FA+
Shop
To Cuck a Commie
8 years ago
I've noticed a few things commonly shared among Commie Cucks here on FA; of note,
1. They hate being called commie cucks, even when they actually are commie cucks.
Commies usually come from affluent nations, and are actually living in luxury compared to the rest of the world; indeed, many of them are in the upper-middle-class even by their nation's standards. They don't seem to realize that, if there is a communist revolution, other men will take what is theirs, have their way with it, and leave them to only watch and make do with the work of their own hands - hence the nickname 'commie cuck'. Indeed, they will often claim that calling them a cuck somehow invalidates your argument, as it's an 'Ad Hominem'. Remind them that it's an insult, not an argument, and a well-deserved insult considering they subscribe to an ideology responsible for the death and subjugation of millions of people. Follow this up with a harsh reminder that they have failed to address your *actual* argument, and that it's intellectually dishonest and cowardly to hide from an argument with "BWAAAAH YOU'RE BEING A MEANIE!!!". Ultimately though, you want to attack their pride and sources of pride; it's usually a person's greatest weakness (especially Commies, who often fancy themselves enlightened intellectuals), and it keeps them flustered.
2. They like to use examples of multinational corporations doing evil as a smear against Capitalism.
Let's get a few things clear about definitions; Capitalism, as I and most other libertarians use it at least, is in reference to the concept of government not interfering in the market, and instead leaving it up to individuals and businesses to engage in willing commerce as they see fit. Corporatism, however, is the philosophy of giving businesses greater power and authority than the common man by virtue of their economic success - ie, not Capitalism at all, and in fact contradictory to its principles. At its simplest, Capitalism has nothing to say about personal liberty and is instead entirely focused on economic liberty; to paraphrase Milton Friedman, Capitalism is necessary, but not sufficient, for a free people. Even so, the philosophical underpinnings of Capitalism can be easily extended to encompass the idea of self-ownership, and all of the liberties that encompasses. Still, I will discuss Capitalism in its limited, purely economic sense, as that is the essential definition of the word. If you wish to argue in the extended sense - ie, its underpinnings of self-ownership and individual liberty, the foundation of libertarian philosophy - that's fine. But in either case, make sure you stick to whatever definition you use and always bring the argument back to that definition; commies like to redefine it however it suits their purposes, and you must pin them down on that.
The reason you need to keep bringing it back to Capitalism is that Commies will keep bringing up examples of government supported and sponsored Corporatism as examples of Capitalism, and will try to frame the argument in that manner - it's an entirely dishonest argument, and hammer them on that as well. They like to use this strawmen of Corporatism to try to smear Capitalism and paint it as some sort of global conspiracy to oppress the common man - and essentially use the sins of Corporatism as evidence against Capitalism, even though the two philosophies are mutually exclusive. They will claim that multinational corporations often go to third-world countries, collude with the governments there, and basically have the governments of those countries use their militaries to keep the population in line and force them into what amounts to slavery.
Such things are, of course, evil and indefensible, and you must be careful not to defend it when these commies use it as evidence - after all, the most pervasive and enduring lies are often mixed with enough truth to sound good at a glance. Such economic activities are, of course, evil and repugnant, and we should not allow American companies to do it, just as we don't allow individuals to trade in stolen goods (theft, after all, is not part of the Free Market, and slavery is essentially total and sustained theft). Bring it back to what you're actually arguing, and point at what Capitalism is and is not. Anyone capable of critical thinking would see that, of course, such action is not the result of Capitalism. Is the company Capitalist? Of course not; it is just a company, seeking its own benefit in an unscrupulous and immoral manner, behaving in a manner either irrelevant to or or in contradiction with the principles of Capitalism (again, going back to the original definition). Are their actions the fault of Capitalism? Of course not; again, Capitalism either has nothing to say on such things or is against it, and the businessman is the one who made the moral choice to pursue greed over the dignity of his fellow man. Indeed, Capitalism acts as a limit to greed, wherever it is law - after all, in a Capitalist system, you cannot get what someone else has unless you are willing to give them something they want in return. Moreover, the company had to *leave* a Capitalist system and go to some sort of totalitarian system in order to do its evil - evil that the government of that country was equally responsible for, if not moreso. You can no more blame Capitalism for the acts of these companies than you could blame your headlights for failing to prevent your serpentine belt from slipping. This is why it's so important to bring them back to the definition of Capitalism; they will constantly try to take other things, claim they're Capitalism, and use that to push their own ideology.
Likewise, it is good to bring up Communism and how such greedy people would function in a Communist society. Unlike in Capitalism, such greed and evil is actually encouraged by their centrally planned structure. The evil men in a Communist society need not leave their country to find slaves to exploit, as the state has made slaves of all the citizens.
3. They like to use evil things in America's past as smears against Capitalism.
They will also use 'America' and Capitalism interchangeably, another popular strawman. Now, America has been reasonably Capitalist throughout its existence, this is true. And America has committed its own evils, I do not dispute that. However, Commie Cucks will often insist that this is proof of how evil Capitalism is - as if these evils were the fault of Capitalism. They will point to the enslavement of black people, the oppression of gays, internment camps, etc - and these are of course terrible things. When you point out that these things have nothing to do with Capitalism (again, going back to the definition), they will usually ramble on about how some secret cabal of 'Capitalists' actually DON'T want a free market, that you're just brainwashed by this secret cabal, and they really just want to control the country, and are surreptitiously orchestrating these events in order to attain power - nonsense like that.
This, of course, is paranoid horseshit, and deserves no more response than a hearty belly-laugh and directions to the nearest mental hospital. But let's humor the delusional little ingrates for a moment - lets assume that there are indeed a bunch of 'Capitalists' who are trying to control things, people who are secretly feeding the ideas of Capitalism to people as a means of controlling the world. I honestly can't think of a worse way of doing it; after all, the best way to prevent this secret cabal from achieving their goals is by *restricting the power of Government*. If government had no authority to interfere in the market, such an evil cabal wouldn't be able to get anything of significance done through governmental means; they could not use regulation, licensing, taxation, etc, to kill their competition and bolster their allies to further their goals. They would, in short, have to do everything on their own steam - and could at any time be exposed by other people or by the government. A Capitalist system is the worst place to try to implement your plans for world domination, really.
On the other hand, such an evil cabal would be perfectly positioned to achieve all of their goals in a Communist government, as they would go directly for the levers of power within such a society. After all, the government ultimately decides who will do what, and even in a truly democratic communist regime they only need to get 51% of people inflamed about something to push the sort of agenda they want. More likely, though, everything is decided by the party, making such infiltration and control that much simpler. We can see an example of this with the former Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, etc; the very worst people rose to the top, and abused governmental power to stay there.
4. They refuse to actually engage in debate, and instead rely purely on dogma.
This is all too common; they like to insist you've been brainwashed by 'Capitalism', as if you were socially pressured into it, or something you believe based on lies. The exact opposite is usually true, of course; the Commies are often made this way during their high school or college years by Marxist professors and by peer pressure - but, of course, it's the Capitalists that are the deluded ones (*snort*). Their assertions are often presented with little or no evidence, and they expect you to take it as fact that what they say is true. Watch out for phrases such as "Exploitation of ___", and pin them down on that - force them to explain exactly what they mean. Often they will cite instances of rights violations unrelated to Capitalism, or they will cite some sort of inequality as if there was something inherently wrong with some people having more than others - and you can easily counter either. At that point they'll usually insist you've just been brainwashed, so toying with them should be simple at this point; mockery of their piss-poor debate skills at this point is proper, as well as evidence for this alleged 'brainwashing' - it usually just amounts to 'you think differently than I and all my other dogmatic brethren do!', and anyone who hasn't drunk the koolaid will see how spastic and idiotic they are for making such a ridiculous argument.
5. They will often insist you need to 'get educated', and refuse to provide any actual proof for their claims.
This is all too common; they will make claims about certain historical events from a twisted Communistic perspective, and when you want to know exactly what they're talking about before you tear it to shreds, they will insist you need to 'get educated'. Not does it expose their utter inability to engage in debate with someone who fundamentally disagrees with them, it further reinforces my believe that most Commie Cucks nowadays upper-middle class idiots who were converted in College, and had that bullshit crammed into their skulls by their Marxist professors. In any case, the best course of action, when they refuse to offer evidence for what they claim, is to just call them out on it; tell them that they are incapable of offering material support for their beliefs, and therefore their beliefs aren't worth the breath of explaining them. Once again, attacking their pride in being intellectuals is the most effective way to force them to show their hand.
6. They *never* put their money where their mouth is.
Some Commie Cucks reading this may be thinking that I've portrayed Communism unfairly; after all, using the Soviet Union as an example 'isn't real Communism!'. Well, besides the fact that we can point to plenty of examples that 'Real Communists' used as 'Real Communism' in days past, only to drop them like Hillary dropped her illegal email servers when they eventually collapsed into anarchy or otherwise fell (Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union,Venezuela - I'm looking at you!), let's give them the benefit of the doubt and say "Alright, so you're a peaceful commie who doesn't want to force anyone into communism". Well, tell them to put their money where their mouth is, and go make a commune with all their commie pals and leave the rest of us alone. I have yet to see a Commie who doesn't rant and rave about how the Free Market is evil; and yet, they insist they're peaceful and love freedom, and don't want to force anyone into it. This is, of course, a contradiction; there is nothing in the free market to prevent them from forming their own little communes and show us the 'Wonders of Communism', and the fact that they feel the need to get rid of the free market indicates the 'non-government-intervention' principle of the Free Market is a barrier to their goals. They can't have it both ways; force them to either admit they DO want to strip us of our freedoms, and they really are just a bunch of little tyrants who want to control everyone who does not think and believe like them; or that their idiotic Commie dreams can be achieved in a Capitalist system, and they should really stop whining about the one system that would ever permit them to exist in the first place.
Remember, above all, you will likely not change their minds with logic and reason; they did not arrive at Communism in that manner, they will not be led away from it in that manner. No, your goal should be to expose what they really believe, and make mockery of that - show their beliefs as the ludicrous, shameful, and disgusting ideals they are. A Communist, like most leftists, will counter any practical problems with their ideologies with something like "Well at least I care about the poor!" or "At least I believe in fairness and equality!" - etc etc. You cannot leave that as a refuge; people will always choose a foolish idealist over a shrewd miser. Instead, show anyone who reads it that the Communist philosophy is not only unworkable, it is by no means fair, it does nothing to promote equality, it makes the poor into slaves, and that it is the refuge for the lazy, the greedy, and the simple. Tear away the falsehood that Communism is somehow noble or altruistic, and show it for what it really is; just another totalitarian philosophy that wants to control your life.
1. They hate being called commie cucks, even when they actually are commie cucks.
Commies usually come from affluent nations, and are actually living in luxury compared to the rest of the world; indeed, many of them are in the upper-middle-class even by their nation's standards. They don't seem to realize that, if there is a communist revolution, other men will take what is theirs, have their way with it, and leave them to only watch and make do with the work of their own hands - hence the nickname 'commie cuck'. Indeed, they will often claim that calling them a cuck somehow invalidates your argument, as it's an 'Ad Hominem'. Remind them that it's an insult, not an argument, and a well-deserved insult considering they subscribe to an ideology responsible for the death and subjugation of millions of people. Follow this up with a harsh reminder that they have failed to address your *actual* argument, and that it's intellectually dishonest and cowardly to hide from an argument with "BWAAAAH YOU'RE BEING A MEANIE!!!". Ultimately though, you want to attack their pride and sources of pride; it's usually a person's greatest weakness (especially Commies, who often fancy themselves enlightened intellectuals), and it keeps them flustered.
2. They like to use examples of multinational corporations doing evil as a smear against Capitalism.
Let's get a few things clear about definitions; Capitalism, as I and most other libertarians use it at least, is in reference to the concept of government not interfering in the market, and instead leaving it up to individuals and businesses to engage in willing commerce as they see fit. Corporatism, however, is the philosophy of giving businesses greater power and authority than the common man by virtue of their economic success - ie, not Capitalism at all, and in fact contradictory to its principles. At its simplest, Capitalism has nothing to say about personal liberty and is instead entirely focused on economic liberty; to paraphrase Milton Friedman, Capitalism is necessary, but not sufficient, for a free people. Even so, the philosophical underpinnings of Capitalism can be easily extended to encompass the idea of self-ownership, and all of the liberties that encompasses. Still, I will discuss Capitalism in its limited, purely economic sense, as that is the essential definition of the word. If you wish to argue in the extended sense - ie, its underpinnings of self-ownership and individual liberty, the foundation of libertarian philosophy - that's fine. But in either case, make sure you stick to whatever definition you use and always bring the argument back to that definition; commies like to redefine it however it suits their purposes, and you must pin them down on that.
The reason you need to keep bringing it back to Capitalism is that Commies will keep bringing up examples of government supported and sponsored Corporatism as examples of Capitalism, and will try to frame the argument in that manner - it's an entirely dishonest argument, and hammer them on that as well. They like to use this strawmen of Corporatism to try to smear Capitalism and paint it as some sort of global conspiracy to oppress the common man - and essentially use the sins of Corporatism as evidence against Capitalism, even though the two philosophies are mutually exclusive. They will claim that multinational corporations often go to third-world countries, collude with the governments there, and basically have the governments of those countries use their militaries to keep the population in line and force them into what amounts to slavery.
Such things are, of course, evil and indefensible, and you must be careful not to defend it when these commies use it as evidence - after all, the most pervasive and enduring lies are often mixed with enough truth to sound good at a glance. Such economic activities are, of course, evil and repugnant, and we should not allow American companies to do it, just as we don't allow individuals to trade in stolen goods (theft, after all, is not part of the Free Market, and slavery is essentially total and sustained theft). Bring it back to what you're actually arguing, and point at what Capitalism is and is not. Anyone capable of critical thinking would see that, of course, such action is not the result of Capitalism. Is the company Capitalist? Of course not; it is just a company, seeking its own benefit in an unscrupulous and immoral manner, behaving in a manner either irrelevant to or or in contradiction with the principles of Capitalism (again, going back to the original definition). Are their actions the fault of Capitalism? Of course not; again, Capitalism either has nothing to say on such things or is against it, and the businessman is the one who made the moral choice to pursue greed over the dignity of his fellow man. Indeed, Capitalism acts as a limit to greed, wherever it is law - after all, in a Capitalist system, you cannot get what someone else has unless you are willing to give them something they want in return. Moreover, the company had to *leave* a Capitalist system and go to some sort of totalitarian system in order to do its evil - evil that the government of that country was equally responsible for, if not moreso. You can no more blame Capitalism for the acts of these companies than you could blame your headlights for failing to prevent your serpentine belt from slipping. This is why it's so important to bring them back to the definition of Capitalism; they will constantly try to take other things, claim they're Capitalism, and use that to push their own ideology.
Likewise, it is good to bring up Communism and how such greedy people would function in a Communist society. Unlike in Capitalism, such greed and evil is actually encouraged by their centrally planned structure. The evil men in a Communist society need not leave their country to find slaves to exploit, as the state has made slaves of all the citizens.
3. They like to use evil things in America's past as smears against Capitalism.
They will also use 'America' and Capitalism interchangeably, another popular strawman. Now, America has been reasonably Capitalist throughout its existence, this is true. And America has committed its own evils, I do not dispute that. However, Commie Cucks will often insist that this is proof of how evil Capitalism is - as if these evils were the fault of Capitalism. They will point to the enslavement of black people, the oppression of gays, internment camps, etc - and these are of course terrible things. When you point out that these things have nothing to do with Capitalism (again, going back to the definition), they will usually ramble on about how some secret cabal of 'Capitalists' actually DON'T want a free market, that you're just brainwashed by this secret cabal, and they really just want to control the country, and are surreptitiously orchestrating these events in order to attain power - nonsense like that.
This, of course, is paranoid horseshit, and deserves no more response than a hearty belly-laugh and directions to the nearest mental hospital. But let's humor the delusional little ingrates for a moment - lets assume that there are indeed a bunch of 'Capitalists' who are trying to control things, people who are secretly feeding the ideas of Capitalism to people as a means of controlling the world. I honestly can't think of a worse way of doing it; after all, the best way to prevent this secret cabal from achieving their goals is by *restricting the power of Government*. If government had no authority to interfere in the market, such an evil cabal wouldn't be able to get anything of significance done through governmental means; they could not use regulation, licensing, taxation, etc, to kill their competition and bolster their allies to further their goals. They would, in short, have to do everything on their own steam - and could at any time be exposed by other people or by the government. A Capitalist system is the worst place to try to implement your plans for world domination, really.
On the other hand, such an evil cabal would be perfectly positioned to achieve all of their goals in a Communist government, as they would go directly for the levers of power within such a society. After all, the government ultimately decides who will do what, and even in a truly democratic communist regime they only need to get 51% of people inflamed about something to push the sort of agenda they want. More likely, though, everything is decided by the party, making such infiltration and control that much simpler. We can see an example of this with the former Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, etc; the very worst people rose to the top, and abused governmental power to stay there.
4. They refuse to actually engage in debate, and instead rely purely on dogma.
This is all too common; they like to insist you've been brainwashed by 'Capitalism', as if you were socially pressured into it, or something you believe based on lies. The exact opposite is usually true, of course; the Commies are often made this way during their high school or college years by Marxist professors and by peer pressure - but, of course, it's the Capitalists that are the deluded ones (*snort*). Their assertions are often presented with little or no evidence, and they expect you to take it as fact that what they say is true. Watch out for phrases such as "Exploitation of ___", and pin them down on that - force them to explain exactly what they mean. Often they will cite instances of rights violations unrelated to Capitalism, or they will cite some sort of inequality as if there was something inherently wrong with some people having more than others - and you can easily counter either. At that point they'll usually insist you've just been brainwashed, so toying with them should be simple at this point; mockery of their piss-poor debate skills at this point is proper, as well as evidence for this alleged 'brainwashing' - it usually just amounts to 'you think differently than I and all my other dogmatic brethren do!', and anyone who hasn't drunk the koolaid will see how spastic and idiotic they are for making such a ridiculous argument.
5. They will often insist you need to 'get educated', and refuse to provide any actual proof for their claims.
This is all too common; they will make claims about certain historical events from a twisted Communistic perspective, and when you want to know exactly what they're talking about before you tear it to shreds, they will insist you need to 'get educated'. Not does it expose their utter inability to engage in debate with someone who fundamentally disagrees with them, it further reinforces my believe that most Commie Cucks nowadays upper-middle class idiots who were converted in College, and had that bullshit crammed into their skulls by their Marxist professors. In any case, the best course of action, when they refuse to offer evidence for what they claim, is to just call them out on it; tell them that they are incapable of offering material support for their beliefs, and therefore their beliefs aren't worth the breath of explaining them. Once again, attacking their pride in being intellectuals is the most effective way to force them to show their hand.
6. They *never* put their money where their mouth is.
Some Commie Cucks reading this may be thinking that I've portrayed Communism unfairly; after all, using the Soviet Union as an example 'isn't real Communism!'. Well, besides the fact that we can point to plenty of examples that 'Real Communists' used as 'Real Communism' in days past, only to drop them like Hillary dropped her illegal email servers when they eventually collapsed into anarchy or otherwise fell (Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union,Venezuela - I'm looking at you!), let's give them the benefit of the doubt and say "Alright, so you're a peaceful commie who doesn't want to force anyone into communism". Well, tell them to put their money where their mouth is, and go make a commune with all their commie pals and leave the rest of us alone. I have yet to see a Commie who doesn't rant and rave about how the Free Market is evil; and yet, they insist they're peaceful and love freedom, and don't want to force anyone into it. This is, of course, a contradiction; there is nothing in the free market to prevent them from forming their own little communes and show us the 'Wonders of Communism', and the fact that they feel the need to get rid of the free market indicates the 'non-government-intervention' principle of the Free Market is a barrier to their goals. They can't have it both ways; force them to either admit they DO want to strip us of our freedoms, and they really are just a bunch of little tyrants who want to control everyone who does not think and believe like them; or that their idiotic Commie dreams can be achieved in a Capitalist system, and they should really stop whining about the one system that would ever permit them to exist in the first place.
Remember, above all, you will likely not change their minds with logic and reason; they did not arrive at Communism in that manner, they will not be led away from it in that manner. No, your goal should be to expose what they really believe, and make mockery of that - show their beliefs as the ludicrous, shameful, and disgusting ideals they are. A Communist, like most leftists, will counter any practical problems with their ideologies with something like "Well at least I care about the poor!" or "At least I believe in fairness and equality!" - etc etc. You cannot leave that as a refuge; people will always choose a foolish idealist over a shrewd miser. Instead, show anyone who reads it that the Communist philosophy is not only unworkable, it is by no means fair, it does nothing to promote equality, it makes the poor into slaves, and that it is the refuge for the lazy, the greedy, and the simple. Tear away the falsehood that Communism is somehow noble or altruistic, and show it for what it really is; just another totalitarian philosophy that wants to control your life.
I don’t understand what’s so hard to grasp about anarcho-communism. The basic idea is you have an all-powerful central government oversee complete and total chaos.
Venezuela is an example of this
:^)
I was talking to my husband the other day about how I never thought, after the 1980s, that I would be worried about communists and Marxist types taking over America until ex-lefties and the right got them to all come out of the deep dark shit-hole they were hiding in when their plans started backfiring one after another.
Now when the anti-Trump morons, and antifa, and BAMN, and leftist rioters and all the other freedom haters come out, they are coming out proudly waving the communist flags now...
People exclaiming the virtues of communism and socialism in America are just a bunch of idiotic "Rebels without a clue".
For example the whole McCarthy witch hunt fable that gets endlessly repeated and reinterpreted through various works like Arthur Millers “The Crucible” and the movie “Good Night and Good Luck” all present the same kind of story: McCarthy was an evil bad man who made accusations out of ignorance and a lust for political power.
However when I look at the media and especially academia I can’t help but wonder “How exactly was he wrong?”. I mean how can you sneer at the inbred commie hunting bumpkins in one breath and then in the next prattle on about how Mao was a hero?
It like they’re saying “Yeah thousands of us belong to a devil worshiping blood cult that abducts and sacrifices children but start a witch hunt? That’s a little extreme don’t ya think?”
I have my problems with capitalism and they are numerous, but I’d much rather have my car made by Ford than Soviet Russia or my game made by Obsidian rather than Germany. Capitalism is absolutely necessary for a healthy society, but it also needs to regulated and checked so we keep enjoying its benefits.
The difference being that the commies are using either strawmen or "Hitler ate sugar!" arguments - whereas my criticism of Communism comes directly from the effects thereof - that is, the nationalization of capital, the redistribution, the shared means of production - every problem I can name about Communism comes as a result of these things, or of a totalitarian state necessary to achieve these things.
even going so far as to modify the definitions and philosophies behind them.
If you think I've been dishonest - that is, you think I've modified the definitions and philosophies behind Capitalism or Communism - then state exactly how I did it and where.
The corporatist system in America is capitalist in the same way the communist system in Russia was communist. Corporatism is still very much capitalism as the means of production are still in private ownership and profit is still the primary motive.
Did you see me say, anywhere, that the means of production must be owned by any particular group in a Capitalist system, or that profit must be the primary motive? No. I specified that Capitalism is nothing more and nothing less than the idea that government ought to leave the market alone and not try to interfere - ie, it is synonymous with the Free Market, such that a Free Market is an implementation of Capitalism. Yes, some of Capitalist philosophy says that there will be a trend towards certain things, but the mechanism is the free market - ie, the free choice of many people and groups interacting - such that the primary motive of the market will be self-interest. Since Capitalism merely proposes that this will be a natural result, rather than something to be pushed by regulation, the practical distinction is meaningless. Capitalism and the Free Market, in regards to how it works as enforced by government, are identical.
Corporatism, however, does not postulate a free market; it says that governmental power and authority should be controlled by corporate interests, and says nothing about limiting this power - and, indeed, if government did not have power to direct the market (which is antithetical to the concepts of Capitalism), there would be no reason for such corporate interests in the first place; they would have no power to pass such regulations and restrictions on the market.
If you think I'm 'twisting the definition', just ask the various famous Capitalists such as Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, Friedrich Hayek, etc. They ALL advocate for government getting the fuck out of the market.
Corporations going to third world nations and essentially taking them over is not a conspiracy theory, it’s a fact, see the United Fruit Company.
I did not say that was a conspiracy theory; however, to claim that these are Capitalists, and that they wish to take over the world, and have us all brainwashed to thin Capitalism is good, and that we're really not free... This is a conspiracy theory.
You seem to have this unique definition of capitalism that somehow includes this moral system where slavery and corruption is excluded
Actually, no, I did not; I was using the strict definition of Capitalism, though many Capitalist philosophers logically extend the foundational principles of Capitalism to encompass personal liberty and choice. If we limit Capitalism to its purely market aspects, well, then it has nothing to say one way or another about slavery or corruption (though you'll need to be more specific as to what you mean by 'corruption'). As I've said before, 'Capitalism is necessary, but insufficient, for a free society' - and I believe we must also have individual liberty and individual rights be held just as sacrosanct as the individual economic choice if we are to have a free society. Simply put, pure Capitalism is unrelated to questions of individual liberty, and to hold it accountable for violations against individual liberty is like getting mad at science for having no answers regarding the meaning of life or the value of humanity.
where it’s just simply the means of production in private hands with profit as the motive.
So, if all/most of the people in the US were no longer motivated by profit, and instead sought the wellbeing of their fellow man before themselves, but still operated as a free market - where individuals decide what to do with what they rightfully own - this would stop being Capitalism? No; I do not believe that is true. I believe that even a charity organization trying to operate in the free market is still operating in a Capitalist system. See, you're putting the cart before the first; Capitalism simply recognizes that people will generally seek their own interests, not that such self-interest is something to be fostered by governmental authority. It likewise posits that the basis of ownership is an individual, rather than collective, basis - though, as they are free to operate as they wish in the market, they are free to invest their own individual capital how they wish, including into a private communal system whereby the means of production is shared.
If you continue to push this tactic, you open yourself up to communists and socialists changing the definition of their ideologies slightly to exclude the very examples you will site.
I invite them to do so! I WANT them to exclude those definitions of 'Communism' and 'Socialism' where they force others into their communes and force them to stay there! Because, at that point, they will have to admit that Capitalism is not the great enemy of their non-aggressive and non-totalitarian form of (quote-unquote) 'Communism', but rather one of the only systems whereby they could ever implement their goals! If, however, they continue to insist that Capitalism is somehow their great enemy, that they cannot achieve what they want in the free market, I will know they are being disingenuous and are, in fact, lying about what they actually want! You cannot, after all, say "I want people to be free to choose whether or not they will join or stay in our private commune", and then insist that the free market principles of free choice regarding what you own is antithetical to these goals.
I know this will happen as I’ve spoken to socialist who have done just that and I’m sure you’ve had that experience as well.
Which is why hypotheticals are good to nail 'em down, too. If, for instance, they say no one will be forced to give up what is theirs, but they still think that the Communists will take over the factories, most likely they are operating on Communist dogma where they think the means of production are rightfully theirs - and so it is easy to call them out on this deceptive tactic. If they insist no one will be kept in it, fine; propose to them that several people leave the system, find unsettled land, would they be able to settle this land and make their own capitalist town, whereby they operate on the principles of the free market? If not, then they are still being tyrannical bastards who claim ownership of land they have not touched, and deny those people the ownership of their own labors and efforts.
That's what commies like to do; they'll use words and phrases quite different from the way people usually think, and claim that somehow their philosophies aren't totalitarian and despotic. You just need to dig deep enough to find where the Communist has departed from reality, and expose it.
Your separation of corporatism from capitalism is inherently invalid as nowhere in the commonly understood definition of capitalism is a free market specified or required, so long as the means of production are in the hands of private individuals.
I’m not against capitalist. I am actually for capitalism. I want a private car manufacturer to design and build my car, not some government committee. We’ve all seen the soviet designed cars. I just believe in a hybrid system of capitalism and socialism as elements of both are required for a society to function. On the debate between pure capitalists and pure socialists, I am a moderate as I believe in elements of both ideologies.
“That's what commies like to do; they'll use words and phrases quite different from the way people usually think” You are doing exactly what the “commies” are doing. You are taking a word with a commonly understood definition and changing it to suit your needs, much like feminists changing the definition of racist and sexist to include power politics. I’d hope you’d be more self-aware of this.
Alright; 'inaccurate' then.
You are simply using a definition of capitalism that is completely different from the commonly understood definition. Capitalism is commonly defined as a system where the means of production are privately owned and the primary motive is profit.
False; ask any capitalist what they think Capitalism is, and you will usually hear something along the lines of 'free market'. Indeed, if you read anything by the more famous capitalists (who I listed earlier), they will state that a profit-motive is the primary moving force in ANY sort of economy, and thus the freedom of ownership and trade is critical for a well-functioning economy.
Your definition seems to be the prevention of the government from interfering in the free market.
Yes; that is how capitalists define Capitalism - just ask any major capitalist what the. They are essentially synonymous.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLiVoHuBvNI
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/free_market.html
At most, I neglected to specifically mention private ownership and the right of the person to decide how they will use their resources, but this is implied; you cannot make free and individual choices if you are not free to make such individual choices.
Your separation of corporatism from capitalism is inherently invalid as nowhere in the commonly understood definition of capitalism is a free market specified or required, so long as the means of production are in the hands of private individuals.
Let us suppose that some group of Communists decide to pool their resources, make a commune, work together, etc, and essentially work as a single unit towards some common goal. Does this cease to be Capitalism? No, it does not; the individuals owned their capital to begin with; they willingly contributed it to the group, in exchange for what they wished to pursue, a moral good in their eyes; they work individually, and according to their contract their productive labor is averaged and allocated with each others' productive labor; and they freely trade their excess with the rest of the economy at large.
Now, assuming that this ridiculous system somehow works, has it stopped being Capitalist? No; Capitalism can tolerate Communism in this manner, as each member freely chose what to do with what was theirs. Nothing that happened in this make-believe scenario was against the principles of Capitalism. It did not cease to be Capitalist just because they voluntarily gave up their private means of production so that they could share their means of production; the very choice of doing so is inherent to Capitalism.
Your separation of corporatism from capitalism is inherently invalid as nowhere in the commonly understood definition of capitalism is a free market specified or required, so long as the means of production are in the hands of private individuals.
False. Where on earth are you even getting your twisted ideas about Capitalism - from communists and socialists? Of course they would lie; they see Capitalism as their enemy. Again; Capitalism specifies and requires a free market, and Corporatism is predicated on the market NOT being free.
So, instead of asking a Communist or Socialist or Leftist or whatever what Capitalism is, how about you ask Capitalists?
“That's what commies like to do; they'll use words and phrases quite different from the way people usually think” You are doing exactly what the “commies” are doing. You are taking a word with a commonly understood definition and changing it to suit your needs, much like feminists changing the definition of racist and sexist to include power politics. I’d hope you’d be more self-aware of this.
False; I am doing no such thing. In fact, you are trying to make Capitalism mean something other than what it means.
This is the reason why you sound like one of these “commie cucks” because they commit this fallacy too and are quite often criticized for it. For example, they define “racism” as discrimination based on race plus power. The commonly understood definition of “racism” is just discrimination based on race. Another example is communists saying that many of the communist dictatorships like the Soviet Union and China are not communist at all because Marx defined communism as stateless.
Here’s where i am getting my definition of capitalism from:
https://www.google.com/search?q=cap.....8&oe=utf-8
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dic.....ary/capitalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capitalism.asp
http://www.yourdictionary.com/capitalism
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/.....ish/capitalism
http://www.businessdictionary.com/d.....apitalism.html
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/d.....ion/capitalism
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/capitalism
If a group gives up all or most private property rights to the collective where they then all work according to their ability and are paid according to their needs, they are communist. If your example group of communists did just what I described, then they would be communist by definition. “It did not cease to be Capitalist just because they voluntarily gave up their private means of production…” No, it did cease being capitalist the moment they gave up their private property rights to the collective.
“Where on earth are you even getting your twisted ideas about Capitalism - from communists and socialists?” So you’re saying that these sources that I got the definition of capitalism are a part of some socialist and communist conspiracy working together to defame capitalism? Weren’t you against crazy conspiracy theories? No, the definition I use is the definition almost everyone on the planet uses. And I have gone to capitalists for my definitions, who do you think owns the websites that I got my sources from? It’s apparent that it’s the right that has a misunderstanding of what capitalism is.
They want to be the next Lenin or Mao or Kim or Hoxha, but as far as they know they'd be just another pleb standing in the rations line.
*chuckles* Sure it does - I've seen so many journals critical of conservatism and such remain up. The fact that you're offended, however, just makes it all the sweeter ^.^
Whatever your political beliefs, social beliefs, etc, we are all in the same boat.
All the more reason to call out evil ideas and evil believes, such as communism, when I see them.
This community, as we present it to the public, is supposed to be about acceptance and companionship with others, our friends.
See, you say that, but I see nothing about it in the rules or in practice. More empty fluff, in other words.
Disagree with folks, of course do that. Debate, discuss, do all of those things. But the moment you call someone out as a bad person simply because of their political views? You're violating that, and losing sight of what it means to be with all of us.
My dear, where exactly have you been? I've yet to see you complain about the plethora of 'Punch a Nazi' pictures that have come out.
Moreover, I'm criticizing an ideology that is, quite frankly, evil - an ideology that has resulted in more death and tyranny than even the ever-popular badguys, the Nazis. I would be remiss to *not* talk about how evil it is.
Additionally, your logic and content above is deeply flawed, fallacious, and full of things that are quite literally false.
And yet, you refuse to back up your claims with any sort of evidence - making your statement little more than an ad-hominem attack. Come back when you have an actual argument ;)
If you'd like a polite and civil conversation I'd be happy to have one.
Heh - nope. I'm fine with a conversation, but I'm going to call Communism what it is - an evil, greedy ideology that takes what it wants by force rather than relying on free choice. If you think that's too 'mean', well, you are welcome to leave.
See, you keep going back to that - but, we're not a website trying to 'celebrate our differences'.
Being kind and treating others with respect shouldn't need to be in the rules for you to do it. Additionally, you are not practicing it by your own choice, that is evident here. Granted, you might want to take a look at CoC 1.8
'Being kind' - ah yes, I should be kind to someone who wants to use governmental force against me, to take what I have and make me essentially a slave! Don't be preposterous; I have no moral or social obligation to be kind to anyone. And yes, I have read 1.8; what I've said here is not in violation of that.
On FA? Haven't seen them, and I don't condone violence of any kind. It's not like I go searching for stuff to be angry at.
Cool; go search 'punch a nazi', and come back to me when you see the rather nasty undercurrents here on FA.
Your journal is titled "To Cuck a Commie", which is the descriptor of a person or group of people, not an ideology. Additionally, I don't think it's appropriate to get into a pissing contest over who killed more people as a result of ideology. Both killed millions. It's insulting to those lost to try and make a comparison like that.
It's called 'humor', my dear; I phrase it that way because commie cucks will get annoyed by it. And yes, it is criticism of both the ideology and the ones who follow it; after all, ideologies cannot exist unless people follow them.
You're using ad-hominem incorrectly: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fall.....d-hominem.html
False; by making unfounded assertions like you did, you're not trying to attack the argument but rather to discredit the speaker - the essence of ad-hominem.
This is misplacing the burden of proof. Notice that you made the accusation originally, and reading what you've said, this is how you tend to approach the issue, however instead of providing your evidence, you ask for theirs, http://www.nizkor.org/features/fall.....-of-proof.html
If someone says "_____ is oppressive!", and you ask "Give me evidence of how," and they respond with "Educate yourself!" - sorry, no, the burden is on the first person to provide proof for their assertion. And that's exactly what I've run into with various commies; they will not cite exactly what they're talking about, even though they're often referring to specific events.
Think about that. Your journal is chock full of dogma
Example? Because I'm not seeing it; I'm not relying on dogma, but rather on specific examples (or as specific as I can get in compliance with the rules of FA) of both the evils of Communism and the deficiencies of Communists. If you want examples - if you want clarification on exactly what I mean - by all means, ask. But you're not making a very good argument here.
e - (to make it clear, they're both awful and Trump will go down in infamy. And his fans will fellate him endlessly. Like Reagan.)
-Ceasefire in Syria
-Travel ban in effect(no. its not a Muslim ban. it bars anyone and everyone from those regions based on a list Obama drafted)
-Stock market booming, DOW Holding steady at between 19k and 21k points
-Created metric ton of jobs
-Illegal boarder crossings down 73%
-Cut 100 B$ in National debt
-Opened first coal mine in decades (ties in with the creating new jobs part but still, America was slacking on energy production for a long time)
that's just shreds of what i can remember of a 30+ bullet point list of 6 month in accomplishments. will reply with others if necessary of list when i find it Buried in a sub 4000 file folder, as for personal critiques of the man himself -
-Russia story outed as a nothing-burger by CNN CEO
-Is pro LGBT+Q(even if pence is not quiet so keen on it)
-Nationalist and patriotic as'well as supportive of our troops and police forces(and no that is not a bad thing nomatter how its drilled in MSM)
just covering the main 3 he seems to get screwed for most of the time.^
*not a Muslim ban
*watching the AntiSJW group
Naw mate, Donny boy is a coal mine fire.
You keep on fucking that chicken. Maybe one day it'll turn into a Pozharsky cutlet. Maybe even one day you'll grow up out of the chan mindset.
Gotta love the mental gymnastics some take. But whatever. He'll be gone in 2019 when a much better Republican primaries him. I pray to god its Jeb Bush or John Kasich. Moderates will restore the GOP to its former glory, not ideologues and Populists.
the DJIA closed at 18,456.35 on 7/28/2016 with a volume of 85,748,793
on 11/08/16 the DJIA Closed at 18,715.08 with a volume of 79,824,161 and between those dates the market trend was flat.
on the 8th something seemingly amazing happened. one month later on 12/08/16 the DJIA closed at 19,614.81 with a record volume of 324,570,856 following an uptrend that started on the 8th. as of 7/27/17 the DJIA closed at 21,796.55 with a volume of 407,321,375.
if you want i can send you the links to where i got this data from over DMs because im not sure what furaffinitys external link policy is
I say hypocritical because you explicitly state that communists don't draw their conclusions from logic, painting them primarily as dumb, hypocritical, and deluded. Not to mention straight up disrespectful name calling. You also make a bunch of strawman points as if that's what a communist would really use to debate.
I used to be a libertarian, but then i realized how much i depend on other people and take for granted things like healthcare. Should i lose my job or develop a chronic illness, i would be in serious trouble. I've yet to hear a convincing argument from a capitalist as to where the sick and infirm fit into a society driven by productivity that didn't resort to something magical like "charity will take care of them", or something along the lines of saving for retirement. Someone who is disabled will have less earning power, thus less lifetime wealth, and thus less for their ever expensive illness/disability. So my issue isn't evil corporatism, but the logic of the thing. It leaves people out in the cold.
So now i'm a proponent of incremental socialism where you slowly assume control of the economy, starting with common utilities like healthcare and infrastructure. Bonus points if you co-opt existing ways of distributing the power/ownership. Take the industry, merge the entities together into one corporation, and distribute all voting shares to the workers. Make them return their votes when they leave that line of work. Maybe reserve some of those shares for the general public. The end goal would be common ownership of all common utilities. I also like the idea of a welfare state/social safety net paid for with a progressive tax.
So, what - I can only complain about the unequal enforcement of the rules if I agree with them? Anyway, fun fact - political groups are apparently not covered, and Nazis definitely aren't; since Commies have caused more death and misery than the Nazis ever did, though, it is reasonable to expect Nazis won't be covered by 1.8 either. Nice try though!
I say hypocritical because you explicitly state that communists don't draw their conclusions from logic, painting them primarily as dumb, hypocritical, and deluded.
*chuckles* My dear, the journal you allude to is complaining about the *double standards* enforced by FA. How exactly is it hypocritical to complain about the FA staff refusing to act on a journal bashing Christians, when they'd likely not hesitate to enforce 1.8 against a journal bashing, say, Muslims? Again though, nice try ;)
I used to be a libertarian, but then i realized how much i depend on other people and take for granted things like healthcare. Should i lose my job or develop a chronic illness, i would be in serious trouble.
Aww. How sad for you. Oh wait, no - that sadness disappears the moment you wish to have the government put a gun to someone's head and make them provide what you need.
I've yet to hear a convincing argument from a capitalist as to where the sick and infirm fit into a society driven by productivity that didn't resort to something magical like "charity will take care of them", or something along the lines of saving for retirement.
How 'bout this; it's fucking evil to steal from someone even if you get the government to do it for you.
Someone who is disabled will have less earning power, thus less lifetime wealth, and thus less for their ever expensive illness/disability. So my issue isn't evil corporatism, but the logic of the thing. It leaves people out in the cold.
Government has done far more and greater evil, especially by abuse of power, than the market has ever done by neglect. If it comes to a choice between expanding government power and the freedom to neglect others, I will always choose the latter.
So now i'm a proponent of incremental socialism where you slowly assume control of the economy, starting with common utilities like healthcare and infrastructure. Bonus points if you co-opt existing ways of distributing the power/ownership. Take the industry, merge the entities together into one corporation, and distribute all voting shares to the workers. Make them return their votes when they leave that line of work. Maybe reserve some of those shares for the general public. The end goal would be common ownership of all common utilities. I also like the idea of a welfare state/social safety net paid for with a progressive tax.
*chuckles* And the closer we get to it, the more fucked we get. You think businesses don't care? Wait 'til they have the governmental authority to do whatever the fuck they want.
I guess not, it's just disingenuous imo. If i disagreed with the rules i'd be celebrating people who got away with it, not bitching because they didn't get in trouble.
How exactly is it hypocritical to complain about the FA staff refusing to act on a journal bashing Christians, when they'd likely not hesitate to enforce 1.8 against a journal bashing, say, Muslims?
Complaining isn't the hypocritical bit. Posting content similar to that which you said should be taken down is though.
You're talking about "commies" as if they're some homogeneous group and making demeaning statements. You've criticized FA for not policing content that violates the CoC, then proceed to do post content that's very similar if not directly similar to the content you're accusing of breaking the CoC.
Aww. How sad for you. Oh wait, no - that sadness disappears the moment you wish to have the government put a gun to someone's head and make them provide what you need.
How 'bout this; it's fucking evil to steal from someone even if you get the government to do it for you.
It's only stealing if you didn't agree to it. We all pay taxes already. It's part of the cost of living in a community with courts, police, fire departments, etc. You are free to opt out by leaving said community.
If you have a better solution to keeping everyone alive and healthy, let me know.
Government has done far more and greater evil, especially by abuse of power, than the market has ever done by neglect. If it comes to a choice between expanding government power and the freedom to neglect others, I will always choose the latter.
Sure, we decimated the Native Americans and stole their land, but there's also the slave trade that benefited plantation owners because nobody cared about colored people. One or the other, which is worse is very hard to determine. Either way, i can't abide living in a country that neglects those without means to help themselves. It's immoral. I'd gladly give up a portion of my wealth to ensure everyone is taken care of, especially considering i might need the same from others one day. (BTW, this is not much different from social security, one of the most popular programs in America today)
*chuckles* And the closer we get to it, the more fucked we get. You think businesses don't care? Wait 'til they have the governmental authority to do whatever the fuck they want.
I don't understand what you're saying. Businesses don't care about what? Being assumed by the government? Of course they wouldn't like that. But then again, i'm not talking about all business, i'm talking about those that become common utilities. We already take steps to regulate those today, such as electric and water companies. In my opinion, any resource or service that's so important that people can't live without it should never be outside of their control. That includes being owned by a private entity. Being owned by a government in which they are adequately represented puts control back in their hands.
Let's assume you believe marijuana should be legalized; let's also assume that the police disproportionately punish black people for its use, and relatively ignore white people. Would you have the same attitude, or would you think the disparity in the enforcement is another good reason to get rid of the law as well as a gross injustice in itself?
Complaining isn't the hypocritical bit. Posting content similar to that which you said should be taken down is though.
You're talking about "commies" as if they're some homogeneous group and making demeaning statements. You've criticized FA for not policing content that violates the CoC, then proceed to do post content that's very similar if not directly similar to the content you're accusing of breaking the CoC.
It isn't hypocritical at all to complain about the unequal application of the rules - and that's what I was complaining about in that journal. In short, you are lying and maligning my character, and you need to stop.
It's only stealing if you didn't agree to it. We all pay taxes already. It's part of the cost of living in a community with courts, police, fire departments, etc. You are free to opt out by leaving said community.
If you have a better solution to keeping everyone alive and healthy, let me know.
I love this sleight of hand you play - "This is a moral good I desire, and thus wish to enforce it by governmental means". Theft is theft, my dear; attempting to paint it more nicely doesn't change the fact that you are stealing from other people at gunpoint using the government as your thug.
The government must have police to enforce the law, and are in the proper purview of government; I can grudgingly accept the necessity of taxation for them, as they are necessary for a free society and if we did not have them we would not be able to exist as a society. We can say the same of the military, and we can even extend that definition to emergency responses such as firefighters and such, as they provide protection to everyone from the forces of nature that would otherwise destroy entire towns and cities
But welfare and such? Society at large does not need it to survive. Society would not collapse into anarchy if we got rid of it entirely, it would not splinter off into rival and competing tribes with bands of raiders. I can accept the expedient of democratic decisions on things which we all need but will not necessarily all agree to - after all, that's what democracy is, an expedient where a decision is needed but universal consent is not possible - but democracy is still just an expedient, and it must be strictly limited to what it can decide. And if it can decide to tax you however much it wants, well.... What can't it do? If it can make you an effective slave to the state, why can it not execute you? If 51% of the people voted to effectively enslave or kill the other 49%, would that be OK? Of course not; that would be evil. Yet here you are, advocating that government put the economy in a stranglehold to make it do what you wish!
That is why commies like you are evil.
Sure, we decimated the Native Americans and stole their land, but there's also the slave trade that benefited plantation owners because nobody cared about colored people.
*chuckles* And yet, America was the first major country to completely outlaw slavery - and indeed the founders saw it as an institution that would have to die in time. Let that sink in; a country that was by-and-large Capitalist in its inception (though not entirely free in matters if individual liberty, and indeed had some rather stark injustices) was trending towards *fixing those issues*.
Moreover, the Free Market has nothing to say on slavery; that does not mean it is the fault of Capitalism, but rather that Capitalism is not sufficient in-and-of itself to ensure the freedom of the people. Do not blame Capitalism for what government does; do not blame your electrician for your leaky pipes. You are expecting it to do a job it was never meant to do.
Either way, i can't abide living in a country that neglects those without means to help themselves.
Then go live in the more socialized countries, rather than trying to drag this one into shit. You have all of Europe, Canada, China, Cuba, North Korea, etc, to go to if you want stricter governmental control of the economy; America is one of the only places left in the world that has a chance to be free. Go to one of those other countries; your infection need not take over the entire world.
It's immoral.[quote]
I love that equivocation. "It's immoral to be greedy and not help people in need" - well, sure. But such greed does not actually harm anyone, and so it is wrong to use force to solve it - just as it's wrong to use force to stop people from sleeping around irresponsibly, or from being assholes to one another, or from using racial slurs, etc. To fix this moral wrong, you instead choose to commit a wrong that is not only even more evil, but causes direct harm to the rights of others - you use the government to steal for you, to extort money for you.
[quote]I'd gladly give up a portion of my wealth to ensure everyone is taken care of, especially considering i might need the same from others one day. (BTW, this is not much different from social security, one of the most popular programs in America today)
*snickers* And here we see you are a liar once more. "Yes, I would gladly!" - nothing is stopping you. Your money is your own; nothing is stopping you from giving up your excess to solely benefit those less fortunate than you. You would not 'gladly give', or you would otherwise be giving; you just wish to virtue signal, and use that as an argument to force others to do what you are not doing. You are not only a thief, using government to steal for you; you are a liar too.
I mean, i don't care if people smoke pot. Power to them even if it's illegal. It's shitty that the law isn't fair. The difference, if we're using this example, is that you're complaining about people smoking pot because you can't.
you are lying and maligning my character, and you need to stop.
Nah, i'll stand by what i said and say it again: You're a hypocrite for posting content similar to that which you're complaining is not being removed.
I love this sleight of hand you play - "This is a moral good I desire, and thus wish to enforce it by governmental means". Theft is theft, my dear; attempting to paint it more nicely doesn't change the fact that you are stealing from other people at gunpoint using the government as your thug.
Stop lying: by being a citizen of the state, you agree to taxation. It is not theft; you are free to leave at any point, and you're welcome to attempt to change it via the normal political process. But by being a citizen and residing here, you pay what we all agree to.
Law and order is super important, so you're willing to pay taxes for that. But because welfare doesn't benefit you, you don't want to pay for it. Got it. You're unconcerned, selfish, and a little short sighted, but hey, nothing really wrong with that. Don't get your jimmies rustled though when people who might benefit from those welfare programs say they'd also be willing to pay it forward, given that they see the utility in it.
that's what democracy is, an expedient where a decision is needed but universal consent is not possible - but democracy is still just an expedient, and it must be strictly limited to what it can decide. And if it can decide to tax you however much it wants, well.... What can't it do? If it can make you an effective slave to the state, why can it not execute you? If 51% of the people voted to effectively enslave or kill the other 49%, would that be OK? Of course not; that would be evil.
We live in a republic, not a democracy, and we do have laws on what the government can and can not do to it's citizens. Taxation without representation is a big part of that. Also, if the country was split like that, they're welcome to revolt and use that 2nd amendment. Wouldn't be the first time.
Yet here you are, advocating that government put the economy in a stranglehold to make it do what you wish! That is why commies like you are evil.
Oh, now that's some strong words. First, you neglect where i laid out how it's not the government that's has the economy in a "stranglehold". People who are affected by some common utility should both own and control that utility's actions. How the hell does that put a stranglehold on the economy?
Don't spout off nonsense about some slippery slope "this leads to that". I'm talking about a fairly rigid system with clear boundaries on what's acceptable. Debate that and not some made up system that i'm not talking about.
And yet, America was the first major country to completely outlaw slavery
No it wasn't. England, Spain, Russia, and others abolished slavery years prior. And it took a civil war for those injustices to get fixed. Let that sink in... it wasn't a popular move in the south where plantation owners depended on slave labor to keep their profits up. Slavery was *entirely* driven by the free market. People don't just snatch people up and make them work on a whim, it's because there's money in it.
Capitalism is not sufficient in-and-of itself to ensure the freedom of the people. Do not blame Capitalism for what government does;
What's interesting is yes, you're right: Capitalism is not sufficient in itself. But, the government bends it's knee to the wealthy, and the wealthy want what is best for their business. You're blind if you don't see that.
Then go live in the more socialized countries, rather than trying to drag this one into shit. You have all of Europe, Canada, China, Cuba, North Korea, etc, to go to if you want stricter governmental control of the economy; America is one of the only places left in the world that has a chance to be free. Go to one of those other countries; your infection need not take over the entire world.
I like America, and i'm both within my rights and *encouraged* to influence change as i want to. It's my civic duty to help shape America into the country i want to live in, it's one of the most American things i can do. If you don't want me to try my hardest then 1, you're Anti-American, and 2, you can fuck right off because you have no right to tell me i can't.
I love that equivocation. "It's immoral to be greedy and not help people in need" - well, sure. But such greed does not actually harm anyone, and so it is wrong to use force to solve it - just as it's wrong to use force to stop people from sleeping around irresponsibly, or from being assholes to one another, or from using racial slurs, etc
Stop insinuating that i would force anyone to do anything. I do not condone any violent overthrow or suppression of dissent. In the government i'm talking about, we'd get there by the standard political process. If the majority of people didn't want it, fine. But let people try to enact change, hear them out, and let them vote. Stop accusing me of asking for violence or heavy handedness.
Also, it's naive at best to not realize how wanton greed and neglecting an entire class of people isn't harmful.
And here we see you are a liar once more. "Yes, I would gladly!" - nothing is stopping you. Your money is your own; nothing is stopping you from giving up your excess to solely benefit those less fortunate than you. You would not 'gladly give', or you would otherwise be giving; you just wish to virtue signal, and use that as an argument to force others to do what you are not doing. You are not only a thief, using government to steal for you; you are a liar too.
I already do. On what grounds do you feel you can call me a liar? Your gut? You know as little about me as i do of you, and if you feel like calling me a liar, show proof or be quiet.
Did you even read the journal? Because that's not what it says at all; it says "Someone clearly violated the rules, yet they let him slide because it's a Leftist message; when I do it, though, I get the hammer." I'm complaining about the unequal enforcement of rules, dumbass.
Nah, i'll stand by what i said and say it again: You're a hypocrite for posting content similar to that which you're complaining is not being removed.
*chuckles* Still trying to push that narrative? It's really sad that the only way you can push your point is to lie and misrepresent.
Stop lying: by being a citizen of the state, you agree to taxation. It is not theft; you are free to leave at any point, and you're welcome to attempt to change it via the normal political process. But by being a citizen and residing here, you pay what we all agree to.
Law and order is super important, so you're willing to pay taxes for that. But because welfare doesn't benefit you, you don't want to pay for it. Got it. You're unconcerned, selfish, and a little short sighted, but hey, nothing really wrong with that. Don't get your jimmies rustled though when people who might benefit from those welfare programs say they'd also be willing to pay it forward, given that they see the utility in it.
Again with the misrepresentation. Did you read what I said at all? Most taxation, as we have it now, is theft - as most of it is going to things which are not proper for the state to force. Let's be clear on something; majority rule is not a proper form of government - otherwise it would be perfectly acceptable for 51% of the people to make 49% their slaves through government action, and that's patently evil. No; democracy is only an expedient for when an action is absolutely necessary for the survival of a nation, and it is impossible to get unanimous agreement - ie, a necessary evil, one we must always seek to mitigate and diminish, but necessary nevertheless.
Your false equivocation is thus; you take my position that SOME taxes and spending are necessary for our freedom and the protection of our rights, and then use it to justify ALL MANNER of taxation and spending. What you are advocating is an unnecessary evil - in other words, one we do not need to commit to survive as a nation. You then try to smear me as being greedy or unconcerned - as if my personal morality had any bearing on what should and should not be law! Typical leftist, really - using emotional appeals and ad-hominem attacks to prop up your idiotic beliefs and propositions, which would otherwise crumble under honest scrutiny.
We live in a republic, not a democracy, and we do have laws on what the government can and can not do to it's citizens. Taxation without representation is a big part of that. Also, if the country was split like that, they're welcome to revolt and use that 2nd amendment. Wouldn't be the first time.
So then, you think it's acceptable for 51% to make 49% their effective slaves - to completely tax all of their wages, and spend it on things while forcing them to live in squalor? Don't be ridiculous; that is, of course, an evil idea; yet your philosophy places no limit on what government may do. This is why you are evil.
Oh, now that's some strong words. First, you neglect where i laid out how it's not the government that's has the economy in a "stranglehold". People who are affected by some common utility should both own and control that utility's actions. How the hell does that put a stranglehold on the economy?
Don't spout off nonsense about some slippery slope "this leads to that". I'm talking about a fairly rigid system with clear boundaries on what's acceptable. Debate that and not some made up system that i'm not talking about.
So, basically, you think that if someone has the audacity to start providing a product or service to another person, the second must then forcibly take control of the property of the first - and you do this under some sort of misguided idea of 'fairness'. Yes, that is fucking evil.
I'm not the one making a slippery slope argument, here; I'm simply stating exactly what you're proposing. You think that someone who provides a service to another should have their property taken away and given to the ones receiving a service - ie, THEFT. You can dress it up as nicely as you want, but in the end you're still stealing what someone else rightfully owns.
No it wasn't. England, Spain, Russia, and others abolished slavery years prior. And it took a civil war for those injustices to get fixed. Let that sink in... it wasn't a popular move in the south where plantation owners depended on slave labor to keep their profits up. Slavery was *entirely* driven by the free market. People don't just snatch people up and make them work on a whim, it's because there's money in it.
I want you to think for a moment, how it was driven by the 'free market'. If we are speaking of a free market where the economic activities are controlled by private individuals rather than by government, it is disingenuous to say that the slaves were somehow worse off under a government controlled market; they would either be the slaves to private individuals or slaves to the state, and their lot would not be much different. It is utterly dishonest to assume that putting the government in control of the slave market would have made the lot of slaves any better; the same slave owners, after all, would be in control of it, and the same government which permitted slavery would take advantage of it as a means of production.
I do not think that market was a free market, however; after all, the government has regulated that these people are slaves, that their labor belongs to another, forcibly controlling the means of production (aka, black people brought from Africa). It has more in common with socialism and communism in that regard than it does to a free market.
What's interesting is yes, you're right: Capitalism is not sufficient in itself. But, the government bends it's knee to the wealthy, and the wealthy want what is best for their business. You're blind if you don't see that.
Ah, see, this is where I say "No shit sherlock!" - this is why I want government strictly limited in its power and scope. Of COURSE big business will try to use government to push various bills and legislation; the big wigs in any country will ALWAYS have the ear of government, be it a free market or communist system. The difference being, in a Free Market system the government can't really do much at all to push various legislation to benefit the big businesses; they are, after all, limited from interfering in the marketplace. In a Communist system... Well. The people at the top can do whatever they want to stay there.
I like America, and i'm both within my rights and *encouraged* to influence change as i want to. It's my civic duty to help shape America into the country i want to live in, it's one of the most American things i can do. If you don't want me to try my hardest then 1, you're Anti-American, and 2, you can fuck right off because you have no right to tell me i can't.
My dear, if you wish to steal from another and are too cowardly to do it yourself (and thus must use governmental force to do it), go live in a communist country; as it is, your attitudes are distinctly un-American and against the very concepts of freedom and liberty, and utterly reprehensible. But someone who respects the ideas and principles our nation was founded upon would realize that they *cannot* take what is not theirs and justify it by saying "Oh, it's the law!" - even as they continue to push for more of the same sort of laws. It makes you a dishonest piece of shit, really.
Stop insinuating that i would force anyone to do anything. I do not condone any violent overthrow or suppression of dissent. In the government i'm talking about, we'd get there by the standard political process. If the majority of people didn't want it, fine. But let people try to enact change, hear them out, and let them vote. Stop accusing me of asking for violence or heavy handedness.
"Stop saying I'm stealing from you - I'm just telling Joey here to steal from you, giving him the means to do so and clearing out any legal boundaries!"
This is why no one takes you seriously. The majority of people wanting something doesn't mean it's OK to make it law; if a majority of people wanted you to be lynched, that would hardly be acceptable. You DO want violence, and threats of violence; you just want to put the shiny veneer of governmental action on it to make it more personally palatable.
Also, it's naive at best to not realize how wanton greed and neglecting an entire class of people isn't harmful.
Because it's not. Neglect causes harm when a person has a legal responsibility for another - ie, when a parent neglects a child. A business, however, has no responsibility to you or anyone; they have no responsibility whatsoever to make sure you're cared for, that you're provided for, that you have a roof over your head. So, no, it doesn't harm anyone to not help them.
I already do. On what grounds do you feel you can call me a liar? Your gut? You know as little about me as i do of you, and if you feel like calling me a liar, show proof or be quiet.
Oh, where to begin...
1. You insist you don't want to force anyone to do anything, yet you want to use the force of law to enact your ideology.
2. You claim you'd 'gladly give up a portion of what you have' to those who are more fortunate than you, yet you aren't living in abject poverty like the rest of the world. You have food, running water, an internet connection and internet enabled device... yet you look at those who have more than you, and wish to take it, while ignoring the millions around the world who have it much worse off than you do.
3. You are constantly lying and maligning my character, from insisting I'm greedy to calling me a hypocrite for insisting the moderators apply the rules equally even when I don't agree with the rules.
I'm sure there are more, though that's enough to get along with for now; but really, I don't expect any truth from someone who's founding ideology is based upon a lies and deceptions.
Most taxation, as we have it now, is theft
That's your opinion. Legally, it's not theft according to the US government (among others the world over).
So then, you think it's acceptable for 51% to make 49% their effective slaves - to completely tax all of their wages, and spend it on things while forcing them to live in squalor? Don't be ridiculous; that is, of course, an evil idea; yet your philosophy places no limit on what government may do. This is why you are evil.
Philosophies are broad ideas. Policy is what contains those limits and minutia that make it possible. Lawmakers draft bills and put them to a vote. The bill should contain those limits and restrictions, and again, in a democracy, we vote on what we deem appropriate. If it's too lax, or too extreme, don't vote for it.
There are systems of democratic voting that are not strictly majority rule. In the US, we have the filibuster and other means to protect minority interests. Also, of course i don't think it's acceptable to dominate dissenting minorities you twit. Stop jumping to extremes. It's fine to disagree with what i think, but the moment you make accusations like that based on the most skewed interpretation of what i said, you're being dishonest and unfair.
So, basically, you think that if someone has the audacity to start providing a product or service to another person, the second must then forcibly take control of the property of the first - and you do this under some sort of misguided idea of 'fairness'. Yes, that is fucking evil.
I'm not the one making a slippery slope argument, here; I'm simply stating exactly what you're proposing. You think that someone who provides a service to another should have their property taken away and given to the ones receiving a service - ie, THEFT. You can dress it up as nicely as you want, but in the end you're still stealing what someone else rightfully owns.
No you dipshit. A common utility is something that everyone needs. Electricity, internet, health care, etc. The FCC regulates some businesses already as Title II, calling them a common carrier. This is similar to what i'm calling a "common utility", only that term applies to all things not just means of transporting stuff. You begin to categorize something as such when it becomes large enough to be difficult to prevent a monopoly (power, cable, and railway infrastructure), or when access to that utility is deemed a universal human right (healthcare). Walmart and shit should stay private as there's no reasonable claim that they're a common utility.
Also, since you're probably not following, it should require a *vote* to nationalize any business.
I want you to think for a moment, how it was driven by the 'free market'. If we are speaking of a free market where the economic activities are controlled by private individuals rather than by government, it is disingenuous to say that the slaves were somehow worse off under a government controlled market; they would either be the slaves to private individuals or slaves to the state, and their lot would not be much different. It is utterly dishonest to assume that putting the government in control of the slave market would have made the lot of slaves any better; the same slave owners, after all, would be in control of it, and the same government which permitted slavery would take advantage of it as a means of production.
I do not think that market was a free market, however; after all, the government has regulated that these people are slaves, that their labor belongs to another, forcibly controlling the means of production (aka, black people brought from Africa). It has more in common with socialism and communism in that regard than it does to a free market.
What the hell are you talking about? "It is utterly dishonest to assume that putting the government in control of the slave market would have made the lot of slaves any better" the fuck? I never said anything about the government being a better custodian, or anything resembling that. The free market is who bough, sold, and worked slaves. The government could have, sure. Hell, maybe they did. But you're a special kind of idiot if you ignore the fact that there was an entire economy centered around trading slaves. That IS the free market you dunce.
Ah, see, this is where I say "No shit sherlock!" - this is why I want government strictly limited in its power and scope. Of COURSE big business will try to use government to push various bills and legislation; the big wigs in any country will ALWAYS have the ear of government, be it a free market or communist system. The difference being, in a Free Market system the government can't really do much at all to push various legislation to benefit the big businesses; they are, after all, limited from interfering in the marketplace. In a Communist system... Well. The people at the top can do whatever they want to stay there.
In a *dictatorship*, people at the top get to stay there. A communist government isn't implicitly monolithic or immune to proper oversight. I don't think a pure communist government would work yet, but a mixed system like what i've been talking about would work fine and would ideally have strict limits and scope.
Now, in a purely capitalistic economy with minimal government, what is to stop monopolistic practices? What will ensure worker safety? Consumer protection? What about predatory practices of lenders? A great case study in capitalism gone wrong is the asbestos ban. Many companies were warned years prior to the ban of the public safety hazard they were introducing, and the businesses using it doubled down and even tried to spin positive sides to it. Cigarettes are another great example, with companies going as far as making bogus claims of health benefits.
My dear, if you wish to steal from another and are too cowardly to do it yourself (and thus must use governmental force to do it), go live in a communist country; as it is, your attitudes are distinctly un-American and against the very concepts of freedom and liberty, and utterly reprehensible. But someone who respects the ideas and principles our nation was founded upon would realize that they *cannot* take what is not theirs and justify it by saying "Oh, it's the law!" - even as they continue to push for more of the same sort of laws. It makes you a dishonest piece of shit, really.
I don't approach this with some want or desire for myself, then hope it becomes a law you idiot. The only way i would benefit from this is maybe later in life, when i'm too old to fucking work. Or maybe if i get cancer or some shit. I'm concerned for other people, as are many people like me, and collectively we want to provide a safety net. We're fine with paying for it. When we bring it up as a government policy, as opposed to doing it privately, it's to gain support and scope. Social welfare is actually a popular idea; people in the US like it and not only the poor. You can say they don't, but Bernie Sanders is probably the most popular politician today because his platform supported this.
Anyway, the rest of what you said is just calling me a liar/idiot/cuck/etc and doubling down on the same points. You're an idealist who expects your neat, tidy idea of small government and libertarianism to be sufficient. It's a small, simple philosophy, so i guess that's why it appeals to you. When the real world hits, and you need help, i'd like to know where you stand. Because pulling yourself up by the bootstraps is a bitch.
I am not a communist anymore, I don't think it can work but I'm going to defend the idea at least, Why, you may ask, I don't know, maybe it's the former Trotskyist in me. Communism is not totalitarian, it is the belief that people should democratically control means of production, labor, and community. The whole point of communism is to get RID of the government, not expand it. Now I agree this is completely unrealistic, not every single citizen is going to work together in a community, it's why I left Trotskyism and became of social democrat. I do not hate capitalism, I think it's essential for people to make more money the harder they work but I don't think corporations shouldn't be able to go hog-wild with it, of course, the free market can take care of it, I'm not denying that but I don't think companies have the right to make potentially harmful product or pollute the environment, when your careless actions have the potential to harm another, that is where it stops.
https://www.furaffinity.net/view/22505972/
A lot of folks aren't. That's just how life operates, dude.
A lot of folks aren't. That's just how life operates, dude.
tl;dr: you're a hypocrite to whine about politics when you're political cuck ;)
But whatever helps you sleep at night. Thanks for the talk.