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.

>>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??