It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
How do you know what I've read? Please tell me what have I read.edit on 16-8-2011 by Rockdisjoint because: (no reason given)
"Socialism" is defined as "any of economic or political theories advocating collective or government ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods."
The other poster mentioned Baldelli, I presume because you quoted the title of one of his works, but without seeming to notice it(!).
Sometimes, those old dead guys actually had some fairly deep ideas, and are worth a genuine read to inform your own viewpoint.
The fact that you don't seem to know any of this points to the idea that your fairly young; younger people often imagine that they are the first person to have such 'original' thoughts.
Originally posted by kro32
I didn't know this source was not credible and had a history of misrepresentation. I will make sure not to use them again.
Thanks for bringing that to my attention.
No it doesn't. The govt has no right whatsoever to restrict freedom of movement.
I'm not a Communist.
How can a govt own land? To be the owner of property you must either trade for it or receive it as a gift. The U.S definitely didn't buy this territory and no one gave this land to it. How did it acquire this land?
It has an inalinable right to restrict freedom of movement into its property, like any other entity has.
lol. Shareholder companies are communist?
Of course there is a third way acquire land, because if there wasnt then noone would be able to own any land - from who will the first settlers of s new land receive or buy it when noone owns it?
When land belongs to noone, you can simply claim it as your own, no need to buy it. What you find and decide to own first is yours. Thats what happened with govt and public US land.
And some of it WAS bought from previous owners.
Also, you are an anarchist, am I right?
If there is no government, then of course, there will be noone to enforce these things and all this becomes pointless. Actually maybe not, since government can transform to voluntary citizen shareholder corporation tasked with the same thing - protecting borders. Then you would be OK with it?
This is particularly important in democratic governments, where an intruder can shift government into his favour by nothing more but immigrating, procreating and voting. It is a form of silent colonization.
Sure, as long as it voluntary.
You Just dont want the goverment to do it, only because of taxation, but corporation doing the same thing would be OK. So its not what is done, but who does it?
Thats all I wanted to point out.
check your gas pipes, i think you have a leak.
getreadyalready gave a great post and you responded with this?
It makes absolutely no sense when people say the government is needed to protect private property.
Under goverment, everyones private property is protected (except for taxation, which is spread among everybody).
Without government there would be no taxation, but only private property of those who can afford to pay for protection services will be protected. And there is nothing preventing the largest protection company from defeating the competition and establishing monopoly for protection - government in fact.
Thats why anarchy never worked for long, its inherently unstable. If it was reallt superior then it will appear at least once in history, and once it appears it will outcompete other systems of establishment, or at least work in a large part of developed world now. The fact that it failed everytime in competition with other systems speaks volumes about its feasibility.
Both working anarchy and working communism are impossible utopias.
There should at least be a private option though. And to say that everyones property under a government is protected is a lie. Here where I live in D.C they don't protect our property the way they protect the peoples property in Virginia and other places around here.
There is no such thing as a monopoly without a government. Government grants the monopolies here, not the market. As for people not being able to afford it, they could still own guns and there will always be competitors to offer lower prices.
The same thing could be said about state systems though, how many states have fallen over the years? Just look at Africa, all those countries have governments and they are all poor and starving most of the time. If a state system is always better, how do you explain that?
I agree anarchism and communism could never work, but I'm really not an anarchist according to anarchist and I'm definitely not a communist.
There is private option, private security companies are allowed.
Of course it is possible to create a monopoly without the government, thats how anarchy turns into a government. Or you dont have a monopoly, and protection companies will fight one another with guns (since there is noone to stop them, unlike now) - thats what happens in Somalia now.
State systems: both very successfull countries and poor countries Anarchy: only poor countries And generally the more anarchy there is (less state), the more poor and unstable country is. Yup, its better.
There are two types of anarchism - anarchosocialism, which is IMHO a contradictio in terms and wont work in reality, and anarchocapitalism, which is what you seem to advocate, and which could work for a short time but is inherently unstable.