Socialism Without Guns Is Impossible

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Cool but why single out socialism if all -isms are enforced?

Even an anarchist needs to fight to defend his rights and this could also involve violence be it a gun or some other weapon.

So even anarchy may be impossible without guns.

Pure capitalism is anarchy.

Anyone that says differently is not using the proper definition of capitalism.

Anarcho-capitalism is not an oxymoron.

Anarcho-capitalism = free market capitalism, which is the only real definition of capitalism.

Capitalism is nothing more that two people engaging in a voluntary trade of resources.

That's it.

Capitalism came about as a definition to denote the use of a medium to facilitate trade, such as gold. Thus it is no longer a pure barter system, but a capitalist system using "capital" as a store of value and resources.


[edit on 13-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Cool but why single out socialism if all -isms are enforced?

Even an anarchist needs to fight to defend his rights and this could also involve violence be it a gun or some other weapon.

So even anarchy may be impossible without guns.

Pure capitalism is anarchy.

Anyone that says differently is not using the proper definition of capitalism.

Anarcho-capitalism is not an oxymoron.

Anarcho-capitalism = free market capitalism, which is the only real definition of capitalism.

Capitalism is nothing more that two people engaging in a voluntary trade of resources.

That's it.

Capitalism came about as a definition to denote the use of a medium to facilitate trade, such as gold. Thus it is no longer a pure barter system, but a capitalist system using "capital" as a store of value and resources.

You still didn't answer my question as to why single out socialism?

Also I never said anyhting about what capitalism is or isn't. I just said that you may need a gun or at least use violence if someone tries to force you into another type of system or that you may need a gun if you plan on defending your rights from another individual.

No offense, but...


No shirt, sherlock.

reply to post by AwakeinNM


Is that aimed at me?

reply to post by daskakik


I would single out fascism, but its apparent that our country is currently imploding from that so it should be pretty much self-explanatory what happens in a fascist system.

In a capitalist system, guns are used for good.

They aren't used on the innocent.

Capitalism is the only system where guns are used only in defense of property, not to take it.


[edit on 13-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

If I were to create a social state, it would include an opt out clause. Ironically, socialism or capitalism in good hands of government could work for the benefit of the people. However, government is innately power hungry and corrupt. The only way to remove corruption of government is to put them on a social system that has no greater benefit than the people.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by dbloch7986

 

Sounds more like communication than government. The two arent synonymous.

2. to exercise a directing or restraining influence over; guide the decision.

Dictionary

Who's going to manage the water supply? Whose going to make sure everyone gets taken care of? Who's going to direct communication between continents? Who decides if a drug is safe to administer? Who tracks down serial killers? Who mediates two arguements between two people? Who makes sure that when you piss someone off they dont bomb you and your wife and children? Who makes sure that your son with autism doesnt get shunned or shot by the rest of town?

The minute you employ anyone to do any of those things you have a government.

[edit on 7/13/2010 by dbloch7986]

[edit on 7/13/2010 by dbloch7986]

reply to post by mnemeth1


My point is why single any one system out when in reality any of them are impossible without guns.

Even if it were true that guns are used only for good under capitalism thay are still needed therefore nullifying your OP.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

My point is why single any one system out when in reality any of them are impossible without guns.

Even if it were true that guns are used only for good under capitalism thay are still needed therefore nullifying your OP.

I'm sorry my title didn't read:

"Socialism is impossible without the use of guns against innocent people"

But there is a length limit.

Of course, guns can be used for good or for evil like any tool.

I'm simply pointing out that socialism requires the use of guns for evil purposes, while capitalism does not.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

So you think scientific advancement, running water, and sanitation could not exist without government?

Yee of little faith.

I have more faith in my fellow countrymen than to suppose government extracting money from the innocent at gun point is the only way those things can come about.

They would not exist without someone to manage them. That is governance. Governance requires a government.

Like it or not government employees, low and high level, voted for or appointed, ARE your countrymen.

[edit on 7/13/2010 by dbloch7986]

Originally posted by mnemeth1
I'm simply pointing out that socialism requires the use of guns for evil purposes, while capitalism does not.

That's not necesarilly true. In ExPostFactoland you would be given the opportunity to opt out so he would not need to use guns on the innocent.

Originally posted by dbloch7986

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by dbloch7986

 

Sounds more like communication than government. The two arent synonymous.

[Ex]2. to exercise a directing or restraining influence over; guide the decision.

Dictionary

Who's going to manage the water supply?

I do. My well is clean and I plan to keep it that way. If it dries I'll dig another.

Whose going to make sure everyone gets taken care of?

What? It's your responsibility to take care of yourself. Keep it in the family.

Who's going to direct communication between continents?

Really I dont care one iota about this one.

Who decides if a drug is safe to administer?

Did you see what happened to Steve when he took that pill? Better not take that pill.

Like the FDA is doing such a cracker-jack job? All the FDA is is a get out jail for a fee card to these companies. Rather than poison a bunch of people and go out of business for their bad medicine they can poison entire generations and as long as they pay their FDA fine they get free reign to keep their billions and do it again. The FDA is the worst mass-murder enabler since ivy league universities during WWII.

Who tracks down serial killers?

Take care of yourself. If more people took absolute personal responsibility for their safety and well being instead of expecting somebody else to do it or expecting no harm to come to them at all we wouldnt see serial killers. We'd see a jackass attack somebody and get his face blown off.

Who mediates two arguements between two people? Who makes sure that when you piss someone off they dont bomb you and your wife and children?

Nobody does those things now. Name one murder or assault prevented by a restraining order.

Who makes sure that your son with autism doesnt get shunned or shot by the rest of town?

You do.

The minute you employ anyone to do any of those things you have a government.

I dont think giving Steve a bushel of potatoes and a chicken to help me drill a well creates a government.

[edit on 7/13/2010 by dbloch7986]

I believe in a balance between socialism amd capitalism. Capitalism requires making a profit. There are some basic needs that we all have that should not be taken advantage of by for profit corporations: food, water, air, medical care, transportation, criminal rehabilitation and shelter and maybe some stuff I missed. If we were just socialist enough to satisfy our basic needs then we would be able to get all the amenities on a capitalist market.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Okay so we'll never agree. Have to agree to disagree on this one. You want to pump your own water and die at age 30 of dysentery. I want to travel the world and fly into space one day. Totally different ambitions i suppose. I'm a fan of modern day amenities like bath tubs and ambulances and sewer systems.

reply to post by dbloch7986


It is impossible to do both.

Socialism always fails, as we are finding out with our medical system.

Right now we have a fascist system of medical care, where government uses brutal violence to extract money from innocent people then hands that money to private corporations.

This leads to massive price inflation, ultimately leading to a breakdown of the medical system.

In a socialist system, there are no prices for services and a system of prices can not be determined on its own. The State has no idea what it should pay doctors, what it should pay for hospital equipment, or anything else. The only way it can tell what it should pay doctors is by looking at capitalist countries and basing its pay scales off of that, or else the doctors would leave or quit working. Of course, they might pay the doctors too much as well.

Since there are no prices, you inevitably get bloat and inefficiency. This can only be corrected by rationing care in a socialist system.

Socialist systems can never provide adequate care for everyone because since everything is "free" it will be over-used. Without prices to adjust the amount of care to the amount of users in a supply/demand function, the care will never be at the correct supply/demand level.

reply to post by mnemeth1


It is possible to do both. It just requires proper fiscal management. It requires a government who's employees live on the same terms as its citizens and are not elitist. It requires certain industries to operate as non profit and it requires humans to have compassion for their fellow humans. Something that tptb has effectively conditioned us to not feel.

From my readings, I think there are some forms of Socialism that can be "opt-out". The more anarchist strains, left libertarianism, non-state socialism and similar ideas.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Whether or not these would work in practice (at least on a large scale, there have been various small experiments, both successes and failures), I don't know, but there are at least these versions to look at when considering Socialist ideas.

Even Marx communism had the goal of the state "withering away"

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by harpsounds


Yeah, I have no objection to voluntary socialism, such as communes, nunneries, and even family units.

My great objection with socialism is that this is never enough for them.

They want everyones wealth, not just what they produce in their communes.

For example, if a State has a massive social welfare program, inevitably they will have to raise taxes to pay for it.

This drives all the industry out of their state to a near by state ON TOP of all the degenerates flooding into the socialist state for the free goodies.

So its a double strain on the system, eventually leading to economic collapse.

So what do they do? They want federal regulations so there is no where for people to run to.

Violence all over the place constantly.

[edit on 13-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by mnemeth1


You mentioning Communes just made me remember my Father.

He used to live on a Kibbutz in Israel for a while. He said at first it worked well, but later on, they had problems, because some people wanted to keep a little more of the income than their "fair share" because they felt they'd done more work. People started accumulating private property and wealth again, although slowly and fairly minor at first. The final straw for my father came when they gave up some of the farming income in favor of manufacturing munitions for the Israeli state. So he went from the hippy dream of living free on the land, right through to the horror of supporting wars he didn't agree with directly!

reply to post by harpsounds


Yeah more power to your Father.

He sounds like a good man.