Communism and Captialism are equal

I came to this realization of this by deconstructing the ideas of Socialism. I came to the conclusion that both can be bad or good, but it depends on who's hands it is in. If the person who is head of a company or a head of nation cares about people, and not power, then the little man will be happy.If the person wants power, than the little man will suffer. This is true in either cases of government.

>>80
That's just ignorant.

>>78
*sigh* you don't get me at all. I didn't say there wasn't such a thing as a individual. I said that individuals don’t matter. I know this because I am a individual (believe it or not) and I know (in difference to you it seems) that my existence is close to none-existence. Oh yes, the irony.

And by matter I mean make a difference or have an influence. Only by joining a larger group can my existence "matter".

How is the view from your pedestal there by the way?

>>75
"The effective end of the state is the point where the black market has grown large enough that it can provide better protection than the government's police, and so when the police harass people, the black market protection agencies would protect the people against the police."

Black market protection = organised crime. You don't pay or pay someone else and your daughter's teeth are knocked out when she's walking home from school and if they are the only people enforcing the law in a certain area, who is to stop their forensic scientists from framing you for knocking her teeth out if you try to complain to whatever democratic authority is left? No better than a bunch of socialist or fascist thugs.

>>81

(I'm >>79, not >>80)

Hey, let's not actually rebut the guy, ad-hominems are coming back in style.

Oh my fucking god!  It's insipid discussions like this that made me abandon newpol a long time ago! 

You people are so incredibly stupid.  Using abstractions to prove a point when inappropriate.  You think you're super-intelligent, but you're fucking mouth-breathers.

"
Collectives are fictive. Individuals are real. Collectives depend on the existence of the individual. Real things do not depend on the existence of imaginary things. Imaginary things depend on the existence of real things. The individual is supreme to the collective, the individual precedes the collective."

I so want to bash you in the head with a 40OZ hammer until you think Nixson won the nobel prize for physics.

>>81
Yeah well, it's true.  Tragedy unto you.

>>79
When you say that we are talking about rights. Right's are nice things, the only problem is that the more rights there is the fewer people can use them.
To me it's not important to have as many rights as possible. To me it's important that everyone has the same rights.
And what use are freedom and rights when not everyone is entitled to use them?
And who is not entitled? Poor people. But they are still people and they all deserve the same rights as anyone else. Those who keep these freemdoms and rights safe are people with money.

>>85
I agree. The main reason I am here is to see how I can unfuck retards with incredibly low attention spans. A must if you want to go into politics for your values and compete with populism.

>>82

So individuals can't do anything? Thomas Edison didn't do anything? Benjamin Franklin didn't do anything? They didn't have to be part of a collective to make a difference.

>>83

Black market protection AT THIS TIME is organized crime. Mafias are not real protection agencies. If you define "crime" as "anything that is against the laws of the State", then yeah, black market protection agencies are organized "crime". If you define crime as "Hurting others without them hurting you first," then you can have black market protection without crime.

>>85

And collectives are *still* imaginary.

>>89
Is every individual Thomas Edison, Benjamin Franklin or any other american inventor?

>>75
"Smaller "government" like organizations could form, but they wouldn't be able to claim exclusive jurisdiction over areas owned by individuals not voluntarily partaking in that government, or the protection agnecies would start attacking the "government" until it left the involuntarily claimed territory alone."
You are seriously confused. A statelike entity would try to gobble up all its competitors, by force if need be. Ever heard about mob wars? The statelike entity would be stronger than each individual by itself and it would own the protection agency you would employ, and in a matter of minutes it would start taking protection money from you (pay or your dog burns) and since they would be stronger than all alternatives you would be forced to pay. And the only difference in the end would be that before did your taxes at least lead to roads and satelites, now they would only pay for Tonys cigars. Or you would be forced to enter another statelike entity to organize a defense against the hostile one, and this would also demand tax to function. Add couple of years and stir and we are back to where we are now.
Agorism=Exchanging the government for the mob, or worrrrrrsseee!

>>90

It only takes one example to prove that your "rule" is invalid.

>>91

If you start with a conclusion and look for a way to fuck with reality to make it happen, assume that everybody is evil, and stuff like that, yes. But no.

>>92
Rules have exeptions.

>>93

Which invalidates the rule.

>>92
What, assuming people are evil? The mob dont exist now? Companies dont compete? Companies dont kill union leaders? Companies dont hire mercenaries to conquer oil wells and mines in conflict ridden areas? What are you, naive? Im not fucking with reality, reality is fucking with YOU!

>>94
No, too many exceptions make the rule bad but not even then invalid.
What are the chances of doing something that will be put of use by future generations?
If your individualism was any good everyone would have to do that. Or at least that would be reachable for everyone, which it isn’t.

Wake up to the reality will you?
Your life is not in your own hands, your existence is of no significance, practically nobody know you are even alive, the world wont end when you die and if you seriously believe in individualism you might as well believe in unicorns and pixies.

>>95

Alright, let's assume for a moment that people are evil. Then what's government but a tool for people to exert evil over others?

Let's assume half the population is evil. Government is a magnet for the evil half, and democracy will let them screw over the good half.

Let's assume 1% of the population is evil. All it takes is 1% of the population to govern. Add that to the magnet effect, and you get most of the evil people in power.

Let's assume it's .001% of the population. The evil people rise to the top.

So if people really are evil, and evil is undesirable, the last thing you want to do have a government, because it will attract evil and then give it power to advance it's evil.

>>96
One exception makes a rule invalid. You can still have the "rule" but only as a general tendency. If I say "If you drop something, it will fall," that's a general tendency, because there are exceptions. If you drop something lighter than air, it'll move up. It's invalid as a rule, but it's true as a general tendency. And the way you were using it, a general tendency isn't good enough.

Your second sentence was incoherent.

My life is in my own hands. I'll do what I want with it reguardless of anyone else. Just because I have to interact with other people throughout my life doesn't mean my life is out of my own hands. You can't say that my life is of no significance because you don't even know who I am. That people do not know that I am alive does not make me insignificant. The world won't end when I die and I have never said otherwise. None of these have anything to do with the topic. Individualism is reality. Collectivism is a fairyland where imaginary things are real.

>>97
Your life is in the hands of the collective. Not even the human race is of significance so you are certainly not.
I didn't even say that just because people don't know you’re alive you are insignificant.
Individualism is reality? You think that because you lack the ability to see past your own nose.

>>98

If even the human race is insigificant then the definition of "insigificant" you're using is so broad as to be absolutely meaningless.

Individuals are real. Collectives are fictive.
Individualism is reality. Collectivism is fantasy.

You lack the ability to see past your optic nerves.

>>99
I can see what you are writing and it makes me disappointed in the human race. Which is of no significance because my sight is THAT broad. Imagine the life time of the earth as 24 hours. The human race would appear somewhere at 23:59:30. Which would make us quite insignificant in relation to our home planet. And imagine also that the collected mass of the universe is as big as the earth the earth would be as big as a grain of sand, that makes us even more insignificant.

Stating: "Individuals are real. Collectives are fictive." Over and over again won’t make it true.

>>99

dude, you're just being dumb now. Collectives are the reason we are what we are, we coudl've never developed to what we are today without them, collectives give us both a sense of belonging as well as some of the very most basic norms and values. Collectives are a great part of what creates us as individual beings, and if individiuals are real, and individuals are made of collectives, then so must collectives be real.

>>89
And that they are imaginary has nothing to do with what they are or their function.  It's fucking tangential, just made to make you seem smart by using huge edumacational words like "fictive".  Completely non-practical, and completely useless.  You're full of hot air.  And that doesn't go just for you, but everyone involved with this fucking failure of a forum.

>>99
Why say "you lack the ability to see beyond your optic nerves" like some stupid ass greek scholar pederast wannabe when "LOL, u dumb!" will work just as well? You indluge the stupid shit like that, using long-winded sentences to make yourself seem smart.  It's probably why people like you never acheive anything useful, you just amount to douchers arguing in the university lounge.  Nobody else will tolerate being around you.

>>101

...that's not even worth a rebuttal.

>>102

Their function is referring to large numbers of objects in fewer words. That this is done does not unite the objects.

"Can't see past your optic nerves" implies both that they are blind to reality, and that everything they see, they are seeing within their own head, i.e. in la-la land. With two seconds of thinking and a basic knowledge of human anatomy, this would have been obvious.

Individualism is reality. Collectivism is fantasy.
Hi, I'm trying to sound profound.

Too bad I'm incapable of thinking carefully about what I write.

>>103
Probaly obvious in your la-la land.

>>104
>>105

Ad hominem fallacy.

>>97
"So if people really are evil, and evil is undesirable, the last thing you want to do have a government, because it will attract evil and then give it power to advance it's evil."
Man, that must be the stupidest i ever read! Especially if its an argument for Agrocism.
But whatever, imagine this instead. People are not evil, people just act in selfinterest. Tony acts in selfinterest, he likes cigars. He is good at consolidating power through intimidation and force. When the government disappears in teh magic fagorist revolution, do you think he will loose power or gain power? And what do you think he will do with this power? Accept that your property is your by some abstract right? No, all property is his, because he is the strongest. Now, how is Tony Soprano not going to force you to pay taxes in your fagorism? 

>>106
LOOK AT ME, I USE COOL LATIN LOLZ
just say false argument and stop slapping your e-penis around

>>106
What would become of this world if everyone pointed that out whenever it happend?

>107

Agorism. Based on the greek word "Agora" for "Marketplace".

If you're implying that he was in the Mafia, he'll lose power. The mafia would have to start competing in the arms trade, drugs, and everything else except protection rackets, so it would have a lot less money. The black market rising and overthrowing the state means everything is the "black market", and when that's the case, you have regular old market competition. Without the police, protection agencies would spring up, certainly (demand creates supply). These would be at least as effective as the police (they have the same manpower and technology available), and likely more efficient (markets do this to things like that). The mafia's job would not be made any easier. Also, once it became legal to own several kinds of weapons presently prohibited, the protection racket would even fail. The victims could shoot back with machineguns, or if the Mobsters were just trying to mess up the business to get them to pay, they'd be lead in back and shot with a silenced weapon. The mobsters wouldn't be doing this because they depend on business owners living to get their money, they can't afford to just knock off every little business owner before attempting intimidation.

So he won't have more power. Governments directly and indirectly empower violent organizations like mafias. Directly, through political bribes, funding, et cetera, and indirectly, by disarming victims, providing insufficient monopoly protection, prohibiting substances like drugs and alcohol which create markets that mafias easily get into while massively increasing prices, and so on. Without the government's witting or unwitting aid, it's unlikely mafias would be as powerful as they are at present.

He is not the strongest. There are infinite variables of the contest that can decide who is the strongest. Physical strength and numbers are just two factors.

Tony Soprano is not going to force me to pay taxes in agorism because I will have machineguns, training, and preparation for someone like him. He will have machineguns, thugs, and numbers. I, as defender, have not only the defender's advantage but the fortified defender's advantage. He won't be getting any taxes. And if I can get all my neighbors to help bring Soprano down, we will win by having the asshole surrounded, and being fortified, with machineguns.

The natural order of things is not on the side of the aggressor.

>108
Because there's a proper term for making fun of someone in a debate. You don't even have to know any latin to have heard the term.

>>109
We'd be saying "Ad hominem fallacy" at each other until we learned what it was and stopped doing it. We'd also sound a lot less like 5 year olds.

>>111
Because here we really need people who think they know what they are talking about.

>>106 doesn't really understand what an ad hominem fallacy is. What we have in >>104 is satire.

Care to explain how "individualism" is real and "collectivism" isn't? They're both concepts. Please refer to your nearest dictionary for details.

I guess one idea is more real than another now. Hah.

>>113
Good point. But I believe you understood what I was attempting to say. Individuals are real, individualism is a belief in things which are real. Collectives are fictive, collectivism is a belief in things which are not real. That was my intent.

And attempts at defamation of character qualify as ad hominem, don't they? At the least they suffer from the shortcomings of ad hominems.

Collectives are fictive? What are all our social organisations? Are they somehow less real because they aren't tangible?

Does that mean that I can break any contract I make? They're just as real as the aforementioned.

>>115

If you want to break it, who can stop you? But don't expect other people to live up to their end of the contract or ever plan on making a contract with you again.

>>103
I wasn't saying that I didn't understand.  I was saying that it was something stupid to say.

And the whole thing with collectives is exactly what I'm talking about you people being stupid.  You saying that collectives are ways of referring to groups of objects shows that you don't know how to analyze things. You've learned the basics of logic, but you lack the intelligence to pull it off. 

>>113 pointed out why you're wrong, but the fact that you didn't notice right away that both the things you were comparing were ideas shows just how far up your ass your own head is.

I AM NOT LETTING YOUR STUPID ASS OPPONENTS OFF THE HOOK EITHER, they're just as dumb, but I don't feel like finding an example.

You people are nowhere near as smart as you think you are.  Taking a philosophy class and "learning logic" doesn't magically turn you into a genius.

Uh, >>116, have you ever heard of contract law?

If collectivism is a believe in things that are not real, what about the products it produces? Culture for example?

This is beginning to sound like philosophy. If it's not tangible but it affects the tangible, is it real?

>>110
I know how it is spelled, i was mocking you.
And you seriously dont know how the market works. The the most important thing for markets to exist is property rights and the enforcement of these rights (according to my national economics book at least). The nice thing with having something other than the market agents to define property rights is that market agents are self serving. If MicroSoft had the power to write laws it would illigelize everything that wasnt MS and it would claim that all your shit was its. This is not because MS is evil, or that its a mafia-like organization, its just how business works. So, my critique to your utopian fantasy is that with a system without the government to have the violence monopoly to enforce law you will have a thousand despots all trying to get ahead using all possible means. And violence is such a mean. So what if you have guns and ammo. Can you make food? Purify water? Clothes? All this will be controlled by the ones with weapons and iron wills, and you either starve or conform. And so what if you happen to be the omega man and find an impenetrable fortress with unlimited supply of ammo and food, is that possible for all or at least a majority? And since collectives are fictive i assume that nobody would like to help you. They either want to steal your shit or guard their shit from thiefs like you.
And yes, the mafia would buy  the protection agency. Dont you think they would like to own the police if they could? Or are the mafia not allowed to buy companies under  La-laism?

Protip:Watch Mad Max 2. Is good example of fagorism in practice. 

>>118
Physically nothing is going to stop you from breaking a contract. Besides, you don't need collectives to have contracts.

Culture is also imaginary.

We could argue about the physical manifestation of subjective things as patterns of neural activity, in that sense they exist and can influence reality. Imaginary things only affect reality through human behavior.

>>119

Market agents don't have to define property rights. Microsoft wouldn't have the power to write laws.

It is unlikely that you will have people trying to get ahead using all possible means, beyond what we presently see. All important functions of the state would still exist.

Undoubted some will attempt to use violence to get ahead. But if it is made easier to achieve the same ends without violence, violence will be a last resort, not a primary method. People generally want to avoid violence. They want to avoid violence today because of the police and victims that defend themselves. They would want to avoid it under agorism because of the protection agencies and victims that defend themselves.

I don't expect or intend to fend off an army with guns and ammo. I expect to make violence a last resort by making it well known that I have guns and ammo.

No, the mafia would not buy the protection agency. First of all, they're not the police. Police are not protection, but law enforcement. Also, police recieve geographic monopolies, PAs do not. The primary advantages a PA has over a Mafia is that the PA gets paid voluntarily whereas a Mafia must resort to violence, and resultantly PAs are seen as legitemate and Mafias are not. The Mafia could buy the PA's resources, but that wouldn't give the Mafia a way to oppress people while appearing legitemate as you seem to believe. If the Mafia ran the company just like the other one, then the fact that the Mafia owns it doesn't change the fact that there's nothing unjust about the PA's action. If the Mafia used the PA to steal from the customers, the customers would switch PAs and have their new PA protect them from their old PA, now controlled by the Mafia. So the Mafia has nothing to gain in buying a PA except additional resources...guns, buildings, cars, et cetera. And it could purchase these resources cheaper elsewhere. Suppose there are three PAs in a certain area and the Mafia buys two of them to get them out of business. The third won't be selling for any "reasonable" price, because he'll have essentially all the business in the area unless someone else moves in. The future rewards far outweigh the potential costs for the PA owner, and he wouldn't sell.

The problem with buying up all your competitors is that it's ineffective except temporarily, and when it wears off, it's worse than it was before. If I own a PA, and you're a Mafia king, and you buy my PA, I'm going to sell it at a massively inflated price, knowing you're willing to pay, as stealing a PA would be damned near impossible. Then I'm going to take my money and start up another PA bigger than my old one for you to deal with. Want to buy that one? 200% markup. I know you want it. If you're silly enough to buy, I'm going to use the money you pay me to start up a PA twice as big as the previous one, until it reaches the point where you're flat out broke and I'm rolling in money and in charge of a force larger than yours. You made me rich because of your irrational desire to control others by any means necessary.

One man did that to Rockefeller. He started 11 oil companies sequentially, using the money from the previous oil company to start a new one, which Rockefeller then bought. The man retired rich.

And stop calling it fagorism. You're making yourself look like a 5th grader.