Utah demands land surrendered from Fedgov by Dec 31

[lozina]

I know reading is hard, but if you could then work your way down the article, all the way down to the second paragraph:

"This conviction puts socialism in opposition to capitalism, which is based on private ownership of the means of production and allows individual choices in a free market to determine how goods and services are distributed. ..."
​

Honestly, are you a deliberate liar or just a half-witted clown?

Will there be anything else? Any other credible sources you can't bother to comprehend?

Hey, I hear repetition sometimes helps people learn!

Let's see if it works for you:

Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources

Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources

Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources

Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources

Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources

Better now?

 

[Bowfinger]

Hey, I hear repetition sometimes helps people learn!

Let's see if it works for you:


Better now?

Yes, dear, and if you work your way all the way down to the second paragraph, you'll learn (well not YOU, but intelligent people) that the property they're talking about is means of production. It's impossible to cram all the details and qualifiers and disclaimers into the first sentence, so the writer has to start with a simple, broad stroke and then start filling in all the minutiae that make the difference between simpletons and actual understanding. You. Are. Wrong. Get used to it.

 

[lozina]

Yes, dear, and if you work your way all the way down to the second paragraph, you'll learn (well not YOU, but intelligent people) that the property they're talking about is means of production. It's impossible to cram all the details and qualifiers and disclaimers into the first sentence, so the writer has to start with a simple, broad stroke and then start filling in all the minutiae that make the difference between simpletons and actual understanding. You. Are. Wrong. Get used to it.

So, are you admitting you are not really trolling, just lacking in reading comprehension?

Even the part you are so desperately clinging to in your denial regarding the vague term of "means of production" is in direct reference to capitalism". Your quote:

"This conviction puts socialism in opposition to capitalism, which is based on private ownership of the means of production"

They are qualifying the definition of capitalism, do you see that? Go ahead, take a good close look. It is not in reference to the word "property".

In conclusion:

Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources

Plus, the most embarrassing thing for you, is if you looked into the meaning of means of production you would see you are barking up the wrong tree.

You really need to stop acting stupid or trolling or whatever it is you are doing.

 

[Bowfinger]

So, are you admitting you are not really trolling, just lacking in reading comprehension?

Even the part you are so desperately clinging to in your denial regarding the vague term of "means of production" is in direct reference to capitalism". Your quote:

"This conviction puts socialism in opposition to capitalism, which is based on private ownership of the means of production"

They are qualifying the definition of capitalism, do you see that? Go ahead, take a good close look. It is not in reference to the word "property".

In conclusion:

Plus, the most embarrassing thing for you, is if you looked into the meaning of means of production you would see you are barking up the wrong tree.

You really need to stop acting stupid or trolling or whatever it is you are doing.

No, little one, they are pointing out how capitalism and socialism differ. In socialism, the government owns the means of production; in capitalism, the mean of production are privately owned. You apparently also have no idea what "means of production" means, but I frankly don't care. It is surely just as brain damaged as your caricature of socialism.

There is nothing about capitalism that precludes the government from owing land. Fact. More to the point of this thread, the federal government owns those Utah lands meaning all Americans own them. That's also a fact. It is in our best interests that those lands remain available for the benefit of all, and not just for a few deep pockets yearning to exploit them for personal benefit.

I don't expect you to acknowledge any of this. You will continue to act like a deliberate liar or a half-witted clown, "or whatever it is you are doing." You are therefore dismissed.

 

[CitizenKain]

reaping the benefits of the [industrious] people

my hands don't write as fast as I think. sue me.

No, its that you think capitalism benefits hard working and industrious people. That is amazingly naive.

 

[lozina]

No, little one, they are pointing out how capitalism and socialism differ. In socialism, the government owns the means of production; in capitalism, the mean of production are privately owned. You apparently also have no idea what "means of production" means, but I frankly don't care. It is surely just as brain damaged as your caricature of socialism.

Ah so looking at this softer response, it seems have you finally realized you were wrong about your desperate attempt to claim public land ownership is not a part of socialism? Took you long enough. Bravo!

There is nothing about capitalism that precludes the government from owing land. Fact.

Fact: you have no idea what you are talking about (yet again). Capitalism is mostly if not entirely private ownership. What do we see about the lands in the west? They are mostly owned by the state. Complete opposite.

More to the point of this thread, the federal government owns those Utah lands meaning all Americans own them. That's also a fact. It is in our best interests that those lands remain available for the benefit of all, and not just for a few deep pockets yearning to exploit them for personal benefit.

Speak for yourself, bud. It is not in my best interest that those lands are under federal ownership. They are thousands of miles away from me, why should I pay taxes to maintain them? Those lands benefit me as much as the private land of some horse farmer in upstate New York benefits me.

I do not want socialist land control.

Our country was established with majority private land ownership and thrived. There is no need to fix what ain't broke.

In fact now that we are being bogged down by so many socialist policies we are losing our strength. China is passing us in most measures while we are drowning in debt. Your socialist utopia is a failure.

 

[lozina]

No, its that you think capitalism benefits hard working and industrious people. That is amazingly naive.

And I say it is even more amazingly naive that you apparently believe the alternative of socialism or communism will benefit hard working people.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Why should I rage over this?

Because some good old boy in local gubnament government can't promise land to his brother in law? Or because his high school football buddy can't drill for oil? Or because a national park could use a really wicked awesome ATV trail (maintained by his other high school football buddy)?

 

[dphantom]

No, little one, they are pointing out how capitalism and socialism differ. In socialism, the government owns the means of production; in capitalism, the mean of production are privately owned. You apparently also have no idea what "means of production" means, but I frankly don't care. It is surely just as brain damaged as your caricature of socialism.

There is nothing about capitalism that precludes the government from owing land. Fact. More to the point of this thread, the federal government owns those Utah lands meaning all Americans own them. That's also a fact. It is in our best interests that those lands remain available for the benefit of all, and not just for a few deep pockets yearning to exploit them for personal benefit.

I don't expect you to acknowledge any of this. You will continue to act like a deliberate liar or a half-witted clown, "or whatever it is you are doing." You are therefore dismissed.

It is in our best interests to ensure the land is available to all people within the State and only that the Federal government needs for its own use is retained at the Federal level.

 

[lozina]

Why should I rage over this?

Because some good old boy in local gubnament government can't promise land to his brother in law? Or because his high school football buddy can't drill for oil? Or because a national park could use a really wicked awesome ATV trail (maintained by his other high school football buddy)?

Yes, thank you for the brilliant prophecy. National parks remain protected. And if you care to travel within a couple of hours outside of NYC you will be astonished to find many state parks which were never "promised to some brother in law" or "drilled by a high school buddy"

So, propaganda FAIL.

 

[dphantom]

No, its that you think capitalism benefits hard working and industrious people. That is amazingly naive.

Of course it does. I have benefited immensely from even our current limited version of capitalism. You are amazingly naïve not to have taken advantage of all the opportunities available to you.

 

[Bowfinger]

Ah so looking at this softer response, it seems have you finally realized you were wrong about your desperate attempt to claim public land ownership is not a part of socialism? Took you long enough. Bravo!

/facepalm

You have a knack for seeing what you want to see. That's the same thing I said a dozen posts ago, when I quoted your own definition back at you. Socialism is about government owning the means of production, e.g., factories and farms. It is not about owning land.

Fact: you have no idea what you are talking about (yet again). Capitalism is mostly if not entirely private ownership. What do we see about the lands in the west? They are mostly owned by the state. Complete opposite. ...

Fact: you are making up your own definitions again.

In fact now that we are being bogged down by so many socialist policies we are losing our strength. China is passing us in most measures while we are drowning in debt. Your socialist utopia is a failure.

So, your premise is the U.S. has become so socialist that it's been overtaken by China? Thus, the U.S. is a failure because it is so socialist.

Two points:

1. None of that has a single thing to do with anything I said, or indeed with the point of this thread. Nobody has claimed the U.S. isn't somewhat socialist. Every successful government is. That still has zero to do with government ownership of land as opposed to the government ownership of the means of production.

2. China is a socialist state, you flaming moron. If you think China is overtaking us due to "socialism," your argument should be that the U.S. needs to be more socialist, not less. Good grief.


Does anyone else want to play with this "special" little fellow? I'm on vacation. If I wanted to debate self-deceiving morons, I could have stayed at work. Corporate bureaucracies are full of them.

 

[Bowfinger]

It is in our best interests to ensure the land is available to all people within the State and only that the Federal government needs for its own use is retained at the Federal level.

Says who? They are public lands, owned by all of us. Why should people within the state get special preference? Why should I give up my interest in those lands? What do I get in return for my lost access?

 

[ElFenix]

So, are you a closet socialist in denial or do you just not realize that what you believe in is socialism?

Notice how it goes from private ownership in capitalism, to collective ownership [by the people] in socialism then to complete state ownership in communism?


If you'd like, I can rent you a backhoe for you to dig yourself into a hole faster

governments have always owned land since the times of the very first governments. That can't be evidence of socialism.

 

[bshole]

Does anyone else want to play with this "special" little fellow? I'm on vacation. If I wanted to debate self-deceiving morons, I could have stayed at work. Corporate bureaucracies are full of them.

I have a "special" little fellow that I play with on a daily basis already.....

 

[Newell Steamer]

Yes, thank you for the brilliant prophecy. National parks remain protected. And if you care to travel within a couple of hours outside of NYC you will be astonished to find many state parks which were never "promised to some brother in law" or "drilled by a high school buddy"

So, propaganda FAIL.

Ah, yes - this coming from a man who linked an article from The New American, a site that is mouth foam frothingly anti-government. Surely there is no bias and propaganda from them!

 

[lozina]

/facepalm

You have a knack for seeing what you want to see. That's the same thing I said a dozen posts ago, when I quoted your own definition back at you. Socialism is about government owning the means of production, e.g., factories and farms. It is not about owning land.



Fact: you are making up your own definitions again.

Okay, let's finally put this to rest I had enough playing around with you it is obvious you really do lack reading comprehension. I'll even use the terms *you* fought so hard for to really drive it home to you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production are largely or entirely privately owned and operated for profit.

Ok now, let's click on "means of production", shall we?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production

In economics and sociology, the means of production are physical, non-human inputs used in production; that is, the "means of production" includes capital assets used to produce wealth, such as machinery, tools and factories,[1] including both infrastructural capital and natural capital. This includes the "factors of production"

Oh, you're right, no specific mention of land here - oh no what do we do?! Oh, let's click on that definition of "Factors of production" which are included in the definition of means of production"!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factors_of_production

In economics, factors of production, resources, or inputs are what is utilized in the production process in order to produce output—that is, finished goods. The amounts of the various inputs used determine the quantity of output according to a relationship called the production function. There are three basic resources or factors of production: land, labour, and capital.

Oops! There's that dreaded specific mention of land you were so dense to notice!!! :'( sorry!!! (Wait, lets hear it now - wikipedia is bs propaganda!)

1. None of that has a single thing to do with anything I said, or indeed with the point of this thread. Nobody has claimed the U.S. isn't somewhat socialist. Every successful government is. That still has zero to do with government ownership of land as opposed to the government ownership of the means of production.

No government is "pure" anything. Yet the more socialist we become, the worse we become.

2. China is a socialist state, you flaming moron. If you think China is overtaking us due to "socialism," your argument should be that the U.S. needs to be more socialist, not less. Good grief.

And? As we become more socialist we are getting weaker in relation to China. China has an enormous population, and has for as long as civilization remembers. Yet despite that huge human capital our early nation which was more capitalist than now became an unbelievable economic powerhouse! Then as you socialists started wanting more free lunches while resting on your laurels, we began to decline.

 

[piasabird]

You people are very comfortable in claiming that Utah or Nevada did not own the land and it belonged to the federal government. That personally sounds like a line of bull shit. The federal government did not settle the land in Utah or Nevada. What right does the federal government have to claim large areas of land in the West? Where is that in the constitution. Sounds like you are just quoting some kind of liberal professor's opinion to me. I and you are the Federal government. The people in these states are the Federal Government. Unless the Federal Government has a use for the land, they should give the state control of that land. The states also have a right to demand the Federal government maintain the land also. This is just not happening. If the Feds were using the land for some legitimate purpose like an airport or a military camp they might have a viable claim to it through eminent domain. The Feds are just keeping these states from a fair Utility for this land. Keep in mind this is the territory of the states and the state has a right to ownership and taxation if someone owned the land.

 

[lozina]

governments have always owned land since the times of the very first governments. That can't be evidence of socialism.

That's because there is no government that purely follows any of those economic systems. It's always some mish mash.

Public land control is a tenet of socialist economic policy. End of story. (okay yes, also communist too)

On the contrary, private land control is a tenet of capitalist economic policy.

Are you also going to argue that? (I already politely schooled Bowfinger on it)

 

[lozina]

Ah, yes - this coming from a man who linked an article from The New American, a site that is mouth foam frothingly anti-government. Surely there is no bias and propaganda from them!

Do you happen to have any specific facts from that article you wish to refute? Or are you just blowing out your ass?

 

[Newell Steamer]

Do you happen to have any specific facts from that article you wish to refute? Or are you just blowing out your ass?

Let's go with the latter, since it's what people like you frankly deserve.



I hope you find peace, some day.

 

[lozina]

Let's go with the latter, since it's what people like you frankly deserve.



I hope you find peace, some day.

Well, at least you have the decency to admit that, and for that I truly do appreciate it! Cheers!

 

[Bowfinger]

[ blah blah blah ...]

Oops! There's that dreaded specific mention of land you were so dense to notice!!! :'( sorry!!! (Wait, lets hear it now - wikipedia is bs propaganda!)

Deeper and deeper (derper and derper?) he digs. I never said land is never tied to the means of production, never suggested anything remotely like it. But land is not inherently part of the means of production. Specifically re. this thread. the government ownership of these lands has zero to do with socialism.

Kudos, though, for your desperate stretch to try to connect the two. It was amazing. You must be quite good at such leaps of illogic. A rational person would have sprained something. Of course no rational person would have worked so hard to ignore all of the clear information provided in those Wikipedia entries. Only someone like you would instead cherry pick such a convoluted set of dots to invent support for your position. As I said before, you are either willfully dishonest or a half-witted clown, incapable of learning anything.

No government is "pure" anything. Yet the more socialist we become, the worse we become.

First, correlation is not causation. One could just as easily assert that the more wealth disparity we see, the worse we become (and with greater justification). America was strongest when wealth disparity was lowest, but that fact is inconvenient to your faith. Of course America was also strongest when unions were strong. America was strongest when average global temperatures were lower. America was strongest before the adoption of power steering, brakes, and windows. The list is endless -- literally.

(This all presumes we are getting "worse," another subjective assertion you've failed to support.

And? As we become more socialist we are getting weaker in relation to China. China has an enormous population, and has for as long as civilization remembers. Yet despite that huge human capital our early nation which was more capitalist than now became an unbelievable economic powerhouse! Then as you socialists started wanting more free lunches while resting on your laurels, we began to decline.

So, you advocate a return to America's glory days, where wealth was far more evenly distributed, unions were strong, the top income tax rate was 90%, money was considered bribery instead of free speech, the federal government actively enforced anti-trust, finance, and utility regulations, etc.? Interesting. I would never have pegged you as so progressive.

By the way, I'm a fan of capitalism. It is probably the most effective economic system man has ever devised. I just recognize capitalism needs to be well-regulated to prevent abuse. I also understand that the government owning western lands isn't socialism.

 

[IronWing]

You people are very comfortable in claiming that Utah or Nevada did not own the land and it belonged to the federal government. That personally sounds like a line of bull shit. The federal government did not settle the land in Utah or Nevada. What right does the federal government have to claim large areas of land in the West? Where is that in the constitution. Sounds like you are just quoting some kind of liberal professor's opinion to me. I and you are the Federal government. The people in these states are the Federal Government. Unless the Federal Government has a use for the land, they should give the state control of that land. The states also have a right to demand the Federal government maintain the land also. This is just not happening. If the Feds were using the land for some legitimate purpose like an airport or a military camp they might have a viable claim to it through eminent domain. The Feds are just keeping these states from a fair Utility for this land. Keep in mind this is the territory of the states and the state has a right to ownership and taxation if someone owned the land.

Learn the history of your own state. The Feds fought a war and stole that land from the Mexicans fair and square. Your own state constitution recognizes federal ownership, even this latest attempt by Utah to steal the land recognizes that it is federal land. Wishful thinking on your part does not reality make. As cited above, the Constitution gives Congress full authority to regulate or dispose of the public lands as it sees fit. Congress has chosen to keep most of what is left.

 

[Zorba]

My use of services that my tax dollars are spent on has been completely irrelevant, in my experience at least, to the taxes I must pay. Nor have I or anyone else I know been given an option to "opt out". Just saying...

Property taxes are a local tax, for local services, such as schools, junior colleges, fire, police, etc. Most federal land isn't in the middle of city and has no access to these services. Completely different than a home owner with no kids not wanting to pay for the schools.

One exception are military bases, and I believe the government pays the school districts for taking military kids. Plus the payments in lieu of taxes, plus royalties on the land.

BTW: States don't pay property taxes on their land either, or cities or chruchs. And most of that state, city and church land does have access to local services. I know this caused a big issue in the city I went to college in, especially after the school bought up an extra section of land that had been fully developed.