Democracy Vs Socialism

[Kelzie]

What property? Perhaps all of North and South America? Exactly what parts of America were settled before the Europeans came here? Did Native Americans in North America build cities, did they settle any one portion of land? Are you saying that a man can claim property rights because he once set foot on it? They were nomadic they didn't have any property, what is so hard to grasp about that concept?

They lived on the land, depended on the land, and built a culture and history around the land. Exactly what claim did the Europeans have to it? Bigger guns?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

well how long would it take for them to become "natives" of this land. They had lived in that land thousands of years before us. Either way,the europeans took the americas by force. And yes, the native american's did have a good senes of territory and had their own land. Instead of having permanant settlement in it, people would often move around in the same territory, following the food. Nonetheless they still considered the territory their's and thus had a right to it.

Also, whats the point of including the fact that they had no written language or hadn't invented the wheel. That has no bearing on your argument that native americans didn't own the land.

Look the basic essence of property is that you do something with that property IE build structures, create farms, have cities, you know civilization? There was no civilization before the conlonists came to the Americas. If you are nomadic in nature then you don't even have a concept of property let alone property rights.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

They lived on the land, depended on the land, and built a culture and history around the land. Exactly what claim did the Europeans have to it? Bigger guns?

Their history was based on oral traditions they had no written language, there was culture but only in the most rudementary sense of the term, pre-Colonial America was about a thousand years behind the rest of the world, and you make it seem as if the Colonists were a bad thing for the Americas, prior to colonization the different tribes were constantly at war with one another, constantly on the brink of starvation so much so that cannablism became a functional part of their culture Take the most deprived nation on earth today multiply it by ten and then you may have some concept as to how primitive America was prior to 1492.

 

[Comrade Brian]

Look the basic essence of property is that you do something with that property IE build structures, create farms, have cities, you know civilization? There was no civilization before the conlonists came to the Americas. If you are nomadic in nature then you don't even have a concept of property let alone property rights.

Trojan you are dumb when it comes to history. Ever heard of the Mayans, Aztecs, Incas, etc. etc.? Tenochtitlan was one of the largest cities in the world it had about a 1/4 of a million population in the city. Mayans had a pictographic written language, they had wheels, they had an early version of rubber soles. Iroquois also had towns too, where they were settled. Anasazi used farms. There are countless other examples of highly developed civilisation. The main reason why the "Native Americans" were conquered because they lacked steel and guns mostly, and the Europeans got gun technology from the Chinese if I recall.

The difference is that they usually had more communal-naturalistic societies than did Europeans.

 

[Kelzie]

Their history was based on oral traditions they had no written language, there was culture but only in the most rudementary sense of the term, pre-Colonial America was about a thousand years behind the rest of the world, and you make it seem as if the Colonists were a bad thing for the Americas, prior to colonization the different tribes were constantly at war with one another, constantly on the brink of starvation so much so that cannablism became a functional part of their culture Take the most deprived nation on earth today multiply it by ten and then you may have some concept as to how primitive America was prior to 1492.

And....? So they had history, culture, dependence, and habitation. The Europeans had...?

 

[nkgupta80]

Look the basic essence of property is that you do something with that property IE build structures, create farms, have cities, you know civilization? There was no civilization before the conlonists came to the Americas. If you are nomadic in nature then you don't even have a concept of property let alone property rights.

civilization isn't dependent on having structures and a well-defined territory.
By the way, most indian tribes had well-defined territories, hence the territorial disputes among many indian tribes. Of course they had a sense of property....Of course they can't relaly put up much of a fight considering europeans came in with iron armor and guns. Nonetheless, they had as much a right to that land.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Trojan you are dumb when it comes to history. Ever heard of the Mayans, Aztecs, Incas, etc. etc.? Tenochtitlan was one of the largest cities in the world it had about a 1/4 of a million population in the city. Mayans had a pictographic written language, they had wheels, they had an early version of rubber soles. Iroquois also had towns too, where they were settled. Anasazi used farms. There are countless other examples of highly developed civilisation. The main reason why the "Native Americans" were conquered because they lacked steel and guns mostly, and the Europeans got gun technology from the Chinese if I recall.

The difference is that they usually had more communal-naturalistic societies than did Europeans.

Comrade you are dumb when it comes to geography. All of those cultures were in South and Central America, that has nothing to do with the British Colonies and the basis for the U.S. Constitution. I'm talking about the plains Indians.

 

[nkgupta80]

Comrade you are dumb when it comes to geography. All of those cultures were in South and Central America, that has nothing to do with the British Colonies and the basis for the U.S. Constitution. I'm talking about the plains Indians.

you lump all the plains indians together, when in fact they're were various tribes, each with their own developed culture and social strucutres. This in itself is the definition of civilization. They had territories defined, and had sense of right to their land. You don't have to build something on the land to have ownership over it. Obviously the technology wasn't as advanced as the Europeans, but that doesn't give them any less right to the land. At one point, china and the muslim world overtook the europeans in terms of technology and wealth. Did that mean, that china had more property right to Europe?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

you lump all the plains indians together, when in fact they're were various tribes, each with their own developed culture and social strucutres. This in itself is the definition of civilization. They had territories defined, and had sense of right to their land. You don't have to build something on the land to have ownership over it. Obviously the technology wasn't as advanced as the Europeans, but that doesn't give them any less right to the land. At one point, china and the muslim world overtook the europeans in terms of technology and wealth. Did that mean, that china had more property right to Europe?

Whatever dude, they didn't build any permanent structures, they didn't cultivate the land, they were nomadic that means they never set claim to any particular piece of property ever. They didn't have a concept of property so how could settling the land be a violation of their property rights when they didn't claim to own the property?

 

[nkgupta80]

Whatever dude, they didn't build any permanent structures, they didn't cultivate the land, they were nomadic that means they never set claim to any particular piece of property ever. They didn't have a concept of property so how could settling the land be a violation of their property rights when they didn't claim to own the property?

they did cultivate the land, they marked their territories by understanding the movements of the herds. So... they definately did have a sense of property. If they have a sense of territory and sense of owning the land, they definately have a sense of property. Why do you want to keep telling yourself that european expansion was justified based on your sense of property rights. It wasn't. But anyways what in the history of human civilization was ever justified based on your definition of property rights.

 

[Kelzie]

[gentle mod nudge]

Let's knock of calling each other dumb, hmm? Freakin retards.

[/gentle mod nudge]

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

they did cultivate the land, they marked their territories by understanding the movements of the herds. So... they definately did have a sense of property. If they have a sense of territory and sense of owning the land, they definately have a sense of property. Why do you want to keep telling yourself that european expansion was justified based on your sense of property rights. It wasn't. But anyways what in the history of human civilization was ever justified based on your definition of property rights.

lol they never settled the land, so now you're saying that following the herds constitutes property lines? Are you kidding me, tell me what one piece of land was considered to be souly the land of the Mohawk, or the Seminole, or the Cherokee? Answer: there wasn't any because they were freaking nomadic. You can't not be a property owning society and be nomadic at the same time the two are mutually exclusive. And I never claimed it was justified based on property rights, someone challenged me by saying that our country wasn't founded on the natural rights of life, liberty, and property due to our treatment of the Native Americans by stealing their land . . . trouble is they didn't own any land for us to steal.

 

[nkgupta80]

lol they never settled the land, so now you're saying that following the herds constitutes property lines? Are you kidding me, tell me what one piece of land was considered to be souly the land of the Mohawk, or the Seminole, or the Cherokee? Answer: there wasn't any because they were freaking nomadic. You can't not be a property owning society and be nomadic at the same time the two are mutually exclusive. And I never claimed it was justified based on property rights, someone challenged me by saying that our country wasn't founded on the natural rights of life, liberty, and property due to our treatment of the Native Americans by stealing their land . . . trouble is they didn't own any land for us to steal.

you just took my statement of "following the herds" blindly. I said that the movement patterns of the herds helped define their territory. Thus they believed themselves to own the land. And you generalize all the tribes to have the same settlement patterns. Native Americans on the eastern coast were not plains indians and hardly nomadic. They had developed crude urban centers marked for religious occasions, villages would remain in the same area. Villages would only move when the lad would become infertile.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

you just took my statement of "following the herds" blindly. I said that the movement patterns of the herds helped define their territory. Thus they believed themselves to own the land. And you generalize all the tribes to have the same settlement patterns. Native Americans on the eastern coast were not plains indians and hardly nomadic. They had developed crude urban centers marked for religious occasions, villages would remain in the same area. Villages would only move when the lad would become infertile.

Shell mounds? I'm sorry that hardly constitutes as a permanent settlement, you show me an example of a city created by the north American tribes (not Mexico) and I'll relent.

 

[Kelzie]

Shell mounds? I'm sorry that hardly constitutes as a permanent settlement, you show me an example of a city created by the north American tribes (not Mexico) and I'll relent.

They don't have to build cities to have a claim to the land TOT.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

They don't have to build cities to have a claim to the land TOT.

What land? There were never any permanent settlements, if they were nomadic and didn't have permanent settlements then what exactly is their property claim? Loosely defined migration patterns do not constitute as a territorial claim. That's like me walking in the woods and hunting a deer and them claiming that I now own the property simply because I was there.

 

[Kelzie]

What land? There were never any permanent settlements, if they were nomadic and didn't have permanent settlements then what exactly is their property claim? Loosely defined migration patterns do not constitute as a territorial claim. That's like me walking in the woods and hunting a deer and them claiming that I now own the property simply because I was there.

Actually, it would be more like your family hunting and depending on those woods for food for the last couple thousand years and then someone comes and kicks you off so they can build a farm. But nice try at an analogy.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Actually, it would be more like your family hunting and depending on those woods for food for the last couple thousand years and then someone comes and kicks you off so they can build a farm. But nice try at an analogy.

What land did they have a claim on, all the land, some of the land? Dude the Native Americans killed far more of eachother than the Europeans ever did, they didn't have a written language, they were nomadic, they didn't cultivate the land, they had no permanent structures, they didn't even have the wheel. They had no civilization, they had no property, they didn't even understand the concept of property so by what stretch of the imagination could they possibly have property rights?

 

[Kelzie]

What land did they have a claim on, all the land, some of the land? Dude the Native Americans killed far more of eachother than the Europeans ever did, they didn't have a written language, they were nomadic, they didn't cultivate the land, they had no permanent structures, they didn't even have the wheel. They had no civilization, they had no property, they didn't even understand the concept of property so by what stretch of the imagination could they possibly have property rights?

So what? You don't need any of those to have a claim to the land. History and dependence will do it for ya.

 

[nkgupta80]

So what? You don't need any of those to have a claim to the land. History and dependence will do it for ya.

exactly, the fact that my family for 2000 years depended on that same stretch of woods makes it their land. You don't need to have buildings on that land to claim it.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

So what? You don't need any of those to have a claim to the land. History and dependence will do it for ya.

Ya but Kelzie land is a valuable commodity, but unless you understand property rights then you don't know that, we did; furthermore, if the land itself isn't productive then how can you claim to be the rightful owner?

The 13 States took nothing and made it into the greatest country on earth and why? Because they had the concepts of life, liberty, and property.

 

[Kelzie]

Ya but Kelzie land is a valuable commodity, but unless you understand property rights then you don't know that, we did; furthermore, if the land itself isn't productive then how can you claim to be the rightful owner?

Are you seriously telling me that land has to be productive for someone to have property rights? My mom has an acre just sitting in the back of her house. Do you plan on taking it?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Are you seriously telling me that land has to be productive for someone to have property rights? My mom has an acre just sitting in the back of her house. Do you plan on taking it?

The 13 States took nothing and made it into the greatest country on earth and why? Because they based their form of government on the principles of life, liberty, and property.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Are you seriously telling me that land has to be productive for someone to have property rights? My mom has an acre just sitting in the back of her house. Do you plan on taking it?

Is there a house which she bought on that land?

 

[Kelzie]

Is there a house which she bought on that land?

Not on the acre there's not. Go ahead. Tell me it's not her land.