Socialism is BS. Don't be fooled.

There is nothing wrong with equality as the EFFECT of good policy and tied in with other good effects, but using it as the sole CAUSE of your policy decisions is ridiculously stupid.

If everyone is starving, everyone is equal. Does that mean you have a super wonderful perfect economic system? Of course fucking not.

The communists were tyrants before they even decided to be communist. They knew that if they chose a fallacious ideal like communism they could place "equality" above freedom of speech and human rights once they got into power.

"The people in harge were bad, that's why communism didn't work." is a fucking stupid argument. Of course bad people exist and will get into the government. How old are you? 5? The reason why communism is flawed is because it has little to no safeguards against tyranny. There is no much use complaining about how Stalin lives in opulent splendour whilst your children starve if you are living in a "dictatorship of the proletariat". The founding fathers of the US made Freedom of Speach their 1 priority from day 1, that is why we are a democracy, because not being executed for speaking your mind is a little more fundamental than whatever good would come from handing all your property over to the government.

Remember. With capitalism, EVERYONE WINS! It doesn't matter if some win more than others.

Yes it does, aiming low in creating a better society is against human nature.

How does everyone win? There can only be 1 winner, and in capitalism thats the greedy business owner that will fuck his employees over just to get a couple more dollars, in communism everyone is equal, and that means no one wins or loses. 

except for the millions who have been killed to make room for paradise. you're retarded if you think you can sell that shit anymore.

>>4
People argue that it wasn't true communism because it was forced and rapidly accelerated, Lenin himself remarked that Russia wasn't ready for the revolution.

>>5 I'm sure thats a great confort to the tens of millions who have been murdered by their own leaders because they wern't ready.

Keep in mind that Communism has only been attempted in dictatorships.  Dictatorships historically tend to be brutal and grossly incompetant/inefficient.

how can we trust someone who uses the name haliburton?

get out the soap box! Halliburton public advisor going to washington

the only socialism conservatives believe in is Lemon Socialism

>>8
Halliburton is the prime example of an anti-socialist argument. The government is what makes Halliburton bad not the free-market; Halliburton only abuses the power it receives from big-brother. Same goes for most monopolies/corrupt organizations. Hey lets give this company billions of dollars with no incentive to follow through! Brilliant idea! Then after they fuck up and steal/lie/abuse power, we can turn it into an example of anti-capitalism that will convince idiots that business is evil

>>5
>>7
You have been indoctrinated by liberal propoganda to ignore rational arguments when you see them. Please re-read this part of my original post.

"
"The people in harge were bad, that's why communism didn't work." is a fucking stupid argument. Of course bad people exist and will get into the government. How old are you? 5? The reason why communism is flawed is because it has little to no safeguards against tyranny. There is no much use complaining about how Stalin lives in opulent splendour whilst your children starve if you are living in a "dictatorship of the proletariat". The founding fathers of the US made Freedom of Speach their 1 priority from day 1, that is why we are a democracy, because not being executed for speaking your mind is a little more fundamental than whatever good would come from handing all your property over to the government.
"

>>3
Everyone wins because they are paid for the amount of valuable work they do and if that still isn't enough you can always vote in a government which taxes the rich to keep you out of poverty. There are of course other elements such as circumstance, inheritance, crime and corruption which cause people to earn more than they are worth, they can be ignored though as they are usually insignificant.

>>2
>>4
>>6
>>9
>>10
I am sorry. I do not quite understand your argument. Please elaborate and use layman's terms.

>>8
Halliburton is a company with over 100000 employees, compared with national rates of crime Halliburton employees are substantially more law abiding. I am not a Socialist, so I do not claim Halliburton to be infallible, however the facts prove you should be more concerned with employees from rival energy services.

>>11
>>12, last paragraph

The only good socialist is a dead socialist.

Communism =/= socialism. Communism doesn't work, Socialism can. For instance, the US could afford to be more socialist. IE, it could encourage small business instead of big business, it could close the ridiculous gap between what a CEO is paid and what the janitor at that building is paid (we have one of, if not the biggest gaps in this respect). We could start caring about the middle class instead of the top 1%, and start caring about American manufacturing before we are fucked. Socialism doesn't automatically mean "let's all hold hands together, turn in our stuff to the government and wait for our food rations". Outright Capitalism is stupid, as is outright Communism, it's the middle ground that is the sweet spot.

>>12
There are of course other elements such as circumstance, inheritance, crime and corruption which cause people to earn more than they are worth, they can be ignored though as they are usually insignificant.

You've gotta be fucking joking. George W. Bush grew up with a silver spoon up his ass and never worked on honest day in his life, and he is fucking PRESIDENT. Usually insignificant? Bullshit. Businessmen, lawyers, corporate managers, pro sports players, and countless other ridiculously high paying jobs aren't worth shit, yet the illegal mexican child making all our shit and running our economy gets paid a dollar a week. Face the fucking facts, we have become an Oligarchy, big business rules over the economy and takes every opportunity to exploit the middle and low class.

>>16
Yeah, We ought to have a revolution so you could be in charge and kill all of us. Fuck the facing facts, you're are all twobit little dictators who want take over the world so you can remake it over in your own image. And if that little mexican child doesn't serve your purpose he'll go into the mass graves just like everyone else.

>>12
Everyone wins because they are paid for the amount of valuable work they do and if that still isn't enough you can always vote in a government which taxes the rich to keep you out of poverty.


... fuck you've got to be blind.. if everyone were to be paid for "the amount of valuable work" they do then how on earth would the capitalists earn money?
in early days of capitalsim a worker got paid for half of his day's work. now perhaps 3/4 of a day. your argument is so fucking wrong in every single way. please
if you want to claim someting is bad then you might would want to look at your own alternative. Reading a bit of Marx wouldn't destroy your brain.

oh and by the way. Soviet wasn't a communist state after Stalin became the leader. Stalin's politics were clearly those of a fascist.

Socialism/Communism have very little to do with the former Soviet Union, the only thing was that they called themself communists. In the same way Saddam Hussien had free and democratic elections..

Anyway, I don't understand why a economic order where we, thoose that produce, control our own work instead of someone else. Instead of a few getting unnecessary rich, so much money they simply can not spend them, then why not use that for the good of us all? There sure is enough money, food, water and whatever to make sure everyone is living a good life. But instead a few people lives upon the masses. Sounds very stupid to me.

Socialism is social justice, capitalism is not. Simple as that.

>>19
It's that line of thinking that has resulted in the deaths of millions, and possibly billions (if you include all statist regimes and governments)

>>20

Socialism have killed very few people, dictatorships that called themself socialists may have killed a lot of people sure.

But in the end capitalism have killed quite a lot of more people. Forgot that someone is starving to death every second? At the same time we're buring crops in Europe & US because we're overproducing. Oh, I can feel the irony.

I don't understd why oridnary people reject the tought of getting a better life.

>>21
""The people in harge were bad, that's why communism didn't work." is a fucking stupid argument. Of course bad people exist and will get into the government. How old are you? 5? The reason why communism is flawed is because it has little to no safeguards against tyranny."

>>22
communism IS tyranny, socialists just think its a good tyranny

>>22
So we put in a safeguard against tyranny. Hey, we already have one! It's called separation of powers, dipshit.

>>23
so·cial·ism Pronunciation (ssh-lzm)
n.
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.


com·mu·nism Pronunciation (kmy-nzm)
n.
1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.


NOT THE SAME THING YOU FUCKING MORON.

>>21
"I don't understd why oridnary people reject the tought of getting a better life."

Socialism is the wedge used by dictators to seize power. Why don't we ask Eastern Europe if they'd like one of you budding mass murderers to give them a better life. Purely out of the goodness of your hearts of course. We know how dearly you love the working man.

>>25
shut the fuck up, troll. No one is buying your "mass murderer" bullshit. Just because some Socialist dictators used it to seize power does not mean that is what all Socialists want. That's a fallacy of logic, "One, therefore all". Now get a decent argument instead of repeating the same stupid shit or gtfo.

>>15
This can be done entirely without resorting to socialism. Socialism is an ideal not a logical thought out concept, if you wish to utilise one concept which socialists support you do not have to support socialism and drag along their baggage aswell. All you need to do is to support that concept by itself.

>>16
>>18
Of the top 1% only 10% are millionaires and less than 10% of millionaires inherited their wealth. If this still bothers you have you ever given thought to other possibilities? The real problem may lie in taxation. The government wastes money on people who could easily work or earn more for a living but don't due to the disincentive the government gives them through welfare. It also taxes incomes and savings instead of property. People should pay for the services they use because it is fairer on the little man and adds market forces to taxation.


>>18
>>19
>>21
>>24
Assuming you begin with a stable democracy, how can you expect people not to vote socialism out eventually? At most you will get a welfare state like Finland with the diverse economy run by property owners through free enterprise, more likely though you would end up with a political party that keeps people out of poverty for populist reasons but leaves the rest of the economy alone like the UK and Canada.

On a personal note I am going to be firm with you, ladies, gentlemen, as I feel you are refusing to address an obvious and important point I am teaching you. Have you not yet asked why tyrants prefer socialism to libertarianism? Perhaps the heated rhetoric of the minutemen "LIBERTY OR DEATH" compared to the propoganda of marxist thugs "DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT" will clue you in.

Capitalism under tyranny is always going to end badly, just like socialism under tyranny. Though I don't see any tyrants using "capitalism" to get into power. I see democracies preferring capitalism to control the majority of their economy and only using state regulation to control sectors of the economy that can only be a monopoly.

>>26
fuck off Trotsky. The logic is "all therefore one" and socialism is the same stupid arguement made over and over. Why don't you try the French. They're dumb enough to laugh at mimes.

>>28
Actually all therefore one is a separate fallacy. Try actually saying something in your argument next time.

>>27
"This can be done entirely without resorting to socialism."

Uh, that's what I was saying. I mentioned the ways we could move more left on the economic scale. You seem to think there is some sort of 3-setting switch with Capitalism at the top, Socialism in the middle, and Communism at the bottom. Not the case, it is a gradient.

This post seems to operate under the presumption that Socialism only exists as authoritative.  Certainly I would agree with the op that authoritarian socialism (i.e. state socialism) is corrupt and a negative force for maintaining social harmony, but alternative variations of socialism remain.  Libertarian socialism, or Anarchy, for example.

but not-state socialism generally requires people to care about other people, which people generally don't, unless it's their friends/family.

>>22
Well, I'm quite sure that history have proven Marxism-Leninism to be quite stupid, and that revolutions tend to end up concentrating power to a few. Democratic Socialism is all about bringing social justice without replacing the liberal democracy.

>>25
You know when someone is running out of arguments when he/she refers to the Soviet Union dispite that I already said they had nothing to do with socialism.
USSR and the eastern block had some sort of state-capitalism, ie the explotation of workers did continue however there where only one buyer, the state.

We should follow the example of the nordic countrys. They have mangaged to build a regulated capitalist economy. Now it's time to also begin to work on economic democracy there.

Just so you know, illegal aliens aren't the backbone of america. Especially mexicans... If that were true thered be no America before the 50s.

>>33
immigrants have always been the backbone

Capitalism is equally or even more the genocidal murderer of peoples. Remember the native americans whos had to go to make room ? Remember all the children that died in Hiroshima, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq etc? They were not killed because they were the enemy, or even as retaliation (as you could argue that the millions killed in communist and socialist were).
And dictators labeling themselves liberals and marketfriendly has been abundant, mostly in south america i guess though (pinochet was manloved by friedman for example).
And do you remember when the soviets invaded afganistan? There were one brave journalist who defied the government and said that they were actually invading and not helping or whatever. He  was killed of course. There were no brave journalists when vietnam was invaded, when laos was invaded, when panama was invaded, when iraq was invaded.

typical liberal socialist trolling bullshit.

>>33
The economy changes, you know. America has always needed cheap or forced labor for its capitalist economy to function. First slavery, then free blacks and poor Irish immigrants, then more immigrants, now illegal aliens and outsourced labor.

>>29
There is no left-right or capitalist-communist scale. There is reality's immense complexity, science, morality and the law, then there are idiots who think reality's immense complexity can be explained by abstract mediums like the class system or people's relationship with their mother.

>>30
>>35
Capitalism under tyranny is always going to end badly, just like socialism under tyranny. I don't see any tyrants using "capitalism" to get into power, capitalism is just an economic system and does not deny it's flaws or claim to be a political system that allows power to the people. I see democracies preferring capitalism to control the majority of their economy and only using state regulation to control sectors of the economy that can only be a monopoly. I see tyrants using socialism and it's fallacies as a replacement for rational concepts such as human rights, so they don't have to bend to the will of the people.

>>37
So why then do countries with a lot of cheap labour suffer so badly? Cheap labour alone is not enough. A people need a strong sense of national determination, they need a libertarian government, they need an efficient economic system, they need well educated scientists, inventors, entrepeneurs and stock brokers to discover new ways of generating resources, increasing their value through manufacture, educating people as to their value so they buy them and ensuring the system works to a high degree of efficiency through directing their nation's wealth to various industries through intensive research into the economy. America is succesful because those immigrants wanted more than to sweep floors, not because they swept floors for less than people who could get a better job.

Poor Norway, eh? They're just doing terribly with all those socialist policies, aren't they?

oh wait

Well, norway, sweden, finland, france, spain, italy, holland, japan, UK etc. I mean, laws regulating labor should be considered socialist since before the socialist parties and unions of old demanded them, they did not exist. Laws like how long the work day is, how old you have to be to be allowed to work, minimum wages, social security like pensions and unemployment insurance etc.
And about capitalism and democracy, under one definition capitalism can be said to have been invented in the UK in the in the end of 18th century, and then spread around the world. A majority of the capitalist countries did not become democracies (women and all races allowed to vote) until the 20th century. So how was this more then 100 years of harsh dictatorship possible under this miraculous freedomloving capitalism?

>>39
It’s funny because it actually sucks there. Just because you get a bunch of free shit doesn’t make a country good, you think those Scandinavian countries have the highest suicide rates in the world for nothing? It’s a fucking mental shithole.

Ive traveled all over the world and the only place I would rather live besides the USA is Hong Kong, Japan, Switzerland or Germany

>>41
Well, im from sweden and i like it here. And the suicide rates are higher in japan, switzerland and hong kong  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate
And iran has less suicides than the US, must be because that is such mental paradise, or maybe their religous indoctrination is more succesful...

>>42 Hear hear landsman. I mean, we may be the only country in the world whose GDP is composed *majorly* of taxes (that means we pay more than half our income in taxes) but I still can't imagine how my life would have been if I was born in equal circumstances except in the US.

Still, it is evident we can't go on like this forever...

This will be my last response before the national holiday is over.

Many continue to perpetuate fallacies which are easily disproved. Here are my suggestions to aid the flow of the discussion.

1: It would be helpful to the flow of this discussion if you were to use the internet to check your facts.
2: If you have difficulty rememberring people's arguments, get a piece of paper and jot down all of the key points that have been made just as you would during a lecture at college.
3: Please analyse problems thoroughly before responding. I do not wish to patronise people by explaining things to them that they already know, so I write under the assumption that you have at least an ordinary level of knowledge and I do not need to waste time explaining things which you already know through common sense.
4: Take all of the points made into account whilst composing statements. This means if you wish to disprove a point you will have to take other points into account whilst attempting a disproval, otherwise your opponent will simply remind you of the point you have missed out and your efforts will have been wasted.

Civil rights, minimum wage and such laws have nothing to do with socialism. They are distinct individual concepts and you do not need to include other concepts socialists support, such as the eradication of the human right to own private property, in order to implement them.

Using Scandinavian countries as examples of socialism is a ridiculous argument since Norway is a Constitutional Monarchy and both Sweden and Finland are Parliamentary Democracies. I have already submitted that the most socialist a country will get is to have a popular socialist-leaning political party which favors abnormally high regulation and welfare. Most likely Scandinavian countries will not see an evolution towards socialism as it is an inefficient method of running the majority of the economy, the people know this and the socialists know the people know this and cannot prove to the people that socialism is an infallible system as it is not true. So in order to maintain their power they will not initiate those ideas which are observably inefficient and unpopular and if they do they will lose popularity.

It is common sense that Rome wasn't built in a day, yet marxist ideologies tend to claim that they are capable of something similiar and use this fallacy to claim other systems of government are inferior. Many are essentially claiming that because socialism can achieve the impossible it is superior to systems of government that are affected by the real world. This is of course absurd and is based on the fallacy that socialism can achieve what can only take decades to accomplish if it can accomplish it at all.

If you look at democracies around the globe you can see a correlation between the amount of egalitarianism in the country and the age of the democracy. Philosophically and from empirical evidence, from what has been seen libertarianism is the only way to eliminate tyranny. If you attempt to implement socialism before implementing libertarianism it can only be assumed, philosophically and from empirical evidence, that you will end up with tyranny as without libertarianism there are no safeguards against tyranny. With this in mind it is easy to see that socialist revolutions never work, not because tyrants were in charge, but because tyrants prefer their supporters to follow marxist ideologies instead of libertarianism. Pushing socialism as a means to eliminate tyranny is illogical.

Before you repeat the argument "socialism didn't work because of bad guys", let me do some thinking for you by performing the simple task of following the 4 suggestions I have made... If socialism is a super wonderful happy magical fantasy perfect worker's paradise, then it needs to wait until a post-tyrannic proto-democracy evolves into a true democracy in order to have a chance of being implemented properly. You must admit that socialism is not a means of eliminating tyranny and setting a nation on course for democracy.

I shouldn't have to repeat this point, but I will have the common courtesy to. I never said capitalism was perfect, I am a firm believer in Adam Smith's proposition that capitalism only works when the law is enforced by a democratic government. Anyone who claims otherwise is putting words in my mouth.

halliburton?

In capitalism you only win if you're from a middle-class white Prostestant family. Because then you have OPPORTUNITIES!

>>46
I majorred in chemical engineering and this black nerd I used to study with completed a masters degree with merit and now contracts and consultancy across the globe for major industries, I last heard he is now working in China. If it wasn't for racism he would have been emperor of the universe by now, damn racists. If only we could find out who they are. I think it would be easier just to blanket tax all whites since all our problems are due to racism and only whites can be racist.

>>46
Yeah, god knows jews never make it anywhere.

>>46
Yeah, god knows jews never make it anywhere.

>>47
"All our problems are due to racism and only whites can be racist."
Sometimes it seems liberals believe that.

>>46 then explain all the Ching Chongs and Japanese and Jews and Arabs that have become successful in capitalist countries and in capitalism in general. not to mention the occasional Gook and Nigger.

liberals are stupid and whine a lot

While conservatives are so smart and take every setback like the men they are (women who are conservative are in denial about their gender and will not be raptured). Thats why conservatives never have anything bad to say about taxes.

>>53
whut?

>>54
Liberals whine. Conservatives do not. Get it?

>>55
You like pineapples?

Socialism is just populist ideas mixed up with bullshit. You don't need socialism, you don't need to drag the bullshit along with you. Just support the ideas you agree with. Stupid hippies.

Pure socialism does not exist.
Pure capitalism does not exist.

>>58
If we sort pure socialism into good ideas + bad ideas, does this mean that a version of impure socialism would consist solely of good ideas? What if these ideas were defined on their own and the labe lof socialism dropped. Would that be a problem?

If that isn't a problem, then people should stop being socialists and just support good ideas.

>>39
We are, seriously...

>>58 Should they, even? I mean, Socialism is completely offensive in its introduction (it requires a swath of theft) but there are always degrees, much to the chagrin and foil of those who have seen the light of "a non-relative ideal".

>>61
wut

humans arent stale, but some ideals are.
thats why most societies fail in the long run.. no flexibility at all

Marx called the "Declaration of the Rights of Man" the "rights of the egoistic bourgeois". He was basically saying that human rights are wrong because they don't ensure 100% equality. This is a huge logical fallacy because even though human rights don't ensure equal power distribution, they do protect a citizen's right to the freedom of speech and therefore they are not wrong AT ALL.

Marxism and all it's ideological branches were tyrannical since their first conception. Their followers blindly follow them refusing to accept even the most obvious and rational criticism and show as much ignorance and extremism as any religious cult.

Like Halliburton said, equality should be an effect of good policy, not the foundation for some fully flung ideology that rejects the very ideas that are actually needed for any form of equality to exist.

wasn't halliburton the guys who "distributed" themselves some money without giving anyhthing for it in the iraq war?

>>65
wut

Completely agree with Halliburton, on most counts; however, I would like to ask the question:

Why would a pure Libertarianism (anarchic to a degree, perhaps Government involvement only in International politics) not work?

Would we blame it on 'society' not being 'good?'
Would it not work because someone would steal something?
Surely then we could say that no Government in all of history hasn't 'worked' because people have always stolen.

I am not saying that the Government is evil (at least not all of them) but perhaps we should judge a government by the liberty of it's people?  By the freedoms enjoyed by it's populace, and by the happiness of the demos?

>>67

"Pure" libertarianism, or a free market economy in which the government only has the most minuet of influence means the government has absolutely no power what-so-ever, including the power to enforce its own laws.  Without a state controlled police or military force, it can be as easily defied as the UN.  Thus, a "libertarian" government is an oxymoron, and will begin to build its own enforcement agency if it wishes to survive.  At this point, minarchy is on the outs.  Further, if there was no agency of enforcement, then there would be nothing to protect production owning industry from producers who would simply seize the means of production -- that is, occupy factories and service industry, and create cooperatively owned business, or dare I say it, completely do away with consumer capitalism and socialize production.  The only way to prevent this would be to hire militias to protect the companies.  But once they've done this, they've become institutions of law enforcement and economic control.  State Capitalism becomes state socialism, all but in name.

By the way, this thread is an example of why I hate how minarchists in the US have taken "Libertarian" for their own.  In the rest of the world, Libertarianism is synonymous with "anarchist."  Confused the hell out of me for a minute there.

>>67
If you have no justice at all you will have no liberty at all. When done properly liberty and justice are practically the same thing.

>>68
""Pure" libertarianism, or a free market economy in which the government only has the most minuet of influence means the government has absolutely no power what-so-ever, including the power to enforce its own laws."
Technically a libertarian government fulfils the wishes of the people and is merely a functionaly bureaucracy that represents the people. So whether it has laws or not depends on the will of the people. The rest of your post is correct however.

>>68
I'm a "Pure" libertarian. Except without the "government" part. Why have a government at all if it doesn't do anything? I'm an agorist.

A government which cannot enforce laws is a good thing. Laws are the written will of legislatures, not necessarily rules designed to protect people (or that are any good at it when they are, frequently requiring people to be hurt in order to be enforced, thus eliminating the whole idea of laws existing to protect people).

In absence of "Law enforcement" there would still be protection agencies. You called it a "militia" but it doesn't have to be a milita. It could be a uniformed armed cop-looking person patrolling in a squad-car, a plainclothes guy that gets paid to stand around near the door with a concealed gun, a nut with an AR15 and a ghillie suit, it doesn't matter much. Ultimately if there were no protection agencies, we just become our own protection agencies. One way or another, people will be protected from crooks. This differs from "institutions of law enforcement and economic control" because they don't exist to enforce laws, just to protect their boss. They are not there for economic control either. If by this you mean sustaining capitalism, that belief requires the belief that capitalism must be enforced on people. I don't believe that's the case. Capitalism, as I use the word, is whatever economic activity occurs without being enforced on people. This is vastly different from the common use of the word in which the US is capitalist, I don't use it in that sense. Socialism and communism can be capitalistic if practiced completely voluntarily and without force. Communes and socialistic worker collectives are all fine and dandy under capitalism, as long as nobody is compelled to join a commune or collective, and are free to remain as individual actors to decide their own social organization. Not my personal taste, so don't shove it down my throat at gunpoint, but it's not like capitalism must be enforced upon people.

I find it unlikely that "consumer capitalism" will be done away with and production socialized. Violent overthrow of consumer capitalism would make the overthrowers the militia you mentioned, wouldn't it? If that is any reason to disparage capitalism, it would disparage similarly a violent socialist revolution, unless you are arbitrary and believe you know what's best for everybody, in which case it's okay because it's for a "just cause". Hopefully you're not of that belief. A voluntary overthrow of the market resembling what we know today in the US is possible, though vastly unlikely. It would have occured by now if people wanted it, in my opinion.

you know, back in the 17th century, a guy wrote a book about not having any laws, maybe you should read that before you go nut-jobbing apeshit with "omg omg we'll just protect ourselves!"

>>72
Hobbes?

Calvin?

>>74
No.

>>72
Maybe you should read it, he's practically justifying tyranny, learn to reading comprehension.

Socialism isn't bull shit. Capitalism is.

Capitalism (as people who call themselves "Capitalists" use it, and not to mean owner of means of production) is just leaving people fucking alone with their money.

Leaving people alone is bullshit? Someone's an asshole.

>>76
The world is more complicated than "ZOMG RULING CLASS IS TEH EBIL" and most true democracies form after decades of slow evolution. Hobbes outlined the first 10% of this process, from anarchy to dictatorship to monarchy to constitutional monarchy and finally to parliamentary monarchy. They were all tyrannies (anarchy can be classified as a patchwork of small tyrannies), but each one was getting closer to the libertarian democracy that is responsible for the freedom and standard of living we enjoy today.

If you read it you would realise that he was actually declaring that rulers should be revered figureheads and that national armies should be indoctrinated into early ideas surrounding national self determination and justice so that they cannot enter the vicious downward spiral of paranoia which leads to totalitarianist forms of government. He persuaded many monarchs to prefer rulers to act like populist presidents (enlightenned despots), rather than vicious kleptocratic totalitarianists. This was a vital step in the creation of parliaments, who's populists would later extend liberties to lower ranks creating the proto-democracies of the late 18th century.

How is anarchy a patchwork of small tyrannies?

>>80
It isn't. But it would be in a matter of weeks LOL.

You still didn't answer the question.

>>82
With no one to enforce justic,e people will commit crime. A very profitable way to commit crime is to generate as much military force as possible and use it to extort the powerless and defend your sources of wealth. Gangs would rise up and claim territory etc.. and essentially create small tyrannies.

>>82
Gang could be conpared to tribe, such has the celtic tribes or the small states in ancient Egypt that would later unify into the northern and southern kingdoms.

compared to tribes*

Who said there'd be nobody to enforce justice? You don't need a government to have a justice system.

>>86
Oh wow you are so amart! If everyone would just be nice to each other there would be no problems! I never thought of that!!

>>87
lol "Oh wow you are so amart!" not the best word to misspell...
but yeah, imagine if everybody would think like that, it´d be anarchy.

>>86
you must be pretty damn retarded to think that a proper justice system would function without a government.

>>88
Holy dog shit! Is that like an automatic response for you? Faced with an argument that crushes your entire ideology? Don't worry, just swap cause and effect around! It doesn't matter if it doesn't make any fucking sense!

>>89
Dont reply to >>86 hes an idiot.


Governments job is to enforce justice and organize public goods, and thats it, socialism is everything else and everything else is bullshit

your right 86 is full of shit

Why do you need a geographic monopoly to enforce justice? You can have protection and courts without having one organization being a monopoly in an area. I'm not saying get rid of the police and courts and stuff, just don't monopolize them and tell people "LOL I ARE BE YOUR RITEFUL SOVERN AND I HAVE SOVERN IMUNITY AND STUF LOL SO EVEN IF I KIL U NOTHING U DO ABOUT IT LOLLLL!!!".

>>93
The enforcement of justice is paramount. Maybe we'll do this later.

>>94

Enforcement of justice by a monopoly doesn't eliminate the potential for injustice, it just ensures that the monopoly government can get away with injustice while nobody else can.

>>95
Enforcement of justice by a free market doesn't eliminate the potential for injustice, it just ensures that a small group of shareholders can get away with injustice while nobody else can.

Crime is a completely different league from actions which are within a person's liberty. You can have a free market to govern those actions within a person's liberty, but it can never be allowed to serve as a law enforcement agency. You are allowed private property, but NO ONE should be allowed private ownership over the law. The government may be a monopoly, but it is the only institution in which every citizen is entitled to have a say, criticise and influence.

No no no, you're getting this all wrong. You're still thinking like the current system.

The protection agency (not to be confused with law enforcement...laws are rules, those ought to be set by the owners of the property, not some outside body, and since you own your life, liberty, and property, even without laws, murder, slavery, and theft would be "illegal" in the sense it can be applied for the simple reason that the owners of those things don't want them taken) doesn't have an exclusive monopoly over an area. Technically a rouge agency could commit injustice, but that just brings in other protection agencies to protect people against the rouges. We don't get that with the police. If the LAPD is harassing people that're minding their own business, the SFPD will NOT come in and protect people. If ProtectionCo A is harassing people, they'll call in ProtectionCo B, ProtectionCo C, and ProtectionCo D, to protect them from ProtectionCo A. ProtectionCo A's ability to commit injustice is therefore severely limited. Nobody can openly commit injustices and get away with it as governments presently do.

You can have private ownership of the law, as long as you only enforce the law on the property you privately own. There's no need to have a set of laws imposed violently over people. I agree that such a thing should never be privately owned, that's the only thing worse than it being publicly owned, but it shouldn't exist in the first place.

And it is not the only institution in which every citizen is entitled to have a say, criticize, influence, etc. Commie Russia had a government. North Korea has a government. These things are governments as well. If the distinguishing factor between a government and a band of criminals is how much say the citizen/victims have, then many things we presently consider governents are mafias, so at best your discrimination between them is unapplicable to all examples, and thus invalid.

Just eliminate the public government idea for a moment. I don't want to rule 1000 of my neighbors, nor do I want 1000 of my neighbors rule over me. I want to rule myself. I want everyone to rule themselves. I want 1000 little micronations. And I could just kinda contract the whole protection part of my country out to some local protection agency.

I like capitalism, potatoes are cheap.

Socialism is a name for a collection of left-winged political ideologies. Communism is only one of them. So communism is socialism, but socialism isn't necessarily communism. I hate it when people mix up these terms.

100 GET
>>99
Yeah, and u made it real easy to understand!

That's communism! Not socialism. Shut the fuck up!

Expropriate the expropriators! Liquidate the bourgeoisie!

>>88
If everyone was "nice" to eachother no problems would be solved. If however you said "if everyone was nice by this standard" you would be onto something most philosophers waste their years away on; but you statement means nothing.

>>88
If everyone were nice to each other any system would work perfectly. So what's your point?

>>102
The owners of the means of production are nowhere near as dangerous as the owners of the means of destruction! Capitalists are harmless, governments are dangerous! You have misidentified the classes in the class struggle! Taxation is exploitation! Liquidate the bureaucrats!

what if they get into the water supply??