Okay, okay- socialists... here's my question- what's wrong with private ownership??

If someone does well at what they do, why should there be restrictions placed upon them?? Doesn't a society want people that excel and produce??

Who decides what is 'too much'??? If I'm good at what I do, isn't there never such a thing as too much??

Under my particular form of Socialism, no one. Socialism, in my eyes, does not mean a government controlled economy. It simply means a non-market economy aimed primarily at equitable distibution of material goods.

But there are always going to be elites... the difference is that in YOUR society, there are FEWER elites and it is harder to become one of them!!

In a socialist society, the government would probably have told people like Alexander Graham Bell the following: "Thanks man, you can hear voices now-- but the telegraph lines are already up... neat trick though" or to Henry Ford: "I don't get it... it moves on its own... but... well, we already have trains and trollies- sorry".

What would've become of innovations like these???

So... are we closing the patent office and callously decaring that humanity has invented all it needs, and that life is only about subsistence??

Ah, no. What elites would there be in a Socialist [Direct-] Democracy? No political elites, no economic elites.

And where did you get your...interesting...comment on inventions from? The government would not in the system I outlined concern itself with the minutae of individuals actions. He may go to his local council and put forward a proposal for them to allocate and acquire certain resources to assist in his research, just as you would curreently go to a corporation for capital. The key difference here is that the allocator is entirely publically accountable.

Invention would not be prevented in Socialism.

Originally posted by JoeyNormal
Ah, no. What elites would there be in a Socialist [Direct-] Democracy? No political elites, no economic elites.

Can you elaborate on this??? Ofcourse there would be elites... political, regional and/or local... how could there not be?

Originally posted by JoeyNormal
... He may go to his local council and put forward a proposal for them to allocate and acquire certain resources to assist in his research, just as you would curreently go to a corporation for capital.

He/she can't 'shop around' to get the best deals for the material he or she uses.

Why does the "local council" need to know what he/she's building, and further more why he/she's building it?? If it's being done on HIS/HER property they have no say.

Originally posted by JoeyNormal
The key difference here is that the allocator is entirely publically accountable.

I'm sure the 'allocator' is doing pretty well for himself too (in your society). I mean, if I have too much of something... and I want more of something else... surely I can work something out with the allocator that no one else needs to know about... hmmmm... and perhaps there are others who have too much of something and not enough of something else... yes, that allocator is doing very well!!

And now that I've taken care of the allocator... so am I...

hmmm... a vast black market-- where have we seen this before... you know, one that undermines the government? A place where government officials reap great rewards?

Originally posted by JoeyNormal
Invention would not be prevented in Socialism.

Yeah, but it's certainly not being encouraged!

Originally posted by JoeyNormal
Under my particular form of Socialism, no one. Socialism, in my eyes, does not mean a government controlled economy. It simply means a non-market economy aimed primarily at equitable distibution of material goods.

I have no idea what outline of a system you have presented, but who decides how things get distributed? How do are they distributed? Who decides what is equitable? And how equitable "it" is?

The idea against private ownership is the creation of 2 distinct classes; the people that own and the people that work for the owners (productive relations and the productive force according to Marx). This leads to explotation of the working class by the owning class and the only way to aviod the exploitation is to not have an owning class of people.

Originally posted by Joe
The idea against private ownership is the creation of 2 distinct classes; the people that own and the people that work for the owners (productive relations and the productive force according to Marx). This leads to explotation of the working class by the owning class and the only way to aviod the exploitation is to not have an owning class of people.

So how do you take away what I own? Kill me?

This is why in my mind socialism/communism is evil.

If everyone is equal, has equal amounts of money, land and so on, that is not freedom, that is equality. Moreover, freedom is really just competition, survival of the strongest. I'll take freedom over equality any day.

There is nothing wrong with private ownership. Someone with the ambition to obtain a tertiary education, work hard, earn wealth should be entitled to the rewards of it.

For those who choose other paths, they should reap what they sow.

I believe the old russia was the best example of a Socialist system that failed. The "haves", had it all, the "have nots" had nothing and could get nothing and had to work to keep the "haves" in the style to which they became accustomed. No matter what kind of system you have, some will always have more than others. There is no such thing as equality. Equality is subjective in that what one person views as equal, another sees as disportionate. The system that allows each person to gain from his own hard work is always, in my opinion, going to be the best one.

Socialism, in my eyes, does not mean a government controlled economy.

Yeah..thats kinda hard to see when all the essential aspects of an economy are government entities.

Do you guys pay the state to watch TV too?

Originally posted by Cosmo


So how do you take away what I own? Kill me?

This is why in my mind socialism/communism is evil.

Well yeah thats what usually happens in any revolution. Is democracy evil since we had to kill the English to get our freedom?

But we didn't kill all the English, nor did we kill those tories who remained loyal to the crown. But communism means death camps and re-education centers.

Originally posted by Lowtide
Can you elaborate on this??? Ofcourse there would be elites... political, regional and/or local... how could there not be?


What would create them?

Originally posted by Lowtide
He/she can't 'shop around' to get the best deals for the material he or she uses. [/B]

He/she doesn't need to. This is not a market economy. She loses nothing, pays nothing for the resources.

Originally posted by Lowtide
Why does the "local council" need to know what he/she's building, and further more why he/she's building it?? If it's being done on HIS/HER property they have no say.[/B]

I dislike individual land ownership, but that is off-topic.

The council does not need to. You will note I said "may", not "must". He/she can go to the council if he/she needs more resources than he/she can provide alone, just as you may get corporate sponsorship today.

Originally posted by Lowtide
I'm sure the 'allocator' is doing pretty well for himself too (in your society). I mean, if I have too much of something... and I want more of something else... surely I can work something out with the allocator that no one else needs to know about... hmmmm... and perhaps there are others who have too much of something and not enough of something else... yes, that allocator is doing very well!!

Unfortunately, the allocator is a democratically elected group, all of whose official actions are fully open to public scrutiny. This group would, if its actions were corrupt, be voted out very, very fast.

Originally posted by Lowtide
And now that I've taken care of the allocator... so am I...

hmmm... a vast black market-- where have we seen this before... you know, one that undermines the government? A place where government officials reap great rewards?


Soviet Russia. However, the key difference is in the official's power. Next to no power versus total power.

Originally posted by Lowtide
Yeah, but it's certainly not being encouraged!

Why not?

Originally posted by buggy
I have no idea what outline of a system you have presented, but who decides how things get distributed? How do are they distributed? Who decides what is equitable? And how equitable "it" is?

The people through referendums and plebiscites.

Originally posted by Cosmo
So how do you take away what I own? Kill me?

This is why in my mind socialism/communism is evil.

We are talking about a revolution here. I'd love to ask you kindly, but...

The vast majority of people must support - or at least, tolerate - a revolution before it can morally occur. Those who are counter-revolutionery will leave, accept it, or fight. If you leave, fine, accept it, fine. But if you fight, then the revolutioneries you shoot at will be happy to shoot back ;)

Originally posted by TryckPony
There is no such thing as equality. Equality is subjective in that what one person views as equal, another sees as disportionate. The system that allows each person to gain from his own hard work is always, in my opinion, going to be the best one.

Ah, that is false. Equality is objective. Equality simply means "equal in...". Equity is subjective; equity is "fairness in..."

How can "equal" be subjective?

Originally posted by RedLine99
Yeah..thats kinda hard to see when all the essential aspects of an economy are government entities.

Do you guys pay the state to watch TV too?

Perhaps we are talking about different variants of Socialism?

I dislike individual land ownership, but that is off-topic.

Actually it is on topic. One of the reasons I am going to spend 4-5 years in law school is I do not only want to make a difference in SA but I also want to be able buy homes, property and whatever else my little heart desires.

I see no reason why I should not be able to do so?

Originally posted by Cosmo
But we didn't kill all the English, nor did we kill those tories who remained loyal to the crown. But communism means death camps and re-education centers.

Under Stalin. Under a paranoid, twisted maniac. Communists do not seeks to recreate this. Socialists do not even come close.

Originally posted by Frank
Actually it is on topic. One of the reasons I am going to spend 4-5 years in law school is I do not only want to make a difference in SA but I also want to be able buy homes, property and whatever else my little heart desires.

I see no reason why I should not be able to do so?

Why do you need to own this property? Is it not enough to simply access it, share it?

Property ownership draws lines over resources, goods and services. In doing so, you declare that a certain piece of "property" is yours alone. By doing this, you deprive others of access. "Property Rights" simply translates into arbitarily declaring unowned land your own and fighting to protect it...

Why do you need to own this property? Is it not enough to simply access it, share it?

Why should I or anyone else who spends years in college or university to better themselves and then enter a profession that pays very well due to those years of tertiary educational work, not have the right to enjoy the fruits of their education and labour?

Property ownership draws lines over resources, goods and services. In doing so, you declare that a certain piece of "property" is yours alone. By doing this, you deprive others of access.

Again. Why should I or anyone else who spends years in college or university to better themselves and then enter a profession that pays very well due to those years of tertiary educational work, not have the right to enjoy the fruits of their education and labour?

"Property Rights" simply translates into arbitarily declaring unowned land your own and fighting to protect it...

Answer the above question.

Why should someone who works 16 hours a day in a sweatshop be worse off than one whose father was an entrepreneur? Why should someone from a "poor area" have little or no chance to become successful? Why...

The market is not natural. The market is not the only allocative method. The market was not created by God. The "fruits" of your "labour" are not yours by any higher Right. The market is just our society's accepted mean of allocation. In time this will change; it has before, and there is no reason to believe that society will remain static.

Originally posted by JoeyNormal


Under Stalin. Under a paranoid, twisted maniac. Communists do not seeks to recreate this.


Thats funny....Pol Pot said the same thing.

No communist govt has ever started out with the intention of murdering millions of its civilians....it just sorta happened.

Uh, I disagree. Pol Pot said the same, thing, yes. He was lying. He did set out to murder. The Khmer Rouge's arrival in Phnomh Penh was murderous, and within days the city-dwellers were ordered out of their homes, out of the city; generally to their deaths.

Pol Pot set out to murder. His lies to the UN and America are irrelevent. Year Zero was a brutal orgy of destruction and murder. Unlike the USSR, it did not start nicely and turn bad; it began bloody awfully. Pol Pot was a fanatic murderer. He was also a US-backed fanatical murderer, at least, by Year Ten. Once he embraced "Liberal Capitalist" doctrine, you happily armed him against Vietnam and the new regime...

Why should someone who works 16 hours a day in a sweatshop be worse off than one whose father was an entrepreneur?

1) The father used his intellect to create a comfortable life for himself and his family either through education or good business ideas

vs:

2) The worker who chooses not to educate himself or to take business risks.

Why should ambition be punished with restriction and lack of ambition rewarded?

The market is not natural. The market is not the only allocative method. The market was not created by God.

The market exists none-the-less. Private property laws exist and those with the ambition and education to take advantage of these realities deserve what they get and those who do not deserve what they get.

The "fruits" of your "labour" are not yours by any higher Right.

Under your system, the innovators, inventors, lawyers, doctors, business executives are restricted while the uneducated and unambitious are rewarded.

The market is just our society's accepted mean of allocation. In time this will change; it has before, and there is no reason to believe that society will remain static.

Nice double talk, however, you want a society that restricts the intelligent leaders of society while rewarding those who are not.

Mao said the same thing, Castro said the same thing, do we really need to go through the whole list?

Great responses, Frank!

Luckily, a system like this will never exist, well, at least not in my lifetime. Good thing, too... I like owning land and my next plan is to buy some more in the United States... where I can build a home away from people! No neighbors! Ahh! How divine!

Some people choose to work with their backs, some choose to use their brains... I'd love to see you propose this to a doctor! "Yes, we know you spent most of your life in school and thousands of thousands of your money on your educartion, and we know you work countless tiring hours, but we are sort of feeling sorry for the poor and we'd like to punish you by taking away your freedom to own land, own a home... earn a better wage than a the guy that works at a car wash..."

Yeah, that's lovely!

I live in the United States, which is far from perfect, but I will always stand by my opinion that there is every opportunity here to get out of the slums.

Originally posted by JoeyNormal
Why should someone who works 16 hours a day in a sweatshop be worse off than one whose father was an entrepreneur?

If I am willing to work my rear off to go to school, get an education and contribute positively to society, why should I have to live the same life as someone who is not?



Originally posted by JoeyNormal Why should someone from a "poor area" have little or no chance to become successful? Why...

I know of no one in this category. Everyone in the States has an opportunity to be successful. Your ability to be successful lies in the choices you make in life, not where you are born.

Originally posted by JoeyNormal
The market is not natural. The market is not the only allocative method. The market was not created by God. The "fruits" of your "labour" are not yours by any higher Right.

God DID grant me the ability obtain that which I posess, so, yes the fruits WERE granted by a higher Right...

Great responses, Frank!

Thank you Buggy. To me it comes down to common-sense. Why should an intelligent successful educated man be forbidden from building a financial empire that he deserves because of a belief that some less ambitious, less educated people deserve just as much as he does and that he deserves no more then they do?

Originally posted by Cosmo
Mao said the same thing, Castro said the same thing, do we really need to go through the whole list?

Unfortunately, they also said that they followed Lenin. Yes, Lenin...who bastardised Marxism. I really do fail to see the relevance of this comment.

Mao and Castro did not say that they did not wish to recreate Leninism/Stalinism. In fact, both were more influenced by it than by philosophical Marxism.

Originally posted by Frank
1) The father used his intellect to create a comfortable life for himself and his family either through education or good business ideas

vs:

2) The worker who chooses not to educate himself or to take business risks.

Why should ambition be punished with restriction and lack of ambition rewarded?

Firstly, niether is punished nor rewarded. God did not grant you the resources, goods and services you own. They are not yours by definition. The society I advocate is also entirely Democratic, and offers a complete Right of Free Movement, as well as allowing complete non-participation.

Secondly, your claim would be all very well if everyone began equally and had the same opportunities. Then their material rewards would be determined solely by ability and labour [and luck?]. However, this is not the case. A ghetto-dweller is unlikely to become a doctor. It is possible, but not probable. Quality education is not free, and is often not even offered to certain groups. Likewise, the social pressures of poverty are devasting. Then we have malnutrition, disease...

The sweatshop worker was not lazy. A sweatshop worker cannot be termed this. He simply was not given the same opportunities. I challenge you to survive in, say, South Auckland [Have you seen the film "Once Were Warriors"? There ;)], let alone in a true third world nation. A nation whose economy has been crippled by WTO, World Bank and IMF assaults [The net cashflow between the First and Third Worlds, suprisingly, is towards the First.].

Originally posted by Frank
The market exists none-the-less. Private property laws exist and those with the ambition and education to take advantage of these realities deserve what they get and those who do not deserve what they get.

Existence is not morality. Murder exists, but murder is immoral. Something's existence is irrelevant to its morality.

Originally posted by Frank
Under your system, the innovators, inventors, lawyers, doctors, business executives are restricted while the uneducated and unambitious are rewarded.

Why must all rewards be material? I work for the satisfaction I gain from it, and the social respect I gain. Why must we be motivated always by property?

Originally posted by Frank
Nice double talk, however, you want a society that restricts the intelligent leaders of society while rewarding those who are not.

I do not. That comment is false.

Originally posted by buggy
Luckily, a system like this will never exist, well, at least not in my lifetime. Good thing, too... I like owning land and my next plan is to buy some more in the United States... where I can build a home away from people! No neighbors! Ahh! How divine!

No neighbours? How does owning the land change that? You can use the land without owning it.

Originally posted by buggy
Some people choose to work with their backs, some choose to use their brains...

Many people were not offered that choice.

Originally posted by buggy

I'd love to see you propose this to a doctor! "Yes, we know you spent most of your life in school and thousands of thousands of your money on your educartion, and we know you work countless tiring hours, but we are sort of feeling sorry for the poor and we'd like to punish you by taking away your freedom to own land, own a home... earn a better wage than a the guy that works at a car wash..."

Yeah, that's lovely!

Freedom? That isn't freedom. The freedom to pay bills. The freedom of exploitation. The freedom of wage-slavery? The freedom of corporate masters?

What about the pauper whose very Right to Life is taken? Taken by the masses who do not care that he was boirn on the street, with no papers or legal existence. The pauper who cannot get social security as he cannot show he exists. The pauper who is used as slave labour in exchange for a bed, the pauper who...

Originally posted by buggy
I live in the United States, which is far from perfect, but I will always stand by my opinion that there is every opportunity here to get out of the slums.

Where were you born? You ever lived in a ghetto? I'm curious. I live in New Zealand, and I'd say that we have more upward mobility than in the USA. But very, very few Doctors come out of Decile 10 schools. Very few Doctors come from the hungry poor of South Auckland. It does exist, you can break out of poverty....but why should you need to?

Originally posted by Brian
If I am willing to work my rear off to go to school, get an education and contribute positively to society, why should I have to live the same life as someone who is not?

You do not. Why do you define the value and quality of your life by your material goods only?

Originally posted by Brian
I know of no one in this category. Everyone in the States has an opportunity to be successful. Your ability to be successful lies in the choices you make in life, not where you are born.


False. Where you were born strongly effects your chances, even within a First World nation. It is more inequitable globally.

Originally posted by Brian
God DID grant me the ability obtain that which I posess, so, yes the fruits WERE granted by a higher Right...

God granted me the ability [not the Right ;)] to kill you. Having the ability to do something does not make that thing morally right, nor a Right.

No neighbours? How does owning the land change that? You can use the land without owning it.

If I do not own it, I can be removed from it. I do not like the idea of building a large home, swimming pool, tennis court just to risk being told "time to leave."

Many people were not offered that choice.

That is my fault how? I take what I want Joey, I do not wait for handouts or offers.

Freedom? That isn't freedom. The freedom to pay bills. The freedom of exploitation. The freedom of wage-slavery? The freedom of corporate masters?

If you are worried about "wage-slavery" then I suggest going to college and avoiding such jobs. If I am the corporate master and you are the slave, who's fault is that?

What about the pauper whose very Right to Life is taken? Taken by the masses who do not care that he was boirn on the street, with no papers or legal existence. The pauper who cannot get social security as he cannot show he exists. The pauper who is used as slave labour in exchange for a bed, the pauper who...

Again, I should be blamed for that...why? BTW I think you are overdramatizing a bit?

Where were you born? You ever lived in a ghetto? I'm curious. I live in New Zealand, and I'd say that we have more upward mobility than in the USA. But very, very few Doctors come out of Decile 10 schools. Very few Doctors come from the hungry poor of South Auckland. It does exist, you can break out of poverty....but why should you need to?

Why should I have to forego a life of luxury if I spend 4-8 years in college woriking my ass off so that I can have a better life?

Originally posted by Frank
If I do not own it, I can be removed from it. I do not like the idea of building a large home, swimming pool, tennis court just to risk being told "time to leave."

Who could do that? The state? No, they do not own it either. Another person? How would he force you out without vioilating your personnal Rights?

Originally posted by Frank
That is my fault how? I take what I want Joey, I do not wait for handouts or offers.

You take? Not buy? Interesting ;)

Do you support the Black Panthers? Perhaps the riots of the 60s have a place your philosophy, eh? That's the poor "taking" what they "want".

This world has finite resources. By using them you deprive others of them. Economics is the study of scarcity, of how to deal with this fact. How to allocate scarce resources.

Originally posted by Frank
If you are worried about "wage-slavery" then I suggest going to college and avoiding such jobs. If I am the corporate master and you are the slave, who's fault is that?

Ah, I am currently aiming for a Law scholarship. I do not doubt that I could avoid that. My philosophy is not due to personnal problems, but to the problems of others. I empathise.

Originally posted by Frank
Again, I should be blamed for that...why? BTW I think you are overdramatizing a bit?

I dramatise it because that is the best way to create an emotional response.

Originally posted by Frank
Why should I have to forego a life of luxury if I spend 4-8 years in college woriking my ass off so that I can have a better life?

Why should you get this? Not why not, why? You weren't boren with it. God didn't give it to you. You took it. Do you suiggest Randian Anarchy?

tly, niether is punished nor rewarded. God did not grant you the resources, goods and services you own. They are not yours by definition. The society I advocate is also entirely Democratic, and offers a complete Right of Free Movement, as well as allowing complete non-participation.

If I work for it, purchase it, it is mine.

Secondly, your claim would be all very well if everyone began equally and had the same opportunities. Then their material rewards would be determined solely by ability and labour [and luck?]. However, this is not the case. A ghetto-dweller is unlikely to become a doctor. It is possible, but not probable. Quality education is not free, and is often not even offered to certain groups. Likewise, the social pressures of poverty are devasting. Then we have malnutrition, disease...

Joey that is not my problem, poor people have the opportunity to change their lives, if they do not, that is their problem not mine.

About education not being free. Ever hear of scholarships? Bursaries? student loans? I am getting my education next to nothing as I am smart enough to take it in distance learning format from a nation with a low monetary unti.

The sweatshop worker was not lazy. A sweatshop worker cannot be termed this. He simply was not given the same opportunities. I challenge you to survive in, say, South Auckland [Have you seen the film "Once Were Warriors"? There ], let alone in a true third world nation. A nation whose economy has been crippled by WTO, World Bank and IMF assaults [The net cashflow between the First and Third Worlds, suprisingly, is towards the First.].

"The Third World" has enough money and resources to fund civil wars, cathedrals and palaces not to mention extravagant foreign embassies but cannot apparently pay their debts. Their fault, not mine.

Again, people make opportunities Joey, I have seen the poor get rich and vica versa.

Existence is not morality. Murder exists, but murder is immoral. Something's existence is irrelevant to its morality.

Joey, cut the philosophical :bs:

Why must all rewards be material? I work for the satisfaction I gain from it, and the social respect I gain. Why must we be motivated always by property?

You would have no problem sleeping in a cardboard fridge box rather then a house?

I do not. That comment is false.

You want the ambitious to give up their potential at wealth to look after deadbeats. I am sorry Joey, but the poor can make it if they want too....bottom line.

Who could do that? The state? No, they do not own it either. Another person? How would he force you out without vioilating your personnal Rights?

Then who owns it? Someone must have legal agency over it? If it is not me, who is it?

You take? Not buy? Interesting

I take opportunites that are not always offered but are available.

Do you support the Black Panthers? Perhaps the riots of the 60s have a place your philosophy, eh? That's the poor "taking" what they "want".

You are talking about crime, I am talking about good business sense.

This world has finite resources. By using them you deprive others of them. Economics is the study of scarcity, of how to deal with this fact. How to allocate scarce resources.

Stop drinking water, you depriving your fellow New Zealanders of it. :D Actually I am depriving no one of anything. For the property and land I gain the seller gains cash value, he gets paid for it. He may have less land but will end up with mre money. It is call give and take. As far as those not capable of competing, I would suggest to them, go to school and work hard then you can join the wonderful world or business, real estate, etc...

Ah, I am currently aiming for a Law scholarship. I do not doubt that I could avoid that. My philosophy is not due to personnal problems, but to the problems of others. I empathise.

Then help them improve their lives instead of complaining about it here. You care so much about them, then help them.

I dramatise it because that is the best way to create an emotional response.

I am based on cold logic, won't work with me.

Why should you get this? Not why not, why? You weren't boren with it. God didn't give it to you. You took it. Do you suiggest Randian Anarchy?

Then I can come into your home and take your stereo, computer, and CDs...You were not born with them.

This thread reminds me of the Borg.

"You will be assimilated!":D

Originally posted by JoeyNormal

Where were you born? You ever lived in a ghetto? I'm curious. I live in New Zealand, and I'd say that we have more upward mobility than in the USA. But very, very few Doctors come out of Decile 10 schools. Very few Doctors come from the hungry poor of South Auckland. It does exist, you can break out of poverty....but why should you need to?

Jwreck can attest to the fact that I grew up in Houston's crappiest neighborhood. I've been shot at, my house has been shot at... let's see. I could get very personal and it could get very grim, but why? I was in a bad state and now I make a good living for myself and own a nice home and a few nice vehicles? What are you going to call it? Luck!? I dare you to call it luck, because I can assure you it wasn't.

My husband will be the first to graduate university in his family... through the cycles of poverty they have endured, they're slowly but surely taking advantage of being able to get an education. He grew in Alief... ask Jwreck about *that* place! LOL!

I've read a ton of your posts and you kind of seem to think that humans are poor and helpless and need a 'system' that sets standards of equality. Well, I hate to break it to you, but we're not all equal.

My father was a homeless dude and now he's pretty well off... we are you going to call that luck too?

You are basically molding a system around people's weaknesses instead of their strengths. "Let's do everything we can to help the weak, even if it means holding back the strong."

(I'm paying half assed attention, lol... I'll edit later if need be!)

Originally posted by buggy
You are basically molding a system around people's weaknesses instead of their strengths. "Let's do everything we can to help the weak, even if it means holding back the strong."


Well said.

There seems to be an illusion that there are are different types of communism, some better than others. IN actual practice they are all the same, all are failures, history proves this. Communism doesn't allow for human nature, its greatest failing.

We may ahve gropups of people dedicated to failure evenin the USofA, but changing to communism won't help. The answer is to attack the culture of being poor. Change the culture to one of success.

Jwreck can attest to the fact that I grew up in Houston's crappiest neighborhood. I've been shot at, my house has been shot at... let's see. I could get very personal and it could get very grim, but why? I was in a bad state and now I make a good living for myself and own a nice home and a few nice vehicles? What are you going to call it? Luck!? I dare you to call it luck, because I can assure you it wasn't.

You had a terrible situation and fought your way out. You worked hard, earned your keep and now your reward is your wealth and standard of life.

My husband will be the first to graduate university in his family... through the cycles of poverty they have endured, they're slowly but surely taking advantage of being able to get an education. He grew in Alief... ask Jwreck about *that* place! LOL!

I am taking a fully accredited degree program from a foreign school which is going to cost me CDN$ 6,000.00 (US$ 3,794.00) over 4 years. There is always a way to afford a tertiary education.

I've read a ton of your posts and you kind of seem to think that humans are poor and helpless and need a 'system' that sets standards of equality. Well, I hate to break it to you, but we're not all equal.

We reap what we sow.

My father was a homeless dude and now he's pretty well off... we are you going to call that luck too?

Where there is a will, there is a way.

You are basically molding a system around people's weaknesses instead of their strengths. "Let's do everything we can to help the weak, even if it means holding back the strong."

That is the sum of Joey's stand. If I want to own 10 mansions and miles of property and can afford it, I will do so.

Originally posted by JoeyNormal


We are talking about a revolution here. I'd love to ask you kindly, but...

The vast majority of people must support - or at least, tolerate - a revolution before it can morally occur. Those who are counter-revolutionery will leave, accept it, or fight. If you leave, fine, accept it, fine. But if you fight, then the revolutioneries you shoot at will be happy to shoot back ;)

So it is neccessary to kill those who don't agree with you, take what they owned, and give it to the murdererrs, and this creates a more equal society? More Moral? How is a culture founded on terror, murder,and theft supposed to be superior?

So the producers, the targets of the death squads, have a moral right to pre-empt the revolution by a preemptive strike?

So it is neccessary to killo htose who don't agree with you, take what they owned, and give it to the murdererrs, and this creates a more equal society? More Moral? How is a culture founded on terror, murder,and theft soupposed to be superior?

So much for Joeys empathy and compassion.

This is my problem with the left, and why a leftist gov't usually ends up brutally communist. Leftists and communists are only seperated by six degrees.

>>>Under my particular form of Socialism, no one. Socialism, in my eyes, does not mean a government controlled economy. It simply means a non-market economy aimed primarily at equitable distibution of material goods.

LOL I am in this argument now so its obvious Joey is going to lose. Joey may I ask why you endorse a system predicated upon the abrogation of individual rights, theft, and the subordination of individuals to some arbitrary collective?

LOL the sheer number of logical fallacies committed by Joey would require well over half an hour just to point out. BRB going to get some coffee this will be fun.

Originally posted by FaDeThEBuTcHeR
[i][LOL I am in this argument now so its obvious Joey is going to lose. Joey may I ask why you endorse a system predicated upon the abrogation of individual rights, theft, and the subordination of individuals to some arbitrary collective?

Fade, arrogance is putrid. Undeserved arrogance is worse.

Originally posted by FaDeThEBuTcHeR
LOL the sheer number of logical fallacies committed by Joey would require well over half an hour just to point out. BRB going to get some coffee this will be fun.

It will? What happened, did the coffee poison you? If you can flaw my thinking, please do so. However, please do not claim superioty etc if you cannot back it up.

Originally posted by Frank
So much for Joeys empathy and compassion.

So much for Frank's cold logic.

>>>Firstly, niether is punished nor rewarded. God did not grant you the resources, goods and services you own.

This is false. For some collective, some mob, to steal the private property of an individual is PUNISHMENT and it is THEFT. God is arbitrary. The arbitrary grants nothing.

>>>The society I advocate is also entirely Democratic, and offers a complete Right of Free Movement, as well as allowing complete non-participation.

Democracy is quite possible one of the most immoral systems of government ever created. The essence of democracy is the rule of the majority, or in other words, whenever some demagouge manages to whip a majority of the morons in society into a frenzy anything goes. The society that you advocate is predicated upon THEFT. Theft and freedom are INCOMPATIBLE.

>>>Secondly, your claim would be all very well if everyone began equally and had the same opportunities.

No one begins with equal opportunities. Equality does not exist in the physical world. It is a metaphysical concept.

>>>Then their material rewards would be determined solely by ability and labour [and luck?]. However, this is not the case. A ghetto-dweller is unlikely to become a doctor. It is possible, but not probable. Quality education is not free, and is often not even offered to certain groups. Likewise, the social pressures of poverty are devasting. Then we have malnutrition, disease…

My goal is not to create an equal society but a free society. There is no right to a job. There is no right to an education. There is no right to a minimum standard of living. There is no right to make ECONOMIC DEMANDS of others. There is no right to VIOLATE the rights of others. That is a contradiction.

>>> There ], let alone in a true third world nation. A nation whose economy has been crippled by WTO, World Bank and IMF assaults [The net cashflow between the First and Third Worlds, suprisingly, is towards the First.].

I do not support any of these statist institutions. Whats more is that it is not all that suprising the Third World is such a ****hole - the Third World that spits upon science and reason while embracing the collectivism, subjectivism, and unreason you advocate.

>>>Existence is not morality. Murder exists, but murder is immoral. Something's existence is irrelevant to its morality.

Existence is of course not morality. Morality presupposes existence and even more - it presupposes LIFE. Murder is immoral precisely because it is the initiation of physical force against others violating their rights. Yes, something’s existence is relevant to its morality. ROFL all values presuppose LIFE Joey. The inanimate does not value Joey, it does not moralize.

>>>Why must all rewards be material? I work for the satisfaction I gain from it, and the social respect I gain. Why must we be motivated always by property?

My self-esteem is not predicated upon others. My self-esteem is personal not dependent. There is no right to VIOLATE the rights of others.

>>>I do not. That comment is false.

That is exactly what you endorse.

>>>No neighbours? How does owning the land change that? You can use the land without owning it.

To OWN something means you have control over it. In other words YOU set the terms of its use. Therefore if you do not want someone coming onto your property, lets say a BUM coming into your house and sleeping in YOUR bed or brushing his teeth with YOUR toothbrush you can have such an individual REMOVED.

>>>Many people were not offered that choice.

There is no equality in the PHYSICAL world. It is RIDICULOUS to attempt to impose equality, a METAPHYSICAL CONCEPT, on the PHYSICAL world.

>>>Freedom? That isn't freedom. Freedom? That isn't freedom. The freedom to pay bills. The freedom of exploitation. The freedom of wage-slavery? The freedom of corporate masters?

I will tell you what freedom is. Freedom is one thing - it is not multiple choices. It is not wishes for particular outcomes. It is not the whim of the individual, the state, the race, the class et cetera.

It is the absence of the initiation of FORCE. It is voluntary human interaction. Nothing less and nothing MORE.

This is where individuals like Joey are confused (I am being polite in using this term). They desire material things, circumstances, or outcomes and they incorrectly label those things freedom. Thus they create elaborate straw men - as Joey has done, and think they have destroyed the laissez faire capitalism (btw laissez faire capitalism is a redundancy - there is only ONE capitalism. Anything else is simply a variant of collectivism). Such false 'freedoms' are not freedom at all. Just as in the realm of rights, they are simply economic DEMANDS. Demands of their fellow human beings. Demands which MUST be achieved at the point of a GUN - which Joey has no problem doing.

All one can do with someone like Joey is condemn him morally. He seeks to destroy voluntary human interaction. He seeks to justify the initiation of force against other human beings.

He seeks theft and slavery.

In other words, he is despicable.

>>>What about the pauper whose very Right to Life is taken?

The right to one’s life is precisely thus: The right to take all actions required by the nature of a rational being for the preservation of his life. There is no right to initiation the use of physical force against others. There is NO RIGHT to make demands of others.

>>> aken by the masses who do not care that he was boirn on the street, with no papers or legal existence. The pauper who cannot get social security as he cannot show he exists. The pauper who is used as slave labour in exchange for a bed, the pauper who...

First let it be known that the masses, a collective, have NO MORALITY. Morality is the feature of the individual - not some group. Groups do not think, groups do not reason, groups do not value, and GROUPS do not have rights. Slavery is an initiation of physical force against someone - holding a rational being as property. That is a violation of one’s right. Some bum not being able to provide for his own existence IS NOT a violation whatsoever of anyone’s rights - it is not an initiation of FORCE and it is NOT slavery.

>>>Where were you born? You ever lived in a ghetto? I'm curious

I do not live in a ghetto. I support myself and along with my taxes thousands of other leaches, parasites, and second handers.

>>>You do not. Why do you define the value and quality of your life by your material goods only?

Property is the right to gain, keep, to use and dispose of material values. To sustain one’s life one must create the material values of his/her survival - the right to property is the right to this process.

>>> False. Where you were born strongly effects your chances, even within a First World nation. It is more inequitable globally.

You do not *choose* the given. Some people are born fat and ugly while others are born thin and beautiful. Thus some attract many more mates than others. There is no right for every male to have sex with X number of women. Why? Because such a right is predicated upon the abrogation of rights of others - it is a CONTRADICTION.

>>> God granted me the ability [not the Right ] to kill you. Having the ability to do something does not make that thing morally right, nor a Right.

The arbitrary has granted you nothing. Rights are predicated upon ethics, not some arbitrary mob which possesses no consciousness whatsoever.

>>>Why should you get this? Not why not, why? You weren't boren with it. God didn't give it to you. You took it. Do you suiggest Randian Anarchy?

Randian anarchy. This is ridiculous and a sign of your ignorance of Rand’s philosophy. Rand rejected anarchism.

There is no right to steal the property of others.