Why do you Want communism?

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I am an advocate of individual sovereignty. As such, I consider communism to be morally unjustifiable.

yeah thats about it

"

faerwin wrote:

huh, no, Hitler was batshit crazy with his vision of exterminating jews and essentially, everyone that didn't fit his vision of the ideal human.

And the modern left is pretty much the same ideologically, minus the killing Jews part.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I am an advocate of individual sovereignty. As such, I consider communism to be morally unjustifiable.

Doesn't this presume a false baselines?

- sufficient sentient consciousness to adequately govern one-self

People are fairly capable of governing themselves to a very large extent in the current world and a lot of people are absolutely clueless what to do with that freedom and as a result subject to dominion by outside sources.

About your other post you think the base-line processing speed of thought outweighs the benefit of distribution of knowledge?

That seems like a very ego centered masturbation kind of mind-play.

People need engagement for idea's to develop, otherwise they are mere fiction untested against multiple viewpoints. No mater how inefficient the communication is between people(and i reckon actually that we are quite proficient in that) the benefits of pitting your thoughts against the experiences of a multitude of people is invaluable since we live in a social structure.

You might have the greatest idea in history, if it proves impractical to other people it's irrelevant.

Ideology's seem like good examples for this. In "theory", if we assume an honest other being with a great "ideal world" view nothing is inherently wrong with that.
It only becomes an issue when put into a social construct.

It's like how people are all going "you cannot be offensive!" in today's buttercup world.
At face value, it makes for a great notion, but it's inherently inconsistent.

1) i very much can be, irrelevant of other sources
2) what if i find it offensive that your telling me i cannot be offensive

Ironically, you help the people who those groups are trying to protect by being offensive to them.
Comedy is a good example of how you can heighten intolerance thresholds by gradually increasing the offense threshold on certain subjects.

Peace,

-Boem-

"

Boem wrote:

Doesn't this presume a false baselines?

- sufficient sentient consciousness to adequately govern one-self

My take on it is this: people are terrible at governing anything, so it’s best to govern oneself when at all possible; the consequences then are mitigated within the relationship between the self and nature, and not externalized except within limited proximity. People get better at governing more complex entities than the just the self when they congregate and ideas between them are allowed to compete, but try as they will, no person or group can conquer natural selection; they certainly cannot assume responsibility of another without risk of externalization growing in magnitude proportional to the weight of the responsibility.

Pop quiz

Who DIDN'T invent the Internet?
a. Al Gore
b. Communist Russia
c. Communist China
d. Communist North Korea
e. Communist Poland
f. All of the above

Correct answer:
g. Why am I on the internet arguing for a system that did not create the internet?

"

CanHasPants wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

Doesn't this presume a false baselines?

- sufficient sentient consciousness to adequately govern one-self

My take on it is this: people are terrible at governing anything, so it’s best to govern oneself when at all possible; the consequences then are mitigated within the relationship between the self and nature, and not externalized except within limited proximity. People get better at governing more complex entities than the just the self when they congregate and ideas between them are allowed to compete, but try as they will, no person or group can conquer natural selection; they certainly cannot assume responsibility of another without risk of externalization growing in magnitude proportional to the weight of the responsibility.

Re-write that entirely, because it's very poorly constructed to understand.

But as i went over it, one thing seemed already off from my perspective.

"

but try as they will, no person or group can conquer natural selection

Depending on your definition of conquer as "being in control over it", then this seems like a false statement.

Since every action and non-action already controls natural selection.

We are the culmination of natural selection as a process, but that process required actors to formulate it.
This inherently imply's we have full reign over our own route in natural selection within a given time span of existence.

Make the rest of your message more clear and perhaps the context will become more apparent to me?

Peace,

-Boem-

"

aravindkumr44 wrote:

The role of the Far Left, Socialists and Communists across the world in female empowerment is undisputed. Women in the USSR were among the first in their nation’s generation to enjoy access to pre natal care, widespread education and literacy programs, employment opportunities and so on.

Listen to Affirmation mp3 for Better Happiness and Living .....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

Socialism is a philosophy of failure,
the creed of ignorance,
and the gospel of envy,
its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

of course the same man said


The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

"

Boem wrote:

Re-write that entirely, because it's very poorly constructed to understand.

Nah, it makes sense, but I’ll outline it for you anyways. I’m pretty much just repeating myself, but perhaps bullet points will help?

-People are inherently bad at governing anything
-As such, self governance is preferable when possible, because
—the consequences of failure are mostly internalized, and
—that which is externalized is limited in proximity.
-People become better at governing more complex systems as more people participate; however,
—we are still natural selection’s bitches, and
—any attempt to replace natural selection with central planning increases the magnitude and proximity in which failure is externalized.
-It is important to note that natural selection is foundational to the concepts of individual sovereignty and the free market.

There must be some methodology to the way humans interact, and the most preferable is the one that mitigates the most risk.

"

CanHasPants wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

Re-write that entirely, because it's very poorly constructed to understand.

Nah, it makes sense

Oh, i was never claiming it didn't make sense to you. My point was that it is poorly constructed for others to interpret it.

But i assume your posting in a thread not to read your own post's?

Any response to the thing i found odd in your statement?

Ill pick apart your first line and go from there, else this post will become a mess.

"

CanHasPants wrote:

-People are inherently bad at governing anything

Can i ask what your basing that statement on?

From where i am sitting humans have potential for both good and bad "governing". Biology seems to support this?
When i want to move my left hand upwards, my right hand doesn't suddenly jump upwards.
I would have to do some research to find out exactly how many muscles/nerves and other stuff we are governing when making such a movement, but we do it non-the-less, quite successfully most of the time.

Socially?

Society has never been so well governed to a certain extent as today, which would also indicate the potential is there(though i would claim we always strive for an abstract better and that that goal is always shifting as we accumulate more and since "better" is a subjective measurement it would be hard to attribute bad/good governing from it)

We would have to specify goals in order to formulate a contextual good or bad governing?

Even overarching we would have to specify boundary's.

Is a successful wealthy person that is unhappy governing himself aptly?
Is a poor happy person governing himself aptly?

You would have to expand on this notion of people inherently being bad at governing for me to make any sense of it, because when i look around, people are both good and bad at it.

Peace,

-Boem-