I bet not even half of you have ever lived under either of the rules,if you did,you wouldn't even make such topic.
Socialism is a utopia that would never work.
Communism was a very warped form of Marxism.
Ask anyone from the Baltic states how well communism treated them,my parents could probably tell you a ton,starting from the point where their grandparents were loaded on horse carriages to be unloaded at closest train station to be taken to Siberia,and those too old to survive the ride shot point blank on the way to those train stations and dumped in ditches because certain groups of people in the eyes of communism were a threat to the regime,especially those with prior higher education of any form,down to how every product from said states could never be found in local stores because all of it was taken away and sold in russia.
You lot have way too much free time on your hands,to a point where you dig into history that should be left alone for it carries no knowledge that would do anyone any good.
Most of you clearly know how to find wikipedia,how many of you actually have lived under either forms of control,and seen even so much as the aftermath?
Don't,just ******* don't.
No rest for the wicked.
Last edited by Daiena on Nov 25, 2016, 12:38:15 AM
I bet not even half of you have ever lived under either of the rules,if you did,you wouldn't even make such topic.
Socialism is a utopia that would never work.
Communism was a very warped form of Marxism.
Ask anyone from the Baltic states how well communism treated them,my parents could probably tell you a ton,starting from the point where their grandparents were loaded on horse carriages to be unloaded at closest train station to be taken to Siberia,and those too old to survive the ride shot point blank on the way to those train stations and dumped in ditches because certain groups of people in the eyes of communism were a threat to the regime,especially those with prior higher education of any form,down to how every product from said states could never be found in local stores because all of it was taken away and sold in russia.
You lot have way too much free time on your hands,to a point where you dig into history that should be left alone for it carries no knowledge that would do anyone any good.
Most of you clearly know how to find wikipedia,how many of you actually have lived under either forms of control,and seen even so much as the aftermath?
Don't,just ******* don't.
I don't disagree, but from my experience( so heavily anecdotal evidence and as such take it for what it's worth) that people aren't asking for our system of governance to adjust from a constitutional republic to a state of socialism/communism, or that the government should control the means of production or private industry, but rather that we shouldn't have the hard on for cutthroat capitalism that corporations have more incentive to max profits by closing down shop in 1st world countries to utilize slave labor overseas.
Between globalization and automation it will be easier to do away with human labor for a lot of positions to the point where the basic supply and demand ratio of jobs that you can make a living off of vs demand for such positions will reach a breaking point and we might look into the concept of a basic income.
Even most lefties that I don't want some full on communistic type society where everyone is exactly the same in terms of how well off they are doing, but in a country where there are so many vacant homes that remain vacant because people got foreclosed on and people can't afford to move back in, that let's help ensure people don't have to worry about whether or not they need to spend their money on paying the rent, putting food on the table, or buying the prescription drugs that go for 300 bucks a month without decent health insurance, most people want to change the system so that said person can sleep at night without having to stress over basic needs, even if it means someone has to do away with their 4th vacation home that they visit 2 weeks a year.
I don't disagree, but from my experience( so heavily anecdotal evidence and as such take it for what it's worth) that people aren't asking for our system of governance to adjust from a constitutional republic to a state of socialism/communism, or that the government should control the means of production or private industry, but rather that we shouldn't have the hard on for cutthroat capitalism that corporations have more incentive to max profits by closing down shop in 1st world countries to utilize slave labor overseas.
Between globalization and automation it will be easier to do away with human labor for a lot of positions to the point where the basic supply and demand ratio of jobs that you can make a living off of vs demand for such positions will reach a breaking point and we might look into the concept of a basic income.
Even most lefties that I don't want some full on communistic type society where everyone is exactly the same in terms of how well off they are doing, but in a country where there are so many vacant homes that remain vacant because people got foreclosed on and people can't afford to move back in, that let's help ensure people don't have to worry about whether or not they need to spend their money on paying the rent, putting food on the table, or buying the prescription drugs that go for 300 bucks a month without decent health insurance, most people want to change the system so that said person can sleep at night without having to stress over basic needs, even if it means someone has to do away with their 4th vacation home that they visit 2 weeks a year.
That's no longer a system,law or a governmental form - it's human nature,give me a pinkie,and given the chance,i'll snatch the whole fist.
The more power you have,the more you want,the more you want,the more you need. If this topic is about digging through remnants of fallen and failed systems to even hypothetically find the cure for greed,you really are barking around the wrong tree - don't look at systems,look in the mirror.
People in power will always avoid or deny the abuse of it,people without the power will always assume the abuse of it by those who got it. The big unavoidable stone in your backyard is the simple fact that no matter what sort of system you use - someone has to be in power. Even rat packs have social and power structures. Without any form of control,even if it comes with abuse,we are not even as good as a pack of rats.
simple fact that no matter what sort of system you use - someone has to be in power. Even rat packs have social and power structures. Without any form of control,even if it comes with abuse,we are not even as good as a pack of rats.
I don't disagree with that, I'm simply saying that if/when the time comes that between automation/globalization etc...reaches the point where our current disparity and enough people are fighting over job positions that barely pay enough just to break even on basic needs (food,rent,etc..) meanwhile the people in office are arguing over how much we need to lower the estate tax...the people might decide to make a new head of the rat pack, and all the "well it didn't work before so let's stay our course" will fall on deaf ears.
Yes, history has shown that straight up socialist and communist countries fail, but between the Czars of Russia, The Weimar Republic of 1919 to 1933, etc..people will roll the dice on any sort of change, and maybe giving the system a tweak in the short term is better than risking the complete overhaul of it, even if the probability of a complete system overhaul is about as plausible as a real estate mogul and TV show host with no political experience besting two of the best known political establishment families( if you throw Jeb in there) to become president of the United States.
The only good part of the Socialist/Communist revolution, is that the "educated" useful idiots leftists, who helped instigate it, get eventually purged too. (purged = euphemism for getting shot in the head and dumped into unmarked mass graves). So at least the libtard academia gets what they deserve in the end.
Anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction in terms; under anarchy, capitalism is impossible.
What anarchists falsely assume is that, if people of peace decide not to create a government, that they will be safe from criminals - those who would steal from them, enslave them, or kill them (all of which have a profit motive in a lawless society). While it is true that a single man of peace could defend himself somewhat adequately against a single man of crime, assuming equal access to weaponry (which is why women are programmed at the genetic level to be attracted to violent showoffs instead of milquetoasts), the anarchist falsely assumes that the peaceful men will decide if governments will exist. No, the men of crime will make them first, creating a gang to which no single man could hope for victory. Government is, above all else, a weapon intended to be wielded against people - whether it's against the criminal or against the peaceful is based upon who wields it. If the men of peace refuse to wield government in some kind of misguided pacifism, they shall inevitably be stricken down by nefarious men without such inhibitions.
At a certain point, the threat of legitimate, peace-promoting government threatens perpetrators of force and fraud to such a degree that these behaviors are no longer in a potential criminal's self-interest; the risk is too great. At this point, self-interest is channeled in the proper way. The invisible hand of Adam Smith that capitalists love so much is born a savage, but is civilized given the appropriate adjustments to how choices are weighed.
Because it is by the restricting of people's criminal choices that the peace-lover gains freedom of choice, it is impossible to gain voluntary payment for the services of government. One doesn't pay another person for the "service" of having their freedom to steal stripped away. Taxation is the only dependable means of funding government.
I don't think that is correct. If criminals can form groups, I don't see why peace loving people couldn't. Anarcho-capitalism mean that there is no state but doesn't mean peace loving people can't form groups to protect themselves. It could be like decentralized form of police where each group could be independent. Offering their services to surrounding areas for compensation.
"
I agree with Molyneux that taxation is theft; where I disagree is his exaggerating its severity to death by gunshot. Having a government means supporting its police with a wage (in terms of food, drink, etc in a moneyless economy), so either part-time police are forced to tax themselves on a volunteer basis, or the community must be forced to provide for their welfare through taxation. The thing Molyneux neglected here is that this isn't a choice in a vacuum; you are either taxed - legally stolen from - in a system with the rule of law, or you have no police and are victimized by the first gang of thugs that wanders about. There's no magically getting around the cost caused by criminal assholes; either you pay for insurance, or you suffer the full effects uninsured. That is the moral choice involved in taxation, and as someone who wants the best for Stefan Molyneux, I'd much rather the state mug him for a few dollars of protection money each year than have him quite literally shot by some random marauder.
Laws cost money to investigate and enforce, these costs require taxation, and taxation is a cost upon the people. But that's why we have a democracy, so that the people have some measure of control over who's getting the protection money and what they do with it; essentially, so that taxation is a voluntary economic transaction for the majority, and theft only for the minority. Overall, the measure of a law is whether its social benefit is not only greater than zero, but greater than the cost imposed on the people through taxation. Good laws give people services they want in a cost-effective manner; democractic republics under capitalism (not corporatism) perform well at giving the majority services they want in a manner cost-effective for that majority. Freedom isn't free; the necessary legal infrastructure to even implement capitalism requires a certain degree of legalized theft to build and maintain.
I like to think of taxation as membership fee. You gain a certain amount of benefits being its member.
If you are a willing member, you can't really call it theft. If you refuse to pay, it isn't really theft either, it is more like extortion.
The only good part of the Socialist/Communist revolution, is that the "educated" useful idiots leftists, who helped instigate it, get eventually purged too. (purged = euphemism for getting shot in the head and dumped into unmarked mass graves). So at least the libtard academia gets what they deserve in the end.
from ~55:00 on. Fascinating interview, everyone should watch it all.
The tragedy is that the libtard´s are by themself´s victim´s. The whole hug and love evrybody thing start´s at a very young age throught out scool, media etc.
It´s subconcious (hope that´s the right therm), there backmind hear´s it over and over again, to the point were important question´s are no longer asked.
Of course, some People are imun to that, much like they can´t be hypnothised.
For example, almost each Hollywood movie portay´s Collage student´s as drug using, drunk, sex, constant party to the point were it get´s widly accepted. Our the slavery thing in the usa, well yes it was a tragedy, but 30mil times x Generation cant demand reperation´s for 10mil suffered ancestor´s.
The very same thing happen´s if it comes to komunism, in certain country´s.Marx,Stalin,Lenin portrayd as hero´s, savior of mankind, and the people just swallow it.
If suddenly evrybody on earth turn´s kind and selfless, it´s shore not there achievment.
I saw recently in our german new´s, that China want´s to build a Karl Marx statue in Frankfurt/Germany, the irony is that china is considered a racist society.
Anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction in terms; under anarchy, capitalism is impossible.
What anarchists falsely assume is that, if people of peace decide not to create a government, that they will be safe from criminals - those who would steal from them, enslave them, or kill them (all of which have a profit motive in a lawless society). While it is true that a single man of peace could defend himself somewhat adequately against a single man of crime, assuming equal access to weaponry (which is why women are programmed at the genetic level to be attracted to violent showoffs instead of milquetoasts), the anarchist falsely assumes that the peaceful men will decide if governments will exist. No, the men of crime will make them first, creating a gang to which no single man could hope for victory. Government is, above all else, a weapon intended to be wielded against people - whether it's against the criminal or against the peaceful is based upon who wields it. If the men of peace refuse to wield government in some kind of misguided pacifism, they shall inevitably be stricken down by nefarious men without such inhibitions.
At a certain point, the threat of legitimate, peace-promoting government threatens perpetrators of force and fraud to such a degree that these behaviors are no longer in a potential criminal's self-interest; the risk is too great. At this point, self-interest is channeled in the proper way. The invisible hand of Adam Smith that capitalists love so much is born a savage, but is civilized given the appropriate adjustments to how choices are weighed.
Because it is by the restricting of people's criminal choices that the peace-lover gains freedom of choice, it is impossible to gain voluntary payment for the services of government. One doesn't pay another person for the "service" of having their freedom to steal stripped away. Taxation is the only dependable means of funding government.
I don't think that is correct. If criminals can form groups, I don't see why peace loving people couldn't. Anarcho-capitalism mean that there is no state but doesn't mean peace loving people can't form groups to protect themselves. It could be like decentralized form of police where each group could be independent. Offering their services to surrounding areas for compensation.
I already said that police can't follow the "offer services" model, at least not while applying a uniform rule of law. The mercenary thing doesn't work, because while people might pay to enforce laws on others, they won't pay to have them enforced on themselves.
Also: I thought extortion was a subcategory of theft.
When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted.
I already said that police can't follow the "offer services" model, at least not while applying a uniform rule of law. The mercenary thing doesn't work, because while people might pay to enforce laws on others, they won't pay to have them enforced on themselves.
Also: I thought extortion was a subcategory of theft.
They could be independent and have different rules, thus not having uniform rule of law. They are form out of necessity rather than authority. You need a certain degree of social order, limited governance. You might not consider this anarchy, but I would argue this form of anarchy isn't absolute.
You wouldn't want to pay to protect someone if you want to kill them obviously. But you wouldn't want to live together with people who want to kill you either.
It is in another category. Extortion get you to give them your money through force or threat. The idea is you usually ended up submitting and giving up the money due to the threat of jail time not because you really have to force them to rip it out of your hands.
I already said that police can't follow the "offer services" model, at least not while applying a uniform rule of law. The mercenary thing doesn't work, because while people might pay to enforce laws on others, they won't pay to have them enforced on themselves.
Also: I thought extortion was a subcategory of theft.
1. They could be independent and have different rules, thus not having uniform rule of law. They are form out of necessity rather than authority. You need a certain degree of social order, limited governance. You might not consider this anarchy, but I would argue this form of anarchy isn't absolute.
You wouldn't want to pay to protect someone if you want to kill them obviously. But you wouldn't want to live together with people who want to kill you either.
2. It is in another category. Extortion get you to give them your money through force or threat. The idea is you usually ended up submitting and giving up the money due to the threat of jail time not because you really have to force them to rip it out of your hands.
Numbers mine.
1. When a person buys the services of mercenaries to apply rules to others, but not to themselves or to the buyer, that's called a military dictatorship. Your core fallacy continues to be confusion on what government is and how easily it is created. True anarchy is as impossible; like a vacuum, it is gone a second after it comes into existence.
2. So when the mugger brandishes his gun and says "your money or your life," then you give him your wallet before suffering harm, that's not theft because it's extortion? Sorry, but extortion falls under the theft category for me.
When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted.
Last edited by ScrotieMcB on Nov 25, 2016, 12:15:05 PM
