Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is no example of a successful communist country. All of them have failed. The closest to success is Cuba, where the people are don't have enough to eat, can't speak their minds, can't assemble peaceably, can't organize politically. The can'ts go on and on...
Every country that has overthrown communism is better off for it. Not one has gotten worse in any way.
Communism is all about controlling behavior to the minutest detail. And thought and speech even more. There is no corner of the human soul that is safe from it. It considers human obligations to society as limitless and failure to perform them as criminal.
I'm sorry to say it OP, but your post reveals a depth of historical ignorance that I never knew existed outside of communist countries.
You didn't finish reading the thread, did you? Please see post #87.
Well there you go.
Therefore to talk about capitalism as something "consensual" ( unlike "communism") simply doesn't make much sense.
If the latter one controls population with the help of ideology, the former one - with the help of money.
But capitalism isn't an ideology. It's the natural state of a human being. It just is. You're acting as if we choose it.
When T0103E says the only non-consensual part is due to nature or life itself the other "party" denying an individual their rights is not another person...it's nature. So the wording is a bit awkward that's all.
If all resources become rightfully privatized and the earth can't support one more human being then we would find that out when, and only when, that lone individual can't survive by either making a go of life on his own or by charity of others (no taxes though cuz no State).
Your problem is with nature or the existence of life itself.
This is why us anarchists talk about poverty as your default setting. You're born with no food, water, clothes, or shelter. You immediately rely on the charity of others (most cases your parents) to take care of those primary needs Maslow highlighted.
Poverty is your default setting because capitalism is your default setting. You don't come out of the womb guaranteed food, water, clothing and shelter by nature. A bear doesn't knit sweaters for you and apple trees don't uproot themselves and walk over to you and magically give you their apples to eat.
This is what makes statism so unnatural and dangerous: it manipulates nature through its forced collectivism resulting in massive aggression, poverty, and suffering under the guise of "it's for the common good" so that we all can avoid the uncomfortable reality that if we did follow our natural states of capitalism, poverty, and the non-aggression principle....yes...an individual will one day be born that has no ability to survive unless he resorts to aggression.
So instead of simply getting to that point naturally and the unfortunate demise of one individual taking place we've decided that we will purposely inflict force upon everyone creating the pain and suffering that lone individual would naturally experience and burden it to the entire planet so that one individual never has to face the reality of nature.
How in the world is that even remotely logical and I would argue moral?
Status:
"81 Years, NOT 91 Felonies"
(set 23 days ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,595,865 times
Reputation: 5696
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess
But capitalism isn't an ideology. It's the natural state of a human being. It just is. You're acting as if we choose it.
An ideology is simply a system of ideas that form the basis of a political or economic theory.* None of the entries below say nothing about the soundness, correctness, etc. of those idea. Only that they are ideas, in which case they may be sound or unsound. So that makes capitalism an ideology regardless of how sound it may be.
*I'd add any socio-cultural assumptions as well, which you must either take or leave.
When T0103E says the only non-consensual part is due to nature or life itself the other "party" denying an individual their rights is not another person...it's nature. So the wording is a bit awkward that's all.
It's also natural for humans to operate somewhat differently from other animals. Nature endowed Homo sapiens with a unique basket of abilities that let us edit to a certain extent the rules of survival.* That ability lets us see that different physical environments create different rules for survival. In this case, most obviously Stone Age vs Digital Age ones, and even the intervening ages as well (a long topic by itself).
*That basket includes highly flexible hands, shoulders letting us throw things much further than other animals, our greater capacity for language, foresight, and abstract thought, and likely others I don't list)
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess
If all resources become rightfully privatized and the earth can't support one more human being then we would find that out when, and only when, that lone individual can't survive by either making a go of life on his own or by charity of others (no taxes though cuz no State).
Your problem is with nature or the existence of life itself.
This is why us anarchists talk about poverty as your default setting. You're born with no food, water, clothes, or shelter. You immediately rely on the charity of others (most cases your parents) to take care of those primary needs Maslow highlighted.
Poverty is your default setting because capitalism is your default setting. You don't come out of the womb guaranteed food, water, clothing and shelter by nature. A bear doesn't knit sweaters for you and apple trees don't uproot themselves and walk over to you and magically give you their apples to eat.
This is what makes statism so unnatural and dangerous: it manipulates nature through its forced collectivism resulting in massive aggression, poverty, and suffering under the guise of "it's for the common good" so that we all can avoid the uncomfortable reality that if we did follow our natural states of capitalism, poverty, and the non-aggression principle....yes...an individual will one day be born that has no ability to survive unless he resorts to aggression.
So instead of simply getting to that point naturally and the unfortunate demise of one individual taking place we've decided that we will purposely inflict force upon everyone creating the pain and suffering that lone individual would naturally experience and burden it to the entire planet so that one individual never has to face the reality of nature.
How in the world is that even remotely logical and I would argue moral?
Humans by nature have however imperfectly/incompletely have two contradictory drives, helping others (cooperation) and challenging others (competition). Sometimes within the group, other times with other groups. Unfortunately, we humans have a natural tendency to define "in-group" and/or "people you know intimately well" at about 150. That IMO seems to be just about the maximum size of an efficient non-state society. Any bigger than that and the informal powers-that-be can't know other people's motives, drives, desires, personality, temperament, etc. well enough to discern whether that person is a threat or help to society.
That is why I see anarchism as, at best, fit only for small groups; ideally for such groups with a great abundance of all needed natural resources. It still doesn't address what happens when the group gets too big and thereafter splits in two - namely conflict (often deadly) between the two groups. Even when appointing representatives to each group, that's still a case of heirarchism, in which the masses know less and less what the informal leaders do. It simply can't be helped. Even more so when there comes a need for huge projects that even 150 people cannot accomplish in a reasonable amount of time (irrigation, building sturdy structures made of tougher material than wood especially). This is where the need for "states" comes in. Of course, we can argue whether the state's restrictions are appropriate or inappropriate, but that's a matter of what the rulemakers ought to do, not an argument against formal rulemakers (read: state) itself.
Humans also by nature are interdependent even as we compete against each other. That is what makes small groups necessary. In certain circumstances, the larger the group, the greater the "economies of scale" to one degree or another (though there can be a "law of diminishing returns" at some point). Add the fact that it's easier for large groups to defend against predators and other resource-grabbers (human or not) than small groups, and the advantages of large groups (under 150 or so people) seems obvious. That means humans have to cooperate in order to survive, even if we have selfish competition drive against each other.
Unfortunately, selfish (caring about one's self over the group) behavior often demotivates selfless behavior (either outright share-and-share alike or competing to the extent that it doesn't hurt others). Different people have different ideas about what limits are appropriate or inappropriate. Thus we do have "tribal chiefs and councils" to mediate between individuals, and "great chiefs and great councils) to mediate between tribes, and so on up the scale. Thus large, especially enormous, groups that can come into contact with one another need "states". Again, you and I can argue whether the state itself is doing wrong or right or indifferent, but that's a question of the rightness of the action, not of the state's existence itself.
What I'm seeing here is ultimately differences in views of how humans do and/or ought to interact with each other in all aspects. I happen to believe that states, for better or worse, are the "least bad" institution for a large population, and sometimes can do great things while being cognizant of their potential to do bad. You happen to believe all states are by nature evil, even as if you (I assume) remain cognizant of the potential for bad that individuals/small groups can do to an individual.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer
Funny, none of those countries is socialist.
Depends on the definition. If going by the state-ownership definition, I don't know for sure, but I suspect they do have more state-owned endeavours than the US does, or even than the UK since the 1970s. If you include "social democracy" as socialist (which I personally do not, but a lot of people seem to, especially conservatives), then yes, Scandinavia is socialist (as is most of Europe in general).
You didn't finish reading the thread, did you? Please see post #87.
I was replying to the OP's first effort. His 2nd is an improvement but is still contains too much confusion as to what has been thought, what has been done, and what is. It's only a marginal improvement.
Even though I'm retired, I don't have time to read through every thread I post in.
An ideology is simply a system of ideas that form the basis of a political or economic theory.* None of the entries below say nothing about the soundness, correctness, etc. of those idea. Only that they are ideas, in which case they may be sound or unsound. So that makes capitalism an ideology regardless of how sound it may be.
Depends on the definition. If going by the state-ownership definition, I don't know for sure, but I suspect they do have more state-owned endeavours than the US does, or even than the UK since the 1970s. If you include "social democracy" as socialist (which I personally do not, but a lot of people seem to, especially conservatives), then yes, Scandinavia is socialist (as is most of Europe in general).
Regardless how you argue, taking other people's property at gunpoint, either through armed robbery or by a majority vote, is never moral, just or fair.
Socialist, democratic or not, and communism are modern day slavery. At their core, it's "I eat, you work" or "I vote to authorize the government to empty your pocket at gunpoint to feed me."
They are both evil and should be universally denounced.
The only confusion is people's morality or lack of.
Last edited by lifeexplorer; 03-19-2018 at 12:03 PM..
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,585,101 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer
Regardless how you argue, taking other people's property at gunpoint, either through armed robbery or by a majority vote, is never moral, just or fair.
Socialist, democratic or not, and communism are modern day slavery. At their core, it's "I eat, you work" or "I vote to authorize the government to empty your pocket at gunpoint to feed me."
They are both evil and should be universally denounced.
The only confusion is people's morality or lack of.
Status:
"81 Years, NOT 91 Felonies"
(set 23 days ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,595,865 times
Reputation: 5696
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer
Regardless how you argue, taking other people's property at gunpoint, either through armed robbery or by a majority vote, is never moral, just or fair.
Socialist, democratic or not, and communism are modern day slavery. At their core, it's "I eat, you work" or "I vote to authorize the government to empty your pocket at gunpoint to feed me."
They are both evil and should be universally denounced.
The only confusion is people's morality or lack of.
--
Property and income are not the same thing. Even if they were, other moral priorities supersede individual autonomy. Such as the obligation to mutually ensuring the barebones basics of the security of others/society if nothing else (national defense and criminal justice systems, to be very basic about it). Even most libertarians would agree with at least that much. They don’t consider this theft because they get something in return – greater security than would exist otherwise without these collective security bodies. Certainly, they don’t consider this socialism or communism, at least in the usual sense (perhaps they are “communist” or “socialist” when it comes strictly to security provision?)
There is good reason to go beyond mere security provision. At the core of it all, it is wrong to neglect those who cannot provide adequately for themselves (the mentally or physically challenged, those too young to work in a modern economy, those who don’t have the talent and/or opportunity to earn a living wage, those only a few paychecks away from medical bankruptcy, or those who have difficulty finding a job after being laid off, etc).
This is because tax-funded efforts are a much more reliable source of funds to help such people than voluntary charitable donations are. Everybody here has seen the outcomes of voluntary programs. You make something voluntary and at least half the people don’t do it.
More on the moral/ethical side of the matter, any bad that comes from paying taxes for such services (including security) is very small compared to the bad that befalls these unfortunate people. You’d want people to help you out if the cost to them were minor compared to the bad you’d go through without that help. So everybody who can afford to do so should take the lesser bad themselves.
On top of this, ethical issues aside, a higher tax rate for the sake of providing people who can’t afford to pay for their own education, health, disability, or unemployment, etc. is also a relatively cheap form of national security / internal stability insurance. It does a lot to remove motivation to commit crimes and even violent uprisings against the government (tends to destroy “means of production”, not to mention kill a lot of people).
So in short, taxation is not theft because “we the people” get something in return – greater national security and a more stable day-to-day social environment. Taxation would be theft ONLY if you did not get something in return – which for the most part is not the case (yes, there’s always going to be inefficiencies and shoddiness in the quality or delivery of the compensating goods and services, but that’s hardly enough to prove intent to steal from others).
Even so, that still does not change the fact that none of this has anything to do with who actually owns the means of production.
Addition: I don’t believe in initiating force against others outside the scope of defense of self or others either. So I do agree with some type of Non-Aggression Principle, although obviously my version of it is very different from the libertarian one. In my case, it necessarily means that honoring human dignity means I sometimes must allow bad to befall me IF that bad is clearly less than what befalls others were I to refuse to bear that burden). Even efficiency itself (i.e. convenience) must take a back seat of avoiding adding net bad to others if the badness I allow to befall me is the smaller of the two). Thus, I concede that society must bear the burden of taxes (“theft” according to some libertarians) in order to prevent an even greater bad for others (homelessness, unemployment, and worse.
--
Property and income are not the same thing. Even if they were, other moral priorities supersede individual autonomy. Such as the obligation to mutually ensuring the barebones basics of the security of others/society if nothing else (national defense and criminal justice systems, to be very basic about it). Even most libertarians would agree with at least that much. They don’t consider this theft because they get something in return – greater security than would exist otherwise without these collective security bodies. Certainly, they don’t consider this socialism or communism, at least in the usual sense (perhaps they are “communist” or “socialist” when it comes strictly to security provision?)
There is good reason to go beyond mere security provision. At the core of it all, it is wrong to neglect those who cannot provide adequately for themselves (the mentally or physically challenged, those too young to work in a modern economy, those who don’t have the talent and/or opportunity to earn a living wage, those only a few paychecks away from medical bankruptcy, or those who have difficulty finding a job after being laid off, etc).
This is because tax-funded efforts are a much more reliable source of funds to help such people than voluntary charitable donations are. Everybody here has seen the outcomes of voluntary programs. You make something voluntary and at least half the people don’t do it.
More on the moral/ethical side of the matter, any bad that comes from paying taxes for such services (including security) is very small compared to the bad that befalls these unfortunate people. You’d want people to help you out if the cost to them were minor compared to the bad you’d go through without that help. So everybody who can afford to do so should take the lesser bad themselves.
On top of this, ethical issues aside, a higher tax rate for the sake of providing people who can’t afford to pay for their own education, health, disability, or unemployment, etc. is also a relatively cheap form of national security / internal stability insurance. It does a lot to remove motivation to commit crimes and even violent uprisings against the government (tends to destroy “means of production”, not to mention kill a lot of people).
So in short, taxation is not theft because “we the people” get something in return – greater national security and a more stable day-to-day social environment. Taxation would be theft ONLY if you did not get something in return – which for the most part is not the case (yes, there’s always going to be inefficiencies and shoddiness in the quality or delivery of the compensating goods and services, but that’s hardly enough to prove intent to steal from others).
Even so, that still does not change the fact that none of this has anything to do with who actually owns the means of production.
Addition: I don’t believe in initiating force against others outside the scope of defense of self or others either. So I do agree with some type of Non-Aggression Principle, although obviously my version of it is very different from the libertarian one. In my case, it necessarily means that honoring human dignity means I sometimes must allow bad to befall me IF that bad is clearly less than what befalls others were I to refuse to bear that burden). Even efficiency itself (i.e. convenience) must take a back seat of avoiding adding net bad to others if the badness I allow to befall me is the smaller of the two). Thus, I concede that society must bear the burden of taxes (“theft” according to some libertarians) in order to prevent an even greater bad for others (homelessness, unemployment, and worse.
It’s wrong to ignore the people who can care for themselves, but it’s evil to force others to pay for your compassion.
Put your money where your mouth is and go help those people using your own money.
There is no moral justification to force others to give up their legally earned property or income.
What you are saying is pure evil. Every rapist will tell you they rape because they can’t care for themselves.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
