Political Crossfire Forums

[FinnMacCool]

Francisck wrote: I believe that anarchism is the most missunderstood, i believe that i my self am an anachist...... so alot of people believe that we just want to kill people and make everything go bad, but that's not true, i just believe we don't need the goverment and that everything can work with a FREE-market.

Quote: I should kill you.

THIS WAS A JOKE! I AM A PEACEFUL PERSON AND I WOULD NEVER KILL ANYONE!

[Free Thinkr]

FinnMacCool wrote: Quote: Not allowed by whom?
By the people that live there.
What are they going to do about it? Assuming anarchy, might would make right. Whoever had the physical power to enforce his will on others would reign supreme.

Quote: Quote: Good luck finding people who want to clean toilets.

Of course nobody will want to clean toilets. But, if a toilet smells, why would people not clean the toilets? Just because people aren't forced to do something doesn't mean they won't do it. It's just that people won't be cleaning toilets so they can, you know, survive.
Who's going to clean the toilets in Grand Central Station? I have a hard time believing that anyone will take it upon himself to clean public toilets because they need it. Someone must assume the responsibilities of such a task, and this requires either force or compensation. There has to be janitors; if your system can't account for them, and the multitude of necessary labor for which there is no high esteem nor sense of glory, the society built around your system is doomed.

[FinnMacCool]

Quote: What are they going to do about it?
Kill him. If someone is running around with a gun killing people, what would anyone do?

Quote: Assuming anarchy, might would make right. Whoever had the physical power to enforce his will on others would reign supreme.
That might be true in the stone ages but just because someone is burly in strong doesn't mean they won't go down to a bullet.

Quote: Who's going to clean the toilets in Grand Central Station? I have a hard time believing that anyone will take it upon himself to clean public toilets because they need it. Someone must assume the responsibilities of such a task, and this requires either force or compensation. There has to be janitors; if your system can't account for them, and the multitude of necessary labor for which there is no high esteem nor sense of glory, the society built around your system is doomed.

You're going in a circle.

If a toilet is smelly and dirty, it will be cleaned. Why should anyone need to be forced to clean toilets when people, including the person involved in cleaning it, are all going to use the toilet.

[Fido]

LetsGetReal wrote: issaiah1332 wrote: CrossEyedMary wrote: social wrote: Its gona have to be communism. The amount of people who conflate communism as a theory with communism as practiced by the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, etc. is astounding.
Same here. Communism is completely different from the fascism posing as communism you see in all those countries.

I feel the same! If 100% of the time you stub your toe when you walk what is the chance it will happen again?

You act like these Communist states happened like this because of the people, not the idea. You must be either taking a naive look at communism or truly don't know what your talking about. Communism will only bring upon itself death of the individual, of society, and of all who participate in it. There is a reason it has always happened this way look at my analogy for further clarification. :wink:

And to see a Libertarian in support/defense of Communism is quite eye opening.:shock:

Facism is in direct relationship with the idea of Communism. How else would you enslave the whole country?

Sir;
Your ignorance of communism is remarkable. Communism is the mother of all other economies. Where society could not afford class divisions their were none. The division of labor is primitive society is pronounced, but is along sexual lines rather than class, and among primitives did not result in a lessening of status since ones status was ones standing with family and in comparison with ones own sex. Men would not be compared with women. for instance, and women had their own part to play politically and socially. All of society that we know has survived communism; but capitalism has brought the world and the world's environment to the brink of destruction; and in fact will someday make socialism inevitable again. Further, to believe that communism has ever endangered the individual is wrong. Communism, while stamping everyone with the brand of society also gave individualism an acceptance we cannot imagine from our cookie cutter society. We are generic. We all strive to dress differently and think differently because of the stifling unoriginality of our social environment which offers no choice but the standard. Even with modern attempts at communism there was the need to censer books because of the obvious fact that people read and think. We do not need to have book police because no one writes out of the rut and no one reads. We preach individualism and personally fear individualism, and this is because we have no families, communities, tribes, or nations to give our differences significance. We are different from others only superficially, and isolated in even that difference. Our loneliness from birth makes us all clingy and insecure. Your notion of individualism is only that; and your assertion that you are different when you are exactly like everyone else is false. The borg is all individuals, and would not be possible without each member making the great sacrifice of his little individualism to the greater good. What hooey! Primitives never sacrificed their individual existence to anyone, though they might offer their individual lives at any moment for the survival of their people. Can you see the difference?

[Fido]

LetsGetReal wrote: The Impeacher wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: Impeacher can you please name a "Monopoly" that existed without government support?

Labor does equal value but not in the sense that you have put it. If I create the job for the worker was that labor? If I give him the tools to perform the work, is that labor? If I supply the material to perform the work, was that labor? The real problem with marx is that intellectual abilities are null and void. They aren't worth 2 cents. I'm the one smart enough to put everything in motion but I should recieve nothing in return? Why is intellectual creativity/property worth nothing? Do I not work when in thought? My new idea to save the company millions to increase productivity, effeciency, and overall profits is worth nothing? Marx was an idealist who believed the workers were being repressed by a big brother type of guy who steals from them what is rightfully theirs. Not taking into account labor that cannot be seen.

Price is determinant upon Demand/Supply. Price doesn't always equal the value. Recognized value is the price consumers are willing to pay, but intrinsic value would be what the item is worth through costs. If making an item costed me 200$ then it is worth 200$, but if someone else sees a value higher then that they are willing to pay the intrinsic value is relinquished and the recognized value takes over. The customer sets the recognized value not the supplier.

I am not denying intrinsic value in products, the point is that they are the product of prior labor.

As for your first part, the thing to do is to collect a wage or a set percentage for the "job" of being a capitalist.

Why does taking "the risk," entitle one to all of the rewards?

What Monopoly that existed without government? I don't see the point of the question, though I'd like you to tell me where capitalist cronies have flourished without government?

The point is, I think Marx would have found capitalism to be a better proposition if there was profit sharing.

Keep in mind the sate of manufacturing in London circa the 1860s and 80s, I doubt many modern American capitalists would care to defend those practices. Would you not say having a job and getting paid a reward? Having the ability to take care of ones self or family.

The part of a capitalist is to pay a person what they are worth and are willing to work for. This comes by taking an observation of their experience, intelligence, motivation, and responsibility. If you can find someone cheaper that is the same what is wrong with that? Its called econmoics stupid!!(Haha had to)

A salary is a type of reward. Bigger the risk the bigger profit/loss I thought this was common sense. The worker is risking very little why should he get a grandeous reward?

The question is important because the Free market Capitalism works if it is not being restrained by government through corruption,socialism, or communism.

What is your definition of flourishing?

Profit sharing exists when you take in part some of the risk, so in return you can take part in some of the losses.

You bring up London 60's/80's, I'll bring up Stalin and Mao which one do you think is worse?

I think it is inevitable that some in society with the desire and intelligence to set themselves apart will do so even to the point of destroying their society. It has happened before and is happening now, but it will probably always be a source of danger in every un self conscious society. Look at how the wealthy have unloaded their tax burden onto the backs of the productive people. Look at how they have stifled innovation and invention be taking the profit from it. The Japanese are beating the crap out of us with an essentially feudal capitalism, and the Chinese will do the same in short order with a state managed capitalism; and we can't stop scratching our butts and wondering what is happening. Let me inform you. The free market and class divided society that results from this particular form of economic anarchy is a recipee for disaster, and a disaster repeated after the model of the Greeks, the Romans, and countless others. Each of the forms of capitalism mentioned above demand exports, and so make war inevitable. Each exhausts people and resources, and make true and humiliated socialism inevitable as well. I think each person should have the benefit of his own talents and invention, but none should have more than a life lease on any wealth. Wealth among poverty is the destruction of societies; but no less -it is the destruction of innovation and invention. Wealth in a bank, or in a single hand makes one person wealthy, but wealth forced always to move to avoid capture by the common wealth enriches the whole of society. A wealthy society is a fortress of strength, but wealthy people make whorres of their whole society. It was the Greeks themselves who taught the Greeks to be slaves to the Romans. It is our capitalists who are teaching us to be slaves to the Chinese and Japanese. What reward is that for faithful service?

[Free Thinkr]

FinnMacCool wrote: Quote: What are they going to do about it?
Kill him. If someone is running around with a gun killing people, what would anyone do?
So, you're basically saying every man for himself. Those who are unable to kill before being killed lose, those who are able win. Those who are willing to murder take, those who are unwilling give.

Quote: Quote: Assuming anarchy, might would make right. Whoever had the physical power to enforce his will on others would reign supreme.
That might be true in the stone ages but just because someone is burly in strong doesn't mean they won't go down to a bullet.
Might comes in many forms; armament and numbers are several. If I get a gang of badasses together with a stockpile of firearms, we can go town to town, enslaving whoever we chose. Without any opposition, we will rule unchallenged.

A maniac serial killer can go town to town mutilating random individuals, with no fear of a police force tracking him down.

Quote: Quote: Who's going to clean the toilets in Grand Central Station? I have a hard time believing that anyone will take it upon himself to clean public toilets because they need it. Someone must assume the responsibilities of such a task, and this requires either force or compensation. There has to be janitors; if your system can't account for them, and the multitude of necessary labor for which there is no high esteem nor sense of glory, the society built around your system is doomed.
You're going in a circle.

If a toilet is smelly and dirty, it will be cleaned.
Nonsense. I've come across many smelly and dirty toilets in my day, proving this asinine assertion wrong. Christ; surely you've used a gas station toilet before.

Quote: Why should anyone need to be forced to clean toilets when people, including the person involved in cleaning it, are all going to use the toilet.
Just answer the question: who's cleaning the toilets in Grand Central Station? Your ideal is going down the toilet.

[LetsGetReal]

The Impeacher wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: issaiah1332 wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: issaiah1332 wrote: CrossEyedMary wrote: social wrote: Its gona have to be communism. The amount of people who conflate communism as a theory with communism as practiced by the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, etc. is astounding.
Same here. Communism is completely different from the fascism posing as communism you see in all those countries.

I feel the same! If 100% of the time you stub your toe when you walk what is the chance it will happen again?

You act like these Communist states happened like this because of the people, not the idea. You must be either taking a naive look at communism or truly don't know what your talking about. Communism will only bring upon itself death of the individual, of society, and of all who participate in it. There is a reason it has always happened this way look at my analogy for further clarification. :wink:

And to see a Libertarian in support/defense of Communism is quite eye opening.:shock:

Facism is in direct relationship with the idea of Communism. How else would you enslave the whole country?


The idea is not flawed at all only your understanding. In Communism there is no slavery. It is impossible to be a slave, in true Communism, when there is no master over the slave. Everyone works, everyone is equal, everyone gets what they need. No one is controlling them, they are not a slave to how much money they have, and there is no state. Who is the slave owner? Everyone works is commune, to help each other. When one works together one can truly be free. Are you serious? There is a state and it is your master :?. Who truly wants to be equal? What if we're all equally poor, would you want that? Why does my intellect/abilities earn me no merit beyond what a normal person can achieve?

And are you not controlling them by not allowing them to get what they want even if someone else doesn't? Or by not allowing them to have better things than anyone else?

How you can craft a post like that and call yourself a Christian is simply astonishing to me. Parable of the Talents and also where in the bible does it say we all have to make an equal income, have equal living space, equal food, etc...

How can you speak of freedom when all Communism does is take it all away and enslave an entire nation.

Judge not unless the wants to judged by the same marker...

[The Impeacher]

LetsGetReal wrote: The Impeacher wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: issaiah1332 wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: issaiah1332 wrote: CrossEyedMary wrote: social wrote: Its gona have to be communism. The amount of people who conflate communism as a theory with communism as practiced by the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, etc. is astounding.
Same here. Communism is completely different from the fascism posing as communism you see in all those countries.

I feel the same! If 100% of the time you stub your toe when you walk what is the chance it will happen again?

You act like these Communist states happened like this because of the people, not the idea. You must be either taking a naive look at communism or truly don't know what your talking about. Communism will only bring upon itself death of the individual, of society, and of all who participate in it. There is a reason it has always happened this way look at my analogy for further clarification. :wink:

And to see a Libertarian in support/defense of Communism is quite eye opening.:shock:

Facism is in direct relationship with the idea of Communism. How else would you enslave the whole country?


The idea is not flawed at all only your understanding. In Communism there is no slavery. It is impossible to be a slave, in true Communism, when there is no master over the slave. Everyone works, everyone is equal, everyone gets what they need. No one is controlling them, they are not a slave to how much money they have, and there is no state. Who is the slave owner? Everyone works is commune, to help each other. When one works together one can truly be free. Are you serious? There is a state and it is your master :?. Who truly wants to be equal? What if we're all equally poor, would you want that? Why does my intellect/abilities earn me no merit beyond what a normal person can achieve?

And are you not controlling them by not allowing them to get what they want even if someone else doesn't? Or by not allowing them to have better things than anyone else?

How you can craft a post like that and call yourself a Christian is simply astonishing to me. Parable of the Talents and also where in the bible does it say we all have to make an equal income, have equal living space, equal food, etc...

How can you speak of freedom when all Communism does is take it all away and enslave an entire nation.

Judge not unless the wants to judged by the same marker...

That's funny, how can I not be even be a Marxist, and yet a Communist? I guess I won't tell you how I feel Christ was a simply a "Christian Communist"....

Anyways, it's not meant to offend, I just wanted you to consider your clearly proclaimed values seem to have some conflicts in them.

Perhaps Christianity should also be a good contender for "most misunderstood"...

;)

[LetsGetReal]

Yes it should because you don't know what your talking about. If you would like to take it to Christianity I'll be more then willing to discuss, just know that you so far have shown an incompetent outlook of it.

Never stated you were a communist, I stated you talk of Communism as it would be a enhancement in freedom. Which it would not..

[The Impeacher]

LetsGetReal wrote: Yes it should because you don't know what your talking about.

Oh, really? :lol:

LetsGetReal wrote: If you would like to take it to Christianity I'll be more then willing to discuss, just know that you so far have shown an incompetent outlook of it.

I don't get worked up over mythology, so I'll pass. 'Tis some good stuff to be had, tho.

LetsGetReal wrote: Never stated you were a communist, I stated you talk of Communism as it would be a enhancement in freedom. Which it would not..

That's funny, seeing as to how I have not talked about either Communism or freedom.

[LetsGetReal]

Yes, really, and mythology :roll:. I forgot your just so much smarter then us stupid Christians and I knew you wouldn't want to talk about it due to the fact that so far you haven't said one thing consistent with christianity but I digress.

Hmmm....Did you not speak of how the Intellectual/Intelligent commons are being ripped off and Marx's view points on it? Would that not be about an obstruction of freedom and Communism?

[FinnMacCool]

Quote: So, you're basically saying every man for himself. Those who are unable to kill before being killed lose, those who are able win. Those who are willing to murder take, those who are unwilling give.
This is a universal statement and has nothing to do with anything. Of course if I pick up a gun and shoot someone in the back, I "win". What the hell does that have to do with anything though?

Quote:
Might comes in many forms; armament and numbers are several.
You said physical strength lol.
Quote: If I get a gang of badasses together with a stockpile of firearms, we can go town to town, enslaving whoever we chose. Without any opposition, we will rule unchallenged.
Of course you can. I'm not saying that this would never ever ever in any possiblity happen. In fact, that closely describes what happened in Spain though it wasn't a result of anarchism there. In fact, anarchism actually took hold after Franco revolted. But that doesn't mean that people won't fight back.
Quote:
A maniac serial killer can go town to town mutilating random individuals, with no fear of a police force tracking him down.
Why should he need to fear a police force when there are plenty of armed citizens ready to protect their families and root out those who, by murdering people, is infringing on peoples liberty?

Quote: Nonsense. I've come across many smelly and dirty toilets in my day, proving this asinine assertion wrong. Christ; surely you've used a gas station toilet before.
Yes and guess what? They are supposedly reaping the benefits of the task which they are not doing. So much for that argument, eh?

Quote: Just answer the question: who's cleaning the toilets in Grand Central Station? Your ideal is going down the toilet.
Well apparently people are being paid to do a job but they are just not doing it. Noone who used the toilets in the train station will use the bathrooms there because why should they? someone isn't doing your job.

I think your argument is getting flushed down the toilet, as opposed to my idealogy.

[FinnMacCool]

Quote: That's funny, how can I not be even be a Marxist, and yet a Communist? I guess I won't tell you how I feel Christ was a simply a "Christian Communist"....


Jesus was an anarchist, you fool lol.

[cap'n queasy]

Some folks would say He was a monarchist. :wink: He said Himself.

Quote: Mt 27:11 -
Now Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor questioned Him, saying, "Are You the King of the Jews?" And Jesus said to him, "It is as you say."

[The Impeacher]

LetsGetReal wrote: Yes, really, and mythology :roll:.

Is it science?

Is it theory?

I tell you what, tell me how religion is NOT mythology - that I would like to discuss...

figaro wrote: I forgot your just so much smarter then us stupid Christians and I knew you wouldn't want to talk about it due to the fact that so far you haven't said one thing consistent with christianity but I digress.

I have not talked about your Christianinty at all, and you are doing more to display your "intelligence" all on your own than I would ever need to imply.

figaro wrote: Hmmm....Did you not speak of how the Intellectual/Intelligent commons are being ripped off and Marx's view points on it?

I ventured my opinion as "an educated guess" on a Marxist persepctive on the question asked by Jawsome. I clearly stated I am not a Marxist, so how could I be really be advocating an ideology that I profess to understand but do not identify with?

Perhaps you should learn more abou tthings you claim to not like, so you can truthfully understand what is wrong with them. And what they may be correct about, as well....

figaro wrote: Would that not be about an obstruction of freedom and Communism?

No, I am fairly certain I implied that if one borrows from the Commons, one is obligated to return some value to it as well. I do agree with that, why don't you?

I do not know what an "obstruction" to Communism means, nor do I need you to elaborate on it as I am not interested in discussing it. I am not a Communist, nor do I support Communism. Though I find your ill informed obsession with it most entertaining. It's like I'm talking to Joe McCarthy....

:lol:

[The Impeacher]

cap'n queasy wrote: Some folks would say He was a monarchist. :wink: He said Himself.

Quote: Mt 27:11 -
Now Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor questioned Him, saying, "Are You the King of the Jews?" And Jesus said to him, "It is as you say."

He's the King, but all others are equal... sounds like a commune of Christ to me... :)

[LetsGetReal]

The Impeacher wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Some folks would say He was a monarchist. :wink: He said Himself.

Quote: Mt 27:11 -
Now Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor questioned Him, saying, "Are You the King of the Jews?" And Jesus said to him, "It is as you say."

He's the King, but all others are equal... sounds like a commune of Christ to me... :) Haha, Jesus equal to us :lol: please keep the jokes coming this is amazing....I always need a good laugh...

[The Impeacher]

LetsGetReal wrote: The Impeacher wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Some folks would say He was a monarchist. :wink: He said Himself.

Quote: Mt 27:11 -
Now Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor questioned Him, saying, "Are You the King of the Jews?" And Jesus said to him, "It is as you say."

He's the King, but all others are equal... sounds like a commune of Christ to me... :) Haha, Jesus equal to us :lol: please keep the jokes coming this is amazing....I always need a good laugh...

Well, at least your inablity to read and comprehend is consistent. :lol:

[LetsGetReal]

The Impeacher wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: The Impeacher wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Some folks would say He was a monarchist. :wink: He said Himself.

Quote: Mt 27:11 -
Now Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor questioned Him, saying, "Are You the King of the Jews?" And Jesus said to him, "It is as you say."

He's the King, but all others are equal... sounds like a commune of Christ to me... :) Haha, Jesus equal to us :lol: please keep the jokes coming this is amazing....I always need a good laugh...

Well, at least your inablity to read and comprehend is consistent. :lol: Speaking from a man who has provided no evidence to the equality of Jesus and mortal men...Would you like me to post scripture stating that he is definitely not equal?

Just keep posting its just showing how ignorant you are..

[The Impeacher]

LetsGetReal wrote: The Impeacher wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: The Impeacher wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Some folks would say He was a monarchist. :wink: He said Himself.

Quote: Mt 27:11 -
Now Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor questioned Him, saying, "Are You the King of the Jews?" And Jesus said to him, "It is as you say."

He's the King, but all others are equal... sounds like a commune of Christ to me... :) Haha, Jesus equal to us :lol: please keep the jokes coming this is amazing....I always need a good laugh...

Well, at least your inablity to read and comprehend is consistent. :lol: Speaking from a man who has provided no evidence to the equality of Jesus and mortal men...Would you like me to post scripture stating that he is definitely not equal?

Just keep posting its just showing how ignorant you are..

Now this I will explain for you, using simple math similiar to a truth table.

Christ = King of Heaven on the Earth, God's proxy; A

people = people; B

A =/= B

Anything else I can help you with?