|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Feb 1, 2013 22:53:15 GMT -5
They really don't. Let's say I'm doing construction on my house. A crane knocks down a part of your house on accident. Fortunately no one is home. It does 10k of damage to your house. You give me the bill. I tell you to go pound sand. You sue me. The judge is going to find in your favor 'cuz I'm clearly at fault. But you're still screwed. You can go to my bank, but in your system there's nothing to force the bank to give you my money since the bank can't be punished for not enforcing the judgement. You can go to my employer, but the employer won't garnish my wages 'cuz in your system nothing forces him to do so. You can't hold him in contempt of court. So you can't get my money from the bank. You can't get the money that I'm earning from my employer. What are you going to do? Kick in my door? Why would the bank not comply? Banks are a business, they aren't in business to protect their customers from lawsuits. But as I've said, the employer gets his stuff seized and then he fires the employee because of it. The employer can't garnish the wages anymore because the employee no longer gets a paycheck there. So does the government give the employer his stuff back or do they just keep it? What if the employer refuses even after his stuff has been seized? He gets thrown in jail? You are going to throw the employer in jail because his employee won't fork over money he owes? If it comes to it, why not seize the property or belongings of the person who owes the arbitrator (or knocked down part of my house)? Why go straight for the employer instead of exhausting punishments for the employee? What if the person who owes the arbitrator money doesn't have a job? What do you do then? You seize his assets but what if he rents a house or apartment, can't seize that. The only option would be his car and that may not be enough (or maybe he doesn't even own a car). Do you sell his bed, tv, etc? What do you do if the person doesn't have the money to pay it? You'd probably throw them in jail but that doesn't pay off his debts. First of all, a bank that will protect my assets from legal proceedings? That is a bank that everyone is going to want to do business with. I could get sued, lose and the bank will protect my assets. It's good for business for them. Who wouldn't do business with a bank that would protect their assets no matter what? And, one more time, no one is punishing the employer for what the employee did. The employer is punished for contempt of court and not complying with a court order. Huge gigantic difference that you apparently choose to ignore. How do you seize my assets? You personally kick my door down and take my stuff? In your system the court has no teeth and no ability to enforce it's judgements. Therefore it might as well not exist. |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Feb 1, 2013 22:55:21 GMT -5
It preaches it, but it never practices it. Except there has never been a communist government there has only been socialist governments. You, yourself cited Lenin as having a great government. |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Feb 1, 2013 23:16:11 GMT -5
The thing is those preaching freedom under communist regimes quickly become the majority. This is why communist regimes have the highest number of imprisoned journalists in the world and historically have executed people simply for their political beliefs. Yeah and its those same people preaching "freedom" while being racist, greedy, and deceitful people. And sure but have you read what they have been imprisoned for? Sick things actually. And no one has been executed for their political beliefs. Man, what have you been reading? Wow. Just wow. I have no idea how to respond to this. It's pretty obvious that you are either completely ignorant of the facts or are just ignoring them completely. 1. Let's assume for the sake of argument that these journalists are indeed racist, greedy and deceitful. Which of these things are worthy of imprisonment? 2. Have I heard why these journalists have been imprisoned? Have I heard what sick things they have done? Let's see: Chen Xi - 10 years in prison for "inciting subversion". His crime? Campaigning against party candidates. Liu Xiaobo - Nobel Peace Laureate. Sentenced to 11 years in jail. His crime, signing a petition calling for freedom of expression and privatizing state enterprises among other things. Previously he had spent 6 months in jail for condemning government actions in the Tiannemen square massacre. When he won the Nobel Prize the state media did NOT report it. Shi Tao - sentenced to 10 years in jail. His crime? Releasing a document issued by the Communist Party that ordered journalists NOT to report on the 15 yr anniversary of Tianneman square. Here's a nice linky with several of them and details on their sick, twisted crimes - www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/feb/20/china.mondaymediasectionNo one has been executed for their political beliefs? Seriously? Are you blind? Do I need to bring up the Red Terror again where your hero, Lenin signed the death orders of hundreds of thousands of people and close to a million (by some estimates) died in total? Really? You do realize that in a communist regime you and I would not even be allowed to have this discussion we're having. I would be thrown in jail for what I've said so far. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Feb 1, 2013 23:19:42 GMT -5
Why would the bank not comply? Banks are a business, they aren't in business to protect their customers from lawsuits. But as I've said, the employer gets his stuff seized and then he fires the employee because of it. The employer can't garnish the wages anymore because the employee no longer gets a paycheck there. So does the government give the employer his stuff back or do they just keep it? What if the employer refuses even after his stuff has been seized? He gets thrown in jail? You are going to throw the employer in jail because his employee won't fork over money he owes? If it comes to it, why not seize the property or belongings of the person who owes the arbitrator (or knocked down part of my house)? Why go straight for the employer instead of exhausting punishments for the employee? What if the person who owes the arbitrator money doesn't have a job? What do you do then? You seize his assets but what if he rents a house or apartment, can't seize that. The only option would be his car and that may not be enough (or maybe he doesn't even own a car). Do you sell his bed, tv, etc? What do you do if the person doesn't have the money to pay it? You'd probably throw them in jail but that doesn't pay off his debts. First of all, a bank that will protect my assets from legal proceedings? That is a bank that everyone is going to want to do business with. I could get sued, lose and the bank will protect my assets. It's good for business for them. Who wouldn't do business with a bank that would protect their assets no matter what? And, one more time, no one is punishing the employer for what the employee did. The employer is punished for contempt of court and not complying with a court order. Huge gigantic difference that you apparently choose to ignore. How do you seize my assets? You personally kick my door down and take my stuff? In your system the court has no teeth and no ability to enforce it's judgements. Therefore it might as well not exist. In my society, the neighbors (or the arbitrator) would all live in the same general area so they would most likely bank together. The bank will not save the assets of one member of the bank if another member is wronged. I'm not choosing to ignore it. I have asked several questions that you are ignoring. (What happens if the employer fires the employee? Does the employer get his stuff back or does the government keep it because he didn't comply with their law? What if the employer, after his stuff has been seized, still does not comply? Does he get thrown in jail? Why are you going after the employer for not complying with the court instead of doing everything you can to get the money from the employee first? Shouldn't the priority be to get money (or equivalent in assets) from the employee before taking action against the employer? What if the person who owes money doesn't have a job?) I never said the court should have no ability to enforce its judgments, I just think the court should set priorities. Send the bill to the person who owes the money. If they refuse then go to the employer and ask them to garnish the employee's wage. If the employer refuses then get an order against the person who owes money to take their assets. You do all that before you jail or seize the assets of the employer. I just do not see how seizing his assets or jailing him help any matter. So he does his jail time, you can't keep him in there forever, then what? You've already seized his assets, he can't keep his business going so the employee is going to be out of work. All you've done is run a man out of business and the arbitrator is still not paid what he is due. Sure, the employer paid his debt for not following the law but that doesn't help the arbitrator at all. How does the arbitrator get what is owed to him? If you say seize the assets of the person who owes him money then that should have been done in the first place instead of wasting time on the employer whose only crime was disobeying the government. Do you think that I would not want a court to enforce its verdict of guilty for a murderer or rapist? Of course I would want them to be put in prison. I have stated that just because a government or court says something does not mean it is right. How do they seize your assets now? They will kick down your door and take your stuff. If they have a warrant or a seizure notice and you don't let them in then they will kick down the door. What you are saying will go down in my society already goes down in yours. The only teeth the government has now is the threat of violence. That is what you are advocating. A violent force to go through anyone that does wrong in the eyes of that violent force. |
|
|
|
Post by alwayssunny on Feb 2, 2013 1:02:52 GMT -5
Except there has never been a communist government there has only been socialist governments. You, yourself cited Lenin as having a great government. I do, but it was socialist. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Feb 2, 2013 1:05:43 GMT -5
You, yourself cited Lenin as having a great government. I do, but it was socialist. So even your hero didn't get it right? |
|
|
|
Post by alwayssunny on Feb 2, 2013 1:10:59 GMT -5
Yeah and its those same people preaching "freedom" while being racist, greedy, and deceitful people. And sure but have you read what they have been imprisoned for? Sick things actually. And no one has been executed for their political beliefs. Man, what have you been reading? Wow. Just wow. I have no idea how to respond to this. It's pretty obvious that you are either completely ignorant of the facts or are just ignoring them completely. 1. Let's assume for the sake of argument that these journalists are indeed racist, greedy and deceitful. Which of these things are worthy of imprisonment? 2. Have I heard why these journalists have been imprisoned? Have I heard what sick things they have done? Let's see: Chen Xi - 10 years in prison for "inciting subversion". His crime? Campaigning against party candidates. Liu Xiaobo - Nobel Peace Laureate. Sentenced to 11 years in jail. His crime, signing a petition calling for freedom of expression and privatizing state enterprises among other things. Previously he had spent 6 months in jail for condemning government actions in the Tiannemen square massacre. When he won the Nobel Prize the state media did NOT report it. Shi Tao - sentenced to 10 years in jail. His crime? Releasing a document issued by the Communist Party that ordered journalists NOT to report on the 15 yr anniversary of Tianneman square. Here's a nice linky with several of them and details on their sick, twisted crimes - www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/feb/20/china.mondaymediasectionNo one has been executed for their political beliefs? Seriously? Are you blind? Do I need to bring up the Red Terror again where your hero, Lenin signed the death orders of hundreds of thousands of people and close to a million (by some estimates) died in total? Really? You do realize that in a communist regime you and I would not even be allowed to have this discussion we're having. I would be thrown in jail for what I've said so far. HAHAHAHA, Wow. China hasn't been "communist" since the early 80s. They've been capitalist for quite some time. Your beloved idea has slaughtered over 1.6 BILLION PEOPLE. |
|
|
|
Post by alwayssunny on Feb 2, 2013 1:14:31 GMT -5
I do, but it was socialist. So even your hero didn't get it right? It takes time to transition from a socialist government to a communist government. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Feb 2, 2013 1:17:44 GMT -5
Wow. Just wow. I have no idea how to respond to this. It's pretty obvious that you are either completely ignorant of the facts or are just ignoring them completely. 1. Let's assume for the sake of argument that these journalists are indeed racist, greedy and deceitful. Which of these things are worthy of imprisonment? 2. Have I heard why these journalists have been imprisoned? Have I heard what sick things they have done? Let's see: Chen Xi - 10 years in prison for "inciting subversion". His crime? Campaigning against party candidates. Liu Xiaobo - Nobel Peace Laureate. Sentenced to 11 years in jail. His crime, signing a petition calling for freedom of expression and privatizing state enterprises among other things. Previously he had spent 6 months in jail for condemning government actions in the Tiannemen square massacre. When he won the Nobel Prize the state media did NOT report it. Shi Tao - sentenced to 10 years in jail. His crime? Releasing a document issued by the Communist Party that ordered journalists NOT to report on the 15 yr anniversary of Tianneman square. Here's a nice linky with several of them and details on their sick, twisted crimes - www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/feb/20/china.mondaymediasectionNo one has been executed for their political beliefs? Seriously? Are you blind? Do I need to bring up the Red Terror again where your hero, Lenin signed the death orders of hundreds of thousands of people and close to a million (by some estimates) died in total? Really? You do realize that in a communist regime you and I would not even be allowed to have this discussion we're having. I would be thrown in jail for what I've said so far. HAHAHAHA, Wow. China hasn't been "communist" since the early 80s. They've been capitalist for quite some time. Your beloved idea has slaughtered over 1.6 BILLION PEOPLE. I laughed that Khmer Rouge was included since that was all you guys. I do hope you know the difference between capitalism and crony capitalism. The US is the latter. Crony capitalism is wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Feb 2, 2013 1:19:30 GMT -5
So even your hero didn't get it right? It takes time to transition from a socialist government to a communist government. So you say your hero got it wrong and that's ok because change doesn't come fast. Yet you label someone my hero and anything wrong they do or say is a condemnation of Libertarianism. So why isn't what Lenin did wrong a condemnation of Communism? How is that fair? |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Feb 2, 2013 9:13:26 GMT -5
First of all, a bank that will protect my assets from legal proceedings? That is a bank that everyone is going to want to do business with. I could get sued, lose and the bank will protect my assets. It's good for business for them. Who wouldn't do business with a bank that would protect their assets no matter what? And, one more time, no one is punishing the employer for what the employee did. The employer is punished for contempt of court and not complying with a court order. Huge gigantic difference that you apparently choose to ignore. How do you seize my assets? You personally kick my door down and take my stuff? In your system the court has no teeth and no ability to enforce it's judgements. Therefore it might as well not exist. In my society, the neighbors (or the arbitrator) would all live in the same general area so they would most likely bank together. The bank will not save the assets of one member of the bank if another member is wronged. I'm not choosing to ignore it. I have asked several questions that you are ignoring. (What happens if the employer fires the employee? Does the employer get his stuff back or does the government keep it because he didn't comply with their law? What if the employer, after his stuff has been seized, still does not comply? Does he get thrown in jail? Why are you going after the employer for not complying with the court instead of doing everything you can to get the money from the employee first? Shouldn't the priority be to get money (or equivalent in assets) from the employee before taking action against the employer? What if the person who owes money doesn't have a job?) I never said the court should have no ability to enforce its judgments, I just think the court should set priorities. Send the bill to the person who owes the money. If they refuse then go to the employer and ask them to garnish the employee's wage. If the employer refuses then get an order against the person who owes money to take their assets. You do all that before you jail or seize the assets of the employer. I just do not see how seizing his assets or jailing him help any matter. So he does his jail time, you can't keep him in there forever, then what? You've already seized his assets, he can't keep his business going so the employee is going to be out of work. All you've done is run a man out of business and the arbitrator is still not paid what he is due. Sure, the employer paid his debt for not following the law but that doesn't help the arbitrator at all. How does the arbitrator get what is owed to him? If you say seize the assets of the person who owes him money then that should have been done in the first place instead of wasting time on the employer whose only crime was disobeying the government. Do you think that I would not want a court to enforce its verdict of guilty for a murderer or rapist? Of course I would want them to be put in prison. I have stated that just because a government or court says something does not mean it is right. How do they seize your assets now? They will kick down your door and take your stuff. If they have a warrant or a seizure notice and you don't let them in then they will kick down the door. What you are saying will go down in my society already goes down in yours. The only teeth the government has now is the threat of violence. That is what you are advocating. A violent force to go through anyone that does wrong in the eyes of that violent force. 1. Why would the bank enforce the order? It's not in their best interests to do so. It is in their best interest to protect the assets of their customer. A bank that will protect your assets from anything is going to be a popular bank. 2. If the employer fires the employee he doesn't get his stuff back. Why would he? He is being punished for contempt of court. You don't get to say FU to the court and then recant after you're punished so everything is cool and whatever they fine you they give back. That's not how the system works. One more time, and you keep ignoring this, going after the employer has nothing to do with what the employee has done. It's a completely and totally different action. The employee has done something wrong. The employer has done something totally different that's wrong. 3. How in the world does the court enforce it's judgements? The bank won't comply (or maybe the guy pulls all his money out of the bank knowing that he's being sued.) The employer has no reason to comply 'cuz you can't do anything to him. 4. You send me the bill. I say to pound sand. You go to my employer. He says to pound sand. You get a judgement against me. You have no way to enforce it. You're screwed. Thanks for playing. 5. The question I keep asking. How in the world do you seize the assets of the employee? How do you get my assets? I'm not going to provide them to you. The bank won't give them to you. You're completely screwed. 6. Murder or rape is a criminal charge. You can grab my ass and toss me in jail. There are no debtor's prisons in the US and there haven't been any for hundreds of years. It's actually a violation of federal law to threaten criminal prosecution for civil disputes. So unless you're going to bring debtor's prisons back................ 7. How do they seize assets now? They garnish wages and/or drain bank accounts. The cops will seize assets after that if it it's significant enough. But in your system that's not the cops job. They deal with criminal stuff like murder and rape. 8. Exactly. A threat of violence is needed to maintain order in any society. It's how you use that threat of violence. Tossing someone in jail for rape is a violent act. Tossing someone in jail for theft is a violent act. But it's something that is needed and must be exercised by a disinterested third party. |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Feb 2, 2013 9:16:58 GMT -5
Wow. Just wow. I have no idea how to respond to this. It's pretty obvious that you are either completely ignorant of the facts or are just ignoring them completely. 1. Let's assume for the sake of argument that these journalists are indeed racist, greedy and deceitful. Which of these things are worthy of imprisonment? 2. Have I heard why these journalists have been imprisoned? Have I heard what sick things they have done? Let's see: Chen Xi - 10 years in prison for "inciting subversion". His crime? Campaigning against party candidates. Liu Xiaobo - Nobel Peace Laureate. Sentenced to 11 years in jail. His crime, signing a petition calling for freedom of expression and privatizing state enterprises among other things. Previously he had spent 6 months in jail for condemning government actions in the Tiannemen square massacre. When he won the Nobel Prize the state media did NOT report it. Shi Tao - sentenced to 10 years in jail. His crime? Releasing a document issued by the Communist Party that ordered journalists NOT to report on the 15 yr anniversary of Tianneman square. Here's a nice linky with several of them and details on their sick, twisted crimes - www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/feb/20/china.mondaymediasectionNo one has been executed for their political beliefs? Seriously? Are you blind? Do I need to bring up the Red Terror again where your hero, Lenin signed the death orders of hundreds of thousands of people and close to a million (by some estimates) died in total? Really? You do realize that in a communist regime you and I would not even be allowed to have this discussion we're having. I would be thrown in jail for what I've said so far. HAHAHAHA, Wow. China hasn't been "communist" since the early 80s. They've been capitalist for quite some time. Your beloved idea has slaughtered over 1.6 BILLION PEOPLE. Please address the points about why it's ok to imprison people simply for being greedy. Please address the points about guys like Lenin who you cited as shining examples killing people for disagreeing with them politically and explain why it's Ok to kill people simply for being greedy, racist and deceitful. Please explain why those things are deserving of death/imprisonment. Please explain why it's ok that EVERY SINGLE regime tosses people in jail just for disagreeing with them completely and that China and Cuba (another shining example you cited) have the highest number of imprisoned journalists in the world. For such a great government it doesn't seem like the people have much freedom. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Feb 2, 2013 10:21:05 GMT -5
In my society, the neighbors (or the arbitrator) would all live in the same general area so they would most likely bank together. The bank will not save the assets of one member of the bank if another member is wronged. I'm not choosing to ignore it. I have asked several questions that you are ignoring. (What happens if the employer fires the employee? Does the employer get his stuff back or does the government keep it because he didn't comply with their law? What if the employer, after his stuff has been seized, still does not comply? Does he get thrown in jail? Why are you going after the employer for not complying with the court instead of doing everything you can to get the money from the employee first? Shouldn't the priority be to get money (or equivalent in assets) from the employee before taking action against the employer? What if the person who owes money doesn't have a job?) I never said the court should have no ability to enforce its judgments, I just think the court should set priorities. Send the bill to the person who owes the money. If they refuse then go to the employer and ask them to garnish the employee's wage. If the employer refuses then get an order against the person who owes money to take their assets. You do all that before you jail or seize the assets of the employer. I just do not see how seizing his assets or jailing him help any matter. So he does his jail time, you can't keep him in there forever, then what? You've already seized his assets, he can't keep his business going so the employee is going to be out of work. All you've done is run a man out of business and the arbitrator is still not paid what he is due. Sure, the employer paid his debt for not following the law but that doesn't help the arbitrator at all. How does the arbitrator get what is owed to him? If you say seize the assets of the person who owes him money then that should have been done in the first place instead of wasting time on the employer whose only crime was disobeying the government. Do you think that I would not want a court to enforce its verdict of guilty for a murderer or rapist? Of course I would want them to be put in prison. I have stated that just because a government or court says something does not mean it is right. How do they seize your assets now? They will kick down your door and take your stuff. If they have a warrant or a seizure notice and you don't let them in then they will kick down the door. What you are saying will go down in my society already goes down in yours. The only teeth the government has now is the threat of violence. That is what you are advocating. A violent force to go through anyone that does wrong in the eyes of that violent force. 1. Why would the bank enforce the order? It's not in their best interests to do so. It is in their best interest to protect the assets of their customer. A bank that will protect your assets from anything is going to be a popular bank. 2. If the employer fires the employee he doesn't get his stuff back. Why would he? He is being punished for contempt of court. You don't get to say FU to the court and then recant after you're punished so everything is cool and whatever they fine you they give back. That's not how the system works. One more time, and you keep ignoring this, going after the employer has nothing to do with what the employee has done. It's a completely and totally different action. The employee has done something wrong. The employer has done something totally different that's wrong. 3. How in the world does the court enforce it's judgements? The bank won't comply (or maybe the guy pulls all his money out of the bank knowing that he's being sued.) The employer has no reason to comply 'cuz you can't do anything to him. 4. You send me the bill. I say to pound sand. You go to my employer. He says to pound sand. You get a judgement against me. You have no way to enforce it. You're screwed. Thanks for playing. 5. The question I keep asking. How in the world do you seize the assets of the employee? How do you get my assets? I'm not going to provide them to you. The bank won't give them to you. You're completely screwed. 6. Murder or rape is a criminal charge. You can grab my ass and toss me in jail. There are no debtor's prisons in the US and there haven't been any for hundreds of years. It's actually a violation of federal law to threaten criminal prosecution for civil disputes. So unless you're going to bring debtor's prisons back................ 7. How do they seize assets now? They garnish wages and/or drain bank accounts. The cops will seize assets after that if it it's significant enough. But in your system that's not the cops job. They deal with criminal stuff like murder and rape. 8. Exactly. A threat of violence is needed to maintain order in any society. It's how you use that threat of violence. Tossing someone in jail for rape is a violent act. Tossing someone in jail for theft is a violent act. But it's something that is needed and must be exercised by a disinterested third party. Would it be worth the potential gain in customers that the bank would receive from refusing to give assets of the debtor to lose those that would withdraw their money and take their services elsewhere that feel it is wrong for the bank to deny payment to the person who is owed money? Would businesses do work for the person who owes money? They would possibly deny the person service because he is known for not paying. That is one of several different ways that you can get him to pay his original bill. I know you'll say what if they don't but what incentive do business owners have to continually provide services to a person who sometimes feels he can refuse to pay. Maybe the same guy hired someone to paint his house by 5 pm Friday. They don't get done until 5:10 pm Friday. He refuses to pay because they were not on time. Maybe the guy has a penchant for being an ass like that. Businesses and the people around will see what kind of person he is and not associate with him. The social stigma of being someone who doesn't pay and can't get services in town may just be the kick in the pants he needs to pay his debts. If he is ever in need for an arbitrator they can all shoot him down because they know if he loses he will feel he is still in the right and won't pay. So he cannot bring any civil matter before the court. That is another possibility of what could be done to get him to pay. It's possible that some businesses (against better judgment) still provide him services. I'd say they are partly at fault for not getting paid because they knew his reputation. More on this subject by someone far more versed in the matter.The employer saying no to garnishing the employee's wage harms the arbitrator because that possible recourse has failed. The arbitrator should then be able to go to another arbitrator and bring judgment against the employer because his actions (or lack of) have financially harmed him. Once you get a judgment against the employer and he refuses to pay THEN you can seize his assets. The beef would be between the arbitrator and the employer for not garnishing the wage of the employee. That's it. Government should not say "You didn't listen to us, we are either taking your stuff or throwing you in jail." That helps no one but government. If government were to seize assets from the employer (which should be a last resort), it should be to pay the arbitrator NOT to punish the employer for not listening to government. I've answered that. Once you get the ok, the police force can seize the person's property. It would not be an unreasonable seizure because you owe a debt and not paying off the debt can harm the arbitrator. So it would be ok to take what is necessary to pay off what is owed. The arbitrator's fee should not be that much, I'm guessing only a couple hundred dollars. So you may only need to take a stereo system or a high end TV or something along those lines. Maybe the arbitrator doesn't even want money, maybe he'll settle for some free meals at your restaurant or maybe he owns a farm and he'll accept a couple pigs or you coming down every morning for a week or two and milking his cows. It doesn't have to be money that he wants or accepts. There are many ways the debt could be paid, it's not limited to a cash payment. Putting someone in prison for a debt they owe is useless. It in no way pays back the person that is owed money. I wasn't really asking how they do it now. I posed the question and I answered it in the next sentence. Where does the government get the authority to be that violent force? What if the people reject the government? Do they still get to wield that force against an unwilling populace? If so, what gives them that right? |
|
|
|
Post by alwayssunny on Feb 2, 2013 18:19:04 GMT -5
HAHAHAHA, Wow. China hasn't been "communist" since the early 80s. They've been capitalist for quite some time. Your beloved idea has slaughtered over 1.6 BILLION PEOPLE. I laughed that Khmer Rouge was included since that was all you guys. I do hope you know the difference between capitalism and crony capitalism. The US is the latter. Crony capitalism is wrong. The Khmer Rouge was capitalist, so dont try to pin it on us. Both are the same thing, they both involve the exploitation of the people. |
|
|
|
Post by alwayssunny on Feb 2, 2013 18:20:45 GMT -5
It takes time to transition from a socialist government to a communist government. So you say your hero got it wrong and that's ok because change doesn't come fast. Yet you label someone my hero and anything wrong they do or say is a condemnation of Libertarianism. So why isn't what Lenin did wrong a condemnation of Communism? How is that fair? Well this just proves that you dont understand Marxism. You simply cant just change from a new formed socialist government into a communist society because you have to set up the regulations, laws, and programs to allow the elimination of the government and the elimination of money. |
|
|
|
Post by alwayssunny on Feb 2, 2013 18:22:46 GMT -5
HAHAHAHA, Wow. China hasn't been "communist" since the early 80s. They've been capitalist for quite some time. Your beloved idea has slaughtered over 1.6 BILLION PEOPLE. Please address the points about why it's ok to imprison people simply for being greedy. Please address the points about guys like Lenin who you cited as shining examples killing people for disagreeing with them politically and explain why it's Ok to kill people simply for being greedy, racist and deceitful. Please explain why those things are deserving of death/imprisonment. Please explain why it's ok that EVERY SINGLE regime tosses people in jail just for disagreeing with them completely and that China and Cuba (another shining example you cited) have the highest number of imprisoned journalists in the world. For such a great government it doesn't seem like the people have much freedom. 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. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Feb 2, 2013 18:25:56 GMT -5
So you say your hero got it wrong and that's ok because change doesn't come fast. Yet you label someone my hero and anything wrong they do or say is a condemnation of Libertarianism. So why isn't what Lenin did wrong a condemnation of Communism? How is that fair? Well this just proves that you dont understand Marxism. You simply cant just change from a new formed socialist government into a communist society because you have to set up the regulations, laws, and programs to allow the elimination of the government and the elimination of money. Elimination of government yet you still want a Marxist government system. Elimination of money yet you still want to be able to seize the profits to pay for education and health care. How do you think the profits will be presented? In pigs or diamonds? It seems to me that it would be quite simple. Since the leader is a dictator can't he just decree that money is gone and the laws are changed? I mean it's one party rule they should be able to fast track it. |
|
|
|
Post by alwayssunny on Feb 2, 2013 18:34:18 GMT -5
Well this just proves that you dont understand Marxism. You simply cant just change from a new formed socialist government into a communist society because you have to set up the regulations, laws, and programs to allow the elimination of the government and the elimination of money. Elimination of government yet you still want a Marxist government system. Elimination of money yet you still want to be able to seize the profits to pay for education and health care. How do you think the profits will be presented? In pigs or diamonds? It seems to me that it would be quite simple. Since the leader is a dictator can't he just decree that money is gone and the laws are changed? I mean it's one party rule they should be able to fast track it. 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. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Feb 2, 2013 18:38:24 GMT -5
Elimination of government yet you still want a Marxist government system. Elimination of money yet you still want to be able to seize the profits to pay for education and health care. How do you think the profits will be presented? In pigs or diamonds? It seems to me that it would be quite simple. Since the leader is a dictator can't he just decree that money is gone and the laws are changed? I mean it's one party rule they should be able to fast track it. 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)? |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Feb 2, 2013 19:06:17 GMT -5
Please address the points about why it's ok to imprison people simply for being greedy. Please address the points about guys like Lenin who you cited as shining examples killing people for disagreeing with them politically and explain why it's Ok to kill people simply for being greedy, racist and deceitful. Please explain why those things are deserving of death/imprisonment. Please explain why it's ok that EVERY SINGLE regime tosses people in jail just for disagreeing with them completely and that China and Cuba (another shining example you cited) have the highest number of imprisoned journalists in the world. For such a great government it doesn't seem like the people have much freedom. 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. |
|
