Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Reasons Why Libertarians Love Property Rights Over Human Rights.

Posted 2 years ago on Dec. 7, 2011, 6:20 p.m. EST by BlueRose (1437)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

My bias against property rights as power is that it is biased against women, and in this political climate, is in favor of rich white non-laboring Christian males.

" ...in a patriarchal culture in which women function primarily as daughters, wives, and mothers of particular men, women have virtually no property rights. Unmarried women inherit from their fathers only if they have no brothers; and, in such cases, they must subsequently marry within their father's clan to prevent the dispersal of tribal property among outsiders (Numbers 36:2‑12). [This was the case with the daughters of Zelophehad, who successfully petitioned Moses and God for their father's inheritance.]

Queen Esther Widows do not inherit from their husbands at all, but are dependent on their sons or the generosity of other heirs. According to the practice of levirate marriage, childless widows are the legal responsibility of their husband's oldest brother (Deuteronomy 25:5‑10)." http://www.myjewishlearning.com/beliefs/Issues/Gender_and_Feminism/Traditional_Views/Biblical.shtml

"Christian Patriotism is the result of the confluence of the far- right tax resistance movement, regressive Populism, and Identity doctrine. The Christian Patriot branch of white supremacy traces its explosive growth back to the rise of William Potter Gale's Posse Comitatus, a virulently anti-Semitic paramilitary movement which began operating publicly in 1968. Founded on the principle of all-out resistance to federal authority -- which has marked all white supremacy since the rise of the Ku Klux Klan at the end of the Civil War -- the Posse carries the notion of anti-federalism to new extremes. Most racist politics has its legal and philosophical roots in the "property rights" and "states rights" clauses in the Constitution. These sections of the Constitution were a compromise necessary to enlist the cooperation of the slave-holding states in replacing the unworkable Articles of Confederation with the federal Constitution. The exaltation of the rights of property over the rights of people is a common denominator of the entire right wing of American politics." http://www.albionmonitor.com/freemen/ci-roots.html

Labor must be worth something, not just riches gained from owning land. If you are a white Christian male, I can see why you want property owners to rule over others. Makes it so you don't have to lift a finger, women are kept subservient, you sit on all the "money", and therefore define what labor is worth.

And shouldn't oil be owned by the country, not an individual?

Don't forget, Libertarians want the right to pollute as much as they want, under the guise of "property rights." Koch Brothers are spending millions to trick the public into softening pollution laws, and furthering this "all power to property owners" crap. So no recourse for us non-owners when we can't breathe the air and have to see animals suffer.

Ron Lawl and the Libertarians want to get rid of EPA and sell off our national parks to the biggest polluters. Also, the new trend is to make sidewalks private, so protesters have no place to stand. The 1% wants to turn all public space to private space, which effectively limits free speech.

(edit) Sadly, too many Americans are currently falling for this "Organic Constitution" movement:

"In its most concise form, the myth of the organic Constitution can be summarized as follows: The Constitution is a divinely inspired document in which human agency is secondary to God's will. Only the original Constitution and Bill of Rights as signed by the Founders is the supreme Law of the Land and this law should be interpreted in the light of Biblical understanding. All later amendments, laws and regulations are "unconstitutional" in the sense that they "create a federal constitution in opposition to the original."

There are several corollaries to the myth of the organic Constitution which inform Christian Patriot "common law." In the following statements can be found much of the meaning of the catch- phrases and slogans of Christian Patriots:

The organic Constitution is God's law and the only law of the land.

"Natural rights" come from God, not the state. The rights enumerated in the divinely inspired organic Constitution are expressions of God's laws and can not be altered by the laws of men.

The federal government is an "unconstitutional" tyranny and the Constitution must be "upheld" by resisting that tyranny.

Because the 13th and 14th Amendments are unconstitutional, there are two or more classes of citizen, with only white Christian property-owning males possessing the natural rights of first class citizenship -- "sovereign citizenship." All others are "14th Amendment citizens" and possess inferior rights.

These "sovereigns" are the only people empowered to interpret the organic Constitution as the law of the land. The upshot of the myth of the divinely inspired organic Constitution is that Christian Patriot sovereigns can do whatever they want if they convince other sovereigns that such an action is "constitutional." According to the Christian Patriots, no other laws apply but the ones that they recognize. "

http://www.albionmonitor.com/freemen/ci-roots.html

50 Comments

50 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by GreedKills (1119) 2 years ago

It is truly amazing how this BS is so ingrained in our society, in the past up to this day and age. By the way checkout who is helping Ron Lawl in Iowa...Mike Heath.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/mike-heath-resurfaces-ron-paul-iowa

Another Far right Christian reconstuctionist joins good old Ronnie!!!

http://www.mainepolitics.net/content/beware-zombie-heath

Michael Heath, the fiery anti-gay crusader who has led the far-right Maine Christian Civic League for fifteen years, has resigned. Notice of his departure comes just 45 days away from the statewide referendum on same-sex marriage, the right Heath has most doggedly opposed.

An announcement posted on the League's website (whose writer seems to have forgotten the organization's recent attempt to change its name and image) says that Heath will now be working as a "private consultant." Heath has told the press that he plans to spend time "teaching solar cooking to needy Africans."

While Heath's resignation and exile has provoked jubilation from the blogosphere and the twitterverse, MPBN reporter Anne Ravana has a historical warning:

[-] 2 points by genanmer (822) 2 years ago

In response to the title.

America was founded by White slave-owning property owners looking for any excuse to claim the resources of native americans and waged war with the (bank of) England for trying to take away their own resources through taxation and central banking... And the only "full citizens" able to vote and participate in the 'democracy' at the time were the same slave-owning white men.

This country was founded on the hypocritical notion of freedom. People are only as free as their purchasing power. If freedom is to be obtained, society must consciously progress itself towards post-scarcity and allow money to become obsolete.

Automation, mechanization, cybernation, and other technologies are available which can eliminate paid slave-labor 'if' money wasn't regarded as sacred. Progress beyond a monetary society if you want true liberty.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 2 years ago

Don't forget, there is a huge movement in USA, they claim to want only the "organic" conastitution:

"Because the 13th and 14th Amendments are unconstitutional, there are two or more classes of citizen, with only white Christian property-owning males possessing the natural rights of first class citizenship -- "sovereign citizenship." All others are "14th Amendment citizens" and possess inferior rights.

These "sovereigns" are the only people empowered to interpret the organic Constitution as the law of the land. The upshot of the myth of the divinely inspired organic Constitution is that Christian Patriot sovereigns can do whatever they want if they convince other sovereigns that such an action is "constitutional." According to the Christian Patriots, no other laws apply but the ones that they recognize. "

http://www.albionmonitor.com/freemen/ci-roots.html

[-] 1 points by FriendIyobserver (-28) 2 years ago

White Christian Males are the devil, granted those were our ancestors (don't act like your black, no black guys know how to use a computer to write with, and no your grandmother was not a cherokee princess), but lets curse our grandfathers as stupid evil white men. Lets talk about the evils of discrimination against gender, ethniticity and religion and then curse the White Christian man. Fuck him. Stupid hippies that hate themselves. Oh I forgot Rich white Christian males are the worst people alive, well I guess you guys all hate your fathers.

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 2 years ago

White Christian males are victims too, much in the same way slave masters were.

[-] 1 points by FriendIyobserver (-28) 2 years ago

Thats what I though kill the white men.

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 2 years ago

I THINK we are on the same side? Sometimes I worry about sarcasm and extremism and genocide.

[-] 1 points by Evolution001 (100) from Vancouver, BC 2 years ago

Please distinguish between "libertarian capitalists" like Ron Lawl and "libertarian socialists / communists" like Rosa Luxumburg, Ema Goldman, George Orwell, Noam Chomsky, etc. Both share the limited or rather lack of governmental intervention (hence "libertarian") but they are effectively polar opposites.

The latter emphasize equality based on common ownership without the need for any hierarchy (including any political parties or governments distinguishing them from "state socialist / communists" which is considered an oxymoron by them). While the former emphasizes the right to privately exploit based on private ownership without the need of an intervening government (in effect removing even the pretense of "regulation / protective role" of a government opening the floodgates of capitalist exploitation even wider as in a free for all).

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 2 years ago

Language changes. My suggestion, especially in this political climate, is to use a different identifier rather than libertarian. Too confusing.

[-] 1 points by Evolution001 (100) from Vancouver, BC 2 years ago

I appreciate your sentiment. However, we should not and cannot ignore history and keep changing our terminology every few years due to forced "historical amnesia or ignorance".

[-] 1 points by sufinaga (513) 2 years ago

excellent! this is THE ISSUE. we must have ABSOLUTE EQUALITY in our beautiful community and exclude ENEMY agents such as christians and freemasons who follow the orders of their all male fascist elite. the freemasons do not admit women and they control the banks and the legal system of property rights. the wealth of the 1% is in land: OUR LAND. the christians do not have female bishops or any women in their hierarchy. in the doctrine of original sin all christian preachers GROOM children by telling them their mothers are sinners! thus deliberately undermining the basic relationship in our community. fishers of men are predators of men. christians are a bunch of psychos reliving the crucifixion and talking to their imaginary friend. it is insane to believe in a virgin birth, resurrection after crucifixion or walking on water. they are a BAD MENTAL HEALTH threat to our community. jesus is the antichrist.

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 2 years ago

Thank you so much. Even Walmart managers say that women should not get promotions they way men do because biblically men are the breadwinners! This is all crazy talk to keep Christian white males in power! They know women don't put up with crap, of course it was a woman who blew the whistle on Enron! It was a WOMAN who picked up that child who was hit twice in China while 18 men walked past! Something is wrong with the way men are raised nowadays, they are ruthless, will sell you parts your car never needed because they need to make SALES. They are easily led by bosses and authority!

My friend had a problem in his oil company, someone made a brochure that was quite sexist, with thongs, etc. They had to redo the brochure. I said if you had a woman on the team that would have NEVER happened. He said you are right, there are no women working on the team!

This, OWS, will save the Earth. Stop the institutionalized inequality of women caused by the GOP and Libertarians, along with the Bible. Women, children animals, workers, society, and the planet would be grateful.

[-] 1 points by PeoplehaveDNA (305) 2 years ago

isn't it quite obvious that women are important for more than childbearing. Women have always been the most oppressed and demonized group in the history of the world. It is obvious where ever their is mass oppression of women it is clear that it is usually based on sex and reproduction. Take a hard look at the world. This is also clearly why in America the most fought over case in the court system is Row vs. Wade. What the fuck is there more to life than sex and more to women that sex? Try telling that to a man (esp. men in poor countries where education and resources are scarce). Men suck period.

[-] 2 points by BlueRose (1437) 2 years ago

Yes, when it comes to humans, I DEFINE what my role is. I hate people who think my purpose as a woman is to have a kid. NOT. That's what's so great about humans. We are not typical animals, we are something special indeed. We define what we are.

[-] 2 points by qazxsw123 (238) 2 years ago

Of course, when Reality TV glorifies procreation, it doesn 't help. What helps even less is when all the anchors not only feel compelled to carry this irrelevant piece of news but also express sympathy? sympathy! for the lunatic family's loss--notwithstanding that the planet is already full to extinction and that the treatment of the Oxymoron mom was pretty nasty (color oblige!)

Michelle Duggar, mom of 19, miscarries

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/45603597/ns/today-today_health/t/michelle-duggar-mom-miscarries/

[-] 0 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

You need some good angry and rough sex.

[-] 0 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

But all my reading of what you write, you seem quite miserable and unhappy with that of which you've defined yourself. NOBODY with any honor or integrity, in this modern age, is trying to diminish the intelligence, capability and accomplishments of any REASONABLE persons, male or female.

here honey, have a few hugs and cheek pecks

xoxo

[-] 1 points by sufinaga (513) 2 years ago

if we look back 2,000,000 years our ancestors started eating cooked meat. this was controlled by the woman/mother to control the children to wait for the food to cook. so women developped the use of fire. they also invented the sling to be hands free while carrying a child so they could gather food energy. in Catal Huyuk in Turkey about 10,000 years ago the women developped horticulture and animal husbandry. men have always been playboys living off bushmeat!!

[-] 1 points by Evolution001 (100) from Vancouver, BC 2 years ago

You do not need to disparage the opposite sex to make a case for the other sex. In the tribal cultures of the hunters and gatherers (as even some of the latest surviving examples attest) people had different roles based on their abilities and they were provided based on their needs. The differences were recognized but in their complementary nature and not an "individualist" anatgonist nature. The latter is rooted in the competitive economic systems such as capitalism which are based on the exclusive notion of private property causing divisions in society which are then exploited for profit including sexism.

Individuals owned and worked collectively, and their consciousness was collective, as a unit, a common unit, a true interdependent commune / community. So sexism and other types of prejudice / segregation (e.g., abled vs. disabled, young vs. old, tall vs. short, divisions based on physical appearance) had no relevance because they would cause internal conflict, damage the productive power of the group, and by weakening the tribe would threaten its survival. So all means of improved social cohesion (from common ownership to cultural and spiritual rituals and traditions) were maintained and encouraged extending to the environment on which these groups depended for their survival.

[-] 1 points by sufinaga (513) 2 years ago

there has been a deliberate misunderstanding here. we must have ABSOLUTE EQUALITY infinite sameness no one damned no one saved. you should have us all or you should have us fall. what is important is womens liberation against the all male fascist tyrannies of the christians and freemasons that control society and have brutalised us and have the final solution for us in the incinerators at the FEMA concentration.camps. JAI SRI RADHA KRISHNA we are all male and female. we have a male female relationship at heart in conception in the beginning! our gender is the gender of the body. the spirit has both genders in integration. there has never been any division. those who feed us BS of our division as human beings with solidarity with the Egyptians and the Russians and the Afghanis and the Palestinians those who deny our universal solidarity are the ENEMY and the 1% are the big landowners. get a list and identify them.

[-] 1 points by Evolution001 (100) from Vancouver, BC 2 years ago

Sorry for the misunderstanding. Let me go one step further to identify the ENEMY. The ULTIMATE ENEMY is not the 1% rather the economic system that they serve - CAPITALISM. Even if we removed all the 1% individuals (male or female, white or any color, etc.) they would be replaced by the competitive system that requires exploitation creating the rich (1%) and the poor (99%). That is because this system is rooted in PRIVATE OWNERSHIP which is exclusive, divides and separates our interests, making one human being's gain another one's losses (extending to sexism, racism, all other forms of bigotry). It is also profitable to divide and conquer.

So I hope you can see that the ultimate solution depends on establishing an economic system based on common ownership, where no forms of private ownership can start the cycle of profit / greed and fear / monopoly / division / prejudice and bigotry. A new economic system where individuals will naturally identify themselves as the collective not as "individuals" because their interdependence is reinforced by their common ownership, encouraging cooperative production and common / shared exchange and distribution.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 2 years ago

This country was not founded on that idea but on the idea of freedom and allowing people to live up to their abilities. Various forms of socialism have been tried in the past in other countries and I am not sure if there is one now that has eliminated property rights, why not move?

[-] 1 points by Evolution001 (100) from Vancouver, BC 2 years ago

This country was founded on ILLUSION not the reality of freedom. Remember the black slaves and the millions of slaughtered natives, many more Irish / Chinese / Mexicans / etc. who were slaughtered, not to mention even the whity miserable working class that slaved in the mines and built the railroads / dams / skyscrapers / other engines of the capitalist profit machine with much risk and suffering to their bodies and minds. Freedom for profit yes, not for the working masses who were enslaved to create the riches for the very "founding fathers" like Washington and Jefferson to their much meaner and voracious bankster counterparts at the fed and their grotesque political clowns.

If there was a "socialist" country I would consider it but probably would not because I believe in my working class responsibility cleaning up my neighborhood rather than enjoying the fruits of labor of others - e.g., flight of capital. Meanwhile, we have yet to see a "socialist" country on this planet. That said time is ticking, and thanks (a miserable thanks at that) to capitalism the situation is more ripe than ever before.

Evolution progresses in fits and starts. It took capitalism about 150- 200 years before it established a foothold for the first time (late 16th century England).

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 2 years ago

The US is probably the most free country in the world and many working people have come here for opportunity, including my Irish parents. If you want government control over your life, please move to one of the other countries that wants that.

[-] 1 points by Evolution001 (100) from Vancouver, BC 2 years ago

Before you assume what I want shouldn't you ask? Who said I want government control over my life or anybody's for that matter. Where did you get that?

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 2 years ago

You want no private ownership, what do you think will step into that hole. Look at the former Soviet Union.

[-] 1 points by Evolution001 (100) from Vancouver, BC 2 years ago

Soviet Union had a form of state capitalism. You have to distinguish a regime / government / state from the economic system. The former is a political structure, the latter is an economic structure. Political structures are formalistic. A state can call itself anything based on political exigencies; here in the US they abuse the word "democracy", in China and North Korea they still use "communism" to sell their image and dupe the sheeple. Even in Europe they still use words like "socialism" (the recent Greek government) while following policies that are basically indistinguishable from their supposedly rival "right wing" counterparts.

The Soviet Union's economic system was based on private ownership by the state / "communist party" with the rest of society owning very little in terms of private property. With the new regime, the economic system did not change (i.e., still based on the state and its oligarchs owning the means of production with only rather few insignificant corporations still tightly controlled by the state). Only the political facade / structure changed with a semblance of parliment. The Russian working class is increasingly waking up to this reality and has started challenging these lies. The situation is similar in China where they did not even change the name of the regime - showing you that the content was capitalist from the start - again due to political exigencies.

In the US, the situation is very similar, with very few banks and corporations controlling the economy despite the appearance of variety in brands - the number of parent conglomerate companies and banks too big to fail attest to this reality.

With no private ownership, there would not be any possibility of accumulated power, including no form of government or even lower level hierarchies of power. Common ownership translates into equal ownership, the basis of equal power, the true basis of democracy, where no individual can dominate another because they would have no means of doing that - i.e., no power over the survival of another.

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 2 years ago

Well, in gorilla culture, the young males are just too violent, their society only needs one male, the rest are a detriment. However, I hope humans evolve to where the females are as large in size as the men, technology replaces the need for brutism, rapes lessened, and men become less violent and thieving.

[-] 2 points by sufinaga (513) 2 years ago

we have been deliberately brutalised by the slave masters, the men of the church and freemasons. see my video on youtube "mysticism and brutalisation."

[-] 0 points by EndTheFed214 (113) 2 years ago

lol EVERYONE has a chance to own property including women. I live in Tx and I know many a female who owns ranches and massive acers of land.

[-] 0 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

http://www.barefootsworld.net/consti16.html

Let me know your perspectives when you can pass this test. Seriously.

We can easily tweak it to include all people as persons or humans.

[-] 0 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

Honey, I wish I had the time to straighten you out, our public parks have long since been sold to those who have held both bankruptcy notes as of 1871.

However, Dr PauI is not for property rights entitling ANYONE anything over ANYONE else. He is Constitutional and does advocate the actual private ownership of real property.... ie not subject to IRS liens or levys and also not subject to local property tax. Actual OWNERSHIP, it's yours!

Texas is the only state I am currently aware of that allows it's citizens to apply for and obtain an actual Alloidal title. Nevada ceased in 2005.

And furthermore, your misinformed self may also be interested that, per the Consitution, land ownership does not grant one voting rights or access to the people's government, at least not according to our first and organic Consitution. What does however, is proving oneself reasonable in reading, writing and actual comprehension. This is why you read the term "reasonable man" mentioned several times in this document. I am also certain that none of us Constitutionalists would have any problem changing "man" to "man or woman" and also satisfy everyone that ownership of humans, as we are all currently owned as part of the collateral for the 1933 BK and all debt borrowed since, or de facto slavery, is unquestionably made unlawful.

You are very mixed up and I'm certain your complete lack of understanding of The Constitution for the United States of America is why you, and many others, fail to grasp the good Dr's concepts, which are nothing new and tested flawless in actual execution, prior to 1871.

http://www.gemworld.com/USAVSUS.HTM

[-] 0 points by BlueRose (1437) 2 years ago

Ron Lawl DOES NOT support the constitution, he wants to do away with birthright amendment, wants to overturn Roe v Wage, and, being an evolution support, I am sure if asked, he would LOVE the teaching of creationism as science. THAT is unconstitutional. I suggest if you are concerned about protecting the constitution, you joinn the ACLU. They do a much better job than religious nutcase Ron Lawl.

What Ron Lawl supporters believe in great number:

"In its most concise form, the myth of the organic Constitution can be summarized as follows: The Constitution is a divinely inspired document in which human agency is secondary to God's will. Only the original Constitution and Bill of Rights as signed by the Founders is the supreme Law of the Land and this law should be interpreted in the light of Biblical understanding. All later amendments, laws and regulations are "unconstitutional" in the sense that they "create a federal constitution in opposition to the original."

There are several corollaries to the myth of the organic Constitution which inform Christian Patriot "common law." In the following statements can be found much of the meaning of the catch- phrases and slogans of Christian Patriots:

The organic Constitution is God's law and the only law of the land.

"Natural rights" come from God, not the state. The rights enumerated in the divinely inspired organic Constitution are expressions of God's laws and can not be altered by the laws of men.

The federal government is an "unconstitutional" tyranny and the Constitution must be "upheld" by resisting that tyranny.

Because the 13th and 14th Amendments are unconstitutional, there are two or more classes of citizen, with only white Christian property-owning males possessing the natural rights of first class citizenship -- "sovereign citizenship." All others are "14th Amendment citizens" and possess inferior rights.

These "sovereigns" are the only people empowered to interpret the organic Constitution as the law of the land. The upshot of the myth of the divinely inspired organic Constitution is that Christian Patriot sovereigns can do whatever they want if they convince other sovereigns that such an action is "constitutional." According to the Christian Patriots, no other laws apply but the ones that they recognize. "

http://www.albionmonitor.com/freemen/ci-roots.html

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 2 years ago

And don't forget, if you burn a flag to protest your govt, Ron Lawl, the religious false patriot nutcase he is, wants to throw you in jail for it!

[-] 0 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

Ask me nicely and maybe I will. You aren't even close to comprehending these things of which you speak. Study more history and from educational books published prior to 1960.

[-] 0 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

btw.... what is wrong with common law? It's simple and very effective, no?

You prefer Article IV courts acting in the color of law enforcing hundreds of thousands of complex laws in which persons can be incarcerated for "crimes" of which nobody or nothing was harmed, other than the alleged dignity, peace and decency of the state being offended by acts of which do not comply with these burdensome codes of which many are written beyond that which a reasonable person, not holding a law degree, should be able to understand.

We're talking about wiping the slate clean back to about 1851.

[-] 0 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

Not even close. Perhaps you may check into Lawrence Lessig. He is a law professor at Harvard. You may learn something although you do appear quite determined to keep your eyes closed to anything contrary to your dogma, which appears to have been given to you by those who oppose liberty and self-governance.

I would still consider the bartering offer I made you as long as we don't have to discuss your warped and incorrect opinions.

xoxo

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Wow, talk about an incoherent rant... just curious, but have you ever heard of evolution? Well, no matter... Feminism is inversely responsible for the current rather subservient role of women in today's society because evolution - the genes specifically - require sexual balance and it will create whatever fictions necessary to obtain that balance. So while the certain few gain in public power to beat their chests and say, "Wow, look at me; I am Woman" the reproductively oriented women of the gene pool - our "populace" - will actually voluntarily forfeit their right of power; they will become more submissive and subservient. This is an absolute readily observable fact: look around.

Christianity, property rights, the Freemasons? What I hear is "misandry." And you've got to be kidding me.

The Freemasons are boyscouts; they represent the civilized arm of male militarism. As a descendant of Charlemagne whose ancestors have served in various roles, I can tell you right now, it's not the Masons - it's the Knights. The Teutonic Knights have ruled the world for well over a thousand years now and we're alive and well.

Female warriors? Sure, just raise a blade... we have never, ever, been gender discriminatory. And there are evolutionary reasons for this.

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 2 years ago

You perpetuate exactly what is wrong with America. The GOP continues to deny nature and prevent men from showing their "feminine" side, (for lack of a better term) so they vote irrationally. Michelle Bachmann just said girls don't ask boys to the prom. WHY NOT? And don't get me started on how anti gay America is. It is all from RELIGION, designed to keep certain Christian White Males in position of authority, nothing more. It effectively stifles cooperation and the furthering of society, and directly causes the corporatocracy that is killing USA and the planet.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Anti-Gay is, in fact, what defines us as heterosexual; it has nothing at all to do with Christianity, although I will agree, that Christianity has served to curtail much of our bi-activity and that in itself has impacted the perspective of Gay activity. Or to put it another way, I think many would be more accepting of same-sex attraction if more were permitted to experience same-sex, sexual activity, which is generally frowned upon, discouraged, on the level of sin-labeled-perversion, by our male heterosexuals.

I think you need to look around at our populace: both males and females are far more sexually enhanced, on the level of both physical attributes and adornment, than they have ever been. Whether we willingly acknowledge it or not (we do not), it IS sexual advertisement on the level of subliminal. So although the intellect tells us one thing, as better educated, more acculturated, possessed of some greater understanding... the subconscious of the populace is obviously focused on quite another. And women ARE far more submissive to male desires than ever before.

All government - "politics" - believe it or not, is entirely economic. I have always voted what appeared to be the most fiscally responsible ticket because it is fiscal responsibility that has served my personal survival. Indebtedness, take my word for it, or don't, IS slavery (to the man) and I want to live free (or die).

You're saying that if I was more feminine I'd vote for Obama? Hardly... his spending policies are every bit as detrimental to our economic state as Bush's wars have been.

"White male supremacy" is an absolute figment of your imagination; it's a fiction, over stated, by pseudo-intellectuals, due to some personal deficiency on the level of an inferiority complex. And rather sad.

Women can build and command armies; they can build and run corporations; they can command a position of power, so why don't they?

You want to lay it on Christianity - the world was created for males only - but believe me, no such devices, Christian or otherwise, have ever curtailed male activity, black or white (although we would often prefer that it did).

What we're talking about here is genetics in light of evolution...

Our white (or rather, variable shade) ancestors inhabited, for tens of thousands of years, the most desolate and environmentally undesirable regions of the earth and you wonder why the "white" man is so fierce, so determined, so capable? Or why he rules the world? Or the corporation?

Women, Gay or straight, are the nurturers... do your job. OR raise a blade and come along with me; the Knights shall rule forever.

And therein lies your challenge...

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 2 years ago

Anti-gay is what defines heterosexual? PURE BS. That's like saying anti-black is what defines white. Only in a Ron Lawl Libertarian world! Stop with the semantics!

[-] -1 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Actually that's 100% correct; we draw our identity from those around us; it is not so much about what we are as it is about what we are not. I am "white" because I am not "black," "red," or "brown." (Actually, I'm a blend of pink to purple with splotches of brown and most I believe are also of various shades.)

I am heterosexual because I find other males sexually repugnant, just as most are gay because they find the opposite sex romantically and sexually repugnant. To put this another way, I am hetero simply because I'm not Gay - there would be no need of definition, no need of a sexual identifier at all, if it was not drawn from those differences around us.

"Anti" may not have been the best negative prefix to use; perhaps I should not have used a prefix at all... I realized it was deficient conveyor when I wrote it but I believe I may have been drawing from your words; I don't remember.

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 2 years ago

Do you realize in all your responses you systematically blow smoke over the issues of discrimination and equality? You are not intellectually honest, either purposefully, or because you suffer from severe indoctrination. How's your understanding of science, for example? I am really curious, do you believe in evolution, the scientific method? That takes intellectual honesty.

[-] -1 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Evolutionist, historian, philosopher... all on rather in depth levels. Truthfully they are merely different branches of the same discipline. And I know that because I have been essentially chasing the same monkey for years, which requires the in-depth examination, utilization, creation, of all three in combination.

I don't blow smoke up the issues of discrimination and equality; I ignore them, and I'll tell you why... in my little circle, race and gender, beyond the level of inconsequential banter, do not exist. They simply are not issues because collectively we have agreed not to permit race, gender, or sexual divides.

To continuously confront others is to exasperate; it is to place all on the defensive, and typically, when in this defensive mode we ALL seek to evade... we lie, we redirect blame, we deny responsibility. That's not what I want; I want an open, and honest, intelligent discussion.

And we cannot discus openly if there is fear of expressing ourselves honestly. And if we don't discus honestly we will never resolve issues because issues cannot be resolved if they are not expressed. First we express, honestly and openly, and then we negotiate some mutually favorable resolution. We cannot conquer demons in fear. Ok, so I said it, like, ten different ways... and hopefully, you will understand.

The scientific method... is a huge subject. Do I follow science? Absolutely, more than most, but I also know an awful lot about the history of science... its origination in mind, its purpose, its philosophical questions and aspects. And it's too big to simply reduce to a discussion of the empirical. It's so nice, so quaint and comfortable, to succinctly paint the world in black and white, but nothing is ever that simple; if it were we would not need the human mind.

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 2 years ago

Are you actually denying white male priveledge exists in USA? Look at the Bible, women are not really supposed to inherit property. The founding fathers did not intend for me to vote. There is a real wage gap.

[-] -1 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Yes, and look at your history: male primogeniture was never the practice in America. My own ancestor left thousands of acres to the eldest, "be they male or female." This one last will bound this land to all successive generations of the "eldest," and since the eldest in the third generation just happened to be male, he made an equal purchase to leave to his daughters. In reference to female ownership, a husband was entitled only to that which was gained through the "improvement of"; no husband ever held ownership as the "right to dispose" of his wife's property. Women DID own property in colonial America and they did dispose of it as they pleased. And they still do. So here's to the founding fathers (un-capitalized) and their rather particular manner of biblical exegesis.

This was intended as the NEW Israel; all previous law and institutions were discarded. Primogeniture itself was never a practice; the testator did as he or she pleased.

And if you don't believe women held sway, you need to read their personal correspondence; you could start with Abigail Adams but there are hundreds of other examples of what appears to be very personal and rather virtuous interaction and behavior. The emphasis was on "virtue"... in essence, to walk in the way - "Imitatio Christi" - and as a result women did hold sway in colonial America. It doesn't matter - do you really believe that male-female interaction has ever been that much different?

Heretofore, most employment involved physical labor. Since many were incapable, the ability to perform was of value. I'd like to believe the value of male labor was commensurate with production but that has never been true; the employer has always taken advantage, and profited, male or female.

As recently as ten years ago, one of my own female family members left her employment with an investment firm because her male counterpart, of equal education and experience, was making 30K a year more. And she got tired of getting the short end. So I know it happens. But as long as child bearing and child rearing and the ever present fear or threat of "sexual harassment" exists and persists, women will always be of less value to the employer. These are identity issues that cannot be dismissed; as employees they are female first, and therefore require a greater employer investment, which diminishes returns and the value, in most cases, of their labor.

There is a reason for an historical male dominance; we are and always have been, the most capable of militancy, as necessary to our very survival.

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 2 years ago

Everyone take note at this antiquated thinking. You want to know what is wrong with America, here it is:

"But as long as child bearing and child rearing and the ever present fear or threat of "sexual harassment" exists and persists, women will always be of less value to the employer. These are identity issues that cannot be dismissed; as employees they are female first, and therefore require a greater employer investment, which diminishes returns and the value, in most cases, of their labor.

There is a reason for an historical male dominance; we are and always have been, the most capable of militancy, as necessary to our very survival."

~Betuadollar just wrote this nuttiness above.

[-] -1 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Apparently you have not worked for many large corporations, have you? And it seems you are also very anxious to disregard not only our own biology but also the cultural history of what, some 170 million years of our evolution? Amongst communal species the males are often the dominant force, for evolutionary reason.

And its only in the Christianized world of plurality that women have gained any voice at all.

This [male dominance] is not biblical in any sense... and you're going to have a very hard time convincing any male with a brain that it is.

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 2 years ago

What do you mean by dominant, violent and impulsive? Women make a healthy society. Seriously, is this really a source of pride in your life, you think you are "dominant" over women?

I believe technology and equality will stop this brutality, this warring in the world. Your comments will be laughed at by many now, nearly ALL will laugh in 100 years.

[-] -1 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

I didn't use the words violent and impulsive... but what I mean is that the family is the base unit of all societies. Power shifts as circumstance mandates between between mother and father but because of evolutionarily enhanced physical attributes males tend to occupy the ultimate seat of power. Evolution has provided an amelioration in the form of both the female collective and community censure. But even in the case of the fatherless home, male adolescents often grow to challenge the authority, or power, of the female presence; even more interesting, the mother will often grant or afford the son some level of a power presence.

Power resides in the male in the form of physical attributes, in light of survival based need, simply because of a) long gestation periods, b) lengthened childhood years, and c) the inability of females, as the nurturers, to travel well.

And society is but the collective expansion of these base units; males tend to form one collective, females another, and again, power shifts as circumstances arise.

Ok, so we meet on the common ground (which is our perpetual survival) but what makes all of this particularity difficult is that I don't believe males and females even speak the same language - we may recite the very same words but they hold different meaning and interpretation, simply because they're driven by different subliminal desires.

There's been a lot of talk about the detriments of the fatherless home; this inability to override the adolescent male presence in a physical manner is a problem, that I feel, only another male can effectively deal with... but in the days of community as extended family, when fathers often served far from the home in various roles, there were always others to fill this void. Today's single mother would find it far easier to raise children, in particular, male adolescents, if there was a greater community presence.

I don't personally believe males or females will ever change - to do so would be to transcend our own biology, i.e., our "humanity."