Capitalism Is For Dummies.

Originally posted by dawnstar
I am sorry, but native american women would make their teepees, and it would be theirs, it wouldn't even belong to their husband, who had his own. they would make baskets, tan hides, all kinds of things, and they would be used to trade for the things that they needed. there were gov'ts, look into the Iroquois nation, of which some of our gov't was founded on!

the idea that they passed their items on to another when they got tired of them is no different than me giving another something that I don't want anymore. go to local salvation army and see all the things that people have grown tired of and given away!

"Native Americans tied the concept of property not to ownership but to use."

"Land, broadly defined, belonged to everyone and was the common heritage of all humanity."

No one owned one thing, it was shared in common. Unless you have something else to contradict this, I don't think the liberalism comparisons that people have been claiming is anything more than shaky and unsubstantiated

reply to post by BurntGermanTongue


The Native Americans did not have a concept of LAND ownership, but they did privately own other things, and even fought for the lands where they lived... Other ancient tribes did have a concept of land ownership for thousands of years...

Oh and btw, Henry George was a Democrat, if he was alive during the time of Woodrow Wilson he would have sided with Wilson in creating the Federal Reserve, the IRS, and in implementing the regulations on small businesses which caused the depression and recession...

Progressive Democrats gave us the Federal Reserve, the IRS as it exists today, and regulations on small businesses which allowed large corporations to take over and become monopolies...

BTW, as for the phrases which Henry George and some others claimed were made by Chief Seattle, here is an example of who really made such statements...

Dr. Anderson is a professor of economics at Montana State University and executive director of PERC. For a longer version of this article, see the February 1997 issue of Reason.

Chief Seattle, a nineteenth-century Native American leader, is often quoted as saying, “All things are connected like the blood which unites one family. Whatever befalls the earth, befalls the sons of earth.”

Those who invoke these words are usually attempting to convey the impression that Native Americans were guided by a unique environmental ethic. Yet the words in the oft-quoted speech are not actually those of Chief Seattle. And the message of the speech does not ring true, either. For Native Americans, traditions and customs—including property rights—were more important in encouraging careful use of resources than was an environmental ethic, however important that ethic may have been.

It turns out that the words supposedly spoken by Chief Seattle were written by Ted Perry, a scriptwriter. In a movie about pollution, he paraphrased a translation of the speech that had been made by William Arrowsmith (a professor of classics). Perry’s version added a lot.(1) Perry, not Chief Seattle, wrote that every part of the Earth is sacred to my people. (Perry, by the way, has tried unsuccessfully to get the truth out.)

The speech reflects what many environmentalists want to hear, not what Chief Seattle said. The romantic image evoked by the speech obscures the fact that, while there were exceptions that led to the tragedy of the commons, generally American Indians understood the importance of incentives. Property rights, supplemented by customs and traditions where appropriate, often produced the incentives that were needed to husband resources in what was frequently a hostile environment.

Personal ethics and spiritual values were important, as they are in any society, but those ethics and values worked along with private and communal property rights, which strictly defined who could use resources and rewarded good stewardship.

Indian land tenure systems were varied. While some ownership was completely or almost completely communal, other ownership was more like today’s fee simple.(2) The degree of private ownership reflected the scarcity of land and the difficulty or ease of defining and enforcing rights.

Because agricultural land required investments and because boundaries could be easily marked, crop land was often privately owned, usually by families or clans rather than individuals. For example, families among the Mahican Indians in the Northeast possessed hereditary rights to use well-defined tracts of garden land along the rivers. Europeans recognized this ownership, and deeds of white settlers indicate that they usually approached lineage leaders to purchase this land. Prior to European contact, other Indian tribes recognized Mahican ownership of these lands by not trespassing.[3]

Farther from the rivers, however, where the value of land for crops was low, it was not worth establishing ownership. As one historian put it, no one would consider laying out a garden in the rocky hinterlands.[4]
...

www.thefreemanonline.org...

Just because Native Americans did not have a concept of ownership of land it doesn't mean that they did not fight for the land and resources...

Many Native American tribes fought for THOUSANDS OF YEARS, even before the white man came from Europe, for land and it's resources... Or to take private property, or even slaves from other tribes...

This "romantic" view that environmentalists have been giving to Native American tribes for the most part are nothing but the belief of environmentalists, and not the truth...

These "romantic views" have been spewed as truth for so long that even some Native Americans these days actually believe these "romantic views" are true when in reality they are only fantasies made up by environmentalists...

For example, we have found that there were Native Americans who would stampede herds of buffalo, and other animals into a cliff, and entire herds of such animals would die at the bottom of such cliffs, and of course the Native Americans would take only what they could carry, but there was more than enough waste of food and leather that they didn't take...

Native American tribes also fought over land... Not all of them were nomads... Native American tribes include the Mayans, Aztecs and other ancient people who even built cities, and fought to keep those cities from being taken over by other Native tribes...

Another word that didn't exist in Native American tribes was the word for horse, and many tribes used the word for dog to describe horses...

Just because Native Americans didn't have a phrase/concept for owning the land, doens't mean that they didn't value the land where they lived... Many tribes fought, and killed other tribes to be able to live in an area with plenty of resources... that in itself is the definition for ownership of land. You live in a piece of land, in which even your parent's and grand-parents lived in and fought for, that you are even willing to fight and kill for...

BTW, what is it that some Native American tribes these days are trying to do by "taking back lands that are sacred to them"?... There are even groups of people who are working to GIVE BACK certain lands to Native Americans... If that isn't ownership of land, i don't know what is...

To Native Americans they belonged to the land, but because they fought for that land, and their father's and grandfathers fought for those lands, that land in essence belonged to them as much as they belonged to the land...

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Oh and btw, Henry George was a Democrat, if he was alive during the time of Woodrow Wilson he would have sided with Wilson in creating the Federal Reserve, the IRS, and in implementing the regulations on small businesses which caused the depression and recession...

Uh, I'm sorry? I'm not sure if you just posted this in the wrong thread, but I do not see the relevance

BTW, as for the phrases which Henry George and some others claimed were made by Chief Seattle, here is an example of who really made such statements...

Is there something I'm missing? All that site did was say "That quote was probably edited. Here's our interpretation of what was probably really said."

Just because Native Americans did not have a concept of ownership of land it doesn't mean that they did not fight for the land and resources...

Pretty sure most native American wars were not over property, but ok, unsubstantiated assumptions abroad!

reply to post by Germanicus

You said that capitalism has no plan for society. Why should it? Are we robots that we would all follow the same plan? Capitalism doesn't have a plan because having one means less freedom.

Capitalism makes us stronger because it makes us freer, basically.

Some people do well because they make the right choices. Some people don't make the right choices and so they don't do well. Society should not have a safety net to catch people who brought their ruin on themselves. People should suffer the consequences of their own actions because that's how they learn best. If there's a safety net, it should be for people who deserve it.

Capitalism is about making smart, money-conscious choices. This means that if you don't have enough money to do everything you want to do then you can't. Capitalism accounts for most everything with a dollar value because that's how you keep track of things. Socialism, on the other hand, expects money to grow on trees and that's why it's so idealistic and impractical.

Socialism might work in your imagination, but it doesn't work in reality.

In fact, capitalism is more like nature because of its built-in drive to spread freedom. Nature is similar because it too allows us to fail and keeps track of everything. Socialism is unnatural. Ever heard that nature knows best? I think that it does. Capitalism is as close to perfection as we can be.

Originally posted by BurntGermanTongue

"Native Americans tied the concept of property not to ownership but to use."

wow...playing semantics now as well?... If you believe that only you, and your family should be able to live and plant in a piece of land, that in essence is LAND OWNERSHIP...

Originally posted by BurntGermanTongue
"Land, broadly defined, belonged to everyone and was the common heritage of all humanity."

No one owned one thing, it was shared in common. Unless you have something else to contradict this, I don't think the liberalism comparisons that people have been claiming is anything more than shaky and unsubstantiated

LIES AND MORE LIES...

Because agricultural land required investments and because boundaries could be easily marked, crop land was often privately owned, usually by families or clans rather than individuals. For example, families among the Mahican Indians in the Northeast possessed hereditary rights to use well-defined tracts of garden land along the rivers. Europeans recognized this ownership, and deeds of white settlers indicate that they usually approached lineage leaders to purchase this land. Prior to European contact, other Indian tribes recognized Mahican ownership of these lands by not trespassing.[3]

Farther from the rivers, however, where the value of land for crops was low, it was not worth establishing ownership. As one historian put it, no one would consider laying out a garden in the rocky hinterlands.[4]

In the Southeast, where Indians engaged in settled agriculture, private ownership of land was common. The Creek town is typical of the economic and social life of the populous tribes of the Southeast, writes historian Angie Debo. Each family gathered the produce of its own plot and placed it in its own storehouse. Each also contributed voluntarily to a public store which was kept in a large building in the field and was used under the direction of the town chief for public needs.[5]

Hunting, Trapping, and Fishing

Customary rights governed hunting, trapping, and fishing. These rights were often expressed in terms of religion and spirituality rather than of science as we understand it today, writes Peter Usher. Nonetheless, the rules conserved the resource base and harmony within the band.[6]

Hunting groups among the Montagnais-Naskapi of Quebec between Hudson Bay and the Gulf of St. Lawrence recognized family and clan hunting areas, particularly for beaver when it became an important trade item.[7] Similar hunting groups and rules existed in other regions. In New Brunswick, report anthropologists Frank G. Speck and Wendell S. Hadlock,[8] some of the men held districts which had been hunted by their fathers, and presumably their grandfathers. They even had a colloquial term that translates to my hunting ground.
...

www.thefreemanonline.org...

Originally posted by BurntGermanTongue

Uh, I'm sorry? I'm not sure if you just posted this in the wrong thread, but I do not see the relevance

Riiight, you don't see the relevance of what Progressive Democrats, like Henry George, brought and implemented in the United States which are the cause for most of the problems we have today and which have essentially made us slaves of the world socialist/fascist elites...

Originally posted by BurntGermanTongue
Is there something I'm missing? All that site did was say "That quote was probably edited. Here's our interpretation of what was probably really said."

Henry George was one of those people who romanticized how Native Americans lived and died...

Originally posted by BurntGermanTongue
Pretty sure most native American wars were not over property, but ok, unsubstantiated assumptions abroad!

Really?... do you have any EVIDENCE for this claim?...

Let's actually see what real Native Americans have to say about your claim...

"This war did not spring up here in our land. It was brought upon us
by the children of the Great Father (whites) who came to take our

land from us without price, and who do many evil things. . . . It

seems to me that there is a better way than this. When people come

to trouble it is better for both parties to come together without arms,

to talk it over, and find some peaceful way to settle." (Spotted Tail

Brule, Sioux leader, 1877)

...
We, the great mass of the people think only of the love we have for our land, we do love the land where we were brought up. We will never let our hold to this land go, to let it go it will be like throwing away (our) mother that gave (us) birth.". - Letter from Aitooweyah to John Ross, Principal Chief of the Cherokee.
....
"We are now about to take our leave and kind farewell to our native land, the country the Great Spirit gave our Fathers, we are on the eve of leaving that country that gave us birth, it is with sorrow we are forced by the white man to quit the scenes of our childhood...we bid farewell to it and all we hold dear." - Charles Hicks, Tsalagi (Cherokee) Vice Chief speaking of the Trail of Tears, November 4, 1838
...
"The land is sacred. These words are at the core of your being. The land is our mother, the rivers our blood. Take our land away and we die. That is, the Indian in us dies." - Mary Brave Bird, Lakota
...
"Our land is everything to us... I will tell you one of the things we remember on our land. We remember that our grandfathers paid for it - with their lives." - John Wooden Leg, Cheyenne
...

www.legendsofamerica.com...

Now 'BurntGermanTongue", and probably some others, are going to try to twist the truth and even play semantics to make others believe the Native Americans were socialists...

reply to post by BurntGermanTongue


one tribe kind of had this as a philosophy....

and I am paraphrasing here....
one should take care of what they had, because if they didn't, another would come along and claim it as their own, and that included one's wife!

yes, many of the tribes had the belief that no human could own the land, but when it came to those things that one made with their own hands from that with the land provided, well....what one made was for them to use, or share, of give away, or trade for something that they desired more.

anyone could go out and kill the buffalo, skin it, tan it, and proceed to create a teepee out of it and plop it down wherever they liked, to a point, like someone mentioned earlier, it might not be wise the member of one tribe to plop their teepee in land that was claimed by another tribe. they could gather the reeds off the land, weave them a pretty basket to use or trade for that buffalo hide that they wanted to build themselves their teepee.

I don't know where you learned about native american life, but I am pretty sure it's not quite a clear picture???

reply to post by jonnywhite


I was once strong, could walk miles into town to work!!!
now I am weak, can't even safely walk around my back year, although I manage to work 8 hours on my feet as long as the floor is clear and even.....

today's "capitalism" with it's fanstasic, top of the class healthcare system didn't make me strong!!! it's about killed me! just saying.....for everyone it makes strong, it decimates another. and, going into discussion forums like ats makes me wonder just what it does to peoples moral compass.

ya, I know, I am stupid, I am lazy, I'm uneducated!! Is this why I get up every morning before the sun rises, get the coffee pot up and running, get my hubby up and out the door to his job and then go spend 8 hours doing a job that quite frankly leaves me hurting like heck in so many areas of my body I want to scream....is that because I am lazy?? really??

And the socialism was on!

Socialism is for hotties.

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by OptimusSubprime

 

A Socialist government would never consider doing something like this because independence is anti-socialism. In order for Socialism to "work" (and I use the word work very loosely because it never actually does work) the citizens, or subjects, under the Socialist regime must be completely dependent on the government, and have no other option. The other variable is that Socialist Elitists are not socialists... they are facists, or corporatists, that benefit from capitalist practices and then make it virtually impossible for the regular Joe (you and I) to do the same which is how Socialism is implemented. Remember, Socialism is never for the Socialist... it's for everyone else, and if your plan for solar power independence were to become reality, then try to imagine how much profit the global elites would be losing due to the fact that a large section of energy dependence is now free. When elitists lose money, they also lose power control. The best way for your plan to work is for the government to become VERY small and non-intrusive in the lives of the citizenry, and then let the supply and demand of the market dictate how much your idea would cost, and more importantly, give people the individual choice on whether or not they want to participate.

How odd! Kinda sounds like what our founding fathers had in mind!

Yeah, that's the point!

Originally posted by Germanicus

And the socialism was on!

Socialism is for hotties.

Socialism is for dummies, and for ignorant people...

The two girls in that video show to be both, dumb and ignorant...

Most of you, socialists and closet communists, are completely ignorant, and dumb to understand what you are asking to be implemented AGAIN...

so·cial·ism

Definition of SOCIALISM

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done .

www.merriam-webster.com...

The first definition is for ALL BRANCHES OF SOCIALISM, do note the phrase starts with "ANY OF VARIOUS ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL THEORIES..."

The second definition is the one for socialism itself. There is NO PRIVATE PROPERTY WHATSOEVER, and the STATE controls and owns ALL means of production...

In socialism you give ALL power to the state which consists of a few individuals who want ton control every aspect of people's lives because they think they know what's best for everyone...

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime

Originally posted by seeker1963

How odd! Kinda sounds like what our founding fathers had in mind!

Yeah, that's the point!

Socialism is what the founding fathers had in mind?...

Really?... Is that why they wanted INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS for EVERYONE?...

Or for people to have PRIVATE PROPERTY?...

Or any of the other rights which go AGAINST socialism/communism?...

You have got to be kidding in this claim that socilaism is what the founding fathers had in mind... Because it wasn't...

Originally posted by dawnstar
...
yes, many of the tribes had the belief that no human could own the land, but when it came to those things that one made with their own hands from that with the land provided, well....what one made was for them to use, or share, of give away, or trade for something that they desired more.
...

From what I have learned Native Americans people understood the concept of ownership of land. But their understanding was that those who were born in that land, and had hunted, and lived for generations were the people who belonged to that land, and that land belonged to them.

At first they didn't understand that the white man thought they could put a price on the land and they could own it by buying it. But eventually they understood that the white man saw land ownership similar to how the Native Americans traded resources and things they made.

reply to post by Erectus


What an absurd comparison. Germany is the same size as Montana. Apples and oranges for a comparison.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

Dont hate us because we are beautiful.

Capitalism has failed. Its obvious. Get with the program. Socialism is the very near future.

Hey, I don't mind socialism, as long as I get to be one of the ones at the top....because you clueless idiots who think socialism is some cheery, for the people, love filled idea have a HUGE disappointment coming.

Your trading one set of master for another.

Originally posted by Germanicus

Dont hate us because we are beautiful.

Capitalism has failed. Its obvious. Get with the program. Socialism is the very near future.

Hate you?... Not really, I pity you for your ignorance on what you want to implement... unlike you I actually was born, and experienced life under a socialist/communist dictatorship, and I know full well what socialism/communism are all about...

I have been warning for years in these forums that socialism is just a stage before communism, and that the real goal of socialism is communism.

I have been vindicated by the several members, some old, and some new who now claim are socialists, and in fact are communists because they, like you, believe that "under socialism the worker owns and controls the means of production" when in fact that has ALWAYS been the definition of COMMUNISM...not socialism...

BTW, even in communism the worker does no own and control the means of production... Remember that ALL PRIVATE PROPERTY IS ABOLISHED under socialism/communism, so how can any worker own or control anything?... Instead those in power claim to represent the workers, and they are the ones who decide what to do, and since you socialists/communists have given these people ALL POWER, there is nothing you can do to stop them...

Some of you have been brainwashed to no end and don't even know the difference, while others know it well and don't care that communism is the real goal of today's so called "socialists"...

BTW, in case you didn't know beauty doesn't make you right... Not to mention the fact that Capitalism hasn't existed in this nation since at least 1913... Which were brought on by PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS (Leftwingers)

...
In his first term as President, Wilson persuaded a Democratic Congress to pass major progressive reforms. Historian John M. Cooper argues that, in his first term, Wilson successfully pushed a legislative agenda that few presidents have equaled, and remained unmatched up until the New Deal.[1] This agenda included the Federal Reserve Act, Federal Trade Commission Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, the Federal Farm Loan Act and an income tax.

en.wikipedia.org...

Woodrow Wilson, a PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT, signed into law the Federal Reserve Act, giving power over the economy of this nation to a few socialist/fascist banker elites, who banned the gold and silver standard, and set up a system of "bank notes" as tender, known as the U.S. Dollar, with nothing to back up this system. These banker elites knew that not only did they control the economy of this nation, but they could create crisis to attain more power and control. Because of this the political system of the United States was completely corrupted to this day.

Wilson also funded the IRS, and all the income taxes as they exist today, alongside other legislative agenda that gave power to a few people, and restricted the ability of regular Americans to really succeed.

The Federal Trade Commission Act, was set up "supposedly" to reign in major corporations, but in fact it gave more power and control to major corporations and set up regulations which have been restricting small businesses instead of large corporations...

Not to mention the fact that "pure socialism/communism" has been tried many times already, and these leftwing ideologies caused the murder of over 122.3 million people in about 80 years, including what Hitler (12 millions he murdered) and Mussolini (about 300,000 murdered) did, both SOCIALISTS...

...
In sum the communist probably have murdered something like 110,000,000, or near two-thirds of all those killed by all governments, quasi-governments, and guerrillas from 1900 to 1987. Of course, the world total itself it shocking. It is several times the 38,000,000 battle-dead that have been killed in all this century's international and domestic wars. Yet the probable number of murders by the Soviet Union alone--one communist country-- well surpasses this cost of war. And those murders of communist China almost equal it.

www.hawaii.edu...

Leftwingers, including socialists have done more than enough to corrupt not only the United States, but the whole world... Thanks to socialists/leftwingers in general the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the UN, the Federal Reserve of the U.S. and other socialist institutions have been given power slowly to control the world...

The world has so many problems because of all these socialist/leftwinger institutions and groups who are working on a One World Socialist/Fascist regime...

“The governments of Europe, the United States, and Japan are unlikely to negotiate a social-democratic pattern of globalization – unless their hands are forced by a popular movement or a catastrophe, such as another Great Depression or ecological disaster“

These governments would not accept a "social-democratic pattern of globalization" unless their hands are FORCED by a popular movement (Occupy and Anthropogenic Global Warming movements), another Great Depression (the current GLOBAL economic crisis), or an ecological disaster (Global Warming been blamed on humans)

Democratising Global Governance:

The Challenges of the World Social Forum

by

Francesca Beausang


ABSTRACT

This paper sums up the debate that took place during the two round tables organized by UNESCO within the first World Social Forum in Porto Alegre (25/30 January 2001). It starts with a discussion of national processes, by examining democracy and then governance at the national level. It first states a case for a "joint" governance based on a combination of stakeholder theory, which is derived from corporate governance, and of UNESCO's priorities in the field of governance. As an example, the paper investigates how governance can deviate from democracy in the East Asian model. Subsequently, the global dimension of the debate on democracy and governance is examined, first by identification of the characteristics and agents of democracy in the global setting, and then by allusion to the difficulties of transposing governance to the global level.

www.unesco.org...

The above paper is from 1991 from the UN. It, and the meetings these globalists have been having call for a GLOBAL SOCIALIST/FASCIST GOVERNMENT derived from CORPORATE GOVERNANCE...


Get with the program and inform yourself...

BTW, for those actually interested in the truth, and what has been happening in America with the indoctrination of Americans into accepting socialism/communism, here is another thread I wrote about this topic, and the evidence I presented which comes from former KGB, and Russian high ranking military officials.

Yuri Bezmenov, Former KGB Agent: Turning America to Communism