Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Anarchist · Feb 12, 2004, 01:17 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (dotComa,)
Hmm..I think your reasoning is flawed, Anarchist. I don't think countries like Switzerland, Canada, Japan, etc would agree that government+taxes cannot do anything to help with domestic issues.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I don't understand what you mean by saying that countries don't agree that "government"+taxes can't do anything to...blah blah. That was rather a passive, non-statement. I wasn't aware that "countries" were single entities capable of coherent thought. Why IS my reasoning flawed?

Feb 12, 2004, 01:22 am

You just made it sound like taxes can't work, and government can't help solve some of the problems people have.

Anarchist · Feb 12, 2004, 01:32 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (dotComa,)
You just made it sound like taxes can't work, and government can't help solve some of the problems people have.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Well, "government" can't solve anyone's problems because it doesn't exist. If you were talking about the state, then suuuure, the state helps with people's problems. For instance, if you're a smack addled, jobless bum the state will steal money from other people and give it to you so you can support your drug habit. There are a lot of distribution of wealth schemes out there that are like that. Same goes for Medicaid and other "social programs." If someone doesn't have money, help him yourself instead of paying up to the politicians in the belief that a good percentage of it WON'T be siphoned off into their pockets.

I don't know what "taxes can't work" means. You're not being very specific.

Autolykos · Feb 12, 2004, 02:33 am

Well, I guess it depends on what one means by "work." However, it is axiomatic that whenever government taxes people, it by definition takes away some of their economic freedom. This, I believe, results in the impoverishment of everyone involved.

Bayou · Feb 12, 2004, 05:17 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Cisco)

If everyone has something then it is devalued. As to post secondary education here, is it your assertion that everyone should go to college and do so on my dime?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
So whats your point? If everyone knew how to perform complex surgery, that would bring your health insurance down (insurance being the business tax you realise).
The more educated and independant people are, the less need for a beurocracy and the taxes people loath.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (FreedomFirst)
While communism may (and I emphesize the "may") work for a small village of 200 people it requires strict central government control for a larger nation, and even then the nation finds itself economically crippled.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
No it doesnt require a strict central government, that is merely the form it took because of originaly the technological limits of government and economic systems of the time, plus it never evolved because of the removal of democratic responsibility to the people when stalin came to power.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (FreedomFirst)
True socialism - that is, people willing to give of one another for the good of the society - comes from only one source - VOLUNTEERISM. When helping out is not a choice (which it is not in communism), than people are motivated against it. There is a strong sense of oppositional defiance in society. Just look at Montessouri schools. By taking the force out of education they literally change the paradigm, and Montessouri kids actually DESIRE education. This can happen on a societal level. What socialism and communism require force to achieve, libertarian ancap volunteerism can do without one societal requirement.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Really, Volunteerism cant be part of communism eh?
Well then how do you explain the millions of people who gave themselves to the bolshevik cause in russia? They wernt being payed after all to fight the Csar and the capitalist lords who controlled the economy at the time.
People have to work toghether in order to survive, they have no choice in this.
How can you seperate volunteering for survival sake from volunteering by choice?
The fact that you invoke the laws of capitalism shows that their is still force being asserted: education is only relevant in its ability to make money in a system, hence it is not people educating by free will, but for economic security.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (anarchist)
Whenever I hear American commies bitching about their particular ideology and why it should be put into effect in the US, I wonder what it is they want that hasn't already happened:<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Thats Canadian commie to you petberg(petty bourgoise).
But I have come to you view point before you ever posted this rant, except that the governments in question is desighned to be controlled by the bourgoise (though to the degree it changes from country to country)- so it is not a marxist system as it is desighned in the best interests of capitalist dictators in mind, not the bourgoise.
Thus it has a totalitarianist feel to it.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (FreedomFirst)
Agreed, America is far closer to traditional socialism than free market economics, and it is what creates these powerful corporations. Ironically, the solution proposed by the socialists is MORE GOVERNMENT! Nobody gets it!<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Funny how successful your marxist U.S nation has been in light of you exclaiming in the post previous that such a system would strangle economic prosperity.
What creates more powerful corporations is symptomatic of the capitalist system in general, they consume other corporation until they have the econominc power to consume the competition when it show up.
How do you plan on curbing this trend without government judiciary, policeforce to reinforce anti monopoly rules?
You can simply curb corporations power by relinquishing the laws that give them the same rigths as a citizen after all.
Yes thats right, most socialist solutions are proposals for more government, which is why people are attracted to communist theory in the 1st place, as it is proposal for the eventual dissmantling of the parasitic beurocratic system, which would mean government too, 1st the middle management and the CEOs.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (anarchist)
suuuure, the state helps with people's problems. For instance, if you're a smack addled, jobless bum the state will steal money from other people and give it to you so you can support your drug habit<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Yes think of the anarcho-capitalist solution, these people set up a company to steal money so that they can feed their addiction, their by legitimising their crime as a business practice, it works in the stock market after all.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Autolykos)
Well, I guess it depends on what one means by "work." However, it is axiomatic that whenever government taxes people, it by definition takes away some of their economic freedom. This, I believe, results in the impoverishment of everyone involve<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
...except that this "tax" goes into services and infrastructure used by everyone including the businesses themselves, thereby increasing economic productivity, negating what impoverishment.

But please everyone, keep spouting things in such simplistic contexts, it makes my posts that much easier.

Anarchist · Feb 12, 2004, 11:03 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (anarchist)
suuuure, the state helps with people's problems. For instance, if you're a smack addled, jobless bum the state will steal money from other people and give it to you so you can support your drug habit<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Yes think of the anarcho-capitalist solution, these people set up a company to steal money so that they can feed their addiction, their by legitimising their crime as a business practice, it works in the stock market after all.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
What about THAT wasn't in a simplistic context? "these people set up a company to steal money" Yeah, I'm sure that this "anarcho-capitalist solution" is a hot scam on Wall Street...
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,)
But please everyone, keep spouting things in such simplistic contexts, it makes my posts that much easier. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Jackney Sneeb · Feb 12, 2004, 12:08 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (dotComa,)
You just made it sound like taxes can't work, and government can't help solve some of the problems people have.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Taxes can work, if by "work" you mean "help politicians maintain power."

I get this argument from state-worshippers all the time. They insist that sometimes the state does good things for people (in addtition to -- and in spite of -- the mass extortion, war, and poverty it perpetrates). Do people in "government" ever do the right thing? Sure. When they are doing the right thing, they are only doing that which any human being has an obligation to do. That's not the issue, though. The issue is that when they do the wrong thing, many deluded sheep think it's okay because it's "government" doing the evil crap.

Is stealing wrong? Yes. Can it be made the right thing to do by politicians scribbling some words on a piece of paper in the form of, "we hereby have the right to take people's money whether they agree or not"? No.

(If you answered yes, then how is this different: "We politicians hereby have the right to screw anyone we please, whether they agree or not." Does that make rape a good thing all of a sudden [i.e., when it's done by people in "government"]? "Many people would benefit, Jackney. Think of all the childless couples who won't have to go to the sperm bank! Childless couple problem solved!" Aak.)

--Jackney Sneeb

FreedomFirst · Feb 12, 2004, 12:35 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,)

No it doesnt require a strict central government, that is merely the form it took because of originaly the technological limits of government and economic systems of the time, plus it never evolved because of the removal of democratic responsibility to the people when stalin came to power.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Oh please. Please draw up as briefly as possible a fictional communist paradise and I'll show you how it requires a central government power in order to work.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,)

Really, Volunteerism cant be part of communism eh?
Well then how do you explain the millions of people who gave themselves to the bolshevik cause in russia? They wernt being payed after all to fight the Csar and the capitalist lords who controlled the economy at the time.
People have to work toghether in order to survive, they have no choice in this.
How can you seperate volunteering for survival sake from volunteering by choice?
The fact that you invoke the laws of capitalism shows that their is still force being asserted: education is only relevant in its ability to make money in a system, hence it is not people educating by free will, but for economic security.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Volunteerism cannot be a part of communism. It can be what puts a communist government into power, but once that system is in place it requires FORCE in order to keep things communist. Without force, the system inherent returns to a free market - which is the natural economic state of being.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,)

Funny how successful your marxist U.S nation has been in light of you exclaiming in the post previous that such a system would strangle economic prosperity.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
I'm glad you mention that. According to the economic freedom index, the more we stray from a free market, the less wealth we produce. America achieved great wealth through a freer market than we have now. Now that we're embracing marxism we're losing our position. Our children are less intelligent. Our systems are failing. Our leaders turn to war inside and outside our borders. And the only solutions proposed are more of the same.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,)
What creates more powerful corporations is symptomatic of the capitalist system in general, they consume other corporation until they have the econominc power to consume the competition when it show up.
How do you plan on curbing this trend without government judiciary, policeforce to reinforce anti monopoly rules?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Ironically, it's government that enables big corporations to exist. A free market inherently favors small businesses. Without excessive licensing, regulations, corporate welfare, and other governmental biases toward big corporations we wouldn't have people in a position to do such damage in the name of the "free market". Remember, it was the corporate leaders who pushed for government regulation in America, not the workers.

Bayou · Feb 13, 2004, 12:32 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Anarchist,)

What about THAT wasn't in a simplistic context? "these people set up a company to steal money" Yeah, I'm sure that this "anarcho-capitalist solution" is a hot scam on Wall Street...
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Good to see that you keep your responses so consistent, but what do you expect when you show no respect for the complex reality that is substance abuse, you somehow think you deserve respect in return :( ?
heh, you still havent proved that anarcho-capitalism wouldnt be a bunch of crooks fighting over cash to get their next fix, though you have proved to be an a$$hole but then again, maybe this was the underlying argument you were trying to make.
So I ask you again, how would anarcho capitalist system deal with poverty creating substance abuse?
Do you utilise its controlling aspect to increase profiteablity and efficiency?
Does every company have its own rehab center, which is covered in workers "insurance(business tax)"?
I need a bit more enlightenment then your twisted and cynical interpretations of marxism.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jackNbeens)
Taxes can work, if by "work" you mean "help politicians maintain power."
I get this argument from state-worshippers all the time. They insist that sometimes the state does good things for people (in addtition to -- and in spite of -- the mass extortion, war, and poverty it perpetrates). Do people in "government" ever do the right thing? Sure. When they are doing the right thing, they are only doing that which any human being has an obligation to do. That's not the issue, though. The issue is that when they do the wrong thing, many deluded sheep think it's okay because it's "government" doing the evil crap.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Wait a minute government is the root of all evil!?!
Impenitent, Castille are you going to sit here as he shifts the focus of what is rightfully the fundamental nature of humanity?
You see before you A-list came here, the whole argument has been that suppossedly humanity doesnt have any obligations.
I am glad that someone is shedding the light that human beings when seperated from the rest of humanity are angels and it is only when they are FORCED to interact with people that they become these monsters of greed and depravity.
Though you might be tempted to wonder how humanity has been able to succeed so spectacularily in groups for such a long time, but to avoid this continue to spout of your distorted rhetorical theory of what is right and wrong, you can justify anything with logic after all.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by ( Freedom1st)
Oh please. Please draw up as briefly as possible a fictional communist paradise and I'll show you how it requires a central government power in order to work.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

How about one based on a non fictional one, a proletariat controlled economy that revolves around the Native American barter system to express free market tendancies whith production/consumtion regulated by scientific measures by what is possible with current production methods VS the environmental capacity that enables stability.
Hope that was brief enough for you.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by ( Freedom1st)
Volunteerism cannot be a part of communism. It can be what puts a communist government into power, but once that system is in place it requires FORCE in order to keep things communist. Without force, the system inherent returns to a free market - which is the natural economic state of being.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

So how would volunteerism not be possible in communist barter system?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by ( Freedom1st)

I'm glad you mention that. According to the economic freedom index, the more we stray from a free market, the less wealth we produce. America achieved great wealth through a freer market than we have now. Now that we're embracing marxism we're losing our position. Our children are less intelligent. Our systems are failing. Our leaders turn to war inside and outside our borders. And the only solutions proposed are more of the same<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Wait a minute what times are you talking about?
Back in the ninteen 20's of the oil monopoly real estate?
Sure you had national work programs of the 30's, but then again capitalism wasnt giving those 6 million people jobs after all.
Or how about the 40's and 50's when businesses worked hand and hand with unions, when CEO's merely had 6 times the wealth of average employee rather then 225 times they have now?
Seems to me that the past success's of the U.S are based more in marxist theory then what we have today, which is free form capitalism that is protected by regulating system not unlike what the National Economic Program(NEP) was like under Stalin and the rest of the beurocratic dictators that succeeded him.

Remember that theoretically the NEP by itself is not good or evil, just like capitalism is theoretically not good or evil buy itself; The ethical outcomes are determined by what controls it, in the States that would be the politicians in the pocket of big business.
That flaw can be amended with improving the way the people are represented.
And in light of the data of how capitalism acts in free form like market, that it does not gravitate towards stability: Stability which encourages consumption of luxury goods, which then inflates prices of certain items people wouldnt buy if they were looking out for their basic needs, all which increases the profiteability of business.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by ( Freedom1st)

Ironically, it's government that enables big corporations to exist. A free market inherently favors small businesses. Without excessive licensing, regulations, corporate welfare, and other governmental biases toward big corporations we wouldn't have people in a position to do such damage in the name of the "free market". Remember, it was the corporate leaders who pushed for government regulation in America, not the workers<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

So then, you agree that corporations shouldnt share the same rights as citizens or the patent system shouldnt exist, because after all, its just government regulation right?
What you havent addressed is the simple observation: that businesses can buy or consume each other to grow bigger.
You can talk about your economic bible all you want, but that doesnt change the historical tendancy in the capitalist system to date has been companies that grow large enough to exert a monoploy status, current example: Microsoft and how it has flourished in the unregulated business of computer software.
The fallacy comes from the word: "free market".
Nature in general is a highly integrated whole that is not a free system, it is a complex collection of regulating systems that create stability.
A market on a small scale might seem free but as capitalism expands it will run into environmental barriers that cannot be exceeded: regulation is inneviteable in one form or another.
Whether it is nature liquidating humanity or humanity regulating itself is what is the final question we must answer.

Anarchist · Feb 13, 2004, 01:12 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Anarchist,)

What about THAT wasn't in a simplistic context? "these people set up a company to steal money" Yeah, I'm sure that this "anarcho-capitalist solution" is a hot scam on Wall Street...
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Good to see that you keep your responses so consistent, but what do you expect when you show no respect for the complex reality that is substance abuse, you somehow think you deserve respect in return :( ?
heh, you still havent proved that anarcho-capitalism wouldnt be a bunch of crooks fighting over cash to get their next fix,<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Someone else's substance addiction isn't my problem. Nor is it right to steal money from me (or anyone else) to pay for his rehabilitation or his habit. If you want to help him, help him yourself. You act as if I'm supposed to pay homage (and/or money) to every smackhead I come across because of his "complex reality." That said, I never asked for respect in the first place.

I have no idea why you think that anarcho-capitalism (somewhat of a redundancy) would result in "a bunch of crooks fighting over cash to get their next fix." Why would I have to disprove an absurd statement like that?
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,)
though you have proved to be an a$$hole but then again, maybe this was the underlying argument you were trying to make.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
I'm sure you feel that way.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,)
So I ask you again, how would anarcho capitalist system deal with poverty creating substance abuse?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Here's one of the problems that often frequents authoritarian philosophy: they want the perfect society, right now. Not only that, they want to somehow control and micromanage every aspect of it. Take drug users for instance. Bayou wants to know how the "anarcho-capitalist" system would deal with "poverty creating substance abuse." He won't admit that there really isn't any way that anyone is going to control something like that, but that doesn't stop him into devolving into a control-freak crisis about it. "SOMETHING MUST BE DONE ABOUT THIS!" ...in order to...what? He won't face facts and realize that bad things happen, that some people are poor and/or addicted to drugs.

So, why take an already scarce resource (money) and pay up to some "redistributors" in the absurd belief that a good chunk of it won't be siphoned off into their pockets? How is the "poverty creating substance abuse" being "dealt" with now? IT ISN'T being dealt with. There's still smackheads and there's still poor people. It doesn't matter how much money you steal from others and redistribute it. It's still going to happen. Why would the "anarcho-capitalist" system have to "Deal" with substance abuse anyway? If people want to do drugs, they're going to do them, "redistribution of wealth" or not. There's not much you, or your micromanagment fetish can do about it.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,)
Do you utilise its controlling aspect to increase profiteablity and efficieny?
Does every company have its own rehab center, which is covered in their "insurance(business tax)"?
I need a bit more enlightenment then your twisted and cynical interpretations of marxism.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Maybe you're buying into the emotionally charged "drug epidemic" rhetoric a little too much.

Anarchist · Feb 13, 2004, 01:20 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Autolykos,)
Well, I guess it depends on what one means by "work." However, it is axiomatic that whenever government taxes people, it by definition takes away some of their economic freedom. This, I believe, results in the impoverishment of everyone involved.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

That's correct. A reduction in buying power for the consumer (the base result of theft). Half the time I don't even know what people mean when they say taxation/"government"/democracy/whatever works. Seems like whenever I ask them to extrapolate on their statement, they are either unable or unwilling to do so. If they mean "work" as in "taxation WORKS to keep politicians in power," then yes, I'd agree.

pklotka · Feb 13, 2004, 01:51 am

Communism fails because it assumes that a person is willing to put the state before his own personal desires and needs at all times and communism does not account for an individual’s innate greed.

Governments who choose a capitalistic view allow greed to drive a society’s economy forward but are still left with the individual putting him/herself ahead of the state, and can magnify that viewpoint. However, a citizen is often willing to make great sacrifices for the state in times of emergency to keep the opportunity of a better future alive.

Bayou · Feb 13, 2004, 04:01 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (A petberg)
Someone else's substance addiction isn't my problem. Nor is it right to steal money from me (or anyone else) to pay for his rehabilitation or his habit. If you want to help him, help him yourself. You act as if I'm supposed to pay homage (and/or money) to every smackhead I come across because of his "complex reality." That said, I never asked for respect in the first place.
I have no idea why you think that anarcho-capitalism (somewhat of a redundancy) would result in "a bunch of crooks fighting over cash to get their next fix." Why would I have to disprove an absurd statement like that?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Because it isnt an absurd statement, looking at how capitalism operates today, I find no ethical morality that says you cant steal money, in fact it is those government organisation called the judiciary that catch these people in the 1st place (though their senteces are little more then slaps on the hand, but that is to be expected of a government system controled by the capitalists).
You havent proven that somehow business people will suddenly realise the error of their ways once a governmental system has been dismantled.
You can blab all you want that it is because government is in the pockets of big business, but those businesses actively seek them out, when one falls, another takes their place.
Taking your post as an example, I cant see how you as a head of a business would look out for anyone but yourself, just like the crooks you scream at accusing them of stealing your money even though you use their services they provide without a 2nd thought.
Your tunnel vision wont give the homeless and addicts and the poor the time of day, but you scream bloody murder if they assert their power.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (A petberge)
If people want to do drugs, they're going to do them<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Yes it is not the doing of drugs that is the problem, its the innability to stop doing drugs at will that I am concerned about.
Thus their is no need to destroy the supply like the U.S would prefer to do with colombia, afghanistan.
I am not sure about the point of your rant about authoritarianism and control freaks, I am trying to get at a solution to a problem that has disasterous effects on society on many levels.
You dont have a solution, let alone the will to try to find one, I am glad that you are so cooperative with my critique of Anarcho capitalism.
You are correct I dont subscribe to your cynicism and condescention of people and their situations.
Unlike you and your personal utopia, governments do try to implement systems that address the problem, though the effectiveness of these systems have had questionable results, but then again methods change as we speak.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (A petberge)
Maybe you're buying into the emotionally charged "drug epidemic" rhetoric a little too much.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Okay I see you cant wrap your head around the difference beetween authoritarianism and communism, this was from the my last post which was addressed to free1st, but I see it also may be relevant for you and your education.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (bayou)
The fallacy comes from the word: "free market".
Nature in general is a highly integrated whole that is not a free system, it is a complex collection of regulating systems that create stability.
A market on a small scale might seem free but as capitalism expands it will run into environmental barriers that cannot be exceeded: regulation is inneviteable in one form or another.
Whether it is nature liquidating humanity or humanity regulating itself is what is the final question we must answer.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Sorry to break up that utopic dream of yours, regulations are inneviteable.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (pklotka)
Communism fails because it assumes that a person is willing to put the state before his own personal desires and needs at all times and communism does not account for an individual’s innate greed.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Thats kinda ironic when the calling card for communism is for the proletariat to take what is rightfully his.
Seems to me that they played the selfish card pretty darn well in russia.
But I see the U.S doing this to, so I am puzzled why the declaration of the individual puting the states needs and desires 1st is inherently communist, especially in light of how many governments have played this card in times of war.
Have you been reading the debate here, According to Apetberg and JacknBeans that is supposedly the nature of government.
Whether greed is the driving force behind human nature is a cynical over simplifications of things.
But it was a pretty popular viewpoint around here until we learned that government was the root of all evil.
How things change for the better eh?

FreedomFirst · Feb 13, 2004, 11:26 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,)

How about one based on a non fictional one, a proletariat controlled economy that revolves around the Native American barter system to express free market tendancies whith production/consumtion regulated by scientific measures by what is possible with current production methods VS the environmental capacity that enables stability.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Who controls production and consumption? The proletariat? And how, exactly, would they control society?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by ( Bayou)

So how would volunteerism not be possible in communist barter system?
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
So you're telling me that you wouldn't mandate participation in this society?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by ( Bayou)

Wait a minute what times are you talking about?
Back in the ninteen 20's of the oil monopoly real estate?
Sure you had national work programs of the 30's, but then again capitalism wasnt giving those 6 million people jobs after all.
Or how about the 40's and 50's when businesses worked hand and hand with unions, when CEO's merely had 6 times the wealth of average employee rather then 225 times they have now?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Look closer. Big business leaders were the ones who pushed for government regulation. Government control of money caused the great depression. In a free market a monopoly cannot exist, it's like hitting the speed of light in modern physics, because in a free market a big business model is far more inefficient than a small business model, this is why big business lobbied for the government to regulate and control the market.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by ( Bayou)

So then, you agree that corporations shouldnt share the same rights as citizens or the patent system shouldnt exist, because after all, its just government regulation right?
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
I don't think corporations should share rights. I believe in businesses being insured so owners don't lose all of their possessions, but corporations approached that theory from the wrong angle.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by ( Bayou)

What you havent addressed is the simple observation: that businesses can buy or consume each other to grow bigger.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
You're ignoring that growth, in a free market, becomes exponentially tougher as companies get larger.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by ( Bayou)

You can talk about your economic bible all you want, but that doesnt change the historical tendancy in the capitalist system to date has been companies that grow large enough to exert a monoploy status, current example: Microsoft and how it has flourished in the unregulated business of computer software.
The fallacy comes from the word: "free market".
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Thats ironic, considering that America has never been a free market - we've had 6 Marxist tenets in place for nearly a hundred years. Microsoft has been enabled by government-established restrictions/regulations/welfare to business that price out the little guy and enable the big guy.

commonsense · Feb 13, 2004, 11:55 am

Everything Socialism promises is predicated on brutal force, and elitist centralized control. Cina is probably unique in its national character in sublimating individual desire for freedom to the social good. The Chinese Americans I know are fine hardworking people free of judgmentalism, but even their history is marked by the eventual explosion of rebellion against oppressive control, its just that their nature takes it longer to foment.

Anarchist · Feb 13, 2004, 01:01 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,)
Because it isnt an absurd statement, looking at how capitalism operates today, I find no ethical morality that says you cant steal money, in fact it is those government organisation called the judiciary that catch these people in the 1st place (though their senteces are little more then slaps on the hand, but that is to be expected of a government system controled by the capitalists).<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
What "ethical morality that says you can't steal money?" That kind of thing is a result of wishful thinking. Are you expecting a non-sentient economic system (capitalism) to enforce a "universal morality" pertaining to theft? Yeah, Bayou, in reality bad things happen sometimes. Do you have a hard time realizing that the state and corporations are different sides of the same coin? Here we have you whining about corporations (which are created by the state using "law" which are threats backed by force) stealing from people, and your solution is to institute an organization based on forceful exaction (extortion) of money and redistribution of wealth in order to prevent the original thieves?!?! AHAHAHA!
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,)
You havent proven that somehow business people will suddenly realise the error of their ways once a governmental system has been dismantled.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
You act as if all businessmen are thieves, which is incorrect. I don't advocate the abolition of "government" because it doesn't exist. That's like asking an atheist if he wants to abolish "god." The only thing I'm interested in is abolishing state sponsored violence and institutionalized extortion.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,)
You can blab all you want that it is because government is in the pockets of big business, but those businesses actively seek them out, when one falls, another takes their place.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
If by "businesses" you mean "corporations," would you mind telling me how a state is going to create a corporation if the state doesn't exist?
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,)
Taking your post as an example, I cant see how you as a head of a business would look out for anyone but yourself, just like the crooks you scream at accusing them of stealing your money even though you use their services they provide without a 2nd thought.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Heh, here we go again... On the contrary, if I was filthy rich, I'd give most of the money away(while still leaving myself enough to live comfortably). You've pigeonholed me into a "selfish, money grubbing capitalist asshole" stereotype because I think it's wrong to steal money from people and give it to drug addicts. That said, there's nothing stopping me from doing a bum a good turn now and then, and I've done it before. So, please, let's drop the frantic, shrill screams about "SELFISH CAPITALISTS!!"

As for the "services," what the thief does with the money after he steals it is irrelevant. Whether he pays for a road, retirement homes for aging test chimps, or votes to give himself a raise and lines his own pockets with it. It's still extortion (give me your money or I will do X), and it's wrong, regardless of where the money goes afterward. Also, you seem to think that benefiting from something, whether directly or indirectly, somehow results in an "obligation" to pay. You can't seem to figure out that if people want roads, security forces, water, et al, that someone will figure out a way to capitalize upon creating this things for them. "I just WIIIISH there was a road I could use to get to the supermarket, but since there isn't, I'll just sit here and starve." <---pffft.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,)
Your tunnel vision wont give the homeless and addicts and the poor the time of day, but you scream bloody murder if they assert their power.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Assert their power? How? By mugging me and stealing my wallet? Robbing Bill Gates? I don't know about screaming bloody murder, but attacking me for my money is an invitation to get shot (and it's also wrong). Maybe you're operating under the typical communist assumption that "since Dave over there has more than I do, I have a right to STEEEAL it from him, since we must all be equal!" People aren't equal. No matter how much you steal from people and split it up, this won't change.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,)
Yes it is not the doing of drugs that is the problem, its the innability to stop doing drugs at will that I am concerned about.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
So help them out and quit advocating extortion.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,)
Thus their is no need to destroy the supply like the U.S would prefer to do with colombia, afghanistan. I am not sure about the point of your rant about authoritarianism and control freaks, I am trying to get at a solution to a problem that has disasterous effects on society on many levels.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
My point about authoritarians and control freaks is that you are both of these. If people want to self-medicate, there's not much you're going to do about it. Throwing stolen money at the issue won't make it go away.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,)
You dont have a solution, let alone the will to try to find one, I am glad that you are so cooperative with my critique of Anarcho capitalism.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Because there isn't a solution. I'm glad you have found me cooperative in your critique of Anarcho-capitalism.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,)
You are correct I dont subscribe to your cynicism and condescention of people and their situations.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Okay.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,)
Unlike you and your personal utopia, governments do try to implement systems that address the problem, though the effectiveness of these systems have had questionable results, but then again methods change as we speak.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
I never said anything about a "personal utopia." I merely said that it's wrong to steal from everyone to pay for other people's problems. You haven't proved that "government" even exists yet, so stop saying that it does all of these wonderful things. "methods change as we speak." Does that mean that the state finds bigger and better ways to flush stolen money down the toilet in a desparate attempt to control something which can't be controlled?
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,)
Okay I see you cant wrap your head around the difference beetween authoritarianism and communism, this was from the my last post which was addressed to free1st, but I see it also may be relevant for you and your education.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
I don't distinguish any difference between someone who advocates institutionalised extortion and/or believes in a ficticious entity called "government." That's what authoritarians are, otherwise known as statists. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "education." You're not telling me anything I haven't heard before from any other communist.

Anarchist · Feb 13, 2004, 02:58 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (bayou)
The fallacy comes from the word: "free market". Nature in general is a highly integrated whole that is not a free system, it is a complex collection of regulating systems that create stability. A market on a small scale might seem free but as capitalism expands it will run into environmental barriers that cannot be exceeded: regulation is inneviteable in one form or another. Whether it is nature liquidating humanity or humanity regulating itself is what is the final question we must answer.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
What does that have to do with the fact that extortion is wrong? Would you mind breaking that paragraph down and translating it into something that doesn't sound like bullshit? "Whether it is nature liquidating humanity or humanity regulating itself is what is the final question we must answer." <---what the hell is that? We must answer? In order to...what?
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,)
Sorry to break up that utopic dream of yours, regulations are inneviteable.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Regulations imposed by what on who?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,)
Have you been reading the debate here, According to Apetberg and JacknBeans that is supposedly the nature of government.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
I don't believe in "government." Either does Jackney. Why would we go about ascribing characteristics to something that you haven't even proved exists yet?

LiveAndLetLive · Feb 14, 2004, 06:40 am

It depends entirely on what you mean by "work." My view is that a system does not "work" if any of the parts of the system are coerced or otherwise threatened with violence. For me, peace and freedom are required preconditions for any social structure. Or, as Jefferson put it, a recognition of the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

If each member of a community chooses to pursue happiness by renouncing property and the rights to accumulate property, then, yes, that works. But the moment that ANY member of the community disagrees and is denied those rights, we then have coercion, and then the system does not work. For, to deny one means to deny all, if there's to be any consistency in a system.

MiniPhreek · Feb 14, 2004, 03:01 pm

I think it's Importent to make the distiction between what most of us commanly refer to as Communisum and Marxism. It is My interpratation of Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto, that he did not intend it to be a State Capitilism or Beurocratic Dictatorship, nor did he intend it to be anarcaic sociaity with no instatutions. when we point the soviet union as an example of

Feb 12, 2004, 01:17 am	#21 (permalink) (top)
Anarchist Your mom. Posts: 136	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (dotComa,) Hmm..I think your reasoning is flawed, Anarchist. I don't think countries like Switzerland, Canada, Japan, etc would agree that government+taxes cannot do anything to help with domestic issues.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I don't understand what you mean by saying that countries don't agree that "government"+taxes can't do anything to...blah blah. That was rather a passive, non-statement. I wasn't aware that "countries" were single entities capable of coherent thought. Why IS my reasoning flawed?

Feb 12, 2004, 01:32 am	#23 (permalink) (top)
Anarchist Your mom. Posts: 136	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (dotComa,) You just made it sound like taxes can't work, and government can't help solve some of the problems people have.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Well, "government" can't solve anyone's problems because it doesn't exist. If you were talking about the state, then suuuure, the state helps with people's problems. For instance, if you're a smack addled, jobless bum the state will steal money from other people and give it to you so you can support your drug habit. There are a lot of distribution of wealth schemes out there that are like that. Same goes for Medicaid and other "social programs." If someone doesn't have money, help him yourself instead of paying up to the politicians in the belief that a good percentage of it WON'T be siphoned off into their pockets. I don't know what "taxes can't work" means. You're not being very specific.

Feb 12, 2004, 02:33 am	#24 (permalink) (top)
Autolykos Logical Phallussy Location: In your internets. Posts: 2,991	Well, I guess it depends on what one means by "work." However, it is axiomatic that whenever government taxes people, it by definition takes away some of their economic freedom. This, I believe, results in the impoverishment of everyone involved. "I'd rather be free and alive!" -- Ron Paul Religion isn't the greatest threat to mankind -- authoritarianism is. The Anarcheion Zeitgeist

Feb 12, 2004, 05:17 am	#25 (permalink) (top)
Bayou Igneous Magma Location: Calgary Alberta Canada Posts: 154	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Cisco) If everyone has something then it is devalued. As to post secondary education here, is it your assertion that everyone should go to college and do so on my dime?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> So whats your point? If everyone knew how to perform complex surgery, that would bring your health insurance down (insurance being the business tax you realise). The more educated and independant people are, the less need for a beurocracy and the taxes people loath. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (FreedomFirst) While communism may (and I emphesize the "may") work for a small village of 200 people it requires strict central government control for a larger nation, and even then the nation finds itself economically crippled.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No it doesnt require a strict central government, that is merely the form it took because of originaly the technological limits of government and economic systems of the time, plus it never evolved because of the removal of democratic responsibility to the people when stalin came to power. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (FreedomFirst) True socialism - that is, people willing to give of one another for the good of the society - comes from only one source - VOLUNTEERISM. When helping out is not a choice (which it is not in communism), than people are motivated against it. There is a strong sense of oppositional defiance in society. Just look at Montessouri schools. By taking the force out of education they literally change the paradigm, and Montessouri kids actually DESIRE education. This can happen on a societal level. What socialism and communism require force to achieve, libertarian ancap volunteerism can do without one societal requirement.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Really, Volunteerism cant be part of communism eh? Well then how do you explain the millions of people who gave themselves to the bolshevik cause in russia? They wernt being payed after all to fight the Csar and the capitalist lords who controlled the economy at the time. People have to work toghether in order to survive, they have no choice in this. How can you seperate volunteering for survival sake from volunteering by choice? The fact that you invoke the laws of capitalism shows that their is still force being asserted: education is only relevant in its ability to make money in a system, hence it is not people educating by free will, but for economic security. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (anarchist) Whenever I hear American commies bitching about their particular ideology and why it should be put into effect in the US, I wonder what it is they want that hasn't already happened:<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Thats Canadian commie to you petberg(petty bourgoise). But I have come to you view point before you ever posted this rant, except that the governments in question is desighned to be controlled by the bourgoise (though to the degree it changes from country to country)- so it is not a marxist system as it is desighned in the best interests of capitalist dictators in mind, not the bourgoise. Thus it has a totalitarianist feel to it. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (FreedomFirst) Agreed, America is far closer to traditional socialism than free market economics, and it is what creates these powerful corporations. Ironically, the solution proposed by the socialists is MORE GOVERNMENT! Nobody gets it!<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Funny how successful your marxist U.S nation has been in light of you exclaiming in the post previous that such a system would strangle economic prosperity. What creates more powerful corporations is symptomatic of the capitalist system in general, they consume other corporation until they have the econominc power to consume the competition when it show up. How do you plan on curbing this trend without government judiciary, policeforce to reinforce anti monopoly rules? You can simply curb corporations power by relinquishing the laws that give them the same rigths as a citizen after all. Yes thats right, most socialist solutions are proposals for more government, which is why people are attracted to communist theory in the 1st place, as it is proposal for the eventual dissmantling of the parasitic beurocratic system, which would mean government too, 1st the middle management and the CEOs. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (anarchist) suuuure, the state helps with people's problems. For instance, if you're a smack addled, jobless bum the state will steal money from other people and give it to you so you can support your drug habit<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Yes think of the anarcho-capitalist solution, these people set up a company to steal money so that they can feed their addiction, their by legitimising their crime as a business practice, it works in the stock market after all. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Autolykos) Well, I guess it depends on what one means by "work." However, it is axiomatic that whenever government taxes people, it by definition takes away some of their economic freedom. This, I believe, results in the impoverishment of everyone involve<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> ...except that this "tax" goes into services and infrastructure used by everyone including the businesses themselves, thereby increasing economic productivity, negating what impoverishment. But please everyone, keep spouting things in such simplistic contexts, it makes my posts that much easier. <span style='font-size:16pt;line-height:100%'><span style='font-family:Impact'><span style='color:green'>Vote NDP "The independence of art for the revolution. "The revolution for the complete liberation of art!"</span></span></span>

Feb 12, 2004, 11:03 am	#26 (permalink) (top)
Anarchist Your mom. Posts: 136	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (anarchist) suuuure, the state helps with people's problems. For instance, if you're a smack addled, jobless bum the state will steal money from other people and give it to you so you can support your drug habit<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Yes think of the anarcho-capitalist solution, these people set up a company to steal money so that they can feed their addiction, their by legitimising their crime as a business practice, it works in the stock market after all. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> What about THAT wasn't in a simplistic context? "these people set up a company to steal money" Yeah, I'm sure that this "anarcho-capitalist solution" is a hot scam on Wall Street... </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,) But please everyone, keep spouting things in such simplistic contexts, it makes my posts that much easier. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Feb 12, 2004, 01:22 am	#22 (permalink) (top)
dotComa Guest Posts: n/a	You just made it sound like taxes can't work, and government can't help solve some of the problems people have.

Feb 12, 2004, 12:08 pm	#27 (permalink) (top)
Jackney Sneeb Igneous Magma Posts: 240	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (dotComa,) You just made it sound like taxes can't work, and government can't help solve some of the problems people have.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Taxes can work, if by "work" you mean "help politicians maintain power." I get this argument from state-worshippers all the time. They insist that sometimes the state does good things for people (in addtition to -- and in spite of -- the mass extortion, war, and poverty it perpetrates). Do people in "government" ever do the right thing? Sure. When they are doing the right thing, they are only doing that which any human being has an obligation to do. That's not the issue, though. The issue is that when they do the wrong thing, many deluded sheep think it's okay because it's "government" doing the evil crap. Is stealing wrong? Yes. Can it be made the right thing to do by politicians scribbling some words on a piece of paper in the form of, "we hereby have the right to take people's money whether they agree or not"? No. (If you answered yes, then how is this different: "We politicians hereby have the right to screw anyone we please, whether they agree or not." Does that make rape a good thing all of a sudden [i.e., when it's done by people in "government"]? "Many people would benefit, Jackney. Think of all the childless couples who won't have to go to the sperm bank! Childless couple problem solved!" Aak.) --Jackney Sneeb

Feb 12, 2004, 12:35 pm	#28 (permalink) (top)
FreedomFirst Molten Ash Posts: 67	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,) No it doesnt require a strict central government, that is merely the form it took because of originaly the technological limits of government and economic systems of the time, plus it never evolved because of the removal of democratic responsibility to the people when stalin came to power. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Oh please. Please draw up as briefly as possible a fictional communist paradise and I'll show you how it requires a central government power in order to work. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,) Really, Volunteerism cant be part of communism eh? Well then how do you explain the millions of people who gave themselves to the bolshevik cause in russia? They wernt being payed after all to fight the Csar and the capitalist lords who controlled the economy at the time. People have to work toghether in order to survive, they have no choice in this. How can you seperate volunteering for survival sake from volunteering by choice? The fact that you invoke the laws of capitalism shows that their is still force being asserted: education is only relevant in its ability to make money in a system, hence it is not people educating by free will, but for economic security.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Volunteerism cannot be a part of communism. It can be what puts a communist government into power, but once that system is in place it requires FORCE in order to keep things communist. Without force, the system inherent returns to a free market - which is the natural economic state of being. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,) Funny how successful your marxist U.S nation has been in light of you exclaiming in the post previous that such a system would strangle economic prosperity.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I'm glad you mention that. According to the economic freedom index, the more we stray from a free market, the less wealth we produce. America achieved great wealth through a freer market than we have now. Now that we're embracing marxism we're losing our position. Our children are less intelligent. Our systems are failing. Our leaders turn to war inside and outside our borders. And the only solutions proposed are more of the same. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,) What creates more powerful corporations is symptomatic of the capitalist system in general, they consume other corporation until they have the econominc power to consume the competition when it show up. How do you plan on curbing this trend without government judiciary, policeforce to reinforce anti monopoly rules?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Ironically, it's government that enables big corporations to exist. A free market inherently favors small businesses. Without excessive licensing, regulations, corporate welfare, and other governmental biases toward big corporations we wouldn't have people in a position to do such damage in the name of the "free market". Remember, it was the corporate leaders who pushed for government regulation in America, not the workers. "You have to question when a person says, 'I have a great idea, let's make everyone __________.' If it's such a great idea, why do you have to make people do it?" www.freestateproject.org

Feb 13, 2004, 12:32 am	#29 (permalink) (top)
Bayou Igneous Magma Location: Calgary Alberta Canada Posts: 154	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Anarchist,) What about THAT wasn't in a simplistic context? "these people set up a company to steal money" Yeah, I'm sure that this "anarcho-capitalist solution" is a hot scam on Wall Street... <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Good to see that you keep your responses so consistent, but what do you expect when you show no respect for the complex reality that is substance abuse, you somehow think you deserve respect in return :( ? heh, you still havent proved that anarcho-capitalism wouldnt be a bunch of crooks fighting over cash to get their next fix, though you have proved to be an a$$hole but then again, maybe this was the underlying argument you were trying to make. So I ask you again, how would anarcho capitalist system deal with poverty creating substance abuse? Do you utilise its controlling aspect to increase profiteablity and efficiency? Does every company have its own rehab center, which is covered in workers "insurance(business tax)"? I need a bit more enlightenment then your twisted and cynical interpretations of marxism. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jackNbeens) Taxes can work, if by "work" you mean "help politicians maintain power." I get this argument from state-worshippers all the time. They insist that sometimes the state does good things for people (in addtition to -- and in spite of -- the mass extortion, war, and poverty it perpetrates). Do people in "government" ever do the right thing? Sure. When they are doing the right thing, they are only doing that which any human being has an obligation to do. That's not the issue, though. The issue is that when they do the wrong thing, many deluded sheep think it's okay because it's "government" doing the evil crap.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Wait a minute government is the root of all evil!?! Impenitent, Castille are you going to sit here as he shifts the focus of what is rightfully the fundamental nature of humanity? You see before you A-list came here, the whole argument has been that suppossedly humanity doesnt have any obligations. I am glad that someone is shedding the light that human beings when seperated from the rest of humanity are angels and it is only when they are FORCED to interact with people that they become these monsters of greed and depravity. Though you might be tempted to wonder how humanity has been able to succeed so spectacularily in groups for such a long time, but to avoid this continue to spout of your distorted rhetorical theory of what is right and wrong, you can justify anything with logic after all. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by ( Freedom1st) Oh please. Please draw up as briefly as possible a fictional communist paradise and I'll show you how it requires a central government power in order to work.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> How about one based on a non fictional one, a proletariat controlled economy that revolves around the Native American barter system to express free market tendancies whith production/consumtion regulated by scientific measures by what is possible with current production methods VS the environmental capacity that enables stability. Hope that was brief enough for you. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by ( Freedom1st) Volunteerism cannot be a part of communism. It can be what puts a communist government into power, but once that system is in place it requires FORCE in order to keep things communist. Without force, the system inherent returns to a free market - which is the natural economic state of being.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> So how would volunteerism not be possible in communist barter system? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by ( Freedom1st) I'm glad you mention that. According to the economic freedom index, the more we stray from a free market, the less wealth we produce. America achieved great wealth through a freer market than we have now. Now that we're embracing marxism we're losing our position. Our children are less intelligent. Our systems are failing. Our leaders turn to war inside and outside our borders. And the only solutions proposed are more of the same<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Wait a minute what times are you talking about? Back in the ninteen 20's of the oil monopoly real estate? Sure you had national work programs of the 30's, but then again capitalism wasnt giving those 6 million people jobs after all. Or how about the 40's and 50's when businesses worked hand and hand with unions, when CEO's merely had 6 times the wealth of average employee rather then 225 times they have now? Seems to me that the past success's of the U.S are based more in marxist theory then what we have today, which is free form capitalism that is protected by regulating system not unlike what the National Economic Program(NEP) was like under Stalin and the rest of the beurocratic dictators that succeeded him. Remember that theoretically the NEP by itself is not good or evil, just like capitalism is theoretically not good or evil buy itself; The ethical outcomes are determined by what controls it, in the States that would be the politicians in the pocket of big business. That flaw can be amended with improving the way the people are represented. And in light of the data of how capitalism acts in free form like market, that it does not gravitate towards stability: Stability which encourages consumption of luxury goods, which then inflates prices of certain items people wouldnt buy if they were looking out for their basic needs, all which increases the profiteability of business. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by ( Freedom1st) Ironically, it's government that enables big corporations to exist. A free market inherently favors small businesses. Without excessive licensing, regulations, corporate welfare, and other governmental biases toward big corporations we wouldn't have people in a position to do such damage in the name of the "free market". Remember, it was the corporate leaders who pushed for government regulation in America, not the workers<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> So then, you agree that corporations shouldnt share the same rights as citizens or the patent system shouldnt exist, because after all, its just government regulation right? What you havent addressed is the simple observation: that businesses can buy or consume each other to grow bigger. You can talk about your economic bible all you want, but that doesnt change the historical tendancy in the capitalist system to date has been companies that grow large enough to exert a monoploy status, current example: Microsoft and how it has flourished in the unregulated business of computer software. The fallacy comes from the word: "free market". Nature in general is a highly integrated whole that is not a free system, it is a complex collection of regulating systems that create stability. A market on a small scale might seem free but as capitalism expands it will run into environmental barriers that cannot be exceeded: regulation is inneviteable in one form or another. Whether it is nature liquidating humanity or humanity regulating itself is what is the final question we must answer. <span style='font-size:16pt;line-height:100%'><span style='font-family:Impact'><span style='color:green'>Vote NDP "The independence of art for the revolution. "The revolution for the complete liberation of art!"</span></span></span>

Feb 13, 2004, 01:12 am	#30 (permalink) (top)
Anarchist Your mom. Posts: 136	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Anarchist,) What about THAT wasn't in a simplistic context? "these people set up a company to steal money" Yeah, I'm sure that this "anarcho-capitalist solution" is a hot scam on Wall Street... <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Good to see that you keep your responses so consistent, but what do you expect when you show no respect for the complex reality that is substance abuse, you somehow think you deserve respect in return :( ? heh, you still havent proved that anarcho-capitalism wouldnt be a bunch of crooks fighting over cash to get their next fix,<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Someone else's substance addiction isn't my problem. Nor is it right to steal money from me (or anyone else) to pay for his rehabilitation or his habit. If you want to help him, help him yourself. You act as if I'm supposed to pay homage (and/or money) to every smackhead I come across because of his "complex reality." That said, I never asked for respect in the first place. I have no idea why you think that anarcho-capitalism (somewhat of a redundancy) would result in "a bunch of crooks fighting over cash to get their next fix." Why would I have to disprove an absurd statement like that? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,) though you have proved to be an a$$hole but then again, maybe this was the underlying argument you were trying to make.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I'm sure you feel that way. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,) So I ask you again, how would anarcho capitalist system deal with poverty creating substance abuse?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Here's one of the problems that often frequents authoritarian philosophy: they want the perfect society, right now. Not only that, they want to somehow control and micromanage every aspect of it. Take drug users for instance. Bayou wants to know how the "anarcho-capitalist" system would deal with "poverty creating substance abuse." He won't admit that there really isn't any way that anyone is going to control something like that, but that doesn't stop him into devolving into a control-freak crisis about it. "SOMETHING MUST BE DONE ABOUT THIS!" ...in order to...what? He won't face facts and realize that bad things happen, that some people are poor and/or addicted to drugs. So, why take an already scarce resource (money) and pay up to some "redistributors" in the absurd belief that a good chunk of it won't be siphoned off into their pockets? How is the "poverty creating substance abuse" being "dealt" with now? IT ISN'T being dealt with. There's still smackheads and there's still poor people. It doesn't matter how much money you steal from others and redistribute it. It's still going to happen. Why would the "anarcho-capitalist" system have to "Deal" with substance abuse anyway? If people want to do drugs, they're going to do them, "redistribution of wealth" or not. There's not much you, or your micromanagment fetish can do about it. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,) Do you utilise its controlling aspect to increase profiteablity and efficieny? Does every company have its own rehab center, which is covered in their "insurance(business tax)"? I need a bit more enlightenment then your twisted and cynical interpretations of marxism.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Maybe you're buying into the emotionally charged "drug epidemic" rhetoric a little too much.

Feb 13, 2004, 01:20 am	#31 (permalink) (top)
Anarchist Your mom. Posts: 136	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Autolykos,) Well, I guess it depends on what one means by "work." However, it is axiomatic that whenever government taxes people, it by definition takes away some of their economic freedom. This, I believe, results in the impoverishment of everyone involved.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> That's correct. A reduction in buying power for the consumer (the base result of theft). Half the time I don't even know what people mean when they say taxation/"government"/democracy/whatever works. Seems like whenever I ask them to extrapolate on their statement, they are either unable or unwilling to do so. If they mean "work" as in "taxation WORKS to keep politicians in power," then yes, I'd agree.

Feb 13, 2004, 01:51 am	#32 (permalink) (top)
pklotka Sedimentary Rock Posts: 1	Communism fails because it assumes that a person is willing to put the state before his own personal desires and needs at all times and communism does not account for an individual’s innate greed. Governments who choose a capitalistic view allow greed to drive a society’s economy forward but are still left with the individual putting him/herself ahead of the state, and can magnify that viewpoint. However, a citizen is often willing to make great sacrifices for the state in times of emergency to keep the opportunity of a better future alive.

Feb 13, 2004, 04:01 am	#33 (permalink) (top)
Bayou Igneous Magma Location: Calgary Alberta Canada Posts: 154	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (A petberg) Someone else's substance addiction isn't my problem. Nor is it right to steal money from me (or anyone else) to pay for his rehabilitation or his habit. If you want to help him, help him yourself. You act as if I'm supposed to pay homage (and/or money) to every smackhead I come across because of his "complex reality." That said, I never asked for respect in the first place. I have no idea why you think that anarcho-capitalism (somewhat of a redundancy) would result in "a bunch of crooks fighting over cash to get their next fix." Why would I have to disprove an absurd statement like that?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Because it isnt an absurd statement, looking at how capitalism operates today, I find no ethical morality that says you cant steal money, in fact it is those government organisation called the judiciary that catch these people in the 1st place (though their senteces are little more then slaps on the hand, but that is to be expected of a government system controled by the capitalists). You havent proven that somehow business people will suddenly realise the error of their ways once a governmental system has been dismantled. You can blab all you want that it is because government is in the pockets of big business, but those businesses actively seek them out, when one falls, another takes their place. Taking your post as an example, I cant see how you as a head of a business would look out for anyone but yourself, just like the crooks you scream at accusing them of stealing your money even though you use their services they provide without a 2nd thought. Your tunnel vision wont give the homeless and addicts and the poor the time of day, but you scream bloody murder if they assert their power. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (A petberge) If people want to do drugs, they're going to do them<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Yes it is not the doing of drugs that is the problem, its the innability to stop doing drugs at will that I am concerned about. Thus their is no need to destroy the supply like the U.S would prefer to do with colombia, afghanistan. I am not sure about the point of your rant about authoritarianism and control freaks, I am trying to get at a solution to a problem that has disasterous effects on society on many levels. You dont have a solution, let alone the will to try to find one, I am glad that you are so cooperative with my critique of Anarcho capitalism. You are correct I dont subscribe to your cynicism and condescention of people and their situations. Unlike you and your personal utopia, governments do try to implement systems that address the problem, though the effectiveness of these systems have had questionable results, but then again methods change as we speak. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (A petberge) Maybe you're buying into the emotionally charged "drug epidemic" rhetoric a little too much.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Okay I see you cant wrap your head around the difference beetween authoritarianism and communism, this was from the my last post which was addressed to free1st, but I see it also may be relevant for you and your education. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (bayou) The fallacy comes from the word: "free market". Nature in general is a highly integrated whole that is not a free system, it is a complex collection of regulating systems that create stability. A market on a small scale might seem free but as capitalism expands it will run into environmental barriers that cannot be exceeded: regulation is inneviteable in one form or another. Whether it is nature liquidating humanity or humanity regulating itself is what is the final question we must answer.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Sorry to break up that utopic dream of yours, regulations are inneviteable. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (pklotka) Communism fails because it assumes that a person is willing to put the state before his own personal desires and needs at all times and communism does not account for an individual’s innate greed.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Thats kinda ironic when the calling card for communism is for the proletariat to take what is rightfully his. Seems to me that they played the selfish card pretty darn well in russia. But I see the U.S doing this to, so I am puzzled why the declaration of the individual puting the states needs and desires 1st is inherently communist, especially in light of how many governments have played this card in times of war. Have you been reading the debate here, According to Apetberg and JacknBeans that is supposedly the nature of government. Whether greed is the driving force behind human nature is a cynical over simplifications of things. But it was a pretty popular viewpoint around here until we learned that government was the root of all evil. How things change for the better eh? <span style='font-size:16pt;line-height:100%'><span style='font-family:Impact'><span style='color:green'>Vote NDP "The independence of art for the revolution. "The revolution for the complete liberation of art!"</span></span></span>

Feb 13, 2004, 11:26 am	#34 (permalink) (top)
FreedomFirst Molten Ash Posts: 67	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,) How about one based on a non fictional one, a proletariat controlled economy that revolves around the Native American barter system to express free market tendancies whith production/consumtion regulated by scientific measures by what is possible with current production methods VS the environmental capacity that enables stability. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Who controls production and consumption? The proletariat? And how, exactly, would they control society? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by ( Bayou) So how would volunteerism not be possible in communist barter system? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> So you're telling me that you wouldn't mandate participation in this society? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by ( Bayou) Wait a minute what times are you talking about? Back in the ninteen 20's of the oil monopoly real estate? Sure you had national work programs of the 30's, but then again capitalism wasnt giving those 6 million people jobs after all. Or how about the 40's and 50's when businesses worked hand and hand with unions, when CEO's merely had 6 times the wealth of average employee rather then 225 times they have now?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Look closer. Big business leaders were the ones who pushed for government regulation. Government control of money caused the great depression. In a free market a monopoly cannot exist, it's like hitting the speed of light in modern physics, because in a free market a big business model is far more inefficient than a small business model, this is why big business lobbied for the government to regulate and control the market. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by ( Bayou) So then, you agree that corporations shouldnt share the same rights as citizens or the patent system shouldnt exist, because after all, its just government regulation right? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I don't think corporations should share rights. I believe in businesses being insured so owners don't lose all of their possessions, but corporations approached that theory from the wrong angle. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by ( Bayou) What you havent addressed is the simple observation: that businesses can buy or consume each other to grow bigger. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You're ignoring that growth, in a free market, becomes exponentially tougher as companies get larger. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by ( Bayou) You can talk about your economic bible all you want, but that doesnt change the historical tendancy in the capitalist system to date has been companies that grow large enough to exert a monoploy status, current example: Microsoft and how it has flourished in the unregulated business of computer software. The fallacy comes from the word: "free market". <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Thats ironic, considering that America has never been a free market - we've had 6 Marxist tenets in place for nearly a hundred years. Microsoft has been enabled by government-established restrictions/regulations/welfare to business that price out the little guy and enable the big guy. "You have to question when a person says, 'I have a great idea, let's make everyone __________.' If it's such a great idea, why do you have to make people do it?" www.freestateproject.org

Feb 13, 2004, 11:55 am	#35 (permalink) (top)
commonsense Igneous Magma Posts: 445	Everything Socialism promises is predicated on brutal force, and elitist centralized control. Cina is probably unique in its national character in sublimating individual desire for freedom to the social good. The Chinese Americans I know are fine hardworking people free of judgmentalism, but even their history is marked by the eventual explosion of rebellion against oppressive control, its just that their nature takes it longer to foment. Don't be a sleestak

Feb 13, 2004, 01:01 pm	#36 (permalink) (top)
Anarchist Your mom. Posts: 136	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,) Because it isnt an absurd statement, looking at how capitalism operates today, I find no ethical morality that says you cant steal money, in fact it is those government organisation called the judiciary that catch these people in the 1st place (though their senteces are little more then slaps on the hand, but that is to be expected of a government system controled by the capitalists).<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> What "ethical morality that says you can't steal money?" That kind of thing is a result of wishful thinking. Are you expecting a non-sentient economic system (capitalism) to enforce a "universal morality" pertaining to theft? Yeah, Bayou, in reality bad things happen sometimes. Do you have a hard time realizing that the state and corporations are different sides of the same coin? Here we have you whining about corporations (which are created by the state using "law" which are threats backed by force) stealing from people, and your solution is to institute an organization based on forceful exaction (extortion) of money and redistribution of wealth in order to prevent the original thieves?!?! AHAHAHA! </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,) You havent proven that somehow business people will suddenly realise the error of their ways once a governmental system has been dismantled.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You act as if all businessmen are thieves, which is incorrect. I don't advocate the abolition of "government" because it doesn't exist. That's like asking an atheist if he wants to abolish "god." The only thing I'm interested in is abolishing state sponsored violence and institutionalized extortion. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,) You can blab all you want that it is because government is in the pockets of big business, but those businesses actively seek them out, when one falls, another takes their place.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> If by "businesses" you mean "corporations," would you mind telling me how a state is going to create a corporation if the state doesn't exist? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,) Taking your post as an example, I cant see how you as a head of a business would look out for anyone but yourself, just like the crooks you scream at accusing them of stealing your money even though you use their services they provide without a 2nd thought.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Heh, here we go again... On the contrary, if I was filthy rich, I'd give most of the money away(while still leaving myself enough to live comfortably). You've pigeonholed me into a "selfish, money grubbing capitalist asshole" stereotype because I think it's wrong to steal money from people and give it to drug addicts. That said, there's nothing stopping me from doing a bum a good turn now and then, and I've done it before. So, please, let's drop the frantic, shrill screams about "SELFISH CAPITALISTS!!" As for the "services," what the thief does with the money after he steals it is irrelevant. Whether he pays for a road, retirement homes for aging test chimps, or votes to give himself a raise and lines his own pockets with it. It's still extortion (give me your money or I will do X), and it's wrong, regardless of where the money goes afterward. Also, you seem to think that benefiting from something, whether directly or indirectly, somehow results in an "obligation" to pay. You can't seem to figure out that if people want roads, security forces, water, et al, that someone will figure out a way to capitalize upon creating this things for them. "I just WIIIISH there was a road I could use to get to the supermarket, but since there isn't, I'll just sit here and starve." <---pffft. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,) Your tunnel vision wont give the homeless and addicts and the poor the time of day, but you scream bloody murder if they assert their power.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Assert their power? How? By mugging me and stealing my wallet? Robbing Bill Gates? I don't know about screaming bloody murder, but attacking me for my money is an invitation to get shot (and it's also wrong). Maybe you're operating under the typical communist assumption that "since Dave over there has more than I do, I have a right to STEEEAL it from him, since we must all be equal!" People aren't equal. No matter how much you steal from people and split it up, this won't change. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,) Yes it is not the doing of drugs that is the problem, its the innability to stop doing drugs at will that I am concerned about.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> So help them out and quit advocating extortion. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,) Thus their is no need to destroy the supply like the U.S would prefer to do with colombia, afghanistan. I am not sure about the point of your rant about authoritarianism and control freaks, I am trying to get at a solution to a problem that has disasterous effects on society on many levels.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> My point about authoritarians and control freaks is that you are both of these. If people want to self-medicate, there's not much you're going to do about it. Throwing stolen money at the issue won't make it go away. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,) You dont have a solution, let alone the will to try to find one, I am glad that you are so cooperative with my critique of Anarcho capitalism.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Because there isn't a solution. I'm glad you have found me cooperative in your critique of Anarcho-capitalism. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,) You are correct I dont subscribe to your cynicism and condescention of people and their situations.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Okay. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,) Unlike you and your personal utopia, governments do try to implement systems that address the problem, though the effectiveness of these systems have had questionable results, but then again methods change as we speak.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I never said anything about a "personal utopia." I merely said that it's wrong to steal from everyone to pay for other people's problems. You haven't proved that "government" even exists yet, so stop saying that it does all of these wonderful things. "methods change as we speak." Does that mean that the state finds bigger and better ways to flush stolen money down the toilet in a desparate attempt to control something which can't be controlled? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,) Okay I see you cant wrap your head around the difference beetween authoritarianism and communism, this was from the my last post which was addressed to free1st, but I see it also may be relevant for you and your education.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I don't distinguish any difference between someone who advocates institutionalised extortion and/or believes in a ficticious entity called "government." That's what authoritarians are, otherwise known as statists. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "education." You're not telling me anything I haven't heard before from any other communist.

Feb 13, 2004, 02:58 pm	#37 (permalink) (top)
Anarchist Your mom. Posts: 136	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (bayou) The fallacy comes from the word: "free market". Nature in general is a highly integrated whole that is not a free system, it is a complex collection of regulating systems that create stability. A market on a small scale might seem free but as capitalism expands it will run into environmental barriers that cannot be exceeded: regulation is inneviteable in one form or another. Whether it is nature liquidating humanity or humanity regulating itself is what is the final question we must answer.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> What does that have to do with the fact that extortion is wrong? Would you mind breaking that paragraph down and translating it into something that doesn't sound like bullshit? "Whether it is nature liquidating humanity or humanity regulating itself is what is the final question we must answer." <---what the hell is that? We must answer? In order to...what? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,) Sorry to break up that utopic dream of yours, regulations are inneviteable.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Regulations imposed by what on who? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,) Have you been reading the debate here, According to Apetberg and JacknBeans that is supposedly the nature of government.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I don't believe in "government." Either does Jackney. Why would we go about ascribing characteristics to something that you haven't even proved exists yet?

Feb 14, 2004, 06:40 am	#38 (permalink) (top)
LiveAndLetLive Molten Ash Posts: 72	It depends entirely on what you mean by "work." My view is that a system does not "work" if any of the parts of the system are coerced or otherwise threatened with violence. For me, peace and freedom are required preconditions for any social structure. Or, as Jefferson put it, a recognition of the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If each member of a community chooses to pursue happiness by renouncing property and the rights to accumulate property, then, yes, that works. But the moment that ANY member of the community disagrees and is denied those rights, we then have coercion, and then the system does not work. For, to deny one means to deny all, if there's to be any consistency in a system.

Feb 14, 2004, 03:01 pm	#39 (permalink) (top)
MiniPhreek Sedimentary Rock Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 9	I think it's Importent to make the distiction between what most of us commanly refer to as Communisum and Marxism. It is My interpratation of Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto, that he did not intend it to be a State Capitilism or Beurocratic Dictatorship, nor did he intend it to be anarcaic sociaity with no instatutions. when we point the soviet union as an example of