It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Socialism Fails

page: 5
12
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by SugarCube
 





Back-pedalling would imply that I have recanted a previous statement or opinion.


Backpedal defined:


3. To retreat or withdraw from a position or attitude:


This is mostly what you have done in this thread, and just using the last post you replied to me with, you withdrew from your position here:




I didn't say that I don't take inalienable rights seriously, I simply stated that they require definition and even then, are not 'inalienable' per se but simply an idealistic acme that we may strive to implement. Simply have the 'right to life' doesn't stop somebody from shooting you.


And in your retreat you are still showing how not seriously you take them. This is your insidious little game, to backpedal by insisting that "you didn't say" that you don't take inalienable rights seriously, and of course you never say you do take them seriously either. Instead what you say is that you "simply stated they require definition and even then, are not "inalienable" per se...." Who do you think you're kidding? You have well established you have no clue what the Constitution for the United States of America has to say on the matter, and that you have no regard for the Bill of Rights, but let it be stated here, for the purpose of clarity, that when you say that "inalienable rights per se" require definition, the 9th Amendment say's you are wrong.


The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


~9th Amendment~

How ironic that you keep insisting it is I who is obtuse, and insisting I am because I reject your arguments as valid. You engage in self congratulation pretending I "fail to grasp" your collectivist ideology, and of course, you will protest and claim you are not a collectivist, then turn around and argue that rights must be agreed upon by a consensus. You assert, retreat, and while you are retreating continue to assert your collectivist ideology, and then when you believe your opponent is in retreat, you attack, but all the while you remain a collectivist.

You make the claim that:




There are plenty of people who perform the actions of killing, forcing sexual intercourse and taking other people's possessions all the time without necessarily thinking that they are doing something wrong.


But when this is challenged and refuted, you backpedal and suddenly claim that you were arguing:




You really want me to prove that there are people who kill others without thinking that it is wrong? Really? I mean, really? Such offenders may fear getting caught and recognise that they are unlawful, but that does not mean that they see their actions as 'wrong'. Do you think that every soldier who has killed a person in battle think that they were doing 'wrong'? I think that you'd be surprised at the number of soldiers who have no problem with killing the 'enemy'. Remorse is conditioned by society, not by the act itself. That conditioning manifests differently when contained within society but the actual act is no different.


You pretend that when you lumped killing in with forced sexual intercourse, and taking others possessions, that you weren't talking about murder "per se", and do your little backpedal game where you now hope to frame killing in the soldiers field. You can blather all you want about how "society" needs to be protected, and the rights of the individual need to be balanced with the state, as if the state is not the people, but is something more, something that has the authority to declare what is and what isn't a right, but it will not make a whit of difference to those who understand that law is self evident, and needs no explanation, and you can call such an understanding obtuse all you want, it will not change a thing.

You can puff and pout and call your detractors vitriolic, as if you are being obsequious, but in truth you are not even being that, and while you may believe that your own vitriol to be a tamer more civilized form of vitriol, it is still vitriol. You are a collectivist, and your Fabianistic tactics will not work on individuals who are unimpressed with your rhetoric. You are too obvious to lead the opposition, and your detractors will recognize you coming from a mile off. You are an advocate, the same as I, the difference is where I advocate freedom, you advocate subservience to the state. Protest all you want and assert you never said such a thing, because what is certain is that you will never be caught saying that all people have inalienable rights, and that governments have no legal authority to abrogate and derogate the rights of people. You just will never be caught saying this.

You will never be caught saying that all people everywhere have inalienable rights because this is not what you want. You understand that inalienable rights are a threat to your silly Zeitgeist Movement and so you will continue to argue against the efficacy of inalienable rights, but when it comes to inalienable rights, it just doesn't matter what you want, and no one needs your agreement in order to enjoy their rights, nor do they need a consensus on those rights, all they need is the wherewithal to enjoy their rights. Those who buy into your insidious rhetoric will surrender their rights in exchange for the hope your Utopian ideals of "co-operation" will actually materialize, and those who recognize they have inalienable rights will never buy into your crap.

In this battle for ideas, in this war of information, that you are losing this war is evident in your willingness to dismiss this site as merely a "discussion board". I have seen it before when people are losing their ground, as soon as they recognize this loss, they declare the ground they've lost as not valuable enough to win, and yet, you will continue to fight, hoping against all hopes that your opposition will somehow retreat, somehow make a mistake that you might effectively gain some ground you pretend has no value. You cannot win this war, for as surely as therr are people, there will always be people who recognize what is self evident, and need no approval in order to know that what is self evident is self evident, and for those people, those who are we, we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all people are created equal under the law, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

[edit on 13-7-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]




posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by spacekc929
 



In your hypothetical all classmates organize a study group solely for the purpose of maintaining a good grade for the class. However, study groups are usually available for students who find a class difficult, and there are usually students who understand the class that make themselves available to students who don't. This is not a hypothetical I am presenting but reality. Study groups do exist, and there are students who do well who help students who do not. However, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink. Your hypothetical assumes everyone would show up and make the necessary effort to do well in order to gain a collective good grade. In reality, this will not happen, and some students just will not make the effort. Those students will bring the collective grade down.




And that, my friend, is my entire point. The weaker students wouldn't accept help from the stronger students, failing to accept responsibility and do something that, although is not strictly beneficial to them because they obviously don't want to study, would help their entire class. HUMANS are selfish and greedy and won't help each other out, even though they have the capabilities to do so. The point is that no one is accepting responsibility, when they CAN, because I know I can. If I was struggling in a class and it was bringing everyone down, I would be working my butt off to understand and help raise my grade, not for my own benefit, but for the benefit of the group. I KNOW other people can do this too, but they choose not to. It's not a problem with the concept of socialism, but rather, the responsibility people do not take, when it is clearly possible for them to take it.

And thanks for being overly condescending. I know study groups exist, thank you very much. I go to college. But it's quite clear that in the hypothetical situation presented by the OP, none of them are studying.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnJasper

And this is where I add my plug for the ZeitGeist Movement. Something different!!!



Definitely gonna need to read up more on Zeitgeist.

But how do you get the average human to think NEW? I'd say about 80% of humans are sheep. That includes the ones who argue from emotion - rather then progressive intelligent logic.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by spacekc929
 





HUMANS are selfish and greedy and won't help each other out, even though they have the capabilities to do so.


I have all ready demonstrated that HUMANS do help each other out, but like a broken record you will keep insisting they do not, and the more you do, the more likely it becomes that YOU will not help others out. Why else would you keep insisting that HUMANS will not help each other? Like attracts like, and if you are helping others, then you are fully aware of others who help as well. You insist otherwise, so what else is there to believe about you other than you refuse to help other people out? If you do not want to help others out, you do not have to. This is wholly your choice.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


This is getting tedious now...



You continue with personal attacks without ever addressing the real issues which in turn should be framed within the context of this thread topic. I have humoured you and shall do so again, purely because I hate to see so much nonsensical vomited spewed forth. However, I apologise to other readers in responding to these rants since it must make this thread painful to trawl through.

I have not withdrawn from my ascertain that 'inalienable rights' do not exist per se since they subjective. If I asked you to list my 'inalienable rights' I could probably add a couple more which I perceive as missing, as could anybody, which would mean that we have a differing opinion on what those rights are, ergo, they are subjective. They are concepts, aspirations, they are not technically supported within 'society' unless enshrined within law.

Take the 'right to life' - no doubt at the top of the 'inalienable list'. Imagine now that there was no 'law' that defined murder in any degree... You could be killed by another but that that act could not be construed as illegal as such. The perception of your right to life has no definable context or application in that scenario. It has no reality except in your own judgement of the value of your own life.

The 9th Amendment is recognition of the fact that rights are difficult to enumerate since they are subjective. There, each case has to be taken on its own merits. If 'inalienable rights' were 'self-evident' then there would be no need for a 9th Amendment.

You entirely miss the point that unless your 'rights' are recognised by another, then they have no meaning, they have no applicability in the defence of your actions should those actions be questioned. Time and time again I have stated that I do not 'idolise' a 'collective ideology', I simply accept that society exists whether I like it or not. Look out of the window... it exists.

You take me to task over my incredulity that you require I provide proof of people that kill without considering it 'wrong'. What is 'wrong' exactly, what is the definition? You may as well ask that I provide proof that other people eat or that they drink... it is a nonsense request.

Law never has and never will be self-evident... that is why it has to be enshrined as law. Otherwise, who is to say what is prohibited or permitted? Just because you say it is self-evident? What if you say that being a Christian is illegal? Am I to accept that to, just because to say that murder is illegal? What is murder anyway? How is it defined. In your version of the world it is 'self evident' but that is entirely subjective...

You are simply spouting nonsense and managing to embarrass yourself with the consistent use of insults.

"My" Zeitgeist Movement? How is it my Zeitgeist Movement. The first I'd heard of it was when a link was put on this thread and I had the courtesy to read it and respond to the poster. There is a hint of paranoia manifesting in your ramblings.

Of course I'll not say that people have 'inalienable rights' because unless they are enshrined in national and international laws then they mean nothing.


In this battle for ideas, in this war of information, that you are losing this war is evident in your willingness to dismiss this site as merely a "discussion board"
I thank you for that. You have proven your own point. This is not about winning or losing it is about exchanging ideas and being willing to accept evidence that is contrary to your own point of view. Your 'evidence' has been non-existent and your point of view extremely muddled. Perhaps you'd like to accuse me of killing small animals, or beating some old ladies?

Just so that you know, I will continue to respond to your nonsense for the simple reason that you amuse me. Your anger is palpable with your ineffective posting you demonstrate yourself as the worst kind of authoritarian thought policeman that you accuse others of being. Individualism is paramount to you - as long as everybody is just like YOU.

Well, shame on you. Shame. The worst thing is, you can't even see the spectacle you are making of yourself.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by SugarCube
 



I have not withdrawn from my ascertain that 'inalienable rights' do not exist per se since they subjective.


If you watched the Tom Woods video, he demonstrates that they are not subjective.

They are objective and can be demonstrated physically.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by SugarCube
reply to post by JohnJasper
 


Thanks for that link concerning the ZeitGeist Movement. I think that it is worth reproducing their stated goal here:


Reproduced from www.thezeitgeistmovement.com...

We intend to restore the fundamental necessities and environmental awareness of the species through the advocation of the most current understandings of who and what we truly are, coupled with how science, nature and technology (rather than religion, politics and money) hold the keys to our personal growth, not only as individual human beings, but as a civilization, both structurally and spiritually. The central insights of this awareness is the recognition of the Emergent and Symbiotic elements of natural law and how aligning with these understandings as the bedrock of our personal and social institutions, life on earth can and will flourish into a system which will continuously grow in a positive way, where negative social consequences, such as social stratification, war, biases, elitism and criminal activity will be constantly reduced and, idealistically, eventually become nonexistent within the spectrum of human behavior itself.


WOW!

Even more reason to take a serious look.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Through the process of argumentation, one can demonstrate the existence of natural rights and define them.

An argument automatically acknowledges that peaceful means for the resolution of conflict exists because violence is not involved.

If one engages in violence, it is no longer an argument.

An argument must be able to convince the entirety of the world (in theory at least) that it is correct, therefore a logical argument can not be limited in favor of a subset of individuals.

If I say this group should have these rights while another group should not, the argument fails this universality test.

Secondly, an argument must not be contradictory in nature. For example, I can not argue that reason does not exist because I am implicitly using reason to argue my point.

From this, the origination of rights in a peaceful society can be derived.

If we say that a right is the free action of an individual, where by it would be immoral to stop an individual from engaging in that action, this argument passes the universality, contradiction and violence tests.

If we say that ownership of property originates in first use, were by the first person to combine his labor with that resource owns that resource, we can say that this argument also passes the universality, contradiction and violence tests.

If we say that an individual has self-ownership, that is, he owns himself and is free to do with himself as he pleases, this passes the universality, contradiction and violence tests.

If we say that a person may not damage or forcibly take the property of another, this to passes the universality, contradiction and violence tests.

This is objective argumentation, not subjective argumentation.

All rights originate in property ownership (ownership of ones own body included), because this is the only definition of rightful ownership that does not conflict with the accepted methods of non-violent argumentation.

Any definition of rights that falls outside of this is either violent, self-contradicting, or non-universal in nature.

Because property under this definition can be physically demonstrated, either by watching the person work the resource or looking at a receipt of purchase, this is the only way property can be defined that allows for the peaceful resolution of conflict.

[edit on 13-7-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by SugarCube
 





This is getting tedious now...


It was getting tedious several post back, try to keep up.

Your disingenuous apologies to all are a waste of time, and you only prove my point. You will not stop fighting this battle, and you will continue to believe that you can bore me into surrender or maybe you actually think you can baffle me with your horse manure. You certainly have no ability to dazzle.

You most certainly do withdraw and you have done it again. Where I insist you do not take inalienable rights seriously, first you backpedal and claim you "never said" that, then turn around and place inalienable in quotes along side your favorite phrase "per se", and insist that such rights are subjective, and stupidly argue that if you have an inalienable right to liberty that you can abrogate and derogate the rights of others with impunity. The fact of the matter is that you are free to abrogate and derogate the rights of others, just not with impunity.

This is always the collectivists argument; first that inalienable is "subjective" as opposed to objective, and secondly that rights can trump other rights. Neither is true. Sheesh, talk about obtuse. Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. That ain't subjective thought pal, that is objective thought, and here is what makes it objective; inalienable rights belong to all people. I do not claim any special rights that other people do not have. That is objective, not subjective.

Always it is with the hypothetical situations with you:




Imagine now that there was no 'law' that defined murder in any degree


You have to ask me to imagine this because in the real world no such reality exists. Of course, you believe you have carefully worded it by qualifying degrees to murder, but such degrees are merely a prosecutorial device, and the act of murder, regardless of what degree legislation might say that murder is, is still murder, and this requires no imagination in order to understand.

You hope to diminish the right to life by suggesting that when faced with my own murderer I would subjectively understand my own right to life, but again I tell you that all people have the right to life, and I need no murderer threatening my own life to understand this. Nor do I need any legislation to understand this. It is self evident to all who are not sociopathic, and you most certainly withdrew from the assertion of "plenty" regarding sociopaths. Those who are not damaged in the head are capable of seeing what is self evident. Are you damaged in the head? Is this what prevents you from recognizing that all people have the right to life?




The 9th Amendment is recognition of the fact that rights are difficult to enumerate since they are subjective. There, each case has to be taken on its own merits. If 'inalienable rights' were 'self-evident' then there would be no need for a 9th Amendment.


The 9th Amendment exists as a concession to the Anti-Federalists who were adamantly opposed to the enumeration of any rights, precisely because of people like you, and they existed then, just as the clearly do now. The 9th Amendment makes no mention of the subjectivity of rights, this is your own invention. The 9th Amendment is clear in its language and all it says is that just because certain rights had been enumerated before this Amendment does not mean that rights have been limited to what has been enumerated. Rights are too numerous to enumerate. The Founders were compelled to enumerate the rights they did, not as a grant of right, but as a prohibition on government regarding specific rights, primarily the right to speech, worship of religion of ones own choice, the press, peaceably assemble, petition for a redress of grievances, and of course, the right to keep and bare arms.

Beyond those rights, several more were enumerated to further restrain the government that was ordained by the people from abrogating and derogating the rights of the people. The Bill of Rights is not a grant of rights, they are prohibitions on government. This is why the First Amendment begins with; "Congress shall make no law", and the Second Amendment ends with "...shall not be infringed."




You entirely miss the point that unless your 'rights' are recognised by another, then they have no meaning, they have no applicability in the defence of your actions should those actions be questioned. Time and time again I have stated that I do not 'idolise' a 'collective ideology', I simply accept that society exists whether I like it or not. Look out of the window... it exists.


You entirely miss the point that the vast majority of the rights I do enjoy most people don't even have a clue I am enjoying these rights, and when the government has brazenly trampled upon my rights, it has taken me little time at all in front of a judge to have my rights recognized as rights. The few times I have been arrested, they were for the most ridiculous things, and each time it took less than a half an hour in front of a judge to have the charges brought against me dismissed. The police officers who arrested me certainly had no intentions of recognizing my rights, even when I asserted them, and even the last time I stood before a judge, he too was not interested in recognizing my right, but he was bound, just as the police officers were, by jurisdiction, and where the police officers who stupidly arrested me failed to recognize their gross error, the judge was not so stupid.

It was not my right that had been clearly defined, it was the jurisdiction of government that had been clearly defined. I challenged this jurisdiction and I won, even in the face of skeptics who believed I did not have the right I asserted I did. However, I was under no compunction to prove I had this right, and because I properly challenged the jurisdiction they were compelled to prove they had it. The police officers refused and told me to "tell it to the judge". I did, and when the judge couldn't prove jurisdiction, he not only dismissed the charges, he made those police officers pay the court costs!

This is how objectivity works. The subjectivity lied in the lack of jurisdiction, and the belief that this lack was not present. There was a lack, and it was incumbent upon the party asserting jurisdiction to prove they had it. None existed. Thus, what I asserted to be a right, remains a right, and I needed no enumeration of that right in order to prove it. This is the law, and how the law works specifically, but you aren't much for specifics, are you?




You take me to task over my incredulity that you require I provide proof of people that kill without considering it 'wrong'. What is 'wrong' exactly, what is the definition? You may as well ask that I provide proof that other people eat or that they drink... it is a nonsense request.


I take you to task for failing to prove that there are "plenty" of people who commit crimes without seeing them as a crime. You are backpedaling and now attempting to frame your argument as one of being "killing" without consideration. I am not so sure you were incredulous, but I assure you I am. You made one assertion, and now you are backpedaling, pretending you never made that assertion. I am asking you to prove that there are plenty of sociopaths, and this is not a nonsensical request given your assertion that:




There are plenty of people who perform the actions of killing, forcing sexual intercourse and taking other people's possessions all the time without necessarily thinking that they are doing something wrong.


If the above statement were true these "plenty" of people who commit these crimes wouldn't feel compelled to hide their crimes. Your statement is nonsensical which is why you have now spent several posts backpedaling and attempting to make it appear as if this is not what you stated.




Law never has and never will be self-evident..


Perhaps for you this is actually true, and perhaps you are a sociopath. For those who are not sociopathic, and that would be anywhere from 96 to 99% of the population, law always has, and always will be self-evident.




that is why it has to be enshrined as law. Otherwise, who is to say what is prohibited or permitted?


Here is where you ridiculously miss the point. While there is oddly some truth to your statement, not truth as you mean it, but the questions remains, who is to say what is and what is not permitted? Who are you to say what I am permitted to do? Well, if I harm you for no good reason, then you have every right to say I am not permitted to do so. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or priest class lawyers to figure that one out. No mystical incantation need be enshrined. It is common sense, but since you are so in love with subjectivity, common sense for you is not so common.




Just because you say it is self-evident?


I say gravity is self evident. Is it self evident just because I say it is? What is wrong with you? Are you a sociopath? Are you truly incapable of seeing what is evident? Look, there is a reason that cannibalistic cultures do not survive. Any clue as to why that is? It is self evident!




You are simply spouting nonsense and managing to embarrass yourself with the consistent use of insults.


Uh-huh.





Of course I'll not say that people have 'inalienable rights' because unless they are enshrined in national and international laws then they mean nothing.


Embarrassing myself, am I? Well, I easily predicted that statement, didn't I?

[edit on 13-7-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Marxists have a hard time comprehending rights because they want to own you and everything you do.

In other words, they believe society runs best when guns are used against the innocent.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 





Marxists have a hard time comprehending rights because they want to own you and everything you do.


I do not think it is that they have a hard time comprehending rights, they have a hard time comprehending that their fallacious rhetoric will not work on people who have no intentions of surrendering their rights. They have a hard time comprehending this because there are tragically too many people willing to surrender their rights, and the collectivist will arrogantly come to believe that people have acquiesced to this surrender because of their rhetoric, failing to understand it was nothing more than expedience that brought about acquiescence. Those who have no intention of surrendering rights are not really big fans of expedience.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I like what you're saying mnemeth and you put forward a sound proposition for debate. I can see where you're coming from since this also relates to the concept of 'steady state' where it may be accepted that change can only be inflicted by the action of an external agent.

In this sense, this is akin to the proposition of the 'rights' that you speak of, however, I still maintain that these are aspirations until they are defined, e.g. by the argument that you speak of analogous to the the concept of 'steady state' that I refer to.

Once they have a reference point (i.e. the application of logical propositions and criteria) and a form of conformance, then we may speak of them as rights that may then be enshrined in law, otherwise they are simply conceptual, which is the point I have been making all along.

This is no more than you might expect from a 'scientific' approach, in that observation indicates variables that are used to define a theory that is then clarified and (dis)proved by prediction and experimentation.

We may observe these functions within society starting with conceptual recognition, identifying the consensus of definition amongst variants and onward to arbitration via an encapsulating law.

I am not sure that initial attribute is necessarily definitive though, due to the logical nature of argument without reference to context. That is to say, a common term of reference must be applied in order that argument may be considered at all. In this context, the common term of reference is 'all humans', however that assumes that all humans are equal (not in humanist terms but that we are able to negate variance by attributes). That is a purely logical aspect though, however, since it is important to the proposition, it has to be considered.

As an example, if you ask the question "Are all humans equal" then the entirety of the world would not answer "Yes". Therefore, there has to be some other common term of reference. Again, this is purely from a logical point of viewing when faced with empirical evidence to the contrary. Do you see what I mean?

I'm kind of with you, but need to consider the full implications of what you are saying. A well presented case mnemeth, notwithstanding my reservations!



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by SugarCube
 


I would say it is theoretically possible to convince the world that all humans are equal.

Whether or not you could accomplish this feat is another matter.

It is not theoretically possible to convince the world that some people have more rights than others, because the nature of the argument is automatically exclusive.

It is logical to conclude that you would not be able to convince the group you say should have less rights, that they should indeed have less rights.




[edit on 13-7-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by JohnJasper

And this is where I add my plug for the ZeitGeist Movement. Something different!!!



Definitely gonna need to read up more on Zeitgeist.

But how do you get the average human to think NEW? I'd say about 80% of humans are sheep. That includes the ones who argue from emotion - rather then progressive intelligent logic.



From my layman's point of view propped up by management and communication training over the years, you don't get people to think NEW. People filter every bit of information through their personal experience and it's only when the right combination of events or information come together that enlightenment occurs.

I'm fairly easy because I will listen to any reasonable argument and then follow up to see if the facts support the conclusions. However, once I'm in possession of irrefutable facts, I cannot go back to a previous position despite any number of reasonable arguments to the contrary.

So many people that I know won't listen further to any information once they recognise that it doesn't fit their belief system. Any attempt to break through their defense ends in hostility. So what I've resolved to do is push information unapologetically and then leave it up to the receiver to take it or leave it.

The ZeitGeist Movement's main focus at this time is building awareness of the world situation and the existence of another way. Educating the masses is key to achieving real change and hopefully the hard of thinking will see which way the wind is blowing and join us.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by MysterE
I have never seen a better example...


Thanks for posting this: I can't say that I have ever read it before. Whenever I do read a legend or cautionary tale similar to this, like the Einstein one, I head over to Snopes to see if it has been told before. At Snopes, it is called the Social Grade Averaging, and there are a few variations:


A July 2009 version altered the second and third lines of the item to:

That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "Ok, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan." Social Grade Averaging - Snopes


The earliest version so far, according to Snopes, being from 1994.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnJasper
 


From the libertarian perspective, the Zeitgeist movement should be allowed to flourish in its own domain.

The key is voluntary interaction of individuals.

Say a group of Zeitgeisters pooled their resources and set about creating this Utopian society in an unused part of Montana.

They should be allowed to do this all on their own.

They should be allowed to create the society, harvest the resources, implement their societal codes, and do all things such a society entails.

However, they should NEVER be able to force their view of society on to someone else.

They should NEVER be able to forcibly take land from a pre-existing property owner.

They should NEVER be able to use violence against anyone that hasn't violated the natural rights of someone else.

In a free country, the Zeitgeisters would be able to form their commune and give it whirl.

Of course, we don't live in a free country. Therefore such societal experimentation is impossible.

Government is evil.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Marxists have a hard time comprehending rights because they want to own you and everything you do.

In other words, they believe society runs best when guns are used against the innocent.



You're believing too much of your own propaganda! Please provide a reference for this astonishing bit of nonsense or have the decency to retract it.

Better yet, just correct the statement by replacing "Marxists" with "Capitalist governments" i.e.

"Capitalist governments have a hard time comprehending rights because they want to own you and everything you do.

In other words, they believe society runs best when guns are used against the innocent."

That at least can be backed up by recent footage from G20 summits, the Waco murders, Ruby Ridge,... OK so they didn't actually shoot anybody to my knowledge at the G20 summits but they were armed against peaceful demonstrators and they did beat many of them mercilessly and sexually assault a fair number. At least they didn't shoot any of them.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnJasper
 


A Marxist inherently makes the claim that he owns me.

He owns my body.

He owns my labor.

He owns my land.

He owns my time.

He owns everything about me.

Such claims are intrinsic to Marxism.

There is nothing voluntary about Marxism when it is implemented by a State.

In fact, a Marxist State could not exist without guns.

Marxism without guns is impossible.

At most, peaceful Marxism could exist within a voluntary commune, where people choose to live within the commune and abide by its rules. A State is another matter entirely.

Since individual property ownership is pre-established. The State must use violence against the pre-existing property owners in order to initially orchestrate its violent totalitarian Marxist rule.

Citizens have no means of opting out of the dictatorship. If they refuse to hand over their property, they are typically shot, imprisoned, or starved to death.


[edit on 13-7-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnJasper
 





That at least can be backed up by recent footage from G20 summits, the Waco murders, Ruby Ridge,... OK so they didn't actually shoot anybody to my knowledge at the G20 summits but they were armed against peaceful demonstrators and they did beat many of them mercilessly and sexually assault a fair number. At least they didn't shoot any of them.


Only a Marxist would point to G20 summits, Waco and Ruby Ridge and declare that Capitalist government.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by SugarCube
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


This is getting tedious now...



You continue with personal attacks without ever addressing the real issues which in turn should be framed within the context of this thread topic. I have humoured you and shall do so again, purely because I hate to see so much nonsensical vomited spewed forth. However, I apologise to other readers in responding to these rants since it must make this thread painful to trawl through.


Frankly SugarCube, I'm not sure why you're putting up with this provocateur? At first, I thought you just enjoyed the sport of it but by now you must realize that Zodeaux is just wasting your time either for pay or pleasure. For every intelligent response you provide, Zod just returns with another vile spew of at best irrelevant argument, heavily laden with arrogance and venom, putting words in your mouth and accusing you of actions that Zod himself is actually guilty of.

It was a waste of my time reading his excremental rants and I ceased except where it was necessary to follow your replies.

From this point on, I will disregard anything to do with Zod.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join