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

Impenitent · Nov 10, 2003, 05:15 pm

oversimplifying it?

Q-no, its not a government, because it doesn't govern.

Q-In that case locally made laws would come into affect. The militia would then be after you

Q-Okay, it is a government, one in which every citizen is a member...

it is or it isn't

that's what it means to contradict

it can't be both a government and not a government

G. Adams · Nov 10, 2003, 05:38 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
oversimplifying it?

Q-no, its not a government, because it doesn't govern.

Q-In that case locally made laws would come into affect. The militia would then be after you

Q-Okay, it is a government, one in which every citizen is a member...

it is or it isn't

that's what it means to contradict

it can't be both a government and not a government<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

The council does not make laws. it makes proposals. The populace make it law.

Impenitent · Nov 10, 2003, 05:52 pm

laws make it government

G. Adams · Nov 10, 2003, 08:02 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
laws make it government<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Its governance would make it government, but it doesn't govern. Therefore it isn't a government.

Impenitent · Nov 10, 2003, 11:19 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
laws make it government<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Its governance would make it government, but it doesn't govern. Therefore it isn't a government.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

the militia governs according to the laws... that is a government

you can say it isn't a government all day, but it is

G. Adams · Nov 11, 2003, 08:32 am

The militia doesn't govern. The militia responds to laws created by the populace, putting the militia beneath the control of populace.

One of the key features of a government is that it must have within its terriotarial boundaries, a monopoly of coercion. This is simply not the case here.

You can call it a government all you like, but it doesn't make it one.

Impenitent · Nov 11, 2003, 09:08 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
The militia doesn't govern. The militia responds to laws created by the populace, putting the militia beneath the control of populace.

One of the key features of a government is that it must have within its terriotarial boundaries, a monopoly of coercion. This is simply not the case here.

You can call it a government all you like, but it doesn't make it one.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

"The militia doesn't govern. The militia responds to laws created by the populace, putting the militia beneath the control of populace."

that is exactly what we have in america ... the populace has created laws to which the militia responds... that is government

no monopoly of coersion? there are counter militias forming against the main communal herd militia? no? that is a monopoly of coercion... that is government

G. Adams · Nov 11, 2003, 09:57 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
The militia doesn't govern. The militia responds to laws created by the populace, putting the militia beneath the control of populace.

One of the key features of a government is that it must have within its terriotarial boundaries, a monopoly of coercion. This is simply not the case here.

You can call it a government all you like, but it doesn't make it one.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

"The militia doesn't govern. The militia responds to laws created by the populace, putting the militia beneath the control of populace."

that is exactly what we have in america ... the populace has created laws to which the militia responds... that is government

no monopoly of coersion? there are counter militias forming against the main communal herd militia? no? that is a monopoly of coercion... that is government<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

No, in the US a governing body creates laws, which is then enforced by the police (militia). Under my idea, the people make the law which is enforced by the milita.

There is no monopoly of coercion because the people, not the council, have a monopoly of coercion.

Impenitent · Nov 11, 2003, 01:33 pm

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

No, in the US a governing body creates laws, which is then enforced by the police (militia). Under my idea, the people make the law which is enforced by the milita.

There is no monopoly of coercion because the people, not the council, have a monopoly of coercion.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

No, in the US a governing body (communist council of the people) creates laws, which is then enforced by the police (militia). Under my idea, the people make the law which is enforced by the milita.

There is no monopoly of coercion because the people (who are the council), not the council, have a monopoly of coercion.

and I thought Descartes argued in circles...

G. Adams · Nov 11, 2003, 02:17 pm

But its not the council that makes laws, it is literally the people. And it is literally the people who have a monopoly on power, because they can choose to withdraw the militia, and they themselves are armed.

Impenitent · Nov 11, 2003, 02:35 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
But its not the council that makes laws, it is literally the people. And it is literally the people who have a monopoly on power, because they can choose to withdraw the militia, and they themselves are armed.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

the people make the council who make the laws who make the militias... who has time to work or produce? some of the people? not equal... and the next group does the same for themselves

this council and that council and this militia and that militia, choose to withdraw? no, the ends of council a are not met, council b has no control over council a, nor does militia a... the monopoly of power? they themselves are armed... the strongest council/militia wins...

your system collapses

darwinist · Nov 17, 2003, 10:57 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Slave by definition.

A Serf was a slave, etc.

"1. A person who is held in bondage to another; one who is wholly subject to the will of another; one who is held as a chattel; one who has no freedom of action, but whose person and services are wholly under the control of another."
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Under this 'NoT', democracy can be seen a Slavery. You have appent 'freedom' to vote for who you please. You will is subject to another. (Work), unless you see starvation as a viable 'freedom'. You are a slave to the system. Your 'freedom' is to vote for which master runs the Slave farm. So the poor are always to supporting the system. The rich can buy there freedom. Buy the farm, bribe the master and live on the estate.

Geoff. I think all people are Rational, till they become ir-Rational. A man Rational man is ir-Rational with a big dose of passion/emotions or a Woman. ;)

Anyway, i going to try to steer this debate back to topic. Property Rights.

I do not think that P.R is the problem. I think it is how they are controled. As you take away freedoms, you increase corrutption. Example. When you buy a car, you are free to do with it as you please. Put in a new engine, polish it, lend it to a friend, give it away. etc. With Cd's, music and software. You do not own those same rights as mentioned with the car. So the companies who control thes 'rights' become more powerful. More power means more money. Money leads to corruption. Perhaps a little over simple. But i think you see my point. Now look at DvD's and how there controlled.

Soloution.
( I hope)

In every system there should be checks a balances. At this moment this is not true. Take the capitalist system. Put an upper limit on earnings. I mean how many mansions and sports cars do one person really need. Bill Gates has a 50 million dollar mansion. plus a few other famous people have millions of dollars. They just do not know what to do with it. Now i not saying that they haven' t earned it. Before anyone starts.

So i purpose, to make a max limit of how much a person can earn. Lets say $ 1 million dollars per year. Anything else goes back into the system to 'help others'. It is only an idea. :)

castille · Nov 19, 2003, 07:24 am

I like your Communist militia idea. Its just like having little kingdoms; say the Supreme Communist Council of New York gets sick of the Supreme Communist Council of Washington....the New York council could send the Red Army to invade Washington and kick their political asses, steal their resources, and get rich.

Hey everyone, lets go ransack Washington!

And you ask why native American Indians had so much tribal wars....

G. Adams · Nov 19, 2003, 10:14 am

If that happens all the other councils would send their militia's to deal with new york. its just one big system of checks and balances. someone gets expansionist, everyone else close them down

Impenitent · Nov 19, 2003, 12:42 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
If that happens all the other councils would send their militia's to deal with new york. its just one big system of checks and balances. someone gets expansionist, everyone else close them down<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

chaos ensues... everyone is killing everyone, all struggling for power... and the strongest wins and controls the rest...

Black Fox · Nov 20, 2003, 12:39 pm

G Adams,

I like the way you assume that everything will "just work out fine" without factoring in human nature. So one militia are attacking another militia. What do the other militias do? Do they consider whether their self-interest will be at stake if they join in the fight and make a calculated decision as to who to support even if they decide to get involved? No - all of them magically come to the same conclusion as to which militia is right or wrong, and all of them willingly get involved on the side of the 'wrong' militia. Such simplicity is quite refreshing.

Scribbler1 · Nov 21, 2003, 01:24 am

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

You goof balls crack me up. Your little utopian nonsense has been bandied about for over 100 years and it has not even come CLOSE to fruition! Workers revolution! Ha, ha. A discredited threory scooped up out of the ash heap of history.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

The answer there is fear, plain and simple. Whether we are happy with our lot in life or miserable, we are USED to it, and the fear of change is a powerful one. Sure, we could TRY Communism or anything else, but the fear is that if we make such a radical change and the supporters are wrong, how the hell do we get back to where we were.

I know this belongs in the "Quotes" topic, but I couldn't resist.

"Many forms of government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms which have been tried from time to time."
-Sir Winston Churchill in a speech to the House of Commons. 11/11/1947

castille · Nov 21, 2003, 11:20 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
If that happens all the other councils would send their militia's to deal with new york. its just one big system of checks and balances. someone gets expansionist, everyone else close them down<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

How do you know those other councils will magically come to the aid of each other? Christ, I dont think some Communist Council in Carolina is going to care about Washington.

And what if New York Council gets allies?

This is how World War I started....

At last with capitalism major powers are linked by economics, and going to war against each other will ruin their economies (if China sends 5% of their bomber force to bomb New York, the entire US economy will suffer severe collapse. This is why China and America aren't going to go to war).

Whereas your Communist societies, being self-sufficient, won't have much to lose by going to war.

WORLD WAR 3: THE WAR OF COMMUNISM

THE CENTRAL ALLIANCE
-New York Communist Council
-Carolina Communist Council
-Toronto Communist Council
-Texas Communist Council

THE ALLIED POWERS
-Washington Communist Council
-California Communist Council
-Quebec Communist Council

12th Feb 2203: New York Council demands Washington to share coal resources!
14th Feb 2203: Washington Council refuses! Suggests New York has enough!
17th Feb 2203: Toronto Council supports New York!
19th Feb 2203: Quebec Council angered! Allies with Washington!
24th Feb 2203: New York Council declares war on Washington Council! Carolina, Toronto Councils join New York in war!
24th Feb 2203: Washington, Quebec Councils declare war on Central Alliance councils!
27th Feb 2203: Texas joins New York Council, declares war on Allied Powers!
29th Feb 2203: California Council demands end to war, refused by Texas, joins Allied Powers, mobilizes!

14th March 2203: Battle of New York! 22 million slaughtered by Washington Artillery!
17th March 2203: 14th New York Division smashes through Allied lines! California sends reinforcements!

11th November 2209: Allied Powers Councils surrender, Central Powers declare Communist victory over false Communist heathens!

14th March 2214: Fuhrer Adolf Horst declares re-armament of Washington Communist Council.....

A peek into the future?

G. Adams · Nov 21, 2003, 02:50 pm

What the hell? The districts wouldn't be self sufficient, no area is lucky enough to be supplied with all the iron, oil, stone, arable land etc that it needs. All the zones would be connected by trade.

The reason why all other zones would stop NY would be for their own protection as much as Washingtons. if one district took over another, why would it stop at one?

On top of that, with the populace being well educated why would they be so stupid to ignore such an act of undeserved aggression?

Impenitent · Nov 21, 2003, 04:13 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
What the hell? The districts wouldn't be self sufficient, no area is lucky enough to be supplied with all the iron, oil, stone, arable land etc that it needs. All the zones would be connected by trade.

The reason why all other zones would stop NY would be for their own protection as much as Washingtons. if one district took over another, why would it stop at one?

On top of that, with the populace being well educated why would they be so stupid to ignore such an act of undeserved aggression?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

that's what we have now... "they have more!" let's steal it from them and redistribute it... All the zones would be connected by envy...

it stops when the one district has what it needs for itself and defends it from the rest of the communist thieves...

educated? hah! I can educate you all day but you still steal when you feel another zone has more than you... when you get hungry enough, you'll do whatever the commie puppet master, er non-governing council tells you to do... undeserved agression... greed makes the world go round...

Nov 10, 2003, 05:15 pm	#81 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	oversimplifying it? Q-no, its not a government, because it doesn't govern. Q-In that case locally made laws would come into affect. The militia would then be after you Q-Okay, it is a government, one in which every citizen is a member... it is or it isn't that's what it means to contradict it can't be both a government and not a government "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Nov 10, 2003, 05:38 pm	#82 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) oversimplifying it? Q-no, its not a government, because it doesn't govern. Q-In that case locally made laws would come into affect. The militia would then be after you Q-Okay, it is a government, one in which every citizen is a member... it is or it isn't that's what it means to contradict it can't be both a government and not a government<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The council does not make laws. it makes proposals. The populace make it law. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Nov 10, 2003, 05:52 pm	#83 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	laws make it government "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Nov 10, 2003, 08:02 pm	#84 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) laws make it government<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Its governance would make it government, but it doesn't govern. Therefore it isn't a government. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Nov 10, 2003, 11:19 pm	#85 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) laws make it government<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Its governance would make it government, but it doesn't govern. Therefore it isn't a government.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> the militia governs according to the laws... that is a government you can say it isn't a government all day, but it is "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Nov 11, 2003, 08:32 am	#86 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	The militia doesn't govern. The militia responds to laws created by the populace, putting the militia beneath the control of populace. One of the key features of a government is that it must have within its terriotarial boundaries, a monopoly of coercion. This is simply not the case here. You can call it a government all you like, but it doesn't make it one. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Nov 11, 2003, 09:08 am	#87 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,) The militia doesn't govern. The militia responds to laws created by the populace, putting the militia beneath the control of populace. One of the key features of a government is that it must have within its terriotarial boundaries, a monopoly of coercion. This is simply not the case here. You can call it a government all you like, but it doesn't make it one.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> "The militia doesn't govern. The militia responds to laws created by the populace, putting the militia beneath the control of populace." that is exactly what we have in america ... the populace has created laws to which the militia responds... that is government no monopoly of coersion? there are counter militias forming against the main communal herd militia? no? that is a monopoly of coercion... that is government "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Nov 11, 2003, 09:57 am	#88 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,) The militia doesn't govern. The militia responds to laws created by the populace, putting the militia beneath the control of populace. One of the key features of a government is that it must have within its terriotarial boundaries, a monopoly of coercion. This is simply not the case here. You can call it a government all you like, but it doesn't make it one.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> "The militia doesn't govern. The militia responds to laws created by the populace, putting the militia beneath the control of populace." that is exactly what we have in america ... the populace has created laws to which the militia responds... that is government no monopoly of coersion? there are counter militias forming against the main communal herd militia? no? that is a monopoly of coercion... that is government<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No, in the US a governing body creates laws, which is then enforced by the police (militia). Under my idea, the people make the law which is enforced by the milita. There is no monopoly of coercion because the people, not the council, have a monopoly of coercion. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Nov 11, 2003, 01:33 pm	#89 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,) No, in the US a governing body creates laws, which is then enforced by the police (militia). Under my idea, the people make the law which is enforced by the milita. There is no monopoly of coercion because the people, not the council, have a monopoly of coercion.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No, in the US a governing body (communist council of the people) creates laws, which is then enforced by the police (militia). Under my idea, the people make the law which is enforced by the milita. There is no monopoly of coercion because the people (who are the council), not the council, have a monopoly of coercion. and I thought Descartes argued in circles... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Nov 11, 2003, 02:17 pm	#90 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	But its not the council that makes laws, it is literally the people. And it is literally the people who have a monopoly on power, because they can choose to withdraw the militia, and they themselves are armed. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Nov 11, 2003, 02:35 pm	#91 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,) But its not the council that makes laws, it is literally the people. And it is literally the people who have a monopoly on power, because they can choose to withdraw the militia, and they themselves are armed.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> the people make the council who make the laws who make the militias... who has time to work or produce? some of the people? not equal... and the next group does the same for themselves this council and that council and this militia and that militia, choose to withdraw? no, the ends of council a are not met, council b has no control over council a, nor does militia a... the monopoly of power? they themselves are armed... the strongest council/militia wins... your system collapses "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Nov 17, 2003, 10:57 am	#92 (permalink) (top)
darwinist Igneous Magma Location: Netherlands Posts: 200	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Slave by definition. A Serf was a slave, etc. "1. A person who is held in bondage to another; one who is wholly subject to the will of another; one who is held as a chattel; one who has no freedom of action, but whose person and services are wholly under the control of another." <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Under this 'NoT', democracy can be seen a Slavery. You have appent 'freedom' to vote for who you please. You will is subject to another. (Work), unless you see starvation as a viable 'freedom'. You are a slave to the system. Your 'freedom' is to vote for which master runs the Slave farm. So the poor are always to supporting the system. The rich can buy there freedom. Buy the farm, bribe the master and live on the estate. Geoff. I think all people are Rational, till they become ir-Rational. A man Rational man is ir-Rational with a big dose of passion/emotions or a Woman. ;) Anyway, i going to try to steer this debate back to topic. Property Rights. I do not think that P.R is the problem. I think it is how they are controled. As you take away freedoms, you increase corrutption. Example. When you buy a car, you are free to do with it as you please. Put in a new engine, polish it, lend it to a friend, give it away. etc. With Cd's, music and software. You do not own those same rights as mentioned with the car. So the companies who control thes 'rights' become more powerful. More power means more money. Money leads to corruption. Perhaps a little over simple. But i think you see my point. Now look at DvD's and how there controlled. Soloution. ( I hope) In every system there should be checks a balances. At this moment this is not true. Take the capitalist system. Put an upper limit on earnings. I mean how many mansions and sports cars do one person really need. Bill Gates has a 50 million dollar mansion. plus a few other famous people have millions of dollars. They just do not know what to do with it. Now i not saying that they haven' t earned it. Before anyone starts. So i purpose, to make a max limit of how much a person can earn. Lets say $ 1 million dollars per year. Anything else goes back into the system to 'help others'. It is only an idea. :) What goes 'up', must come 'down', unless it goes around and round.

Nov 19, 2003, 07:24 am	#93 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	I like your Communist militia idea. Its just like having little kingdoms; say the Supreme Communist Council of New York gets sick of the Supreme Communist Council of Washington....the New York council could send the Red Army to invade Washington and kick their political asses, steal their resources, and get rich. Hey everyone, lets go ransack Washington! And you ask why native American Indians had so much tribal wars.... Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Nov 19, 2003, 10:14 am	#94 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	If that happens all the other councils would send their militia's to deal with new york. its just one big system of checks and balances. someone gets expansionist, everyone else close them down Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Nov 19, 2003, 12:42 pm	#95 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,) If that happens all the other councils would send their militia's to deal with new york. its just one big system of checks and balances. someone gets expansionist, everyone else close them down<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> chaos ensues... everyone is killing everyone, all struggling for power... and the strongest wins and controls the rest... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Nov 20, 2003, 12:39 pm	#96 (permalink) (top)
Black Fox Molten Ash Posts: 40	G Adams, I like the way you assume that everything will "just work out fine" without factoring in human nature. So one militia are attacking another militia. What do the other militias do? Do they consider whether their self-interest will be at stake if they join in the fight and make a calculated decision as to who to support even if they decide to get involved? No - all of them magically come to the same conclusion as to which militia is right or wrong, and all of them willingly get involved on the side of the 'wrong' militia. Such simplicity is quite refreshing.

Nov 21, 2003, 01:24 am	#97 (permalink) (top)
Scribbler1 Skeptical Patriot Posts: 7,746	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (ColWTH,) G Adams, You goof balls crack me up. Your little utopian nonsense has been bandied about for over 100 years and it has not even come CLOSE to fruition! Workers revolution! Ha, ha. A discredited threory scooped up out of the ash heap of history.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The answer there is fear, plain and simple. Whether we are happy with our lot in life or miserable, we are USED to it, and the fear of change is a powerful one. Sure, we could TRY Communism or anything else, but the fear is that if we make such a radical change and the supporters are wrong, how the hell do we get back to where we were. I know this belongs in the "Quotes" topic, but I couldn't resist. "Many forms of government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms which have been tried from time to time." -Sir Winston Churchill in a speech to the House of Commons. 11/11/1947 Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

Nov 21, 2003, 11:20 am	#98 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,) If that happens all the other councils would send their militia's to deal with new york. its just one big system of checks and balances. someone gets expansionist, everyone else close them down<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> How do you know those other councils will magically come to the aid of each other? Christ, I dont think some Communist Council in Carolina is going to care about Washington. And what if New York Council gets allies? This is how World War I started.... At last with capitalism major powers are linked by economics, and going to war against each other will ruin their economies (if China sends 5% of their bomber force to bomb New York, the entire US economy will suffer severe collapse. This is why China and America aren't going to go to war). Whereas your Communist societies, being self-sufficient, won't have much to lose by going to war. WORLD WAR 3: THE WAR OF COMMUNISM THE CENTRAL ALLIANCE -New York Communist Council -Carolina Communist Council -Toronto Communist Council -Texas Communist Council THE ALLIED POWERS -Washington Communist Council -California Communist Council -Quebec Communist Council 12th Feb 2203: New York Council demands Washington to share coal resources! 14th Feb 2203: Washington Council refuses! Suggests New York has enough! 17th Feb 2203: Toronto Council supports New York! 19th Feb 2203: Quebec Council angered! Allies with Washington! 24th Feb 2203: New York Council declares war on Washington Council! Carolina, Toronto Councils join New York in war! 24th Feb 2203: Washington, Quebec Councils declare war on Central Alliance councils! 27th Feb 2203: Texas joins New York Council, declares war on Allied Powers! 29th Feb 2203: California Council demands end to war, refused by Texas, joins Allied Powers, mobilizes! 14th March 2203: Battle of New York! 22 million slaughtered by Washington Artillery! 17th March 2203: 14th New York Division smashes through Allied lines! California sends reinforcements! 11th November 2209: Allied Powers Councils surrender, Central Powers declare Communist victory over false Communist heathens! 14th March 2214: Fuhrer Adolf Horst declares re-armament of Washington Communist Council..... A peek into the future? Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Nov 21, 2003, 02:50 pm	#99 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	What the hell? The districts wouldn't be self sufficient, no area is lucky enough to be supplied with all the iron, oil, stone, arable land etc that it needs. All the zones would be connected by trade. The reason why all other zones would stop NY would be for their own protection as much as Washingtons. if one district took over another, why would it stop at one? On top of that, with the populace being well educated why would they be so stupid to ignore such an act of undeserved aggression? Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Nov 21, 2003, 04:13 pm	#100 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,) What the hell? The districts wouldn't be self sufficient, no area is lucky enough to be supplied with all the iron, oil, stone, arable land etc that it needs. All the zones would be connected by trade. The reason why all other zones would stop NY would be for their own protection as much as Washingtons. if one district took over another, why would it stop at one? On top of that, with the populace being well educated why would they be so stupid to ignore such an act of undeserved aggression?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> that's what we have now... "they have more!" let's steal it from them and redistribute it... All the zones would be connected by envy... it stops when the one district has what it needs for itself and defends it from the rest of the communist thieves... educated? hah! I can educate you all day but you still steal when you feel another zone has more than you... when you get hungry enough, you'll do whatever the commie puppet master, er non-governing council tells you to do... undeserved agression... greed makes the world go round... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...