"I don't like my hard earned tax dollars shoring up lazy people! Down with Welfare!"

[AshleyO]

Originally Posted by Murder.Of.Crows

I just got my W-2's I made 3,250 for my yearly income. Yay me... wait this is far below the proposed $52,000 i should be making... where's the rest of my money?!

Holy fucking shit, dude. I made at least 8 grand! How the fuck do you do it?

[AshleyO]

Originally Posted by x-deviant-x

You're always the smartest guy in the room Alan.

Like I said, try arguing your Marxist bullshit with the business end of a gun and see how far that gets you in this country. Right where you belong.

Wow. You really are a fascist. Okay then.

[Saya]

Man, I hope when I'm 37 I can hope to be living on ramen, filling my time with odd jobs, own no property, and spend what free time I have online arguing with socialists about the evils of slutty AIDS patients who totally deserve to die and how everything will work out fine if you just work hard. FREEDOM! Its the American dream, all because I'll work hard to achieve it.

[AshleyO]

God damn it, Saya! I have a girlfriend. Don't tempt me with your honeyed words.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by x-deviant-x

Like I said, try arguing your Marxist bullshit with the business end of a gun and see how far that gets you in this country. Right where you belong.

I've already been on the other side of a gun three times in my short life, your threats and your country don't scare me.
For all your bullshit rationalizations, in almost twice as long you have lived less than half of what I've lived.
You want to know what it is like to have a government you can't trust? You want to see what unregulated capitalism looks like? You want to see a place where there's no concept of living wages? Come to Ciudad Juarez.
Otherwise, you just live in a fabricated world of exaggerated bogeymen and contradictory ideas of success. You spout off ideological bullshit because you don't have to live it.

If you think making empty threats makes your chode look bigger, bring on the challenge, because I live it daily. Let's see if you can say the same.

[AshleyO]

Deviant X is once again owned.

[CuckooTuli]

Kay, so the fact that you don't understand the different between 85% (sorry, it's 99 now, isn't it?) of employers, and 85% of employees, has already been laid out. So now that we've established that you don't actually understand those stats you started throwing out, let me explain to why your understanding of your own country's budget one is ALSO wrong:

Originally Posted by x-deviant-x

More leftist bullshit. Welfare makes up 12% of US budget.

SOURCE: http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/piechart_2012_US_fed

Not the kind of welfare we're talking about, chief. In this thread, we're talking about tax dollars spent supporting the poor. However, this is not the only service which falls under the welfare heading: the term also includes federal pensions, tax rebates for earners up to & including the middle classes, and community programs.

Community programs are usually aimed at things like cutting crime, drug problems, etc., or promoting education - which will save the country money in the long term: the one by cutting the need for legal responses, the other by generating higher earning and, therefore, eventually higher taxes.

Here, since words obviously confuzzle you, have a look at the pretty chart: http://www.ourdime.us/102/budgetinfo...nd-on-welfare/

Originally Posted by x-deviant-x

Welfare is paid for by tax dollars. Welfare recipients do not pay taxes.

Again, not true. Aside from the fact that I've just told you how programs run by money taken from the 'welfare' section of the budget, I've also told you it covers federal pensions and tax rebates. Therefore, many "beneficiaries" of "welfare" ARE in fact taxpayers.

[Saya]

To be fair, what he's quoting is "99% of all employing organizations in the US are small businesses.", not that 99% of Americans are employed by small business. This isn't so surprising since its fairly easy to declare a business ("I cut grass! here's my business card! I expect to be able to live on this!"). The start up rate is terrible, most small businesses started fail, and fail fast.

What his sources contradict him in is that 53% are employed by small business, and the definition of small business is that the business has less than 500 employees, and it doesn't mean that they can't be part of a franchise, like a McDonald's.

[CuckooTuli]

He got there eventually, yeah, but this started with him saying, "85% of the US work force is employed by small businesses, not giant corporations." Then he posted this:

"Over 99% of all employing organizations in the US are small businesses.
Maybe you need to wipe the Marxist bullshit out of your eyes and read that again.

OVER 99% OF ALL EMPLOYING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE US ARE SMALL BUSINESSES."


...in direct response to Alan's demand for sources, like it proved his point.

[Saya]

He got it from wikipedia. But again, less than 500 employees is a broad criteria if that statistic is true. McDonald's, Starbucks, even a small Target or Zellars, as individual places count as small businesses. Its definitely not 99% mom and pop businesses.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by x-deviant-x

You're always the smartest guy in the room Alan.

Like I said, try arguing your Marxist bullshit with the business end of a gun and see how far that gets you in this country. Right where you belong.

Isn't this post (and also actually pulling a gun) just another way of covering one's ears and going "LALALALALA!! NOT LIIIIISSSSTTENNNING!!!"?

[x-deviant-x]

No, Saya, "most small businesses" do not fail. Over half of all small businesses in the US last longer than 5 years, as the stats I quoted, from sba.gov and wikipedia (who got their stats from sba.gov) state. And what determines the size of a "small business" varies by the type of business and where it's located.

The 85% figure is an estimate due to the fact that many businesses still consider themselves small, and operate on a small business type budget even though they may no longer qualify as a small business by government guidelines. 85% is the current accepted estimate, while the official stats are 53% small business, 38% large business - which includes all the small businesses that exceed government standards to be considered small.

There are no Target franchises, it's a major corporation (as are most department stores), so it doesn't count in the small business ball park. Franchises in the US primarily consist of fast food restaurants but even those are largely corporate.

It's hilarious how you all start frothing at the mouth when someone comes along that disagrees with the excuses you make for lazy fuckers just so you can push your socialist agendas. What the fuck ever. Like I said it's never going to happen in the US so you can keep daydreaming about it all you want, won't change anything.

The whole issue was about people not liking other people living on welfare, and the main reason for that is that most working Americans do not like supporting freeloaders and get pretty hostile when it's forced on them, as it is being. The idea that "they can't find jobs" is bullshit. You want to make it seem as though there are no jobs available when there are plenty. They may not be what you like doing, but that doesn't mean there are no jobs. Several news stories have been done recently showing how many companies all across the country are practically begging people to come work for them, offering paid training and full benefits packages, and people still don't take the jobs, because they make more money living off the government's tit. Whatever. Keep it up. It won't last much longer.

No point in arguing about it, especially with a bunch of liberals. There is plenty that's fucked up about the US government and wasted spending, trying to appease every minority group out there and just making the whole show worse. It will be changed eventually, either by votes or by force. We're closer to the brink of civil war than you might want to think. Record breaking gun sales just between Nov and Dec alone should tell you that. Hope it doesn't lead to that, but then a big part of me thinks it's necessary cause it's the only way that's really going to clean up the mess. But even if that does happen, socialism is not going to replace it. The majority of Americans like owning what they've earned and don't like being forced to share. I guess that's just not something you can understand if you weren't raised here. Doesn't matter if you don't like it, it's just how it is.

[Despanan]

I was raised here, and I think you're completely nuts.

The sheer fact that you're using the threat of violence and civil war as a reason our ideas will fail, shows that our ideas have already won. If your answer is "I don't care what you say, Americans will never support it" you've lost the discussion, and you know you've lost the discussion, you're just have too much pride to admit it.

Look Deviant, you are going to lose. The people you've decided to become a foot-soldier for always lose. We used to have kings. We used to believe that property rights included human beings. The argument used to be about interracial marriage and we used to regard "separate but equal" in much the same way as "civil unions" today.

You think it's just going to stop here?

in 100 years, people like you will be bitching that first lady Laquita Jackson Rodriguez's 3-way customary french-kiss wasn't "Chaste enough" befitting the second cyborg-lesbian wife of an elected official. People like you will be whining on "Ravencore.fu" that robots were better off when they were used as secret sex-bots and now that there's robo-human-cyborg triple marriage the robots are forcing their point of view upon a population which isn't ready for cyber-marriage.

Time marches on, society marches on, and capitalism, like the feudalism and monarchism before it will be left in the past, a sad relic of man's cruel, bestial nature.

Whether you like it or not, but by bit, measure for measure we will drag you and everyone like you kicking and screaming into the future and you will be better for it.

[Murder.Of.Crows]

Sorry, I have been waiting an entire week to make the joke of supporting robot equal marriage. I really didn't think it would be here, but thanks Despanan. Not that this is the picture I wanted, but it works none the less.

[x-deviant-x]

lol right desp. you and what army?

you assume the idea of a triad would offend me when it doesn't, and never has. and your weak attempt at humor is rather sexist, and just a bit racist by your choice of names.

believing in the right to own what you earn and not being forced to share it with anyone if that's what you choose, is not being a "foot soldier" for anybody, especially not "the elite". there are plenty of other ways to defeat corrupt capitalism that don't require socialist methods. you want to take property from property owners and redistribute it to everyone around "just because they're human beings! *sob* and they have a right to it like everybody else!" while you stomp your feet and pitch your little liberal fit, and i'm telling you that is not going to happen in this country, unless or until those property owners are willing to give it up, or you come up with some magical way of removing those property owners guns. The government has been trying to for years and hasn't figured it out yet, because they know as soon as they try they'll have a serious fight on their hands that they don't want.

[Solumina]

You keep going on about people with guns as if that somehow means that they must be conservative because liberals don't own guns, but the truth is that quite a few of us do, myself included.

Are you against all non-essential use of government funds or is it just welfare? And if it is all non-essential spending what do you consider to be essential?

[Saya]

Originally Posted by x-deviant-x

There are no Target franchises, it's a major corporation (as are most department stores), so it doesn't count in the small business ball park. Franchises in the US primarily consist of fast food restaurants but even those are largely corporate.

A franchise is a small business that can be independently owned but still answer to corporations. Like Wendy's has an owner, but has to pass corporate inspections. Same with the department stores I've worked at, they can be considered a small business as an individual technically owns it, but as part of a franchise they have to answer to the company.

Speaking of, if that's the case McDonald's is probably the biggest small company in the states. Did you know last year, they got a million applications, and could only hire 62,000? That's how bad the country's economy is. A ton of people can't even get a job at a place where apparently 20% of Americans will work.

As to the rest of your hissy fit, it suits you. You keep coming back to a place where you like no one, no one likes you, just to argue, but we're the ones who are futile?

You know, I think you're just really lonely, and haven't faced the fact that when you're old and alone, you'll have no one to take care of you and will have to rely on government help.

Originally Posted by Solumina

You keep going on about people with guns as if that somehow means that they must be conservative because liberals don't own guns, but the truth is that quite a few of us do, myself included.

Not to mention how in socialist/communist revolutions, socialists often had to use weapons of some kind, often guns, to liberate land from capitalists and give back to the people. I am a crazy hippie, but I'm pretty sure people like the Vietnamese used guns to crush capitalism.

[CuckooTuli]

Deviant's solution to the global recession: "Get a jerb".

Deviant's solution to losing an argument: "One day someone will shoot you, and, and... GOOD."

Deviant's response to being accused of misanthropy: agree and claim that people are horrible.

Deviant's response to being proven wrong:"You guys suck and it will NEVER HAPPEN***, like I said *blah blah repeat some shit about the American Way that was already countered the first time he said it*".

***Even though the US gov is apparently trying to get EVERYONE IN THE COUNTRY on welfare to create their own army of slave-proles.



Seriously, dude, that's quite the box-set of Issues you've got there. Did you get bad-touched by socialism when you were a kid or something? SHOW US ON THE DOLL WHERE SOCIALISM TOUCHED YOU.

By the way, did you even notice that you start out telling Saya that "most small businesses do NOT fail", and then immediately provide a stat indicating that only 50% of them will last even five YEARS? Shit like that is why I can't take your arguments seriously.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by x-deviant-x

lol right desp. you and what army?

In your case, I won't need an army. You've already admitted to being a poor, gay, conservative, misanthrope.

You have literally no power, no ability to effect (or stymie) social change in any way. Your own party hates you and sees you and everyone like you as sub-human.

People like you purposefully remove yourselves from the dialogue.

When socialism (or whatever other system it actually happens to be) comes to replace capitalism, you will whine, threaten violence, and in the end do nothing, because in the end what you're really terrified of is being socially responsible for your own community, and in the end even to ensure conservative ideals prevail, you would have to actually work with and trust other people...and that's something you've already admitted you can't and won't do.

If you are foolish enough to join some sort of counter-revolutionary security force, you'll instantly be disposed of by by your own supposed allies, because as they've said time and again, you're gay, and therefore less of a person and less of an American.

People like you will be dealt with by sheer social ostracization...and you're already socially ostracized, so it won't even be a big change for you.

The point is, you and everyone like you aren't important.

you assume the idea of a triad would offend me when it doesn't, and never has. and your weak attempt at humor is rather sexist, and just a bit racist by your choice of names.

As opposed to the people you support, who are very openly, alot rascist and incredibly sexist right? In any case, I was assuming one of our distinguished members had been made into an immortal triple lesbian monstrosity by science.

believing in the right to own what you earn and not being forced to share it with anyone if that's what you choose, is not being a "foot soldier" for anybody, especially not "the elite".

Do me a favor. Define "Profit" in how it relates to capitalism.

there are plenty of other ways to defeat corrupt capitalism that don't require socialist methods.

Name one.

you want to take property from property owners and redistribute it to everyone around "just because they're human beings! *sob* and they have a right to it like everybody else!" while you stomp your feet and pitch your little liberal fit, and i'm telling you that is not going to happen in this country, unless or until those property owners are willing to give it up, or you come up with some magical way of removing those property owners guns. The government has been trying to for years and hasn't figured it out yet, because they know as soon as they try they'll have a serious fight on their hands that they don't want.

Eminent domain seems to be working pretty well for them. Also having a couple of guns isn't going to keep you safe from a government with infinitely more guns, money, and manpower.

Despite your bluster, a bunch of disorganized, anti-social rednecks aren't going to be anything more than a passing annoyance.

If the country found itself in another civil war, it would be a war which was fought and won by regular armies, not militia nutjobs. The best your "gun people" could hope for would be an Iraq style insurgency, and after the first few months, you won't find many people willing to die for a bunch of billionaire's yachts.

[HumanePain]

I take it back. Deviant is making the same noises as Deadman. His attempts to find power by making gun threats, the ad hominem attacks, it's him all over.

[x-deviant-x]

Saya, I don't know what the laws are where you live, but here, if you own a franchise of any corporation, regardless of the size of that corporation (be it McDonalds or anyone else), you are still considered a small business owner until your business exceeds the government regulations for small businesses (number of employees, profits, etc., whatever the rules are in your area for your type of business). It doesn’t matter that it carries the same name as the corporation, that’s just a brand name. Your franchise of that brand name (the Corporation) is still a separate entity from the corporation and is regarded as such by law.

Franchises are usually established when an individual wants to open his own store, but doesn’t necessarily have all the resources required to build a business from the ground up. So an option to that is buying a franchise from a corporation, like McDonalds, and making payments over time towards full ownership of that franchise. It varies from one company to the next because each corporation that offers franchising has their own policies and procedures that have to be met. Usually, you can buy a franchise for a certain percentage down payment, and the remainder is financed by the parent corporation. (You can buy a franchise outright as well, if you have the capital to do so).

The article you referenced (which the link wouldn’t open), that states McDonalds only hired 62,000 of the 1 million applications it received, should only represent what the McDonalds Corporation itself (which is a separate entity from all the franchises) was able to hire. It can’t include how many employees were hired by all the privately owned franchises of McDonalds nationwide, because McDonalds Corporation has no control over how many employees a franchise may or may not hire. That would be up to the individual franchise owners to determine for their individual store.

So, to say that McDonalds is the “biggest small business” implies that McDonalds Corporation still owns the franchises, but it doesn’t. The people who bought the franchise own the franchise and control all the financial aspects of that franchise. They still have to cooperate with the “parent” company’s policies and procedures when it comes to the actual product brand, in order to continue carrying that brand, but that’s entirely between the franchise owner and the parent company. To put it simply, the franchise owner owns the business, but not the product that his business markets. Instead, he leases the product from the parent corporation, who owns the product.

What you seem to be describing is a sort of co-ownership (I don’t remember what it’s actually called), where the store manager owns limited controlling interest in the company, but is still ultimately an employee of that company and can be fired and replaced. Sort of like if his store represented stock in the parent company. That’s not the same as a franchise, and would not be considered a small business, at least not in the US. He doesn’t have the same kind of control of that store that he would if he owned a franchise of the company. He also doesn’t have the same responsibilities. The bulk of his store profits still go to the parent company, his check is still signed by the parent company, and the parent company determines most aspects of how that “branch” is operated. That store manager can’t do things like, decide to close the store or stop carrying that brand and turn it into his own store, with its own menu, etc., because he doesn’t own the store, he only owns a percentage of it, usually limited to that individual store. A franchise owner however can, (once his financial obligations to the parent company have been met) close the store, open multiple stores, determine number of employees and set their pay, enter into contracts with other businesses to market and expand his franchise, etc., etc., because he owns the franchise and is responsible for that franchise.

[x-deviant-x]

Who is it that I actually support, desp?

You seem to think you know so much about me, surely you can answer that simple question.

You keep claiming "members of my party", what party is that, exactly? Have I ever once stated that I align myself with any party?

I have said plenty of times that I have conservative values. Do you automatically assume that because I have conservative values I must be a republican? Does conservative automatically = republican in your scope of the world?

You claim "people like me" don't matter. Nice. How very socialist of you, with your giving nature and "share everything with everyone" mentality. I guess what that really means is everyone who agrees with your world view and to hell with those who don't, because they don't matter.

How exactly does that make you any different than the greedy capitalists thumping their bibles?

[x-deviant-x]

Eminent domain seems to be working pretty well for them. Also having a couple of guns isn't going to keep you safe from a government with infinitely more guns, money, and manpower.

Despite your bluster, a bunch of disorganized, anti-social rednecks aren't going to be anything more than a passing annoyance.

If the country found itself in another civil war, it would be a war which was fought and won by regular armies, not militia nutjobs. The best your "gun people" could hope for would be an Iraq style insurgency, and after the first few months, you won't find many people willing to die for a bunch of billionaire's yachts.

This right here demonstrates everything about your clearly gullible view of how the world works.

You have some fanciful notion that capitalism will some day be replaced. It's not possible. The only way it could be possible is if you were somehow able to come up with a way for people to survive without resources. Until you remove that aspect of the equation, capitalism and greed will always exist in some form, and will always be used to control some group of people while benefiting another group.

You want to pretend that trust and cooperation will allow people to co-exist peacefully while working towards the common good of the community. Again, you would have to remove resources from the equation. Otherwise, it may work for a while, but eventually history will inevitably repeat itself.

no one has ever truly experienced a fully socialized society because we live in a capitalized world, and always have. Therefore whatever your concept of a "true" socialized, just society is, can only be based on theory and not evidence. That is true for both sides of the argument – those who are for socialism and those who are against it.

Trade has always been at the core of human civilization - it's one of the keys that separate us from the rest of the animal kingdom. It could be argued that it is the only thing that truly separates us from the animal kingdom.

I know people like Alan will immediately give me a list of all the societies he thinks are marxist, socialist, communist, etc., and my response is still that none of them have ever NOT ended in tyranny and/or corruption of some form - even those that may currently be "functioning" today. Because we live in a capitalized world, so while the people may be "functioning" in what they call a socialized environment, they are still a part of the capitalist machine. The only real difference being that instead of the PEOPLE keeping all the wealth and property (those who rightfully earned it and deserve it), their government does, or their government's government. They are cogs in a wheel. A different form of cog, perhaps, but cogs none the less, and the majority of their labors are not serving them or their community, it is serving their government officials, who I guarantee are richer and have more resources and power than any number of their citizens - hence, tyranny and corruption. How many of them can claim they have zero poverty or hunger?

Isn’t our goal as a race to end human suffering and elevate as many people as we can to an equal status?

If so, then why would you want to put in place a system that will – ultimately – result in a more absolute form of corruption and greed than the system we currently have in place now? By limiting what people are able to own or acquire, you limit their ability to dominate, but you also limit their ability to be self-reliant and place all of their care in the hands of a select few - the government.

So what have you really done? Instead of the people being able to protect themselves from the government, the government is able to protect itself from the people.

It has been said in the past that even the truest Marxist, deep down, only agrees with Marxism when he is the one in control.

Humans are emotional AND intelligent - a very deadly combination. We have wants, needs and desires. We get pissed and retaliate when things don't go our way or when someone disagrees with the way we think things should be.

You think that eliminating Capitalism will eliminate human suffering, but it wont. I agree that it may lessen the severity of human suffering for a while, but it's the equivalence of putting a band-aid on a gunshot wound without removing the bullet.

It doesn't matter if you use a fiat currency like the paper dollar, hard currency like gold coins, spices, jewels, land, medicine, food, or any other material resource. Even knowledge can be used as a material resource. Whenever people require any sort of resources to survive, other people can - and definitely will - use those resources to manipulate and dominate those other people. That is human nature. That is the gun. And human emotion is the bullet in the wound.

To expect a human society to exist without corruption and greed is to expect a human society to exist without emotion.

We are not a hive of bees or a colony of ants, all working together for the common good of the collective. Insects do not show emotion or act on it. They operate purely on instinct. People, however, are not insects. When we feel we have been wronged, we retaliate and seek revenge. Some people will always elevate themselves to a level of status that they feel is above the rest of the masses and thus demand they be treated exceptionally, and do whatever it takes to establish that supremacy. History alone should show you that. If it weren’t so, then why would we still have royalty? Even bees have a Queen and the queen has her army, who will fight to the death to protect her. That is simply the hierarchy of physical existence and the human condition. The only way it will ever change is if humans somehow evolve to a state where they do not react to emotion. The responses someone like me gets in a forum like this, just for voicing a view that is different, is a prime example of how far we as humans are from ever attaining such a state of peaceful co-existence.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by x-deviant-x

Who is it that I actually support, desp?

I assumed you were into GOProud or something like that, but even if you don't identify with a party, you're very clearly a right-wing authoritarian of some stripe. Crypto-fascist might also apply.

You seem to think you know so much about me, surely you can answer that simple question.

You keep claiming "members of my party", what party is that, exactly? Have I ever once stated that I align myself with any party?

I have said plenty of times that I have conservative values. Do you automatically assume that because I have conservative values I must be a republican? Does conservative automatically = republican in your scope of the world?

No. See above.

You claim "people like me" don't matter. Nice. How very socialist of you, with your giving nature and "share everything with everyone" mentality. I guess what that really means is everyone who agrees with your world view and to hell with those who don't, because they don't matter.

How exactly does that make you any different than the greedy capitalists thumping their bibles?

You clearly don't understand socialism, but I'll ignore that for now. When I say you don't matter, I don't mean you lack worth as a human being, I mean you are utterly insignificant in a political sense.

Self-hating, poor, misanthropic, conservative, gay, self-described rednecks aren't going to be in a position to effect public policy in any meaningful way anytime soon is what I'm saying.

However, despite your group's utter lack of both political influence and buying power, I, as an Anarcho-Socialist still see you as both a person and an equal, which is something which largely, neither the conservatives nor the capitalists are willing to grant you.

You're welcome.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by x-deviant-x

This right here demonstrates everything about your clearly gullible view of how the world works.

You have some fanciful notion that capitalism will some day be replaced. It's not possible. The only way it could be possible is if you were somehow able to come up with a way for people to survive without resources. Until you remove that aspect of the equation, capitalism and greed will always exist in some form, and will always be used to control some group of people while benefiting another group.

You have capitalism confused with "trade" they aren't the same thing.

Capitalism is just another system of trading in a LONG line of systems. Before capitalism it was fuedalism, before fuedalism you had the roman empire, before that you had nomadism and tribalism. Both trade and society existed before capitalism, and both will exist after capitalism.

Capitalism is a system where, through private ownership of the means of production, one exerts coercive force on the market in order to minimize expenses and maximize profit. The profit you make is by definition unearned. It is a system where everyone is infinitely attempting to pay less than a good or service is worth, while selling their own services for more than they are worth.

At it's most basic level it is unsustainable, specifically because resources and labor are limited.

You want to pretend that trust and cooperation will allow people to co-exist peacefully while working towards the common good of the community. Again, you would have to remove resources from the equation. Otherwise, it may work for a while, but eventually history will inevitably repeat itself.

no one has ever truly experienced a fully socialized society because we live in a capitalized world, and always have. Therefore whatever your concept of a "true" socialized, just society is, can only be based on theory and not evidence. That is true for both sides of the argument – those who are for socialism and those who are against it.

You're committing a straw-man fallacy here. Demanding "perfect socialism" as the burden of proof while arguing that capitalism is a totalitarian solution makes YOU the utopian, not us.

Because you are ignorant of what both capitalism and socialism are, you have concocted an elaborate fantasy scenario which holds capitalism as an unending totalitarian solution, and socialism as a competing totalitarian solution. Neither is correct.


Read a book x_deviant_x.

Trade has always been at the core of human civilization - it's one of the keys that separate us from the rest of the animal kingdom. It could be argued that it is the only thing that truly separates us from the animal kingdom.

Capitalism /= trade

I know people like Alan will immediately give me a list of all the societies he thinks are marxist, socialist, communist, etc., and my response is still that none of them have ever NOT ended in tyranny and/or corruption of some form - even those that may currently be "functioning" today. Because we live in a capitalized world, so while the people may be "functioning" in what they call a socialized environment, they are still a part of the capitalist machine. The only real difference being that instead of the PEOPLE keeping all the wealth and property (those who rightfully earned it and deserve it), their government does, or their government's government. They are cogs in a wheel. A different form of cog, perhaps, but cogs none the less, and the majority of their labors are not serving them or their community, it is serving their government officials, who I guarantee are richer and have more resources and power than any number of their citizens - hence, tyranny and corruption. How many of them can claim they have zero poverty or hunger?

See above. You are senselessly utopian.

Isn’t our goal as a race to end human suffering and elevate as many people as we can to an equal status?

Our "goal" as a race (if it can be said that we have such things) is simply to perpetuate ourselves.

If so, then why would you want to put in place a system that will – ultimately – result in a more absolute form of corruption and greed than the system we currently have in place now? By limiting what people are able to own or acquire, you limit their ability to dominate, but you also limit their ability to be self-reliant and place all of their care in the hands of a select few - the government.

I don't, nor would left-socialism, left-anarchism, or left-communism result in what you describe. Your whole point hinges on a complete misunderstanding of both socialism and capitalism.

So what have you really done? Instead of the people being able to protect themselves from the government, the government is able to protect itself from the people.

Tyranny doesn't just come from King George. People don't need protection from the government in this day and age, people need protection from Wal-Mart, and GE, and Monsanto, and Haliburton, and Bane International. People need protection from the board of directors, because it is those people who are strippping away our rights, subverting our government and our media, cutting our wages, and poisoning our earth, and starting infinite, unwinnable wars in the name of their bottom line.

It has been said in the past that even the truest Marxist, deep down, only agrees with Marxism when he is the one in control.

"Inside every Anarchist is a frustrated dictator"

-Benito Moussolini

What was that I said about you being a fascist?

Humans are emotional AND intelligent - a very deadly combination. We have wants, needs and desires. We get pissed and retaliate when things don't go our way or when someone disagrees with the way we think things should be.

You think that eliminating Capitalism will eliminate human suffering, but it wont. I agree that it may lessen the severity of human suffering for a while, but it's the equivalence of putting a band-aid on a gunshot wound without removing the bullet.

It doesn't matter if you use a fiat currency like the paper dollar, hard currency like gold coins, spices, jewels, land, medicine, food, or any other material resource. Even knowledge can be used as a material resource. Whenever people require any sort of resources to survive, other people can - and definitely will - use those resources to manipulate and dominate those other people. That is human nature. That is the gun. And human emotion is the bullet in the wound.

To expect a human society to exist without corruption and greed is to expect a human society to exist without emotion.

We are not a hive of bees or a colony of ants, all working together for the common go^od of the collective. Insects do not show emotion or act on it. They operate purely on instinct. People, however, are not insects. When we feel we have been wronged, we retaliate and seek revenge. Some people will always elevate themselves to a level of status that they feel is above the rest of the masses and thus demand they be treated exceptionally, and do whatever it takes to establish that supremacy. History alone should show you that. If it weren’t so, then why would we still have royalty? Even bees have a Queen and the queen has her army, who will fight to the death to protect her. That is simply the hierarchy of physical existence and the human condition. The only way it will ever change is if humans somehow evolve to a state where they do not react to emotion. The responses someone like me gets in a forum like this, just for voicing a view that is different, is a prime example of how far we as humans are from ever attaining such a state of peaceful co-existence.

More utopian bluster...so I'll skip it and shoot right to the bottom.

The response you're getting is not "just for a point of view" people are rightfully getting on your case because you're being rude, stupid, ignorant, and belligerent about your unpopular point of view. Don't blame us for the fact that you're acting like a retard, and don't ble society for your own inability to function. Aren't you types all about "personal responsibility" anyway?