Why Socialism is the key

[Fatman3001]

You missed my point so badly it's just laughable.

You are like a slave owner trying to justify slavery by pointing out the fact that your slaves are somewhat healthy and well fed. You are completely ignoring the fact that SLAVERY IS FUCKING IMMORAL BECAUSE YOU ARE STEALING A PERSONS PRODUCTIVE OUTPUT. Can I make it any clearer for you?

If slavery is defined as stealing 100% of a persons production. Then at what percentage is not called slavery? Socialists would argue that at some completely arbitrary percentage it's no longer slavery. So taxing people (stealing their productive output) at 100% is slavery, but at 80% or 50% is somehow magically morally acceptable because people voted for it. I'm just calling BULLSHIT!

You are confused. Slavery is not "defined as stealing 100% of a persons production" nor are there any socialists who "would argue that at some completely arbitrary percentage it's no longer slavery". Nor is taxing people stealing.

If you find taxes morally reprehensible then you can make that argument and that should suffice. If you find different forms of socialism morally reprehensible you can make that case and see if it sticks. This constant mislabeling of things you don't like as slavery, theft, and similar by right wing nutters extremists enthusiasts confuses the issues and will consistently lead you astray.

[1714920522]

1714920522

[1714920522]

1714920522

[1714920522]

1714920522

[1714920522]

1714920522

[1714920522]

1714920522

[Fatman3001]

Ok then you need absolutely no rule, a free currency of course, like btc.

And how do you protect citizens? I mean what would prevent a company like Google to just hire some mercenaries and kill the potential competitors as there is no police and no government?

Who said no police? You can still have police run privately like a corporation.

Basic policing like keeping the streets clean and emergency 911 calls can be easily done (and possibly more efficiently) than government police.

You know in Japan the subway system has a maximum 1 minute delay and its run by private corps.

When I was last time in government subway they always have a 10-15 minute delay.

So you have to admit that private stuff is managed better, and when you call the cops because there is somebody in your house, then its a matter of life and death if they delay 15 minutes because they forgot to buy their donuts.

And for personal protection, there are always security guards and security services available, you just cant afford it currently, but with low or no taxes I guarantee you it would be as cheap as buying a hamburger.

There's a slight difference between someone offering transport and someone offering violence. It's very difficult to control violence without a monopoly.

[btcbug]

You missed my point so badly it's just laughable.

You are like a slave owner trying to justify slavery by pointing out the fact that your slaves are somewhat healthy and well fed. You are completely ignoring the fact that SLAVERY IS FUCKING IMMORAL BECAUSE YOU ARE STEALING A PERSONS PRODUCTIVE OUTPUT. Can I make it any clearer for you?

If slavery is defined as stealing 100% of a persons production. Then at what percentage is not called slavery? Socialists would argue that at some completely arbitrary percentage it's no longer slavery. So taxing people (stealing their productive output) at 100% is slavery, but at 80% or 50% is somehow magically morally acceptable because people voted for it. I'm just calling BULLSHIT!

You are confused. Slavery is not "defined as stealing 100% of a persons production" nor are there any socialists who "would argue that at some completely arbitrary percentage it's no longer slavery". Nor is taxing people stealing.

If you find taxes morally reprehensible then you can make that argument and that should suffice. If you find different forms of socialism morally reprehensible you can make that case and see if it sticks. This constant mislabeling of things you don't like as slavery, theft, and similar by right wing nutters extremists enthusiasts confuses the issues and will consistently lead you astray.

Here's a couple definitions from a dictionary.

slavery
/ˈsleɪvərɪ/
noun

1.
the state or condition of being a slave; a civil relationship whereby one person has absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune

2.the subjection of a person to another person, esp in being forced into work


So yes having absolute power over another persons fortune would qualify as slavery. I stated it as controlling their productive output.

Keeping slaves can be done in a number of ways. It doesn't always mean chains, whips, and beatings like in the movies. Black slaves in America were not always treated THAT badly, but that doesn't mean we can excuse the idea whereby one person seeks to control another. I don't give a shit what free handouts my slave master gives me, I care about the freedom of choice, which is non-existent with government taxation.

[btcbug]

There's a slight difference between someone offering transport and someone offering violence. It's very difficult to control violence without a monopoly.

Right, so because YOU can't possibly fathom how something would work without a monopoly that means that violently imposing taxes over the people in a certain geographical area is the only possibility?
 
Again, Socialists always know what's right for everyone!

In essence all that I am asking is that you respect my right to opt out of paying into YOUR system. You might find it great. Maybe I don't and I'd rather be left the fuck alone to buy security or healthcare. What is so hard difficult about that, besides the fact that you desire to control people? The whole goddamn argument comes down to voluntary and involuntary relationships. The state that only allows one option and no freedom to opt out is no better than the slave master who claims what he's doing is virtuous because his slaves are allowed to walk around his fenced in 5 acre property. No freedom to leave!

[Anddos]

I spent 3 months in Cuba. I confirm what Craked5 says.
Cubans are not always happy for sure, communism is a dictatorship. But they still get an incredible healthcare. And food for everyone.

Just. Fucking. WOW!


Here's what the black slave owners used to say about slavery:

"My slaves aren't always happy, but I give them food, water and take them to the doctor regularly."

Exactly how the Romans did it: bread and circus. And the people were content.

[btcbug]

A short video. Essentially, Socialism in a nutshell:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A

[Fatman3001]

You missed my point so badly it's just laughable.

You are like a slave owner trying to justify slavery by pointing out the fact that your slaves are somewhat healthy and well fed. You are completely ignoring the fact that SLAVERY IS FUCKING IMMORAL BECAUSE YOU ARE STEALING A PERSONS PRODUCTIVE OUTPUT. Can I make it any clearer for you?

If slavery is defined as stealing 100% of a persons production. Then at what percentage is not called slavery? Socialists would argue that at some completely arbitrary percentage it's no longer slavery. So taxing people (stealing their productive output) at 100% is slavery, but at 80% or 50% is somehow magically morally acceptable because people voted for it. I'm just calling BULLSHIT!

You are confused. Slavery is not "defined as stealing 100% of a persons production" nor are there any socialists who "would argue that at some completely arbitrary percentage it's no longer slavery". Nor is taxing people stealing.

If you find taxes morally reprehensible then you can make that argument and that should suffice. If you find different forms of socialism morally reprehensible you can make that case and see if it sticks. This constant mislabeling of things you don't like as slavery, theft, and similar by right wing nutters extremists enthusiasts confuses the issues and will consistently lead you astray.

Here's a couple definitions from a dictionary.

slavery
/ˈsleɪvərɪ/
noun

1.
the state or condition of being a slave; a civil relationship whereby one person has absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune

2.the subjection of a person to another person, esp in being forced into work


So yes having absolute power over another persons fortune would qualify as slavery. I stated it as controlling their productive output.

Keeping slaves can be done in a number of ways. It doesn't always mean chains, whips, and beatings like in the movies. Black slaves in America were not always treated THAT badly, but that doesn't mean we can excuse the idea whereby one person seeks to control another. I don't give a shit what free handouts my slave master gives me, I care about the freedom of choice, which is non-existent with government taxation.

I'm not a fan of that definition, but it doesn't fit your definition anyway. "[A] civil relationship whereby one person has absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune" is not the same as "stealing 100% of a persons production". Nor is the second definition much closer. Especially when both definitions state that this relationship is person to person. When a state wields that kind of power it's called something else.

[Fatman3001]

There's a slight difference between someone offering transport and someone offering violence. It's very difficult to control violence without a monopoly.

Right, so because YOU can't possibly fathom how something would work without a monopoly that means that violently imposing taxes over the people in a certain geographical area is the only possibility?
 
Again, Socialists always know what's right for everyone!

My point was narrowly aimed at your idea for replacing the states monopoly of violence. Violence is not well suited for the free market.

In essence all that I am asking is that you respect my right to opt out of paying into YOUR system. You might find it great. Maybe I don't and I'd rather be left the fuck alone to buy security or healthcare. What is so hard difficult about that, besides the fact that you desire to control people? The whole goddamn argument comes down to voluntary and involuntary relationships. The state that only allows one option and no freedom to opt out is no better than the slave master who claims what he's doing is virtuous because his slaves are allowed to walk around his fenced in 5 acre property. No freedom to leave!

I'm pretty sure you don't live in my country so don't blame me if there are people in your country who want to prevent you from becoming an involuntary sex toy for the bigger boys, or that there are people ready to stitch you up afterwards.

Edit:

No freedom to leave!

Sure there is. Just grab a passport and go to Somalia. I'm sure a bunch of you can manage to carve out a piece of land for yourself. You just have to stop being such a weakly interacting massive particle and get a move on!!!

You can do it!

[Anddos]

I think it's simple to observe which type of states work and which do not. And communism isn't one of them.

[btcbug]

I'm pretty sure you don't live in my country so don't blame me if there are people in your country who want to prevent you from becoming an involuntary sex toy for the bigger boys, or that there are people ready to stitch you up afterwards.

It was an example and of course you avoided the moral question with your "don't blame me" juvenile non-answer. For the sake of argument just assume we do live in the same geographical area under it's government. Now answer my question. Why can't you respect another persons freedom to opt-out of paying for something just because YOU find value in it?

Sure there is. Just grab a passport and go to Somalia. I'm sure a bunch of you can manage to carve out a piece of land for yourself. You just have to stop being such a weakly interacting massive particle and get a move on!!!

You can do it!

Yes, the old "if you don't like it you can leave" argument. This would imply that because I was born into it (without choice btw) that I'm actually making my choice to live under the system simply by staying. Well, things aren't that simple. Borders are imposed on people and largely close off to immigration. A lot of people honestly do not have the luxury of immigrating. The other thing that makes this argument completely fucking stupid is that most people that would make this argument, would also have some empathy for the American Indian or other groups that had previously inhabited an area BEFORE the new population forced it's will upon them. If you can see how absurd it is to impose a system on the existing population, than it's not that big of a leap to see why it's just as ridiculous to impose a system on anybody simply because half the population votes for it.


This is similar to the typical Christian who that claims they choose to accept Jesus of their own free will, meanwhile the religion itself is clear that if you reject Christ you are going to hell.    At best it's a cruel illusion of choice.

[RealBitcoin]

Sure there is. Just grab a passport and go to Somalia. I'm sure a bunch of you can manage to carve out a piece of land for yourself. You just have to stop being such a weakly interacting massive particle and get a move on!!!

You can do it!

So you are in a gulag...? Dont like it? No problem just grab a passport and leave.

[Fatman3001]

I'm pretty sure you don't live in my country so don't blame me if there are people in your country who want to prevent you from becoming an involuntary sex toy for the bigger boys, or that there are people ready to stitch you up afterwards.

It was an example and of course you avoided the moral question with your "don't blame me" juvenile non-answer. For the sake of argument just assume we do live in the same geographical area under it's government. Now answer my question. Why can't you respect another persons freedom to opt-out of paying for something just because YOU find value in it?

I'll try, but I fear we'll constantly fall back to this problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjmtJpzoW0o (thx macsga)

Your freedom must be limited by the freedom of others. In order to enforce this freedom you need violence. You'll soon find that, as I tried to hint at earlier, you'll need a monopoly of violence. What you've suggested earlier is sometimes called the state of nature, but more accurately to be thought of as a state of war. Now... a monopoly of violence can be a rather depressing thing if it's randomly applied. So you'll want a rechtsstaat or some kind of rule of law. This is best achieved in a democracy. But not just any democracy, you'll want a representative democracy with separation of powers between the courts, the lawmakers, and the ruler.

Ok, so far, so good. Now you have a sound foundation for regulating society in a way that secures the freedom of every citizen. But what is freedom? Now we're back to what I mentioned in the beginning. Your freedom must be limited by the freedom of others. That is the extent and limit of your freedom. If you go beyond this you're causing harm to others. More precisely there is negative freedom. Freedom from being arrested for no good reason, freedom from being caused bodily harm, freedom from persecution, freedom from being deprived of property for no good reason, etc. But there are also such a thing as positive freedom. That is, the freedom to realize your own potential by actually being enabled to pursue the opportunities you find in a society with negative freedom. This must be ensured by having access, in a real way, to education, healthcare, etc. Where the actual lines are drawn are decided by the politics of the system.

But to answer your question: if you retreat from your civic duties to be "left alone" you're infringing on the freedom of others and damaging this entire construct aimed at ensuring the freedom of all.

Sure there is. Just grab a passport and go to Somalia. I'm sure a bunch of you can manage to carve out a piece of land for yourself. You just have to stop being such a weakly interacting massive particle and get a move on!!!

You can do it!

Yes, the old "if you don't like it you can leave" argument. This would imply that because I was born into it (without choice btw) that I'm actually making my choice to live under the system simply by staying. Well, things aren't that simple. Borders are imposed on people and largely close off to immigration. A lot of people honestly do not have the luxury of immigrating. The other thing that makes this argument completely fucking stupid is that most people that would make this argument, would also have some empathy for the American Indian or other groups that had previously inhabited an area BEFORE the new population forced it's will upon them. If you can see how absurd it is to impose a system on the existing population, than it's not that big of a leap to see why it's just as ridiculous to impose a system on anybody simply because half the population votes for it.


This is similar to the typical Christian who that claims they choose to accept Jesus of their own free will, meanwhile the religion itself is clear that if you reject Christ you are going to hell.    At best it's a cruel illusion of choice.

I know, it's a ridiculous argument. And I'm not a big fan of the "if you don't like it you can leave" argument. But you actually cried out "No freedom to leave!" so I was curious to see what your response was. It's not unheard of for libertarians/anarchists to look for virgin territory.

[Fatman3001]

Sure there is. Just grab a passport and go to Somalia. I'm sure a bunch of you can manage to carve out a piece of land for yourself. You just have to stop being such a weakly interacting massive particle and get a move on!!!

You can do it!

So you are in a gulag...? Dont like it? No problem just grab a passport and leave.

I'm sorry, I was not aware of that he's in a gulag. Good to see he's got internet.

[Pab]

You are saying about Cuba Cuba has never been socialsm Cuba was communist by name
These photos are from Gantanamo i suppose.Tortured people by special commando like german nazi Gestapo
from  democratic USA

nazi germany it was pure socialism

[jaysabi]

I don't have a choice? I'd say that's my argument in a nutshell. That's why socialism is morally wrong, the use of force against others to force them to comply because they don't have a choice.

Let me explain further my last post, because it seems maybe my point wasn't clear. Because all judgments are subjective, you eliminate arbitrary law by making all men equal under the law. Take out all subjective judgments and institute only those things which are objectively true: All men are created equal, and all men are equal under the law, and no one has any more right to do anything than anyone else. In this way, everyone has equal rights. Under this style of government, you are free to do whatever you want so long as your actions don't infringe on the freedom of anyone else. All men have the right to life, liberty, and property they've justly earned. No one has the right to take away anyone else's life, liberty, or property. That's equality. And it's the opposite of socialism, which demands taking away, at the very least, the property of others. People who use the power of government to force other people to act in a way they want are morally bankrupt.

So it doesn't matter what 70% of the population believes, and it doesn't matter what the "elites" (as you say) believe. If it takes away someone's life, liberty, or property, it's morally wrong.

In which way is socialism not compatible with what you're saying? The fact that no one should tell you what to do or take parts of what you have/earn?
Well it's already the case no?

And you're saying this as if all men were not equal in a socialist country! Why shouldn't they be all equal in the eyes of the law?

If a group of men have the power or the right to take the possessions of another person, then those men are not equal under the law. That is how socialism is not compatible with what I am saying.

[btcbug]

But to answer your question: if you retreat from your civic duties to be "left alone" you're infringing on the freedom of others and damaging this entire construct aimed at ensuring the freedom of all.

My civic duties? Lol. As I said, we are all born into certain nations by accident. We did not choose. The previous inhabitants of many territories have also had the will of the colonizing population imposed upon them. You can't simply invade somebodies home land, impose a tax system and then tell them they have the "choice" to leave.

You're answer is basically that society cannot permit me to be left alone and therefore I must be forced to comply with what the majority dictates. Nice! You've really mastered the art of authoritarianism.

Furthermore, no, I am not infringing on the freedom of others. You have this extremely ridiculous notion (despite my addressing it) that somebody who simply doesn't want to do business with the government must also be violent and dangerous.

If I exercise my right to be left alone, the reason this is threatening to you is because your "construct" is based on legalized theft. It's obviously inherently unstable if when due to the fact that somebody is born, they are automatically in violating your "freedom". Do you not realize how absurd that is?

A child born without say in the matter and without say in what your system dictates, who doesn't like your "choice" to pay up or leave, is automatically somebody who is a threat?

Really all I can say to that is FUCK YOU!

[jaysabi]

Your freedom must be limited by the freedom of others. In order to enforce this freedom you need violence. You'll soon find that, as I tried to hint at earlier, you'll need a monopoly of violence. What you've suggested earlier is sometimes called the state of nature, but more accurately to be thought of as a state of war. Now... a monopoly of violence can be a rather depressing thing if it's randomly applied. So you'll want a rechtsstaat or some kind of rule of law. This is best achieved in a democracy. But not just any democracy, you'll want a representative democracy with separation of powers between the courts, the lawmakers, and the ruler.

I'm with you up to the democracy part, because I don't think freedom is best achieved in a democracy if your version of democracy is that popular ideas are deemed moral because they're the most popular. That doesn't follow logically. If there are no absolute freedoms, democracy is rather worthless in my opinion. So it has to be a democracy that doesn't have the power to infringe on the freedom of the individual, and now we're back to a moral government.

Ok, so far, so good. Now you have a sound foundation for regulating society in a way that secures the freedom of every citizen. But what is freedom? Now we're back to what I mentioned in the beginning. Your freedom must be limited by the freedom of others. That is the extent and limit of your freedom... [snip] But to answer your question: if you retreat from your civic duties to be "left alone" you're infringing on the freedom of others and damaging this entire construct aimed at ensuring the freedom of all.

All this means is nobody's freedom takes precedence over any other person's freedom. No one can assign a "civic duty" to you without your consent, as such an action would be immoral. You are not born with an obligation to anyone, and any construct of such is artificial.

[bumbacoin]

There is no true reason that wealth should be held by those who hold it.

There is no true reason that private property should be owned by personal individuals.

There are obvious examples that show those born into poverty have far more hindrances to achieving their "true potential" than those born into wealth.

There is no true example of a socialist country, nor a capitalist country. They have all been corrupted.

Corruption is real. Anyone who thinks that either pure socialism or pure capitalism can work by themselves is deluded.

All governments require the threat and use of force to maintain their status quo.

All people are born.

All people die.

[Sourgummies]

I'm with you up to the democracy part, because I don't think freedom is best achieved in a democracy if your version of democracy is that popular ideas are deemed moral because they're the most popular. That doesn't follow logically. If there are no absolute freedoms, democracy is rather worthless in my opinion. So it has to be a democracy that doesn't have the power to infringe on the freedom of the individual, and now we're back to a moral government.

Free shit folks:

Free money, free food, free education ,free sex, free immortality, etc...


How do you achieve that?

Free money: Steal from productive people and give it to unproductive people

Free food: Steal from farmers and give it to lazy people who dont grow their crops

Free education: Steal from educated parents and give it to uneducated ones who did poor choices in their lives because they are dumb

Free sex: Legalize rape and lets see how well it turns out.

Free immmortality:  No idea, but socialist can fantasize about this too.

etc... you get the idea

Socialism and communism seem good on paper, but in reality there are many problems associated with it. You HAVE to take from some source, and it just feels like you're incentivizing people to work less. The rich can get taxed, sure, but everybody wants to be rich, right? Greed will reign supreme in all cases, and for those who actually achieve that upper-class level, they'll be PUNISHED for the hard work.

[bumbacoin]

Socialism and communism seem good on paper, but in reality there are many problems associated with it. You HAVE to take from some source, and it just feels like you're incentivizing people to work less. The rich can get taxed, sure, but everybody wants to be rich, right? Greed will reign supreme in all cases, and for those who actually achieve that upper-class level, they'll be PUNISHED for the hard work.

Capitalism equally seems good on paper, but in reality there are many problems associated with it.
As with any form of bigotry (such as racism, sexism, homophobia), there are advantages to being in the priveleged class that give those an unequal boost at life.

There are many that work longer and harder and receive barely enough to sustain themselves. Look at the use of foodstamps in the USA. How is that anyone working full time should need to rely on govt subsidies to survive?

The Magna Carta, created in 1215, was an important step in creating freedom for the serfs of England. The basic truth in equality of birth has not changed.

The very idea of personal freedom is threatened by both capitalism AND socialism as we know it. There is no freedom when some people are "more equal than others".