The Thread Formerly Known As Communism Will Save The World

[Kowani]

This distinction only works if you accept the concept of private property, so…

According to John Locke, natural rights include "life, liberty, and the pursuit of property." The Philosophy of Liberty: "A product of your life and liberty is your property." So, yes. If we both acknowledge the natural rights to life and liberty, then we also accept the concept of private property.

Of course, if we dismiss those tenets of classical liberalism, then there's no reason to acknowledge private property. However, if this is the case, then either the right to life or the right to liberty will have to be discarded, justifying murder or slavery, respectively.

That’s odd. I didn’t realize I was John Locke. And yeah, no. Ignoring the fact that one could theoretically allow the right to life (although not a natural right, because that’s just theism without God) I don’t really recognize those either. Not being a classical liberal and all.

[Ifreann]

Is this not clear?

No, shitposts are not clear, Iffy. Sorry.

C- for effort, though.

I'm sorry that you can't grasp the sentiment behind that post.

[Kowani]

Because we are more than just our instincts?

Embrace the beast in yourself!

Screw that noise.

Because we are more than just our instincts?

Indeed. That's why we do it more intelligently with laws and whatnot.

Chimps have laws, too. Try again.

[Great Algerstonia]

This is no longer the OP's thread...

This is OUR thread.

*grabs a snickerdoodle cookie and distributes it equally between each worker of the world*

[Grand Proudhonia]

srs though, John Locke is a walking contradiction with very disgusting motives

[Nova Cyberia]

No, shitposts are not clear, Iffy. Sorry.

C- for effort, though.

I'm sorry that you can't grasp the sentiment behind that post.

I don't take shitposting seriously.

I mean, what? Do you want people to take shitposts literally? Because that's kind of antithetical to a quality discussion.

[Kowani]

srs though, John Locke is a walking contradiction with very disgusting motives

Also, that.

[Nova Cyberia]

Embrace the beast in yourself!

Screw that noise.

Indeed. That's why we do it more intelligently with laws and whatnot.

Chimps have laws, too. Try again.

Were they passed by the High Chimp Council?

[Kowani]

Screw that noise.


Chimps have laws, too. Try again.

Were they passed by the High Chimp Council?

They were passed by the biggest chimp by unanimous vote.

[Nakena]

Screw that noise.

*rawr!*

srs though, John Locke is a walking contradiction with very disgusting motives

Never liked him or his adherents very much.

[Nova Cyberia]

Were they passed by the High Chimp Council?

They were passed by the biggest chimp by unanimous vote.

Indeed, but my point is that their "laws" do not exist in the same way our laws do.

[Kowani]

They were passed by the biggest chimp by unanimous vote.

Indeed, but my point is that their "laws" do not exist in the same way our laws do.

…I mean, at the most basic level, they do.

[Nova Cyberia]

Indeed, but my point is that their "laws" do not exist in the same way our laws do.

…I mean, at the most basic level, they do.

They don't even have a concept of laws beyond "Ung strong. Ung say pile of rotting banas his.

Rog obey Ung."

[Kowani]

…I mean, at the most basic level, they do.

They don't even have a concept of laws beyond "Ung strong. Ung say pile of rotting banas his.

Rog obey Ung."

You should consider studying Chimpanzees. They actually have semi-complex societies.

[Kubra]

This distinction only works if you accept the concept of private property, so…

According to John Locke, natural rights include "life, liberty, and the pursuit of property." The Philosophy of Liberty: "A product of your life and liberty is your property." So, yes. If we both acknowledge the natural rights to life and liberty, then we also accept the concept of private property.

Of course, if we dismiss those tenets of classical liberalism, then there's no reason to acknowledge private property. However, if this is the case, then either the right to life or the right to liberty will have to be discarded, justifying murder or slavery, respectively.

you know, it's funny you mention slavery....

[Nova Cyberia]

They don't even have a concept of laws beyond "Ung strong. Ung say pile of rotting banas his.

Rog obey Ung."

You should consider studying Chimpanzees. They actually have semi-complex societies.

Maybe. But I'm confused. You say we're more than our instinct and then you involve animals with semi-complex societies who also seem to have rather primitive concepts of private property.

But it doesn't even just need to be chimps. Lions and bears will all claim territory for themselves and violently attack anyone who trespasses there.

The desire for property is perfectly natural.

[Hatterleigh]

wow dude, never heard anything like this before

[Kowani]

You should consider studying Chimpanzees. They actually have semi-complex societies.

Maybe. But I'm confused. You say we're more than our instinct and then you involve animals with semi-complex societies who also seem to have rather primitive concepts of private property. [

But it doesn't even just need to be chimps. Lions and bears will all claim territory for themselves and violently attack anyone who trespasses there.

The desire for property is perfectly natural.

I think my point has been missed, in that what is natural is not necessarily desirable.

[Nova Cyberia]

Maybe. But I'm confused. You say we're more than our instinct and then you involve animals with semi-complex societies who also seem to have rather primitive concepts of private property. [

But it doesn't even just need to be chimps. Lions and bears will all claim territory for themselves and violently attack anyone who trespasses there.

The desire for property is perfectly natural.

I think my point has been missed, in that what is natural is not necessarily desirable.

Why? Is there anything really morally wrong with a family owning a house or a person owning their own small-business?

[Kowani]

I think my point has been missed, in that what is natural is not necessarily desirable.

Why? Is there anything really morally wrong with a family owning a house or a person owning their own small-business?

You forget that I reject morality as a concept.

[Diarcesia]

I think my point has been missed, in that what is natural is not necessarily desirable.

Why? Is there anything really morally wrong with a family owning a house or a person owning their own small-business?

From what I remember, pre-agricultural societies are more collectivist than individualistic. Being outside of your commune is virtually a death sentence at the time.

[Nova Cyberia]

Why? Is there anything really morally wrong with a family owning a house or a person owning their own small-business?

You forget that I reject morality as a concept.

Then that's incredibly foolish considering that you do actually have a sense of morality, whether you care to admit it or not.

[Nova Cyberia]

Why? Is there anything really morally wrong with a family owning a house or a person owning their own small-business?

From what I remember, pre-agricultural societies are more collectivist than individualistic. Being outside of your commune is virtually a death sentence at the time.

Yes, and then human society evolved beyond that. Not everyone has to spend their entire life in their village anymore.

[Kowani]

You forget that I reject morality as a concept.

Then that's incredibly foolish considering that you do actually have a sense of morality, whether you care to admit it or not.

That’s nice. But no.

[Nova Cyberia]

Then that's incredibly foolish considering that you do actually have a sense of morality, whether you care to admit it or not.

That’s nice. But no.

You a psychopath? If no, then you have a sense of morality.

Do you consider murder bad? What about theft? Do you generally consider it good to be honest with friends? These are all basic things that form morality.