Why Socialism is the key

[Fatman3001]

I've just owned him more thoroughly than socialist government employees own the results of production.

He will probably never post on the internet again.

Picking on people for spelling errors. You're a hero.

[1714907678]

1714907678

[1714907678]

1714907678

[1714907678]

1714907678

[BARR_Official]

He probably sold his account, too ashamed to post here again himself

[Fatman3001]

He probably sold his account, too ashamed to post here again himself

I like your scam site. Perfect for right wing nutters.

[BARR_Official]

Bernie Sanders should be arrested for offering money in exchange for votes.

[Fatman3001]

Bernie Sanders should be arrested for offering money in exchange for votes.

He doesn't, you'll get your share even if you didn't vote for him.

Why he's promising stuff he'll never get through congress is a different matter. But that sort of goes for all the candidates.

[BARR_Official]

Bernie Sanders should be arrested for offering money in exchange for votes.

He doesn't, you'll get your share even if you didn't vote for him.

Even if he doesn't get elected?

[Fatman3001]

Bernie Sanders should be arrested for offering money in exchange for votes.

He doesn't, you'll get your share even if you didn't vote for him.

Even if he doesn't get elected?

You can ask.

[BARR_Official]

So he's offering money in exchange for votes.

But of course you won't tell it like it is, socialism can never win honestly.

[AndySt]

Socialism is a wonderful thing when its construction and operation are angels otherwise this is not the most effective and clumsy thing

[Fatman3001]

So he's offering money in exchange for votes.

But of course you won't tell it like it is, socialism can never win honestly.

Huh?

No, you've misunderstood.

Socialism is a wonderful thing when its construction and operation are angels otherwise this is not the most effective and clumsy thing

The extreme types of socialism (except anarchism) will even corrupt angels.

[Laosai]

But I can't let you say the same shit again and again.

lol, are you daydreaming that your socialist fantasy has come true, and you are in charge of what everyone is allowed to say?

Pff... Cause socialism = dictatorship and end of freedom of speech of course...

I meant I can't let you say the same shit again and again without countering you that's all.

If you're going to start countering me, I'll wait until you come up with something.

You mean like the three articles about wealth concentration we posted or the multiple proofs of power concentration of an elite when the market is free?

[Laosai]

Ok so you're actually saying that without any kind of government it would be absolute freedom?

Now now, don't get all scared and start implying chaos. I am not saying freedom in the sense that anything goes. I did explain previously that initiating force against others was morally wrong. You are choosing to ignore half of what I said and start ranting about oppression. That being said, freedom is scary thing to most people. It means admitting that you are 100% accountable for your own life!

Ok so how do you make sure nobody uses force without using force? You ask kindly?

So what will prevent big rich guys to oppress you? They got the money so they'll just use their power to put you down.

Very simple, competitive markets limit power. Giant corporations don't just appear out of nowhere. I understand it's hard to strip away the layers of complexity, when we were all born into the present situation. Businesses grow because they are providing a valuable service to their customers, who (in a free market) CHOOSE to do business with them. Does Apple hold a gun to your head when you buy an iPhone? Nope. On the other hand I will have a gun held to my head if I choose to not do business with the local or federal governments when they provide me service that I don't ask for.

Taxation = Coercion
Buying a product from a business out of your own free will = Freedom.

So duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuumb ><

You're actually saying that customers would chose to buy products taking into account the power of the company and that they would actually chose to balance the market by themselves???

Do you even understand how impossible this is?

What you're saying is dumb as hell simply because it implie that humans are good by nature, and that if they're given the choice they'll always do the right thing. Experience shows it is not the case.

It doesn't imply anything of the sort. I recognize that some people are bad and hence why I'd prefer that we didn't grant them a vehicle (government and coercive taxation), in which to take over and use for to further their sociopathic agendas.

The belief in government is the same as belief in Gods. They are both comforting, in that people can shrug off responsibility for their lives, but they are both fundamentally destructive. If people stopped believing in this thing called "authority" then nobody (corporations, or warlords) would be able to rule. Why do you think it is that Bill Gates does not have the ability to tax people? Because nobody BELIEVES that he has the authority! It's that simple.

Again you're talking about a government when I'm talking about the people. I'll try to say it again but it seems you don't listen: in direct democracy government = people

[Laosai]

So he's offering money in exchange for votes.

But of course you won't tell it like it is, socialism can never win honestly.

Could we just settle on the fact that you're probably one of the dumbest person of this forum? Even more than BADECKER!!!

[btcbug]

Ok so how do you make sure nobody uses force without using force? You ask kindly?

Umm... initiating force against somebody is a completely different thing from self defense. Why on earth would you think people aren't allowed to defend themselves?

So duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuumb ><

You're actually saying that customers would chose to buy products taking into account the power of the company and that they would actually chose to balance the market by themselves???

Re-read what I said. You literally aren't making any sense.

Again you're talking about a government when I'm talking about the people. I'll try to say it again but it seems you don't listen: in direct democracy government = people

You haven't even read my previous posts apparently, so why am I wasting my time?


If you take my property from me it's called theft and it's morally wrong. Agree? Yes or No?

If we add two more people two this scenario and the three of you vote to take away my property is that now somehow morally acceptable? Yes or No?

Political rituals called voting to impose taxes on people does not change the facts of morality.

[sallymeeh27]

Socialism nowadays is very important in many ways. It affects people on how to have a positive approach to each other. This is very helpful for interaction that will undergo all aspects of communication. I believe that this will also bring positive and negative outcome when dealing with different types of people.

[Fatman3001]

If you take my property from me it's called theft and it's morally wrong. Agree? Yes or No?

Depends on if he has a legal basis for doing so. This can be had if he's lent you some money and you won't/can't pay him back, if you've caused damage and refuse to compensate or repair what's damaged, or if you haven't paid your taxes.

[btcbug]

If you take my property from me it's called theft and it's morally wrong. Agree? Yes or No?

Depends on if he has a legal basis for doing so. This can be had if he's lent you some money and you won't/can't pay him back, if you've caused damage and refuse to compensate or repair what's damaged, or if you haven't paid your taxes.

Lol, for fucks sake that why I explicitly said " If you take MY PROPERTY...".  Taking back something that was originally yours is not theft. Now go ahead and answer my questions.

[BARR_Official]

So he's offering money in exchange for votes.

But of course you won't tell it like it is, socialism can never win honestly.

Could we just settle on the fact that you're probably one of the dumbest person of this forum? Even more than BADECKER!!!

I agree that BADecker might be smarter than me.

Anyway I think he's smart enough to admit that politicians try to bribe people and buy votes with promises of free money to appeal to the greed of short-sighted and selfish voters.

[btcbug]

Haha, have fun!


Most people, such as the Socialists in this thread, view the political spectrum as something like this first image.

...

There is a saying: "Government. Ideas so good, we have to force you to pay for them!"

Its more like a 2D plane than a 1D line, where you have Y axis being the authority vs freedom, and the X axis being left vs right.

Although it's hard to imagine libertarian socialism, but they think that such system could exist.

Well micro-black holes can also exist according to physics, but they collapse pretty soon.

Thats why any sort of leftism (progressives,social democrat, socialist, libertarian socialist,etc...) quickly collapses into authoritarian communist tyrrany with gulags, genocide and the rest of it.


I`m on the right , but I dont think full freedom is good for humans, because too many dumb morons walk the earth, there needs to be some sort of hierarchy to control the masses but one that is based on libertarian principles.

Well good to hear you think rationally!

Believe me if we could return to stripped down constitutional republic like the US was founded on, it would be a massive improvement and I'd be pretty happy with that.

When you say "full freedom is not good for humans", then you'd also have to answer the moral question of why a political ritual called voting can magically change theft from morally bad to morally good. Because that's really the only difference between free markets and government. Coercive taxation (a unique property only governments possess) is what I have an issue with.

I do agree that society needs rules and law enforcement, but those rules need to be based on universal principles. Meaning that what is wrong for individuals (ie theft) must also necessarily be wrong for a group of individuals (government taxation aka theft).

Anyway, if the we were "governed" as a constitutional republic, most of the moral double standards would be taken care of. It's only about 100 years ago that they implemented the income tax.

[cjmoles]

Haha, have fun!


Most people, such as the Socialists in this thread, view the political spectrum as something like this first image.

...

There is a saying: "Government. Ideas so good, we have to force you to pay for them!"

Its more like a 2D plane than a 1D line, where you have Y axis being the authority vs freedom, and the X axis being left vs right.

Although it's hard to imagine libertarian socialism, but they think that such system could exist.

Well micro-black holes can also exist according to physics, but they collapse pretty soon.

Thats why any sort of leftism (progressives,social democrat, socialist, libertarian socialist,etc...) quickly collapses into authoritarian communist tyrrany with gulags, genocide and the rest of it.


I`m on the right , but I dont think full freedom is good for humans, because too many dumb morons walk the earth, there needs to be some sort of hierarchy to control the masses but one that is based on libertarian principles.

Well good to hear you think rationally!

Believe me if we could return to stripped down constitutional republic like the US was founded on, it would be a massive improvement and I'd be pretty happy with that.

^^^^^^^
/ / / / / / /
That would be nice; however, I very seriously doubt that the blacks would go back into slavery submissively.  I also don't believe Irish immigrants would allow themselves to be indentured again. And, it probably wouldn't get the women's vote anyway.

When you say "full freedom is not good for humans", then you'd also have to answer the moral question of why a political ritual called voting can magically change theft from morally bad to morally good. Because that's really the only difference between free markets and government. Coercive taxation (a unique property only governments possess) is what I have an issue with.

I do agree that society needs rules and law enforcement, but those rules need to be based on universal principles. Meaning that what is wrong for individuals (ie theft) must also necessarily be wrong for a group of individuals (government taxation aka theft).

Anyway, if the we were "governed" as a constitutional republic, most of the moral double standards would be taken care of. It's only about 100 years ago that they implemented the income tax.