New Mars Forums
You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
#1 Yesterday 10:36:34
- Void
- Member
- Registered: 2011-12-29
- Posts: 9,201
What collections of people think people should be property?
Title Change. Old Title: "What Nations or other entities regard the people as property?"
Yes, I am violating my pledge to not interact in "Not So Free Chat".
But it has occurred to me that at its root Communism in intending to own the means of production then treats the people as property it also owns.
It also occurs to me that Monarchy and Dictators also may behave in such a manner as well.
This then explains to me why the Left and the Right resemble each other when they arrive at a possession of power to rule.
In the USA, "In Theory" it is "We the People".
Yes, I understand that in the USA this concept if violated early and often by those who wish to get power.
But it is inverse to starting with the idea that "Rulers own the People".
So, in my opinion the concept of the USA is not Left or Right but leaves each of those in their many forms off to the side, destined for the trash bin, whenever possible.
That is my current thinking.
Ending Pending 
Last edited by Void (Yesterday 13:12:06)
Is it possible that the root of political science claims is to produce white collar jobs for people who paid for an education and do not want a real job?
Offline
Like button can go here
#2 Yesterday 11:31:06
- Void
- Member
- Registered: 2011-12-29
- Posts: 9,201
Re: What collections of people think people should be property?
No hiding (th)! Front and Center!
https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.ph … 41#p237541
Quote:
Like button can go here
Report Quote
#222Today 11:46:45
tahanson43206
Moderator
Registered: 2018-04-27
Posts: 23,980
For Void...You created a topic with this title:
What Nations or other entities regard the people as property? by Void
I am curious to know if you (as a living human being) think that an imaginary entity such as a Nation can "regard" anything?
How about other entities?
Can a corporation "regard" anything?
Can a tribe "regard" anything?
Your post in reply will be enlightening to our readers.
(th)
Last edited by Void (Yesterday 11:32:43)
Is it possible that the root of political science claims is to produce white collar jobs for people who paid for an education and do not want a real job?
Offline
Like button can go here
#3 Yesterday 11:34:33
- Void
- Member
- Registered: 2011-12-29
- Posts: 9,201
Re: What collections of people think people should be property?
I have some concepts that obviously derived from other people concepts. It is just possible that at times I may find a associated concept that seems to come from me.
Your question is very important.
The mind of humans is individual and collective. The individual and the hive mind.
Pause..........
In my thought experiment.....
Females tend to have more verbal skills, and males may have more math skills and do have more special relations skills.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_relation
You will notice that verbal skills relate to the hive mind.
A female teacher of mine in high school said that it is feminine men who become chiefs of a tribe. Often an alpha male very good as a warrior who seems dominant, but a male with verbal skills obviously can work better with both female and male tribe members.
Having verbal and perhaps art skills, a tribal library can be created, perhaps only oral tradition, and some rock paintings, but this becomes a primer for the direction that the young will develop.
So, "Library" is read only memory. The Hive mind joins the separate individuals together. But the Individual is more likely to add to the "Library". If you are deep into the hive mind, you do not favor the new but recall the old.
So, a community such as a nation or other entity such as a belief system can think, and recall. It can regard something.
For instance, the EU regards the American interest in Greenland in a negative way. They don't understand that we need it so that we can create clothing optional resorts for our A.W.F.U.L.'s from Minnesota.
Visitors will have their eyes blindfolded first.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
I am going to take this liberty to posture a notion about human intergender process, that may cause the fall of an empire.
We know that many animals require acceptance from a female before a procreative act is allowed.
Dolphins rape, so there are exceptions. But rape is a test of sorts. (I can hear the screams). No, I do not regard it to be a acceptable thing.
But the mechanics for procreation usually require a sperm cell to meet an egg cell in a nurturing situation. I think that it is truth to say that that is not always done in ways that we want to accept. Sometimes brute strength allows it.
But often females expect a contest between males.
And there may be the problem. There is what her consciousness says to her she as wants. There is what she says she wants. But there is what do here genes want?
Pause..............
She mostly has the same genes as a male, but here epigenetics control how the genes are expressed in reality.
A tested example of this is for the avoidance of inbreeding. Sisters tested to small brothers T-Shirts will be relatively repulsed by the odor but may accept a non-relative's odor in preference.
So, could the female population of a tribe/nation turn traitor to its male population? And under what circumstances?
IN the Roman Empire it seems to have happened. It appears from stories and rumors that females attaining high status, may have felt that their population had no worthy males. So, then that may have cause them to make damage to the society, to pull down their own house so that it could be raped by a more powerful set of outside males.
It is perhaps like a drug where you cannot ever get enough. You finally got on top of the Men and got some wealth, and yet you want more, and resent that you are not getting more.
Western Europe is likely enjoying being raped at this time as it is. The USA is barely managing to say NO!
You have to consider that Nature does not value intelligence, unless it perpetuates genes.
So, females will not select for intelligence, only dominance.
Lots of good materials for you to condemn in this post.
The question of Neoteny: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoteny
It is my opinion that societies that allow more power for males in mate selection will become more Neotenous. They are selecting for there opposite. (China? Japen?).
Cultures which give more power to the females will become more robust, in my opinion. Females exploit cucks, but when they are most fertile are compelled to seek the masculine robust.
The Hairiest men are in the middle east, I think, but that is only one aspect of Neoteny.
https://www.curlcentric.com/what-ethnic … Caucasians.
Quote:
According to Personal Health via the New York Times, Caucasians are the hairiest ethnic group, with Semitic and Mediterranean people being the hairiest out of all Caucasians.
You would think that north Europeans would be the hairiest, but they are not, it seems.
Carl Young, I seem to recall indicated that Catholics are Feminine. But Muslims, Protestants, Jewish People and Communists are Masculine.
But most of those have only existed for a number of centuries at most. So, their previous cultures may have been feminine.
I have deviated a bit, but the interaction of collections of individuals and their cultural roots could affect their epigenetics over time and also even the predominance of genetic traits, among those being the contrast between Efficient/Capable, Gracile/Robust, and other polarities that may experience deviation/drift over time.
Hurl some outrage at me or some insults, or ask some questions.
Ending Pending :)
Last edited by Void (Yesterday 12:44:17)
Is it possible that the root of political science claims is to produce white collar jobs for people who paid for an education and do not want a real job?
Offline
Like button can go here
#4 Yesterday 13:13:32
- Void
- Member
- Registered: 2011-12-29
- Posts: 9,201
Re: What collections of people think people should be property?
(th) other administrators talk directly to me.
So, the title is changed. What do you think? We can change it some more, if necessary.
Crowds of people do act as a singular entity at times.
The Supreme court renders an opinion. (And a minority opinion).
Congress votes a law.
Ending Pending
Last edited by Void (Yesterday 13:15:30)
Is it possible that the root of political science claims is to produce white collar jobs for people who paid for an education and do not want a real job?
Offline
Like button can go here
#5 Yesterday 14:47:25
- SpaceNut
- Administrator
- From: New Hampshire
- Registered: 2004-07-22
- Posts: 30,297
Re: What collections of people think people should be property?
Here is the history but its not inclusive enough as its still going on even today as we speak of
Chattel slavery was a legal system, prominent from the 16th to 19th centuries, that classified human beings as personal property (chattel) rather than legal persons, allowing them to be bought, sold, owned, and inherited. Enslaved people were subjected to forced labor, lacked legal rights, and were governed by strict codes.
Key aspects of people as property include:
Legal Status: Enslaved people were considered assets, similar to livestock or, in some contexts, real estate.The Dred Scott Decision (1857): The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Congress could not prohibit slavery in territories, effectively stating that enslaved people were property and not citizens.
Legal Framework: Laws, such as Slave Codes, denied enslaved individuals the right to marry, testify in court, or own property themselves.
Economic System: The institution was driven by the demand for labor, with millions of people of African descent held in bondage in the Americas.
Case Law: The U.S. Supreme Court navigated the "dual status" of enslaved people as both human beings and legal property, often upholding the rights of owners.
The dehumanization inherent in viewing people as property was a core component of the transatlantic slave trade and the antebellum American South
Offline
Like button can go here