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.
VOLUNTARY CHARITY IS A BLESSING.
COMPULSORY CHARITY IS A CURSE.
Most can perceive the difference.
Collectivism imposes compulsory charity, expropriating property from one to give to another, under threat, duress, and / or coercion of government.
That is wholly different from voluntary charity.
Using Mother Theresa's argument for voluntary charity to support compulsory charity is double not good.
This is getting monotonous. This is doubleplusungood:
war is peace
freedom is slavery
ignorance is strength
“The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.”
- - - John Locke (1632 – 1704 A.D. ), Second Treatise of Government, Ch. II, sec. 6
“Good and evil, reward and punishment, are the only motives to a rational creature: these are the spur and reins whereby all mankind are set on work, and guided.”
- - - John Locke (1632 – 1704 A.D. ), Some Thoughts Concerning Education (1693), Sec. 54
" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness*. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
--- Declaration of Independence, 1776
(*Pursuit of happiness - a euphemism for private property ownership. For only upon your own property can you “pursue happiness” without leave. Any place else, you would need permission of the owner lest you trespass.)
- - - -
Marxism / collectivism / communism is anathema to sovereignty, freedom and independence.
When productive people are penalized by confiscatory taxes so that non-producers are rewarded, society is put upon a path to depravity and chaos. For those who can use government’s power to deny the property rights of one for the benefit of another, pervert government into a force for evil.
NO government instituted to secure rights to life, liberty, absolute ownership, inherent powers, etc, etc, can tolerate the predators and parasites of collectivism. Such governments fragment into "Takers" and "Makers" endlessly fighting over who gets taxed and who gets bribed. Without unity in defense against predators, foreign or domestic, the nation is ripe for conquest... which appears to be the REAL goal of the LEFT.
DIVIDE AND CONQUER.
I don't know much about Marx, but he seems to have been correct in seeing something heartless and awful in the way that the rich and their corporations forever let their greed trump concerns about the general welfare fo the population.
Both soldiers (I don’t know if there were any more), Hiroo Onoda and Shoichi Yokoi, joined the military as adults.
Had they been able to live within their community they would be different people.
Their isolation affected who they are as people.
I’m assuming your environment was a bit different than that.
Of course the external environment impacts the personality as well as physical well-being of a person.
What I'm telling you is that socialization for humans able to self-sustain their lives is purely by choice. There is no physiological condition that says if I don't socialize with people for X days I will die. If I don't eat for X days I will die though. Same with water. Need that too.
Again, this is why your philosophy is the chess game already 11 moves in. It is based on the politics of human interaction.
My philosophy stands if you never come into contact with anyone or if you choose to socialize. You don't commit aggression against others. If nobody is around...check. You respect private property rights. If nobody is around...check.
Your philosophy is the chess game 11 moves in and requires all to play...even the man who never socializes with anyone.
I don't know much about Marx, but he seems to have been correct in seeing something heartless and awful in the way that the rich and their corporations forever let their greed trump concerns about the general welfare fo the population.
It's the nature of humans and why nobody should be put in charge. Not your leaders and not the leaders to my liking.
Of course the external environment impacts the personality as well as physical well-being of a person.
What I'm telling you is that socialization for humans able to self-sustain their lives is purely by choice. There is no physiological condition that says if I don't socialize with people for X days I will die. If I don't eat for X days I will die though. Same with water. Need that too.
Again, this is why your philosophy is the chess game already 11 moves in. It is based on the politics of human interaction.
My philosophy stands if you never come into contact with anyone or if you choose to socialize. You don't commit aggression against others. If nobody is around...check. You respect private property rights. If nobody is around...check.
Your philosophy is the chess game 11 moves in and requires all to play...even the man who never socializes with anyone.
That's why it's absurd.
Not true at all. If you live in isolation you have no understanding of private property rights which are a capitalist invention.
If you live in the woods your entire life you won't understand how a stick could possible belong to someone who is not using it.
Not true at all. If you live in isolation you have no understanding of private property rights which are a capitalist invention.
If you live in the woods your entire life you won't understand how a stick could possible belong to someone who is not using it.
You will understand it if you ever did come in contact with someone. Especially someone like you who would take without asking or perhaps even worse...take after being told "no" because you deem it to be an emergency.
That's the point. My philosophy is human nature. That is why capitalism is the default setting of a human being. I live in the woods all by myself and then you show up, walk into my cabin, and take my hammer. Guess what I'm going to do to you if you try to do that? I think you get the point.
Hell, this goes cross-species. I wouldn't let a bear walk into my cabin and eat my winter food supply either. Guess what would happen to him?
Now of course the glaring difference is that you and I both have the cognitive ability to communicate and discuss the issue. Here we see the role of consent which can only happen between two cognitively-abled humans free from duress.
When you come into my cabin and raid my water supply because your factory is on fire I will have no choice but to end you. If you try to explain it to me and I don't care I will tell you to leave it alone and leave me alone. If you persist...I will end you. If I feel like it's something I want to do I will gladly help you.
You, OTOH, will simply take the water supply regardless of what I say or do.
This is known as aggression, slavery, and theft. If you produce a weapon or get violent during the altercation that makes it worse.
I still can't get over how you don't understand this concept. You nonchalantly decree items to be what you believe them to be, you are the arbitrator of what is an emergency, and you would gladly kill 49% of the population if you deemed that it would be for the "common good" of the 51%.
You will understand it if you ever did come in contact with someone. Especially someone like you who would take without asking or perhaps even worse...take after being told "no" because you deem it to be an emergency.
That's the point. My philosophy is human nature. That is why capitalism is the default setting of a human being. I live in the woods all by myself and then you show up, walk into my cabin, and take my hammer. Guess what I'm going to do to you if you try to do that? I think you get the point.
Hell, this goes cross-species. I wouldn't let a bear walk into my cabin and eat my winter food supply either. Guess what would happen to him?
Now of course the glaring difference is that you and I both have the cognitive ability to communicate and discuss the issue. Here we see the role of consent which can only happen between two cognitively-abled humans free from duress.
When you come into my cabin and raid my water supply because your factory is on fire I will have no choice but to end you. If you try to explain it to me and I don't care I will tell you to leave it alone and leave me alone. If you persist...I will end you. If I feel like it's something I want to do I will gladly help you.
You, OTOH, will simply take the water supply regardless of what I say or do.
This is known as aggression, slavery, and theft. If you produce a weapon or get violent during the altercation that makes it worse.
I still can't get over how you don't understand this concept. You nonchalantly decree items to be what you believe them to be, you are the arbitrator of what is an emergency, and you would gladly kill 49% of the population if you deemed that it would be for the "common good" of the 51%.
I hear you and at a base level you are right. But I account for modern day society and how humans have changed since the age of industrialization.
Today property far extends beyond the tools we have at hand. It now accounts for land we don't live on and physical property that becomes numerous thanks to logistics, mass production, and the ways of buying and selling in a market.
If we lived in the neolithic period your system may have a point but today society lives a few steps ahead of traditional human contact of that era.
When libertarian-ism first started it was built against the assumption that corporations are humans as individuals were the only ones who could hold those rights, not organizations. Now as the layout of our economy has moved away from personal trade to corporate trade the concept of means of production have become more important. As workers have to now mass produce for a larger society the freedom of the worker is dependent on self management and democracy.
If we lived some few thousand years ago you may have had a point but we developed to the point where the only way capitalism could offer personal freedom is for a total destructing of the modern world economy which I don't believe possible or desirable.
You talk about me being ahead in a chess match, and that's right. Anarcho-syndicalism implements the ideas of the enlightenment and classical liberalism into the context of a modern era.
I hear you and at a base level you are right. But I account for modern day society and how humans have changed since the age of industrialization.
And that's wrong. This is why you don't have an anarchist philosophy just a different kind of a political system. There is already much criticism of anarcho-syndicalism for being outdated as a leftist movement. It was more suited for the days of the early 20th century. But whatever. That's not the point.
The point is you can't change your morals based on what is front of you at the time. Plantation slavery was just as wrong in colonial America as it is today. They had it back then but don't now. Know why it was wrong in both periods despite it being only practiced in one? BECAUSE SLAVERY IS ALWAYS IMMORAL.
Aggression is ALWAYS IMMORAL. Infringing on private property rights is ALWAYS IMMORAL.
That is why anarcho-capitalism is morally and logically sound today as it was 200 years ago and will be 200 years from now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
Today property far extends beyond the tools we have at hand. It now accounts for land we don't live on and physical property that becomes numerous thanks to logistics, mass production, and the ways of buying and selling in a market.
Ok? And when property, tools, and markets change in 100 it will still not be ok to COMMIT AGGRESSION AND DISRESPECT PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
If we lived in the neolithic period your system may have a point but today society lives a few steps ahead of traditional human contact of that era.
Anarcho-capitalism isn't even a system. I know I've used that term as well but it's merely a philosophy and I don't see it as anything but truth. You have to understand that I don't even like it a lot of the time. This is why statism is so popular and even good people hang onto it when they should know better: anarcho-capitalism is hard as hell and statism is easy. Theft is easier than work, killing 10 innocent people to get to one bad guy is easier than respecting the right of those 10 innocents to live.
I can't break the 2 tenets because I can't morally and logically find a way around them. Once I realized that the only thing I have to live by is the NAP and PPR (private property rights for future reference) I base all my decisions in my daily life and how I see broader social events on these two tenets.
I literally look at each situation and the first thing I ask myself is "Who is committing aggression in this scenario or disrespecting private property rights?" When I get the answer I then have a side to pick or a course to follow.
Your system (it isn't a philosophy because it's not applicable across time or in a human's natural state) doesn't have that. Traditional statism sure as hell doesn't have that. Look at all the political topics on this board. It's all team red vs team blue. Not morals, not ideals, not principles competing. They are competing for the right to rule over another. It's morally and logically wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
When libertarian-ism first started it was built against the assumption that corporations are humans as individuals were the only ones who could hold those rights, not organizations. Now as the layout of our economy has moved away from personal trade to corporate trade the concept of means of production have become more important. As workers have to now mass produce for a larger society the freedom of the worker is dependent on self management and democracy.
1. There are no corporations under capitalism. That's a Statist invention.
2. Workers are the only people recognized in your system. My philosophy recognizes workers, non-workers, the disabled, those in a coma, etc. You don't even have a system that acknowledges these people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
If we lived some few thousand years ago you may have had a point but we developed to the point where the only way capitalism could offer personal freedom is for a total destructing of the modern world economy which I don't believe possible or desirable.
It doesn't matter what's desirable. It matters what is moral, logical, and above everything else: the truth. Again, you're an "ends" person in a constantly changing world in terms of population, medicine, technology, etc. This is the real irony of you and what all the other naysayers proclaim about anarcho-capitalism: it's for an antiquated time.
The opposite is true. It's not only for now it's for all of time. Those tenets will never change. I shouldn't say never because who knows what will happen in the future with our cognitive abilities and whatnot. But they have always been true as far as the past goes.
Plantation slavery was wrong, is wrong, will always be wrong. In the same breath we know it has been legalized, practiced widely, made illegal, and practiced less frequently. Going forward if it starts back up again at colonial levels and becomes legal and widely practiced guess what? IT'S STILL WRONG.
Statism is the band-aid, the temporary solution. And we don't even know if it's a real solution. It's the mere hope that what we are doing will achieve the ends that we desire.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
You talk about me being ahead in a chess match, and that's right. Anarcho-syndicalism implements the ideas of the enlightenment and classical liberalism into the context of a modern era.
And we've tried doing that before. You can say it makes sense with X,Y, and Z in place now but in 10 years or 100 years it could be viewed as a passing fad. That's because like all other collectivist schemes it is unprincipled. It only serves the ends, not the means.
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.
Newspeak ^
