Common Sense, by the Taxman

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 07:47 PM
link   
There are Ultra Libs and NeoCons in the world who want to make the US/World a NWO, eather commie or facist. However they, as we all know, are wrong. These people and other tyrants are SINNERS and HEATHENS. They need to change their veiws or be purged and heres why.

As Thomas Paine (wrote Common Sense, lead to Revolt against King George the Third in the Colonies) said, "In the best of times, Government is a nessicary evil, in the worst, Government is a intollerable one." Which that means all other forms of government is not right nor just. I agree, countries should be as free as can be without chaos, and maintaining health of the populous. So therefore democracy, is the only government worthy of the name.

King and Queens and Dictators need to be ripped down from their thrones and purged. They are of the unholy. Blood line rule (cannot rember the term) is not just, once you enter this, you are plagued for the people do not choose thier leaders.

Communism is also of the evil kin. It itself shows that humanity degressed in the chain of evolution. The leaders, are elected, yes, however theres only the 'President', no checks and balances. So in theory, this government can turn into one of the toltalitarn kind. No way. The leaders are all powerful, the people are at their mercy.

Facism, needs no explanation.

Humans, as I belive, are not partically great (to say the least) at governing itself. It lacks the intelligence or the correct amount of compassion and insensitvity. So thats why humans, subconsciencly or otherwise, thought up democracy. It prevents for the most part and kings or dictators from cladestinly or otherwise taking over by the people deciding. Once more there is a safe guard, once you taste the sweat nector of freedom, you will rather die than give it up, as the phrase, "Live Free or Die" and "Don't Tread On Me" came from. So therefore democracy, is the only way for freedom.

More will be added at a later date.




posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taxman
Communism is also of the evil kin. It itself shows that humanity degressed in the chain of evolution. The leaders, are elected, yes, however theres only the 'President', no checks and balances. So in theory, this government can turn into one of the toltalitarn kind. No way. The leaders are all powerful, the people are at their mercy.


Communism isn't a style of government.
We could have a democratic state, with communism.
You know... a place to live, foodstuffs, and clothing (for a start) guaranteed to every citizen.
With capitalism still mixed in, so those who desire can work towards better homes, nice cars, swimming pools, DVD players, plasma TVs, etc.
Our system of government wouldn't need to change a bit. (US)




It would be costly, but then, it's just a dream, anyway..

We'd rather spend our money on bombs and fighter jets, than making sure that no one in our country is sleeping on a cold sidewalk, half starved, with no shoes.



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Communism cannot conencide with Democracy, Democracy expresses everyone makes a life for themselfs. Communism they are givin a life and a job, like it or not.

I have an idea, force the upper percentages of society pay for selters and food kitchens for the homeless. Pay the homless to work in the kitchens by giving shelter and money.



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 09:18 PM
link   
I agree fully with quango here. Everyone should have a right to a place to live in, food, clothes and healthcare as long as he or she is alive.



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taxman
I have an idea, force the upper percentages of society pay for selters and food kitchens for the homeless.


That's communism!!!



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Communism involes assest, money and other redistrabution, Im talking about a charity. Also in communism, there is no free bussiness. Indeed everyone should have the nessicary thing to live, Im not saying anything against them.



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 09:26 PM
link   
Forcing them to pay for shelters and food kitchens isn't money redistribution???



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taxman
Communism cannot conencide with Democracy, Democracy expresses everyone makes a life for themselfs. Communism they are givin a life and a job, like it or not.


Democracy just means that we all have a vote towards deciding who's in charge of maintaining highways, spending tax money, defending the country, foreign relations, etc.

It means we freely elect our leaders.

And it means we could freely elect leaders who would spend our money in anyway we choose. (eg. on a place to live for everyone instead of building a floating war machine full of airplanes, bombs, and guns.)

Unfortunately, it also means majority rules.

And as I said, the majority doesn't want to spend money on "people who are too lazy/stupid to get a job". They want to spend it on attacking, liberating, and rebuilding a country half way around the world that 95% of them will never even visit and 50% probably can't even find on a map.



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 09:28 PM
link   
No, its a small amount out of their wallet. They can still be billionares and ect but they should pay in their taxes, a addition to help the soup kitchen and ect. Im not saying completly fund them by taking all their money away, Im saying a small amount.



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taxman
Communism cannot conencide with Democracy, Democracy expresses everyone makes a life for themselfs. Communism they are givin a life and a job, like it or not.

I have an idea, force the upper percentages of society pay for selters and food kitchens for the homeless. Pay the homless to work in the kitchens by giving shelter and money.


By forcing the rich to part with their money that they earned/inherited, you are, in essence, negating Capitalism. Good plan



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 09:33 PM
link   
But it still remains slightly communist, doesn't it?

They best way I think would be capitalism mixed up with communism. It can be done.



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 09:35 PM
link   
But we don't have the right to force "rich people" to pay for it just because they have the money.
Why not force people named Tom to pay for it.
And make tall people be Olympic basketball players so we can dominate the world.

No, everyone can help by paying their taxes.

I don't agree with all the ways the money I give to the government is being spent. But I pay, because it goes to more than just one place. (Roads, for one, are vital.)
We just don't have the right people in power.
Government is big business.
War is bigger business.
We need to stop electing businessmen.



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by quango
We need to stop electing businessmen.


Rock on quango



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Right, no more politicians for that matter. We need people who would be great leaders that are normal caring, concered people.



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheBandit795
But it still remains slightly communist, doesn't it?

They best way I think would be capitalism mixed up with communism. It can be done.


I've been thinking of this as well. I do not see how Capitalism & Communism can be mixed. For one they are both "ism's" which makes them Philosophical Consepts, not Systems of Gov. But the main reason they cannot be mixed is because one would absorb the other.

Example: If all you had was a Communistic Society, the society wouldn't be Capitalizing off of itself. Capitalism requires "Individualized" processes of One entity Capitalizing from another separate entity. Be it money or food or land or whatever. Since Communism is about the "Whole" and not the "Individual" there would essentially be nothing to Capitalize from, nor would it be benificial to the whole to do so. It would be like your Heart taking nutrience away from your kidneys, capitalizing from the kidneys for itself. This would be against Communism since in doing so the "Whole Body" would suffer as a result.

Just a note to keep everyone clear on the definitions here.
"acy" = state (theocracy,democracy, etc.)
"archy" = rule (anarchy, oligarchy, monarchy, etc.)
"ism" = doctrine (Communism, fascism, nazism, nationalism, etc.)


Edit:At first I thought you said Communism and Capitalism WOULDN"T WORK. I agreed, but then realized, you saw it different.

[Edited on 16-1-2004 by mOjOm]



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by mOjOm

Originally posted by TheBandit795
But it still remains slightly communist, doesn't it?

They best way I think would be capitalism mixed up with communism. It can be done.


I've been thinking of this as well. I do not see how Capitalism & Communism can be mixed. For one they are both "ism's" which makes them Philosophical Consepts, not Systems of Gov. But the main reason they cannot be mixed is because one would absorb the other.

Example: If all you had was a Communistic Society, the society wouldn't be Capitalizing off of itself. Capitalism requires "Individualized" processes of One entity Capitalizing from another separate entity. Be it money or food or land or whatever. Since Communism is about the "Whole" and not the "Individual" there would essentially be nothing to Capitalize from, nor would it be benificial to the whole to do so. It would be like your Heart taking nutrience away from your kidneys, capitalizing from the kidneys for itself. This would be against Communism since in doing so the "Whole Body" would suffer as a result.

Just a note to keep everyone clear on the definitions here.
"acy" = state (theocracy,democracy, etc.)
"archy" = rule (anarchy, oligarchy, monarchy, etc.)
"ism" = doctrine (Communism, fascism, nazism, nationalism, etc.)


Added by Phoenix: how about "ic" as in REPUBLIC which is what the USA is, we are not "acy","archy" nor "ism". We have the ability to elect representitives to congress and the senate (more recent) that can balance the mob rule of "acy" while preventing "archy". "Ism" however is diametrically opposed to "ic" not in theory but in practice, so it will not work as long as "ic" exists. "Ic" can work if voters quit voting what is largess to themselves (refer roman empire) and vote what is good for the whole country.

Some that support "acy", "archy" and "ism" need to make a better case to those that support "ic" in order to effect the social changes that they desire.

Then the "ic" people can help elect representitives that will make these changes within the framework of the constitution.

The backlash that "acy", "arcy" and "ism believers get today is more likely because they always attempt to bypass the method that has served us well as a country formed as a "ic" system.

Edit:At first I thought you said Communism and Capitalism WOULDN"T WORK. I agreed, but then realized, you saw it different.

[Edited on 16-1-2004 by mOjOm]



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 11:17 PM
link   
I'm guessing a "Republic" might be classified under a "acy" by the fact that it has to do with "State". Although this is just a guess on my part. I'm happy leaving "Republic" in a class all it's own actually.

Republic:
1.)A state in which the people are represented by elected agents and the head of state is an elected official.
2.)A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.
3.)A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.

Republic isn't the only alternate form besides "acy-archy-ism". There is also:
1.)Colonial: a government set up by a group of people in a foreign territory subject to the parent state.
2.)Dictatorship: any form of government in which one person or group has absolute power without effective constitutional limitations.
3.)Federal/Legislative Union.
4.)Occupational: a government set up by the military to control an area taken by force.

....as well as Others I'm sure. All of which may or may not fit into the "acy-archy-ism" catagories in one form or another. I'm no expert, so I don't really know to be honest with you.



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 11:17 PM
link   

. Capitalism requires "Individualized" processes of One entity Capitalizing from another separate entity


What about a bunch of communist nations within a world capitalist system?
Each nation would be like an "individual" inside the larger system.
They would essentially compete economically with each other in order to provide the 'best possible life' for their citizens.
This would cause anger and dispute between countries who, in their efforts to serve their citizens' needs, would butt heads with each other (possibly over resources).
This would lead to war.

Oh, wait. That's what we already have.


Or.
The world would seemingly be at peace if everyone were economically equal.

Of course, there's the accepted fact that greed would destroy any attempt at balance.



Or maybe it's just that, we, as a species, enjoy competition.



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by quango
What about a bunch of communist nations within a world capitalist system?
Each nation would be like an "individual" inside the larger system.
They would essentially compete economically with each other in order to provide the 'best possible life' for their citizens.
This would cause anger and dispute between countries who, in their efforts to serve their citizens' needs, would butt heads with each other (possibly over resources).
This would lead to war.


Well, from the perception of "Communistic Philosophy and Ideals", if all those Individual Communistic Nations were in fact Communistic they would just merge into one "Community" or "Communistic Whole". They would all merge together in a Unified Direction of Communistic Living, the only difference is that "The Whole" is bigger.

The thing to remember is "Communism" in the Philisophical meaning and Ideals, and the Reality of Actual countries who claim Communisim are quite different. Communist China and Communist Russia as we know of them aren't exactly what I'd call True Communism since they both include "Facism, Totalitarianism, Dictatorship, etc" to some degree along with some other bits and pieces. Communism itself isn't a System of Government or Rule as it eliminates all class systems, authority rule, and things of that nature. Ideallisticly I would compare it similar to the Star Trek's "Borg". Only without the "Single Queen" as the Ruler. Basically all "Borg" members would be devoted to the Entire Body as a whole on their own accord for the Good of the Whole.



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 11:50 PM
link   
Yes- yes, quango and mOjOm that is exactly right about communism it is a great theory that only works in a utopian system where no greed or desire for power over other individuals exist.

As communism is expressed in the current human context it seems to always lead to a dictatorship in the guise of communism.

We need things like free energy, antii-gravity and other technological advances before man can put aside cultural differences that keeps us in this paradigm of existance where competition is the rule.





top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join