PDA

View Full Version : The human quest for freedom (what is freedom?)



annasophia
20-08-2016, 13:30
At our favorite neighborhood bar (in the US) this evening we found ourselves having a fine conversation with a Russian expat who left Moscow in 1991 at the age of 12 with his parents. I suppose he is in his mid 30's, so having spent most of his life in the US.

He still had vivid memories of his youth in Moscow and speaks fluent Russian. And English. He was wearing a biker vest emblazoned with Poccia and later rode off on his Harley motorcycle.

Interesting character. He told of us why he was so enamored of America where he was 'free' to pursue his own life. He detailed why he loved living in the US and why it was so dear to him - he could be his own person, he could go where he wanted, he could pursue whatever avenue he wished, he could be his own person any way he liked.

So we had this conversation, (I playing the devil's advocate) put forth that Russia was in its own way more free, and I gave him many examples - Russians don't play by the rules, Russians are more free from legislative laws that generally ignore the average citizen, Russian rules which are posted but rarely enforced, the fact that Russian law is rather more elastic than US law depending on times and circumstance. US justice is not so forgiving.

I asked him if he had ever returned to Russia. He said no, but that he was a duel passport holder and could return anytime he wanted (he's well past the age of military draft). I told him he should go, did he have any family left there to connect to?

THEN he tells me his parents still own an apartment in Tanganka! They left the *oppression* of Russia 25 years ago but still hang on to the apartment! I was floored.

In America, the legal liabilities of keeping an urban apartment in a major city rented out to tenants for -decades- is so overwhelmingly legally oppressive that nobody in his right mind would do such a thing. It's nearly impossible.

And yet Russians with all their 'unfreedom' can vacate the country for nearly 30 years and continue to own [quite valuable] property from which it is almost impossible to wrest ownership, and consider themselves unfree??

I reminded our new friend that in America you really never own anything, as the government/banks always reserve the fine print rights to take away from you the ownership if the contract ever goes awry or various tax/ownership payments are not made on time - into perpetuity.

In the US is is truly not possible to ever own property without consistent and continual payment to the taxing authorities forever. They can, and will, put you out into the street.

I find the the definition of 'freedom' and 'ownership' to be very different dependent on culture and perception. What do you think?

JPS
20-08-2016, 14:22
I find your definition of "law" to be typically Russian - get away with murder if possible and if you can't then pay the cops a bribe.

Law's are there for (supposedly) the greater good of society. The fact that Russia has "elastic" laws does the reputation of the country no good.

What's so unusual about owning property even though you don't live in the country? Millions of people around the world do exactly that and rent it out. It's not unusual at all. I assume you have heard of AirBNB and all the other similar services? You have read the "for rent" adverts in Estate Agents?

Your post points to *you* having a problem with America and it's system of rules and laws. If you find it that bad / oppressive then you can always leave and come back to Russia.



In the US is is truly not possible to ever own property without consistent and continual payment to the taxing authorities forever. They can, and will, put you out into the street.

Every civilised country has these rules; France, UK, the rest of Europe and many others countries. Why are you so surprised by this?

rusmeister
20-08-2016, 17:13
JP, what is especially civilized about confiscating people's property? Of course, there are hyper-rich who have far more than they need, and I am not defending that. But I DO defend the right of a very poor friend of mine who owns a piece of dilapidated farm land to continue to own it and not have to pay taxes and have laws designed to confiscate the land should she (an older woman with no pension to speak of) become unable to pay her exorbitant property taxes. I do not consider the laws civilized at all. She has lived all her life without government assistance. She should not now have to fear government confiscation of her property.

I'm just trying to say that maybe a completely abandoned property in downtown Moscow is one thing, but the principle of taxing poor property owners to death is quite another.

Russian Lad
20-08-2016, 18:36
And yet Russians with all their 'unfreedom' can vacate the country for nearly 30 years and continue to own [quite valuable] property from which it is almost impossible to wrest ownership, and consider themselves unfree??

Money/possessions - it is not about freedom at all, it is just the natural (but not always present) result, one of many. As a rule though, there is more money and there are more possessions in a free country (consider Sweden or Norway, for instance) rather than in a third world country with oppression and lies (Russia). Of course, there may be exceptions from this rule, there are always exceptions from any rule. I am sure there are very well-to-do people even in the North Korea. Or in Somalia and Nigeria. And, of course, there are dirt-poor people in Norway and in Sweden, but much less than in Russia or Somalia. You are making a typical logical mistake - taking an individual case (which is lousy too, because the guy doesn't want to return anyway) and trying to extrapolate it on a whole.

JPS
20-08-2016, 19:17
I'm just trying to say that maybe a completely abandoned property in downtown Moscow is one thing, but the principle of taxing poor property owners to death is quite another.

I'm not disagreeing with that Rusmeister but in situations like that it should be up to the State to help out. I can't talk about Russia but in France and the UK the local taxes and benefits are based on the ability to pay and are "means tested". The more disposable income you have the more local taxes you pay and less State benefits you receive. However, if you can't afford to own a property then it is up to yourself to sort it out. If you can't afford it, don't buy it.

Does Russia do this? Is it enough to cover the cost of living? If not then the problem is with the Government here and Annasophia trying to draw comparisons with USA is just plain silly.

nicklcool
20-08-2016, 20:10
Money/possessions - it is not about freedom at all, it is just the natural (but not always present) result, one of many. As a rule though, there is more money and there are more possessions in a free country (consider Sweden or Norway, for instance) rather than in a third world country with oppression and lies (Russia). Of course, there may be exceptions from this rule, there are always exceptions from any rule. I am sure there are very well-to-do people even in the North Korea. Or in Somalia and Nigeria. And, of course, there are dirt-poor people in Norway and in Sweden, but much less than in Russia or Somalia. You are making a typical logical mistake - taking an individual case (which is lousy too, because the guy doesn't want to return anyway) and trying to extrapolate it on a whole.

I would say personal propwety rights are the beginning point, not the result, of freedom. Name me one country that went authoritarian that did not also confiscate personal property. Or alternatively a propserous country with generous "freedom" for its people that does not hold personal property rights in high regard.

The third world countries you mention have wealth and posession but they are by and large ownee by the pigs that "are more equal than othets"; whereas in (for example

) the USA the constitution and other government bodies for the most part uphold personal property rights.

FatAndy
20-08-2016, 20:14
:emote_popcorn:

nicklcool
20-08-2016, 20:22
I find your definition of "law" to be typically Russian - get away with murder if possible and if you can't then pay the cops a bribe.

What's so unusual about owning property even though you don't live in the country? Millions of people around the world do exactly that and rent it out. It's not unusual at all. I assume you have heard of AirBNB and all the other similar services? You have read the "for rent" adverts in Estate Agents?
?

From my experience the Russian definition of law would be more like:

Your right to punch me stops at my nose

I'm putting words un annasophia's mouth but I imagine she's sirprised by the property ownership because the expat hasn't paid Russian taxes or claimed the rental property on his US taxes for years??

nicklcool
20-08-2016, 20:30
My bad; I did not break down my logic fully:
it's amusing that the Russian expat finds his adopted country freer yet feels the need to hide capital gains from the US tax authorities.

TolkoRaz
20-08-2016, 21:43
Does the US of A really take people's houses off them?

If so, under what circumstances?

Uncle Wally
20-08-2016, 22:46
Does the US of A really take people's houses off them?

If so, under what circumstances?



Yes they do. Even old, sick people who just owe $1000 in taxes. Or someone who didn't cut their grass short enough and must be heavily fined until they lose their house.

Uncle Wally
20-08-2016, 23:08
At our favorite neighborhood bar (in the US) this evening we found ourselves having a fine conversation with a Russian expat who left Moscow in 1991 at the age of 12 with his parents. I suppose he is in his mid 30's, so having spent most of his life in the US.

He still had vivid memories of his youth in Moscow and speaks fluent Russian. And English. He was wearing a biker vest emblazoned with Poccia and later rode off on his Harley motorcycle.

Interesting character. He told of us why he was so enamored of America where he was 'free' to pursue his own life. He detailed why he loved living in the US and why it was so dear to him - he could be his own person, he could go where he wanted, he could pursue whatever avenue he wished, he could be his own person any way he liked.

So we had this conversation, (I playing the devil's advocate) put forth that Russia was in its own way more free, and I gave him many examples - Russians don't play by the rules, Russians are more free from legislative laws that generally ignore the average citizen, Russian rules which are posted but rarely enforced, the fact that Russian law is rather more elastic than US law depending on times and circumstance. US justice is not so forgiving.

I asked him if he had ever returned to Russia. He said no, but that he was a duel passport holder and could return anytime he wanted (he's well past the age of military draft). I told him he should go, did he have any family left there to connect to?

THEN he tells me his parents still own an apartment in Tanganka! They left the *oppression* of Russia 25 years ago but still hang on to the apartment! I was floored.

In America, the legal liabilities of keeping an urban apartment in a major city rented out to tenants for -decades- is so overwhelmingly legally oppressive that nobody in his right mind would do such a thing. It's nearly impossible.

And yet Russians with all their 'unfreedom' can vacate the country for nearly 30 years and continue to own [quite valuable] property from which it is almost impossible to wrest ownership, and consider themselves unfree??

I reminded our new friend that in America you really never own anything, as the government/banks always reserve the fine print rights to take away from you the ownership if the contract ever goes awry or various tax/ownership payments are not made on time - into perpetuity.

In the US is is truly not possible to ever own property without consistent and continual payment to the taxing authorities forever. They can, and will, put you out into the street.

I find the the definition of 'freedom' and 'ownership' to be very different dependent on culture and perception. What do you think?


I think you are totally right. Once you pay off the note you still will pay tax until the day you die and then your kids will pay more tax because you died and left it to them. All this tax will be spent on killing other people in whichever county the US government has decided is "undemocratic"

Benedikt
21-08-2016, 02:16
My bad; I did not break down my logic fully:
it's amusing that the Russian expat finds his adopted country freer yet feels the need to hide capital gains from the US tax authorities.


indeed, and moan and complain in every second sentence how bad everything here is, no English is spoken, one can not read the street or Metro signs because all is in russian language, coffee is outrageous expensive or dishwater. everything is smothered in dill,mayo and sour cream. and the locals drink Vodka like fish and chew their stinking Wobla. what a bad country Russia is. or great compared to the USA, all over sudden?

nicklcool
21-08-2016, 07:50
Yes they do. Even old, sick people who just owe $1000 in taxes. Or someone who didn't cut their grass short enough and must be heavily fined until they lose their house.

TR Wally has let raw emotion cloud hos thinking again; the way properties can be taken are by foreclosure (not paying the mortgage for a REALLY long time), or by tax lien (not paying your taxes for a REALLY long time). Where is the immorality in these two situations, when the homeowner made multiple ill advised financial decisions over a long period of time?

rusmeister
21-08-2016, 08:21
TR Wally has let raw emotion cloud hos thinking again; the way properties can be taken are by foreclosure (not paying the mortgage for a REALLY long time), or by tax lien (not paying your taxes for a REALLY long time). Where is the immorality in these two situations, when the homeowner made multiple ill advised financial decisions over a long period of time?
With the mortgage, I'm more inclined to agree that it's not necessarily immoral, and people actually making bad decisions should have to bear the responsibility. But taxes are whatever the rulers want them to be, and are outside of the control of the homeowner.

Uncle Wally
21-08-2016, 09:40
TR Wally has let raw emotion cloud hos thinking again; the way properties can be taken are by foreclosure (not paying the mortgage for a REALLY long time), or by tax lien (not paying your taxes for a REALLY long time). Where is the immorality in these two situations, when the homeowner made multiple ill advised financial decisions over a long period of time?



What is a really long time?

nicklcool
21-08-2016, 09:43
With the mortgage, I'm more inclined to agree that it's not necessarily immoral, and people actually making bad decisions should have to bear the responsibility. But taxes are whatever the rulers want them to be, and are outside of the control of the homeowner.

Thank you Rus, I should have added the third option for confiscation of real estate: emminent domain. I am by no means an expert on this, but as I understand our Supreme Court made an outrageous ruling recently authorizing the government to take your property if you do not do the minimal upkeep.

But sadly in this one Russia and the USA come to a draw: with the illegal seizure of property in Moscow this past winter with all those "samostroi" buildings, Russia showed that its government holds emminent domain powwrs, too :/

nicklcool
21-08-2016, 09:48
What is a really long time?

Good point Wally, I know for a fact that with mortgages it's not like you lose your house after one missed payment. With all the regulations and shortsales, foreclosure auctions, etc. it's probably at least six months before you're kicked to the curb.

With tax liens I also imagine you won't lose your house after only a few missed payments, especially since property taxes are paid through escrow by your mortgage company semi-annually, and the cost of tax lien auctions is probably too high to justify action afyer only a few missed tax payments.

But if there are any real estate tax experts who know these topics better, please fill me in.

TolkoRaz
21-08-2016, 11:03
TR Wally has let raw emotion cloud hos thinking again; the way properties can be taken are by foreclosure (not paying the mortgage for a REALLY long time), or by tax lien (not paying your taxes for a REALLY long time). Where is the immorality in these two situations, when the homeowner made multiple ill advised financial decisions over a long period of time?

That is clearer, but what happens to the children, weak, ill or elderly in these cases?

annasophia
21-08-2016, 14:29
To the conversation -

There are many ways in the US in which various government agencies can take your home or your land. Personally, I have owned two properties which were taken over in different ways, I suppose to some degree I still *owned* them, but government controlled what I could do with my property and assessed taxes at their pleasure. I could either pay up or lose it.

One property was "forcibly annexed" by a nearby municipality. Once they did that I was severely restricted by city regulations as to how I could live on my property, and of course I was then subject to an extra city tax which they arbitrarily assessed, and which I hadn't been subject to before.

Another time in another place the county board of Planning and Zoning took it upon themselves to rezone my property, without notifying me and without my permission. I literally had NO rights and no say in the matter - they never even notified me of this plan to rezone, I heard about it from the neighbors. By the time they were done zoning and rezoning MY LAND without my permission I was left with a severely restricted property on which the taxes quadrupled due to the new zoning designation.

They don't need eminent domain to steal your property, there are plenty of other ways.

----------------

There are a plethora of other property theft scams the various US government authorities can use, and do. As a matter of course.

A comparative case in point -

} My mother became elderly and very ill requiring 24 hour care. In order to get this care her husband was forced to apply for state administered Medicaid. In order to qualify for Medicaid the recipient[s] could not possess more than $2,000 in total assets. Both of them over 80 years old, he was forced by the state of Kansas to sign over the title to his house and an old car to the state. He had to provide bank statements going back 5 years and declare any asset they possessed; personal property, investments, savings, everything in order to qualify. My mother died, and the state took possession of their all of their assets for her year+ care. Her husband now has nothing, the state took everything including their little 4 room house. A lifetime of working and paying taxes in America it wasn't enough, the government seized everything in payment for this end of life care.

} My downstairs neighbor here is a German lady whose mother died in Frankfurt last year. Her mother in her 80's received 24 hour end of life care in Germany throughout her illness at nominal cost. When she passed my neighbor inherited ALL of her mother's assets - car, apartment, investments, bank accounts. The German state did NOT seize all of the ill citizens assets in the last days of her care, her property was passed on in total to the descendant.

The US government is rapacious in stealing the wealth of the citizens and has created a multitude of legalized fraud and extortion schemes to confiscate the wealth of the the youth trying to get an education, property owners who have virtually no ownership of their property, all the way to end of life care where anything that's left is hijacked.

There's some 'freedom' for you right there.

natlee
21-08-2016, 14:43
:nut:

Russian Lad
21-08-2016, 15:25
So, Anna, would you like your old parents to live on the Russian pension of 130 dollars per month here in Russia (hundreds of thousands of Russian pensioners live like that) while paying 50-70 dollars for their utilities from this amount (forget about any real medical care, no money-no honey)? I see Russian pensioners daily in grocery stores, many are counting coins with shaking sinewy hands to buy bread and milk (some are lining up outside for cheaper milk, huge lines of old, beaten by life and the system people, animal-like despair and hunger in their Russian eyes). If you fail in the US I assure you will will fail here with the multiplier of 1000. Welcome to reality, dear.:) There is no such thing as free lunch, there are actions and decisions we take in our lives and there are possible remunerations and consequences. Even in the developed countries like the US...
And when the Russian pensioners complain to the government saying they are starving and cannot live on this type of pensions, the Russian government (the head of the Russian goverment, in fact) tells them: "There is no money for you, but you hold on here, we wish you good health." Ref.:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSq7oxM_fyo

Gervais
21-08-2016, 22:43
I'm quite amused that the question "freedom" is linked to property ownership... but so be it.

Russia is one of the countries in the world with a vast (!) amount of laws, regulations and beaurocracy. However almost everybody tries to circumvent them, flexibly interpret them or straight away ignore them. Know the rules how to properly properly break them. This is a phenomenon from normal citizens, companies and even worse - courts and judges. Almost everybody seeks it's own good by taking the "freedom" to make for his own best.
This however I wont call "freedom" but rather uncertainty, instability. And yes... there are other countries in the world too. And yes... I have real life examples of it almost on a daily base.

In lack of a stable and relibale social security and pension system a lot of people seek wealth and security in property.

I'm no expert of the US (property) law, but at least for western european economies there are also laws, regulations and beaurocracy. However these rules are widely enforced with little means for interpretation and they are rather stable. If you take a loan and buy a property, for the next years you know exactly your financial burden. If you can't afford it leave it ! It's not that the state or the banks just by "will" take away houses. If you fail to pay... you gonne leave. Whether you're a wealthy young chap, an old pensioner, doesn't matter. This might not be freedom and wealthy people might find ways but it is a certain stability and certainty.

A Russian friend of mine immigrated to Canada three years ago with no major funds on a limited 3-year contract. She wanted to buy property and despite my advise to NOT buy it, she wouldn't listen and bought an apartment much too big. She can now hardly afford the loan installments and is "surprised" by the taxes she has to pay and additional reserves for building maintenance. She is now bound with an apartment which she can ahrdly afford and is endangered to might leave the country once she losses the job... typical Russian approach and she once even complained that she can't "do" anything about taxes, installments and residence permit (i.e. bribe somebody...)

She too mixed up "freedom" with the rule of law and regulations.

Gervais
21-08-2016, 22:51
} My downstairs neighbor here is a German lady whose mother died in Frankfurt last year. Her mother in her 80's received 24 hour end of life care in Germany throughout her illness at nominal cost. When she passed my neighbor inherited ALL of her mother's assets - car, apartment, investments, bank accounts. The German state did NOT seize all of the ill citizens assets in the last days of her care, her property was passed on in total to the descendant.



That's called a "welfare state" or socalled "social economy" and the reason, why the average German pays around 35% of it's income as taxes and social funds - a rate that in most other countries (among them USA AND Russia) people couldn't imagine and are not willing to pay but rather rely on their own. That's good as long as you're young and healthy but fires back when you're sick and / or old. The current president of the US tried to gradually change this with mandatory health insurance and had to fight very hard (!) to convince people. Both the US and Russia are countries for young, healthy, smart and or ruthless people. If you're not... you're doomed.

TolkoRaz
21-08-2016, 22:56
Freedom linked to house ownership? :confused:

I do not understand that!

Owning a flat or house is like being shackled to one place paying utilities, taxes, mortgage, loans, maintenance bills etc.

Freedom is the ability to move or relocate without any hesitation or restraints. Living on a boat, one can up anchor and move on, Bedouins can dismantle their tents and move through the desert freely, the homeless can move onto the next park bench and those living on the great Steppes can saddle up and move on to the next tranquil place with ease....... that is freedom.

natlee
21-08-2016, 23:15
Freedom linked to house ownership? :confused:

I do not understand that!

Owning a flat or house is like being shackled to one place paying utilities, taxes, mortgage, loans, maintenance bills etc.

Freedom is the ability to move or relocate without any hesitation or restraints. Living on a boat, one can up anchor and move on, Bedouins can dismantle their tents and move through the desert freely, the homeless can move onto the next park bench and those living on the great Steppes can saddle up and move on to the next tranquil place with ease....... that is freedom. Don't be sad - sell the house! ;)

Russian Lad
21-08-2016, 23:48
Don't be sad - sell the house! ;)

I agree with that. Besides, just think about the other new opportunities - you will be able to find a new woman in each city you visit as a newly converted bedouin. You can be using Russian dating sites (http://www.russian4bride.com) to secure dates in advance. You arrive and there are already a few women waiting for you downtown, clamorous for flowers, a refreshing lunch and nocturnal attention to their love-tormented souls and intimacy-craving bodies.:)

rusmeister
22-08-2016, 05:28
Freedom linked to house ownership? :confused:

I do not understand that!

Owning a flat or house is like being shackled to one place paying utilities, taxes, mortgage, loans, maintenance bills etc.

Freedom is the ability to move or relocate without any hesitation or restraints. Living on a boat, one can up anchor and move on, Bedouins can dismantle their tents and move through the desert freely, the homeless can move onto the next park bench and those living on the great Steppes can saddle up and move on to the next tranquil place with ease....... that is freedom.

So says the man who has a comfortable home to go to after saying it.

"But of all the modern notions generated by mere wealth the worst is this: the notion that domesticity is dull and tame. Inside the home (they say) is dead decorum and routine; outside is adventure and variety. This is indeed a rich man's opinion. The rich man knows that his own house moves on vast and soundless wheels of wealth, is run by regiments of servants, by a swift and silent ritual. On the other hand, every sort of vagabondage of romance is open to him in the streets outside. He has plenty of money and can afford to be a tramp. His wildest adventure will end in a restaurant, while the yokel's tamest adventure may end in a police-court. If he smashes a window he can pay for it; if he smashes a man he can pension him. He can (like the millionaire in the story) buy an hotel to get a glass of gin. And because he, the luxurious man, dictates the tone of nearly all "advanced" and "progressive" thought, we have almost forgotten what a home really means to the overwhelming millions of mankind.

For the truth is, that to the moderately poor the home is the only place of liberty. Nay, it is the only place of anarchy. It is the only spot on the earth where a man can alter arrangements suddenly, make an experiment or indulge in a whim. Everywhere else he goes he must accept the strict rules of the shop, inn, club, or museum that he happens to enter. He can eat his meals on the floor in his own house if he likes. I often do it myself; it gives a curious, childish, poetic, picnic feeling. There would be considerable trouble if I tried to do it in an A.B.C. tea-shop. A man can wear a dressing gown and slippers in his house; while I am sure that this would not be permitted at the Savoy, though I never actually tested the point. If you go to a restaurant you must drink some of the wines on the wine list, all of them if you insist, but certainly some of them. But if you have a house and garden you can try to make hollyhock tea or convolvulus wine if you like. For a plain, hard-working man the home is not the one tame place in the world of adventure. It is the one wild place in the world of rules and set tasks. The home is the one place where he can put the carpet on the ceiling or the slates on the floor if he wants to. When a man spends every night staggering from bar to bar or from music-hall to music-hall, we say that he is living an irregular life. But he is not; he is living a highly regular life, under the dull, and often oppressive, laws of such places. Some times he is not allowed even to sit down in the bars; and frequently he is not allowed to sing in the music-halls. Hotels may be defined as places where you are forced to dress; and theaters may be defined as places where you are forbidden to smoke. A man can only picnic at home."
http://www.gkc.org.uk/gkc/books/whats_wrong.html
Pt One, ch VIII, "The Wildness of Domesticity"

Uncle Wally
22-08-2016, 06:04
Don't be sad - sell the house! ;)


Not as easy as you think now a days in the US. There is still the small fact that many owe more to the bank than their house is worth.

Gervais
22-08-2016, 07:40
A comparative case in point -

} My mother became elderly and very ill requiring 24 hour care. In order to get this care her husband was forced to apply for state administered Medicaid. In order to qualify for Medicaid the recipient[s] could not possess more than $2,000 in total assets. Both of them over 80 years old, he was forced by the state of Kansas to sign over the title to his house and an old car to the state. He had to provide bank statements going back 5 years and declare any asset they possessed; personal property, investments, savings, everything in order to qualify. My mother died, and the state took possession of their all of their assets for her year+ care. Her husband now has nothing, the state took everything including their little 4 room house. A lifetime of working and paying taxes in America it wasn't enough, the government seized everything in payment for this end of life care.



Sad story if true. Are you sure it was "the government" or some privately funded insurance / health care company ?

Gervais
22-08-2016, 07:45
Not as easy as you think now a days in the US. There is still the small fact that many owe more to the bank than their house is worth.

Very ill advised financing then and most probably due to the fact that loads of financing was 100% (i.e. no partly equity based financing).
Similar sad stories in Russia though, especially the ones where people took up USD loans to enjoy lower interest rates... Now they are stuck with hard currency USD loans, while the value of the house is in RUB which has lost 50% of it's value purely due to the stumbling RUB and the major downturn of the property market in Russia

nicklcool
22-08-2016, 10:27
So, Anna, would you like your old parents to live on the Russian pension of 130 dollars per month here in Russia (hundreds of thousands of Russian pensioners live like that) while paying 50-70 dollars for their utilities from this amount (forget about any real medical care, no money-no honey)? I see Russian pensioners daily in grocery stores, many are counting coins with shaking sinewy hands to buy bread and milk (some are lining up outside for cheaper milk, huge lines of old, beaten by life and the system people, animal-like despair and hunger in their Russian eyes). If you fail in the US I assure you will will fail here with the multiplier of 1000. Welcome to reality, dear.:) There is no such thing as free lunch, there are actions and decisions we take in our lives and there are possible remunerations and consequences. Even in the developed countries like the US...
And when the Russian pensioners complain to the government saying they are starving and cannot live on this type of pensions, the Russian government (the head of the Russian goverment, in fact) tells them: "There is no money for you, but you hold on here, we wish you good health." Ref.:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSq7oxM_fyo

As I said before, the short documentary "Status Anxiety" does a great job balancing the arguments of helping the poor and elderly yet accepting that America offers incredible opportunity and freedom to pursue the level of economic success that one has the drive to achieve.

But for the most part RL is right; our sympathy is more deserved by the Russian pensiorers who had the carpet pulled out from under them, than the American poor and elderly who "won the birth lottery" and had incredible opportunity to pick themselves up by their bootstraps.
The sympathy should be applied irrespective of situational ethics, but if you're going to apply them, RL is right, Russia's pensioners and poor are more deserving.

nicklcool
22-08-2016, 10:37
I'm quite amused that the question "freedom" is linked to property ownership... but so be it.

Great post but when I say private/personal property rights I mean property as in possessions (priimuzhestvo), not just real estate (The OP's example specifically referred to real estate; yes). Locke and other European and American philosophers write really convincing stuff about the inextricable link between personal property rights and freedom.

For now, this is why America is the "freest" country- it has the strongest personal property rights, which inevitably make some other aspects of life seem less "free."

All in all, thank you annasophia for introducing such an interesting topic of conversation!

annasophia
22-08-2016, 10:43
Sad story if true. Are you sure it was "the government" or some privately funded insurance / health care company ?

Medicaid.

Medicaid is a health care 'system' for children, the elderly, and the poor which is administered by each state and is funded by a combination of state taxes and federal funding.

Now, that combined funding goes to pay private for-profit health care institutions.....

In order to qualify for Medicaid the recipient cannot possess more than $2,000 in total assets. Anything above that $2,000 limit will be seized by the state for payment of services. Failure to turn over any asset above that limit will disqualify the recipient from Medicaid and care will be denied. Period.

In layman's terms it's called asset seizure.

We also now have another set of parents in their late 80's going through the same thing. They are well beyond taking care of themselves but cannot seem to qualify for state Medicaid because of some kind of life insurance policy somewhere that puts them over the $2,000 asset limit. (still being worked out)

If this kind of asset stripping for end of life care for citizens who served their country, paid their taxes for a lifetime, and raised their families honorably is *freedom* - I just don't know how much more free we can get.

$0.00?

Uncle Wally
22-08-2016, 11:00
Very ill advised financing then and most probably due to the fact that loads of financing was 100% (i.e. no partly equity based financing).
Similar sad stories in Russia though, especially the ones where people took up USD loans to enjoy lower interest rates... Now they are stuck with hard currency USD loans, while the value of the house is in RUB which has lost 50% of it's value purely due to the stumbling RUB and the major downturn of the property market in Russia



Some of it was because of 100% financing and then the market crash which sent all home prices falling. That's what happens when people buy homes not to live in but to make money. It sends home prices up to unrealistic values.

Uncle Wally
22-08-2016, 11:05
Great post but when I say private/personal property rights I mean property as in possessions (priimuzhestvo), not just real estate (The OP's example specifically referred to real estate; yes). Locke and other European and American philosophers write really convincing stuff about the inextricable link between personal property rights and freedom.

For now, this is why America is the "freest" country- it has the strongest personal property rights, which inevitably make some other aspects of life seem less "free."

All in all, thank you annasophia for introducing such an interesting topic of conversation!



Try not cutting your gr**** or growing food, collecting rain water, disconnecting from the power grid, painting your house purple, building a tree house for your kids or a wall too high.

nicklcool
22-08-2016, 13:06
. Both the US and Russia are countries for young, healthy, smart and or ruthless people. If you're not... you're doomed.

Gervais what an awesome observation!!! Definitely these two countries are for "makers" not takers." :D
....but, I would say driven, not ruthless. The pie is of unlimited suze- it us not a zero sum game - so if I am driven and become very [economically] successful, this does not limit a fellow American's access to success.

Please tell all our American Hillary and Johnson voters that there are plenty of options for them if America is not far enough to the left on the socialist/free market capitalism scale for them!! But quit sabotaging the free market capitalism in America; unlike for socialists there are not many other options for this group should America be successfully fundamentally transformed :'(

rusmeister
22-08-2016, 17:41
Gervais what an awesome observation!!! Definitely these two countries are for "makers" not takers." :D
....but, I would say driven, not ruthless. The pie is of unlimited suze- it us not a zero sum game - so if I am driven and become very [economically] successful, this does not limit a fellow American's access to success.

Please tell all our American Hillary and Johnson voters that there are plenty of options for them if America is not far enough to the left on the socialist/free market capitalism scale for them!! But quit sabotaging the free market capitalism in America; unlike for socialists there are not many other options for this group should America be successfully fundamentally transformed :'(
I'm curious, NC, do you think that the only alternative to capitalism is socialism, and vice-versa?

Uncle Wally
22-08-2016, 18:53
Gervais what an awesome observation!!! Definitely these two countries are for "makers" not takers." :D
....but, I would say driven, not ruthless. The pie is of unlimited suze- it us not a zero sum game - so if I am driven and become very [economically] successful, this does not limit a fellow American's access to success.

Please tell all our American Hillary and Johnson voters that there are plenty of options for them if America is not far enough to the left on the socialist/free market capitalism scale for them!! But quit sabotaging the free market capitalism in America; unlike for socialists there are not many other options for this group should America be successfully fundamentally transformed :'(




Your American capitalism is destroying the earth. The need for quick profits without thinking of future generations will destroy the human race.

Uncle Wally
22-08-2016, 18:57
Very ill advised financing then and most probably due to the fact that loads of financing was 100% (i.e. no partly equity based financing).
Similar sad stories in Russia though, especially the ones where people took up USD loans to enjoy lower interest rates... Now they are stuck with hard currency USD loans, while the value of the house is in RUB which has lost 50% of it's value purely due to the stumbling RUB and the major downturn of the property market in Russia



I would like to add that many people who took out home loans fooled into thinking they would be able to afford them. Then these loans were quickly sold off with an AAA rating when the banks selling knew they weren't. You should really look into what happened because there is a lot more to it.



Here this might help you understand,


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GPOv72Awo68

Gervais
22-08-2016, 19:04
I'm curious, NC, do you think that the only alternative to capitalism is socialism, and vice-versa?

Not sure what NC thinks, but I think there is a middle way.
1st I would say that both Russia and the US are very capitaistic countries - Russia right now even more than the US... :)
2nd There is no real socialst country (in the most pure form of definition) in the world right now. North Korea maybe... maybe Cuba...

There are a lot of countries, especially in the EU with have a big portion of socialist ideas in their system but are clearly inbetween - some more - some less. Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, France. The concepts in all these countries have their flaws and need adjustments every now and then if population structure changes or cost go overboard or future is endangered, but overall it's working rather decent.

Gervais
22-08-2016, 19:07
Your American capitalism is destroying the earth. The need for quick profits without thinking of future generations will destroy the human race.

You forgot to mention the Russian capitalism... :D :D :D or any other "turbo capitalism" - China for example. Don't trust too much on the labels which are stuck on these economies but rather look at the content.

Gervais
22-08-2016, 19:13
I would like to add that many people who took out home loans fooled into thinking they would be able to afford them. Then these loans were quickly sold off with an A rating when the banks selling knew they weren't. You should really look into what happened because there is a lot more to it.

I'm well aware of the real estate bubble reasons and effects. Same happened in Spain a couple of decades ago... regardless of where it happens - it was clearly "ill advised".
Buying a property is rather simple math's with very few uncertainties in terms of property value. Never finance 100% ! Never finance in foreign currency ! Fix the interest for as long as possible (ideally over the whole period of financing terms) ! Don't forget utilities, maintenance and taxes ! Never spend more than 40% of your income on property financing ! If available get a health / disability / life insurance ! Never calculate financing longer than your legal working life !
It's boring but it's secure... the German approach. If you can't fullfill this - leave it ! :D

Uncle Wally
22-08-2016, 19:13
You forgot to mention the Russian capitalism... :D :D :D or any other "turbo capitalism" - China for example. Don't trust too much on the labels which are stuck on these economies but rather look at the content.



I give Russia more credit because they haven't been at as long.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GPOv72Awo68



I posted that in an edit you might have missed

nicklcool
22-08-2016, 19:49
I'm curious, NC, do you think that the only alternative to capitalism is socialism, and vice-versa?

It's a sliding scale of course, with socialism way over on the right and free market capitalism to the far left, and many gradients in between. Like with many topics economic systems are not pure polar opposites, their are variations in between, but our language lends itself to expression in extremities, doesn't it?

Best info graphic I ever saw was in the ninth grade; our social studies teacher showed us a semi-circle chart: dark red and "order" on the right, dark blue and "freedom" on the left, with the shades of red/blue getting lighter as they meet in the middle. So the more order you have to protect private property rights the more "freedom" you lose, but without enough protection you move towards anarchy (think wild wild west capitalism), and that really isn't freedom either, it's just survival of the fittest. The other interesting deduction from the info graphic is the extremists on both sides need a facism of sorts to maintain their respective societies, and thereby institute repression and kill freedom in the process.

Uncle Wally
22-08-2016, 19:59
It's a sliding scale of course, with socialism way over on the right and free market capitalism to the far left, and many gradients in between. Like with many topics economic systems are not pure polar opposites, their are variations in between, but our language lends itself to expression in extremities, doesn't it?

Best info graphic I ever saw was in the ninth grade; our social studies teacher showed us a semi-circle chart: dark red and "order" on the right, dark blue and "freedom" on the left, with the shades of red/blue getting lighter as they meet in the middle. So the more order you have to protect private property rights the more "freedom" you lose, but without enough protection you move towards anarchy (think wild wild west capitalism), and that really isn't freedom either, it's just survival of the fittest. The other interesting deduction from the info graphic is the extremists on both sides need a facism of sorts to maintain their respective societies, and thereby institute repression and kill freedom in the process.




So when are rich people and politicians going to be held accountable? We're waiting.

nicklcool
22-08-2016, 20:00
Your American capitalism is destroying the earth. The need for quick profits without thinking of future generations will destroy the human race.

How has/will capitalism destroy the earth, when it brought us (fill in your favorite comfortable, convenient, efficiency increasing invention)?? Under what pretext can you claim the capitalist produced BMW is worse for society than the Trabant?

Your comment is illogical and rooted in emotional leftist logic. Sorry :"

Maybe you and the human race owe capitalism a thank you instead of casting your scorn upon it ;)

Uncle Wally
22-08-2016, 20:01
This guy must be super "free" but why would you need so much and how if we're all doing so bad did he get it? http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-22/bill-gates-s-net-worth-hits-record-high-of-90-billion-chart

nicklcool
22-08-2016, 20:08
So when are rich people and politicians going to be held accountable? We're waiting.

Accountable for what? Rich people, if they play by the rules (hint hint this includes Trump's rextructurings aka nankruptcies), should NOT be hung in the town square.

Politicians should be term-limited, all of them, and the pay and perks should be enormously cut to cleanse the system of these leeches. But Trump the non-politician is being devoured by the leeches/parasites who need the system to cobtinue unabated and the people are buying into it so when they elect the insider we will get the government we deserve :\

nicklcool
22-08-2016, 20:17
This guy must be super "free" but why would you need so much and how if we're all doing so bad did he get it? http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-22/bill-gates-s-net-worth-hits-record-high-of-90-billion-chart

How much is too much? And to ask the question in response to the inevitable next solution, how high of a tax rate is too high? ;)

Bill Gates created a product(s) that many millions of people use and gain utility (value/happiness) from, and I would rather those people determine how much income is enough than the government.

Russian Lad
22-08-2016, 20:42
Bill Gates created a product(s)

A Russian anecdote about Bill Gates:
Two Russian oligarchs sit in a restaurant, one is reading a Western article about Bill Gates success story and says:
- You know, Misha, we started off in the nineties just like Bill Gates, in a little garage and with nothing but a soldering tool!
- How true, Vasiliy, but don't forget that we also had a press-iron...

bydand
22-08-2016, 20:42
So when are rich people and politicians going to be held accountable? We're waiting.

In Russia? America?

What's the difference Wally?

What are "we" waiting for?

I'm not waiting, I'm doing something, you just complain?

All rhetorical questions Wally, I know you can't answer coherently/truthfully. A broken record. OK, tell me how I'm a Mass Media junkie again....

bydand
22-08-2016, 20:45
A Russian anecdote about Bill Gates:
Two Russian oligarchs sit in a restaurant, one is reading a Western article about Bill Gates success story and says:
- You know, Misha, we started off in the nineties just like Bill Gates, in a little garage and with nothing but a soldering tool!
- How true, Vasiliy, but don't forget that we also had a press-iron...

That's why Russia makes the largest microprocessor in the world?:winking:

Uncle Wally
22-08-2016, 21:24
How much is too much? And to ask the question in response to the inevitable next solution, how high of a tax rate is too high? ;)

Bill Gates created a product(s) that many millions of people use and gain utility (value/happiness) from, and I would rather those people determine how much income is enough than the government.




I am writing this on a Bill Gates phone.


It not how much someone makes it's how much they exploit the world we all have to live in and that is where government comes in. You will remember Bill Gates got sued for what he did at Microsoft. He is probably the main reason why we have so few OS to choose from. Look the richest people pay politicians to make laws or in some cases not make laws to help them. What the bankers got away with in 2008 should prove that they can wreck the lives of millions of people and get away with it. How many bankers went to jail? What are will still faced with today? I am pretty sure you don't understand how much technology has been thrown away just because it will only help all of us and not just the few. How many medical discovers have been made that could save people but could also upset the medical industry? Look you might be a nice guy and care for your fellow humans but I am sure the super rich do not. It doesn't jib with corporate profits. If you have time,

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xHrhqtY2khc

AstarD
22-08-2016, 21:28
That is clearer, but what happens to the children, weak, ill or elderly in these cases?They become homeless. Just like in Russia.

Russian Lad
23-08-2016, 00:03
It not how much someone makes it's how much they exploit the world we all have to live in and that is where government comes in. You will remember Bill Gates got sued for what he did at Microsoft. He is probably the main reason why we have so few OS to choose from. Look the richest people pay politicians to make laws or in some cases not make laws to help them. What the bankers got away with in 2008 should prove that they can wreck the lives of millions of people and get away with it. How many bankers went to jail? What are will still faced with today? I am pretty sure you don't understand how much technology has been thrown away just because it will only help all of us and not just the few. How many medical discovers have been made that could save people but could also upset the medical industry? Look you might be a nice guy and care for your fellow humans but I am sure the super rich do not. It doesn't jib with corporate profits. If you have time,

Blah-blah-blah. How many Russian OS do you know? Even Internet was invented in the US. All they can do here is prohibit stuff.

30385

Uncle Wally
23-08-2016, 07:11
Blah-blah-blah. How many Russian OS do you know? Even Internet was invented in the US. All they can do here is prohibit stuff.

30385




The internet started in1993. What was happening in Russia at the time?

rusmeister
23-08-2016, 07:50
Not sure what NC thinks, but I think there is a middle way.
1st I would say that both Russia and the US are very capitaistic countries - Russia right now even more than the US... :)
2nd There is no real socialst country (in the most pure form of definition) in the world right now. North Korea maybe... maybe Cuba...

There are a lot of countries, especially in the EU with have a big portion of socialist ideas in their system but are clearly inbetween - some more - some less. Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, France. The concepts in all these countries have their flaws and need adjustments every now and then if population structure changes or cost go overboard or future is endangered, but overall it's working rather decent.


It's a sliding scale of course, with socialism way over on the right and free market capitalism to the far left, and many gradients in between. Like with many topics economic systems are not pure polar opposites, their are variations in between, but our language lends itself to expression in extremities, doesn't it?

Best info graphic I ever saw was in the ninth grade; our social studies teacher showed us a semi-circle chart: dark red and "order" on the right, dark blue and "freedom" on the left, with the shades of red/blue getting lighter as they meet in the middle. So the more order you have to protect private property rights the more "freedom" you lose, but without enough protection you move towards anarchy (think wild wild west capitalism), and that really isn't freedom either, it's just survival of the fittest. The other interesting deduction from the info graphic is the extremists on both sides need a facism of sorts to maintain their respective societies, and thereby institute repression and kill freedom in the process.


The short answer to my question for both of you seems to be "yes" (there are only two economic systems). If the conception, even of a sliding scale or a "middle between" - which are the same thing, both expressing either more or less degrees of concepts considered capitalist and socialist, then those are the only concepts in your mind. Thinking of mixes of the two, or degrees, doesn't change that.

I really think there really is another way, that doesn't consist of sliding scales, mixes or middle-betweens, that is fundamentally different from both. But the chief problem is definition of terms and what we think "capitalism" and "socialism" are. If "capitalism", for instance, means, "anything involving the use of capital", then there is nothing that is not capitalism, for even a socialist society uses capital. So that's not a workable definition. Just appealing to a dictionary doesn't help, either, as no thinking about the nature of things is really involved.

(And yes, I am deliberately not finishing my thought, for a reason. We have to think and talk through the nature of these things, rather than assuming everyone knows what we mean and shares the same understandings. We don't.)

Uncle Wally
23-08-2016, 09:40
Not all homeless people are crazy.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/i-wasnt-crazy-a-homeless-womans-long-war-to-prove-the-feds-owe-her-100000/2016/08/22/3913e4c2-6541-11e6-8b27-bb8ba39497a2_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_dvorak-1230pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

nicklcool
23-08-2016, 19:45
(And yes, I am deliberately not finishing my thought, for a reason. We have to think and talk through the nature of these things, rather than assuming everyone knows what we mean and shares the same understandings. We don't.)

Rus, I did not employ a dictionary or Google the terms, but I think socialism and capitalism are pretty well defined terms from a political economics point of view.

However I agree with your point that resolution of debate is increasingly impossible because we cannot agree on the basic meaning of the terms involved in the debate. I.e., as in with Logic (mathematical/philosophical), if you cannot agree on the values of A and B, how can you possibly debate whether A + B = C or D?? ;)

FatAndy
23-08-2016, 22:54
All they can do here is prohibit stuff.
30385
What UK authorities can do, prohibit too? What Theresa May can answer on idiotic question above?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/snoopers-charter-spy-gchq-mi5-bulk-collection-a7199026.html

Frenchies and that territory occupied by US - too:
http://www.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/2016/08/23/terrorisme-pour-contourner-le-chiffrement-des-messages-bernard-cazeneuve-en-appelle-a-l-europe_4986897_4408996.html

Whazzzup? Long arms of Darkest one and Yarovaya?

Stalinizzzm is waking up in Europe? :D L'alla as sayah...

rusmeister
24-08-2016, 07:50
Rus, I did not employ a dictionary or Google the terms, but I think socialism and capitalism are pretty well defined terms from a political economics point of view.

However I agree with your point that resolution of debate is increasingly impossible because we cannot agree on the basic meaning of the terms involved in the debate. I.e., as in with Logic (mathematical/philosophical), if you cannot agree on the values of A and B, how can you possibly debate whether A + B = C or D?? ;)

Thanks, but I say they are badly defined. The better a person thinks, the better they can define things, even using their own brains, as the first compilers of dictionaries in various languages did (Dr Samuel Johnson, for instance). And thinking and education have been downgrading along with the general dumbing down of the population for quite some time.

It was when I read Hilaire Belloc that I really saw a razor-like mind that could define like a Vulcan, so to speak. I'll mak my next post an offering of rational definitions.

rusmeister
24-08-2016, 07:51
From Belloc's "The Servile State":
"SECTION ONE DEFINITIONS SECTION THE FIRST DEFINITIONS MAN, LIKE EVERY OTHER ORGANISM, can only live by the transformation of his environment to his own use. He must transform his environment from a condition where it is less to a condition where it is more subservient to his needs. That special, conscious,and intelligent transformation of his environment which is peculiar to the peculiar intelligence and creative faculty of man we call the Production of Wealth. Wealth is matter which has been consciously and intelligently transformed from a condition in which it is less to a condition in which it is more serviceable to a human need. Without Wealth man cannot exist. The production of it is a necessity to him, and though it proceeds from the more to the less necessary, and even to those forms of production which we call luxuries, yet in any given human society there is a certain fo'ndand a certain amount of wealth without which human life cannot be lived : as, for instance, in England to-day, certain forms of cooked and elaborately prepared food, clothing, warmth, and habitation. Therefore, to control the production of wealth is to control human life itself. To refuse man the opportunity for the production of wealth is to refuse him the opportunity for life; and, in general, the way in which the production of wealth is by law permitted is the only way in which the citizens can legally exist, ii THE SERVILE STATE Wealth can only be produced by the application of human energy, mental and physical, to the forces of nature around us, and to the material which those forces inform. This human energy so applicable to the material world and its forces we will call Labour. As for that material and those natural forces, we will call them, for the sake of shortness, by the narrow, but conventionally accepted, term Land. It would seem, therefore, that all problems connected with the production of wealth, and all discussion thereupon, involve but two principal original factors, to wit, Labour and Land, But it so happens that the conscious, artificial, and intelligent action of man upon nature, corresponding to his peculiar character compared with other created beings, introduces a third factor of the utmost importance. Man proceeds to create wealth by ingenious methods of varying and often increasing complexity, and aids himself by the construction of implements. These soon become in each new department of the production as truly necessary to that production as labour and land. Further, any process of production takes a certain time; during that time the producer must be fed, and clothed, and housed,and the rest of it. There must therefore be an accumulation of wealth created in the past, and reserved with the object of maintaining labour during its effort to produce for the future. DEFINITIONS Whether it be the making of an instrument or tool, or the setting aside of a store of provisions, labour applied to land for either purpose is not producing wealth for immediate consumption. It is setting aside and reserving somewhat, and that somewhat is always necessary in varying proportions according to the simplicity or complexity of the economic society to the production of wealth. To such wealth reserved and set aside for the purposes of future production, and not for immediate consumption, whether it be in the form of instruments and tools, or in the form of stores for the maintenance of labour during the process of production, we give the name of Capital. There are thus three factors in the production of all human wealth, which we may conventionally term Land, Capital, and Labour. When we talk of the Means of Production we signify land and capital combined. Thus, when we say that a man is " dispossessed of the means of production," or cannot produce wealth save by the leave of another who "possesses the means of production," we mean that he is the master only of his labour and has no control, in any useful amount, over either capital, or land, or both combined. A man politically free, that is, one who enjoys the right before the law to exercise his energies when he pleases (or not at all if he does not so please), 13 THE SERVILE STATE but not possessed by legal right of control over any useful amount of the means of production, we call proletarian, and any considerable class composed of such men we call a proletariat. Property is a term used for that arrangement in society whereby the control of land and of wealth made from land, including therefore all the means of production, is vested in some person or corporation. Thus we may say of a building, including the land upon which it stands, that it is the " property " of such and such a citizen, or family, or college, or of the State, meaning that those who " own " such property are guaranteed by the laws in the right to use it or withhold it from use. Private property signifies such wealth (including the means of production) as may, by the arrangements of society, be % in the control of persons or corporations other than the political bodies of which these persons or corporations are in another aspect members. What distinguishes private property is not that the possessor thereof is less than the State, or is only a part of the State (for were that so we should talk of municipal property as private property), but rather that the owner may exercise his control over it to his own advantage, and not as a trustee for society, nor in the hierarchy of political institutions. Thus Mr Jones is a citizen of Manchester, but he does not own his private property as a citizen of Manchester, he owns DEFINITIONS it as Mr Jones, whereas, if the house next to his own be owned by the Manchester municipality, they own it only because they are a political body standing for the whole community of the town. Mr Jones might move to Glasgow and still own his property in Manchester, but the municipality of Manchester can only own its property in connection with the corporate political life of the town. An ideal society in which the means of production should be in the hands of the political officers of the community we call Collectivist, or more generally Socialist.* A society in which private property in land and capital, that is, the ownership and therefore the control of the means of production, is confined to some number of free citizens not large enough to determine the social mass of the State, while the rest have not such property and are therefore proletarian, we call Capitalist ; and the method by which wealth is produced in such a society can only be the application of labour, the determining mass of which must necessarily be proletarian, to land and capital, in such fashion that, of the total wealth produced, the Proletariat which labours shall only receive a portion. The two marks, then, defining the Capitalist State * Save in this special sense of " Collectivist," the word " Socialist " has either no clear meaning, or is used synonymously with other older and better-known words. THE SERVILE STATE are: (i) That the citizens thereof are politically free: i.e. can use or withhold at will their possessions or their labour, but are also (2) divided into capitalist and proletarian in such proportions that the State as a whole is not characterised by the institution of ownership among free citizens, but by the restriction of ownership to a section markedly less than the whole, or even to a small minority. Such a Capitalist State is essentially divided into two classes of free citizens, the one capitalist or owning, the other pro-pertyless or proletarian. My last definition concerns the Servile State itself, and since the idea is both somewhat novel and also the subject of this book, I will not only establish but expand its definition. The definition of the Servile State is as follows:—-" That arrangement of society in which so considerable a number of the families and individuals are constrained by positive law to labour for the advantage of other families and individuals as to stamp the whole community with the mark of such labour we call THE SERVILE STATE."

Uncle Wally
26-08-2016, 19:08
American freedom.


http://www.activistpost.com/2016/08/youre-likely-committing-crime-right-now.html