NationStates Jolt Archive

How To Pwn a Libertarian
By William Young

1. Bring up any or all of the following facts, events, or concepts:

Marx's subsistence theory of wages.
Competitive equilibrium in Game Theory.
The Stockmarket crash of of 1929 ("Black Thursday")
Keynesian Economics
Feudalism
Critiques of Ayn Rand and Objectivism
Basic Psychology and Sociology
The Industrial Revolution


2. When they say anything you find ridiculously silly, ask, "Are you Liberetarded?"

3. Remind them that China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia want free trade too. And so did Saddam Hussein.

3. When CAFTA creates civil unrest in South America, tell them, "I Libertold-you-so!"

4. When they bring up investment capital and scientific advancement to counter Marxist theories of capitalism's collapse, ask them what they plan to do about:

The threat of nanobots wiping out all life.
Clones being used for war and making DNA evidence useless.
The possibility of a nuclear fusion meltdown.
The potential for AI to be used for fascism.
How to stop illegal or unethical time-travel.

Because some or all of these scientific advancements will eventually be necessary for the economy's continued growth.

5. When they complain about "compulsory education," and "parents having no choice," over it, ask them:

If they have graduated from high school.
What we should do about Islamic Madrasas (extremist, Islamic religious schools).

Afterwards, tell them that you've decided to start a private school which teaches that gays are evil, women are sex slaves that must obey mens' commands, and that God is a gigantic, bearded, white man, wearing sandals and floating in space. And that anyone who does not believe in that God must be tortured and stoned to death or set on fire.

6. Tell them, "David Koresh and the Unabomber were Libertarians too." (That's not true, actually, but boy, would it rattle their chains.)

7. Refer to Libertarianism as "Moderate Anarchism."

8. When they mention that all drugs should be legal, ask them:

If they've ever done drugs or are on them right now.
What caused the Opium Wars. (And put "Opium," in bold and italics, as a subtle hint.)


9. Make fun of "Jessica." Photoshopping the image below is a definite plus.
http://www.lp.org/images/jess.gif
(Is it just me, or is that a psychiatric ward bracelet?)

10. When they mention gun-control:

Refer them to http://www.whoismaryrosh.com/
Ask them what Lott's co-researcher said about their gun research.
Ask them what the studies by the UN and CDC said about gun control, followed by a question about the burden of proof.


11. When they mention open-borders, ask them. "Being that immigration increases the supply of employees, thus decreasing the demand, how will it effect employee wages?"

12. When they bring up privatizing Social Security, ask them:

If we should abide by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948.
Why Argentina's privatizing of social security led to an "economic debacle."
Why financial firms in Britain have had to pay back $24 billion in compensation, for problems with the Social Security privatization. (And who benefitted the most from the privatization, as well as what people think of Maggie Thatcher.)
Why Bolivia's government debts doubled, as a result of privatizing social security.
Why only 10% of Swedes opt out of their Social Security system.
How many low-income retirees in Chile are covered by privatized social security.
How "sucessful," Mexico's economy is, with privatized social security.
If investment capital should be taken into account, when it comes to projecting Social Security into the distant future.


13. When they say marriage should be removed from the law, immediately drop to one knee, take hold of their hand, and say, "Will you civil union me?"

14. When they bring up internet censorship or the benefit of globalization, ask them why Peter Berger, the foremost independent authority on Al-Qaeda, says that Al-Qaeda's terrorism only exists internationally because of the internet (also, see #3 above).

15. When they tout private charities and churches as being better than government welfare, ask them why the I.R.S. lists private charities as a major source for tax-shelters, then ask them if they believe churches should be required to file records (but not pay tax) to the I.R.S.. After that, ask them why they believe several independent organizations, run by unelected wealthy elites, with often narrow goals and little government regulation, would be better than a large, unified form of social welfare, that is controlled by representatives elected by the people.

16. Bring up Kant's "Categorical Imperative," and when they say it's nonsense, tell them that they're very, very bad, bad men (or women).

How To Pwn a Libertarian
By William Young

1. Bring up any or all of the following facts, events, or concepts:

Marx's subsistence theory of wages.
Competitive equilibrium in Game Theory.
The Stockmarket crash of of 1929 ("Black Thursday")
Keynesian Economics
Feudalism
Critiques of Ayn Rand and Objectivism
Basic Psychology and Sociology



Pretty much all of Marx's work is nonsense.

As far as I understand it, Competitive equilibrium and Game theory are seperate concepts which contradict eachother. How do either disprove libertarianism as a legitimate system of government?

No system is perfect. The occasional economic depression under capitalism is better than constant economic blighting under socialism.

Keynes asserted that demand as oppose to supply was the primary factor in economic doings, amongst other things. I don't remember him denouncing libertarianism.

Feudalism was brought about via government intervention (maintaining artificial class by dictating who was a serf and who was a lord). If anything this is an argument against government intervention in society.

You can criticize Rand all you want (I admit her fiction is on the dull side). We can criticize Marx. This isn't an argument against libertarianism. It's like saying "how can you criticize libertarianism? By criticizng libertarianism of course!"

Too vague. How does psychology discredit libertarianism again?


2. When they say anything you find ridiculously silly, ask, "Are you Liberetarded?"


That's communistupid.


3. Remind them that China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia want free trade too. And so did Saddam Hussein.


Yeah, but they wanted authoritarianism too. Bear in mind that the USA and other western powers aren't textbook libertarian either, so free trade isn't always what they want. Even so, certain breeds of libertarianism could dictate that authoritarian nations warrant economic and/or military punishment.


3. When CAFTA creates civil unrest in South America, tell them, "I Libertold-you-so!"


Speculation.


4. When they bring up investment capital and scientific advancement to counter Marxist theories of capitalism's collapse, ask them what they plan to do about:

The threat of nanobots wiping out all life.
Clones being used for war and making DNA evidence useless.
The possibility of a nuclear fusion meltdown.
The potential for AI to be used for fascism.
How to stop illegal or unethical time-travel.

Because some or all of these scientific advancements will eventually be necessary for the economy's continued growth.


Somebody's been watching too much on the Sci-fi channel.

etc., etc.

The name "William Young" sounds familiar...were you on here before?

Did you confuse "Libertarian" with "Objectivist?"

Well I thought it was funny.

all sarcasm aside, there are some interesting questions in there that are worth answering.

Actually, this is my favorite:

7. Refer to Libertarianism as "Moderate Anarchism."

I'm not really sure why that should bother me....

16. Bring up Kant's "Categorical Imperative," and when they say it's nonsense, tell them that they're very, very bad, bad men (or women).

I use The Categorical Imperative all the time in my pro-self-defense/personal armaments debates...

My favorite discussions are those in which extreme libertarians go the "everything and anything should be privatized" route. When they say that fire departments should be privatized, I point out that they used to be. And they would sit back and watch a house that they didn't cover burn to the ground - until it caught a house that they were supposed to be protecting on fire.

Interestingly enough, the Chicago fire started and spread because the various fire houses sat back and watched several houses that weren't paying burn to the ground before trying to save the ones that had been paid for. By then, it was too late.

Pretty much all of Marx's work is nonsense.
No, Marx contributed quite substantially to Economics. His premises and theories have not been ignored, but rather, they've unquestionably been incorporated into modern, economic theory. It's his conclusions and ideals, which have come into question (and almost completely discredited). Not the premises and observations which he used to build his arguments. Class-conflict and the subsistence theory of wages are still regarded as true today, but are modified by what you mentioned of Keynes' theories on investment capital, as well as Psychology, Sociology, and game theory. What he stated is observed as being true, but not his interpretations that class-conflict is bad, that capitalism will inevitably fall, or that Communism can work.

As far as I understand it, Competitive equilibrium and Game theory are seperate concepts which contradict eachother. How do either disprove libertarianism as a legitimate system of government?
No, the idea of a competitive equilibrium comes from Game Theory. Game Theory is a form of advanced mathematics which seeks to create models of cooperative and non-cooperative games. Their research has shown that in most competitions, eventually, there will be one winner, because multiple sides compete with eachother, gaining power until there is a "competitive equilibrium." The conflict seeks to balance itself, with each side gaining resources back and forth, until eventually there is one winner.

That's why we need laws against monopolies. Though, to my knowledge, no Libertarians oppose monopoly laws or anti-trust laws, they do believe in very little regulation on business. The problem with this is that eventually eliminates competition (which, in turn, hinders productivity). Because even though the companies never become single monopolies, due to the rules of the game (the law), eventually, there becomes a "competitive equilibrium," where you have, at the very least, two major companies that are only in competition with eachother until they are just below becoming monopolies.

In other words, every company has the incentive to become the best, but not the only major company in existence. So, smaller companies are easily eliminated, to form less and less companies within a certain field. Eventually, it's eliminated to a handful. That handful competes with one another until it is left to two. Once it's left to two, the major companies will compete with eachother until the top company is just below being a monopoly. After that happens, it will relax its marketing to avoid being split by the government. The other company will then become richer, possibly becoming the #1 company, until it reaches the same point.

So, simply put: Unregulated businesses leads to this equilibrium whereby there are two major corporations that simply take turns being #1. Unless, of course, either or both of them bribe the government to look the other way when they become monopolies.

No system is perfect. The occasional economic depression under capitalism is better than constant economic blighting under socialism.
It depends upon what you mean. According to Keynesianism as well, it wasn't just about investment capital, but also the regulation of business, such as through interest rates. Black Thursday proved that although unregulated economies are the strongest and the fastest growing, they are far too unstable to be socially feasible. Although we'd have the strongest growth in the long term, in the short-term, we'd go through huge peaks of prosperity followed by huge valleys of dire depression. That's why the Federal Reserve regulates interest rates... To make the peaks lower, so that the valleys in turn are also lower. Socialism, overall, does this as well.

So, the question is not whether the government should regulate business at all, but how much. This is the reason why every western government in the world is a mixed economy that is "more or less," Socialist and "more or less," Capitalist. Arguing over the degree of Capitalism and Socialism is a valid dispute, but arguing for pure Capitalism is just like arguing for pure Socialism; ignorant and fanatical.

Keynes asserted that demand as oppose to supply was the primary factor in economic doings, amongst other things. I don't remember him denouncing libertarianism.
He was about saving, and his support for an active fiscal policy is in direct opposition with Libertarianism's irrationally pure Laissez-Faire.

Feudalism was brought about via government intervention (maintaining artificial class by dictating who was a serf and who was a lord). If anything this is an argument against government intervention in society.
There was no "government intervention," but a government based strictly on Rand's "voluntary unions." Everyone would make contractual agreements, tit-for-tat, you vow allegiance to me in war (and possibly convert to my religion), and I'll give you land. Over time, monopolies formed, which in turn became oppressive and brutal.

Oh, and I forgot to add the Industrial Revolution to the list! :)

Anyway, Feudalism proves that pure Laissez-Faire is completely irrational, because corporations eventually become governments in and of themselves. A government is merely a large body that has the ability to exercise political power. There is nothing stopping a corporation from doing that, as it certainly never stopped the Catholic Church, which was even specifically designed to adhere to a set of moral principles. If a wealthy church cannot operate morally, when unrestricted, then there is no reason to believe that a corporation would be any different.

You can criticize Rand all you want (I admit her fiction is on the dull side). We can criticize Marx. This isn't an argument against libertarianism. It's like saying "how can you criticize libertarianism? By criticizng libertarianism of course!"
:confused:

But that's what I'm doing here. Criticizing Libertarianism.

Too vague. How does psychology discredit libertarianism again?
Because, by proving the inherent idiocy of mankind, that eliminates the need for a great deal of responsibility. By showing how easy people can be fooled and manipulated, such as showing that the average human being would've unfortunately followed Hitler (according to the Milgram Shock experiment), then that demonstrates the very basis for why a pseudoanarchy would be outrageously foolish or why we should have no regard for the plight of the needy. The basis for a democracy is that political power should be equal, that it is in the hands of the people, neither a private bureaucracy nor a public bureaucracy. Libertarianism seems to automatically assume that human beings are not rational enough to govern themselves in elected political bodies, and yet we're somehow rational enough to govern ourselves in unelected corporate bodies.

That's communistupid.
Hahaha.

Yeah, but they wanted authoritarianism too. Bear in mind that the USA and other western powers aren't textbook libertarian either, so free trade isn't always what they want. Even so, certain breeds of libertarianism could dictate that authoritarian nations warrant economic and/or military punishment.
And the Neocons don't? I suggest you read their plans for world domination.


Speculation.
We'll see. Other nations have already faced problems with previous free trade agreements. Free trade only works with governments that aren't corrupt. When we traded freely with African countries that mined diamonds, for example, all it did was make African militants richer and African citizens poorer. That's partially why we're in the state we're in now... And also, because "blood diamonds," continue to be smuggled into the U.S. through several European countries.

Somebody's been watching too much on the Sci-fi channel.
Not at all. They're working on building a fusion reactor called ITER, in France. Greenpeace has opposed it because of the dangers. The theoretical dangers of nanobots has been discussed at great length. Time travel is also currently considered a highly-feasible possibility, but we can only go back to the point in time when the machine was first created. This is according to the more recent theories on time-travel based upon "twisted space-time," around spinning cylinders or black holes, not the traditional and impossible speculations about space-time regarding attempting to break the speed of light. So, we simply need to have highly-advanced propulsion systems. The rest of the physics are sound.

Dr. Ronald Mallett attempted to build a time machine, by building a time machine with a spinning cylinder of lasers. His equations were later debunked and were proven to be true, but they wouldn't create the reaction he'd hoped for. But they were a step in the right direction. As for AI, AI is possible, but maybe not the "strong AI," such as in the movies, the Matrix or the Terminator. However, "weak AI," could mimic strong AI in a number of respects. Both AI and cloning could be used for a great deal of immoral means (which is one main reason why cloning research has been banned).

And if you don't believe we'll ever develop these technologies, you need to explain what other technologies will support capitalism. Because the only thing preventing capitalism's collapse is scientific advancement. The very basis for proving Marx and Hubbert's oil peak wrong are that we will develop new, virtually permanently renewable sources of energy, aside from fossil fuels, and that the cost-effectiveness of production remains stable (or even better), as a result of science. Therefore, the above scientific breakthroughs will be economically essential for the future.

All you have done is find ways to aggravate a Libertarian.

YOu offer no good ideas of your own, you offer no alternative.

All you are doing is tearing down someone else's ideas.

THat's easy.

Anyone can tear down ideas. I would like to hear a viable alternative, and THEN i would consider them Pwned. NOt before.

All you have done is find ways to aggravate a Libertarian.

YOu offer no good ideas of your own, you offer no alternative.

All you are doing is tearing down someone else's ideas.

THat's easy.

Anyone can tear down ideas. I would like to hear a viable alternative, and THEN i would consider them Pwned. NOt before.
Hello, Ad-Hominem!

I apologize for not debating two topics (Libertarianism and my own personal alternative) within a single thread. Furthermore, I'm merely demonstrating why the current system is superior to Libertarian initiatives.

Hello, Ad-Hominem!

I apologize for not debating two topics (Libertarianism and my own personal alternative) within a single thread. Furthermore, I'm merely demonstrating why the current system is superior to Libertarian initiatives.


that was no ad hominem. i did not insult you. i simply pointed out the flaws in your post that led me to believe that your instructions for 'pwning' Libertarians did not 'pwn' them at all.

I simply stated a fact that you were only tearing down and not offering any original ideas, and that for ME, personally, unless you come up with something better, you haven't pwned anything.

Im sorry if you took that as a personal attack. I see it as attacking your argument.

Im basically libertarian, but I believe there is such a thing as being libertarian to a fault. Some cases a little gov't regulation, if only temporarily, can help certian issues. Like the highway system, for instance. It would be annoying and chaotic to have 50 million companies building highways everywhere. Also I believe certain measures such as FDIC and closing the market if it falls more than 500 pts on the DOW are all good measures to prevent stock crashes. But I also believe that the gov't should try to regualte business as little as possible, so long as theyre not cheating people, monopolizing the market, or endangering others with their business practices (pollution/faulty products that own people.)

that was no ad hominem. i did not insult you. i simply pointed out the flaws in your post that led me to believe that your instructions for 'pwning' Libertarians did not 'pwn' them at all.

I simply stated a fact that you were only tearing down and not offering any original ideas, and that for ME, personally, unless you come up with something better, you haven't pwned anything.

Im sorry if you took that as a personal attack. I see it as attacking your argument.
An ad-hominem does not need to be an "insult," exactly. But rather, it's an irrelevant attack on the person, that is totally unrelated to the argument at hand (which doesn't need to be insulted, merely an attempt at attacking credibility, with irrelevant statements).

My conclusion is that Libertarian is bad, and (from what I see, anyway) my argument seems to support that.

So, your rebuttal is that I'm just trying to tear something down.. Well, that's the whole purpose of a critique, and it is what I'm doing, but it's also in relation to and support of the current policies.

In other words, you're not attacking my actual argument. You didn't dispute a word I said. But rather, when you were unable to come up with something logical and relevant to say, you attacked my motives.

Which is an ad-hominem.

EDIT: You don't need to prove that the opposite ideology of your argument is "good," or "true," in order to prove the ideology of your argument "bad," and "false."

In other words, you don't need to logically prove that fire is hot, in order to logically prove that ice is cold.

This demonstrates the inconsistency and ignorance of Libertarianism. Dispute that. Not whining about me making the argument because you don't like it.

7. Refer to Libertarianism as "Moderate Anarchism."
Why should that bug me?
I am a libertarian out of practicality and recognition of human flaws.
My ideal system, though it isn’t feasible, would be a sort of anarcho-capitalist society.

An ad-hominem does not need to be an "insult," exactly. But rather, it's an irrelevant attack on the person, that is totally unrelated to the argument at hand (which doesn't need to be insulted, merely an attempt at attacking credibility, with irrelevant statements).

My conclusion is that Libertarian is bad, and (from what I see, anyway) my argument seems to support that.

So, your rebuttal is that I'm just trying to tear something down.. Well, that's the whole purpose of a critique, and it is what I'm doing, but it's also in relation to and support of the current policies.

In other words, you're not attacking my actual argument. You didn't dispute a word I said. But rather, when you were unable to come up with something logical and relevant to say, you attacked my motives.

Which is an ad-hominem.

i did NOT attack your motives, which i cannot attest to. i attacked your method. i did not tear down your character or your credibility.

not ad hominem.

i did NOT attack your motives. i attacked your method. not ad hominem.
I tossed an edit in there you might have missed:

You don't need to prove that fire is hot in order to prove that ice is cold.

Likewise, you don't need to prove that another ideology apart from Libertarianism is true and good, in order to prove that Libertarianism false and bad.

To the OP. You sound like a school yard bully. Get lost.

EDIT: You don't need to prove that the opposite ideology of your argument is "good," or "true," in order to prove the ideology of your argument "bad," and "false."

In other words, you don't need to logically prove that fire is hot, in order to logically prove that ice is cold.

This demonstrates the inconsistency and ignorance of Libertarianism. Dispute that. Not whining about me making the argument because you don't like it.


please show me where i was whining because i don't like your idea. I actually think many of your questions are valid. I am NOT a libertarian. I only took issue with the term 'Pwned".

Asking questions is NOT making a point. it is trying to make someone else make your point for you. Now, had you put the ANSWERS to those questions i would have really enjoyed the thread and agreed that you 'pwned' them.

To the OP. You sound like a school yard bully. Get lost.
I don't know what an OP is. But in any case, if you're talking about me... Criticizing a political ideology is far from stealing lunchmoney or giving wedgies and noogies.

please show me where i was whining because i don't like your idea. I actually think many of your questions are valid. I am NOT a libertarian. I only took issue with the term 'Pwned".

Asking questions is NOT making a point. it is trying to make someone else make your point for you. Now, had you put the ANSWERS to those questions i would have really enjoyed the thread and agreed that you 'pwned' them.
Then ask about the points I'd cited. The purpose of this was to layout a general reference guide, for those who are already fairly knowledgeable or can find information on these topics rather easily... Or for Libertarians to dispute them.

Someone already has disputed them, and in the first page of this thread, I clarified a lot more.

And I'll say it again:
You don't need to prove fire is hot, to prove that ice is cold.

It's poignantly obvious that I was trying to criticize Libertarianism. So, attacking me for making criticism is an ad-hominem. Because you aren't attacking the argument. You're attacking me.

An OP is an original poster, and yes, there is nothing wrong with disagreeing with a political view point,hell, I agree with alot you said, but "Pwning" one? Liberetarded? That's a very mature way to go about your argument.

Half your post is half good argument, and the other half is "LOOK AT THE BIG SILLY HEADS!"

An OP is an original poster, and yes, there is nothing wrong with disagreeing with a political view point,hell, I agree with alot you said, but "Pwning" one? Liberetarded? That's a very mature way to go about your argument.

Half your post is half good argument, and the other half is "LOOK AT THE BIG SILLY HEADS!"
As it should be.

"A joke is a very serious thing."
-Winston Churchill

As it should be.

"A joke is a very serious thing."
-Winston Churchill

Ok, I would say something in response, but that was a hell of a come-back.

I'd have a kick-ass response, and bring up all sorts of my own little bits of stuff, but I'm too lazy. So, I'll just take the short and easy way and say I disagree wholeheartedly on some of the stuff you said. Espescially your nations name. Chomsky irks me.

11. When they mention open-borders, ask them. "Being that immigration increases the supply of employees, thus decreasing the demand, how will it effect employee wages?"

And if they know their shit, they'll reply that there's a higher rate of entrepreneurship among immigrants than native-born Americans.

And if they know their shit, they'll reply that there's a higher rate of entrepreneurship among immigrants than native-born Americans.
And there's also a substantially higher rate of failure for businesses started by minorities. Not sure about the success rate of immigrants vs. non-immigrants, though.

Also, you should mention that immigrants tend to get better grades in school.

On the other hand, however, I don't believe accepting immigrants from poor countries, such as Mexico, will solve the problem. It only makes it worse, because those countries have less citizens to generate revenues.

On the other hand, however, I don't believe accepting immigrants from poor countries, such as Mexico, will solve the problem. It only makes it worse, because those countries have less citizens to generate revenues.


Untrue. Most mexican laborers around here send money home. That's why most of them are here. To support their extended families back home.

So making your point for you against Libertarianism, allowing illegal immigrants in to take american jobs creates capital flight.

How To Pwn a Libertarian
By William Young

1. Bring up any or all of the following facts, events, or concepts:

Marx's subsistence theory of wages.
Competitive equilibrium in Game Theory.
The Stockmarket crash of of 1929 ("Black Thursday")
Keynesian Economics
Feudalism
Critiques of Ayn Rand and Objectivism
Basic Psychology and Sociology
The Industrial Revolution


Marx was insane, yet his societal ideals were interesting. If men were angels, then Marx would be a saint. Since we aren't, then democracy is the way to go.

I fail to see the revelance of Ayn Rand (she was also interesting but crazy), the IR, Feudalism, etc.

2. When they say anything you find ridiculously silly, ask, "Are you Liberetarded?"

Hmm, this looks like a Troll. In light of this, I'm not gonna feed you any more. Rest assured though, there is at least Libertarian out there disgusted by the severe lack of knowledge demonstrated in this argument.

3. Remind them that China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia want free trade too. And so did Saddam Hussein.
-snip-


I'd like to ask that next time you try to troll a little less.


EDIT: please note that there are nuts on any front, be it left, right, up, down, or sideways. Trying to catagorize all libertarians as flaming loonies is not only absurd, it's counter-productive.

How To Pwn a Libertarian

Whatever your argument is, the title alone is enough to convince me it's not worth reading. If you're looking to "pwn" people in political discourse you're sadly condemning yourself to a history of mindless bitchfests. "IM RIGHT!" "NO IM RIGHT" "WELL I READ MARX!" "WELL I READ SMITH!" followed by bitchslaps as everyone tries to pwn what can't be pwned.

This thread is very shortsighted.

How to PWN a commie?

Bring up the year 1991.

An OP is an original poster, and yes, there is nothing wrong with disagreeing with a political view point,hell, I agree with alot you said, but "Pwning" one? Liberetarded? That's a very mature way to go about your argument.

Half your post is half good argument, and the other half is "LOOK AT THE BIG SILLY HEADS!"


Sounds pretty indictive of what many think libertarians to be. Easily intellectually discredited, plus a bunch of fun silly heads! :D

And there's also a substantially higher rate of failure for businesses started by minorities. Not sure about the success rate of immigrants vs. non-immigrants, though.

Also, you should mention that immigrants tend to get better grades in school.

On the other hand, however, I don't believe accepting immigrants from poor countries, such as Mexico, will solve the problem. It only makes it worse, because those countries have less citizens to generate revenues.

What problem are you referring to?

This thread is very shortsighted.

How to PWN a commie?

Bring up the year 1991.


You've been on these forums enough to know that Russia was no communism. The official socialist-type was modern Stalinism/Leninism. Small-c communists fit an entirely different part of the socialist spectrum, closer to Anarchists or Rosa Luxembourgian communism than anything else. Stalinism is seen as close to Kimism (that horribly oppressive anti-humanistic form of government that only seeks equality in mutual degredation. Communism at least searches for upwards mobility for all parties save the rich.)

Untrue. Most mexican laborers around here send money home. That's why most of them are here. To support their extended families back home.

So making your point for you against Libertarianism, allowing illegal immigrants in to take american jobs creates capital flight.
Money, for what reason?

So that they, too, can eventually leave the country. Supporting tons of immigration, particularly illegal immigration, merely feeds the beast of poverty in foreign countries. A beast that carries over into our country with crime. Such as the El Salvadorian gang, which operates all across the U.S., and has only existed because they are largely composed of illegal immigrants.

Or drug-smuggling. I understand that rests upon the assumption that drugs should remain illegal, but the Libertarian justification for legalizing all drugs is incredibly poor.

Hmm, this looks like a Troll. In light of this, I'm not gonna feed you any more. Rest assured though, there is at least Libertarian out there disgusted by the severe lack of knowledge demonstrated in this argument.

I'd like to ask that next time you try to troll a little less.
This isn't a "Libertarian forum," and Libertarians are a small minority. The intention was the humor of non-Libertarians, being that both Conservatives and Liberals disagree with them. As well as for the Libertarians that are here to debate, instead of having them go, "OMG ur a troll and im 2 lazie 2 respond," as three Libertarians here so far have done.

Whatever your argument is, the title alone is enough to convince me it's not worth reading. If you're looking to "pwn" people in political discourse you're sadly condemning yourself to a history of mindless bitchfests. "IM RIGHT!" "NO IM RIGHT" "WELL I READ MARX!" "WELL I READ SMITH!" followed by bitchslaps as everyone tries to pwn what can't be pwned.
If it's not worth READING, then why is it worth REPLYING TO?

So, you can hear yourself talk? :confused:

But no, believe me. You can be pwned in politics. Like when Canadian citizens gave President Bush the finger, when he was at the airport, which Bush later spoke of, "I'd like to thank the warm welcome I received from Canada... to all those who waved... with all five fingers."

Bill O'Reilly is an asshole, and totally irrational, but he pwns people on his show all the time. Al Franken pwned O'Reilly, though, and his own show too, no less, which is why O'Reilly, to this day, has a major grudge against him.

Oh, Bill Maher does a good job of it too.

This thread is very shortsighted.

How to PWN a commie?

Bring up the year 1991.


How can you be a Homosexual male and be so conservative? Doesn't that mean you're buttfucking the enemy? Wait, I can't accuse you of anything. You're living in LA, corporate whoredom is all you can see on the horizon.

How can you be a Homosexual male and be so conservative? Doesn't that mean you're buttfucking the enemy? Wait, I can't accuse you of anything. You're living in LA, corporate whoredom is all you can see on the horizon.
Haha. You're about to get deleted again, dude. That's a fucked up thing to say.

I actually found this funny (although "pwned" was sensationalist and masturbatory).

The references to Marxism were hillariously naive, though, and the overall critique seemed to be more about old-school objectivism, which the author confused with neolibertarianism.

Nice try, though. (But don't quit your day job.) ;)

Mr. Poster of this thread. You are a giant douchebag.


HAY PEOPLE LIBERALS\REPUBLICANS\LIBERTARIANS R DUM GET IT?!?!

Hardy har mchar fucking har.

How can you be a Homosexual male and be so conservative? Doesn't that mean you're buttfucking the enemy? Wait, I can't accuse you of anything. You're living in LA, corporate whoredom is all you can see on the horizon.
Oh my. I hope you enjoyed your brief stay!

If it's not worth READING, then why is it worth REPLYING TO?

So, you can hear yourself talk? :confused:

Oh, maybe I want to be so surprised when someone "pwns" me by blurting out whatever babble you have in your post at me, that they'll have to inform me when they're pwning. I mean, if I read the post, then I'll know beforehand, and will be able to avoid the pwnage, and that's not fair is it?

But no, believe me. You can be pwned in politics. Like when Canadian citizens gave President Bush the finger, when he was at the airport, which Bush later spoke of, "I'd like to thank the warm welcome I received from Canada... to all those who waved... with all five fingers."

Those are politicians. We are not politicians. And frankly, being popular or not popular doesn't relate to pwnage. Pwnage is about domination, not being crowned Prom Queen.

Bill O'Reilly is an asshole, and totally irrational, but he pwns people on his show all the time. Al Franken pwned O'Reilly, though, and his own show too, no less, which is why O'Reilly, to this day, has a major grudge against him.

They got pwned cuz why? The ratings said so? You think so? I bet not everyone thinks so. That means you're just taking the popular viewpoint or something, as before, thinking if enough people agree, it must be so. Thirty Helens agree, typing on a forum is not pwning someone.

Maybe it wouldn't be a problem if you were more accurate in your titling, like, "How to Give a Libertarian a Bunch of Arguments He's Already Heard Before." Pwnage is immature and lame and as such, I have little but immaturity and lameness to offer you back.

PS I'm not even a libertarian.

Haha. You're about to get deleted again, dude. That's a fucked up thing to say.


It's technically not a flame (no personal attack), and PC is the only thing being violated. It's the truth though. Holding conservative views as a homosexual is like fucking the enemy. I'm a huge equal-rights dude, and for reference, I've got plenty of gay friends. That is why I feel comfortable making a remark like this.

Oh my. I hope you enjoyed your brief stay!


Once again, I'm not going anywhere. No flame do I see.

Chomsky-Wannabe, I've been looking through General, and I can't find your proposed system anywhere. Have the balls to "put it out there", and spare us no detail.

Money, for what reason?

So that they, too, can eventually leave the country. Supporting tons of immigration, particularly illegal immigration, merely feeds the beast of poverty in foreign countries. A beast that carries over into our country with crime. Such as the El Salvadorian gang, which operates all across the U.S., and has only existed because they are largely composed of illegal immigrants.

Or drug-smuggling. I understand that rests upon the assumption that drugs should remain illegal, but the Libertarian justification for legalizing all drugs is incredibly poor.


Money to buy food, clothing, shelter, maybe a toy or two for their kids. It gets spent in Mexico. It adds to the economy of Mexico. Unfortunately, with more immigrants allowed in, it also lowers the pay scale even further, which means they have to send more family members to equal what one could send home before.

THink about it. Mexico isn't an oppressed place. It isn't third world. You can get everything there, pretty much, that you can get here. IF you have money. All Mexico is lacking is an economy. So they siphon off of ours.

Please keep in mind that i am not taking one side or the other, just adding information.

Originally posted by Mesatecala

This thread is very shortsighted.

How to PWN a commie?

Bring up the year 1991.

Why? What happened in 1991 involving communism or any variant thereof?

NOTHING.

The Soviet Union was never socialist, not even in the beginning. A better year to mention would be 1917, when our ideals were warped beyond recognition by some Russian.

You libertarians should mourn the adoption of your economic beliefs by the neo-cons here in America.

Why? What happened in 1991 involving communism or any variant thereof?

NOTHING.

The Soviet Union was never socialist, not even in the beginning. A better year to mention would be 1917, when our ideals were warped beyond recognition by some Russian.

You libertarians should mourn the adoption of your economic beliefs by the neo-cons here in America.
But no TRUE scotsmen are socialsts...

But no TRUE scotsmen are socialsts...


Russia was put into an inevitably bad situation. Had the original revolution taken a different turn, and had Russia been given time to industrialize without inefficient State Capitalism turning industries from pro-people into Military ventures, then Russia could have found itself in a form of communism. What went wrong with Russia?

1. Leninism
2. Two generations removed from feudalism
3. Stalinism & Imperial socialism
4. Just a generally poor bumbfuck country that is doing even worse under a mixed economy right now

I actually found this funny (although "pwned" was sensationalist and masturbatory).

The references to Marxism were hillariously naive, though, and the overall critique seemed to be more about old-school objectivism, which the author confused with neolibertarianism.

Nice try, though. (But don't quit your day job.) ;)
Not exactly. I think people here are just too narrowminded and ignorant. They see "Marx," and automatically think I'm a Communist or Socialist. They see "Ayn Rand," and automatically think I'm only criticizing old-school Objectivism (whatever that is, being that modern Objectivists seem to worship Onion Rind as if she were a Goddess).

A great deal of the policies I criticized were taken directly from LP.org. I actually don't have any problem with Libertarians, and actually consider myself a Liberal-Libertarian (or otherwise, a centrist). Because I have somewhat Conservative economic views, such as believing in a flat tax, and a negative income tax instead of social welfare, as well as supporting privatization of education. And I oppose gun-control, and support limitations on abortions.

That places me slightly to the right of the Democrats. However, on the other hand, I view the LP as being absolute fanatics. And I also support universal healthcare, direct democracy, and otherwise, totally support the Democrats.

Hence, "Liberal-Libertarian."

And if you'd like to know what I mean by narrow-minded and ignorant, take a look:
Mr. Poster of this thread. You are a giant douchebag.


HAY PEOPLE LIBERALS\REPUBLICANS\LIBERTARIANS R DUM GET IT?!?!

Hardy har mchar fucking har.
They see a few snide jokes about their party and they automatically disregard any intellectual content that accompanies it.

Oh, maybe I want to be so surprised when someone "pwns" me by blurting out whatever babble you have in your post at me, that they'll have to inform me when they're pwning. I mean, if I read the post, then I'll know beforehand, and will be able to avoid the pwnage, and that's not fair is it?
"I don't know what your post says. And I don't want to know. Because I've judged the book by its cover, and that's final, and I will continue to speak because I want to."

Those are politicians. We are not politicians. And frankly, being popular or not popular doesn't relate to pwnage. Pwnage is about domination, not being crowned Prom Queen.
I agree, and I was being somewhat facetious. If you'd actually look at the thread, though, there are some "masturbatory," and "sensationalist," comments in there, but there's also a rather elaborate argument that discredits a great deal of Libertarian policies.

It's technically not a flame (no personal attack), and PC is the only thing being violated. It's the truth though. Holding conservative views as a homosexual is like fucking the enemy. I'm a huge equal-rights dude, and for reference, I've got plenty of gay friends. That is why I feel comfortable making a remark like this.
I have black friends.

But I still know that if I made a comment about black conservatives being "traitors to their race," there's a good chance that I'd get deleted.

Being friends with the group you're making offending and insulting comments to or about does not preclude immunity.

Chomsky-Wannabe, I've been looking through General, and I can't find your proposed system anywhere. Have the balls to "put it out there", and spare us no detail.
What "system"?

You mean when I mentioned that Libertarianism is inferior to "the current system"?

I don't believe the American government is perfect or superior to all others, but based upon what I know, both the American and British governments would run much better not following Libertarian policies. The same is true for all other governments, though I'm sure there are some other governments, aside from the UK and US, who do things a bit better than us.

Not exactly. I think people here are just too narrowminded and ignorant. They see "Marx," and automatically think I'm a Communist or Socialist. They see "Ayn Rand," and automatically think I'm only criticizing old-school Objectivism (whatever that is, being that modern Objectivists seem to worship Onion Rind as if she were a Goddess).
I didn't assume a thing. And I agree that, like Marx, much of Rand's work is outdated. Rand often criticized libertarianism as a weak form of her philophy, and rejected libertarianism for most of her life as such.

A great deal of the policies I criticized were taken directly from LP.org. I actually don't have any problem with Libertarians, and actually consider myself a Liberal-Libertarian (or otherwise, a centrist). Because I have somewhat Conservative economic views, such as believing in a flat tax, and a negative income tax instead of social welfare, as well as supporting privatization of education. And I oppose gun-control, and support limitations on abortions.

That places me slightly to the right of the Democrats. However, on the other hand, I view the LP as being absolute fanatics. And I also support universal healthcare, direct democracy, and otherwise, totally support the Democrats.

Hence, "Liberal-Libertarian."
I often post on the LP blog, and am a card-carrying member of the party. I'm often critical (though not so much here) of our more fanatic members, since I'm a relatively moderate member, and feel that the anarchists and purists only serve to further marginalize us from the mainstream political arena. Soak it up though, I save those comments for in-fighting only. ;)

And if you'd like to know what I mean by narrow-minded and ignorant, take a look:
*snip*
Well, you'll get the same response from any political "group" here if you post a similar thread from such a hostile manner. Theres no shortage of ideologues here on NS, but unfortunately there's a definite deficit of humor.

I don't believe the American government is perfect or superior to all others, but based upon what I know, both the American and British governments would run much better not following Libertarian policies. The same is true for all other governments, though I'm sure there are some other governments, aside from the UK and US, who do things a bit better than us.I think you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater here. The LP has it's fair share of naive anarchists, just as the Democrats have their share of commies, and Republicans their "Jesus Freaks".
Political parties will always attract radicals and armchair revolutionaries, regardless of their fundamental principals and ideals.
To find them here on NS, look for political compass scores above 8. ;)

Why? What happened in 1991 involving communism or any variant thereof?

NOTHING.

The Soviet Union was never socialist, not even in the beginning. A better year to mention would be 1917, when our ideals were warped beyond recognition by some Russian.

You libertarians should mourn the adoption of your economic beliefs by the neo-cons here in America.

The Soviet Union was the perfect example of what Communism has to be. Oh, sure, it can work for a while, on a very small scale (like a commune), but observe this little thought experiment:

The proletariat revolution brings their proposal for a new economic system to a wealthy person.

Prolies: "We propose that you share everything you own with us, who have less."

Capitalist: "Um, no, I don't think so."

So, either the system fails, or the prolies go ahead and take it anyway. If the owner resists, he gets killed. If "pure Communists" abhor force, they wind up stymied by whoever doesn't want to go along, which would just about everyone with wealth. If they get pragmatic about it, they discover that the only way to implement their system is to use force. Same goes for any 'planned' economy; you need force to follow the plan. You can harp on results all you like with libertarians like me; my answer is simply that I don't care about the results. Money taken from me under threat of force is stolen, no matter where it goes. Restrictions on my nonthreatening conduct are coercive, no matter how many children one tries to 'protect.' My only desired result is a people free from force, be it public or private. But I digress...

You libertarians should mourn the adoption of your economic beliefs by the neo-cons here in America.
The Democrats should mourn their adoption of neocon economics as well.
Do you really believe the Dems are far-left?

I think you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater here. The LP has it's fair share of naive anarchists, just as the Democrats have their share of commies, and Republicans their "Jesus Freaks".
Political parties will always attract radicals and armchair revolutionaries, regardless of their fundamental principals and ideals.
To find them here on NS, look for political compass scores above 8. ;)
No, but their stated policies are radical. As it stands, even if the LP were a large party, I'd still support democrats.

The only reason I'd support Libertarians is if:
They recognized social equality as important and not impossible (such as supporting a negative income tax).
Only supported legalizing marijuana and possibly other drugs, but not all drugs, as they lead to social and economic problems.
Opposed something as ridiculously unfounded as privatizing social security.
Did not advocate completely open-borders (preferably, strongly opposing illegal immigration)
Supported foreign aid.
Other than that, I agree with the rest of their policies.

But no TRUE scotsmen are socialsts...

Do I really need to explain again why the no-true-scotsman fallacy does not apply to communism?

The Democrats should mourn their adoption of neocon economics as well.
Do you really believe the Dems are far-left?
Democrat = Liberal.
Neocon = Ex-Communist, turned Liberal, turned Neoliberal.

The Dems still strongly support Social Welfare. That's hardly Neoconservative. Their economic policies are becoming more like Classic Conservativism in my opinion: protectionism, support for conventional military weaponry, and extremely strict fiscal policy (zero national debt).

The only reason I'd support Libertarians is if:
They recognized social equality as important and not impossible (such as supporting a negative income tax).
Only supported legalizing marijuana and possibly other drugs, but not all drugs, as they lead to social and economic problems.
Opposed something as ridiculously unfounded as privatizing social security.
Did not advocate completely open-borders (preferably, strongly opposing illegal immigration)
Supported foreign aid.
Other than that, I agree with the rest of their policies.

Many of these topics are heavily debated within the party... ever day.
I disagree you on most of these points, yet I'm more of a compromiser than any of the liberals or conservatives on this board (if you haven't noticed, they only come in two flavors for the most part-- commies and theocrats).

Here's one question I'd really like to hear-- What are the official principals of the Democratic Party? Not statements or ideas held by individuals within the party, but the black-and-white agreed-upon solutions and principals that make them the party of your choosing?
I've never seen a Democrat respond to this question without skirting it.
Enlighten me, please.

Here's one question I'd really like to hear-- What are the official principals of the Democratic Party? Not statements or ideas held by individuals within the party, but the black-and-white agreed-upon solutions and principals that make them the party of your choosing?
I've never seen a Democrat respond to this question without skirting it.
Enlighten me, please.
There are no "black-and-white agreed-upon solutions," in any party, like posted earlier.

With that, I need to say, I'm not a Democrat. I support them, but I don't agree with all of their policies.

You can read their agenda here:
http://www.dnc.org/agenda.html

Remember, we aren't Britain. Unfortunately, our parties don't write manifestos.

There are no "black-and-white agreed-upon solutions," in any party, like posted earlier.

With that, I need to say, I'm not a Democrat. I support them, but I don't agree with all of their policies.

You can read their agenda here:
http://www.dnc.org/agenda.html

Remember, we aren't Britain. Unfortunately, our parties don't write manifestos.
You're wrong. The LP clearly states its principles in black-and-white, which is why it was so easy for you to nitpick and attack them. We do put ours out there, for everyone to read and decide exactly what they agree with or don't.

Have you seen the lame, vague, wishy-washy "agenda" on the Democrat's official site? Let's compare plans to keep America safe and secure:

Democrats are unwavering in our commitment to keep our nation safe. That's why we led the fight to create the Department of Homeland Security and continue to fight to ensure that our ports, nuclear and chemical plants, and other sensitive facilities are secured against attack.

"Democrats support fair immigration reform that keeps our borders secure. Democrats are also united to ensure that the world's most dangerous weapons stay out of the hands of terrorists. We will expand the pace and scope of programs to eliminate and safeguard nuclear materials, enhance efforts to keep these and other deadly materials out of the hands of terrorists, and assist state and local governments in equipping and training those responsible for dealing with the effects of terrorist attacks involving weapons of mass destruction."
--------------------------------------------------
Compare with the Republicans:
President Bush is committed to keeping the nation strong and secure through strengthening our military, deploying a missile defense system, strengthening the NATO alliance and supporting military families and veterans.

Strengthening Our Military

President Bush has increased defense spending by more than one-third – the most in a generation.
President Bush signed into law landmark legislation that better prepares our defense establishment to meet the challenges of the 21st century. A military that was designed for the challenges of the mid-to-late 20th century is being transformed into a lighter, more flexible, more agile, and more lethal force - one better able to deal with new threats to our national security.
Deploying A Missile Defense

The United States will soon deploy a functioning missile defense system to protect Americans from nuclear threats posed by rogue regimes - and will deploy the first land and sea-based system.
The United States is acting with the support and cooperation of Australia, Britain, Japan, and other nations to establish a missile defense capability with support sites on multiple continents.
Strengthening NATO

President Bush has been a leader in transforming NATO to make it effective in the 21st century and the global War on Terror.
The Alliance commands the International Security Assistance Force (consisting of more than 6,000 troops) that is helping secure and rebuild a free Afghanistan. Afghanistan is NATO's first mission outside of Europe.
NATO allies are contributing troops to the coalition in Iraq and NATO leaders have agreed to help train Iraq's new security forces.
Supporting Military Families And Veterans

Since President Bush took office, basic pay for service members has increased by more than 20 percent - and the increase in payments for food and housing combined has reached 50 percent.
The President's budgets have allowed 2.5 million more veterans to enroll for health care; outpatient visits to increase from 44 million to 54 million; the number of prescriptions filled to increase from 98 million to 116 million; and 194 new community-based clinics to open.
Homeland Security

President Bush has nearly tripled homeland security discretionary funding.
More than $18 billion has been awarded to state and local governments to protect the homeland.
The Bush Administration developed a comprehensive National Strategy for Homeland Security, focused on six key areas: intelligence and warning; border and transportation security; domestic counterterrorism; protecting critical infrastructure; defending against catastrophic threats; and emergency preparedness and response.
For the first time, the President has made countering and investigating terrorist activity the number one priority for both law enforcement and intelligence agencies. The Bush Administration has transformed the FBI into an agency whose primary mission is to prevent terrorist attacks and increased its budget by 60 percent.
Continued Progress in Iraq

President Bush has ensured the safety of Americans by taking the fight to the enemy abroad before they have the opportunity to attack the homeland.
Victory in Iraq is vital is central to the Global War on Terror to ensure that those who would harm the United States suffer total defeat.
Sovereignty was restored to the Iraqi people and they held free elections. On June 28, 2004, Iraqis regained control of the governance of their country. Less than seven months later, in January 2005, more than eight million Iraqi men and women voted in elections that were free and fair and took place on time.
---------------------------------

See the difference? Although I don't vote red, it's pretty obvious who has a solid, principled plan and who has emotional, hyperbolic rhetoric here.
This is the reason that the Democrats have become a secondary party.
I don't agree with either party on most issues (I'm somewhere in-between, obviously), but when it comes to clear-cut principles and a definable agenda, the Democrats come in last, behind even the Greens and Libertarian Parties.

This is why they've been losing, and will continue to do so in the future.
America sees them as a collection of opposing special interest groups and naive feel-good tax-n'-spenders.

You can disagree, but it seems to me that the Democrats are currently the most lackluster party for which one could root for.

That is a valid criticism. But on the other hand, it can be viewed two ways: You can compliment the Republicans on being unified and call Democrats wishy-washy. While Howard Dean can call the Republicans, "monolithic," and that the Democrats are intelligent, and independent thinkers.

That is a valid criticism. But on the other hand, it can be viewed two ways: You can compliment the Republicans on being unified and call Democrats wishy-washy. While Howard Dean can call the Republicans, "monolithic," and that the Democrats are intelligent, and independent thinkers.
I don't think you'll hear me complimenting the GOP, nor the Democrats anytime soon. At least not in the general sense.

How can you be a Homosexual male and be so conservative? Doesn't that mean you're buttfucking the enemy? Wait, I can't accuse you of anything. You're living in LA, corporate whoredom is all you can see on the horizon.

That's totally unnecessary. For one, i'm not even conservative.

Well I'll direct that to the moderators, if someone already hasn't. For one, I'm sure the moderators would agree with me this time.

It's technically not a flame (no personal attack), and PC is the only thing being violated. It's the truth though. Holding conservative views as a homosexual is like fucking the enemy. I'm a huge equal-rights dude, and for reference, I've got plenty of gay friends. That is why I feel comfortable making a remark like this.

That's pretty much wrong. Many gay people I know hold libertarian views. I'm not a damn conservative. Please re-read my posts. And yes it was a flame. I don't think you know any gay people really. Nice one on the stereotyping too.

How can you be a Homosexual male and be so conservative? Doesn't that mean you're buttfucking the enemy? Wait, I can't accuse you of anything. You're living in LA, corporate whoredom is all you can see on the horizon.

That's more than enough, sir. You've gone too far.
Mods can be so cruel: Official Warning for Flaming

That's pretty much wrong. Many gay people I know hold libertarian views. I'm not a damn conservative. Please re-read my posts. And yes it was a flame. I don't think you know any gay people really. Nice one on the stereotyping too.
Wow, what an intellectual gimp, eh? By his reasoning, if he has black friends, that should also give him the right to assume he understands what it's like to be black, and thus make all kinds of biased assumptions based on his white perspective of their culture.

Knowing a few gays doesn't qualify you in any way to speak for them, MCBSC. :rolleyes:

I know a few assholes MCBSC, but that doesn't mean I can assume where you're coming from.

State Capitalism
This is one of the most inaccurate and fucked up propaganda terms around. It is an inherent contradiction. If anything, it's just shifting the blame for something bad that is related to the left to the right simply by giving it a new word. Face facts, the USSR was embraced by many western leftists even during the Stalin years. Don't play with words to obscure the truth. It was socialism, and it was fucked up.

This is one of the most inaccurate and fucked up propaganda terms around. It is an inherent contradiction. If anything, it's just shifting the blame for something bad that is related to the left to the right simply by giving it a new word. Face facts, the USSR was embraced by many western leftists even during the Stalin years. Don't play with words to obscure the truth. It was socialism, and it was fucked up.
Face facts? You don't have facts. State capitalism essentially means the nation was run like a coorporation which is an apt description of the Soviet Union. No, it was not embraced by "many leftists" in fact it was embraced by rather few. It was not socialism, it had nothing to do with socialism.

Now I know who all are on my list if a Libertarian paradise ever exists. I can buy the land surrounding them put up no tresspassing signs & starve them to death. Welcome to a world where property rightrs is no. 1

Now I know who all are on my list if a Libertarian paradise ever exists. I can buy the land surrounding them put up no tresspassing signs & starve them to death. Welcome to a world where property rightrs is no. 1
You've outdone Einstein's Train with this thought experiment.
Good Job! :p

It was not socialism, it had nothing to do with socialism.
Isn't that the problem? Socialism is never socialism. Communism has never been communist. What does that tell you in terms of real world application?

Talk about facing facts. :rolleyes:

Isn't that the problem? Socialism is never socialism. Communism has never been communist. What does that tell you in terms of real world application?

Talk about facing facts. :rolleyes:
Try thinking about it instead of regurgitating refuted talking points.

It tells me it has yet to be tried at a global level which is what it calls for. How has this point managed to escape you?

Try thinking about it instead of regurgitating refuted talking points.What makes you think you made a point to begin with?

It tells me it has yet to be tried at a global level which is what it calls for. How has this point managed to escape you?
That sounds cute, really. Just don't hold your breath waiting for the global revolution, okay? :p

You've outdone Einstein's Train with this thought experiment.
Good Job! :p
I aim to please.
Remember whoever gets the bigest circle wins!

I aim to please.
Remember whoever gets the bigest circle wins!
Like playing a giant game of Go!.

What makes you think you made a point to begin with?
I'm sure you think I said I made a point in that post. Speaks volumes about your reading comprehension.

That sounds cute, really. Just don't hold your breath waiting for the global revolution, okay? :p
Awww... Is the silly widdle wibertarian twying to be condescending? It's soooo cute. Libertarians talking about economics ranks right up there with children in police costumes placing someone under arrest. So cheerful in their indulgence of a world of pure fantasy and self importance.

I'm sure you think I said I made a point in that post. Speaks volumes about your reading comprehension.

Awww... Is the silly widdle wibertarian twying to be condescending? It's soooo cute. Libertarians talking about economics ranks right up there with children in police costumes placing someone under arrest. So cheerful in their indulgence of a world of pure fantasy and self importance.
Silly commie, don't blame me for communism's economic crash-n'-burn. :rolleyes:

And when it comes to condescension, Elmer Fudd impersonations take the cake, kid. :rolleyes:

World of pure fantasy? We live in a capitalist world, not a pinko paradise. Didn't you get the memo? You lost. We won. Please, stop clinging to your tattered copy of the Communist Manifesto, and come up with something that works.

Silly commie, don't blame me for communisms economic crash-n'-burn. :rolleyes:

And when it comes to condescension, Elmer Fudd impersonations take the cake, kid. :rolleyes:

World of pure fantasy? We live in a capitalist world, not a pinko paradise. Didn't you get the memo? You lost. We won. Please, stop clinging to your tattered copy of the Communist Manifesto, and come up with something that works.
Awww... Poor widdle wibertarian tinks the USSR was weally communist. Isn't that precious...

Awww... Poor widdle wibertarian tinks the USSR was weally communist. Isn't that precious...
You've reached great depths the likes of which I cannot possibly hope to fathom, much less understand. Accept the victory, it's yours.

Awww... Is the silly widdle wibertarian twying to be condescending? It's soooo cute. Libertarians talking about economics ranks right up there with children in police costumes placing someone under arrest. So cheerful in their indulgence of a world of pure fantasy and self importance.

Wow, police costumes? Placing people under arrest? Sounds a bit like an authoritarian's fantasy self-importance to me. Can we say projection?

And you're criticizing Eichen for being "cheerful"? - yeah, what a fucking drag that is! I hate cheerful people! And liberty!

You've reached great depths the likes of which I cannot possibly hope to fathom, much less understand. Accept the victory, it's yours.
Concession accepted. What can I say, you forced my hand. I normally don't resort to tactics like those but when your entire argument essentially became an attempt to belittle me, I decided all I could do was dismiss your silly ideas with appropriatly patronising post. Maybe one day when libertarians, or more specifically, you, show that they can in fact be reasoned with without resorting to ad hominems we can have this discussion again.

Wow, police costumes? Placing people under arrest? Sounds a bit like an authoritarian's fantasy self-importance to me. Can we say projection?

And you're criticizing Eichen for being "cheerful"? - yeah, what a fucking drag that is! I hate cheerful people! And liberty!
You just don't quit do ya? Tell me, have you actually done any research on Marxism this time that might lend you a clue as to what you were talking about? Last time you made a bunch of wild ass claims about authoritarianism when Marxist theory says the exact opposite. Surely that isn't what you are trying to do again?

Also, and I really do hate to have to spell this out for you, the cheerful comment was directed at the aparant glee with which he maintained his ignorance on Socialism and Communism no matte rhow many times he was told otherwise (corrected by people who actually study the theories instead of just talking about them), much like you actually. In summation it was an allusion to "ignorance is bliss".

Maybe one day when libertarians, or more specifically, you, show that they can in fact be reasoned with without resorting to ad hominems we can have this discussion again.
Perhaps one day, if I am to be so blessed. For our political persuasion techniques are but mere ad hominem, and we've seen that you are obviously above such things.
One day, I do so hope that you will enlighten me with your wealth of knowledge, gathered during your many years spent upon the earth gathering this experience. I'll be waiting...

Perhaps one day, if I am to be so blessed. For our political persuasion techniques are but mere ad hominem, and we've seen that you are obviously above such things.
One day, I do so hope that you will enlighten me with your wealth of knowledge, gathered during your many years spent upon the earth gathering this experience. I'll be waiting...
Okay, see ya then. :)

6. Tell them, "David Koresh and the Unabomber were Libertarians too." (That's not true, actually, but boy, would it rattle their chains.)



That's a good reminder that anyone stupid enough to be a Communist is the sort of person who would lie to himself for practice. :)

U p\/\/|\|3d j0ur53|_f, /\/\4r><b0y! ;)

That's a good reminder that anyone stupid enough to be a Communist is the sort of person who would lie to himself for practice. :)

U p\/\/|\|3d j0ur53|_f, /\/\4r><b0y! ;)
I rest my case.

I was talking to a libertarian about guns and how I thought the current system of registration for automatic weapons was a good balence between the wants of the cidizens and the need for the government to look after public saftey. she said the government shouldn't try to control the arms market in any way and doing so was bad for public saftey and the public should be able to own what ever they feel is apropriate. then I asked if I should be allowed to own a nuke. there was no comment at that time

I was talking to a libertarian about guns and how I thought the current system of registration for automatic weapons was a good balence between the wants of the cidizens and the need for the government to look after public saftey. she said the government shouldn't try to control the arms market in any way and doing so was bad for public saftey and the public should be able to own what ever they feel is apropriate. then I asked if I should be allowed to own a nuke. there was no comment at that time

No answer? That's odd. The last libertarain I spoke with face to face was insisting that surface to air missile launchers be made widely available to the public so as to assure the government could never gain to much control and this would cut off their ability to use force as a means of coercion. Usually they are unabashed about arming the public with all kinds of explosives.

That's a good reminder that anyone stupid enough to be a Communist is the sort of person who would lie to himself for practice. :)

U p\/\/|\|3d j0ur53|_f, /\/\4r><b0y! ;)
I hear ya, that was a pretty bad faux pas. Again, he's equated anarchism with libertarianism (and used a capital L, which denotes only membership in the national Libertarian Party).

To his credit, he was a decent guy to speak with, and he wasn't a commie, either. Just a guy trying to stir up some shit here, which I found entertaining (if not convincing).

Usually they are unabashed about arming the public with all kinds of explosives.

when even the NRA is saying; "hey, don't you think thats a little far?" you know its time to quit

I rest my case.

Quite right. Chomskyrion gave a signed confession that Marxists are incapable of honest debate. :)

You libertarians should mourn the adoption of your economic beliefs by the neo-cons here in America.
Neo-cons are corporatist. That is not libertarian in the slightest.

Quite right. Chomskyrion gave a signed confession that Marxists are incapable of honest debate. :)
First, he can't confess for Marxists because he isn't one.
Second, IT WAS A BLATANT FECKING JOKE. Look up humor some time, a whole new world will open before your eyes.

when even the NRA is saying; "hey, don't you think thats a little far?" you know its time to quit
Of course, when even Democrats are saying "Overthrow our capitalist system, and enforce wealth redistribution?", you know that communism is taking it way too far.

I've never spoken to a libertarian in my life who would consider explosives, nukes or any weapon of mass destruction as protected posessions under the Second Ammendment. :rolleyes:
Those were whackjobs. I've met plenty of them, of all persuasions. They come in commie, liberal, conservative, and libertarian flavors. Nobody's cornered that political market, by far. Don't delude yourself into thinking they don't come in your ideological shape and size, too.

The Libertarian Party also has this to say about gun ownership:
"Let us put the responsibility where it belongs, on the owner and user of the gun. If he or she acts responsibly, without attacking others or causing injury negligently, no crime or harm has been done. Leave them in peace. But, if a person commits a crime with a gun, then impose the severest penalties for the injuries done to the victim. Similarly, hold the negligent gun user fully liable for all harm his negligence does to others."

With freedom comes responsibility. You can't have one without the other. Libertarianism is not the same as libertinism.

Saying the Soviet Union wasn't Communist is like saying David Koresh wasn't Christian or that Bin Laden is not a Muslim. Or that the Unabomber was not an Anarchist.

Just because you don't like what they did does not make them any less part of your group. Nor do their actions and beliefs have to necessarily reflect yours, just because you fall under the same label.

Saying the Soviet Union wasn't Communist is like saying David Koresh wasn't Christian or that Bin Laden is not a Muslim. Or that the Unabomber was not an Anarchist.

Just because you don't like what they did does not make them any less part of your group. Nor do their actions and beliefs have to necessarily reflect yours, just because you fall under the same label.
He took that similar comment from me as a threat, and went on an Elmer Fudd rampage. Sweet Buddha, I hope we don't have to bear through bad impersonations again.

You just don't quit do ya?

Not unless I feel like it. Why do you ask?

Tell me, have you actually done any research on Marxism this time

WTF are you talking about? Have you and I discussed this before or something? If so, I'm flattered that you remembered me well enough to come yipping at me like an enraged poodle with an erection but I'm sorry, I don't remember you and no I haven't done any "research" on Marxism. Why, is it relevant?

that might lend you a clue as to what you were talking about? Last time you made a bunch of wild ass claims about authoritarianism when Marxist theory says the exact opposite. Surely that isn't what you are trying to do again?

Not really, in fact I didn't even mention Marxist theory! Way to change the subject.

Also, and I really do hate to have to spell this out for you,

I'm sorry. :( I feel bad about forcing you to do things, I really do.

the cheerful comment was directed at the aparant glee with which he maintained his ignorance on Socialism and Communism no matte rhow many times he was told otherwise (corrected by people who actually study the theories instead of just talking about them), much like you actually.

Oh! Okay, thanks for the clarification, I really had no idea you were actually making an insult.

Oh and thanks for not missing an opportunity to go the "ur dumb" route, always very original and highly relevant.

Saying the Soviet Union wasn't Communist is like saying David Koresh wasn't Christian or that Bin Laden is not a Muslim. Or that the Unabomber was not an Anarchist.

Just because you don't like what they did does not make them any less part of your group. Nor do their actions and beliefs have to necessarily reflect yours, just because you fall under the same label.

If they don't have nor follow the same basic fundamental beliefs that you do, they are not a member of your ideology. Ideological breaks are specifically made along what one believes and does. If they have fundamentally opposing views to yours, how can they be a member or your ideological group?

Consider this example. Someone tells you they are a vegan. After a brief exchange they wander off and a short time later you find them buried in a Double-Quarter Pounder with Cheese. Are they really a vegan regardless of what they say? Or how about this. You meet a man who claims to be Wiccan. Once again, after a short time he wanders off and you follow him only to find him in a catholic church praying to his lord and savior Jesus Christ. Is he really Wiccan?

Now say I meet a man named Stalin who claims to be a communist. He goes off, forms an empire run in a fashion of state capitalism, ignores communist ideology entirely on the dynamic between states and commmunism/socialism, he is circumventing democracy entirely in his placing members of his party in high places in the government, etc. So tell me, considering he violated nearly every principle of the theory, is he really a communist? The answer is of course he isn't.

Saying the Soviet Union wasn't Communist is like saying David Koresh wasn't Christian or that Bin Laden is not a Muslim. Or that the Unabomber was not an Anarchist.
To play the Devil's Advocate, the USSR was not technically to the letter Communist, which is something today's Communists never let us forget. Basically, the way I look at it is as follows:

The USSR is what happened when people tried to make a nation using Marx's ideas. The USA is what happened when we used Locke. USA isn't to the letter capitalism either [though hopefully one day it will be], rather both are approxomations of their relevant philosophical canon. I generally don't prefer to use the USSR to disprove Marx's ideas; Marx's ideas do a good enough job of that on their own.

If they don't have nor follow the same basic fundamental beliefs that you do, they are not a member of your ideology. Ideological breaks are specifically made along what one believes and does. If they have fundamentally opposing views to yours, how can they be a member or your ideological group?

Consider this example. Someone tells you they are a vegan. After a brief exchange they wander off and a short time later you find them buried in a Double-Quarter Pounder with Cheese. Are they really a vegan regardless of what they say? Or how about this. You meet a man who claims to be Wiccan. Once again, after a short time he wanders off and you follow him only to find him in a catholic church praying to his lord and savior Jesus Christ. Is he really Wiccan?

Now say I meet a man named Stalin who claims to be a communist. He goes off, forms an empire run in a fashion of state capitalism, ignores communist ideology entirely on the dynamic between states and commmunism/socialism, he is circumventing democracy entirely in his placing members of his party in high places in the government, etc. So tell me, considering he violated nearly every principle of the theory, is he really a communist? The answer is of course he isn't.
I hate to burst your bubble, but Communism is 'State Capitalism.' Think about it for a moment: all of the country's manpower, materials, and production power are housed [figuratively, of course] under one roof. Now the people in the government are naturally going to be interested in a high rate of production, in order to provide for his fellow man. This puts the state [which effectively becomes a giant corporation] at odds with others in the area/region/hemisphere/planet who are vying for the same resources.

It still fosters plenty of competition, only at a macro level instead of a micro level. Corporations allow for the same products and services to be available to people--regardless of where they live. Stalin may not have been entirely faithful to the teachings of Marx, but what politician is truly dedicated to his professed cause? Most of them are crooks, regardless of their ideology.

EDIT: and implying that Democracy and Communism could ever possibly coexist is like asking me to eat an ice cream cone on the sun. A "Democratic" Communist system would only work until the citizens realized that they could vote their money back into their pockets.

Not unless I feel like it. Why do you ask? Experience.



WTF are you talking about? Have you and I discussed this before or something? If so, I'm flattered that you remembered me well enough to come yipping at me like an enraged poodle with an erection but I'm sorry, I don't remember you and no I haven't done any "research" on Marxism. Why, is it relevant? Yes we have "debated", trolls and spammers tend to stick out and thus I remember it quite clearly. Last time you kept trying to tell me what communism was. I was wondering if you had bothered to read up on the actual theory but it seems alas no.

Not really, in fact I didn't even mention Marxist theory! Way to change the subject. Not yet, but this is quite similar to last time in some resects.

I'm sorry. :( I feel bad about forcing you to do things, I really do.
It's okay. I'm getting used to having to repeat myself.

Oh! Okay, thanks for the clarification, I really had no idea you were actually making an insult. I'm sorry, I'll try not to be so subtle in the future.

Oh and thanks for not missing an opportunity to go the "ur dumb" route, always very original and highly relevant.
Awe, pretending I use the horrific grammar. How very Ad Hom of you.

He took that similar comment from me as a threat, and went on an Elmer Fudd rampage. Sweet Buddha, I hope we don't have to bear through bad impersonations again. Revisionist history a hobby of yours Eich? I didn't use baby talk on you until you refered to Marxism as cute as a method to respond to me without actually making an argument just as a baby makes random noises to respond to their parent without using language.

The USSR is what happened when people tried to make a nation using Marx's ideas. The USA is what happened when we used Locke. USA isn't to the letter capitalism either [though hopefully one day it will be], rather both are approxomations of their relevant philosophical canon.
Melkor, I've been saying that for years, including the whole time I've been an NS member. Never once has a single commie or pinko acknowledged that by their own admission, the USA isn't capitalist, either.

What's good for the goose...

I hate to burst your bubble, but Communism is 'State Capitalism.' I'll start here and say no it isn't. Consider for the fact communism has no state to begin with, state capitalism is an impossibility. Think about it for a moment: all of the country's manpower, materials, and production power are housed [figuratively, of course] under one roof. Under one roof, yes, But at the same time this roof includes everyone and everyone owns everything equally. Now the people in the government are naturally going to be interested in a high rate of production, in order to provide for his fellow man. This is communism, there is no government. Further, even if you want to use socialism instead to make this point it also fails. Socialism requires that workers elect their managers where state capitalism has a Chairman at the top who appoints other positions, creating a top down flow of power opposite of socialism. This puts the state [which effectively becomes a giant corporation] at odds with others in the area/region/hemisphere/planet who are vying for the same resources. Under Marxist theory there are none they are competing with because it is a global theory. Short of Mars attacks there can be no competetition.

It still fosters plenty of competition, only at a macro level instead of a micro level. Corporations allow for the same products and services to be available to people--regardless of where they live. But at a price. Socialism does not use the same type of monetary system state capitalism would. Stalin may not have been entirely faithful to the teachings of Marx, but what politician is truly dedicated to his professed cause? You are absolutely correct, that is why Marxism is decidedly anti-politician. Most of them are crooks, regardless of their ideology. And I agree.

EDIT: and implying that Democracy and Communism could ever possibly coexist is like asking me to eat an ice cream cone on the sun. A "Democratic" Communist system would only work until the citizens realized that they could vote their money back into their pockets. Which is exactly what Marxism calls for... How is this a contradiction?

This puts the state [which effectively becomes a giant corporation] at odds with others in the area/region/hemisphere/planet who are vying for the same resources.
You're reading my mind this evening, but I digress.

He's already admitted that communism would never work unless it was enacted on a global scale. Yet he still remains an optimistic revolutionary.

Take a moment, Melkor.

Yet he still remains an optimistic revolutionary.

Please point out where I claimed to be an optimistic revolutionary. Believe me or no, I don't particularly care, but I am not a strict Marxist. While I consider most of his ideas valid, I consider the revolution neither inveitable nor likely in the near future. Indeed, my views are much more akin to Lukacs in that regard. I consider a system as outlined by Marx to be one solution to the problems created by capitalism but at the same time I do not consider it the only solution nor even necessarily the best solution.

Before you claim to know me perhaps you should learn more about me.

Yes we have "debated", trolls and spammers tend to stick out and thus I remember it quite clearly. Last time you kept trying to tell me what communism was. I was wondering if you had bothered to read up on the actual theory but it seems alas no.

You know, you're such a swell debater that I can hardly believe it was your fault that the "debate" had to be put in "quotations," so I'll just assume you're right!

Not yet, but this is quite similar to last time in some resects.

You mean last time you were being insulting and mocking, and I insulted and mocked you back, and you couldn't handle it and had to rely on reminding everyone how much less ignorant you are than everyone else every five sentences?


I'm sorry, I'll try not to be so subtle in the future.

Good. Some people can pull off mindless, embittered rage mixed with subtle political dogma really well. You're not one of those people.

Awe, pretending I use the horrific grammar. How very Ad Hom of you.

Pretending? I was paraphrasing. Sorry if you I'm misinterpreting you calling anyone who disagrees with you "ignorant" as an attempt to dismiss your opponents based on their supposed knowledge (or lack thereof) while thumping yourself on the back repeatedly for having supposedly more knowledge. "ur dumb" is really what you mean, and you'd be more honest if you came right out with it instead of bandying around trying to look logical. Like I said, you're not very good at subtle.

Please point out where I claimed to be an optimistic revolutionary. Believe me or no, I don't particularly care, but I am not a strict Marxist. While I consider most of his ideas valid, I consider the revolution neither inveitable nor likely in the near future. Indeed, my views are much more akin to Lukacs in that regard. I consider a system as outlined by Marx to be one solution to the problems created by capitalism but at the same time I do not consider it the only solution nor even necessarily the best solution.

Before you claim to know me perhaps you should learn more about me.
One good turn deserves another. You should probably get to know more libertarians before comparing them "to that one guy" who wanted his own missile. :rolleyes:
I've never met a commie who wasn't waiting for the revolution, so I assumed you were as well. I can respect that you're sticking to something you feel is right, even if you don't see it coming anytime soon.

Join the club.

Some people can pull off mindless, embittered rage mixed with subtle political dogma really well. You're not one of those people.
Since that applies so often here on NS, I deem this sigworthy. (If you don't mind, SB). :D

I'll start here and say no it isn't. Consider for the fact communism has no state to begin with, state capitalism is an impossibility.
You're saying this, and you were berating SB not ten minutes ago for not knowing his Marxist propaganda? I'm ashamed for you! I have actually read the Manifesto cover to cover, and I can assure you that the above statement largely depends on what phase of Communism you happen to be talking about. Marx felt that Capitalism was a necessity to generate wealth; Socialism and Communism were tools to redistribute said wealth and put everyone on an equal footing. The much vaunted 'Stateless Communism' is the final phase of Marx's grand economic theory; a phase which we are not likely to ever see happen in the state of human affairs.

Communism, when used as a singular term, refers to the stage of Marx's theory just before the complete breakdown of government function and the redistribution of wealth and material resources to the public. In order to be properly defined, Communism proper requires an enormous State. If you want to talk about Anachro-Communism, that's a different issue.

Under one roof, yes, But at the same time this roof includes everyone and everyone owns everything equally.
See, now this is what everyone wants, more or less. Only problem is, the Left would prefer that 'equal' refer primarily to wealth, whereas a libertarian would prefer 'equal' to refer primarily to one's freedoms. It's funny, because when you look at it this way, Communism looks more greedy than Capitalism. It's not, but as far as I'm concerned that's the problem.

Nonetheless, I digress. Trusting the government to keep things fair and equal is seldom any different than asking any other random group of people to do it. The thing most Communists fail to remember is that the people who are running corporations in our society now are the ones that would be running the Government under their plan: these people are attracted to money and power and want to wield these things to their advantage. In a private setting it's perfectly healthy because it keeps them [well, us I should say, since I consider myself to be one of them, at least nominally] occupied with each other and allows to no one person the power necessary to end lives on a whim.

It's one of the things I've never understood about Communism; the desire to place all power in the hands of the State. It would be like me deciding that [since I hate pancakes] I'm going to make one giant pancake. I tell myself that this pancake is different because.... well, I have no idea. It's basically like a bunch of pancakes stuck together.

I don't really hate them, pancakes rock. I was just trying to make a clever analogy.

This is communism, there is no government.
No, that's Anacro-Communism. Read your Marx again if you're going to argue with me about it.

Further, even if you want to use socialism instead to make this point it also fails. Socialism requires that workers elect their managers where state capitalism has a Chairman at the top who appoints other positions, creating a top down flow of power opposite of socialism. Under Marxist theory there are none they are competing with because it is a global theory. Short of Mars attacks there can be no competetition.
Two things: one, competition can arise--and has arise: does arise, and is arising right now from other nations. It's a fact of life; I'm talking about this world and you're talking about a completely different one. We won't get anywhere unless we acknowledge the fundamental truths about reality and humanity.

Secondly, the power structure of the thing doesn't really make too much of a difference in the grand scheme of things because [and this part might surprise you] large groups of people are very capable of placing incompetent idiots in charge. America's large groups display this ability with frightening skill. The fact that he/she/it was put in power by the people doesn't mean the country is any less of a shit hole or any less unproductive.

But at a price. Socialism does not use the same type of monetary system state capitalism would.
Everything in life comes at a price. Before you tell me that poor pygmies in New Guinea can't afford a new toaster oven, please be aware of the fact that I alraedy know that and it does nothing to change my mind. Favoring the shortcomings of others is no logical basis for policy; favoring their strengths is.

Chomskyrion your post rocked. I am not going to get into any debate but I will say you have my complete suport on everything you have posted in this forum and it is pretty apparent that you are probably the only one who has any idea what he is talking about.

BTW Atlas Shrugged has to be worse than anything Marx wrote. I mean wtf? By the end of the book she makes no sense... at all.

Marx wrote economic theory, Rand wrote bad fiction. I won't pretend to say she was a fantastic artist, but there is no denying the philosophy. That said, you can't possibly compare Rand's fiction with Marx's economic/political theories. If you would rather critique Objectivism, at least have the sense to use her essays, of which she wrote many.

And if you thought it didn't make any sense....well, there's not much I can do. Some people understand Atlas Shrugged, some people don't.

*crickets*

I think I scared him off.

You're saying this, and you were berating SB not ten minutes ago for not knowing his Marxist propaganda? I'm ashamed for you! I have actually read the Manifesto cover to cover, and I can assure you that the above statement largely depends on what phase of Communism you happen to be talking about. Marx felt that Capitalism was a necessity to generate wealth; Socialism and Communism were tools to redistribute said wealth and put everyone on an equal footing. The much vaunted 'Stateless Communism' is the final phase of Marx's grand economic theory; a phase which we are not likely to ever see happen in the state of human affairs. QED. Socialism was the tool of redistribution of wealth until the state died and then it was communism. I supported this interpretation of the communist manifesto.

Communism, when used as a singular term, refers to the stage of Marx's theory just before the complete breakdown of government function and the redistribution of wealth and material resources to the public. In order to be properly defined, Communism proper requires an enormous State. State is the wrong word for it as state implies limited field of influence. The state of the USA only extends so far. Perhaps one could make an argument for the existance of a global state but even then phrasing it as a state might be pushing it. A state by definition is sovereign whereas in marxism the state has no power and all power is derived fromt he proletariat itself. If you want to talk about Anachro-Communism, that's a different issue. Indeed.


See, now this is what everyone wants, more or less. Only problem is, the Left would prefer that 'equal' refer primarily to wealth, whereas a libertarian would prefer 'equal' to refer primarily to one's freedoms That is not true. Marxism considers the economic differences of capitalism to impeed on the freedoms of man and that for in order to give equal freedom one must give equal wealth. It's funny, because when you look at it this way, Communism looks more greedy than Capitalism. It's not, but as far as I'm concerned that's the problem. That depends on the marxist in question. I consider Marxism to be far greedier. I get to play with the collective toys of the entire planet at the cost of allowing others who wish it to play with mine. Greed can certainly play into Marxism.

Nonetheless, I digress. Trusting the government to keep things fair and equal is seldom any different than asking any other random group of people to do it. Yes, but in this case the group of people would be regulated fromt he other direction. The thing most Communists fail to remember is that the people who are running corporations in our society now are the ones that would be running the Government under their plan: these people are attracted to money and power and want to wield these things to their advantage. In a private setting it's perfectly healthy because it keeps them [well, us I should say, since I consider myself to be one of them, at least nominally] occupied with each other and allows to no one person the power necessary to end lives on a whim. I don't think they do forget it, merely exploiting it. Consider that under capitalism the ruling bodies are based on property ownership with the elite individuals at the top, the stockholders. They control the company and so they appoint people to positions of managers and such that will serve their interests. Their interests are of course to maintain the highest profit margin they possibly can which means keeping wages as low as possible and selling for as high as possible. Neither of these are beneficial for the factory workers. The professional powerbrokers, in a bottom up power system, will be appointed by the workers and thus if they want to retain their position as manager they will have to work in the best interests of the proletariat.

It's one of the things I've never understood about Communism; the desire to place all power in the hands of the State. It would be like me deciding that [since I hate pancakes] I'm going to make one giant pancake. I tell myself that this pancake is different because.... well, I have no idea. It's basically like a bunch of pancakes stuck together. Excet the power structure flows the opposite way and it is the heirarchical nature of the power structure of capitalism marxists object to to begin with.

I don't really hate them, pancakes rock. I was just trying to make a clever analogy. Yes they do.


No, that's Anacro-Communism. Read your Marx again if you're going to argue with me about it. It would be the final stage of Marxism as you mentioned above. If you want to count the brief period of time where the socialist system collapses as a phase in and of itself that is your choice. However, I consider it pointless due to the fact it is basically a flash in the pan state that is nearly over before it begins.


Two things: one, competition can arise--and has arise: does arise, and is arising right now from other nations. It's a fact of life; I'm talking about this world and you're talking about a completely different one. We won't get anywhere unless we acknowledge the fundamental truths about reality and humanity. Marxism by nature cannot allow for multiple nations. A global unified "state" for lack of a better word precludes other nations from existing.

Secondly, the power structure of the thing doesn't really make too much of a difference in the grand scheme of things because [and this part might surprise you] large groups of people are very capable of placing incompetent idiots in charge. America's large groups display this ability with frightening skill. The fact that he/she/it was put in power by the people doesn't mean the country is any less of a shit hole or any less unproductive.
I honestly don't think the corporate states of America qualifies as the people having a fair shake at it. I mean seriously, can you say everyone has equal political say when the rich can take out adds for their candidate of choice and the poor can't even get the day off to vote? America only has the choice between the idiots the corporations give money to run for office.

Everything in life comes at a price. Before you tell me that poor pygmies in New Guinea can't afford a new toaster oven, please be aware of the fact that I alraedy know that and it does nothing to change my mind. Favoring the shortcomings of others is no logical basis for policy; favoring their strengths is. Indeed, however some shortcomings are simply too great to accept no matter how solid the strengths are, both must be considered.

I think I scared him off.
No, I merely don't crank out large posts all that quickly.

QED. Socialism was the tool of redistribution of wealth until the state died and then it was communism. I supported this interpretation of the communist manifesto.
I always understood Communism as being more of an intermediary stage between Socialism and Anachro-Communism. It's been ages since I've read my Marx, so I could be mistaken but not by much.

State is the wrong word for it as state implies limited field of influence. The state of the USA only extends so far.
Thank God. What would the proper word be then?

Perhaps one could make an argument for the existance of a global state but even then phrasing it as a state might be pushing it.
A is A. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Identity)

Still, I know what you're getting at, and I can understand why you wouldn't want to call it a 'State' but it still is. Civilization [and thus, Rights] by definition requires a State in order to maintain the rights and requirements thereof; without a well-defined since of justice any system will fall apart rather quickly. Without a State, you have no means to distribute or maintain the power given to the 'proletariat' in the first place.

A state by definition is sovereign whereas in marxism the state has no power and all power is derived fromt he proletariat itself. Indeed.
Proletariat is an outdated term; it gets thrown around a lot by people who have got no idea what it means. When Marx was writing, the vast majority of the people around him [as they had been since the Dark Ages] were still remarkably poor. The "Proletariat" by definition were larger in number than the middle and upper classes because they had to generate an insane amount of opulence for the economically elite folks.

Right now, I live in a country where the middle and upper classes are sizably larger than what our current equivalent of the "Proletariat" is. If you want to stick with that term and apply it more loosely to mean "the people in general," or what-have you, without economic or political distinctions, then a system where "all power is derived fromt he proletariat [the people] itself," you're basically just talking about building a to-the letter Democracy. If you want the people to decide all state policy, have them fill out ballots every morning. If you want them to go make a better life for themselves and those around them, give them the chance.

That is not true. Marxism considers the economic differences of capitalism to impeed on the freedoms of man and that for in order to give equal freedom one must give equal wealth.
Nonsense. America is much "Freer" than any other country I can think of, and we also happen to be just about the closet thing this planet has got to a properly functioning capitalist economic model.

It never ceases to amaze me that these simple observations elude so many.

That depends on the marxist in question. I consider Marxism to be far greedier. I get to play with the collective toys of the entire planet at the cost of allowing others who wish it to play with mine. Greed can certainly play into Marxism.
This caught me off guard; I can't say I've ever seen anyone of your persuasion make this argument. Still, the problem is the people with the really cool stuff will always want more than you have got. Somehow, I doubt we'll ever live in a world where you can trade your 6th grade Home Economics project for a Rolex. Here, you're attempting to detach material values from reality, which is a betrayal of the very materialistic nature that Marx himself claimed to adhere to. From this intitial epistemic error the rest of the philosophy falls apart.

I don't think they do forget it, merely exploiting it. Consider that under capitalism the ruling bodies are based on property ownership with the elite individuals at the top, the stockholders. They control the company and so they appoint people to positions of managers and such that will serve their interests. Their interests are of course to maintain the highest profit margin they possibly can which means keeping wages as low as possible and selling for as high as possible.
All things being equal, I must point out that a job would not exist to hate without the initial [and continued] investment of the owner in the first place. Their interests may include keeping wages low, but in certain fields that's just not possible anymore. Corporations don't just get to dictate wages on a whim like you might think: as a general rule they depend on the market just like most anything else.

Also, they can't sell as high as possible because they might happen to have competitors, since everyone else with a buck is free to try and make it two. It's been working in this country for years.

Neither of these are beneficial for the factory workers. The professional powerbrokers, in a bottom up power system, will be appointed by the workers and thus if they want to retain their position as manager they will have to work in the best interests of the proletariat.
See, here you're talking about a very distinct minority of people, especially if you're talking about the United States. I understand you might prefer I dispense with the borders, but I have some trouble leaving the reality that I happen to have been planted in for the last 20 years.

Acting in the best interests of the poor is no more credible to me than acting in the best interests of the rich.

Marxism by nature cannot allow for multiple nations. A global unified "state" for lack of a better word precludes other nations from existing.
I'm not sure how much experience you happen to have with this world, or how much sensible scrutiny you've deigned to examine it with, but I think it's pretty safe to say that this is an utter and complete impossibility, and the attainment of such a lofty goal is an excruciating and terrifically horrible waste of everyone's time.

I honestly don't think the corporate states of America qualifies as the people having a fair shake at it. I mean seriously, can you say everyone has equal political say when the rich can take out adds for their candidate of choice and the poor can't even get the day off to vote?
Don't be ridiculous. Haliburton did not cast my vote, and everyone's reasons are their own. Yeah, people are easily influenced by bad propaganda, but you'd have to do it too to get your way, there's no way around that.

Besides, I'm poor and I got the day off to vote. I had to wait in live for 5 hours, but damn it I voted.

America only has the choice between the idiots the corporations give money to run for office.
I've often argued that America is like a Dictatorship with one more choice on the ballot; I've not liked any Presidential candidate I've ever seen. I hate both parties and their methods very much.

Indeed, however some shortcomings are simply too great to accept no matter how solid the strengths are, both must be considered.
I tend to beleive that when you allow people to create and produce things for themselves, a benefit for those around him is almot a given. A man who buys a thousand sports cars paid for the labor of hundreds of men; a man who makes a fortune selling computers puts this very terminal to each other that we're using right now at our fingertips: a feat unthinkable ten years ago.

When one attempts to find 'equilibrium' in this context, he fails to see that the Good [strengths] has infinite power over the Evil [shortcomings] and that any compromise between the two serves only to bring service to the Evil.

Mind you, I'm not saying that poverty is evil, but rather that in some cases it is the product of that evil. Just the same as strength is not always good, but it is generally the product of productiveness.

Your move.

I always understood Communism as being more of an intermediary stage between Socialism and Anachro-Communism. It's been ages since I've read my Marx, so I could be mistaken but not by much. Meh, I haven't read the Communist Manifesto in a year and a half. I could be off on some of the terms. In any case this is largely semantic.


Thank God. What would the proper word be then?
Civilization? Society? Mankind? Something that is all encompassing I believe.

A is A. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Identity)
Right, what about it?

Still, I know what you're getting at, and I can understand why you wouldn't want to call it a 'State' but it still is. Civilization [and thus, Rights] by definition requires a State in order to maintain the rights and requirements thereof; without a well-defined since of justice any system will fall apart rather quickly. Without a State, you have no means to distribute or maintain the power given to the 'proletariat' in the first place. Except the idea is the Proletariat is supposed to regulate its own power and rights and take actions necessary to protect it.


Proletariat is an outdated term; it gets thrown around a lot by people who have got no idea what it means. When Marx was writing, the vast majority of the people around him [as they had been since the Dark Ages] were still remarkably poor. The "Proletariat" by definition were larger in number than the middle and upper classes because they had to generate an insane amount of opulence for the economically elite folks. No, because the middle class as the term is used today is not the middle class Marx described. The division for Marx (I believe, though this could have been something added more recently) and modern Marxists is that the dividing line between the middle class of marxism in the modern sense is the middle class can survive off of the interest accumulation through investments, ie, their dividends where as the proletariat is anyone who must sell their labor to maintain subsistence. The concept still holds, the contemporary meaning of the words has simply changed since them much in the same way liberal in the classical sense is completely different from the American sense of the word.

Right now, I live in a country where the middle and upper classes are sizably larger than what our current equivalent of the "Proletariat" is. See above. If you want to stick with that term and apply it more loosely to mean "the people in general," or what-have you, without economic or political distinctions, then a system where "all power is derived fromt he proletariat [the people] itself," you're basically just talking about building a to-the letter Democracy. If you want the people to decide all state policy, have them fill out ballots every morning. If you want them to go make a better life for themselves and those around them, give them the chance. Which is what Marxism intends to do, though, it does require some delegation of powers to elected officials who serve only so long as the people choose them to.


Nonsense. America is much "Freer" than any other country I can think of, and we also happen to be just about the closet thing this planet has got to a properly functioning capitalist economic model. Nonsense. America is no more free than the rest of the first world in the most part and I would consider many countries to do a better job of taking care of and protecting human rights. "Free" in this context simply is picking and choosing which rights you wish to recognize and those which you don't.


It never ceases to amaze me that these simple observations elude so many.
I could say the same.


This caught me off guard; I can't say I've ever seen anyone of your persuasion make this argument. Still, the problem is the people with the really cool stuff will always want more than you have got. Somehow, I doubt we'll ever live in a world where you can trade your 6th grade Home Economics project for a Rolex. Here, you're attempting to detach material values from reality, which is a betrayal of the very materialistic nature that Marx himself claimed to adhere to. From this intitial epistemic error the rest of the philosophy falls apart. This presupposes the recognition of property rights to begin with, something that is outright rejected.


All things being equal, I must point out that a job would not exist to hate without the initial [and continued] investment of the owner in the first place. Their interests may include keeping wages low, but in certain fields that's just not possible anymore. Corporations don't just get to dictate wages on a whim like you might think: as a general rule they depend on the market just like most anything else. This is true, but alot of the reason they can't keep them low is because of government laws interfering with free trade. Anti-trust legislation and price fixing laws, to name two, prevent one company from coming to dominate a market sector. If those barriers were removed from the computing sector, how long would it be before Microsoft controlled the entire industry? If that happens, and given the tendency of wealth towards centralization it eventually will, the prices they can set for your labor in that sector for the people of those skill sets would be entirely at their mercy.

It might be argued that the workers could attempt to learn new skill sets but the problem is that takes time and money. Under a true monopoly like this they are not likely to be given much of either because they still want to retain workers and by wage slavery they can. Eventually, you could end up returning to more pure forms of capitalism as seen in the industrial revolution where the corporations owned everything you needed to survive and charged mroe for it than they paid you. As they say, "another day over and I'm deeper in debt."


Also, they can't sell as high as possible because they might happen to have competitors, since everyone else with a buck is free to try and make it two. It's been working in this country for years. Yes, but it hinges on companies not simply merging or negotiaiting price fixes.


See, here you're talking about a very distinct minority of people, especially if you're talking about the United States. I understand you might prefer I dispense with the borders, but I have some trouble leaving the reality that I happen to have been planted in for the last 20 years.

Acting in the best interests of the poor is no more credible to me than acting in the best interests of the rich. But it is because the poor and the powerless in capitalism are the vast, vast majority in socialism. Once again, I direct you to the distinction between Marxist Middle Class and modern middle class definitions.

I'm not sure how much experience you happen to have with this world, or how much sensible scrutiny you've deigned to examine it with, but I think it's pretty safe to say that this is an utter and complete impossibility, and the attainment of such a lofty goal is an excruciating and terrifically horrible waste of everyone's time. For the immediate forseeable future I agree with you. At the same time though, alot of the dying trends in global politics are what maintain global boundaries today. Globalism is already doing a wonderful job already of destroying the economic boundaries between nations.


Don't be ridiculous. Haliburton did not cast my vote, and everyone's reasons are their own. Yeah, people are easily influenced by bad propaganda, but you'd have to do it too to get your way, there's no way around that.
No, they didn't but only the people the major companies choose to endorse will ever come close to attaining the fund necessary to run. They may not get to pick the winner but they get to pick your choices.

Besides, I'm poor and I got the day off to vote. I had to wait in live for 5 hours, but damn it I voted. Congrats. Democracy needs more people who will do that.


I've often argued that America is like a Dictatorship with one more choice on the ballot; I've not liked any Presidential candidate I've ever seen. I hate both parties and their methods very much.
I agree. At the same time there is a reason the same jackass types keep ending up being the only two viable options in the US. The companies may not cast your vote but they do own all the candidates so it doesn't matter. It is like Voting for Pepsi or Mountain Dew, whichever you pick, Pepsi Co. still wins.

I tend to beleive that when you allow people to create and produce things for themselves, a benefit for those around him is almot a given. in theory it might but not in practice. A man who buys a thousand sports cars paid for the labor of hundreds of men; Most of that money is just going to go to the investors in the company that made the cars. a man who makes a fortune selling computers puts this very terminal to each other that we're using right now at our fingertips: a feat unthinkable ten years ago. Very true. But at the same time while he is making hundreds of dollars (or more) off each one. If the profit margin were cut, not only could we still get the computers, we would have more money left over to use as we see fit. Further, I do not consider the property rights to the money made by this to be greater than other's rights to life. Let's face it, thousands of meals for people who are literaly starving to death can be purchased for hundreds of dollars. I cannot say honestly that I believe their right to exist is lesser than someone elses right to make profits.


When one attempts to find 'equilibrium' in this context, he fails to see that the Good [strengths] has infinite power over the Evil [shortcomings] and that any compromise between the two serves only to bring service to the Evil.
I don't believe that. Technically, if I were to go kill every member of the species save maybe ten or so, I could bring incredible oppulence, freedom, and equality to the entire human species. The tradeoff however, I believe we can both agree is far to severe on the shortcomings side.

Mind you, I'm not saying that poverty is evil, but rather that in some cases it is the product of that evil. Just the same as strength is not always good, but it is generally the product of productiveness.

Your move.I think I understand, in any case back to you.

Oh, and this will be my last reply tonight, I need sleep.

You'll need sleep after my next post too. I promise. ;)

Im sorry this isnt really helpful, but I think the Libertarians will probably win this debate just because they have a lesser tendency to use ridiculous internet slang words like "pwn."

If they don't have nor follow the same basic fundamental beliefs that you do, they are not a member of your ideology. Ideological breaks are specifically made along what one believes and does. If they have fundamentally opposing views to yours, how can they be a member or your ideological group?
It doesn't matter how you interpret their views, as being "fundamentally opposed," to yours. They still share many of your beliefs, and they were inspired by Marx, whether true to his beliefs or not.

Even back then, Communists said others weren't "real," Communists. There's different flavors of Communism. Marxism, Leninism, Trotskyism, and Stalinism... Today, they've said that there's Maoism (after China) and Castroism (after Cuba).

What you're saying is like a Protestant saying Catholics aren't Christian, or a Catholic saying Protestants aren't Christian, because they have "fundamentally opposing views."

The same goes for Orthodox Jews and Reform or Reconstructionist Jews. Or Salafi (Wahhabi) Muslims and everyone else.

Wacko, fucked up Christians are still Christians, wacko, fucked up Jews are still Jews, and wacko, fucked up Muslims are still Muslims.. And wacko, fucked up Communists are still Communists.

What you're doing is just a "No True Scotsman" (No True Communist) fallacy.

Im sorry this isnt really helpful, but I think the Libertarians will probably win this debate just because they have a lesser tendency to use ridiculous internet slang words like "pwn."
Yet another who refuses to debate.

Don't be so Libertendentious!

And by the way...

0H N0E! My thread has been hijacked by Communists! Communist subsversive tactics run amok! :(

McCarthy.. Thatcher.. Where are you, when I need you?! :(

It doesn't matter how you interpret their views, as being "fundamentally opposed," to yours. They still share many of your beliefs, and they were inspired by Marx, whether true to his beliefs or not.

Even back then, Communists said others weren't "real," Communists. There's different flavors of Communism. Marxism, Leninism, Trotskyism, and Stalinism... Today, they've said that there's Maoism (after China) and Castroism (after Cuba).

What you're saying is like a Protestant saying Catholics aren't Christian, or a Catholic saying Protestants aren't Christian, because they have "fundamentally opposing views."

The same goes for Orthodox Jews and Reform or Reconstructionist Jews. Or Salafi (Wahhabi) Muslims and everyone else.

Wacko, fucked up Christians are still Christians, wacko, fucked up Jews are still Jews, and wacko, fucked up Muslims are still Muslims.. And wacko, fucked up Communists are still Communists.

What you're doing is just a "No True Scotsman" (No True Communist) fallacy.

No, you just don't undertstand the No True Scotsman fallacy.

The defining characteristic of being a cancer survivor is having had cancer and lived through it. Therefore

"No true cancer survivor hasn't had cancer."
"What about those cancer survivors that never had cancer?"
"Those aren't cancer survivors!"

Surely you aren't going to imply the above is a No True Scotsman fallacy?

On the other hand:

"No true cancer survivor eats pizza."
'What about those cancer survivors eating pizza?"
"They aren't true cancer survivors."

That is a No True Scotsman fallacy. What the difference is, in the first one I used the criteria that defines the group membership for the statement. In the second one I used a criteria utterly irrelevant to the membership criteria in the group which was to have survived cancer.

This hold true of communism at well. In order to be a Communist, one must believe mostly and act mostly as Marx did. Stalin completely ignored the vast majority of Marxist theory and carried out even less. I don't care who he was inspired by, being inspired by Marx is not the criteria. Much of modern economics is inspired by Marx too, that does not make it Marxist economics. Your no true scotsman fallacy was completely misapplied here.

Christians that worship Zeus are not christians, vegans that eat Big Macs are not vegans, cancer survivors who never had cancer aren't cancer survivors and communists who form totalitarian state capitalist nations all the while ignoring all communist theory are not communist.

How To Pwn a Libertarian
By William Young

*snip*

What does Pwn mean?

What does Pwn mean?

See Own

I'll never even listen to the Libertarian party or talk to them again after they tried to blame President Bush for the Deaths of 14 marines. They claimed that because the AAMTRAC (30 ton Armored vehicle) wasn't "up-armored" it was vulernable to this kind of attack, and that an up-armored 5 ton humvee would have been better :rolleyes: .

See Own
so why not just type Owned? What's the stupid point of typing a P instead of an O? It doesn't make it easier to type, faster to type, easier to read and it isn't even clever. Worst part about it, is everyone on the entire thread is typing it this way. :rolleyes:

That is a No True Scotsman fallacy. What the difference is, in the first one I used the criteria that defines the group membership for the statement. In the second one I used a criteria utterly irrelevant to the membership criteria in the group which was to have survived cancer.
And that's just it. Your criteria. There are many self-proclaimed Communists and ex-Communists who would disagree with you. Just like there are Christians that say if you aren't a Protestant (or whatever specific criteria they believe in), that you aren't a Christian. It's still a No-True-Scotsman.

so why not just type Owned? What's the stupid point of typing a P instead of an O? It doesn't make it easier to type, faster to type, easier to read and it isn't even clever. Worst part about it, is everyone on the entire thread is typing it this way. :rolleyes:
Because. It's 1337.

The P in pwned 2tally r0x my s0x!

I'll never even listen to the Libertarian party or talk to them again after they tried to blame President Bush for the Deaths of 14 marines. They claimed that because the AAMTRAC (30 ton Armored vehicle) wasn't "up-armored" it was vulernable to this kind of attack, and that an up-armored 5 ton humvee would have been better :rolleyes: .
In my opinion...

FROM BEST TO WORST:
Independent Liberals
Independent Conservatives
Democrats
Conservative Republicans
Libertarians
Socialists
Neoconservative Republicans (Or Evangelicals)
Communists
Fascists
Anarchists

EDIT: Oh, you need to clarify what you mean by "Anarchist," or "Fascist," though, because I could technically fall under either category. But I tend to view myself a Liberal-Libertarian. Mostly Democrat, but with some views shared by the Libertarians.

Because. It's 1337.

The P in pwned 2tally r0x my s0x!

Sounds more like you've hocked it at the local jewelry/gun store for some extra cash. ;)

Sounds more like you've hocked it at the local jewelry/gun store for some extra cash. ;)
"How much can I get for this?" *drops Drew Carey on the counter*

"Are you selling it or pawning?"

"Selling."

"Hmm.. It looks kinda old. Does it work?"

"Sort of."

"Five bucks."

"Sure."

"Hey, how much are you selling this dog for?"

"Oh, I don't know..."

"It's ugly as hell, but it looks like it'd scare trespassers away. What's its name?"

"Ann Coulter."

And that's just it. Your criteria. There are many self-proclaimed Communists and ex-Communists who would disagree with you. Just like there are Christians that say if you aren't a Protestant (or whatever specific criteria they believe in), that you aren't a Christian. It's still a No-True-Scotsman.

Whatever you say, it seems I am also a vegan, christian, cancer survivor too then.

Whatever you say, it seems I am also a vegan, christian, cancer survivor too then.
If you sincerely claim to be and aren't insane, then yes. You are.

I left out the first few replies because they aren't really rebuttals, or they refer to things that I don't think are particularly important. I'll start a bit farther down.


Except the idea is the Proletariat is supposed to regulate its own power and rights and take actions necessary to protect it.
Right, but you've already said this about a dozen times I understand that part. What you're doing here is restating your premise over and over again. This reply does absolutely nothing to refute the argument that preceded it. If you think it does, then this section of the debate is probably approaching the realm of utter pointlessness.

No, because the middle class as the term is used today is not the middle class Marx described. The division for Marx (I believe, though this could have been something added more recently) and modern Marxists is that the dividing line between the middle class of marxism in the modern sense is the middle class can survive off of the interest accumulation through investments, ie, their dividends where as the proletariat is anyone who must sell their labor to maintain subsistence. The concept still holds, the contemporary meaning of the words has simply changed since them much in the same way liberal in the classical sense is completely different from the American sense of the word.
Okay, even if you do want to use that definition [excepting the rather ridiculous part mentioned below], the Middle Class is still far larger than the Lower Class. Whats your point? Millions of Americans have assets and investments; it's part of the reason why our economy has been so ridiculous for the last few decades.

Still, that's something of a pedantic definition. The only people able to survive entirely off interest dividends are people who happen to have millions of dollars in the bank. There weren't that many of them in Marx's day to make it particularly sensible to denote these people as "Middle Class" while he was writing the Manifest. By "Middle Class" Marx meant "Middle Class", and you probably know it. This is another example of Communists refusing to call a spade a spade: the middle class in this [Capitalist!] country is much, much larger than the lower class. I don't care what "definition" you want to use.

If I wanted too, I could define the Rich as impoverished and claim that theyre not really rich, but just happen to have lots of disposable possessions. Throwing arbitrary definitions around isn't going to do anything to change the real ones.

Which is what Marxism intends to do, though, it does require some delegation of powers to elected officials who serve only so long as the people choose them to.
And that would be a State, and therefore all "Stateless Utopia" credibility [assuming there was any to begin with] goes out the window. You can't possibly claim to advocate a "Stateless" collective and then turn around and in your next breath tell me that it "does require some delegation of powers to elected officials." How's that crow taste?

Nonsense. America is no more free than the rest of the first world in the most part and I would consider many countries to do a better job of taking care of and protecting human rights. "Free" in this context simply is picking and choosing which rights you wish to recognize and those which you don't.
America happened to pick most of the right ones, although to be fair, you're totally out of your mind if you think any one nation has more material freedoms than the United States. An American can own a gun, he can spraypaint a swastika on Uncle Sam's forehead, and he can start his own business if he has the money. In most other countries, one of these three is an impossibility.

I might ask you to name some of these countries, but I'm quite afraid of the damage my keyboard will end up doing to my forehead what with all the attendant slamming against it that is certain to be involved.

This presupposes the recognition of property rights to begin with, something that is outright rejected.
So if property rights don't exist, tell me.... how would you feel if someone came into your house and stole your computer? What if he told you he was a neurophysicist and had better use for it? Would you beleive him? Would you give it to him?

If you answered yes to either question, I am a neurophysicist and I really could use a new computer. Please TG me for the mailing address.

This is true, but alot of the reason they can't keep them low is because of government laws interfering with free trade. Anti-trust legislation and price fixing laws, to name two, prevent one company from coming to dominate a market sector.
Anti Trust laws are only as good as the people who enforce them; Ticketmaster has had more or less a complete monopoly on the ticket sales industry for years and I don't see anyone doing anything about it. To say these laws are the reason why we're not seeing "corporate domination" on a rampant scale is like teling me that Marylin Manson made you kill your family.

If those barriers were removed from the computing sector, how long would it be before Microsoft controlled the entire industry? If that happens, and given the tendency of wealth towards centralization it eventually will, the prices they can set for your labor in that sector for the people of those skill sets would be entirely at their mercy.
And if they do control the entire industry, what does that tell you about their business? Maybe they're doing something right: Microsoft wouldn't even exist if people didn't want what they were selling. Communists love to claim to act in the best interests of the people while attempting to strangle the very device which measures the degree to which people are getting what they want: the market.

If the market is robust, it means that people are getting what they want. It means that people are buying and selling things that are of value to them and it's not your or my place to tell $CITIZEN that he's better or worse off for a certain purchase. I'll be fair and grant that if the government were to act in favor of such a monopoly, that would be unacceptable. However, I see no reason why it is appropriate to punish someone who managed to beat out their competitors.

It might be argued that the workers could attempt to learn new skill sets but the problem is that takes time and money. Under a true monopoly like this they are not likely to be given much of either because they still want to retain workers and by wage slavery they can.
In 1900 maybe; not today. Not in this country at least. Look, minimum wage laws aside, there is no way on either side of hell you could get an American to work for less than $5 or $6 an hour for most jobs. The percentage of the population willing to settle for such a wage would be too small for the OMGUBERCONGLOMERATE to function properly.

Besides, if all employers were hell bent on offering shit wages, why aren't they all paying minimum wage?

Eventually, you could end up returning to more pure forms of capitalism as seen in the industrial revolution where the corporations owned everything you needed to survive and charged mroe for it than they paid you. As they say, "another day over and I'm deeper in debt."
If that happened, I'd be ecstatic. You'll note that it was during this period more than any other in human history that the greatest amount of wealth was created. Don't worry about using the State [er... sorry, the "Collective"]to spread it around, that happens on its own.

Yes, but it hinges on companies not simply merging or negotiaiting price fixes.
Price fixes are called "collusion" and it is very very illegal [and rightly so].

But it is because the poor and the powerless in capitalism are the vast, vast majority in socialism.
Do you realize what you just said? In essence, you're telling me that the minority of poor folks under capitalism becomes the majority under Socialism. You're talking about reducing the quality of life for the 'vast, vast majority' of people, while at the same time trying to tell me that acting in the best interests of all people is moral.

Once again, I direct you to the distinction between Marxist Middle Class and modern middle class definitions.
Once again, I direct you to the fact that the middle class has existed in some form since the first cave man stood on top of a rock with a pelt to sell; and that Marx's definitions of that particular group are often amorphous and open to much contention. It's a lot like the Bible actually, in a lot more ways than you'd be comfortable with if you knew.

For the immediate forseeable future I agree with you. At the same time though, alot of the dying trends in global politics are what maintain global boundaries today. Globalism is already doing a wonderful job already of destroying the economic boundaries between nations.
Er, that's not globalism that's doing that chief, it's Capitalism. Capitalism is the cause for "globalization," the essence of which would be me arguing with Europeans, Aussies, and Latin Americans via a personal computer. If anything's brought us together, it's technology. If anything's torn us apart, it's ass backward doctrines like these.

No, they didn't but only the people the major companies choose to endorse will ever come close to attaining the fund necessary to run. They may not get to pick the winner but they get to pick your choices.
They don't pick my choices either. What they do, really, is they take advantage of an already rather disinterested populace and convince them that these are the only two choices, and that the other guy is a Satan worshipping baby killer. I agree, there does need to be much more diversity, but that doesn't automatically come if you decide to not allow corporations to donate to politicians. As soon as you make a policy like that, they just start doing it under the table which would just piss you off even more. It already happens.

Still, I'd take this government over any other one I can think of; at least that exists today.

I agree. At the same time there is a reason the same jackass types keep ending up being the only two viable options in the US. The companies may not cast your vote but they do own all the candidates so it doesn't matter. It is like Voting for Pepsi or Mountain Dew, whichever you pick, Pepsi Co. still wins.
I really don't have much tolerance for people who blame every problem on the 'evil corporations.' The real reason is because we allow ourselves to be brainwashed by this bullshit, not the mere fact that it happens. Actions do not cause other actions; entities do. In this case, us. The vast majority of Americans couldn't care less about politics since.... well, I don't know. If I could answer that I would be rich.

in theory it might but not in practice.
Bzzt! Try again. Theory dictates practice.

Most of that money is just going to go to the investors in the company that made the cars.
And those investors are responsible for the existence and continued operation of the companty [and therefore, the jobs] in the first place. The investors get a lot of that money because they invested; they're being paid back.

But at the same time while he is making hundreds of dollars (or more) off each one.
Right. And that incentive is exactly what motivates him to keep making computers. Remove this incentive, and no better reason exists than the producer's mercy. Once you start counting on mercy from random individuals, you're merely setting yourself up for a colossal disappointment.

If the profit margin were cut, not only could we still get the computers, we would have more money left over to use as we see fit.
But would anyone still be interested in making computers? I doubt it. I happen to understand that a computer is a fairly sophisticated piece of machinery. Provided it's competently assembled, I am prepared to assign to it a respectable monetary value. As the global sales figures indicate, so is just about everyone else. These things wouldn't sell if they were unanimously overpriced.

Further, I do not consider the property rights to the money made by this to be greater than other's rights to life. Let's face it, thousands of meals for people who are literaly starving to death can be purchased for hundreds of dollars.
Slippery slope. Totally invalid. If we can make a dent in world hunger with this money, then we could stop it with everyone elses money. If we could curtail violence by dispatching the people who wield force against others, we could end it by simply killing everyone. The ability to do something is not in and of itself a justification for actually doing it. It might be reason enough for you, and if it is that's fine so long as you don't try and tell me it's my justifcation too.

I cannot say honestly that I believe their right to exist is lesser than someone elses right to make profits.
I happen to believe that people have both a right to exist and the right to profit.

I don't believe that.
A lot of people don't, but that doesn't make it any less true. You might not want to beleive a tomato is a tomato or that up leads towards the clouds, but that doesn't change the facts. Only virtue is possible through following the good, and only ruin can be found in evil.

Technically, if I were to go kill every member of the species save maybe ten or so, I could bring incredible oppulence, freedom, and equality to the entire human species. The tradeoff however, I believe we can both agree is far to severe on the shortcomings side.

And this proves what? That the ends don't justify the means? Sounds like you've painted yourself into a corner, as the whole 'ends justifying the means' argument is more or less the cornerstone of any argument I've ever heard for taking my money and giving it to someone else. You've just contradicted yourself and every other Communist I've been unfortunate enough to meet.

Praise Be, I've been trying to get one of you all to admit that the ends don't justify the means for years. I think i've really made some progress here.

13. When they say marriage should be removed from the law, immediately drop to one knee, take hold of their hand, and say, "Will you civil union me?"

Actually, "civil union" is a noun. The adjective would be "civilly united" and the present/future tense verb would be "civilly unite", which, when followed by the subject would include "with". Many people, if this became law would drop the "civil" part in order to make speech easier and less formal - and more romantic.

I.e., "Will you unite with me?"

Now, that's much better, isn't it?

(no, I'm not avoiding the other topics, I'm not even especially Libertarian, this just happens to be the one issue you brought up that I strongly care about currently)

If you sincerely claim to be and aren't insane, then yes. You are.
Well, I reject the rationale that claiming to be something makes you that something.

I left out the first few replies because they aren't really rebuttals, or they refer to things that I don't think are particularly important. I'll start a bit farther down. Okay.

Okay, even if you do want to use that definition [excepting the rather ridiculous part mentioned below], the Middle Class is still far larger than the Lower Class. Whats your point? Millions of Americans have assets and investments; it's part of the reason why our economy has been so ridiculous for the last few decades. In the modern notion of the word, yes. In Marxist terms the laboring class is still far larger; the vast majority of people must sell their labor to survive and this is what seperates them from the Marxist Middle Class. Owning a half dozen shares in Sony doesn'y change that.

Still, that's something of a pedantic definition. The only people able to survive entirely off interest dividends are people who happen to have millions of dollars in the bank. There weren't that many of them in Marx's day to make it particularly sensible to denote these people as "Middle Class" while he was writing the Manifest. By "Middle Class" Marx meant "Middle Class", and you probably know it. This is another example of Communists refusing to call a spade a spade: the middle class in this [Capitalist!] country is much, much larger than the lower class. I don't care what "definition" you want to use. You are simply wrong. The Middle class Marx spoke of, and he clearly lays this out in his manifesto what the middle class are to him, does not resemble the modern definition of the word. The Middle class today denotes pretty much anybody not living in poverty. This is not what Marx refered to as the middle class, the middle class to him are the owners of the means of production in the capitalist society. Anyone who is not the owner of the means of production is not in the Marxist middle class. Further, applying any definition of the middle class aside from the one he used is utterly nonsensical in the context of the rest of the peice. To understand a work, you must understand the words as they were used at the time the work was written and your comments here display you aren't doing that.

If I wanted too, I could define the Rich as impoverished and claim that theyre not really rich, but just happen to have lots of disposable possessions. Throwing arbitrary definitions around isn't going to do anything to change the real ones.
You could, but that would be a complete diversion. In order to understand what Marx wrote you have to use words as he used them. If for whatever reason he defined rich as impoverished for the sake you have to accept it in that form in the context of his arguments.

And that would be a State, and therefore all "Stateless Utopia" credibility [assuming there was any to begin with] goes out the window. You can't possibly claim to advocate a "Stateless" collective and then turn around and in your next breath tell me that it "does require some delegation of powers to elected officials." How's that crow taste?
Like bullshit coming from you. My school socialist club has elected officials. That does not make it a state. Selecting people to organize things alone does not qualify something to be a state.


America happened to pick most of the right ones, although to be fair, you're totally out of your mind if you think any one nation has more material freedoms than the United States. An American can own a gun, he can spraypaint a swastika on Uncle Sam's forehead, and he can start his own business if he has the money. In most other countries, one of these three is an impossibility. And yet he does not have the guaranttee of basic healthcare. He does not have the guaranttee to educational backing suitable to reaching his full potential. I would rather trade the ability to own a gun for either of the above. Further, what you consider to be "material" freedoms I don't.

I might ask you to name some of these countries, but I'm quite afraid of the damage my keyboard will end up doing to my forehead what with all the attendant slamming against it that is certain to be involved.
I could say I consider Canada more free or I could say I consider the scandinavian nations mroe free but that wouldn't get us very far. You and I merely have differing views on what freedom is.


So if property rights don't exist, tell me.... how would you feel if someone came into your house and stole your computer? hwo could he steal it from me if it isn't mine? The very idea of stealing presupposes property rights to begin with. What if he told you he was a neurophysicist and had better use for it? Would you beleive him? Would you give it to him? I would question why he needed it, where he was going with it, make attempts to verify it, determine when he planned to return it to the community, etc. Furthermore, I could copy the hardrive to another computer and let him use this one as it is as much mine as his. Or he could just go get a new one if he needed one. Whether I believed him or not would depend entirely on how he approached these questions. In order to come off as believable he would have to have very specialized knowledge of it.


If you answered yes to either question, I am a neurophysicist and I really could use a new computer. Please TG me for the mailing address.

Do we live under communism where it requires no monetary contribution to attain a computer? If you can show me we are you are welcome to the damn thing.


Anti Trust laws are only as good as the people who enforce them; Ticketmaster has had more or less a complete monopoly on the ticket sales industry for years and I don't see anyone doing anything about it. To say these laws are the reason why we're not seeing "corporate domination" on a rampant scale is like teling me that Marylin Manson made you kill your family. Alright... That's bull crap. If there weren't laws like this most of the companies out there would not exist. They would either be part of another corporation or would have been destroyed by them. We saw what unfettered capitalism looked like; wage slavery and robber barons.

And if they do control the entire industry, what does that tell you about their business? Maybe they're doing something right: Microsoft wouldn't even exist if people didn't want what they were selling. Communists love to claim to act in the best interests of the people while attempting to strangle the very device which measures the degree to which people are getting what they want: the market. That assumes, quite badly too, that there is only one way to get people what they want and that is the market. Further, people don't generally look at the business practices of corporations. Unfettered capitalism is bad for everyone because it will result in a monopoly at which point they don't have to produce anything good because the people have no other choice.

If the market is robust, it means that people are getting what they want. It means that people are buying and selling things that are of value to them and it's not your or my place to tell $CITIZEN that he's better or worse off for a certain purchase. I'll be fair and grant that if the government were to act in favor of such a monopoly, that would be unacceptable. However, I see no reason why it is appropriate to punish someone who managed to beat out their competitors. because they will eventually have no competition left and then they will be able to abuse thier customer base and employees.

In 1900 maybe; not today. Not in this country at least. Look, minimum wage laws aside, there is no way on either side of hell you could get an American to work for less than $5 or $6 an hour for most jobs. The percentage of the population willing to settle for such a wage would be too small for the OMGUBERCONGLOMERATE to function properly. They will if there is nothing else available which is what the end result of libertarianism will be. They need to work to eat and eat to live. If the only work out there pays shit they will take it because they have no other choice.

Besides, if all employers were hell bent on offering shit wages, why aren't they all paying minimum wage? Because for the moment they have competition. Once you break apart the laws that prevent one company or entity from owning everything they will have no reason to pay anything mroe than the bare minimum needed to keep their workforce alive.

If that happened, I'd be ecstatic. You'll note that it was during this period more than any other in human history that the greatest amount of wealth was created. Don't worry about using the State [er... sorry, the "Collective"]to spread it around, that happens on its own. So most of the work force being in slave wagery not only isn't a problem by you, it is a good thing? That speak volumes about libertarainism, really.

Price fixes are called "collusion" and it is very very illegal [and rightly so]. Yes, now. In libertarianism they wouldn't be because that would be government interference in free market.

Do you realize what you just said? In essence, you're telling me that the minority of poor folks under capitalism becomes the majority under Socialism. You're talking about reducing the quality of life for the 'vast, vast majority' of people, while at the same time trying to tell me that acting in the best interests of all people is moral. That is not what I said. I was refering to the fact that now all power rests in the hands of a handful and in socialism it would rest in the hands of working class, the vast majority. Now you are just putting words in my mouth.

Once again, I direct you to the fact that the middle class has existed in some form since the first cave man stood on top of a rock with a pelt to sell; and that Marx's definitions of that particular group are often amorphous and open to much contention. It's a lot like the Bible actually, in a lot more ways than you'd be comfortable with if you knew.
Whatever you say.

Er, that's not globalism that's doing that chief, it's Capitalism. Capitalism is the cause for "globalization," the essence of which would be me arguing with Europeans, Aussies, and Latin Americans via a personal computer. If anything's brought us together, it's technology. If anything's torn us apart, it's ass backward doctrines like these. I suggest you reread what you just said closely in the context of the string of comments this line was based around. Here's a hint, two posts up you were talking about how there would never be a unified world and now you are talking about how capitalism is pointing in that direction. Globalism is capitalism taken at the world level in any case.

They don't pick my choices either. What they do, really, is they take advantage of an already rather disinterested populace and convince them that these are the only two choices, and that the other guy is a Satan worshipping baby killer. I agree, there does need to be much more diversity, but that doesn't automatically come if you decide to not allow corporations to donate to politicians. As soon as you make a policy like that, they just start doing it under the table which would just piss you off even more. It already happens.

Still, I'd take this government over any other one I can think of; at least that exists today. That is my point though is that we maintain a system in which the corporations can influence things, both above and under the table. There is nothing that requires us to do this.

I really don't have much tolerance for people who blame every problem on the 'evil corporations.' The real reason is because we allow ourselves to be brainwashed by this bullshit, not the mere fact that it happens. Actions do not cause other actions; entities do. In this case, us. The vast majority of Americans couldn't care less about politics since.... well, I don't know. If I could answer that I would be rich. Yes, but at the same time you have to recognize where the bullshit is coming from.

Bzzt! Try again. Theory dictates practice. On the contrary. In Smith's theory of capitalism, there was no room for the profits and yet that is the entire force driving capitalism today. Theory does not always carry through to practice.

And those investors are responsible for the existence and continued operation of the companty [and therefore, the jobs] in the first place. The investors get a lot of that money because they invested; they're being paid back.
Duh. Your point?


But would anyone still be interested in making computers? I doubt it. I happen to understand that a computer is a fairly sophisticated piece of machinery. Provided it's competently assembled, I am prepared to assign to it a respectable monetary value. As the global sales figures indicate, so is just about everyone else. These things wouldn't sell if they were unanimously overpriced. Perhaps not, and that is a flaw of capitalism that nobody does anything if there isn't money involved. Hell, they could cure cancer and throw the the drug away if the end result didn't make enough money. People suffer because profit is the be all end all of capitalism.

Slippery slope. Totally invalid. If we can make a dent in world hunger with this money, then we could stop it with everyone elses money. If we could curtail violence by dispatching the people who wield force against others, we could end it by simply killing everyone. The ability to do something is not in and of itself a justification for actually doing it. It might be reason enough for you, and if it is that's fine so long as you don't try and tell me it's my justifcation too. First of all, technically slippery slopes have to end badly, just so you know. In any case, I do believe that the ends justify the means so long as there is something to justify all the ends (including all the side effects of the means). If not letting Bill Gates have a fifth mansion means I can feed a billion people for a year you're damn right I'd go for the food.


I happen to believe that people have both a right to exist and the right to profit. And when one comes into conflict with the other?

A lot of people don't, but that doesn't make it any less true. You might not want to beleive a tomato is a tomato or that up leads towards the clouds, but that doesn't change the facts. Only virtue is possible through following the good, and only ruin can be found in evil. Bullshit. As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions and unless you take a circular hindsight view of morallity that anything that achieved possitive ends is automatically good, good can come out of evil and evil can come out of good. Executing a good person can make them a martyr and inspire positive change (Martin Luther King Jr.) and one can do research on curing a bacteria and instead create a super bug. The world is not nearly as black and white as good ends positively, bad ends negatively.

Tell me, if I steal money from Bill Gates and use it to feed a hundred people and he never notices, was it good or bad under your morallity?


And this proves what? That the ends don't justify the means? Sounds like you've painted yourself into a corner, as the whole 'ends justifying the means' argument is more or less the cornerstone of any argument I've ever heard for taking my money and giving it to someone else. You've just contradicted yourself and every other Communist I've been unfortunate enough to meet. I'm saying some goods come at too high a price. Further, if you would bother to understand Marxist theory, the ends only justify the means when all the ends themselves are justified. I think it would be pretty damn hard to justify 6.5 billion dead, don't you?

Praise Be, I've been trying to get one of you all to admit that the ends don't justify the means for years. I think i've really made some progress here. And you are mostly right. All of the ends have to be just too, including all results of the means.

How To Pwn a Libertarian
By William Young

1. Bring up any or all of the following facts, events, or concepts:

Marx's subsistence theory of wages.
Competitive equilibrium in Game Theory.
The Stockmarket crash of of 1929 ("Black Thursday")
Keynesian Economics
Feudalism
Critiques of Ayn Rand and Objectivism
Basic Psychology and Sociology
The Industrial Revolution


2. When they say anything you find ridiculously silly, ask, "Are you Liberetarded?"

3. Remind them that China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia want free trade too. And so did Saddam Hussein.

3. When CAFTA creates civil unrest in South America, tell them, "I Libertold-you-so!"

4. When they bring up investment capital and scientific advancement to counter Marxist theories of capitalism's collapse, ask them what they plan to do about:

The threat of nanobots wiping out all life.
Clones being used for war and making DNA evidence useless.
The possibility of a nuclear fusion meltdown.
The potential for AI to be used for fascism.
How to stop illegal or unethical time-travel.

Because some or all of these scientific advancements will eventually be necessary for the economy's continued growth.

5. When they complain about "compulsory education," and "parents having no choice," over it, ask them:

If they have graduated from high school.
What we should do about Islamic Madrasas (extremist, Islamic religious schools).

Afterwards, tell them that you've decided to start a private school which teaches that gays are evil, women are sex slaves that must obey mens' commands, and that God is a gigantic, bearded, white man, wearing sandals and floating in space. And that anyone who does not believe in that God must be tortured and stoned to death or set on fire.

6. Tell them, "David Koresh and the Unabomber were Libertarians too." (That's not true, actually, but boy, would it rattle their chains.)

7. Refer to Libertarianism as "Moderate Anarchism."

8. When they mention that all drugs should be legal, ask them:

If they've ever done drugs or are on them right now.
What caused the Opium Wars. (And put "Opium," in bold and italics, as a subtle hint.)


9. Make fun of "Jessica." Photoshopping the image below is a definite plus.
http://www.lp.org/images/jess.gif
(Is it just me, or is that a psychiatric ward bracelet?)

10. When they mention gun-control:

Refer them to http://www.whoismaryrosh.com/
Ask them what Lott's co-researcher said about their gun research.
Ask them what the studies by the UN and CDC said about gun control, followed by a question about the burden of proof.


11. When they mention open-borders, ask them. "Being that immigration increases the supply of employees, thus decreasing the demand, how will it effect employee wages?"

12. When they bring up privatizing Social Security, ask them:

If we should abide by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948.
Why Argentina's privatizing of social security led to an "economic debacle."
Why financial firms in Britain have had to pay back $24 billion in compensation, for problems with the Social Security privatization. (And who benefitted the most from the privatization, as well as what people think of Maggie Thatcher.)
Why Bolivia's government debts doubled, as a result of privatizing social security.
Why only 10% of Swedes opt out of their Social Security system.
How many low-income retirees in Chile are covered by privatized social security.
How "sucessful," Mexico's economy is, with privatized social security.
If investment capital should be taken into account, when it comes to projecting Social Security into the distant future.


13. When they say marriage should be removed from the law, immediately drop to one knee, take hold of their hand, and say, "Will you civil union me?"

14. When they bring up internet censorship or the benefit of globalization, ask them why Peter Berger, the foremost independent authority on Al-Qaeda, says that Al-Qaeda's terrorism only exists internationally because of the internet (also, see #3 above).

15. When they tout private charities and churches as being better than government welfare, ask them why the I.R.S. lists private charities as a major source for tax-shelters, then ask them if they believe churches should be required to file records (but not pay tax) to the I.R.S.. After that, ask them why they believe several independent organizations, run by unelected wealthy elites, with often narrow goals and little government regulation, would be better than a large, unified form of social welfare, that is controlled by representatives elected by the people.

16. Bring up Kant's "Categorical Imperative," and when they say it's nonsense, tell them that they're very, very bad, bad men (or women).

That's cute. Thanks for letting a semi-liberatarian like me find out the exact defenses of everyone else.
BTW, Ayn Rand was no liberatarian. She was just, well, Ayn. Hers is a moral philosophy arguing why capitalism must exist. Liberatarians want capitalism for the sake of capitalism. Ayn Rand actually denounced the liberatarians as frauds.

Jesus, do you people not have lives? How much effort have you put into these responses?

Jesus, do you people not have lives? How much effort have you put into these responses?
*Examines the post count of the one asking if I have a life, declines comment*

My school socialist club has elected officials.
I've heard all I needed to hear.

(")slave wagery(")
This is a misnomer, if ever I've heard one.

Tell me, if I steal money from Bill Gates and use it to feed a hundred people and he never notices, was it good or bad under your morallity?
I was raised to believe that theft was inherently wrong, whether you're stealing from the rich or the disadvantaged. You weren't?

Regardless, political ideologues rarely make decent Robin Hoods (but I'm sure they'd love the ego rush).

I've heard all I needed to hear. That socialists find people of like mind and organize in the form of clubs? Oh teh noes!! Say it ain't soes!!!


This is a misnomer, if ever I've heard one.
Then it seems you haven't.

I was raised to believe that theft was inherently wrong, whether you're stealing from the rich or the disadvantaged. You weren't?
When they use unjust means to acquire it, hell no.

Regardless, political ideologues rarely make decent Robin Hoods (but they'd love the ego rush).
People in general don't make good robin hoods. Nor am I trying to be.

When they use unjust means to acquire it, hell no.
Here's is exactly where we disagree. If by "unjust", you mean criminal (by use of force or fraud), that's fine. You said Bill Gates, who has made his money legally. I believe your example was perfect to illustrate unjust means of acquisition. In other words, lowly theft, at best.
People in general don't make good robin hoods. Nor am I trying to be.Then who does? The government? An oligarchy? The majority mob?

I just can't buy your prediction that a dictatorship necessary for initial wealth redistribution would certainly only be a "flash in the pan". This is a logical fallacy of exclusion. The missing evidence to support your claim is nothing less than history. Those in positions of such power, regardless of political persuasion don't just step down from office as such. This completely changes the conclusion that this benevolent world leader will, without a doubt, indeed give up his power.