idea. Btw, I am a
believer in
[was: Re: [PEN-L:5724] RE: Re: RE: RE: Re: GOP vs Dem Behavior (e.g., voting) ]
At 12:46 PM 12/6/00 -0800, you wrote:
Second, I believe, as an empirical matter, that a
political-economic system that encourages and defends private property is
more conducive to the achievement of individual human
At 12:46 PM 12/6/00 -0800, you wrote:
Second, I believe, as an empirical matter, that a
political-economic system that encourages and defends private property is
more conducive to the achievement of individual human happiness than a
system to the contrary, especially because the causes
your
space begins. "Private property" is my shorthand for saying the rules will
provide that with respect to any specific resource, commodity, etc., a
single individual gets to decide issues of possession, use and transfer.
"Private property" can evolve to take many forms, o
ends and your
space begins.
Ah, the addiction to individualism runs deepto the point of a majority
of one determining the "rules" for everyone else. How would that person be
held accountable in your system?
"Private property" is my shorthand for saying the
rule
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/06/00 08:20PM No matter what political-economic system
you can imagine, rules are going to
have to be established. Somebody has to decide whether to devote resources
to guns or butter. Somebody has to decide where my space ends and your
space begins. "Private pro
on the welfare
of others, without their having a far say in the matter; and it corrupts
politics because those that have the gold, rule. I advocate markets, as is
notorious on this list, but that is quite different from private property.
--jks
David Shemano wrote:
The issue, from my
perspective, is not whether property is "private" in the sense you seem to
be asking, or whether rather metaphysical notions of freedom and consent can
exist under capitalism.
and
"Private property" is my shorthand for saying th
Property rights are not only a relationship, but also are a bundle of
rights. There is no such thing as simple private property.
Privatizing property, as Proudhom declared in 1849, is "theft" --"la
propriete, c'est le vol."
Eric Roll notes, Proudhon
"acce
Since the URL address doen not seem to work any more, here is the full massage.
Subject:
George Soros - Part 1
http://www.infobahnos.com/~jtoth/web185.html
FREE INTERNET FORUM
Subject: The Secret Financial Network Behind "Wizard" George
Soros - Part 1
http://www.infobahnos.com/~jtoth/web188.html
FREE FORUM
Subject: The Secret Financial Network Behind "Wizard" George
Soros - Part 2 of 2
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (stefan lemieszewski)
Date of posting: 12 Nov 1996 09:36:05 GMT
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
How many 'covert actions' are open secrets?
Yoshie
Doesn't the word "covert" imply that these actions are or are supposed
to be secret? Why not call them overt operations?
SP
Sam Pawlett wrote:
Doesn't the word "covert" imply that these actions are or are supposed
to be secret? Why not call them overt operations?
Sam, are you serious in this question or are you just wisecracking? If
you are serious, then you need to study politics more thoroughly. I'll
give
Throughout the U.S. war on Nicargua, the Reagan adminstration and monopoly media
called it a "covert war".
Charles Brown
Yoshie Furuhashi [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/03/99 03:00PM
How many 'covert actions' are open secrets?
Yoshie
How many 'covert actions' are open secrets?
Yoshie
Sorros is not unique. He fits right into the tradition of super rich
foundations that fund liberal and even radical causes to make them safe for
capitalism, starting with the Rockefeller, Ford, Carnegie, Mellon Foundations,
etc., etc.
Soros is slightly more honest, because at least he is not
rgeoisie have always been dependent upon
secrecy , PRIVACY. The revelation of secrets threatens "privacy" and thus private
property. I realize that's structuralism.
Then there's Oliver North's "plausible deniability".
Tom, is that Taussig , Mick ? I just realized it p
s been dependent upon
secrecy , PRIVACY. The revelation of secrets threatens "privacy" and thus private
property. I realize that's structuralism.
Then there's Oliver North's "plausible deniability".
Tom, is that Taussig , Mick ? I just realized it probably is as you are in Bol
Charles Brown wrote:
Isn't Popper-Soros' concept of an "Open Society" ironic when the
bourgeoisie rely so much on Secrecy ? What do Popper and Soros say about
Open Secrets ?
Good point, Charles. If I may quote my review of Soros' book from LBO #88,
which was emailed to electronic subscribers
From: Terrence Mc Donough [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Rousseau on property
TM: [snipped bit on Roman slavery.] Private property rights have
never guaranteed freedom of any sort.
LR: Of course it does, it's just "freedom" of a particular sort for a
particular class of people.
47 matches
Mail list logo
