If someone doesn’t develop their land soon, say within a year, even if they’re paying taxes on it, it should be returned to the commons.
From there, either government can develop, or designate it a national park/nature reserve, or another private entity can develop it, or it can be left undeveloped until someone does.
I just meant that someone has to, umm, unambiguously, if you will, develop land, in order to own it, not that it should belong to whoever claims they can develop it most.
Might is to right what apples are to oranges.
Might is about what you can do, right is about what you, or others think you, or others ought to do.
Not everyone with might does the same thing with it, psychopaths have different considerations than men and women of compassion and conscience (which’s not to say men and women of compassion and conscience can’t also be selfish, or that compassion and conscience are necessarily incompatible with selfishness, or that compassion and conscience can’t manifest differently in different people or circumstances).
You’re talking about what you think is right all over the place, irrespective of what the bourgeoise, bureaucrats (qualitative might) and proletariat (quantitative might) think, I don’t know why you won’t talk about it here.
If that were true, non-politician republicans would win every term.
And if republicans didn’t value education, every republican politician would be uneducated.
While republicans may not value formal political education quite as much as democrats, because more republicans are rural, and weary of leftist state education (whereas more democrats are urban, and weary of the rightist church), they still value it, it’s a wild exaggeration to say they don’t.
And what Trump lacks in formal political education, he makes up for in worldliness.
People vote differently because of the electoral college, for example, a lot of republicans in California and New York didn’t even bother voting, for they knew their vote wouldn’t count in all probability.
So did Trump, accusations of racism and sexism, Russian collusion, tax evasion, etcetera.
I think a lot of people wanted a woman for a change, they were just too worried about illegals, Muslims and offshoring to take a chance on one this election.
She beat the other democratic candidates, who didn’t have all those issues, and Trump beat her, so he probably would’ve beat them too.
That tells you republicans were less concerned about guns and so on, and more about illegals, Muslims and offshoring.
He’s smarter than that plodding, mumbling, stuttering Obama.
Mestizos, Mulattos and others commit more crime than whites, per capita.
Firstly, at this point in time, a class 1 or 2 society is science fiction.
Secondly, I don’t want to put all my eggs into one basket, having one culture, nation and race makes us vulnerable, because if they fail, we won’t’ve anything to fall back on + we can’t as effectively specialize.
Thirdly, a multiplanetary species may diverge from itself, perhaps all the more so than a monoplanetary one.
If humans colonize other planets, overtime, some of these planets may become isolated from each other.
After millions, or thousands of years, they may become so different biologically, and culturally, inviting nonindigenous humans to live among them wouldn’t make any sense, because nonindigenous humans wouldn’t be as adapted to the environmental, and societal conditions as the natives, or they may not want them for other reasons: lack of jobs, space to accommodate them, because they’re inferior, or just unattractive…
Nativism is inevitable, perhaps all the more so in outer space.
Splitting off from one another isn’t necessarily a bad thing, there’s trade-offs.
And if you think it’ll be beneficial, you can still trade with others, while keeping them at bay.
There are trade-offs to virtually every course of collective, and individual action you can take.
You need context, in order to effectively determine what is right and good.
Worker’s rights?
The poorest people in society don’t work at all.
I say a society is only as rich as the sustainably productive are sustainably prosperous.
And both the unproductive (the underclass, and the overclass), and the unsustainably productive (them who mainly needlessly produce/consume) should be less prosperous than the sustainably productive (them who mainly needfully produce/consume).
What I’m proposing here is a little bit different than the traditional left/right paradigm.
I thought you said disparity/exploitation = growth?
economic growth isn’t necessarily a zero sum game, at least for humans, individuals and groups can work together to more effectively exploit nature than they could alone for the benefit of all, or exclusively, or predominantly for the benefit of the (most) (sustainably) productive.
Immigration is now negative, even if it’s European, in terms of crowding and polluting North American lands.
My community is now majority brown.
I’m not eliminating them, I’m preserving them (mine and theirs), mass immigration eliminates heritages.
I want to be surrounded mostly by people who reason and look like me.
The races differ, not just on the outside, but on the inside, their personalities, differ, the way they think, differs.
And to that you can add cultural differences.
I get what you’re saying, there’s more genetic diversity in bringing races together, because of the hybrids they’ll beget, than keeping them apart, but still there’s pros and cons to diversity.
A homogeneous population will produce fewer kinds of cancers/diseases, requiring fewer cures/treatments, whereas a heterogenous population will produce more kinds of cancers/diseases, requiring more cures/treatments.
A heterogenous population will have more body types, with heterogenous nutritional and toxicity requirements (convoluted, difficult), whereas a homogenous population will have fewer body types, with homogenous nutritional and toxicity requirements (simple, easy).
It’ll also be harder to get your diverse population to agree on anything, from what temperature a mall should be, to morals, values, politics and law.
Homogeneous Japs and Jews are still very successful, in spite of their shortcomings.
And birthrates wax and wane, living in an overcrowded land probably makes you less psychologically inclined to have kids, as it should.
As Japan’s population shrinks, they may become more inclined to have kids again.
Japan’s population needs to gracefully shrink to 10% of what it is today anyway, which’ll take a few centuries, and if it doesn’t correct itself on its own, external measures can be taken by government, without adding foreigners.
- as I said a little earlier, advanced contraceptive techniques and sexual liberation are new things, when given the opportunity, some genetic lines will choose to self-destruct, but others will reproduce, and they will exclusively produce reproducers, so the pop will probably bounce back, evolution finds a way.