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.
1. Marx's philosophical points were based on no studies WHATSOEVER, either. Thus, the idea of a "theory." Perhaps you've heard of it. Einstein's theories were based on no studies, either. It took many years before we were even able to confirm his ideas via "studies."
Also, any university politics professor's rebuttal to Rand's ideas would be based on no studies whatsoever, as well. Politics is not science. Outside of science, a "study" is simply an opinion with a bunch of footnotes citing opinions. Political theory is not a math equation, but ideas. Those ideas either work in practice or they do not. To this point, Rand's ideas have never been tried.
2. I have read Marx. I've always lived by the notion of "know thine enemy." I've also read the Koran (Quran). What you meant to say is "slave for the state or collective on that land" (rather than, "live in operation on that land"). An antebellum slave shack was the home of the slave(s) as well. They worked for their "state" all day and slept in their own shack a couple of hours each night. A state is simply a more powerful plantation owner. A people's under the boot of collectivism is simply a larger group of slaves.
3. No sir, sorry. I am not responsible for anything other than my own actions. If what you say were the case, you would be responsible for everything that has ever happened since the beginning of time besides whatever it is you have hoisted your cross and gone on a crusade against. I am an individual. You are a Borg in The Collective.
If the presentation of the Borg Collective was before your time, here's what they were portrayed as. Little did any of us know that STNG was prophetic rather than just a good show. The Borg were supposed to be the bad guys, not the model for modern civilization.
No, I disagree with a lot of this. Read Kropotkin, he has a lot of scientific and social studies to back his beliefs. Also, I'm not a Marxist, I'm an anarchist.
No, I disagree with a lot of this. Read Kropotkin, he has a lot of scientific and social studies to back his beliefs. Also, I'm not a Marxist, I'm an anarchist.
Scientific studies on social matters, refer to majority behaviour, not absolutes about what individuals believe/think.
Any system based on those "study" conclusions, is just shackling some, with the belief of others.
You meant authoritarian. That explains it. Anarchy only works if everyone plays by "the rules." Otherwise it turns into a Mad Max setting and ultimately a people repressed under whomever has the best army or the biggest fists. Anarchy eventually leads to some form of authoritarianism.
Personally, I am a libertarian who strongly leans toward strict individual liberty. But, I'm not stupid. That kind of libertarianism wouldn't work in today's world any more than anarchy would. Again, it could only work if everyone played by "the rules" and evil did not exist. But evil does exist and everyone is playing by a hundred dozen different sets of rules. That's why a representative republic is the best we can do right now, assuming we can even hold that together. Humanity is not ready for true individual liberty and they certainly are not ready for anarchy, even though those ideals are not necessarily bad. They are only impractical and unworkable right now.
Also, there is no such thing as a "study" these days. There is a person or group with a preconceived bias trying to make the statistics say what he/she/they want them to say, which, if you know statistical methods well, is fairly easy to do given the general population's lack of mathematical skill and their willingness to blindly "appeal to authority."
It's not solely based on that, but at least it has some backing in studies, unlike Ayn Rand's beliefs.
If those studies become the basis of an economic system, they will still be the basis of tyranny, because not everyone is the same - diversity of thought, shouldn't be trampled under the feet of intellectuals and their "studies"
If those studies become the basis of an economic system, they will still be the basis of tyranny, because not everyone is the same - diversity of thought, shouldn't be trampled under the feet of intellectuals and their "studies"
They are not the basis for it, they are only in support of it.
You meant authoritarian. That explains it. Anarchy only works if everyone plays by "the rules." Otherwise it turns into a Mad Max setting and ultimately a people repressed under whomever has the best army or the biggest fists. Anarchy eventually leads to some form of authoritarianism.
Personally, I am a libertarian who strongly leans toward strict individual liberty. But, I'm not stupid. That kind of libertarianism wouldn't work in today's world any more than anarchy would. Again, it could only work if everyone played by "the rules" and evil did not exist. But evil does exist and everyone is playing by a hundred dozen different sets of rules. That's why a representative republic is the best we can do right now, assuming we can even hold that together. Humanity is not ready for true individual liberty and they certainly are not ready for anarchy, even though those ideals are not necessarily bad. They are only impractical and unworkable right now.
Also, there is no such thing as a "study" these days. There is a person or group with a preconceived bias trying to make the statistics say what he/she/they want them to say, which, if you know statistical methods well, is fairly easy to do given the general population's lack of mathematical skill and their willingness to blindly "appeal to authority."
They are not the basis for it, they are only in support of it.
Support of group behaviour, not individual aspirations. Someone else's standard of living isn't my concern, as long as people have food and shelter, and the right to create their own economic reality.
Any economic system will have those ideologically opposed to it, but systems that allow individuals the biggest choice of economic path, that have the most to offer, as I see it.
Support of group behaviour, not individual aspirations. Someone else's standard of living isn't my concern, as long as people have food and shelter, and the right to create their own economic reality.
Any economic system will have those ideologically opposed to it, but systems that allow individuals the biggest choice of economic path, that have the most to offer, as I see it.
Nope, individualism can only prosper based on the acknowledgement of how their actions affect others. Those who use resources affect others, that is why cooperatives of workers where that which is acted on is based on mutual agreement is the only way to allow freedom to everyone while avoiding the tragedy of the commons (which is based on capitalism by the way)-
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.
