|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Feb 2, 2013 19:25:21 GMT -5
Slappy, the problem with your solution of shunning people who are jackasses is that it doesn't work as long as those jackasses have money. Every company in the US does business with people who are jerks, jackasses and general bungholes. But those guys have money that's green. I can be a jerk to you, my neighbor, all I want and you can be in the right the whole time. If you're relying on every business in the community boycotting me it won't happen for the simple reason that my money is still green. It doesn't happen in our current system. Why would it suddenly happen in yours?
The problem with your system is the same problem with communism. People tend to act in their best interests, not necessarily in the best interests of the general public. Why does communism fail? You and I both know the answer to this. People figure out that whether they work their asses off, phone it in, or sit at home and do nothing they get the same benefits. So, in the end, no one works and the entire system falls apart. The reason for this is people are acting in their own interests. The same thing is what falls apart in your system. With no centralized authority to enforce order at the point of a gun if necessary, people do what's right in their own eyes, not what's right in the eyes of society. The whole thing falls apart. Pure capitalism relies on people acting in their best interests. This is why it succeeds.
|
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Feb 2, 2013 19:39:57 GMT -5
Slappy, the problem with your solution of shunning people who are jackasses is that it doesn't work as long as those jackasses have money. Every company in the US does business with people who are jerks, jackasses and general bungholes. But those guys have money that's green. I can be a jerk to you, my neighbor, all I want and you can be in the right the whole time. If you're relying on every business in the community boycotting me it won't happen for the simple reason that my money is still green. It doesn't happen in our current system. Why would it suddenly happen in yours? The problem with your system is the same problem with communism. People tend to act in their best interests, not necessarily in the best interests of the general public. Why does communism fail? You and I both know the answer to this. People figure out that whether they work their asses off, phone it in, or sit at home and do nothing they get the same benefits. So, in the end, no one works and the entire system falls apart. The reason for this is people are acting in their own interests. The same thing is what falls apart in your system. With no centralized authority to enforce order at the point of a gun if necessary, people do what's right in their own eyes, not what's right in the eyes of society. The whole thing falls apart. Pure capitalism relies on people acting in their best interests. This is why it succeeds. We are talking about a jackass that doesn't pay his bills. Businesses won't want to do business with a person notorious for not paying bills (especially when he just ignores any demand for money if he feels he shouldn't have to pay). It doesn't happen now because the person who is being forbidden from partaking in the services of the business would most likely sue every last business that did that to him. If he's rich then he has the money to waste on lawyers to sue those businesses. One of your problems with Communism is that the government can do what it wants (including kill people) because they say so (or at least that seems to be one of the problems you have with it). I believe that is how government is now. The people do not have a say in the laws that pass (yes, they can voice their concerns but ultimately it is up to the Congressman or Senator to vote on the bill). The government can pass laws that harm the people and there is no recourse. You could possibly take the law to the Supreme Court but that is not always a sure thing. So we have this authority figure that can make any law it wants. How do the people stop the government from becoming tyrannical? Maybe some people like the hard-fistedness of the government and they will gladly allow the government to act how it sees fit. If people like that, that's fine. But those that don't, do not have the option to get away (unless they move to another country). |
|
|
|
Post by alwayssunny on Feb 2, 2013 19:40:43 GMT -5
1. That is the point of Marxism is to eliminate government, greed, and money through a socialist government that when finished will complete the transition into a communist society. Its called trading for needs. 2. Not really, with Lenin, his Premiership was plagued with strokes so he was unable to properly lead and dictate. He also had many counter revolutionaries such as Stalin preventing legislation to pass. And when Stalin took power, all of Lenin's early work came undone with purges and rapid industrialization. If the end begins with socialism why are you complaining when we mention socialists? Well I'm figuring under a healthy ruler obviously a sickly one isn't going to be as effective. I thought it was one party rule how did someone stop the legislation? Couldn't Lenin have just outlawed what Stalin did and had him killed (or re-educated)? 1. I have never complained about socialism. 2. Well suffered his strokes during 1922 thru to 1924 when he was murdered by Stalin. 3. Well, Lenin was going to do that before Stalin murdered him. |
|
|
|
Post by alwayssunny on Feb 2, 2013 19:44:41 GMT -5
Please explain to me how your shining system is perfectly fine while still killing 1.6 billion people? Again China hasn't been communist since the death of Mao Zedong. Also Cuba doesn't have the highest imprisoned journalist. 1. No one said Capitalism is perfect. It has it's flaws. It's way, way, way, way better than communism and it's not even close. 2. Shall we discuss those people that Mao Zedong killed? Or shall we ignore them like we're ignoring the 500,000 - 1,000,000 that Lenin killed? 3. Never said Cuba has the highest number of imprisoned journalists. That's China. Cuba is number 2. Still waiting for the explanation of how campaigning for the opposing party is worth of 10 years in jail. 1. Man, you are really psychotic. 2. Shall we discuss those people murdered by Capitalist regimes? 3. Actually Turkey is number 2. Cuba is nowhere near the top. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Feb 2, 2013 19:46:45 GMT -5
If the end begins with socialism why are you complaining when we mention socialists? Well I'm figuring under a healthy ruler obviously a sickly one isn't going to be as effective. I thought it was one party rule how did someone stop the legislation? Couldn't Lenin have just outlawed what Stalin did and had him killed (or re-educated)? 1. I have never complained about socialism. 2. Well suffered his strokes during 1922 thru to 1924 when he was murdered by Stalin. 3. Well, Lenin was going to do that before Stalin murdered him. You're right, it was Stalinism. I apologize. He wasn't murdered by Stalin (but no need to rehash that argument). |
|
|
|
Post by alwayssunny on Feb 2, 2013 19:53:06 GMT -5
1. I have never complained about socialism. 2. Well suffered his strokes during 1922 thru to 1924 when he was murdered by Stalin. 3. Well, Lenin was going to do that before Stalin murdered him. You're right, it was Stalinism. I apologize. He wasn't murdered by Stalin (but no need to rehash that argument). 1. Yeah, I despise the ideas of Stalinism 2. Its very likely and I am a strong believer that he did in fact murder Lenin. |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Feb 2, 2013 20:56:47 GMT -5
1. No one said Capitalism is perfect. It has it's flaws. It's way, way, way, way better than communism and it's not even close. 2. Shall we discuss those people that Mao Zedong killed? Or shall we ignore them like we're ignoring the 500,000 - 1,000,000 that Lenin killed? 3. Never said Cuba has the highest number of imprisoned journalists. That's China. Cuba is number 2. Still waiting for the explanation of how campaigning for the opposing party is worth of 10 years in jail. 1. Man, you are really psychotic. 2. Shall we discuss those people murdered by Capitalist regimes? 3. Actually Turkey is number 2. Cuba is nowhere near the top. 1. Yep. Capitalism is a failed system which is why countries historically move to capitalism from communism and not vice versa. But that tells you nothing. 2. Sure. I assume you actually watched that video and noted that those numbers were all from wars. None of them were capitalist countries killing their own citizens in order to suppress free speech like Lenin did. 3. Fair enough. I was looking at some old numbers. Nevertheless, please explain why it's ok to imprison someone for 10 years simply for campaigning against the opposition party. |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Feb 2, 2013 21:12:14 GMT -5
Slappy, the problem with your solution of shunning people who are jackasses is that it doesn't work as long as those jackasses have money. Every company in the US does business with people who are jerks, jackasses and general bungholes. But those guys have money that's green. I can be a jerk to you, my neighbor, all I want and you can be in the right the whole time. If you're relying on every business in the community boycotting me it won't happen for the simple reason that my money is still green. It doesn't happen in our current system. Why would it suddenly happen in yours? The problem with your system is the same problem with communism. People tend to act in their best interests, not necessarily in the best interests of the general public. Why does communism fail? You and I both know the answer to this. People figure out that whether they work their asses off, phone it in, or sit at home and do nothing they get the same benefits. So, in the end, no one works and the entire system falls apart. The reason for this is people are acting in their own interests. The same thing is what falls apart in your system. With no centralized authority to enforce order at the point of a gun if necessary, people do what's right in their own eyes, not what's right in the eyes of society. The whole thing falls apart. Pure capitalism relies on people acting in their best interests. This is why it succeeds. We are talking about a jackass that doesn't pay his bills. Businesses won't want to do business with a person notorious for not paying bills (especially when he just ignores any demand for money if he feels he shouldn't have to pay). It doesn't happen now because the person who is being forbidden from partaking in the services of the business would most likely sue every last business that did that to him. If he's rich then he has the money to waste on lawyers to sue those businesses. One of your problems with Communism is that the government can do what it wants (including kill people) because they say so (or at least that seems to be one of the problems you have with it). I believe that is how government is now. The people do not have a say in the laws that pass (yes, they can voice their concerns but ultimately it is up to the Congressman or Senator to vote on the bill). The government can pass laws that harm the people and there is no recourse. You could possibly take the law to the Supreme Court but that is not always a sure thing. So we have this authority figure that can make any law it wants. How do the people stop the government from becoming tyrannical? Maybe some people like the hard-fistedness of the government and they will gladly allow the government to act how it sees fit. If people like that, that's fine. But those that don't, do not have the option to get away (unless they move to another country). I'm not a jackass who doesn't pay any of his bills. I'm a jackass who knocked down part of your house and won't pay for it. I pay my utilities. I paid the contractor. I'm not a general deadbeat. I'm just a jackass who hates his neighbor. Under current law, business have the right to refuse business to ANYONE with the exception of the exemptions in the EOA (race, sex, religion, etc.......) I have every right to say that I'm refusing business because you're a jackass. You have to present proof, in front of a judge, that I'm denying you goods/services because of some other reason. I don't have to prove anything. You've got to prove it's racial or age based or whatever. Pizza places deny delivery service unless you live within a certain area. That's denial of services right there, but it's completely legal. Our current government has flaws. No question about that. I don't dispute that at all. We are both in agreement on how corrupt and jacked up the system is. I would argue, and think about this before you respond, that the flaw is not with the design of the system, but it's implementation. In theory, you're right, Congress does often implement extremely unpopular laws. However, the people have the option of voting that idiot out of office the next election and sending someone to DC who will overturn those laws. This ability to hire and fire who represents us is the real power behind the system. The problem is no one ever does it. But that's not a flaw in the system, just it's implementation. Our current system is definitely jacked though. No arguments there. |
|
|
|
Post by Halloween King on Feb 2, 2013 21:24:01 GMT -5
I know all politicians are liars. So I tend to vote for people who dont piss me off. Like for example if I want to see someone build bridges........ and then one clown comes on television saying he hates bridges and wants to get rid of bridges....... right away he's lost my vote. Because you're campaigning, during the campaign all politicians try to lie as much as possible so if right off the bat you basicly told me to f off, then you just lost my vote.
The presidential debates made me laugh. I looked at Romney and Obama and thought, it's the same clown. Only one is black and the other is white, and one has a red tie and the other has a blue neck tie. That's all that was different really. That and who's the bigger/better liar.
|
|
|
|
Post by alwayssunny on Feb 2, 2013 21:30:08 GMT -5
1. Man, you are really psychotic. 2. Shall we discuss those people murdered by Capitalist regimes? 3. Actually Turkey is number 2. Cuba is nowhere near the top. 1. Yep. Capitalism is a failed system which is why countries historically move to capitalism from communism and not vice versa. But that tells you nothing. 2. Sure. I assume you actually watched that video and noted that those numbers were all from wars. None of them were capitalist countries killing their own citizens in order to suppress free speech like Lenin did. 3. Fair enough. I was looking at some old numbers. Nevertheless, please explain why it's ok to imprison someone for 10 years simply for campaigning against the opposition party. 1. You talk about the failure of socialism but where is the success of capitalism in Africa, Asia and Latin America? 2. Not just wars but Native cleansing, murders of protesters, and unlawful occupation which causes mass murders. 3. Those old numbers where probably wrong and just spun by capitalist media to make Cuba look "evil" |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Feb 2, 2013 21:46:06 GMT -5
We are talking about a jackass that doesn't pay his bills. Businesses won't want to do business with a person notorious for not paying bills (especially when he just ignores any demand for money if he feels he shouldn't have to pay). It doesn't happen now because the person who is being forbidden from partaking in the services of the business would most likely sue every last business that did that to him. If he's rich then he has the money to waste on lawyers to sue those businesses. One of your problems with Communism is that the government can do what it wants (including kill people) because they say so (or at least that seems to be one of the problems you have with it). I believe that is how government is now. The people do not have a say in the laws that pass (yes, they can voice their concerns but ultimately it is up to the Congressman or Senator to vote on the bill). The government can pass laws that harm the people and there is no recourse. You could possibly take the law to the Supreme Court but that is not always a sure thing. So we have this authority figure that can make any law it wants. How do the people stop the government from becoming tyrannical? Maybe some people like the hard-fistedness of the government and they will gladly allow the government to act how it sees fit. If people like that, that's fine. But those that don't, do not have the option to get away (unless they move to another country). I'm not a jackass who doesn't pay any of his bills. I'm a jackass who knocked down part of your house and won't pay for it. I pay my utilities. I paid the contractor. I'm not a general deadbeat. I'm just a jackass who hates his neighbor. Under current law, business have the right to refuse business to ANYONE with the exception of the exemptions in the EOA (race, sex, religion, etc.......) I have every right to say that I'm refusing business because you're a jackass. You have to present proof, in front of a judge, that I'm denying you goods/services because of some other reason. I don't have to prove anything. You've got to prove it's racial or age based or whatever. Pizza places deny delivery service unless you live within a certain area. That's denial of services right there, but it's completely legal. Our current government has flaws. No question about that. I don't dispute that at all. We are both in agreement on how corrupt and jacked up the system is. I would argue, and think about this before you respond, that the flaw is not with the design of the system, but it's implementation. In theory, you're right, Congress does often implement extremely unpopular laws. However, the people have the option of voting that idiot out of office the next election and sending someone to DC who will overturn those laws. This ability to hire and fire who represents us is the real power behind the system. The problem is no one ever does it. But that's not a flaw in the system, just it's implementation. Our current system is definitely jacked though. No arguments there. We wouldn't have 300 million people under this system that I want, at least not together. Each community would be responsible for their own laws, enforcement of those laws (how they see fit) and anything else. So generally the people that come together to live in the community will want to abide by the same rules. Of course there will be rule breakers but that is when the community comes together. If the person who doesn't want to live by the rules the community set up, he is free to go find another community that suits his needs. The community won't want a person who has no regard for someone else's property. I believe they would freeze the jackass out until he either paid or leaves the community. In between that time, the person whose house has been violated can get an order from that community's judge or law enforcement official to take whatever assets are needed to pay off the reconstruction of the house. It would be just like it is now except extremely localized so communities would have the ability to take whatever action is necessary to get a person to pay off a debt or whatever the case may be. It wouldn't be a one size fits all like we have now. Each community would be different. If one community doesn't want to set rules or enforce judgments against a jackass then they should advertise that so people know what they get when they move into that community. If you are ok with the possibility of something happening and you not getting reimbursed should your property be damaged then by all means choose to live there. I'm also sure there would be some insurance companies set up to insure you against property damage or whatever the case may be. I know that businesses can refuse service and they should have that ability. I'm talking about when businesses have it out for one person not one group of people (race, sexuality, color of shirt, beard/no beard, etc. Those are discriminating against a group of people based on those things). I'm talking about one person when they say Jack Thomas who lives at 123 Fake Street will be refused service, sure they can do that but that doesn't mean that Jack Thomas is going to take it lying down. He may get a lawyer and sue (he may not be successful but he'll try). I'm not saying he is in the right either, I'm saying it's a possibility. What's wrong is people don't think their representative is the problem. Everyone else but theirs is the problem. So they keep voting them in and nothing changes. If we got down to an extremely limited government, I'd be ok with that especially over how it is now. I know what I truly want will not happen, at least not in my lifetime, so I would settle for a government that truly worked on behalf of the people instead of one that passes laws that only benefit them and their friends. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Feb 2, 2013 21:49:28 GMT -5
1. You talk about the failure of socialism but where is the success of capitalism in Africa, Asia and Latin America? One just has to look at the difference between North and South Korea. Communism vs Capitalism. Sure, South Korea isn't perfect but no nation, no matter the system, is going to be completely perfect. |
|
|
|
Post by alwayssunny on Feb 2, 2013 22:06:36 GMT -5
1. You talk about the failure of socialism but where is the success of capitalism in Africa, Asia and Latin America? One just has to look at the difference between North and South Korea. Communism vs Capitalism. Sure, South Korea isn't perfect but no nation, no matter the system, is going to be completely perfect. Except North Korea isn't a Communist or Capitalist country. They are a rouge nation with no ideology. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Feb 2, 2013 22:12:20 GMT -5
One just has to look at the difference between North and South Korea. Communism vs Capitalism. Sure, South Korea isn't perfect but no nation, no matter the system, is going to be completely perfect. Except North Korea isn't a Communist or Capitalist country. They are a rouge nation with no ideology. It was Communist at least until 2009 when they removed the word from their Constitution and any law on the books. But of course, change doesn't come fast so I doubt that in 4 years they have completely changed and dropped Communism altogether. |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Feb 2, 2013 22:12:24 GMT -5
1. Yep. Capitalism is a failed system which is why countries historically move to capitalism from communism and not vice versa. But that tells you nothing. 2. Sure. I assume you actually watched that video and noted that those numbers were all from wars. None of them were capitalist countries killing their own citizens in order to suppress free speech like Lenin did. 3. Fair enough. I was looking at some old numbers. Nevertheless, please explain why it's ok to imprison someone for 10 years simply for campaigning against the opposition party. 1. You talk about the failure of socialism but where is the success of capitalism in Africa, Asia and Latin America? 2. Not just wars but Native cleansing, murders of protesters, and unlawful occupation which causes mass murders. 3. Those old numbers where probably wrong and just spun by capitalist media to make Cuba look "evil" 1. There are quite a few developing countries in all of those places who are developing under capitalism. 2. Umm, two of those things happen under every single government. And capitalist countries don't routinely murder protests which is unlike communist goverments who systematically murder protesters and imprison those they don't kill. 3. Those numbers were actually from 2008. So they're not terribly out of date. Censhorship in Cuba is very well known and very well documented - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Cuba. Strangely enough the worst enemy of a communist state seems to be a free press. Care to comment on that? Once again I'll point out that if we were in Cuba or Lenin's Russia we wouldn't even be allowed to discuss this. The things I've said so far just in this thread would be enough to get me a decade of jail time, time in a prison camp or even a firing squad. Just for things I SAID, not for anything I DID. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Feb 2, 2013 23:24:07 GMT -5
Longshot, if you want to look into Libertarian writers then check out Walter Williams and Isabel Paterson. Paterson, in fact, was one of the main thinker/philosopher behind what Libertarianism is today (along with Rose Wilder Lane).
|
|
|
|
Post by alwayssunny on Feb 2, 2013 23:34:00 GMT -5
Except North Korea isn't a Communist or Capitalist country. They are a rouge nation with no ideology. It was Communist at least until 2009 when they removed the word from their Constitution and any law on the books. But of course, change doesn't come fast so I doubt that in 4 years they have completely changed and dropped Communism altogether. It was never Marxist-Leninist. In fact, Nikita Khrushchev often warned North Korea of its Juche idea would cause it to fail, which he was indeed correct, just look at the country. |
|
|
|
Post by alwayssunny on Feb 2, 2013 23:49:17 GMT -5
1. You talk about the failure of socialism but where is the success of capitalism in Africa, Asia and Latin America? 2. Not just wars but Native cleansing, murders of protesters, and unlawful occupation which causes mass murders. 3. Those old numbers where probably wrong and just spun by capitalist media to make Cuba look "evil" 1. There are quite a few developing countries in all of those places who are developing under capitalism. 2. Umm, two of those things happen under every single government. And capitalist countries don't routinely murder protests which is unlike communist goverments who systematically murder protesters and imprison those they don't kill. 3. Those numbers were actually from 2008. So they're not terribly out of date. Censhorship in Cuba is very well known and very well documented - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Cuba. Strangely enough the worst enemy of a communist state seems to be a free press. Care to comment on that? Once again I'll point out that if we were in Cuba or Lenin's Russia we wouldn't even be allowed to discuss this. The things I've said so far just in this thread would be enough to get me a decade of jail time, time in a prison camp or even a firing squad. Just for things I SAID, not for anything I DID. 1. Who? I dont see a single successful capitalist regime in those areas. 2. Oh yes they do, Capitalist regimes always make sure they silence the proletariat before they rise up and overthrow the bourgeoisie. 3. Cuba has the lightest censorship laws. You can say something terrible about Fidel Castro, hell even threaten him, and you can get off scratch free. But here in America, you threaten the president you get a visit from the Secret Service and its possible to be blacklisted from many things. And in 2008, Capitalist regimes worldwide opened up relations with Cuba finally, so they were now able to get those technologies. Well you wouldn't be able to, because you are promoting that it is alright to be racist, homophobic, sexist, greedy, and deceitful. See Cuba does things to prevent these evil attitudes from happening in their society. Jail? No. Prison Camp? No (Also, Prison Camps are the Jails) Firing Squad? No, what type of peaceful harmonious loving society would chose that as a punishment? Cuba doesnt even have the death penalty! But the loving US DOES! You would be fine in Cuba. Trust me, You have been fed bullcrap about Cuba and Fidel Castro ALL of your life just because the United States is pissed off at them for nationalizing all US property in Cuba and the capitalist swine in the US lost all of their potential profit in the area and they decide, LETS LIE ABOUT CUBA! You can say the nastiest things about Fidel and he would come to you and hug you for it. VIVA FIDEL! |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Feb 2, 2013 23:55:57 GMT -5
It was Communist at least until 2009 when they removed the word from their Constitution and any law on the books. But of course, change doesn't come fast so I doubt that in 4 years they have completely changed and dropped Communism altogether. It was never Marxist-Leninist. In fact, Nikita Khrushchev often warned North Korea of its Juche idea would cause it to fail, which he was indeed correct, just look at the country. "In 1972, Juche replaced Marxism-Leninism in the revised North Korean constitution as the official state ideology." So, you're wrong. It was at one point Marxist-Leninist. "all reference to Marxism-Leninism was dropped in the revised 1998 constitution." So the earliest that they got rid of Communism was 1998 but they didn't drop all references to Communism until 2009. |
|
|
|
Post by alwayssunny on Feb 3, 2013 0:01:35 GMT -5
It was never Marxist-Leninist. In fact, Nikita Khrushchev often warned North Korea of its Juche idea would cause it to fail, which he was indeed correct, just look at the country. "In 1972, Juche replaced Marxism-Leninism in the revised North Korean constitution as the official state ideology." So, you're wrong. It was at one point Marxist-Leninist. "all reference to Marxism-Leninism was dropped in the revised 1998 constitution." So the earliest that they got rid of Communism was 1998 but they didn't drop all references to Communism until 2009. Just like Stalin, they used the ruse of communism to fool the working class into submission. They are another counter revolutionary. |
|
