Political Crossfire Forums

[LetsGetReal]

Christ=King of Heaven on the Earth/sinless perfect/God

Christians=A fallen sinner who believes in Christ

Christ>Christians

Your welcome :flwr:

[Free Thinkr]

FinnMacCool wrote: 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?
I want to know how it is you aim to prevent this. You're against government, so how are you going to enforce justice?

Quote: Quote: Might comes in many forms; armament and numbers are several.
You said physical strength lol.
No I didn't, actually. I said "physical power." I include shooting someone in the face as a use of physical power.

Quote: 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 possibility 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.
Then I don't see how anarchism is to work. What you have now is two sides fighting, with neither side having any official backing of any justice system. *flush*

Quote: 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?
All he has to do is be clever enough not to be caught by some common bozo. You need professional detectives if you want there to be any good chance of catching the perpetrator and proving he is guilty.

Quote: 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?
What? Who's "they" and what benefits are they reaping?

Quote: 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.
Again, what in gods name are you talking about? Answer. The. Question.

Quote: Noone who used the toilets in the train station will use the bathrooms there because why should they? someone isn't doing your job.
That question, quite literally, makes no sense at all. None. I defy anyone to glean meaning from it.

Quote: I think your argument is getting flushed down the toilet, as opposed to my idealogy.
Flush the crack down the toilet, brotha. Jeez.

[Robin Hood]

The Impeacher wrote: No, I have not. And this is not "my argument," it is Marx's, and once again its clear that you lack any knowledge or comprehension of it.

No one makes "labour" you fool. The worker labors, he does not "make labour" - do try to use your brain for a change. Hard work for you, to be certain.

Nitpicking over my language isn't an argument. Give an objective definition of labour, and then you might have an objective definition of value.

Robin Hood wrote: For instance, if I make a school and am stupid enough to only open it in the middle of the night - thus producing no value as there'd be no customers - then a capitalist comes along and tells me to open it during the day, a huge amount of value is produced. So since it was the 'capitalist's' labour that created value where there was none before should he get all the revenue?

Quote: I didn't realize you can "make a school" all by yourself. Again, start using your brain and I will respond in kind.

Clearly, thinking seems like too much "labour" or "work" for you to handle. There is ittle profit in responding further to your thoughtless posts.

Respond to my point. DOn't try to nitpick holes in the example. It is possible for me to make a school by myself, but the possibility is irrelevant since it was an example to communicate a concept that you can't answer.

Robin Hood wrote: Profit is what one gets for allocating one's resources efficiently, that requires work.

Quote: Thank you Captain Obvious, then why does the worker not get the profits?

The worker profits from his work, otherwise he wouldn't do it, i.e the pay received must be more valuable to him than the time and effort expended.

[issaiah1332]

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?

THERE IS NO STATE IN COMMUNISM!!!!

[Buhness]

Robin Hood wrote: The worker profits from his work, otherwise he wouldn't do it, i.e the pay received must be more valuable to him than the time and effort expended.
Or maybe he needs an income to live on? Capitalism parades around as a "voluntary" ideology, but the wantingness to fufill needs (and wants) is hardly voluntary in any individuals. You are going to eventually have to get a job if you want to live.

[LostSoul3412]

Buhness wrote: Or maybe he needs an income to live on? Capitalism parades around as a "voluntary" ideology, but the wantingness to fufill needs (and wants) is hardly voluntary in any individuals. You are going to eventually have to get a job if you want to live.

See the bold.

If you really wanted to, you could grow your own crops, sew your own clothes, build your own house, and become self-sufficient; there's nothing stopping you from doing that. Also, there's nothing stopping you from living off of rain water and bugs. It is entirely possible to survive without a job.

[FinnMacCool]

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... :)

Yes and he didn't ask for a transistional state to the divine kingdom of heaven.

So therefore he is an anarchist.

Unless maybe Earth is the transistional stage?

[FinnMacCool]

Quote: I want to know how it is you aim to prevent this. You're against government, so how are you going to enforce justice?

If your asking if there is a method in anarchism that allows people to predict when they are going to be shot, then I cannot help you cause no such system exists.

Quote: No I didn't, actually. I said "physical power." I include shooting someone in the face as a use of physical power.

SHooting a gone does require a strenous amount of it. . .

Quote: Then I don't see how anarchism is to work. What you have now is two sides fighting, with neither side having any official backing of any justice system. *flush*
That describes war not anarchism. Are you going anywhere with this?

Quote: All he has to do is be clever enough not to be caught by some common bozo. You need professional detectives if you want there to be any good chance of catching the perpetrator and proving he is guilty.
So. . .whats the problem? lol.

Quote: What? Who's "they" and what benefits are they reaping
You said before that the only way people would clean toilets is if they got paid to do it. So how come those toilets aren't clean?

Quote: Again, what in gods name are you talking about? Answer. The. Question.

I already did. Several. Times.

Quote: That question, quite literally, makes no sense at all. None. I defy anyone to glean meaning from it.
I made a mistake in typing what I mean to type was: Noone who used the toilets in the trainstation will clean the bathrooms because they figure some is already being paid to do it so why should they bother?

[FinnMacCool]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Buhness wrote: Or maybe he needs an income to live on? Capitalism parades around as a "voluntary" ideology, but the wantingness to fufill needs (and wants) is hardly voluntary in any individuals. You are going to eventually have to get a job if you want to live.

See the bold.

If you really wanted to, you could grow your own crops, sew your own clothes, build your own house, and become self-sufficient; there's nothing stopping you from doing that. Also, there's nothing stopping you from living off of rain water and bugs. It is entirely possible to survive without a job.

Except in the pure capitalism which you advocate for, its most likely that these workers will not be able to afford to plant their own crops or build a house. Have you ever built anything in your life? That s**t costs money. And when people other then yourself own all the land around you, rather diffficult. And if there is a drout no rainwater.

So no. Its not possible for all people to survive without a job.

[LostSoul3412]

FinnMacCool wrote: Except in the pure capitalism which you advocate for, its most likely that these workers will not be able to afford to plant their own crops or build a house.

Tough break.

FinnMacCool wrote: Have you ever built anything in your life? That s**t costs money

Yes I have, and yes it does.

FinnMacCool wrote: And when people other then yourself own all the land around you, rather diffficult.

Without money anyway. Again, tough break.

FinnMacCool wrote: And if there is a drout no rainwater.

Tough break.

FinnMacCool wrote: So no. Its not possible for all people to survive without a job.

Death is always an option if you're really against working.

[FinnMacCool]

Quote:
Tough break.

Exactly.

Quote: Yes I have, and yes it does.
Exactly.

Quote: Without money anyway. Again, tough break.

It certainly is.
Quote: Tough break.
Quite right.
Quote: Death is always an option if you're really against working.
Not even worth a reply.

So tell me: WHy did you even bother to reply?

[LostSoul3412]

FinnMacCool wrote: Quote:
Tough break.

Exactly.

Quote: Yes I have, and yes it does.
Exactly.

Quote: Without money anyway. Again, tough break.

It certainly is.
Quote: Tough break.
Quite right.
Quote: Death is always an option if you're really against working.
Not even worth a reply.

So tell me: WHy did you even bother to reply?

Because you have yet to explain why that's a bad thing.

[FinnMacCool]

LostSoul3412 wrote: FinnMacCool wrote: Quote:
Tough break.

Exactly.

Quote: Yes I have, and yes it does.
Exactly.

Quote: Without money anyway. Again, tough break.

It certainly is.
Quote: Tough break.
Quite right.
Quote: Death is always an option if you're really against working.
Not even worth a reply.

So tell me: WHy did you even bother to reply?

Because you have yet to explain why that's a bad thing.

Because its not anarchism if anyone is coerced into do something, and you just acknowledged that is coercion and you also proved your argument wrong by essentially agreeing with everything I said.

[Free Thinkr]

FinnMacCool wrote: Quote: I want to know how it is you aim to prevent this. You're against government, so how are you going to enforce justice?

If your asking if there is a method in anarchism that allows people to predict when they are going to be shot, then I cannot help you cause no such system exists.
No, I'm asking if there is a method in anarchism that protects those who do not wish to kill others from those who do.

Quote: Quote: No I didn't, actually. I said "physical power." I include shooting someone in the face as a use of physical power.

SHooting a gone does require a strenous amount of it. . .
You mean gun? A gun is physical power.

Quote: Quote: Then I don't see how anarchism is to work. What you have now is two sides fighting, with neither side having any official backing of any justice system. *flush*
That describes war not anarchism. Are you going anywhere with this?
Yes. If I get a group of boys together in your little anarchist utopia, a war will break out and it will quickly devolve into, well, anarchy. But not the kind you're talking about.

Quote: Quote: All he has to do is be clever enough not to be caught by some common bozo. You need professional detectives if you want there to be any good chance of catching the perpetrator and proving he is guilty.
So. . .whats the problem? lol.
The problem is how it is you're going to have detectives charged with catching criminals, yet not answerable to any authority.

Quote: Quote: What? Who's "they" and what benefits are they reaping
You said before that the only way people would clean toilets is if they got paid to do it. So how come those toilets aren't clean?
Because a lot of places such as gas stations don't have people paid exclusively to clean toilets.

Quote: Quote: Again, what in gods name are you talking about? Answer. The. Question.

I already did. Several. Times.
No you didn't, not once.

Quote: Quote: That question, quite literally, makes no sense at all. None. I defy anyone to glean meaning from it.
I made a mistake in typing what I mean to type was: Noone who used the toilets in the trainstation will clean the bathrooms because they figure some is already being paid to do it so why should they bother?
That's true, but they wouldn't clean them anyways. I mean honestly, would you? Would you stop and a clean a f***ing toilet on your way to work? I don't think so. Everyone would look to everyone else to clean it, and it'd never get done.

[LetsGetReal]

issaiah1332 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?

THERE IS NO STATE IN COMMUNISM!!!! Wrong and heres why. If there was no State who's going to force people to share the products of their labor?

[Free Thinkr]

LetsGetReal wrote: issaiah1332 wrote: THERE IS NO STATE IN COMMUNISM!!!! Wrong and heres why. If there was no State who's going to force people to share the products of their labor?
Supposedly, every last person, to a man, will be willing. Of course, that doesn't work though.

[LetsGetReal]

Free Thinkr wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: issaiah1332 wrote: THERE IS NO STATE IN COMMUNISM!!!! Wrong and heres why. If there was no State who's going to force people to share the products of their labor?
Supposedly, every last person, to a man, will be willing. Of course, that doesn't work though. Thats what I was trying to point out...:wink: He doesn't get that yet..

[The Impeacher]

LetsGetReal wrote: issaiah1332 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?

THERE IS NO STATE IN COMMUNISM!!!! Wrong and heres why. If there was no State who's going to force people to share the products of their labor?

No, if the conditions for true Communism existed, force would not be necessary as force is the antithesis of the conditions of "true" Communism.

The appication of force by the state, ie the USSR and China, was an attempt to bring about communism withoout the long proto capitalist, capitalist build-up and eventual collapse that Marx felt would occur.

The idea was that they could essentually leap over the long capitalist phase [ie, The Great Leap Forward... get it?]- and this is now realized to have been one of the greatest follies ever instituted by "modern" governments. Thus, thi is why people often mention Stalinism, Lenninism and Maosim etal as being separate from Marxism.

That said, if force is necessary to "make" people share, communism will never truly occur.

[Free Thinkr]

The Impeacher wrote: That said, if force is necessary to "make" people share, communism will never truly occur.
Well, there you have it.

[The Impeacher]

Free Thinkr wrote: The Impeacher wrote: That said, if force is necessary to "make" people share, communism will never truly occur.
Well, there you have it.

Perhaps... but that cynisism is why I do not call myself a Communist.

After more of the world becomes economically devoloped and educated, and there is more economic and resource parity created by trade and whatnot, then the speculation can begin in earnest. It still seems to be a few centuries away, imho.

However, the economy itself will be as unwieldy and adminstratively heavy with "corporations as government" anyways, at that point, so I fail to really get worked up about the name of the institutions of power...

so force is always going to be present in one form or another, imho, its the question of the degree of freedom the individual retains that really matters.