Socialism

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

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.

You are confused. In proposal for "Anarchy", they involves concepts like "social defense" and "voluntary organization". Rather than the absolute concept of no government, it is decentralized governments. Anarcho-capitalism isn't True anarchy.

Sound more like robbery. You have to be more discreet to be a thief.

"Voluntary organization." How many people do you think would volunteer for the Army or to be police if there was no wage for it? As unpaid volunteers, who would do it? To defend against force and fraud, a society must hamper the freedom to commit force and fraud. People do not pay to have their choices constrained; there is no method to collect on delivery of prevention of force and fraud.

Freedom isn't free. Natural rights do not exist; artificial rights do, and they are glorious. You are not born with the freedom of speech, it is granted by protectors who will not allow your skull to be bashed in by those wishing to silence you. You are not born with the freedom of religion, it is granted by protectors who will not allow your skull to be bashed in by those wishing to quell your heresy. You are not born with a right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness; great men have bled and died to grant those rights to you. Capitalism does not exist in a state of nature; the infrastructure required for its operation is a product of man, implemented by the creation and enforcement of human rights. This is important to understand clearly for this reason: government cannot be established using the principles of capitalism, because capitalism cannot exist until established by the principles of government.

Hi , I haven't really studied any of these.

I am living is a so-called socialist country which practices feudalism, despotism and capitalism, and maybe some socialism.

All in all, let alone all these *.ism

No words can really describe a situation (where? when? who? why? what? what if? what else? what now? how? however?...and a bunch of them).

There is always at least one element that is missed/unconsidered when you see, watch, hear, think...

We created words like these "good" "bad" "OK" "fine", they even have different meanings when we speak in different ways.


People are just trying to do their jobs by creating something else to fit the things they created. I wouldn't say that there is good or bad in this. But the way how other people use it, is different. How we use the existed things decides who we are in other people's eyes.

Is controlling others good/bad? Is being controlled good/bad? Is not doing anything at all good/bad?

what is the purpose of the creation of nuclear bombs? and what is the purpose of the usage of nuclear bombs?
To end a war or to take control of the world and slave the rest of the world.

Why people keep doing this over the thousands of years? Fear? Reproduction? Curiosity? Love? Hatred? Boredom? creative self-destruction? survivability?... I think everything counts.

All the ...isms, they are just so-called society which has a purpose of trying to control others. Those "people -farmers", yeah, you hear me, slavery is not over yet.

And if you believe in God, you don't need to die in order to go to heaven, cos where you live is heaven itself if you make it. As you can see, different people have different actions towards this. Then again, people can change or they can stay the same. The actual rule is, there is no rule.

That's good that the things you read give you better understandings towards the world.
But please keep in mind, socialists are just the same people you meet in your daily life.
Experience is always good to a certain point.
off topic
off topic
off topic
...

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"Voluntary organization." How many people do you think would volunteer for the Army or to be police if there was no wage for it? As unpaid volunteers, who would do it? To defend against force and fraud, a society must hamper the freedom to commit force and fraud. People do not pay to have their choices constrained; there is no method to collect on delivery of prevention of force and fraud.

Freedom isn't free. Natural rights do not exist; artificial rights do, and they are glorious. You are not born with the freedom of speech, it is granted by protectors who will not allow your skull to be bashed in by those wishing to silence you. You are not born with the freedom of religion, it is granted by protectors who will not allow your skull to be bashed in by those wishing to quell your heresy. You are not born with a right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness; great men have bled and died to grant those rights to you. Capitalism does not exist in a state of nature; the infrastructure required for its operation is a product of man, implemented by the creation and enforcement of human rights. This is important to understand clearly for this reason: government cannot be established using the principles of capitalism, because capitalism cannot exist until established by the principles of government.

You are too wrapped up in terminology that doesn't meant what it imply.

People can form an voluntary organization for the purpose of self protection. Grouping together is more about protecting themselves against hostiles. It is a mutual benefit. Out of necessity rather than because of authority. They can backstab each other if it doesn't serve their purpose.

"

deathflower wrote:

You are too wrapped up in terminology that doesn't meant what it imply.

People can form an voluntary organization for the purpose of self protection. Grouping together is more about protecting themselves against hostiles. It is a mutual benefit. Out of necessity rather than because of authority. They can backstab each other if it doesn't serve their purpose.

And which law´s should those vuluntary organization´s apply, if they catch an oppressor?
How do they determine if he is guilty our not? And what if the oppressor group is actualy bigger than the Defender?? How big shall ""group´s"" be in anarchy? What keep´s two group´s from consulidating? Not to mention economic and currency question´s. Not only violance causes Anger. What if Group A and B want to sell the same stuff to Group C?
And should the half/quater/None leader act out of pure trust?

It´s just a hamster wheel. Humanity once had somewhat of a anarchy, it turned to monarchy, and that turned to nation´s, exactly for those reason´s. It still exist´s in part´s in africa, and they indeed fight over water,food or lesser reasion´s.

I once had such discusion many jear´s ago, and i pointed toward´s the biblical sins/motivation´s, because they pretty accuratly discripe how human´s function.
If you had to decide if you/close person our a stranger had to live in poverty, which one would you pick? It´s A, since you do not donate your wealth.

""Necessity rather than authority"" do you believe the goverment forces people to become policemen?

"

Pwnzors87 wrote:

And which law´s should those vuluntary organization´s apply, if they catch an oppressor?
How do they determine if he is guilty our not? And what if the oppressor group is actualy bigger than the Defender?? How big shall ""group´s"" be in anarchy? What keep´s two group´s from consulidating? Not to mention economic and currency question´s. Not only violance causes Anger. What if Group A and B want to sell the same stuff to Group C?
And should the half/quater/None leader act out of pure trust?

Wouldn't it be up to these individual groups to decide?

"

It´s just a hamster wheel. Humanity once had somewhat of a anarchy, it turned to monarchy, and that turned to nation´s, exactly for those reason´s. It still exist´s in part´s in africa, and they indeed fight over water,food or lesser reasion´s.

Anarchy could have certain conditions that favor small groups rather than large groups like a scarcity of resources that keep groups from expanding into larger ones.

"

I once had such discusion many jear´s ago, and i pointed toward´s the biblical sins/motivation´s, because they pretty accuratly discripe how human´s function.
If you had to decide if you/close person our a stranger had to live in poverty, which one would you pick? It´s A, since you do not donate your wealth.

I have no idea what this mean.

"

""Necessity rather than authority"" do you believe the goverment forces people to become policemen?

Government are more likely to force people to be soldier in time of war.

I don't think humans by default would cause harm to other people without any motivation; unless they have some mental health problem. Also, by nature, we are not carnivorous as evident in our biology.

All humans act according to what they believe is 'good'. I am writing replying to this forum as I believe it's good. Joe ate some steak because he believes that is good. A thief will unlawfully get food from the store because it's good for his survival. Hitler wanted to wipe out the jews because he believe he was doing a favor for our human race.

Some humans will kill others just for the 'glory' of it. Some want to 'power' or 'prestige'. But all of them simply believe that human life loss weighs less.

A scenario like mad max is possible because by then, the only 'good' in every person would be survival. And we'd do all crazy stuff to do so.

But clearly, we can do better than mad max. The way we live now is evidence. However, we can only do so because we have, more or less attained the 3 things needed to be given to all persons: 1) Comfortable living 2) Friends 3) Self analyzed life

1) Comfortable living means that you have all the necessary needs to survive. This not only includes food, clothing, shelter. But also books, trip to maldives, etc for our emotional needs.

I believe however, that the meaning of 'comfortable' can be blurred. Some people want the latest gadget as they believe this would make them comfortable when what they already have was just bought 6 mos ago. A lot of people today confuse material gain with achieving the other two things - friends and time for analyzed life. I do not blame these people the current system of economy promotes advertising and brainwashing people to buy their products or services.

2) Friends means the social needs. We need other persons to talk to. Laugh with. Dom farming.

3) Self analyzed life is time for thinking. Unwinding the mind of all the stress we do. Time for deciding decisions. Time for philosophy.

I don't have enough say on #2 and #3 as I myself is severely low on those two. I am a salary man who works 9 hours day with lots of unpaid overtime, stressed over work. But not anymore.

The 3 things I noted here is Epicurus' 3 ingredients to a happy life. Let me know what you think; or your counter-arguement; would love to hear it out.

Gona be my last post, i dont want to spam the Forum

@ Deathflower: A- Which would give them law´s, with some form of governance, with somebody enforcing it, which is no longer anarchy, that would make them tribes our whatever. Anarchy simply means, evrybody is a king. Our current law´s are already very ratioal with most People agree with.

B- Again, who is to decide, who get´s the resources etc. Could be is not a argument, but i give you that one, it could be resolved by Technology, still it´s a what if.

C- Rather than posting hundred´s of potential examples, i pointed toward´s those motivation´s, like Anger,greed,greef,hunger,love,lazyness etc. (i dont know all english therm´s).It just show´s, why Person A would want to inflict condition X upon Person B.
Because the only Argument that anarchy wouldn´t turn into chaos is to rely on human kindness which is variable. You either have to manipulate our change mankind our force them to be kind and we currently have B.

D- Normaly war happen because Group A has to defend themself from Group B, but i give you that aswell. Throught deciving the truth, you can´t always tell who is the aggressor. But that actually undermines the argument´s above, if even nation´s fight against each other, what would stop thousand´s of lidl group´s to fight against each other.


@ManicCompression The hitler thing again, how am i not suprised. The total worldwide jewish Population actually increased during 1939-45, just look it up. It´s just another subconcius thing, get´s repeated again and again. It´s physicaly impossible to cremate 6million people in what 1500 day´s.

"

ManicCompression wrote:

All humans act according to what they believe is 'good'. I am writing replying to this forum as I believe it's good. Joe ate some steak because he believes that is good. A thief will unlawfully get food from the store because it's good for his survival. Hitler wanted to wipe out the jews because he believe he was doing a favor for our human race.

Some humans will kill others just for the 'glory' of it. Some want to 'power' or 'prestige'.

That's true. But the important thing to understand is that belief is one thing and action is another. If the thief believes getting food is good, but thinks punishment for shoplifting is bad, then a weighing will occur in their head: is it better to shoplift or not? This is dependent on several factors, based on real conditions - the item to be shoplifted, cameras, location of food, hunger, penalty if convicted - rather than abstract concepts. The goal of the legal system here is to modify variables such that theft is not chosen. One cannot legislate to prevent moral belief (although acts of communication can be), but one can legislate to prevent immoral action.

This is always the purpose of law enforcement: to change the weighing of options with the threat of legal force. Essentially, the limiting of freedom by disincentiving choices which are "bad."

As I've said before, law enforcement costs money. Police must be paid; the only question is who ends up paying for it.

The historical problem with political science has been that people have a huge disagreement about which "bad" behaviors should be curbed by law. The statist wants to curb many bad behaviors with many laws (which costs taxpayers lots of money); the classical liberal wants to curb only a few bad behaviors with very few laws (which doesn't cost taxpayers very much).

My standard is: if a law is a net profit - that is, total economic benefit exceeds total economic cost - I'm for it. Consider a law against murder. If murder is permitted, it's pretty safe to say that you have a fairly negative outlook on being able to benefit from your own labor; therefore, preventing murder increases productivity. I think it's safe to say that the net increase in production greatly exceeds the cost of enforcement. Excellent law.

As a prosperity centrist, I believe: that ideal laws are based on current conditions, so changing conditions change the ideal; that (although I lean towards cost-effective capitalism) pragmatism trumps blind ideology; that the effectiveness of good laws is measurable using economic metrics; and that cost-effectiveness in government is more important than raw size.

"

ManicCompression wrote:

I don't think humans by default would cause harm to other people without any motivation; unless they have some mental health problem. Also, by nature, we are not carnivorous as evident in our biology.

You should google omnivores because that's basically us,if we don't include meat in our diet,sooner or later we either grow weak,die,or start popping pills to fill the void of what's missing. There is a reason why in certain countries a child can be taken away from a family if they force it to be vegan,so quit that nonsense.

"

ManicCompression wrote:

All humans act according to what they believe is 'good'. I am writing replying to this forum as I believe it's good. Joe ate some steak because he believes that is good. A thief will unlawfully get food from the store because it's good for his survival. Hitler wanted to wipe out the jews because he believe he was doing a favor for our human race.

Hitler did not want to wipe out jews because he believed that he is doing the world a favor,he believed that they pose a threat to his territories and ''ways'' of nazi-German people. Also almost no action on daily bases taken by us is based on good or bad,e/g you replied to this topic to participate in the discussion to feel acknowledged,that's selfish. Joe ate some steak because meat tastes good and happens to help us stay alive and healthy,that's survival,the part about the thief..doesn't even make sense.

"

ManicCompression wrote:

Some humans will kill others just for the 'glory' of it. Some want to 'power' or 'prestige'. But all of them simply believe that human life loss weighs less.

Considering the amount at which we multiply,human life doesn't really weight much.

"

ManicCompression wrote:

A scenario like mad max is possible because by then, the only 'good' in every person would be survival. And we'd do all crazy stuff to do so.

Survival is not based on good or bad,but a primal instinct.

"

ManicCompression wrote:

1) Comfortable living means that you have all the necessary needs to survive. This not only includes food, clothing, shelter. But also books, trip to maldives, etc for our emotional needs.

None of the above has nothing to do with emotional needs..whatever it means.
Food is sustenance,clothing is survival,shelter is survival,books are knowledge,and traveling is experiences.

"

ManicCompression wrote:

2) Friends means the social needs. We need other persons to talk to. Laugh with. Dom farming.

I have lived almost alone since i was 18,i am now 28,living proof that it's not a need of any sort,especially not in this day and age.

"

ManicCompression wrote:

3) Self analyzed life is time for thinking. Unwinding the mind of all the stress we do. Time for deciding decisions. Time for philosophy.

a.k.a drugs and alcohol,if you read this and you are under the age of 18,it's bad,if you are 18+ its the best way to blow off steam. Philosophy is not something that should be done by just about anyone,sorry but your reply is sort of a written proof to it. The more you think,the more you worry - So the last thing i would do when i want to just switch the lights out so to speak,would be to start analyzing anything.

What you are describing is a cheap Holywood movie version of everyday life.