Communism

All the people I've seen who they say support communism live in 4 bedroom houses, buy lots of communist memorabalia at Hot Topic, and bitch about life. In communism your ass has to work for 12 hours with or without consent and you live in shitty ass houses. I get it, people only say they support communism when they get to be the ones in charge who sit on their ass doing nothing, because remember THEY'RE THE PROLETARIAT!!!!!

>>39
All that is allready given by liberalism. Wait, i invented retardism, which proposes that all humans are created equal, dictatorship should be abolished and that nobody has the right to kill their fellow man. Wanna join?

>>40
Oh yeah, thats right, capitalist supporters are smarter because we  cant proove they are smarter, while any indication of otherwise is just leftist elitism. Well, you shouldnt brag about how stupid you are either so shut up.

>>41
It's given by liberalism + a load of bullshit that would never work that is placed above core and absolutely necessary values.

If anyone has an IQ of over 90 they tend to come up with this equation in less than 3 seconds. It may take a little longer for someone with downs syndrome, but they get there eventually. You know they're not stupid they just take longer. Liberals are the ones who are truly stupid.

liberalism - bullshit = libertarianism

I'll go with libertarianism. Thx.

>>42
Oh i see. Any examples? Because as i see it
libertarianism=mad russian anticommunism+weak grasp on contemporary philosophy+naive worldview+whatever sounds good

And saying that people who arent libertarians have an IQ below 90 seems a bit elitist to me.

Studies show that approximately  94% of all the people in your country think that communism is the same as Stalinism. And those are two very different things.

>>43
Communism is tyranny, even socialists agree with this. Inherantly Libertarians must be anti-communist unless it conflicts with the core libertarian principles, since it is those principles which give reason to oppose communism.

The last useful philosopher was John Stewart Mill.

It is not naive to think that we must never put aside human rights. It is naive to think that if we put aside human rights, just this once, just for this group, just for that group aswell and so on that you will be create a utopia. It is naive to think Rome can be built in a day and the legitimate, very important and functional philosophies of libertarianism should be discarded because some dodgy marxist derived ideology "claims" it can create a utopia in 1 bloody revolution.

>>45
I am socialist, and i dont agree that communism is tyranny. What you are actually thinking of is either bolshevism, marxism-leninism, stalinism, maoism or maybe whatever they call that shit they have in north korea. When you say communism=tyranny, you are just saying that "as a libertarian i cant be bothered to actually check up on the ideologies my own sect are opposed".
You must be a scholar on philosophy then, if you have read all the philosophic works post Mill and found it lacking. Because i know that not even you could be so stupid to claim that and not be able to back it up.
Human rights are great. But its naive to think that just because we fulfill a arbitrary set of rules, there will be no oppresion, no exploitation and no tyrrany. If you dont consider the economic facts of a society you will never change society in any progressive way.
And just for the record, libertarianism fails on its own merits, its got nothing to do with marxism or anything else.

>>46
"But its naive to think that just because we fulfill a arbitrary set of rules, there will be no oppresion, no exploitation and no tyrrany."
Don't be silly. That's what I've just told you.

The thing is libertarianism is essentially just anti-tyranny, it isn't an ideology like socialism, it is a science and to dismiss it is to remove the safeguards against tyranny. As difficult and slow as it is to implement libertarian principles, libertarianism is the only way to eliminate tyranny and must always be placed above mere ideologies so the safeguards against tyranny. For how can you expect to implement your ideals if they are under the heal of a tyrant?

Russia 1920
Peasant: This man disagrees with Equality.
Commissar: Execute him.
Peasant: What about his right to the freedom of speech?
Commissar: Equality is more important.

USA 1776
Muscular Honourable Minuteman: This man disagrees with the freedom of speech.
Propogandist: Execute him.
Muscular Honourable Minuteman: What about his right to the freedom of speech?
Propogandist: Freedom of speech is more important.
Muscular Honourable Minuteman: Wut. My respect for your authority has rapidly diminished and I shall no longer take orders from you.
Propogandist: Execute yourself.
Muscular Honourable Minuteman: No...

>>47
Lenin might have killed about 5 million when he took the power in Russia, probably more after that. The objectives for every single one of them I don't know.
But I do know that most he killed was to distribute the food they had in there possesion.
By killing 5 million Lenin saved 20 million.

>>48
As you probably guess I don't believe that, but even if it is true Lenin's disrespect for human rights led to Stalinism and a stagnant totalitarianism that only showed the first signs of evolving towards a libertarian government during the mid 60s. I doubt he needed to kill them, he could have just confiscated their food. The only killing that was needed was to cripple the tsarist military so they stop oppressing people.

>>49
I doubt he needed to kill them too. I'm not defending him for that, but that he killed those people are only half the truth.
Also the 1919 Russia was a very different world from today.

>>47
Rights are all good and dandy, but what use are they, if there is still no right for the starving to have bread, for the homeless to have a home, for the poor to be rich. Your rights are arbitrary, and they do not change the structural reasons why people starve or why they are poor, and therefore are the winners of your world the same people who are the winners today. And since you dont realise this you are naive. And intelligent design is more like a science than libertarianism, at least it accepts that the world has progressed since the days of Mill.

>>48 Those 20 million - would they really have died without the food? It doesn't really make sense that depriving five million people of adequate nourishment would have kept 20 million from starvation.

>>51

You have every negative right. You have no positive rights.

When Libertarians and Republicans talk about the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms", we aren't talking about making sure absolutely everyone can get free guns from a government-regulated system. We mean nobody can take your guns. That's a negative right. It's something nobody should be able to stop you from doing.

When Liberals talk about the "Right to have a home", you aren't trying to protect the institution of home ownership, you're trying to force everyone to pay the rent of a bunch of other people. That is a positive right. It's something that everyone has to take positive action to provide you.

The rights to "Life, Liberty, and Property", are not rights where you are provided with things. It means nobody can kill you. It means nobody can enslave you (subject you to involuntary servitude of any kind). It means nobody can steal your property. It does not mean society owes you life and free healthcare to stay alive. It does not mean society owes you their own useful time. It does not mean that if you lack property, someone somewhere must provide you with property.

Libertarians believe you have every negative right and no positive rights.

There are rights for the starving to have bread, for the homeless to have a home, for the poor to be rich. Anyone who steals the bread of a starving man, prevents a homeless man from buying a house or renting an aparment, or steals property from the poor and prevents them from becoming rich, those people are damned criminals.

But society does not owe you bread just because you are starving, it does not owe you a home because you have none, it does not owe you money because you lack money.

Don't confuse these. Libetarian rights are not arbitrary.

>>53

People should be given what they need in order to live. Outside of that they don't deserve a cent, but we deprive a lot of people the ability to live if we don't grant them it ourselves.

And why do they deserve that? No one ever asked to be born. No one ever had a choice in at least that much. So give them at least that much; give them life, because surely, had they known what was in store for them, they would have never decided to be born in the first place. So give them life.

94% of my "people" don't even know who Stalin is. Yet somehow they graduate and become "successful".

What's wrong with having kings? I wouldn't mind a guy in a throne telling me what to do.

No they shouldn't. They should earn what they need in order to live. If they can't even scrounge up enough wild plants to keep themselves alive, we don't need to be keeping them alive, they're either disfunctional or they don't want to live badly enough.

Sure, give them all the money you have. Just don't steal my money to give it to them. If I thought it was worth it, I'd be giving them that stuff too.

Aside from all that, we don't give them just what they need in order to live. If you're good at getting bang for your buck, you can live on under a dollar a day. I'm sure renters would even offer space for a few dollars a week if property taxes didn't force them to charge more. At least for a short time while the renter looked for a job. Or if the renter did some stuff for the landlord.

But people don't deserve things just for existing. If they didn't want to be born they can undo it by killing themselves. If they want to keep living, they should at least work enough to put food in their own mouth.

>>57

Evidence in the real world are contrary to what you suggest. There are lots of people that want to keep living but even then they are starving, and its not because they can't get work. In any case, we're driving toward a world which no longer needs a working class thanks to technology, so what do we do with people who can't do what they CAN do for money, because they are no longer needed?

>>58
"and its not because they can't get work."

Er, I mean it IS because they can't get work. Or the wages they get aren't livable.

>>58
Human wants are insatiable. Once we get everything we thought we wanted, we want something else. Thus, labor demanded is infinite. We still have unemployment because of minimum wages, tariffs, and other regulation that prevents a lot of people that want jobs from getting jobs, and because of a lack of a system where finding a job is as easy as shopping at Walmart. Which might have to do with the government paperwork involved.

Machines and technology are tools. They do not replace people. They just make people's jobs easier. We do still need a working class. As long as the output of machines is below the output demanded, there will be labor. Because the amount demanded is unlimited, the output of machines will never go above the output demanded. Therefore, the working class is not going anywhere.

>>58
>>60 = truth

Also capitalism under democracy favours the high gdp per capita rather than the highest total gdp, since people generally want to be as rich as possible once gdp per capita begins to decrease due to overpopulation, the cost of raising a child will cause population growth to halt. This is inherantly humane since it means that people are not seen as tools, but rather the sentient beings that matter that they are.

>>53
Lol negative rights ,i was waiting for this.
Traffic lights are an infraction on your negative rights, are they not. Meaning, you have the right to draive anywhere whenever you want, and by regulating how and when you do that you lower the ammount of liberty a person has, yes? This is how negative rights work, and i assume as you said that humans have ALL negative rights and NONE positive rights and therefore are libertarian righs not arbitrary.
Well, Pyongyang (north koreas capital) have few traffic lights while london has many. So according to the scientific libertarian north korea has more liberty than the UK?

>>62
Well seeing as the government kinda owns the roads, they can rightfully set the rules on those roads. Nobody forces you to drive on the roads. Whoever's property you are on or you are using, you have to respect THEIR wishes in order to not violate their negative right to property. Traffic lights are not a violation of negative rights, but an example of them. Your last question is illogical.

>>63
Wait what? So if you are in a concentration camp you have to respect the wishes of the kommendant, and that is an example of negaitve rights? The governement can be said to own a country and its money among many things, and that taxes are the rent we pay to stay on its property and to use its money. If we dont like it, we can always move somewhere where its not liek that. Is this how you percieve negative rights? That taxes are an example of negative rights? That sounds really libertarian...

>>60
Horseshit human desires are insatiable.  You're making an arbitrary philosophical assumption then trying to create a cause and effect chain.

Here is proof that human desires are satiable: Marijuana + Full Freezer and a Microwave, pure fucking bliss.

And YES, the working class is getting edged out by technology, can you tell me how many cars the Ford company made in 1940 with  how many cars Ford makes today, and the difference of the number of blue-collar workers?  We will always have need of people to troubleshoot and fix the machines, but that requires education that many blue-collar families don't have the money to invest into.

>>60
When you get a job as an underpriviledged, uneducated black woman from Liberia, then come back and tell me about government red-tape being more of a factor in getting a job than environmental factors.

>>64
No, because if you're in a concentration camp, they're violating your negative rights. If you are free to leave the concentration camp, but you are staying by your own choice, you have to obey their rules. If you are forced there and not permitted to leave, then you're under no obligation to obey.

The government doesn't own a country. It claims territory, but a government doesn't own everything in that territory, even if it thinks it does.

Taxes are not an expression of property rights. They're a violation of property rights.

If you'd like to stop deliberately perverting the idea maybe you'd realize that it makes sense.

>>65
Human wants are insatiable. Once you run out of marijuana, frozen stuff, and a microwave, you want more.

No the working class is not being edged out by technology. Hiring someone doesn't require a capital investment while technology does. If you need something done now, and it's possible for the thing to be automated, you might have to pass up the automation simply because you can't afford to automate it when hiring someone is cheaper. A $20,000 machine might be more expensive than a $25,000 per year employee if you don't have the $20,000 or if you can't afford to pay the interest on a loan for that amount, and for every second you have nothing being done, be it by man or machine, you're losing money, you'll take whatever is closest and requires least up-front capital.

There will always always always be a place for the working class.

As the general standard of living rises with automation, the products that are made become easier and easier to purchase, requiring less and less work. Work still has to be done, it's just that very little work has to be done. This especially helps the poor who now have the work less to maintain a standard of living.

I can't become an underpriviledged uneducated black woman from Liberia, but what I can do is start a business in Liberia that'll try to hire that underpriviledged uneducated black woman. And if the government red-tape prevents me from doing so, then that's just about the next best thing after what you said. After all, the only thing left to do is find such a woman, tell her I want to hire her for such and such wages, but the governent is making it impossible for me to do so, and find a way for her to communicate to you her frustration.

I think there will be an apolcalyptic war between the masses and the elite, because money and power is getting concentrated in fewer and fewer hands and power is becoming increasing centralized in unaccountable organizations.

I think the elite will erode the borders between sovereign independent nation states, until the only borders that exists will be the borders around their super rich gated communties policed by private security guards, whilst the masses live in squalor and the "middle class" will cease to exist it will only be the elite and masses, the rulers and the ruled.

Eventually the elite will use their money to build a army of robots or genetically modified human clones, or cyborgs because the masses will become revolutionary and the masses don't need the elite but the elite need the masses to work for them but when they have robots or clones or cyborgs to do their work for them they will try to destroy the rest of humanity in an apocalpytic nuclear war in which billions will die.

Libertarianism will always fail because it just leads to a super rich elite breaking away from the rest of society, causing the masses to become revolutionary. I think dear comrade Castro of Cuba and dear comrade Kim Jong Il of North Korea are shining the light of hope in a dark world ruled by Zionists and Krazy KKKhristians, I agree that North Korea and Cuba are not perfect societies, but I bet that anyone could walk down a street anywhere in N. Korea or Cuba any time of the day or night without fear of being attacked, also the only place where Christians and Muslims lived in peace with each other was the Soviet Union, today Kazahkstan and Albania has about 50%/50% Christians and Muslims and they live together peacefully having grown up as brothers and sisters under communism. Black and White people live together in peace in Cuba and N. Korea doesn't have any racism or anti-semitism at all.

The capitalist media only focus on bad parts of communism, instead of focus on good things like working together, sharing each others lives, helping each other, in capitalist countries there is a lot of loneliness and depression and capitalist countries now have really low birthrates and are becoming extinct because the cost of living is too high, so the only solution is Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.

All countries like Belarus, Libya, Syria, Turkmenistan, Cuba, North Korea, Iran and the Iraqi Resistance are standing up to the capitalist empire and stopping power and wealth being taken from their people and centralized into fewer and fewer hands until a tiny elite rules the entire world and everyone else is reduced to being slaves or killed and replaced with robots/clones/cyborgs.

>>67
You shit communist manifestos.

The whole concept of libertarianism is to make unproven assumptions, then draw logical conclusions from the assumption, then keep everyone focused on the logical conclusions, and when anyone points out that they've made an assumption they claim the assumption as reality by constantly claiming the effects prove the cause. 
This would be considered poor scientific method, but they will dogmatically refute that their interpretation is unfounded. It has a striking similarity of the origin of Marx's ideas, he interpreted history as being driven by the nebulous "bourgeois oppression", then made logical predictions of the reprecussions.  Libertarians have their own interpretation of history, but instead of the bourgeois they have the nebulous "government causes absolutely everything bad, markets never fail". 
When confronted with the Gilded Age, they remark, "Government made those workers suffer and cause the great depression", which, considering the wide variety of opinions about the gilded age and the Crash of 29', sounds much like a child saying "Because I said so".
Interpretation of history is not a legitimate basis for grounding an assumption, you need controlled, purposeful empirical data before you can claim to be a seer. But you may continue to insist that Libertarian ideas are not in any way dangerously unproven, we look all too ready for another social experiment, Communism must've cost close to a  quarter billion human lives, maybe Libertarianism can break that record.

>>69
Your entire argument is based on the assumption that libertarians don't have proof to back up their assertions.

Libertarianism tolerates communism, communism doesn't tolerate libertarianism. Communism has such a high body count because it's intolerant and violent. Libertarianism is tolerant and nonviolent.

Libertarians won't kill in the name of Libertarianism.
Communists will kill in the name of Communism.

Libetarianism, by it's ethics, couldn't have a death toll because murder is one of the foci of what Libertarianism aims to stop.

>>69
I won’t even touch you comments on the crash of 29 because you must have very little information on it if you this it was a free market problem. But as far as your comment on poor working conditions goes; who was it again that improved working conditions? O that’s right labor unions and NOT the government.

>>71
Libertarians tend to use violence to defend their and other people's freedom from despotic rule.

>>73

lol guns for everyone! that will stop murder!

>>73

They tend not to, but tend to talk big like they do.

>>74

Sure would. Who would try to kill someone else if everybody else can shoot back? It'd be damned stupid.

>>75
They tend not to fight for other people's freedom, even more so if they are in a nother country. Though is due more to not interfering with other nation's sovereignty etc..

You can be sure that if a despotism arises in Switzerland or the US, 99% of insurgents would be libertarians.

>>75

A lot of people. You seem to be under the impression that a majority of people are logical, rational creatures.

>>77

They're not THAT stupid.

>>78

You haven't been to the south, have you?

>>79
I live in Fort Myers Florida dumbass. This is as southern as it gets. If you go farther south into Miami you have culturally left the south.